A crazy idea

First, I know this isn't the right place to propose this; need a pointer to where to propose an outlandish idea. PROBLEM: IPv6 support is still in its birthing pangs. I see a problem that limits deployment of IPv6 fully: reverse PTR records in the ".in6.arpa." zones. (Now that I think abo

Re: A crazy idea

What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack and providing some combination of these services for years. They already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should their business customers want them. Some even provide at least a /56 so customers can have multiple /64 subnets.

Re: A crazy idea

On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote: What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack and providing some combination of these services for years. They already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should their business customers want them. Some even provide at least a /56 so c

Re: A crazy idea

> On Jul 19, 2021, at 9:04 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote: >> What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack >> and providing some combination of these services for years. They >> already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should the

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: A crazy idea

On 7/19/21, 9:04 AM, "Stephen Satchell" wrote: On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote: > What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack > and providing some combination of these services for years. They > already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should their

Re: A crazy idea

Hello, On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 15:04, Stephen Satchell wrote: > The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a > consideration for bigger administrative domains like country > governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with > /96, /104 or even /112 al

Re: A crazy idea

On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said: > The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a > consideration for bigger administrative domains like country > governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with > /96, /104 or even /112 alloca

NANOG 83 call for presentations is open

NANOG Community, The NANOG Program Committee (PC) would like to remind you they are accepting proposals for in-person or remote presentations at all sessions of NANOG 83, our first hybrid meeting, taking place in Minneapolis, MN on November 1st-3rd, 2021. Below is a summary of key details and dat

Any CloudFlare Rep?

Could someone from CloudFlare please contact me off the list? There is some crazy abuse going on one a site proxied through CF. Tried the usual twitter and abuse form. In the last 4 hours 2 people I know personally have lost $500+ each and hundreds are falling prey each day. —

Re: A crazy idea

> Well, for SLAAC you need a /64 this is not true randy --- ra...@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd ra...@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery

Re: A crazy idea

On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 08:51 -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > Well, for SLAAC you need a /64 > > this is not true > > randy That is cool! Can you point me to the correct RFC please?

Re: Any CloudFlare Rep?

Hi, Replying off list. __ *Justin Paine* He/Him/His Threat Intel 101 Townsend St, San Francisco, CA 94107 *PGP:* BBAA 6BCE 3305 7FD6 6452 7115 57B6 0114 DE0B 314D

Re: A crazy idea

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:27:13 -0700, Nathan Angelacos wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 08:51 -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Well, for SLAAC you need a /64 > > > > this is not true > > > > randy > > > That is cool! Can you point me to the correct RFC please? > from the war zone, draft-classl

Re: A crazy idea

I'm with Tim on this.  I'm unsure if you've kept a mental note of just how big IPv6 is, but it's 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 IP addresses in IPv6 IPv4 on the other hand has 4,294,967,296 total IP addresses.  I understand the issuance and total use leading to exhausti

100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues

Good day, Over the last two years, organizations that I've worked with have upgraded equipment and now make regular use of 100G port speeds. To provide a frame of reference on use cases, the organizations that I've worked for make use of 100G speeds within their own data centers, in carrier neutra

Re: A crazy idea

On 7/19/21 8:09 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > First, I know this isn't the right place to propose this; need a pointer > to where to propose an outlandish idea. > What would the domain names look like? Let's take my current IP/IPv6 > assignments from AT&T: > >2600:1700:79b0:ddc0::/64 >

Re: 100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 19:47, Graham Johnston wrote: Hey Graham, > How commonly do other operators experience input errors with 100G interfaces? > How often do you find that you have to change a transceiver out? Either for > errors or another reason. > Do we collectively expect this to improve

Re: 100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues

Saku, I don't at this point have long term data collection compiled for the issues that we've faced. That said, we have two 100G transport links that have a regular background level of input errors at ranges that hover between 0.00055 to 0.00383 PPS on one link, and none to 0.00135 PPS (that jumpe

Re: 100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 20:19, Graham Johnston wrote: > I don't at this point have long term data collection compiled for the issues > that we've faced. That said, we have two 100G transport links that have a > regular background level of input errors at ranges that hover between 0.00055 > to 0

Re: 100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues

> On Jul 19, 2021, at 1:50 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 20:19, Graham Johnston > wrote: > >> I don't at this point have long term data collection compiled for the issues >> that we've faced. That said, we have two 100G transport links that have a >> regular background le

Re: 100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues

Thank you all for the consensus. What I hear from you is that 100G takes more care to operate error free, as compared to 10G, which wasn't surprising to me. Also, that generally, we should be able to operate without errors, or certainly less than I'm currently observing, and that connector and tran

Re: 100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues

We have a moderately dense deployment of 100-Gig LR4 (Both DWDM Lambdas and Juniper MX) around our WAN and we don't clock any background input errors on our interfaces unless there is an ongoing problem. That said, we have experienced issues with sub-millisecond link state changes between two

Re: A crazy idea

It is theoretically possible to completely automate reverse DNS provisioning. It just requires will to do it. Enterprises have been doing automated reverse DNS provisioning for decades now using DNS UPDATE requests from DHCP servers using TSIG or GSS-TSIG. This method does it as part of prefix de