Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

> On 11 Oct 2021, at 6:33 am, Matthew Petach wrote: > > […] Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon all caved to SK's demands: > > I will note that my $previous_employer was a top-10 web content provider > that did *not* pay SK Broadband. Not all the content providers caved > to SKB. > The situa

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

> On 11 Oct 2021, at 7:18 am, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 10/10/21 22:10, Geoff Huston wrote: > >> I have to agree with Doug Barton's earlier observation is that the base >> problem is that the ISPs are using a flawed business model and they don't

Re: multihoming

> On 25 Nov 2021, at 7:57 am, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > Are you proposing SCTP? There is sadly not much more hope for widespread > adoption of that as of IPv6. > > or perhaps MP-TCP? :) or shim6? Shim6 died a comprehensive death many yers ago. I recall NANOG played a role in it's u

Re: Newbie x Cisco IOS-XR x ROV: BCP to not harassing peer(s)

> On 25 May 2022, at 5:45 am, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG > wrote: > > This attack will work very well until the victim starts advertising > its prefix. The victim may not notice the fake advertisement because the fake > advertisement will not reach the victim AS due to AS-path loop checkin

Re: Allegedly Tier 1s in Wikipedia

> On 1 Aug 2022, at 11:10 am, Tom Paseka via NANOG wrote: > > Paying for "peering", doesn't stop you being a tier-1. > > Being a Tier-1 means you are "transit free" (technical term, not commercial). > No one is transiting your routes to other Tier-1 providers. > There are a lot of potenti

Re: rsync and RPKI Validation

> On 9 Sep 2022, at 4:36 pm, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > On 2022-09-09 04:56, Matt Corallo wrote: >> Has anyone done an analysis of the rsync CVE-2022-29154 (which "allows >> malicious remote servers to write arbitrary files inside the directories of >> connecting peers") and its potential impact

Re: any dangers of filtering every /24 on full internet table to preserve FIB space ?

> On 11 Oct 2022, at 4:23 am, Tobias Fiebig > wrote: > > Heho, > Let alone $all the /24 assigned under the RIPE waiting list policy. > > In the Geoff Huston spirit, I quickly took a look how less specifics for /24s > looks in my table: > […] > So it seems

Re: AS3356 Announcing 2000::/12

> On 10 Dec 2022, at 11:24 am, Matthew Petach wrote: > > > > As I said--I'm probably being overly paranoid, but I can't help but > wonder what packets such a collector might see, if left to run for a > week or two... ^_^; > A decade ago it looked like this… https://www.potaroo.net/prese

Re: Do people even read these? Re: BGP Update Report

> On 19 Jun 2016, at 6:05 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote: > >> >> TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes >> Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name >> 1 - 202.65.32.0/2128086 0.8% AS10131 -- CKTELECOM-CK-AP Telecom Cook >> Islands

Call For Presentations - DNS-OARC Workship 26, Madrid, 14-15 May 2017

[with apologies to those who see this on multiple lists] Call For Presentations The DNS-OARC 26th Workshop will take place in Madrid, Spain on May 14th and 15th 2017, the Sunday and Monday following the ICANN GDD Industry Summit 2017. The Workshop's Program Committee is now requesting proposals

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On 6 Oct 2023, at 6:13 am, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Ratio of FIB to RIB is only part of the equation. > > IPv6 is NOT under the disaggregation pressure that IPv4 is under because > there is no pressure (other than perhaps scarcity mentality from those that > don’t properly understand IPv6) to

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On 10 Oct 2023, at 5:35 am, Delong.com wrote: > >> Now I’m trying to understand what your grimmer story for IPv4 might be here >> Owen. Since 2005 the number of IPv4 FIB entries per origin AS has increased >> fropm 8 to 12 in the past 20 years - or a 50% increase. Over ther same >> period

Re: IRRD & exceptions to RPKI-filtering

> On 12 Feb 2024, at 3:14 pm, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote: > > Dear all, > > At NANOG 90, Merit presented on their IRRd v4 deployment. At the > microphone Geoff Huston raised a comment which I interpreted as: > >"Can an exception be made for my researc

Re: IRRD & exceptions to RPKI-filtering

> On 12 Feb 2024, at 6:01 pm, Richard Laager wrote: > > On 2024-02-12 15:18, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:07:52PM -0500, Geoff Huston wrote: >>> I was making an observation that the presentation material was >>> referr

Re: Question about Customer Population by ASN for Canada

> On 3 Oct 2017, at 6:57 am, Jacques Latour wrote: > > Hi all! > > I'm working on our IPv6 and DNSSEC adoption report for Canada and the data I > use comes largely from APNIC (https://stats.labs.apnic.net/dnssec/CA) and > (https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CA). > > Labs.APNIC has a pretty co

Re: Question about Customer Population by ASN for Canada

> On 3 Oct 2017, at 7:17 am, Eric Dugas wrote: > > For some reason my previous email was empty. > > What I wrote: > > "Some of these numbers are largely inflated... > > e.g. Teksavvy at 937,855 estimated users. How can they have 937,855 users > if they "only" have 686,848 IPv4 (https://bgp.he

Route hijacking

My bgp monitor tells me: *> 1.2.3.0/24 203.119.76.3 0 4608 1221 4637 3561 1299 12025 ? *> 5.4.3.0/24 202.12.28.10 4777 2516 1239 1299 12025 ? These are _not_ authorized announcements, so could AS3561 Savvis AS1299 Telia

Re: ipv4's last graph

On 01/02/2011, at 7:02 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > with the iana free pool run-out, i guess we won't be getting those nice > graphs any more. might we have one last one for the turnstiles? :-)/2 > > and would you mind doing the curves now for each of the five rirs? > gotta give us all something to

Re: quietly....

On 02/02/2011, at 1:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > >>> "People won't be able to access our site" >>> sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive >>> (especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a >

Re: quietly....

> Are there any expectations of a Gold Rush for the remaining addresses? I > would expect to see at least see some kind of escalation. > This question probably calls for another picture. Here is a plot of 2009 and 2010 in terms of the average number of IPv4 addresses allocated on a daily basi

Re: The Cidr Report

On 27 Apr 2014, at 5:19 am, Deepak Jain wrote: > >>> Historic event - 500K prefixes on the Internet. > >> And now we wait for everything to fall over at 512k ;) > > Based on a quick plot graph on the CIDR report, it looks like we are adding > 6,000 prefixes a month, or thereabouts. So platfor

Re: We hit half-million: The Cidr Report

On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:39 pm, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:59:43 -0400, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said: >>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 19:41, Chris Boyd wrote: >>> I'm in the middle of a physical move. I promise I'll take the 3 deagg'd >>> /24s out as soon as I can. >> Do not laug

Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google)

On 23 May 2014, at 3:29 pm, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Julien Goodwin > wrote: >> On 23/05/14 11:21, Jared Mauch wrote: >>> You can't cater to everyones broken network. I can't reach 1.1.1.1 from >>> here either, but sometimes when I travel I can, even with

Re: NAT444 or ?

On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:d...@cluenet.de] >> Sent: 07 September 2011 17:38 >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ? >> >> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote: I'm going

Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report

From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff

Re: [routing-wg] BGP Update Report

While I am at it, does anyone read this report, or is this weekly report also just part of the spam load on this list? regards, Geoff

Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report

Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff

Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

On 19/10/2011, at 9:02 PM, Philip Smith wrote: > Hi Leo, > > Leo Vegoda said the following on 18/10/11 00:31 : >>> 128.0.87.0/2430977 JSC "Yugra-Telecom" >> >> This one seems to be an error. 128.0.80/21 appears to have been allocated on >> 5 October, nine days before the repo

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

On 24/04/2013, at 8:10 AM, Andrew Latham wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Valdis Kletnieks > wrote: >> I didn't see any mention of this Tony Hain paper: >> >> http://tndh.net/~tony/ietf/ARIN-runout-projection.pdf >> >> ARIN predicted to run out of IP space to allocate in August this y

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

On 24/04/2013, at 6:55 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I also find it a bit strange that the runout in APNIC and RIPE was very > different. APNIC address allocation rate accelerated at the end, whereas RIPE > exhaustion date kept creeping forward in time instead of closer in time, > giving me

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

On 26/04/2013, at 4:27 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> >> I also find it a bit strange that the runout in APNIC and RIPE was very >> different. APNIC address allocation rate accelerated at the end, whereas >> RIPE exhaustion date kept creeping forward in time instead of closer in >> time, giving

Re: do not filter your customers

On 25/02/2012, at 7:54 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Shane Amante wrote: > >> Solving for route leaks is /the/ "killer app" for BGPSEC. I can't >> understand why people keep ignoring this. > > I don't think anyone's ignoring the problem... I think lots of p

Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On 13/03/2012, at 2:31 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:07:54AM -0400, Robert E. > Seastrom wrote: >> Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process >> + >> Need for multihoming >> + >> Got tired of waiting >> = >> IPv6 PI > > I'll also add that Shim6 folks never

Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On 13/03/2012, at 8:14 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 12 Mar 2012, at 21:15 , William Herrin wrote: > >> Not at all. You just build a second tier to the routing system. > > It's so strange how people think a locator/identifier split will solve the > scalability problem. We already have t

Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On 14/03/2012, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> Yes, the economics of routing are strange, and the lack of any real >> strictures in the routing tables are testament to the observation that >> despite more than two decades of tossing the idea around we've yet to >> find the equivalent of a "route

IPv6 dark traffic collection restarted

Hi, In 2010, and again in 2011, I ran an experiment to examine the "dark" traffic in IPv6. I did this by announcing the "superblock" 2400::/12 which has been allocated to APNIC for its IPv6 allocations. The superblock announcement is an aggregate and will not disrupt any IPv6 traffic - the pack

Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

On 21/07/2012, at 6:40 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Ron Broersma wrote: > >> >> On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:10:41 +1000, Routing Analysis Role Account said: BGP routing table entries examined:

Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 21/11/2012, at 3:05 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong wrote: > >> It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a >> number >> of reasons. > > AMS-IX publishes stats too: > > > This is

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On 14 Aug 2014, at 4:14 am, Paul Ferguson wrote: > >> On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>> Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below: >>> >>> On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>> >>> p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by Vince Full

Re: ASN to IP Mapping

> >> Is there a tool or method to determine IP blocks assigned to an >> organization by ASN? I.e. if I have an organization's ASN number I want to >> know all blocks assigned to that ASN. >> > If you want to know the registry assignments / allocations made to a single entity and be able group

Re: ASN to IP Mapping

> On 8 Mar 2015, at 1:39 pm, Randy Bush wrote: > >> If you want to know the registry assignments / allocations made to a >> single entity and be able group together these assignments of address >> prefixes and ASNs you should retrieve the combined extended stats file >> from the RIRs >> (https:/

Re: ASN to IP Mapping

> On 8 Mar 2015, at 6:35 pm, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > At 14:37 08/03/2015 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote: > >> > On 8 Mar 2015, at 1:39 pm, Randy Bush wrote: >> > >> >> If you want to know the registry assignments / allocations made to a >> &

Re: IP allocations / bogon - ARIN Inconsistency

On 04/08/2013, at 2:06 PM, Rob Mosher wrote: > Frank, > > HE uses the extended files for these stats since the standard ones will soon > be deprecated. As Rene pointed out, the extended and standard delegation > files from ARIN do not match for this prefix. I do not know why there is > in

Re: Practical effects of DNSSEC deployment

Hi Steve, > There was an interesting paper at Usenix Security on the effects of deploying > DNSSEC; see > https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity13/measuring-practical-impact-dnssec-deployment > . The difference in geographical impact was quite striking. > George Michaelson and I ha

Re: 32-bit ASN acceptance by ISPs in ARIN region

On 23/09/2013, at 8:01 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 23/09/2013 00:15, John Curran wrote: >> Not being able to use 32-bit ASNs in your network and support systems will >> inevitably lead to confusion for those customers who are assigned them. > > I look forward to the day when we have proper

Re: 32-bit ASN acceptance by ISPs in ARIN region

On 24/09/2013, at 12:02 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:28:58PM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: > >> On 23/09/2013, at 8:01 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> >>> I look forward to the day when we have proper 32 bit BGP community >>> support

advertisements of 14/8 and 223/8

uting advertisement. thanks, Geoff Huston APNIC

Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site

On 23/04/2010, at 6:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: > > This is a personal research project, in which I want to learn about the > health of connectivity, and about other situations that causes breakage > that I haven't considered before. > A very fine objective in my opinion. There are a few simil

AS 7575 announcing 2400::/12

d type) of background traffic seen in this part of IPv6. We would also be grateful if other operational lists received this notification - so please forward this as appropriate (but preferably only once!) Many thanks, Geoff Huston, George Michaelson APNIC

Re: The Cidr Report

On 01/08/2009, at 6:44 PM, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) wrote: Hi Patrick, On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:22:37 -0400 "Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote: On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote: Recent Table History Date PrefixesCIDR Agg 24-07-09298785 182835

Re: draft-iana-ipv4-examples

On 03/09/2009, at 1:33 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: Folks, Please take a look at draft-iana-ipv4-examples. This draft discusses the following subnet allocations: - 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1) - 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2) - 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3) RFC 1166 allocates TEST-NET-1 for use in docu

Re: IPv6 routing /48s

On 19/11/2008, at 4:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wish them good luck in reaching the DNS root servers. They are in "critical infrastructure" space, which is a single /32 with traceroute6 to the ISC's v6 alloc

Re: Redundant AS's

On 18/03/2009, at 6:18 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: When I look at this more recently, the conclusion still seems to be valid: we'll run out of 16 bit ASN's somewhere in 2011 to 2013. There are a lot of unused ASN's out there. I make it 25 June 2011 given current use patterns (http://www.po

Re: [NANOG] fair warning: less than 1000 days left to IPv4 exhaustion

Mike Leber wrote: > Since nobody mentioned it yet, there are now less than 1000 days projected > until IPv4 exhaustion: > > http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ > ps. 1000 days assumes no rush, speculation, or hoarding. Do people do > that? > > pps. Of course these are provocative comments

Re: Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S.

On 15/09/2008, at 10:36 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 14 Sep 2008, at 23:38, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: Other cable systems predated FLAG (at least for voice). The qualifier might be important. As should have been obvious from all the IIRCs and related qualifiers in my note, I wasn't in Europ

Re: 1.0.0.0/8 route from MERIT ?

0.5 0 60 0 (65001 > 65105) 3356 7018 237 i > > Is this supposed to be? > I thought 1.0.0.0/8 is allocated to APNIC. Yes, this is supposed to be. This is one of a number of planned experiments in advertising all and selected parts of 1/8 in the coming weeks. Geoff Huston APNIC

Re: 1.0.0.0/8 route from MERIT ?

are very grateful for their help! Geoff Huston APNIC On 02/03/2010, at 6:59 PM, Tomoya Yoshida wrote: > Are these from youtube also? > > 1.1.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 07:04:22, MED 0, localpref 100 > AS path: 2914 3356 36561 I > 1.2.3.0/24 *

Request for assistance with BGP feeds

Geoff -- Geoff Huston APNIC

Re: Request for assistance with BGP feeds

thanks heaps everyone - I'm now well provisioned - now to configure them all! Geoff On 02/03/2011, at 1:53 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > Hi > > I am conducting some research relating to BGP behaviour and I need some eBGP > multihop feeds - IPv4 and/or IPv6 eBGP, and full

Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

On 19/03/2011, at 6:08 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Routing Analysis Role Account wrote: > >> Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 1207 >> Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 1 > > Is the report not getting

Re: How is IPv6 deployment going in the APNIC region?

On 14/04/2011, at 10:47 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 14 apr 2011, at 13:50, Tore Anderson wrote: > >>> This is address space that's now marked as delegated and removed from >>> the pile of unused address space for no obvious reason. > >> I believe they are using those prefixes for resea

Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays

On 20/04/2011, at 11:43 AM, Martin Millnert wrote: > >> Either way, there certainly IS a place in networks for Toredo services, >> since SO >> MANY devices for the CPE end of the connectivity equation still have >> zero support for IPv6. If you are prepared to tolerate a connection failure rate

Re: Noisy prefixes in BGP

Hi Romain > > We are seeing in RIS data a constant flow of update messages from a few ASes, > here is the list of the top prefixes: > > ┌─┬┬──┐ > │ prefix│ origin_asn │ num_announce │ > │ varchar │ varchar │int64 │