Re: website in ipv6
In message , Kenny Sallee w rites: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Deric Kwok wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > I am trying to configure website for testing ipv6 > > > > Just wander how internet users eg: DSL users can visit this website > > and any people can access this website over the world > > > > > I did this by creating a 6to4 tunnel to a relay provided by 6in4, not 6to4. While HE do operate 6to4 relays, the brokered tunnel service is 6in4. > www.tunnelbroker.net provided by Hurricane Electric - a great service they > provide BTW. They provide sample configuration templates for various > routers and OS's. I created the 'tunnel' from a Cisco 871w router (don't > forget to configure a firewall here since you'll get IPv6 public IP's > assigned to you). I used their block of v6 addresses they assigned to me, > along with IPv4 addresses I already had - ie dual-stack, on my various > windows and linux boxes behind my firewall. I then used their IPv6 DNS > server, which returns IPV6 addressing if there's an record for the > website you are going to. Some sites - like google search are reachable via > different DNS names, like ipv6.google.com or ipv6.cnn.com...and > www.v6.facebook.com. > > You can also build / use Teredo tunnels - which I tested and worked as well > - tho not as good as from the routers. This works well for hosts behind > IPv4 NAT > > Finally, you can test your personal IPv6 connectivity here: > > http://test-ipv6.com/ > > And you can test if your site, or any site, is reachable via IPv6 here: > http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php if you do not have IPv6 configured. > > Good luck, > Kenny -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: AS and advertisen questions
Hi all Thank you so much for your help I am not using cisco. From my understanding from your mail, I should configure bgp as the following. Right? What do I should pay attention also? Seattle: network 66.49.130.0/24 announce out permit: 66.49.130.0/24 announce out deny 0.0.0.0 deny in 66.49.130.0/24 permit in any New York: network 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 network. announce out permit 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 network. announce out deny 0.0.0.0 deny in 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 network permit in any Thank you again On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:11 PM, David Swafford wrote: > Yep, we do it that way. > > We basically treat each of our datacenter's as their own entity, using > separate space for each, but all with the same AS #. What Joel > mentioned is going to be the major catch, in that for each of the two > disconnected AS's to accept the opposite sites routes, you'd need to > relax BGP's loop prevention check (which looks for it's own AS # > within the AS Path of incoming routes). > > If your on Cisco gear, you'd need to add an additional command under > the BGP neighbor configuration that says "allowas-in". Here's a breif > doc from Cisco on configuring this > http://www.cisco.com/image/gif/paws/112236/allowas-in-bgp-config-example.pdf > > David. > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> >> 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 ipv6 network. >>> >>> Thank you >> >> Assuming you want the two instances to be able talk to each other you just >> have to relax loop detection so that you will accept prefixes from your AS... >> >
Re: website in ipv6
In message <4e08af25.4090...@network-services.uoregon.edu>, John Kemp writes: > The more optimistic number was that something like 20% - 30% of clients > could retrieve an IPV6-Only Literal URL. So yeah, still sad, but there > is some potential there. Given most of that traffic is going through automatic tunnels from behind firewalls that generally havn't been configured to support the tunnels I don't think it is that bad. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?
The SRX line is nice for some uses, particularly with recent software updates that have fixed things like using IPv6 on vlan interfaces. The SRX is not going to be the choice for an edge router that needs to do BGP and/or 1 Gb/s+ of traffic. The SRX pretty much does everything in software, where the MX routes packets in ASICs. SRX is great for a firewall box, or to be the edge for a small network. I do wish there was an even lower-end MX than the new MX5 (all hardware routing, but ~$10k), as I would have many uses for such a thing in networks that only have a few uplinks of ~1 Gb/s. I don't need 20 Gb of throughput for that. But, if the budget allows for an MX5 (~$30k MSRP) or bigger, the MX line is very nice. -Randy - Original Message - > Heh, I spent about 3mo evaluating/testing SRX's and I agree they had > potential but left /a lot/ to be desired. > > -Jeremy > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > Sorry... I misspoke. My comments related to the SRX series and not > > the MX. > > > > The MX is a fine product in my experience. > > > > Owen > > > > On Jun 25, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Howard Hart wrote: > > > > > > > > We have a couple installed as our edge routers. > > > > > > Pluses - solid as a rock, easy to administer, and will take some > > extremely high packet rates for relatively low cost (important for > > us since > > we use them for VoIP traffic). If you're approaching the capacity > > of a 1GB > > uplink, I highly recommend these as your first step to 10 GB. > > > > > > Minuses - careful on your MX80 version. The MX80-48T includes a > > > built in > > 48 port 1 GigE switch, but we've had compatibility issues with it > > and other > > vendors switches. The modular version that replaces the MX80-48T > > costs quite > > a bit more, but it does give you a lot more connection and > > compatibility > > options. > > > > > > Howard Hart > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2011, at 9:37 PM, "Ryan Finnesey" > > wrote: > > > > > >> I would love to know the same I am looking at the MX line as > > >> well for a > > >> new network build-out > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Ryan > > >> > > >> > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:29 AM > > >> To: nanog@nanog.org > > >> Subject: What do you think about the Juniper MX line? > > >> > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> I've been doing some research into using the MX line of Juniper > > >> routers > > >> and was interested in hearing people's experiences (the good, > > >> bad, and > > >> ugly). What do you like about them? What do you dislike? > > >> Where are you putting them in your network? Where are you not > > >> putting > > >> them? Why? What other platforms would you consider and why? I > > >> hope to > > >> hear some candid responses, but feel free to respond privately > > >> if you > > >> need to. > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
Re: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?
Heh, I spent about 3mo evaluating/testing SRX's and I agree they had potential but left /a lot/ to be desired. -Jeremy On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Sorry... I misspoke. My comments related to the SRX series and not the MX. > > The MX is a fine product in my experience. > > Owen > > On Jun 25, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Howard Hart wrote: > > > > > We have a couple installed as our edge routers. > > > > Pluses - solid as a rock, easy to administer, and will take some > extremely high packet rates for relatively low cost (important for us since > we use them for VoIP traffic). If you're approaching the capacity of a 1GB > uplink, I highly recommend these as your first step to 10 GB. > > > > Minuses - careful on your MX80 version. The MX80-48T includes a built in > 48 port 1 GigE switch, but we've had compatibility issues with it and other > vendors switches. The modular version that replaces the MX80-48T costs quite > a bit more, but it does give you a lot more connection and compatibility > options. > > > > Howard Hart > > > > On Jun 25, 2011, at 9:37 PM, "Ryan Finnesey" > wrote: > > > >> I would love to know the same I am looking at the MX line as well for a > >> new network build-out > >> > >> Cheers > >> Ryan > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:29 AM > >> To: nanog@nanog.org > >> Subject: What do you think about the Juniper MX line? > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I've been doing some research into using the MX line of Juniper routers > >> and was interested in hearing people's experiences (the good, bad, and > >> ugly). What do you like about them? What do you dislike? > >> Where are you putting them in your network? Where are you not putting > >> them? Why? What other platforms would you consider and why? I hope to > >> hear some candid responses, but feel free to respond privately if you > >> need to. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> > > >
Re: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?
Sorry... I misspoke. My comments related to the SRX series and not the MX. The MX is a fine product in my experience. Owen On Jun 25, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Howard Hart wrote: > > We have a couple installed as our edge routers. > > Pluses - solid as a rock, easy to administer, and will take some extremely > high packet rates for relatively low cost (important for us since we use them > for VoIP traffic). If you're approaching the capacity of a 1GB uplink, I > highly recommend these as your first step to 10 GB. > > Minuses - careful on your MX80 version. The MX80-48T includes a built in 48 > port 1 GigE switch, but we've had compatibility issues with it and other > vendors switches. The modular version that replaces the MX80-48T costs quite > a bit more, but it does give you a lot more connection and compatibility > options. > > Howard Hart > > On Jun 25, 2011, at 9:37 PM, "Ryan Finnesey" > wrote: > >> I would love to know the same I am looking at the MX line as well for a >> new network build-out >> >> Cheers >> Ryan >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:29 AM >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: What do you think about the Juniper MX line? >> >> Hello, >> >> I've been doing some research into using the MX line of Juniper routers >> and was interested in hearing people's experiences (the good, bad, and >> ugly). What do you like about them? What do you dislike? >> Where are you putting them in your network? Where are you not putting >> them? Why? What other platforms would you consider and why? I hope to >> hear some candid responses, but feel free to respond privately if you >> need to. >> >> Thanks! >> >>
Re: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?
I think they have the potential to be great products. Unfortunately, services JunOS is a serious handicap if you want to use it as a Juniper Router and not a JunOS speaking netscreen. Owen On Jun 25, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: > I would love to know the same I am looking at the MX line as well for a > new network build-out > > Cheers > Ryan > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:29 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: What do you think about the Juniper MX line? > > Hello, > > I've been doing some research into using the MX line of Juniper routers > and was interested in hearing people's experiences (the good, bad, and > ugly). What do you like about them? What do you dislike? > Where are you putting them in your network? Where are you not putting > them? Why? What other platforms would you consider and why? I hope to > hear some candid responses, but feel free to respond privately if you > need to. > > Thanks! >
Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures
On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > 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? > > motors don't produce DC? > They can. > tesla vs edison? > Tesla was right, Edison was a better marketing person. AC works better for long-distance transmission. AC could have been made much safer had we chosen a 2Khz+ frequency rather than a 60Hz frequency. > human safe dc voltage requires comically large conductors for the sorts of > loads we energize? > So does human safe AC voltage. The key difference is that AC voltage is much easier to change efficiently (transformers) whereas DC-DC voltage transitions require either an inverter (DC->AC->DC) inefficient and usually mechanical, a motor/generator set (inefficient and mechanical), or a DC-DC converter circuit which tends to be horribly inefficient and expensive, especially at high amperage. Owen
Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures
On 6/27/11 1:19 PM, Matthew Black wrote: On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:29:14 -0400 Jay Ashworth wrote: The North American Electric Reliability Council is planning to relax the standards for how closely power utilities must hold to 60.00Hz. Here's my absolute favorite quote of all time: Tweaking the power grid's frequency is expensive and takes a lot of effort, said Joe McClelland, head of electric reliability for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I blinked too after hearing of this. They say it's an economic issue because it costs millions of dollars to maintain a steady frequency. Excuse me...we probably spend over $50 billion per year on electricity and they're complaining about a few million. Talk about pinching pennies! matthew black It's not just a cash issue. Frequency controls how power moves through the grid. Power flows from the higher frequency area to the lower frequency area (not exactly but close enough for this discussion). It limits the ability to generate power in areas that have excess and loads transmission lines with power being used to correct frequency. Mark
Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:29:14 -0400 Jay Ashworth wrote: The North American Electric Reliability Council is planning to relax the standards for how closely power utilities must hold to 60.00Hz. Here's my absolute favorite quote of all time: Tweaking the power grid's frequency is expensive and takes a lot of effort, said Joe McClelland, head of electric reliability for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I blinked too after hearing of this. They say it's an economic issue because it costs millions of dollars to maintain a steady frequency. Excuse me...we probably spend over $50 billion per year on electricity and they're complaining about a few million. Talk about pinching pennies! matthew black e-mail postmaster california state university, long beach
Re: website in ipv6
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Deric Kwok wrote: > Hi all > > I am trying to configure website for testing ipv6 > > Just wander how internet users eg: DSL users can visit this website > and any people can access this website over the world > > I did this by creating a 6to4 tunnel to a relay provided by www.tunnelbroker.net provided by Hurricane Electric - a great service they provide BTW. They provide sample configuration templates for various routers and OS's. I created the 'tunnel' from a Cisco 871w router (don't forget to configure a firewall here since you'll get IPv6 public IP's assigned to you). I used their block of v6 addresses they assigned to me, along with IPv4 addresses I already had - ie dual-stack, on my various windows and linux boxes behind my firewall. I then used their IPv6 DNS server, which returns IPV6 addressing if there's an record for the website you are going to. Some sites - like google search are reachable via different DNS names, like ipv6.google.com or ipv6.cnn.com...and www.v6.facebook.com. You can also build / use Teredo tunnels - which I tested and worked as well - tho not as good as from the routers. This works well for hosts behind IPv4 NAT Finally, you can test your personal IPv6 connectivity here: http://test-ipv6.com/ And you can test if your site, or any site, is reachable via IPv6 here: http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php if you do not have IPv6 configured. Good luck, Kenny
Re: website in ipv6
On 6/26/11 5:34 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <20110627002625.4c8531137...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews writes > : >> >> In message , Deric Kwok >> wr >> ites: >>> Hi all >>> >>> I am trying to configure website for testing ipv6 >>> >>> Just wander how internet users eg: DSL users can visit this website >>> and any people can access this website over the world >>> >>> Thank you >> >> About 10-6% of the net is dual stack capable, there is a working >> IPv6 path from the brower to the server. About 0.4% of the net >> prefers IPv6 over IPv4. It was higher but changes to depreference >> using 2002::/16 (6to4) as a source address have been pushed in >> various OS updates. >> >> http://www.potaroo.net/stats/1x1/sitec/v6hosts.png > > I meant to post the aggregate graph. > > http://www.potaroo.net/stats/1x1/v6hosts.png > >> This is updated daily. >> >> APNIC/Geoff could use more test data sources. >> http://labs.apnic.net/index.shtml >> >> Mark >> -- >> Mark Andrews, ISC >> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org >> The more optimistic number was that something like 20% - 30% of clients could retrieve an IPV6-Only Literal URL. So yeah, still sad, but there is some potential there. --- John Kemp (k...@routeviews.org) RouteViews Engineer NOC: h...@routeviews.org http://www.routeviews.org
Re: Fwd: Service Provider Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
Dear NANOG We really appreciate response to the survey. We could get 63 response from global operators groups. And we had published result of the survey as internet-draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02 We would like to refer the survey result to improve vender implementation. Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? YES:13,NO:49 Q3.If you select No on Q2,why? Do not have the need:10 Did not know about the feature:5 No benefits expected:10 Customer would complain:5 Because I read RIPE-379:15 Other:6 Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? Default Parameter:6 RIPE-178:1 RIPE-210:0 RIPE-229:1 Other:7 Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?'' YES:33 NO:29 Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? YES:24 NO:32 Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress Threshold should be set to 6K.Do you think the default value on implementations should be changed to 6K? YES:17 NO:18 Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box. Please see the draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02#section-3.8.2 Best Regards, -Shishio
