NEBS compliant Server
Hi, We are looking for some NEBS compliant servers. What do you use for DC powered servers colocated in CO? Thanks, Richard
Re: Easily confused...
On 4/18/2011 2:53 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: --- They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?) Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 2607:f9a0::/32 for anything that ambitious...but I might be wishing for too much. (Also, that 123 block seems to have been allocated in 2006, so it'd be even more unprofessional to start projects with that space since then.) I'm the one that got this space for them, but allocation of folks to IPv6 roll out was minimal due the the upcoming IPTV roll out. I was the lone IPv6 voice in the company for a long time, but when I left there was gaining interest in IPv6 strategies. Not enough netgeeks and too many projects rolling out. scott With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments, I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast. Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years.
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:35 PM, David Conrad wrote: To try to bring this back to NANOG (instead of PPML-light), the issue is that since at least two alternative registries have apparently been established, how are network operators going to deal with the fact that the currently execrable whois database is almost certainly going to get worse? David - Does it have to get worse simply because there is change? I see no particular reason that the Internet number registry system can't evolve into something with multiple registries including overlapping service regions and competition if that's what folks actually want. We've seen this in the DNS space and I can't say that it necessarily worse or better than what resulted from the prior single registry model. However, it's definitely true that what occurred in the DNS space is clearly documented, has a complete fabric of contractual agreements, and was part of a multi-year discussion regarding goals of the overall system and various proposals on how it should best change. Now, Internet number resources are different in many ways, including the fact that network operators must have reliable access to the information in order to keep things running. Registrants may have exclusive use of their numbers, but the network operators also have a right to know the registration of any given piece of address space. As you know, multiple IP registries would definitely pose some coordination challenges in being able to reliably account for all of the address space at any given moment. What we lack is any meaningful proposals on how to restructure the Internet number registry system, including what are the goals of doing such, how are those goals and the existing requirements are met, and what protections are needed for integrity of the system. It's possible if this were discussed by the global community, it might be obvious how to best proceed or not. Personally, I do not see it as inevitable that alternative registries must have a detrimental impact to the WHOIS database, unless they are introduced in an uncoordinated manner and without global discussion of the actual goals. /John
Re: NEBS compliant Server
- Original Message - From: Richard Zheng rzh...@gmail.com We are looking for some NEBS compliant servers. What do you use for DC powered servers colocated in CO? Do you need NEBS *compliant*, or NEBS *certified* servers? 19 or 23? -48V isn't hard to come by; lots of people make power supplies for that. They tend to cost 3-4 times what 120V ones do... Cheers, -- jra
Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: 2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net: LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location* prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would) withdraw the original aggregate prefix. And as no matter how you count it, the number of *locations* will be somewhat limited vs number of *PI* address spaces that everyone wants I strongly disagree with the assumption that the number of locations/sites would remain static. This is the basic issue that many folks gloss over: dramatically decreasing the barrier-to-entry for multi-homing or provider-independent addressing will, without question, dramatically increase the number of multi-homed or provider-independent sites. Done properly, a multi-homed end-site does not need to have its own locator ID, but, could, instead, use the locator IDs of all directly proximate Transit ASNs. This is exactly what LISP suggests. Your locators are provided by your provider. Luigi I don't know if LISP particularly facilitates this, but, I think it would be possible generically in a Locator/ID based system. LISP solves this problem by using the router's FIB as a macro-flow-cache. That's good except that a site with a large number of outgoing macro-flows (either because it's a busy site, responding to an external DoS attack, or actually originating a DoS attack from a compromised host) will cripple that site's ITR. The closer you move the ITRs to the edge, the less of an issue this becomes. Owen
Re: Easily confused...
On 4/19/11 3:30 AM, ML wrote: With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments, I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast. Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years. NTT's deployment of globally scoped but not internet connected v6 addresses in support v6 multicast has been breaking my v6 connectivity in some residential settings on trips to japan since at least 2007, they appear to have the television part nailed however.
Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: Any edges which talk to a significant number of other networks will have to cache a significant portion of the Internet, which will actually lead to edge boxes having to be larger than they are now. This is not accurate. For networks with more than 20K users you can have a lisp cache as small as 15K entries. (http://www.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de/research/publications/Publi//KIF-LMDDILCWISKAI-10-eng.html) Luigi
Re: IPv4 address exchange
John, On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 AM, John Curran wrote: Does it have to get worse simply because there is change? Have to? No. However, historically, entropy has generally increased. I see no particular reason that the Internet number registry system can't evolve into something with multiple registries including overlapping service regions and competition if that's what folks actually want. We already have multiple registries, albeit with arbitrary (and increasingly unjustifiable and unsustainable) geographical service area monopolies. This actually points to one of the symptoms of the underlying problem: a near terminal case of NIH syndrome. For example, just for fun, compare/contrast the results of the following 5 commands (to pick a prefix at semi-random): % whois -h whois.afrinic.net 128.8.10.5 % whois -h whois.apnic.net 128.8.10.5 % whois -h whois.arin.net 128.8.10.5 % whois -h whois.lacnic.net 128.8.10.5 % whois -h whois.ripe.net 128.8.10.5 Note the wildly differing response structure/schemas/tags/values/etc. Being objective, doesn't this strike you as insane? Even ignoring the simple brokenness of everybody having their own registry data schema/response, I keep hearing from anti-spam folks, law enforcement, network operators, etc., that the quality of the data actually returned is simply abysmal. And soon, network operators are going to be asked to make routing decisions on this data not just at customer acceptance time. However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly being proposed. What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and multiple competing 'post-allocation services' providers. A single registry with a single database schema and data representation would seem to me to be infinitely better than what we have now (and what it looks like we're moving towards). I personally don't have a strong opinion on the competitive address registrar idea as long as there is a consistent set of registration requirements, but in my experience (reasonably regulated) competition tends to bring higher quality/lower prices vs. monopolies. Registrants may have exclusive use of their numbers, but the network operators also have a right to know the registration of any given piece of address space. I'm not sure I see that there should be a difference in the operational requirements for the DNS registration data, but that's a separate topic. As you know, multiple IP registries would definitely pose some coordination challenges in being able to reliably account for all of the address space at any given moment. Which is exactly my point. Given that market forces are driving the establishment of (presumably) competitive address registrars, of which the first two now apparently exist, how are network operators going to deal with the proliferation of whois databases they're going to need to query to establish 'ownership' of prefixes? What we lack is any meaningful proposals on how to restructure the Internet number registry system, including what are the goals of doing such, how are those goals and the existing requirements are met, and what protections are needed for integrity of the system. Unfortunately, I suspect we are past the time in which a well thought out, global consultative action (even assuming an agreeable venue for such a consultation can be identified) would result in a plan of action before being overtaken by events. There are already two address registrars and at least 5 (6 if you count IANA) address whois databases. I expect there to be more in the future, particularly now there is an existence proof that you can sell addresses and the Internet doesn't explode. Hoever, perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. What venue do you propose for a global consultative action to be taken in an open, transparent, an unbiased manner? Personally, I do not see it as inevitable that alternative registries must have a detrimental impact to the WHOIS database, unless they are introduced in an uncoordinated manner and without global discussion of the actual goals. This coming from the CEO of the RIR that decided to come up with their own (and yet another) completely new replacement for the whois protocol (maybe the 5th attempt will be the charm)... Regards, -drc
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:16 PM, David Conrad wrote: However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly being proposed. What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and multiple competing 'post-allocation services' providers. A single registry with a single database schema and data representation would seem to me to be infinitely better than what we have now (and what it looks like we're moving towards). I personally don't have a strong opinion on the competitive address registrar idea as long as there is a consistent set of registration requirements, but in my experience (reasonably regulated) competition tends to bring higher quality/lower prices vs. monopolies. Alas, you seem to have better perception skills, since I can't find any proposal containing any of what you outlined above. What we lack is any meaningful proposals on how to restructure the Internet number registry system, including what are the goals of doing such, how are those goals and the existing requirements are met, and what protections are needed for integrity of the system. Unfortunately, I suspect we are past the time in which a well thought out, global consultative action (even assuming an agreeable venue for such a consultation can be identified) would result in a plan of action before being overtaken by events. There are already two address registrars and at least 5 (6 if you count IANA) address whois databases. I expect there to be more in the future, particularly now there is an existence proof that you can sell addresses and the Internet doesn't explode. How does transfer of number resources within a region imply additional whois databases? Hoever, perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. What venue do you propose for a global consultative action to be taken in an open, transparent, an unbiased manner? I've suggested ICANN, IGF, or the RIRs... (I include the last one specifically for Mr. Mueller, since he observed One comes away with the conviction that the so-called bottom up policymaking .. is actually (more or less) seriously pursued here. and I really liked the way nearly all ARIN discussions are in plenary and decisions are actually made. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/4/20/4509826.html) FYI, /John
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly being proposed. What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and multiple competing 'post-allocation services' providers. Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs exclusively supply today? IN-ADDR delegation, WHOIS registration, and ... that's pretty much it, right? People want to separate the DNS and WHOIS database from ARIN and create new businesses to charge new fees for providing that? Sign me up. As a vendor. I'd love to over-charge for the dead simple task of using an API to push DNS delegation updates to the IN-ADDR servers, and running a whois server. What a great business! I'm sure GoDaddy.com would be happy to add this service to their portfolio. Where is the value for stakeholders? If you really want WHOIS output with a common, unified structure, you can do that. Bulk access to RIR data is available today. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different entities providing fragmented post-allocation services is of any benefit. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different entities providing fragmented post-allocation services is of any benefit. Jeff - Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few unneeded addresses and the upheaval also meant no pesky policy constraints on your monetization efforts - would you then view it as having some benefit? You just might not have the right perspective to appreciate the potential up$ide... /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:37 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few unneeded addresses and the upheaval also meant no pesky policy constraints on your monetization efforts - would you then view it as having some benefit? You just might not have the right perspective to appreciate the potential up$ide... In this view, then, the benefit of independent, fragmented WHOIS databases and API access to IN-ADDR DNS zones is that addresses could be traded outside of RIR policy. It seems to me that RIR policy would need to change to allow such third-party databases to publish delgation data to DNS/WHOIS. Since this is the case, end-user advocates of such system should simply argue in favor of eliminating any justification for transfer recipients. In this case, ARIN would naturally supply the same DNS and WHOIS service they do to allocation-holders today. I still see no tangible benefit to third-party DNS/WHOIS databases, except to the operators of those databases. The up$ide seems to be entirely in favor of new database operators, not existing stakeholders. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Re: IPv4 address exchange
John, On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:36 AM, John Curran wrote: There are already two address registrars and at least 5 (6 if you count IANA) address whois databases. I expect there to be more in the future, particularly now there is an existence proof that you can sell addresses and the Internet doesn't explode. How does transfer of number resources within a region imply additional whois databases? Hint: Add % whois -h whois.depository.net 128.8.10.5 to the list I provided you in the previous message. Or are you implying that ARIN and the other RIRs are committing to synchronizing their databases with alternative address registrars as they become established? What venue do you propose for a global consultative action to be taken in an open, transparent, an unbiased manner? I've suggested ICANN, IGF, or the RIRs... I find ARIN's new found interests in engaging in ICANN-related processes heartwarming given my past experiences, but I suspect both the ICANN and RIR venues would be somewhat biased against changing the status quo. As for the IGF, my perhaps mistaken perception is that it has a slightly different focus than dealing with the operational implications of the proliferation of alternative address registrars. The main problem is one of timeliness. I doubt the market is going to wait for IGF, ICANN, or even RIR processes. But we'll see. Regards, -drc
Re: IPv4 address exchange
Jeff, On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs exclusively supply today? Yes. Sign me up. As a vendor. I'd love to over-charge for the dead simple task of using an API to push DNS delegation updates to the IN-ADDR servers, and running a whois server. My guess is that lacking a monopoly, if you over-charge you won't have many customers. If you really want WHOIS output with a common, unified structure, you can do that. Bulk access to RIR data is available today. So your solution is for everyone interested in a common database structure to download the entirety of all the RIR databases and write code to convert the various (changing) formats into a 'common, unified structure'? In any event, such a use would appear to be in violation of ARIN's Bulk Whois AUP (According to http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/curran-to-beckstrom-02mar11-en.pdf, ARIN denied bulk whois access for the stated use of directory mirroring). Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different entities providing fragmented post-allocation services is of any benefit. Some folks find competition in service providers beneficial. Regards, -drc
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, David Conrad wrote: to the list I provided you in the previous message. Or are you implying that ARIN and the other RIRs are committing to synchronizing their databases with alternative address registrars as they become established? If by established, you mean as a result of global policy established by multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model? Quite likely, as ARIN has committed to such principles and has an excellent track record of supporting Internet registry changes that result (e.g. the establishment and recognition of LACNIC and AfriNIC) What venue do you propose for a global consultative action to be taken in an open, transparent, an unbiased manner? I've suggested ICANN, IGF, or the RIRs... I find ARIN's new found interests in engaging in ICANN-related processes heartwarming given my past experiences, but I suspect both the ICANN and RIR venues would be somewhat biased against changing the status quo. As for the IGF, my perhaps mistaken perception is that it has a slightly different focus than dealing with the operational implications of the proliferation of alternative address registrars. The main problem is one of timeliness. I doubt the market is going to wait for IGF, ICANN, or even RIR processes. But we'll see. Quite true... it's very hard to complete in a timely manner something that hasn't yet been started. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 2:56 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs exclusively supply today? Yes. Sign me up. As a vendor. I'd love to over-charge for the dead simple task of using an API to push DNS delegation updates to the IN-ADDR servers, and running a whois server. My guess is that lacking a monopoly, if you over-charge you won't have many customers. Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a $25M cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/PDF/Wednesday/andersen_treasurer.pdf) Cheers, -Benson
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:56 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different entities providing fragmented post-allocation services is of any benefit. Some folks find competition in service providers beneficial. I agree that competition can be quite useful and the result doesn't necessarily have to be be fragmented; it's quite possible to provide transparent referrals to make the services appear as a consistent whole. This requires understanding where the competition is being introduced; is it a single registry and multiple registrars, or multiple registries and synchronization, or some other model? Is there an architecture for this future model, or perhaps even a starting set of goals to work towards agreement on? David - can you share more about what you believe is being proposed? /John
Re: IPv4 address exchange
John, Given ARIN's STLS, it would seem even ARIN has the 'right perspective' to see the up$ide. It's more about the implication of folks having increasing financial incentive to go outside the existing mechanisms (e.g., Nortel/Microsoft) and the implications that has on network operations. Since it would seem we have an impedance mismatch on this topic, I'll not bore NANOG with further discussion. Regards, -drc On Apr 19, 2011, at 11:37 AM, John Curran wrote: On Apr 19, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different entities providing fragmented post-allocation services is of any benefit. Jeff - Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few unneeded addresses and the upheaval also meant no pesky policy constraints on your monetization efforts - would you then view it as having some benefit? You just might not have the right perspective to appreciate the potential up$ide... /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a $25M cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/PDF/Wednesday/andersen_treasurer.pdf) If you want ARIN to reduce its fees, you can propose that. The fiduciaries at ARIN may say, you're right, we do have more money than we need or foresee to need to operate, and recommend that fees be reduced. They may provide justification for this war chest, such as the possibility of legal battles over address transfers. Who knows? Is your problem that ARIN spends its money poorly? I believe it does in some ways, but the community generally does not care enough to try to improve this. I questioned ARIN's travel budget a few years ago and was essentially flamed for doing so. You seem to think the difference between ARIN's expenditures and revenues is too large, resulting in a large cash reserve. Okay, if that's important to you, there is a forum for that discussion. I don't think anything will be done about it through a discussion on NANOG, but you can certainly bring it up on the various ARIN mailing lists, or ask ARIN board/staff to share their thoughts with you. I really don't think the cost of ARIN fees for IP address and ASN allocations are all that important to ARIN members. In my position as a senior technical resource for numerous ARIN members, I am much more interested in ARIN providing more services to members, or improving upon existing ones (IRR), than I am in any reduction of fees. Again, my position is reflected clearly in my public mailing list posts on this subject. Note that one of the things I think ARIN should improve upon, which ARIN has committed to improve, is its IRR database. There are already alternatives available, I'm glad ARIN has decided to increase the usefulness and quality of its IRR database. If they don't, you can still choose to use a third-party database. I don't share your view that a fragmented WHOIS/DNS ecosystem would be all that beneficial to stakeholders. In the absence of ARIN members flocking to PPML to complain about ARIN's travel budget or its increasing cash reserve, I don't think ARIN members are particularly concerned about reducing ARIN's fees. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Comcast's 6to4 Relays
Folks, Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The availability of our 6to4 relays should improve the experience of others using 6to4 as a means to access content and services over IPv6. We have been open about our IPv6 activities and wanted to follow suit by reaching out to the community and soliciting feedback before moving forward. As always we wish to continue to advocate and support the universal deployment of IPv6. Please send any comments or questions to the list or if you wish to me directly. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net =
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a $25M cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/PDF/Wednesday/andersen_treasurer.pdf) If you want ARIN to reduce its fees, you can propose that. The fiduciaries at ARIN may say, you're right, we do have more money than we need or foresee to need to operate, and recommend that fees be reduced. They may provide justification for this war chest, such as the possibility of legal battles over address transfers. Who knows? Is your problem that ARIN spends its money poorly? I believe it does in some ways, but the community generally does not care enough to try to improve this. I questioned ARIN's travel budget a few years ago and was essentially flamed for doing so. You seem to think the difference between ARIN's expenditures and revenues is too large, resulting in a large cash reserve. Okay, if that's important to you, there is a forum for that discussion. I don't think anything will be done about it through a discussion on NANOG, but you can certainly bring it up on the various ARIN mailing lists, or ask ARIN board/staff to share their thoughts with you. I really don't think the cost of ARIN fees for IP address and ASN allocations are all that important to ARIN members. In my position as a senior technical resource for numerous ARIN members, I am much more interested in ARIN providing more services to members, or improving upon existing ones (IRR), than I am in any reduction of fees. Again, my position is reflected clearly in my public mailing list posts on this subject. Note that one of the things I think ARIN should improve upon, which ARIN has committed to improve, is its IRR database. There are already alternatives available, I'm glad ARIN has decided to increase the usefulness and quality of its IRR database. If they don't, you can still choose to use a third-party database. I don't share your view that a fragmented WHOIS/DNS ecosystem would be all that beneficial to stakeholders. In the absence of ARIN members flocking to PPML to complain about ARIN's travel budget or its increasing cash reserve, I don't think ARIN members are particularly concerned about reducing ARIN's fees. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts I recall supporting your objective to ARIN's budget, to include travel and conventions. If memory serves, Mr. Curran simply stated that this is what the community wants and they see value in having ARIN travel all over the region. On the subject of an IPv4 market place, would it be feasible to suggest that ARIN allow pure market economy and then broker the deals, collecting a commission on sales rather than annual maintenance fees? -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a $25M cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/PDF/Wednesday/andersen_treasurer.pdf) ... Is your problem that ARIN spends its money poorly? I believe it does in some ways, but the community generally does not care enough to try to improve this. I questioned ARIN's travel budget a few years ago and was essentially flamed for doing so. I might agree that ARIN wastes money, but that wasn't my point. The context of my comment was your original message, which argued that a competitive registry system would enable vendors to over-charge. Without defining what an optimal cost might be, my comment was intended to show that our current baseline already results in a surplus. And I agree with DRC's comment that competition might improve / optimize costs, rather than inflate them. Cheers, -Benson
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:45 PM, David Conrad wrote: Given ARIN's STLS, it would seem even ARIN has the 'right perspective' to see the up$ide. To be clear, the listing service is simply so that those who want to be contacted because they need address space can identify themselves, along with those who might have some available, or parties that want to act as a broker. ARIN serves non of these roles, doesn't match up parties, and charges a minimal fee ($100) for those who wish to make use of it. Note that providing it for free would have put the cost burden unfairly on the rest of the ARIN community, so we charge. This doesn't compare in the least to parties that wish to introduce unspecified changes to the global Internet number registry system under the theory of unstated benefits for the community, while also serving to directly financially benefit. There may be nothing wrong with that, per se, but those in the community asking for the changes and perceived benefits to be more clearly stated are being quite reasonable under the circumstances. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: Without defining what an optimal cost might be, my comment was intended to show that our current baseline already results in a surplus. I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up. This mysterious Nortel/Microsoft transaction would seem to give credibility to an assumption of increasing cost. Therefore, it stands to reason that the cost of database services associated with being a holder of IP addresses will be inconsequential. If I wanted to own www.abc.com, I could do that for a pretty low cost of $20/year through the various dot-com registries. I am pretty sure ABC would not sell it to me for any price I could afford. Thus, the cost of that domain name lies not with the database services but with the unique string. If anyone thinks that won't be true for IP addresses, by all means, let that person propose to overhaul the IN-ADDR system and possibly the WHOIS database. I do not think stakeholders will agree with their views. IP addresses are finite, and the cost of acquiring them will, in all likelihood, dwarf the cost of publishing ownership/custodial information or operational DNS records. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
On 04/19/2011 13:44, Brzozowski, John wrote: Folks, Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The availability of our 6to4 relays should improve the experience of others using 6to4 as a means to access content and services over IPv6. We have been open about our IPv6 activities and wanted to follow suit by reaching out to the community and soliciting feedback before moving forward. As always we wish to continue to advocate and support the universal deployment of IPv6. Please send any comments or questions to the list or if you wish to me directly. Presumably you(pl.) are aware of the following 2 drafts, which are in WGLC now, and seem likely to be adopted (at least in some form): http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic At minimum one would hope that you're heeding the warnings in the first. Another view (one that I personally hold) is that any effort you might be putting into making 6to4 work better would be better placed in deploying real IPv6 instead; and that the world would be a better place generally if all of the so-called transition mechanisms just went away. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote: At minimum one would hope that you're heeding the warnings in the first. Another view (one that I personally hold) is that any effort you might be putting into making 6to4 work better would be better placed in deploying real IPv6 instead; and that the world would be a better place generally if all of the so-called transition mechanisms just went away. I certainly feel that the lawful-intercept requirements and data retention necessary in a CGN/6to4 environment likely mean the barrier is high enough to suggest moving to IPv6, but the CPE situation is still mostly missing. - Jared
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote: Another view (one that I personally hold) is that any effort you might be putting into making 6to4 work better would be better placed in deploying real IPv6 instead; and that the world would be a better place generally if all of the so-called transition mechanisms just went away. I am all for getting fewer people to use 6to4, especially without them actually making a decision to use it, but giving more people access to high quality (I hope they are) 6to4 relays is seldom a downside. The drafts you mention make special notes that operators should NOT start to shut down relays, first of all we need to get fewer people to use 6to4, THEN we start to remove the relays. Starting at the relay end is bad, mmkay. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up. This mysterious Nortel/Microsoft transaction would seem to give credibility to an assumption of increasing cost. I think we can agree on this. It is the natural result of exhaustion - scarce supply, ongoing demand. It is important to note, however, that this is orthogonal to the registry management structure; we could have increased IPv4 acquisition costs with ARIN, or increased IPv4 acquisition costs with somebody else. Therefore, it stands to reason that the cost of database services associated with being a holder of IP addresses will be inconsequential. ... If anyone thinks that won't be true for IP addresses, by all means, let that person propose to overhaul the IN-ADDR system and possibly the WHOIS database. I do not think stakeholders will agree with their views. IP addresses are finite, and the cost of acquiring them will, in all likelihood, dwarf the cost of publishing ownership/custodial information or operational DNS records. As I agreed above, acquisition costs will go up regardless. The real question is total cost, which is (basically) the acquisition price plus the ongoing registry maintenance costs. As one possibility, an overhaul might result in less expensive (or even free) registry services being provided by brokers. Assuming market prices aren't affected by the overhaul, the total cost might thus be lower with a broker versus ARIN. Perhaps this is a small impact, but it's real. More importantly, an overhaul to the registry system that facilitates liquidity in the market may introduce additional benefits. (e.g. more predictable and/or lower acquisition costs) I'm not an economist and I'm open to contrary arguments, but I see potential upsides to an overhaul that don't exist with the status quo. Cheers, -Benson
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
On Apr 19, 2011 2:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote: Another view (one that I personally hold) is that any effort you might be putting into making 6to4 work better would be better placed in deploying real IPv6 instead; and that the world would be a better place generally if all of the so-called transition mechanisms just went away. I am all for getting fewer people to use 6to4, especially without them actually making a decision to use it, but giving more people access to high quality (I hope they are) 6to4 relays is seldom a downside. The drafts you mention make special notes that operators should NOT start to shut down relays, first of all we need to get fewer people to use 6to4, THEN we start to remove the relays. Starting at the relay end is bad, mmkay. +1. 6to4 is very bad and should be off my default, but unfortunately many end users unwittingly have it on and this may provide them some relief. More ipv6 leadership from the Comcast camp. Keep it up. Cb -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
John, On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com wrote: Folks, Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The availability of our 6to4 relays should improve the experience of others using 6to4 as a means to access content and services over IPv6. I think it is a correct and welcome move on the north american internet market and that it will improve 6to4 performance there as 6to4 is phased out. Regards, Martin
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 16:47 -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Apr 19, 2011 2:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: +1. 6to4 is very bad and should be off my default, but unfortunately many end users unwittingly have it on and this may provide them some relief. So am I to understand that services like Toredo client (which is what I PRESUME is being discussed) is on automatically in some Windows desktop systems? The drafts I saw posted earlier were discussing what is essentially toredo services (anycast tunnel) at least. If this is on by default, then that is only bad (in my opinion) IF there is no native IPv6 support on the LAN side of these networks. Maybe I am missing something, but this is my take. More ipv6 leadership from the Comcast camp. Keep it up. Seems to me that if Comcast has announced IPv6 support and it is not NATIVE IPV6 support, then that is certainly a problem. 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. It's not the best solution for sure, but the fact remains that most networks will be dual-stacked at least initially at the core, but the endpoints (customer networks) are outside of our administrative control and often are behind devices that we do not control/own. Maybe I'm missing something... -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * *NOTE MY NEW NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *
IPv4 address exchange
John, Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2 March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy) http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accre ditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf In addition we pointed out, in our opinion, that the current process for reviewing and approving a Global Policy is somewhat skewed towards the Regional Internet Registries. Hence we requested that due to this obvious and readily apparent Conflict-of-Interest (yes, I expect you will disagree with even this, which is so clear that to debate this would be simply too much even by the new standards that you have set recently in your online arguments with Prof. Mueller) we explore other forums to have the merits of the proposal aired. Regards, Peter Thimmesch Chairman
Re: IPv4 address exchange
It is going to be hard to constructively debate the merits of a proposal that begins with a rather condescending ad hominem attack. There are multiple ways to bring a policy discussion in front of a larger / different audience than whatever group or stakeholder community you seek to raise it in, but I seriously doubt if the way you've done this is going to be all that effective. thanks --srs On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Peter Thimmesch peter.thimme...@depository.net wrote: John, Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2 March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy) http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accre ditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf In addition we pointed out, in our opinion, that the current process for reviewing and approving a Global Policy is somewhat skewed towards the Regional Internet Registries. Hence we requested that due to this obvious and readily apparent Conflict-of-Interest (yes, I expect you will disagree with even this, which is so clear that to debate this would be simply too much even by the new standards that you have set recently in your online arguments with Prof. Mueller) we explore other forums to have the merits of the proposal aired. Regards, Peter Thimmesch Chairman -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
Butch, On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: The drafts I saw posted earlier were discussing what is essentially toredo services (anycast tunnel) at least. 6to4 is significantly different from Teredo, since it: a) it does not hurt web deployments using DNS records for their resources (src/dst addr selection, and more) b) it works from behind a NAT, If this is on by default, then that is only bad (in my opinion) IF there is no native IPv6 support on the LAN side of these networks. Maybe I am missing something, but this is my take. In the case of 6to4, this is only true if your source/destination address selection works properly. Teredo adds extra safety to really make it a ipv4-ipv6 connection mechanism of last resort. 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. I must point you to Geoff Hustons most recent ISP posting: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2011-04/teredo.html It gives a very good picture of the Teredo support out in the wild. It also makes it abundantly clear that Teredo is not a reliable auto-tunneling mechanism (if such a mechanism ever can exist): 6to4 looks like flawlessness in comparison with Teredo when it comes to connection success ratios. Yet, virtually nobody has so far been complaining over issues caused by Teredo being active on their hosts. And there are some situations where it is OK that only 2 out of 3 connections succeed, if it means your system can work better: Notably, peer-to-peer applications can make use of this to establish connections in a cloud, using DHT instead of DNS for peer propagation, and Teredo relays as the rendezvous mechanism. I would, however, not want to rely on this for calls in Skype, for example. My (current) personal opinion on the situation is that application developers who do not want to use the last-resort NAT-trespassing method of establishing connectivity that Teredo supplies, must decide in their code not to use it. Some peer-to-peer applications have been known for years to come with a Enable IPv6-button, because it improved the applications performance to do so. So, in a world where some applications will enable it, other applications will have to *not use it*, else the applications will end-up in a race-condition on whether the protocol is enabled or not. It's not the best solution for sure, but the fact remains that most networks will be dual-stacked at least initially at the core, but the endpoints (customer networks) are outside of our administrative control and often are behind devices that we do not control/own. Maybe I'm missing something... AFAIK, there's ongoing work in IETF to address this. I think one of the wg's is softwire, http://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/ , but I have not followed this at all. Regards, Martin
Re: IPv4 address exchange
On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Peter Thimmesch wrote: John, Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2 March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy) http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accre ditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf Excellent. Thanks for pointing that out to the Nanog community. In addition we pointed out, in our opinion, that the current process for reviewing and approving a Global Policy is somewhat skewed towards the Regional Internet Registries. Hence we requested that due to this obvious and readily apparent Conflict-of-Interest (yes, I expect you will disagree with even this, which is so clear that to debate this would be simply too much even by the new standards that you have set recently in your online arguments with Prof. Mueller) we explore other forums to have the merits of the proposal aired. I'm certain that such forums will support multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development, so that this community can participate in consideration of the merits. Perhaps you can elaborate how the Nanog community can get involved and provide feedback on the proposal? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Butch Evans wrote: +1. 6to4 is very bad and should be off my default, but unfortunately many end users unwittingly have it on and this may provide them some relief. So am I to understand that services like Toredo client (which is what I PRESUME is being discussed) is on automatically in some Windows desktop systems? No. 6to4 is RFC 3056/3068, and Teredo is a proprietary Microsoft technology documented in RFC 4380 with its updates. John and Cameron are talking about 6to4.
RE: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
Mr. John, I thank you for asking the advice of the community. As our colleagues suggest, having 6to4 relays inside the network helps to reduce the latency. Opening up your generous services to a larger Internet community by advertising the 192.88.99.0/24 BGP prefix outside the network could have extreme and unintended consequences. To give you an idea, a lot of the Internet in India depends on the service of the Tata companies, with international routing coming from Tata Communications AS 6453. Announcing 192.88.99.0/24 to 6453 as a customer, I would worry about its treatment as BGP best-path, in place of closer 6to4 relays. As you understand, these circuits are very far away, and also very full. This is not something I would recommend. Sincerely, Bhoomi Jain At 19 Apr 2011 22:51:24 +0200 (CEST) from Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com: Folks, Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The availability of our 6to4 relays should improve the experience of others using 6to4 as a means to access content and services over IPv6. We have been open about our IPv6 activities and wanted to follow suit by reaching out to the community and soliciting feedback before moving forward. As always we wish to continue to advocate and support the universal deployment of IPv6. Please send any comments or questions to the list or if you wish to me directly. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozowski@[cable.comcast.com] o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) [http://www.comcast6.net] =
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Bhoomi Jain bhoo...@india.com wrote: Mr. John, I thank you for asking the advice of the community. As our colleagues suggest, having 6to4 relays inside the network helps to reduce the latency. Opening up your generous services to a larger Internet community by advertising the 192.88.99.0/24 BGP prefix outside the network could have extreme and unintended consequences. To give you an idea, a lot of the Internet in India depends on the service of the Tata companies, with international routing coming from Tata Communications AS 6453. Announcing 192.88.99.0/24 to 6453 as a customer, I would worry about its treatment as BGP best-path, in place of closer 6to4 relays. As you understand, these circuits are very far away, and also very full. This is not something I would recommend. Sincerely, Bhoomi Jain On the contrary; I think Comcast announcing their 6to4 relays through TATA could be just the incentive the Internet needs to kick the 6to4 habit completely, and decide once and for all the only sane option is dual-stack native. ;-) Matt
RE: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bhoomi Jain wrote: To give you an idea, a lot of the Internet in India depends on the service of the Tata companies, with international routing coming from Tata Communications AS 6453. Announcing 192.88.99.0/24 to 6453 as a customer, I would worry about its treatment as BGP best-path, in place of closer 6to4 relays. As you understand, these circuits are very far away, and also very full. This is not something I would recommend. Perhaps you should try convincing Tata to setup their own 6to4 relay so they can provide a better experience for their own customers who, for whatever reason, may not be able to get or use native IPv6 for quite some time. -- Antonio Querubin e-mail: t...@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioqueru...@gmail.com
