On 6 mar 2006, at 11.10, Per Heldal wrote:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:35:02 +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2 mar 2006, at 21.42, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Putting routing decisions
into the transport layer (4) as it is done or proposed with SCTP and
SHIM6 is Total
On 3 mar 2006, at 04.13, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was
any faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be,
in 2010 we might have 70% deployment and in 2012 we might have 90%
deployment.
OTOH Teredo, which isn't
On 3 mar 2006, at 22.02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
By any measure, multicast deployment is much larger than IPv6
deployment at present, and it is growing.
I will be glad to argue the point to any length you might desire.
There are also operators that are deploying IPv6 just so that they
On 3 mar 2006, at 21.37, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will
actually happen is
the development of a spot market in IPv4 address space.
I won't bet against you, but it will only take you that far. At one
point IPv4 addresses will just
On 2 mar 2006, at 06.16, Kevin Day wrote:
No, I'm just trying to be practical here... Estimates of IPv4 pool
exhaustion range from Mid 2008 (Tony Hain's ARIN presentation) to
roughly 2012 (Geoff Huston's ARIN presentation). Sooner if a mad
dash for space starts happening (or isn't
On 15 feb 2006, at 11.51, Daniel Roesen wrote:
That is one of the reasons we did the NANOG 35 IPv6
multihoming BOF (and are doing the same at the upcoming
apricot meeting).
Which is a good thing. But still, many IETF folks deny the fact that
they constantly hear
On 15 feb 2006, at 13.56, Per Heldal wrote:
It's the lack of reality in operational policies that is the real
source
of frustration in ops communities. People are picking on shim6 because
it is used as an argument to back the current policies at a time
when it
doesn't even have an early
On 22 jan 2006, at 02.42, Randy Bush wrote:
any cctld ops seeing unusual traffic in the last hours?
Nope.
- kurtis -
On 24 nov 2005, at 03.54, George Michaelson wrote:
If you want to see member-certificates which gate access to RIR/NIR
specific services common across all registries, I think you want to
get
that onto an RIR meeting agenda Randy.
We currently have no cross-certification activity in member
On 25 nov 2005, at 02.07, Sean Donelan wrote:
Although techincal folks may think its just about math,
unfortunately some
people think certificates and signatures mean more than just
mathmatical
formulas. I'm a bit confused why people think network service
providers
will be willing to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2005-03-03, at 10.27, Geoff Huston wrote:
On 2005-03-02, at 19.38, James A. T. Rice wrote:
This seems to suggest that you are just picking ASns at random to
inject into the paths, and that you don't have a set of ASs which
you
have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2005-03-02, at 19.38, James A. T. Rice wrote:
This seems to suggest that you are just picking ASns at random to
inject into the paths, and that you don't have a set of ASs which you
have the assignees permission to use.
Would't this then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is responsible for
developing and defining the standards and protocols that make up the
Internet. The IETF was established in 1986, and has since then been
the center of development for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-22, at 19.29, william(at)elan.net wrote:
What is bad however is that IETF instead of pursuing it as
one effort has several of them including MULTI6, HIP, etc.
I don't see this as really true. MUTLI is tasked with solving the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul,
On 2004-11-28, at 17.47, Paul Vixie wrote:
(catching up)
(you missed some stuff.)
Yes, I have had lot's of fun reading through almost a week of Nanog...
the property of a6/dname that wasn't widely understood was its
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-19, at 12.46, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 12:15 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-nov-04, at 18:02, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Larger enterprises probably consist of 200 'sites' already, eg
seperate
offices,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-14, at 18.10, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 13-nov-04, at 18:11, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
30% usage and we need 32 bit ASNs?
Usage is of course irrelevant, what counts is how many free ones are
left. This number is well below 70%.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-16, at 02.24, Owen DeLong wrote:
ASNs issued today are subject to annual renewal. While this is a
small charge and doesn't go up based on the number of ASNs, so, not
100% effective at reclaiming all unused resources, it does, at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-12, at 02.53, Randy Bush wrote:
which roots are anycast? c f i j k?
b m
- - kurtis -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQZQYaqarNKXTPFCVEQJcDACeMo3bNr6oOIRx69IvmCdMv/Xe3l0AnA4d
QdMSlL6vKhLe3xqRKkAf3LfV
=LN6i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-12, at 03.03, Randy Bush wrote:
which roots are anycast? c f i j k?
b m
thanks.
which are widely anycast, i.e. at more than three or four
locations OR on three or more continents?
I think that http://root-servers.org is up to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-09-24, at 00.18, Joe Abley wrote:
On 23 Sep 2004, at 18:06, Matt Ghali wrote:
Effectively none.
APNIC has always served out unverified and obvious garbage from their
whois servers.
And they are different from every other RIR in this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-09-15, at 00.48, Joe Abley wrote:
On 14 Sep 2004, at 17:39, Hosman, Ross wrote:
Ensuring that email flows freely between our mail complex and other
top mail
provider complexes is a support issue correct. Actually setting up the
system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-09-14, at 16.36, Scott Weeks wrote:
I briefly looked and NordNOG wasn't an english speaking list. (no
surprise there... :) I only read in english, thus my request for
english
language NOG lists. Did I miss that and are the others
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-08-24, at 12.58, Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tony Li wrote:
Did they arrest the crew? They have grounds on negligence
charges...
The crew of the ship for having dropped anchor presumably in defiance
of
'Undersea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-08-29, at 15.58, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
If you find the prices staggering, it's likely that you and your
organization don't need this product. Arguments about price gouging
on memory, GBICs, power cords, and other commodity items
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-07-03, at 18.10, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
It's when the exchange is being run by a separate entity that needs a
marketing department, a well-paid staff of managers, technicians etc
that
price really goes up. All this to basically
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The third Nordic Operator Forum will be held in Helsinki on 9-10
September 2004. Sponsor will be Song Networks, and the conference be
held at their facilities at
Song Networks
Mechelinkatu 1a
00018 Helsinki
With this email we invite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In the old days, every major provider would already be talking about
how
they have ordered 200 of these for every major market for redundant
deployment -- and are just waiting on Cisco to deliver them the gear.
Personally, I'm at least as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-05-14, at 23.34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:22:03 EDT, Jonathan M. Slivko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for
what they use - it would be a much better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-05-08, at 00.36, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Why so many ip6 blocks at once?
There were some things brought up at this weeks ripe meeting, i cant
find the
references tho, perhaps someone else will answer this.
There are a few very big
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-05-08, at 03.30, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I imagine so, but the question is are they growing so fast with new ip6
allocations. As I understand there are about 3500 LIRs/members at RIPE.
Given that each /23 is enough for 64 members and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Now that the firestorm over implementing Md5 has quieted down a bit, is
anybody aware of whether the exploit has been used?
Feel free to reply off list.
Even more interesting, did anyone manage to reproduce it?
- - kurtis -
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-18, at 04.48, Paul Jakma wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
That's quite an assumption there.
- - kurtis -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.0.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-18, at 01.10, Paul Jakma wrote:
Hmmm, or rather, there just wont be any demand for IPv6 deployment,
at least from the edges (consumers, small/medium networks). Why
bother changing if, despite the (almost indefinitely) availability of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As co-chair of the multi6 WG :
On 2004-04-19, at 02.29, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not
attractive
at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100
years
is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not
attractive
at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100
years
is not an option in my view - we just need to put more effort on
things
like multihoming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-20, at 23.09, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
but the massive amount of confusion,
rumor, and worry which the major router vendors (Cisco and Juniper)
created by essentially rediscovering the god damn spec and then telling
only their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Although I now what the NA...stands for I have to ask)
From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic
communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to
provide
tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-01-20, at 22.19, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson
writes:
Eriks Rugelis wrote:
On the other hand, if your environment consists of a large number
(100's) of
potential tapping points,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On onsdag, nov 26, 2003, at 07:44 Europe/Stockholm, Simon Lockhart
wrote:
On Tue Nov 25, 2003 at 08:32:50PM -0500, David Lesher wrote:
Is there not sizeable UK-FR capacity through the Chunnel?
Yes, I believe there's a sizable amount of fiber
(replying to Peter on NTP have always struck me as a bad idea ;-) )
Time2.Stupi.SE and Time4.Stupi.SE are both stratum-1 accessable through
the Internet, tracable to UTC-SP (part of TAI) without use of GPS or
slaving
to CDMA (that slaves to GPS).
...but other free NTP servers are :
Does anyone know of case studies of companies collapsing multiple ASes
into one on their network? I have the Allegiance Telecom presentation
from
NANOG 27 but I would like to hear how other people have done it as
well.
We where a number of people (most mote involve than I was) who did the
286
so here's a proposal. we (speaking for ISC here) could add a config
option
(default to OFF) to make bind send some kind of registration packet at
boot
time, containing an e-mail address for a technical contact for that
server,
and perhaps its hostname as well. the destination would be
The issue is when
traffic crosses ISP boundaries, because many times these links are
clogged. It used to be you had to stay away from MAEWEST and such
because of big packet drops and delays (big no-no's for voice). Things
are getting better in this regard because of a larger number of cross
Actually, I think that was the point of the dynamic provisioning
ability. The UNI 1.0 protocol or the previous ODSI, were to allow the
routers to provision their own capacity. The tests in the real world
done actually worked although I still believe they are under NDA.
The point was to
I have received information on router utilizations, some routers it
seems may have held up better then others. That information is
useful. But I am working on some optical exchange point/optical metro
designs and this might have a dramatic impact if one considers things
like OBGP, Uni
Without getting too much into the likelihood of any legal body actually
understanding anyone's role in an attack besides the attacker and the
victim, in this land where tobacco companies are sued by smokers who
get lung cancer and fast food restaurants are sued by fat people there
must be room
- Starting at the core, which is who the Feds buy the most IP from,
still makes life a lot simpler if and when we get the big one
in terms of cyber-attack.
Is not the problem with this that few if any attacks originate in the
core, and by the time the traffics start getting aggregated
The agenda items for Nordnog-2 is starting to be posted on
http://www.nordnog.org/nordnog2/agenda.html as the speakers final
confirmation comes in.
To register, please fill the form at http://www.nordnog.org/nordnog2
and mail it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best regards,
- kurtis -
This has been a discussion item in the Swedish ISP business for quite
some time (for a reason).
The matter is actually a lot more complex than what you say above.
How ironic, would that be because of Flashback magazine? :)
To some extent, but not recently. Mostly due to child-porn, TV
Just for the record, your story above is far from complete and not
true
on all accounts. It is also a quite simplified version of what
happened.
Perhaps Zenon (Whom I cc:ed just because he knows the details) can
shed some more light on this.
Well, I was (still is) a member of the Swedish
How do you see the failed AMS-IX expansion fit into this?
My (very simplified) summary of what happened was that :
...
At the time of the origin of the discussion I was peering
co-ordinator at
KPNQwest, and would have pulled-out of AMS-IX if the plans (and
KQ..:) )
would have moved on.
well
(I think I am close to get a notice from Susan so this will be my last
posting on this to Nanog)
The upstream (Air2net?) basically shrugged their shoulders. Fries
went to the upstream's upstream while at the same time he mounted
Air2net was a transit customer of KPNQwest (and not a
Uhm. If an ISP has a policy catch-all clause of We can disconnect
customers at will, without reason then you get what you deserve,
responsibility for your actions.
After a few big money costing lawsuits over this, I hope ISP's will
return to their common-carrier status. I have no hopes that
Bill,
On lördag, jan 11, 2003, at 01:38 Europe/Stockholm, William B. Norton
wrote:
If what you are saying is true, I'd really like to hear just a couple
of insurmountable technical problems with WAN L2.5 infrastructure
interconnecting IX switches. For the sake of argument and to clarify
I remember back at APRICOT in 1999 that some folks (Dave Rand and
colleagues maybe?) were talking about an initiative to provide an AP
Peering Ring...
Just out of curiosity on this topic. Is there anyone who ever managed
to get a distributed peering point to work? If I remember history
Due to announcement of the NANOG dates that collides with NordNOG,
NordNOG will change the dates.
NordNOG-2 will be held at 13-14 February 2002. The change of dates also
means that we will change the venue.
The venue for the conference will be :
Marievik Konferens
Årstaängsvägen 1 B
9/11 showed us that, despite the relatively concentrated POPs in NYC,
the
Internet was still the only communications medium that survived the
attack --and it was largely unaffected, even for users located in NYC
itself!
Does of us who where providing emergency transit to providers that
where
Kurt I am not sure what you mean with 25% of the Internet? What
Kurt connectivity would degrade? From where to where?
If you randomly select nodes to remove, by the time you have removed
25% of them, the network breaks up into many isolated islands. As Sean
Well, depending on
The next NANOG meeting will be held February 9-11, 2003, in
Arizona, where it will be warm and sunny.
Is this date absolutely set in stone? First Halloween, now
Valentine's
Day.
and it butts right against nordnog, essentially preventing attendance
at both.
As Nordnog organizer I agree.
None of the below events are related to network operations. Nordnog is.
If these are the dates that Nanog goes for, I assume that Nordnog will
have to reschedule. Nanog is large enough to attract people from all
over the world and the scheduling of Nanog influences a lot of peoples
agendas.
Simply not true. See the kidnap case that was solved with cooperation
between the Swedish and French police. The kidnapers in France was
extradited to Sweden although they where arrested in France because
they received the ransom there.
Where was the crime commited though? If the kidnapping
In the 1990's the MAEs and Gigaswitches would give us an unscheduled
failure of a major exchange point on a regular basis, which let us
demostrate our disaster recovery capabilities. With the improved
reliability, i.e. the PAIXes haven't had a catastrophic failure, we
haven't had as many
(Apologies for eventual off-topic posting)
The second Nordic Operator Conference, Nordnog-2, will be held 12-13/2
2003 at the Quality Globe Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden. For information
on the hotel, please see http://www.globehotel.se/default_1.html.
If you have something you want to
This was the call for papers
- kurtis -
On måndag, nov 11, 2002, at 16:10 Europe/Stockholm, Rasmus Aveskogh
wrote:
Unfortunately there's a 404 on
http://www.nordnog.org/nordnog2/agenda.html
-ra
- Original Message -
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday
egal requirements to the bottom line. If a site is paying you for
transit,
there's a very strong *dis*incentive to take any action that would
prevent a
DDoS attack - the bottom line says the Right Thing is to install just
enough
traffic shaping so a DDoS won't melt *your* net, and bill for
Not commenting on some of the fantasies in the article
From what I remember China is pretty is active in IPv6 and from the
APNIC presentations they also have a allocation. Not sure how come to
the conclusions you do
- kurtis -
On onsdag, sep 25, 2002, at 11:55 Europe/Stockholm,
William said they changed a lot of the way they do things at the
company
that hosts CNN.com since 9/11. I don't believe they were the only ones.
Which was my point to start with...
- kurtis -
On måndag, sep 16, 2002, at 18:02 Europe/Stockholm, JC Dill wrote:
When I got back to the office, I learned that the big screen TV that
had previously been located in the exercise room had been moved to the
center of the office so that everyone could more easily see it, and
everyone
On fredag, sep 6, 2002, at 21:57 Europe/Stockholm, Tim Thorne wrote:
OK, what if 60 Hudson, 25 Broadway, LinX and AmsIX were all put out of
commission?
To some extent - nothing for the above...if design right. The major
networks should have designed their networks to route around this. If
No.
If they did, 80% of the internet would not be visible to them today.,
sure. and pigs fly.
I don't think that anyone have ever filtered on old class-based sizes. What
I know is that the most restrictive filters have been on RIR allocations
boundaries, and for old non-returned A:s and
...and the clue-less on the Internet is (still) less than 80%. It's more
like 20%. See http://mcvax.org/~jhma/routing for one example of how much
we could gain if we actually aggregated...
This was hinted at in the peering debate, but wouldn't it help the cause
of aggregation if
What is the legal position of an IRU deal if the cable owner goes belly
up?
Unless someone buys the equipment and agrees to theke the IRU:s on - they
are worthless.
- kurtis -
Does anyone know what happened to the Ebone/KPNQWEST European-wide DWDM
system? I figure that if it was shut down, we would see more impact.
It's beeing sold off in pices.
Their IP network load I bet was quite easily handled by other operators
considering the huge over-capacity situation
--On Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:23:38 +0300 Huopio Kauto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the legal position of an IRU deal if the cable owner goes belly
up?
Unless someone buys the equipment and agrees to theke the IRU:s on -
they are worthless.
How about duct IRU:s?
Some what
Uhm, how many pan-European _fiber_ owners is there? Not that many. Most
of that over capacity was bought from KQ in Europe...
COLT, Telia, Dynergy, BT Ignite [I think], Level 3, LDcom, others.
KQ was excellent at marketing themselves as the only company who
had pan-European fibre but
Appart from that this to me looks like a marketing post
Sorry I didn't see this note earlier, but wanted to make you aware that
Masergy Communications is actually offering such a service on a native
MPLS based IP network. We provide differentiated IP services via
native MPLS based IP
Yes one of the myths that I used to hear was that COLTs european
network relied upon KQ, which it didn't. The other issue is local network
As ex-KQ I agree with you. But there where plenty of others.
access of course, its fine having these huge fibre networks that
are point to point, but
data and this was then fed to the main processing server. However, in
general I think it's pretty hard to make Netflow data scale...ideally you
would be able to pick which fields you wanted exported...
The NetFlow v9 format looks like it would support this kind of thing.
Whether cisco will
table. Why should we shoot for a 100,000 route table instead of 500,000
if it does not impact performance?
Convergence time?
- kurtis -
--On Friday, July 19, 2002 10:33:22 +0100 Stephen J. Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They keep saying this but never on the homepage.. maybe this is finally
it!
We still have a full table from them so we'll see it die later on. (10pm
local time)
I think you need to distinguis between
That said, their current policy of refusing to accept de-aggregated
prefixes from peers (while accepting such from paying customers) makes
perfect sense, IMHO. Not arrogant, just a smart reasonable business
decision.
You could turn this around and ask what reasons there are to not
Add in the fact that optical sniffing, while not impossible by any means
today, will increasingly become non-trivial as bandwidth increases. Which
is exactly one of the 'problems' they expect optical network to solve.
You mean just expensive, right? i.e. a couple transponders and an OC48
A number of people think QoS was interesting for a while but that its
never either found its true use or is dead.
There are unresolved questions from a customer point of view as to what
they are actually going to get, what difference it will make and how they
can measure their performance
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:16:38 -0700 David Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Given the amount of time and resource we've spent on multicast,
the question one might ask is why hasn't multicast succeeded?
My guess is that it is because the demand from any of the
potential users of the
I am sorry, their NOC is located in Belgium.
Well, there is operational staff all across Europe. If that is enough to
keep the network up - I don't know. There are other issue playing in as
well on what can be kept up. Notice that the message sent out is that the
volunteer NOC will
...exactly. So, again, I can't see a valid reason for a single route to
originate from two different AS:es. Unless for transition purposes as was
mentioned.
- kurtis -
--On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:58 PM +0100 Stephen J. Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not familiar with all the RIR
Uhm, from whois.ra.net :
route: 209.81.0.0/19
descr: ViaNet Communications
1235 Pear Ave, Suite 107
Mountain View, CA 94043
origin:AS7091
notify:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
notify:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mnt-by:HE-NOC
changed:
A route is something different then an IP assignment/allocation. There can
be multipe routes and multiple originating AS's for a netblock. The
netblock you are referring to is not globally visible btw.
Ok, my fault. I ment to say route object. However, I fail to see why (if)
you would
This is not a political question, only operational process.
Has ICANN and NTIA worked out their operational issues so they can quickly
change the root zone to reflect changes in ccTLD nameservers if people
need to change which name servers are handling the ccTLDs. Last year,
some of the
(Appologies if considered off-topic)
Registration is now open for the first Nordic Operator Forum meeting in
Stockholm, 13-14th of May 2002 at the Roayal Institute of Technology. The
event will be free of charge. Please visit http://www.nordnog.org for
information on registering and the
91 matches
Mail list logo
