Re: OpenNTPProject.org

I’ll note that this is less than 140 chars, and therefore fits nicely in a tweet. If you’re on twitter, Signal boost the PSA, please. My edited example: https://twitter.com/wesgeorge/status/435404354242478080 Wes George On 2/16/14, 10:03 PM, "Kate Gerry" wrote: >add these to your ntp.conf >

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

On 5/12/14, 10:07 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: >>> imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay >>> person. . my >>> friends

Re: Help with Confederation-RR-MPBGP

On 6/18/14, 12:31 PM, "Philip Lavine" wrote: >I guess my question is, is it best practice to confederate or use a route >reflector > >Basically I want to know what an ISP would do, not a test in a LAB. One data point that you may find useful: If you find out later that you’ve chosen incorrectly

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

On 6/18/14, 4:09 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >> >>Now, consider DVRs, BluRay players, Receiver/Amplifiers, Televisions, >>etc. where there are, currently, no IPv6 capable choices available to >>the best of my knowledge. I think this thread exemplifies a problem among the IPv6 early adopters who li

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

On 6/21/14, 3:20 PM, "Frank Bulk" wrote: >Donley said that Cablelabs moved to a new hosting provider that (at that >time) did not support IPv6. Www.cablelabs.com does have a , it's just that cablelabs.com doesn't. Unfortunately all too common. We're also leaning on them to be more complete

RE: meeting network

o no hotel believe that we'll actually be significantly high use. they simply can not conceive of it. ietf, apricot, ... have seen this time and time again WEG] this is a problem that is quite solvable via the careful application of real data from past events I assume most of these con

RE: What Should an Engineer Address when 'Selling' IPv6 to Executives?

> From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at] > They suggest that IPv4 support is needed *in conjunction with* IPv6 > support for 5-8 years. > > That's a long time if you're developing software... so, basically, no... > no cost or effort saving if you were to do this work today. In fact, >2x

RE: What do you have in your datacenters' toolbox?

> > > > But really: a power screwdriver, a bag of #2 bits, and a 12" extender > > are 85% of it. ;-) > > I mostly get by with just a screwdriver. Powered screwdrivers annoy the > hell out of me in almost all cases. [WEG] The rule of thumb for most places I've worked has been that power screwdrive

RE: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org

> From: Wessels, Duane [mailto:dwess...@verisign.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:41 PM > Subject: Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org > > > The brief problem in accessing www.nanog.org was due to numerous > parallel > downloads of a large video file by a single source IP address. We hav

RE: The Verge article about Verizon's Sandy Cleanup Efforts in Manhattan

> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com] > > > > http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/17/3655442/restoring-verizon-service-m > > anhattan-hurricane-sandy > > > > hey lookie! 'free uprades'! > [WEG] Better that than "we're going to replace all of this old technology with exactly the

Re: Time Warner outage?

I am not cleared to give further details, but in the hopes of providing a little more accurate info, I can point you at the following blog post http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2014/08/twc-identifies-cause-of-internet-ou tage/ Thanks, Wes George Anything below this line has been added by my com

Re: Prefix hijacking, how to prevent and fix currently

On 8/28/14, 11:28 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: > The long term solution is to deploy RPKI and only use > transits which use RPKI. No RPKI support => no business. > Additionally make RPKI a peering requirement. WG] So should we ask for that before, or after we get everyone to roll

Re: Prefix hijacking, how to prevent and fix currently

On 8/29/14, 9:08 AM, "Randy Bush" wrote: >considering that measured rpki registration (which has a very tragic >side) is ten time ipv6 penetration, i think we ask for rpki first. WG] I guess I should know better than to ask rhetorical questions on NANOG, lest I get an answer. The horse race to

IPligence contact?

if anyone has a live-person contact at geolocation provider IPligence (http://www.ipligence.com/) and can hit me up off-list, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Wesley George Time Warner Cable Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no control over it. -

Re: ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement

On 12/4/14, 10:35 AM, "Andrew Gallo" wrote: >Honestly, that's what I'm trying to figure out as well. In my informal >conversations, what I got was that lawyers read the agreement, said 'no, >we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If specific legal feedback isn't >making it back to ARIN, then we

Re: ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement

>>On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> > All the specific legal feedback I’ve heard is that this is a >> > liability >> > nightmare, and that everyone wants ARIN to take on all the >> > liability, but >> > nobody wants to pay for it. WG] Has there been any actual discussion

Re: ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement

On 12/4/14, 1:13 PM, "John Curran" wrote: >>>I am happy to champion the change that you seek (i.e. will get it >>>reviewed >>> by legal and brought before the ARIN Board) but still need clarity on >>>what >>> change you wish to occur - >>> >>>A) Implicit binding to the indemnification/warran

Re: ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement

On 12/4/14, 1:34 PM, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: >I’ve asked a lot of people, “Would you be willing to pay ARIN for RPKI >services,” and the answer has always been “no.” Until I get a “yes,” >it’s hard to put a number (other than zero) on how the market values >RPKI. WG] well, if it wasn't clear fr

Re: ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement

On 12/4/14, 2:34 PM, "Andrew Gallo" wrote: >Am I correct in thinking that the SIDR work going on in the IETF takes the >registries out of the real-time processing of route >authentication/attestation? WG] no, but they're at least discussing ways of making the dependencies less fragile and more s

Re: ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement

On 12/4/14, 2:19 PM, "Sandra Murphy" wrote: >Which begs the question for me -- ARIN already operates services that >operators rely upon. Why are they different? Does ARIN run no risk of >litigation due to some perceived involvement of those services in >someone's operational outage? WG] I'm h

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/11/14, 1:43 PM, "Jean-Francois Mezei" wrote: >BTW, it isn't just the electricity, but also climate control and >location which the subscriber provides for free. Comcast need not rent >space on poles and need not buy more expensive weatherized equipment >that goes outdoors. WG] In most ca

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/11/14, 3:58 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote: >Alas, I cannot accept George's assertion WG] well, perhaps you can accept Wes's assertion instead. ;-) >In residential areas (non-multi-unit), >this is only going to help out *Comcast subscribers*. If you have random >visitors over, it won't help th

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On 12/12/14, 1:33 AM, "Javier J" wrote: >What stops someone from going down to the center of town, launching a >little wifi SSID named xfinitywifi and collecting your customers usernames >and passwords? WG] nothing. But then again, the same argument can be made for *any* wireless network that d

Re: [request]: host a probe for v6 measurements

We've seen 3 or 4 recent presentations of some new measurement project that requires deploying yet another set of dedicated probes. While I'm generally supportive of measurement attempts, I'll ask the same question that was asked then: Why not use RIPE Atlas? https://atlas.ripe.net/docs/udm/ We

Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

On 2/19/15, 2:27 PM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > >Getting IPv6 support in LDP is one thing. > >This is one document that we need to keep track to know what MPLS >applications currently running off of LDPv4 still need to be ported to >run over LDPv6: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-mp

Re: NetFlow - path from Routers to Collector

On 9/1/15, 1:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Roland Dobbins" wrote: >It should've already been spent for an OOB/DCN network, which should've >been provisioned with flow telemetry in mind. I'm going to interpret that "should" in the same way as the MUST in RFC6919. :-) Yes, it's a good practice, but

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 10/2/15, 10:48 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Cryptographrix" wrote: >For ISPs that already exist, what benefit do they get from >providing/allowing IPv6 transit to their customers? If they'd like to continue growing at something above churn rate, they need additional IP addresses to give their new

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

From: Cryptographrix mailto:cryptograph...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM To: "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: How to force rapi

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

On 1/4/16, 11:54 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Neil Harris" wrote: >I can only imagine the scale of the schadenfreude IPv6 proponents will >be able to feel once they're able to start talking about IPv4 as a >legacy protocol. *start*? https://www.flickr.com/photos/n3pb/sets/72157634324914351/ :-)

Re: mpls switches

On 4/12/16, 9:22 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Tim Jackson" wrote: >>> (Broadcom chipset, >> approach with caution). > >QFX5100 works fine for MPLS.. [snip] QFX5100 is a >great P and lightweight PE.. WG] For some values of "fine" and "great" perhaps, but emphasis on the "lightweight" is important, a

Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

On 3/12/15, 7:48 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >Then, just like the RFCs, maintain the BCOP appeal numbering as a >sequential monotonically increasing number and make the BCOP editor >responsible for updating the index with the publishing of each new or >revised BCOP. > >Note, IMHO, a revised BCOP s

Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture

On 5/31/15, 3:11 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >if they said “We have a plan, and it will take X amount of time”, I would >respect that. > >If they said “We have a plan and we’re not sure how long it will take”, I >would continue to poke >them about sooner is better than later and having a target dat

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/9/15, 11:01 PM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote: >No, the premise is that from a user's point of view, DHCPv6-only networks >cause regressions in functionality compared to IPv4-only or dual-stack >networks. For example: IPv4 apps cannot be supported at all due because >464xlat cannot be made to wor

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/9/15, 11:06 PM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote: >Based on the facts, you could could just as well say that Apple is trying >to advance the state of the art by refusing to provide suboptimal 464xlat >and insisting instead that developers support IPv6-only networks as >first-class citizens: > >https

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/10/15, 2:32 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote: >I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet draft or other >standard to define a minimum value for N, but I fear that it may not >possible to gain consensus on that. WG] No, I think that the document you need to write is the one that explains w

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/10/15, 9:13 AM, "Baldur Norddahl" wrote: >What standard exactly requires my router to be able to snoop a DHCP-PD to >create routes dynamically? That was left out and one solution is the one >we >use. WG] We use this in cable-land, so it's definitely documented in the DOCSIS standards. Not

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

From: Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@colitti.com>> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:21 AM To: "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>> Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6 "I don't think it's a

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On 6/10/15, 5:27 PM, "Ted Hardie" wrote: >>... and this argument has been refuted by the word "bridging." >> >> >​To repeat Valdis' question:​ > >​And the router knows to send to the "front" address to reach the "back" >> address, how, exactly? Seems like somebody should invent a way to >>assign

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

From: Ted Hardie mailto:ted.i...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:09 PM To: "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>> Cc: Doug Barton mailto:do...@dougbarton.us>>, "nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>" mailto:nanog@nanog.org&

Re: ISP DHCPv6 and /48

On 7/10/15, 6:34 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Baldur Norddahl" wrote: >Perhaps the problem is that DHCPv6-PD is not intelligent enough. Yes there >is a provision such that the user CPE could give a hint of how much space >is want, but no, it doesn't work. WG] Sorry, [citation needed]. We are using DH

Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?

On 1/7/14, 11:10 PM, "Adam Rothschild" wrote: >I should probably add that there was a real router plugged into the >ethernet port on the ONT, given a lack of support in the ActionTec >code ... Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at

RE: Why is your company treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales matter?

> -Original Message- > From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:06 PM > > Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales > matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP > addresses or BGP? [WES] Because in most

RE: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses

> -Original Message- > From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:06 PM > To: NANOG > Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses > > - Original Message - > > From: "Brian Johnson" > > > > > To be clear, FOX screwed this u

RE: IPv6 enabled carriers?

-Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:19 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 enabled carriers? On 3/10/10 11:00 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > Does anyone have a list of carriers who are IPv6 capable today? > Sprint wasn't on

RE: New IPv6 survey released on labs.ripe.net

-Original Message- From: Kevin Day [mailto:toa...@dragondata.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:57 PM To: Cameron Byrne Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: New IPv6 survey released on labs.ripe.net No IPv6 on Sprint, US Cellular or Metro PCS though. They don't have anything that supports

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

We've done it both ways. We've found that there are sometimes issues with announcing IPv6 NLRI over IPv4 BGP sessions depending on your chosen vendor and code version on both sides of the session. Specifically, we have seen some implementations where an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address (usually the IPv4

RE: ipv6 bogon / martian filter - simple

This would be another alternative: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html Slightly more than 1 line, but the loose case would nuke a few more things than just filtering on 2000::/3 without requiring frequent updates. The strict case requires keeping after it for updates, and you'd pro