Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

On 1/15/11 1:24 PM, Leen Besselink wrote: > I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but > have to say the alternative is not all that great either. > > Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the > IPv6 privacy extensions. Which are enabled by default

Re: Single AS Number for multiple prefixes in different country

On 1/15/11 8:51 PM, Graham Wooden wrote: > Not to budge in here ... but I have always been curious of this type of > setup, as in all my past BGP deployments its always been that all edges > belong in the same ibgp peering group. > > Ryan, does the other edge(s) get confused when they see their sa

Re: Network Simulators

On 1/17/11 12:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> Are there any good Network Simulators/Trainers out there that support >> IPv6? I want play around with some IPv6 setup. > > what are you trying to simulate? > o control plane? > o traffic? > o interfaces and layers 1-3? > o ... products which I'

Re: anyone running GPS clocks in Southeastern Georgia?

On 1/21/11 2:26 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Michael Holstein writes: > >>> I'd be curious to see what effects (if any) those who use >>> GPS-disciplined NTP references in Southeastern Georgia see from this >>> experiment. >> >> Aren't CDMA BTS clocked off GPS? >> >> NTP isn't going to be

Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

On 1/11/11 11:15 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > > > On 1/11/2011 1:05 PM, George Bonser wrote: >> Many of us are looking at things from today's >> perspective. Maybe each room of my house will have its own subnet with >> a low power access point and I can find which room something is in by >> the IP ad

Re: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed

On 1/27/11 7:33 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > > > On 1/27/2011 9:25 AM, Dan White wrote: >> >> The DIR-825(Rev B) running firmware 2.05NA does. From the status screen: >> >> IPv6 Connection Type : Autoconfiguration (SLAAC/DHCPv6) > > Nice. New love for D-Link then. I've had DSL modem vendors s

Re: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed

On 1/27/11 10:01 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: > > For god's sake, stay away from the DIR-825(Rev A), which has been > effectively abandoned by DLINK support and has no IPv6 support at all. pretty sure you can't find those on the shelf... The current model I bought on a lark for someone for christmas 2

Re: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed

unlike a simpler device you can actually turn that off. in fact it has more knobs than you've likely seen in a consumer cpe... joel On 1/27/11 10:40 AM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > > --- frnk...@iname.com wrote: > From: "Frank Bulk" > > Have you looked at D-Li

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt

On 1/27/11 10:49 PM, Roy wrote: > On 1/27/2011 9:36 PM, Craig Labovitz wrote: >> >> And to add to this thread, an graph of Egyptian Internet traffic >> across a large number of geographically / topologically diverse >> providers yesterday (Jan 27): >> >> http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5395027

Re: DSL options in NYC for OOB access

the other circuits use. I've been in a couple of facilties recently (though not in ny) where riding into the building on twsited pair was at best costly and more generally, infeasible. joel > Cheers > Ryan > > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Ashley [mailto:li...

Re: EPC backhaul networks

On 1/30/11 1:13 PM, Ping Pan wrote: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > >> Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the >> only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that >> MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people don

Re: quietly....

On 1/31/11 10:43 PM, George Bonser wrote: >> >> 3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a >> year. >> >> jms > > If used for general assignment, sure. But if used for what people have > been begging for NAT444 middle-4 space. Well, that might work. Code > update on the

Re: ipv4's last graph

On 2/1/11 1:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> FWIW: the Jan. 2011 global burn rate (outbound from the RIRs) for >> /24-equivlents was 18.97 seconds. At the Jan. rate, APnic won't last >> to June and Ripe might make to the end of August, then chaos ensues. > > this is not the murdoch press or fox news.

Re: Terremark Miami

On 1/28/14, 5:29 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > So essentially, you are looking for a 'direct' x-connect to AWS ? > and not wanting to go thru a peering fabric or any other network ? just as an aside amazon peer routes are in my experience regional so if the goal is to offload traffic in miami bound f

Re: Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T SFP+ transciever

On 1/30/14, 5:26 PM, james jones wrote: > I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where? Also if > they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot > easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would be so > hard to make the 1G SFPs faster

Re: Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T SFP+ transciever

On 2/1/14, 1:18 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: > >> As for 10GBase-T in a transceiver, I haven't seen that on anyone's >> roadmap. It will probably come eventually but not for awhile. > > It must exist, as there is this: Nah that's a 10G-base-t pci e

Re: Twinax trivia check (was Re: Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T SFP+ transciever)

On 2/2/14, 7:30 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 2/1/2014 10:40 PM, Jima wrote: >> +1. Cisco calls them Twinax, HP calls them DACs. I don't know what >> anyone else calls them as it hasn't come up in conversation for me. > > I thought "Twinax" was an IBMish MILSPEC term. twinax could refer to a

Re: BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]

On 2/5/14, 1:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Octavio Alvarez" > >> Maybe I'm oversimplifying things but I'm really curious to know why >> can't the nearest-to-end-user ACL-enabled router simply have an ACL to >> only allows packets from end-users that has a val

Re: BCP38 is hard; let's go shopping!

On 2/5/14, 1:46 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "joel jaeggli" > >>> As I've noted, I'm not sure I believe that's true of current generation >>> gear, and if it *is*, then it should cost manufacturers busin

Re: 7206 VXR NPE-G1 throughput

On 2/10/14, 7:17 AM, Vlade Ristevski wrote: > We are looking to double the bandwidth on one of our circuits from > 300Mbps to 600Mbps. We currently use a Cisco 7206VXR with an NPE-G1 > card. These seem like very popular routers so I'm hoping a few people on > this list have them deployed. If you or

Re: 7206 VXR NPE-G1 throughput

On 2/10/14, 7:43 AM, Vlade Ristevski wrote: > We're still on the 12.4 train. I do use an ACL with less than 100 > entries which handle BCP38 and block a few bad actors and private IPs on > the Internet. I will be moving the BCP38 ACL closer to the hosts before > the upgrade so the ACL will be a bit

Re: 7206 VXR NPE-G1 throughput

he > traffic through the 7206). so those pps numbers are worst case (small packet) but the acl count /distribution and so on are going to impact what you actually get in the downward direction. > > On 2/10/2014 10:41 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> On 2/10/14, 7:17 AM, Vlade Ristevski

Re: ddos attack blog

sumer electronics devices and everything that uses ssl/tls that needs access to time that is a more diffuse and less tractable problem. joel > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size?

On 2/23/14, 12:11 PM, Royce Williams wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Royce Williams > wrote: >> Newb question ... other than retrofitting, what stands in the way of >> making BCP38 a condition of peering? Peering is frequently but harldy exclusively on a best effort basis, e.g. you ag

Re: out of band management gear

On 2/21/14, 12:27 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > OpenGear's newer stuff is Gigabit (SFP even). > > I've not seen any real switch made in the last decade that has a problem with > 100Mb/s connections. Ancient cisco, maybe had issues. > there are a substantial number of 10Gb/s switch that cannot

Re: AS path not optimal

On 3/4/14, 3:16 AM, ku po wrote: > One of my client has peering with nlayer and a provider from Asia. It seems > from one major ISP in US, the best path is through this Asia provider, > instead of through nlayer which we want it to be. > > It seems this major ISP does not have a direct peering wi

Re: valley free routing?

I have worked for the middle network when I was responsible for a government network - typically we were the middle network. Logic was it was good for citizens for us to essentially act like a peering exchange for certain types of entity (who also typically were government affiliated). One I can t

Re: fiber optics patchcords - supplier nearby Atlanta,GA

On 3/6/14, 1:00 PM, Jiri Prochazka wrote: > Hello list, > > we're deploying a new rack/technology in Atlanta,GA and we are out of > reserves of optical patchcords. > > We need to get another few pieces (combinations of most used connectors > like LC/SC/E2000 and lenghts). > > > Could you please

Re: How to catch a cracker in the US?

On 3/13/14, 11:09 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:46:06 -0400, William Herrin said: > (Contemplate for a bit why Kirk > wasn't bounced out on his butt from the Academy) Apparently the thinking about hacking was a little more permissive in 1966. > > signature.asc

Re: open source with flowspec ?

exabgp from ripe labs can inject flowspec routes. typically some helper app would generate the policy for exabgp and then exabgp would do the heavy lifting. joel On 3/13/14, 3:42 PM, Piotr wrote: > Hi, > > There is some open source sflow collector wich can talk via flowspec >

Re: NetBSD as a TimeCapsule?

On 3/18/14, 11:53 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Atticus writes: > >> Use avahi. > > Isn't that built into netatalk3? netatalk does the mdns for my afp shares and seems to work. > -r > > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: L6-20P -> L6-30R

You probably should ask your facility operator or electrician what the requirements are (who, unlike most network engineers, is qualified to decide what to do), but it sounds like replacing the PDU is simple and easy, and unquestionably not a bad thing to do. Alternatively, you can replace the 30A

Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition

On 3/30/14, 10:03 AM, Barry Shein wrote: > > The problem is the world is a very sloppy place and tends to function > in spite of proofs that "bumblebees can't fly" etc. when there's a > need. which is fortunately, mythology based on catastrophically bad modeling so your analogy is spot on. > >

Re: Prefix hijack by AS4761 (was Re: BGPMON Alert Questions)

yeah you're seeing the impact of a pretty broad prefix injection indosat's upstream filters seem to be working for the most part. On 4/2/14, 12:10 PM, Stephen Fulton wrote: > I'm seeing the same hijack of prefixes by multiple networks under my > watch, at 18:40 UTC and 19:06 UTC. > > -- Stephen

Re: BGPMON Alert Questions

On 4/2/14, 11:59 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > Two things need to happen: > 1. Indosat needs to clean their mess up. > 2. Indosat's upstreams need to apply some BGP clue to Indosat's > announcements. > > It's pretty clear that both parties have dropped the ball in a big way, > in terms of sane

Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

On 4/18/14, 7:04 PM, Jeff Kell wrote: > PCI requirement 1.3.8 pretty much requires RFC1918 > addressing of the computers in scope... It does not 1.3.8 Do not disclose private IP addresses and routing information to unauthorized parties. Note : Methods to obscure IP addressing may include, but a

Re: AOL Mail updates DMARC policy to 'reject'

On 4/25/14, 9:04 AM, Steven Saner wrote: > On 04/25/2014 10:59 AM, Royce Williams wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Shrdlu wrote: >>> On 4/25/2014 8:00 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: On Apr 23, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder wrote: > Thought i would throw this out t

Re: We hit half-million: The Cidr Report

On 4/30/14, 9:30 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:40:43 -, Jamie Bowden said: > >> You're not funny. And if you're not joking, you're wrong. We just went over >> this on this very list two weeks ago. > > And in that discussion, we ascertained that what the PCI sta

Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)]

On 5/3/14, 10:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage >> everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such, >> just more 1918. > > A good number of folks use othe

Please moderate yourselves, was: Re: US patent 5473599

Notwithstanding any legitimate or illegitimate grievance associated with the sordid history of carp / vrrp / the us patent system / BSD forks and their respective participants. It's time to take a long weekend. thanks joel On 5/7/14, 8:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Matt Pal

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

On 5/12/14, 7:07 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 in

Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers.

On 6/10/14, 10:15 AM, Łukasz Bromirski wrote: > Hi Blake, > > On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson wrote: > >> In this case, does the 512k limit of the 6500/7600 refer to the RIB or the >> FIB? And does it even matter since the BGP prefix table can automatically be >> reduced to ~300k routes

Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers.

On 6/10/14, 10:39 AM, Blake Hudson wrote: > > Łukasz Bromirski wrote the following on 6/10/2014 12:15 PM: >> Hi Blake, >> >> On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson wrote: >> >>> In this case, does the 512k limit of the 6500/7600 refer to the RIB >>> or the FIB? And does it even matter since the B

Re: Time Warner IPv6 Reverse DNS?

On 6/13/14, 8:26 AM, James R Cutler wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > >> We've corresponded offline. >> >> I documented the difficulties in providing reverse DNS for IPv6 >> residential users in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-06 >> It's a long-expired

Re: routing issues to AWS via 2914(NTT)

On 6/13/14, 2:28 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:44:51AM +, Paul WALL wrote: >> Amazon peers at many key exchanges, with dozens of hosting shops >> (where customers might share mutual infrastructure) like yours: >> >> https://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=16509 >> >> Rather

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

On 6/18/14, 1:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> However, I also don't think consumer education is the answer: >> http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/consumeraction.htm Summary: Until it >> is perfectly clear why a consumer needs IPv6, and what they need to >> do about it, consumer education will only ca

Re: Help with route latency between TATA and Comcast

On 6/24/14 10:49 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote: > I am doing some testing between my Comcast Business connection and a > Singapore server that I have just setup. I am seeing high latency to the > server but it appears it is the Comcast to TATA link and not the link > between the U.S. and Singapore.

Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

On 7/9/14 7:24 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: >> Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps >> Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2. It looks like they use >> Iridium. Here is some pricing. Just the first thing I found: >> >> http://ww

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

On 7/11/14 11:20 AM, Blake Hudson wrote: > > Verizon Policy Blog wrote: > >> There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the >> edge of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers >> chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network. > > In what wor

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

On 7/11/14 2:01 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: >> joel jaeggli wrote the following on 7/11/2014 1:39 PM: >> >>> CDN's choose which exit the use all the time, it's kinda the raison de >>> etré.

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

On 7/14/14 10:06 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b) >> pay them >> equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher >> costs >> per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than >> receivi

Re: Net Neutrality...

On 7/16/14 3:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ > In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer — > traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

On 7/15/14, 10:04 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > >> At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote: >> I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And >> caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it. > > > BTW, with the

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

On 7/22/14, 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote: > On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote: >> >> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. >> http://bgp.he.net/AS6167 > That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy > for the competitive wireless market than they ha

Re: IPv6 and DNS

dynamic dns update has been done by hosts for some time... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2136.txt On Jun 12, 2011, at 5:38 AM, Fabio Mendes wrote: > 2011/6/11 Matthew Palmer > >> >> The router isn't assigning an address, it's merely telling everyone on the >> segment what the local prefix and de

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

On Jun 12, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: > On Jun 11, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Roy wrote: > >> On 6/11/2011 4:29 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote: >>> Options seem to be limited to HughesNet and dial for the moment, but >>> things may change if I put a tower on the property. Hughe

Re: Streaming

The slides are full screen on the FLV video. On Jun 13, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Matt Hite wrote: > Now if only the slides were the full screen and the talking head was > in the corner... otherwise the quality is fantastic! > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: >> Much better now. Pr

Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 09:45:01 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote: >> In a message written on Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 01:04:41PM +0200, Iljitsch van >> Beijnum wrote: >>> Like I said before, that would pollute the network with many multicasts >>> which can s

Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: This is precisely what we are doing on the main network. We just want to > keep the general browsing traffic separated. > If you're worried about browsing traffic and not worried about occasional other things slipping through, set up Squid

Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.

On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:38 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:04:11 EDT, Ray Soucy said: > >> A better solution; and the one I think that will be adopted in the >> long term as soon as vendors come into the fold, is to swap out >> RFC1918 with ULA addressing, and swap out

Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

On Jun 13, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >> On 12 jun 2011, at 15:45, Leo Bicknell wrote: >> Like I said before, that would pollute the network with many multicasts which can seriously degrade wifi performance. >

Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:21 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:04:44 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no said: > >> How big is huge? To some degree it depends on how broadcast "chatty" >> the protocols used are - but there's also the matter of having a >> size which makes it possible

Re: whoi modify question

https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments.html On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Deric Kwok wrote: > Hi > > My boss wants me to resign part of ip /25 to customer > > For the whois record to this customer, how can I do it? > > Thank you >

Re: whoi modify question

On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Darden, Patrick S. wrote: > > The short answer is you can't. ARIN only cares about /24s or bigger. If the > network were a /24 or larger, then your customer would need to get an ASN > (autonomous system number) and then you could register the network to them. ne

RE: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to http://localhost/ or http://pcname/ Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname? Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld? Joel Barnard Niagara Wireless Internet Co. -Original Message-

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "John Levine" > >> I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible >> idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but >> this is the first you've heard about it, you

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" > >> As for calling ICANN stupid, thinking this will help fracture the >> 'Net, I think you are all confused. I think the NANOG community has >> become (OK, always was) a bit of an echo

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

itude lower then they are today. In 2021 I don't think gig-e to the curb, or what it's applications might be will be particularly controversial. joel On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Erik Amundson wrote: > I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

On Jun 22, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >> We're going to have to either find a way to convince consumers to change >> direction, or, we're going to have to develop new methods and techniques >> that will scale to fully replace antennas, satellite, and cable bec

Re: IPv6 words

On Jun 24, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:10:53AM +, Bjoern A. Zeeb > wrote: >> If you want to do it, make sure you do understand the restrictions that >> apply to IPv6 addresses, like U/G bits, etc. Too many people unfortunately >>

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Andrew D Kirch wrote: > On 6/25/2011 7:43 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: >> Take a guess what the datacenter our equipment is currently hosted in uses. >> Yet another reason to be glad of a datacenter move that's coming up. >> > Why can't we just all use DC and be happy?

Re: AS and advertisen questions

On Jun 25, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Deric Kwok wrote: > Hi > > Can we use same AS to advertise different networks in different location? > > We would like to use Seattle as production network and New York as testing > > eg: > Seattle: network 66.49.130.0/24 > > New York: network 67.55.129.0/24 and i

Re: MX 80 advantages and shortcomings

I'd consult the list archive, since theres a couple recent and fairly lengthy threads on this. joel On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:56 AM, chavan sanjay wrote: > Hi Team, > > Can anyone enlighten me on the pros and cons of MX 80 platform > > Thanks > > Sanjay C.P. > >

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 10, 2011, at 11:57 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jul 10, 2011, at 12:23 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> Consider, for example, RFC 3484. That's the one that determines how an >>> IPv6 capable host selects which of a group of candidate

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 11, 2011, at 8:13 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > > Today's RFC candidates are required to call out IANA considerations > and security considerations in special sections. They do so because > each of these areas has landmines that the majority of working groups > are ill eq

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> On Jul 11, 2011, at 8:13 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>>>>>> Today's RFC candidates are required to call out IANA considerations >>>>>

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:37 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> >> On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >>>> On Jul

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Leo Bicknell wrote: > In short, make it easy for the operators to participate at the right >> time in the process. It will be better for everyone! > > Unfortunately, where you want to be inserted into the process is when > everybody has > s

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote: >>> Leo, >>> >>> Maybe we can fix this by: >>> >>> a) bringing together larger groups of clueful operators in the IETF >>> b) deci

Re: best practices for management nets in IPv6

Public IPs. At some point you will have to manage something outside your current world or your organization will need to merge/partner/outsource/contract/etc with someone else's network and they might not be keen to route to your ULA space (and might not be more trustworthy than the internet at

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > >> >> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: >>> >

Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward

On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > > I've have some concerns with AMS based on my experience > with the IETF mailing list. It has had ongoing issues with > out-of-sequence delivery. Based on the Received headers, it's > seems pretty clear the re-ordering is occurring internal

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <56e0fb8f-bb53-4db0-829b-39dfbab48...@bogus.com>, Joel Jaeggli > write > s: >> >> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> =20 >>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:4

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > I didn't claim it would work with existing CPE equipment. Declaring > 6to4 historic won't work with existing CPE equipment either. If the hosts behind it stop using 2002::/16 addresses as a product of a software update which seems rather m

Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again...

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Larry Stites wrote: > Given what you know now, if you were 21 and just starting into networking / > communications industry which areas of study or specialty would you > prioritize? > Make sure you are always learning. You can't stop learning in this industry.

Re: high performance open source DHCP solution?

On Jul 20, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Walter Keen wrote: > We've recently setup ISC DHCPd with failover for lease information, and > LDAP as a configuration source (mostly because of our need for > dynamically adding dhcp reservations for cable modems, etc) -- we don't > have any performance issues thu

Re: high performance open source DHCP solution?

On Jul 20, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > SSDs can be a good alternative these days as well. Some of them have gotten > to be quite fast. Sure, you'll have to replace them more often than spinning > media, > but, Actually the the scale of writes associated with this application is unlik

Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

given how often the cellular address changes on my Verizon 4g router not to mention the external ip address on their LSN I think I can speculate... joel On Jul 26, 2011, at 12:11 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi Cameron, > > What about routers ? In some locations, users may have

Re: OOB

My measured availability for a automatic reverse ssh tunnel connection made through a 4g radio in the field was 52%. this was vs 95% on the lab/office environment with the same equipment. That particular experiment I declared a failure. There was never a closer truism than ymmv. joel On Jul

Re: Comcast Bussiness Class and GRE Tunnels

On Jul 27, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:15:04 -0500, David E. Smith wrote: >>> > I think on cheap platforms, they have wirespeed gigabit only on switching > functions, but rest will suck. Their top products can do more, but they are > still cannot b

Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> en1: flags=8863 mtu 1500 >> ether 60:33:4b:01:75:85 >> inet6 fe80::6233:4bff:fe01:7585%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5 >> inet 192.168.191.223 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.191.255 >> inet6 fd92:7065:b8e::6233:4bff:f

Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:42 PM, james machado wrote: >>> Lets look at some issues here. >>> >>> 1) it's unlikely that a "normal" household with 2.5 kids and a dog/cat >>> will be able to qualify for their own end user assignment from ARIN. >>> >> >> Interesting... >> >> I have a "normal household

Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

On Aug 2, 2011, at 3:37 PM, james machado wrote: >>> >>> Yes I am saying a household that mulithomes is abnormal and with >>> today's and contracted monopolies I expect that to continue. You are >>> not a normal household in that 1) you multihome 2) you are willing to >>> pay $1500+ US a

Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

On Aug 2, 2011, at 9:56 PM, Mark Newton wrote: > > On 03/08/2011, at 1:20 PM, Jima wrote: > >> Alas, I will maintain that any household that multi-homes at this stage is, >> indeed, abnormal. > > > I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most people loathe their telcos with > an undying venom

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen, It's is also supported by RIR policy, and the RFC series. It would unfair to characterize owen as the only holder of that preference. > but most ISPs seem to be > zeroing in on a /56 for production.

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote: > In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little > agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end > users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being > slightly preferred. > > I am most cu

Re: AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue?

This is one of the reasons that I thought a useful output from the opsec or idr working group would be a documented set of community functions. Not mapped to values mind you. but I really like to say to providers "do you support rfc blah communities" or "what's your rfc blah community mapping" r

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On Aug 7, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Jonathon Exley wrote: > This has probably been said before, but it makes me uncomfortable to think of > everybody in the world being given /48 subnets by default. > All of a sudden that wide expanse of 2^128 IP addresses shrinks to 2^48 > sites. Sure that's still 655

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I'm sure there will be platforms that end up on both sides of this question. I know of no asic in a switch that claims to support ipv6 that does it this way... That would tend to place you at a competitive disadvantage to broadcom/marvell/fulcru

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >