Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
In message CAAAwwbUbWwK09vPfLJ89HyiupP5pP7ZypBhAbM4WMhFHe-=x...@mail.gmail.com, Jimmy Hess writes: On 12/7/12, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] It seems you have an issue with the automated system of one provider in your RIR service region.This is unusual, I think; for the provider to not ask what NIC handle, or WHOIS detail should be listed for an assignment. I would suggest calling up the provider, and attempt to work out a solution with them where you get a /64, and the contact you want listed in WHOIS. The provider suballocating a block of IP addresses, can obviously apply additional policy to them -- such as additional requirements on what is shown in WHOIS. However, you can pick a different provider if necessary.. -- -J It's also more than likely a hold over of IPv4 think where, generally, only companies are allocated address blocks. I would be ringing the ISP and talking to the staff escalating until you get to someone who understands the issue. Also a /64 is ridiculously small for a company and it really too small for individuals so it very much looks like this ISP hasn't applied enough thought to this area. Trail blazing is hard work but someone has to do it. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
On 8 December 2012 13:03, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: It's also more than likely a hold over of IPv4 think where, generally, only companies are allocated address blocks. I would be ringing the ISP and talking to the staff escalating until you get to someone who understands the issue. Also a /64 is ridiculously small for a company and it really too small for individuals so it very much looks like this ISP hasn't applied enough thought to this area. Trail blazing is hard work but someone has to do it. This might be a good advice for a home or an office obtaining internet connectivity with a dynamic IP address or at a location remote from an he.net POP. However, it's not something that I am, as an individual renting a single server at a great price and only 5ms from Frankfurt, an HE.net POP, is willing to go through. Why go through all the hoops where HE's tunnelbroker.net already provides the same service, but with shorter addresses and better latency, and without any self-made RIPE-blamed headaches and extra rules? Also, specifically in regards to hetzner.de, if I'd like to switch from one of their servers to another, a tunnelbroker.net-issued address will let me have a seamless failover, whereas a native IPv6 /64 from hetzner.de might have to be given up and obtained anew (and one might again have to go through all the hoops in order to obtain a new one). I've tried contacting their support through their web-interface, but they've repeatedly claimed that I've agreed to have my data provided to RIPE. ??? But then, again, I don't speak any German; and they, obviously, have to minimise their costs by a great deal of automation in order to keep their prices low. At this point, I don't see a single good reason of why I should continue bothering them, instead of simply using what already works great -- tunnelbroker.net. Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6 support, instead of the one provided by HE.net through their free tunnelbroker.net service. HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK); which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for hetzner.de, whereas for native IPv6 traffic they might have to be paying for transit costs, depending on the destination. HE.net probably wins, too; since being the place-to-go-for-IPv6 might make it easier for them to have more settlement-free peering with big transit providers such as ATT (Bay-Area-wise, they still have IPv6 traffic going through their peering in Los Angeles). C.
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
Hi, hmm, they get away with it once again. On the other hand their prices stay low. Off-topic but somehow important to me: HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK); which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for hetzner.de Is that true? That would be great! Regards Dan
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Dan Luedtke m...@danrl.de wrote: Off-topic but somehow important to me: HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK); which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for hetzner.de Is that true? That would be great! Just because companies A and B don't have a customer relationship doesn't mean all their interactions with each other are free. So no, it's not true. Costs come from needing to buy bigger routers, bigger waves or fiber to the exchanges, bigger ports on the exchanges, etc. Peering is a scam. -- Darius Jahandarie
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
On Dec 08, 2012, at 21:14 , Darius Jahandarie djahanda...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Dan Luedtke m...@danrl.de wrote: Off-topic but somehow important to me: HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK); which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for hetzner.de Is that true? That would be great! Just because companies A and B don't have a customer relationship doesn't mean all their interactions with each other are free. So no, it's not true. Costs come from needing to buy bigger routers, bigger waves or fiber to the exchanges, bigger ports on the exchanges, etc. Peering is a scam. The vast majority of AS-AS boundaries on the Internet are settlement free peering. I guess that makes the Internet a scam. As for the costs involved, free is a relative term. Most people think of peering as free because there is zero marginal cost. Kinda. Obviously if you think of your 10G IX port as a sunk cost, pushing 11 Gbps over it is not 'free' as you have to upgrade. But again, most people understand what is meant. Bigger waves bigger routers are not due to peering, they are due to customer traffic - you know, the thing ISPs sell. Put another way, this is a Good Thing (tm). Or at least it should be. Unless, of course, you are trying to convince us all that selling too many units of your primary product is somehow bad. Peering allows you, in most cases, to lower the Cost Of Goods Sold on that product. Again, usually a Good Thing (tm). Unless you are again trying to convince us all that selling at a higher margin (we'll ignore the lower latency better overall experience) is somehow bad. -- TTFN, patrick
Charter Issues in SE Washington State.
Hi, Just wondering if there was anyone around that might know what is up with Charter Internet in South Eastern Washington State (Walla Walla / Tri-Cities). Could even be a larger area that is effected. As usual the normal support doesn't really know anything. On the plus side the lady I got a few hours ago was pleasant on the phone. I thought I would post here vs Outages as this issue is probably only effecting a small population. One which I live in and use them at home. (My datacenter and upstreams are not having issues that I know of) Sincerely, Mark
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6 support, instead of the one provided by HE.net through their free tunnelbroker.net service. HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK); Yes, HE has a one-word peering policy… YES! However, that means that if hetzner peered IPv6 native with us, we would provide them every thing you get through tunnel broker still at no cost and without any limitations on bandwidth. We don't artificially limit the bandwidth on tunnel broker, but, each tunnel broker server has a single network interface that it hairpins the v4/v6 traffic on and the bandwidth is what it is. I don't expect that will be an issue any time soon, but for planning purposes, people should understand that tunnel broker is a where-is-as-is service on a best effort basis with no SLA. We do offer production grade tunnel services for a fee and people are welcome to contact me off-list for more information. which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for hetzner.de, whereas for native IPv6 traffic they might have to be paying for transit costs, depending on the destination. HE.net We would really rather see such traffic come native across our peering links as much as possible. It allows us to provide a higher quality of service. probably wins, too; since being the place-to-go-for-IPv6 might make it easier for them to have more settlement-free peering with big transit providers such as ATT (Bay-Area-wise, they still have IPv6 traffic going through their peering in Los Angeles). Being a popular IPv6 peer and having so many tunnel broker users has been a great success story for us, yes. However, in terms of how this affects our standing for peering, I think that the effect is the same regardless of whether we are passing the traffic from/to a peering link or a tunnel broker. Owen
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
On 8 December 2012 16:12, Dan Luedtke m...@danrl.de wrote: Hi, hmm, they get away with it once again. On the other hand their prices stay low. Off-topic but somehow important to me: HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK); which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for hetzner.de Is that true? That would be great! That's not actually off-topic, but the whole point of my thread: It's being implied everywhere that native IPv6 is somehow important to seek, since we're running out of IPv4 addresses. I myself have recently trolled on LowEndBox.com, annoying every new provider with a it's 2012, do you support IPv6?-style questions. Until I then signed up with a couple of such established providers that did clearly advertise IPv6 support, and realised that, as long as there's tunnelbroker.net, native IPv6 is nothing more than purely a marketing concept in situations where you are already getting a dedicated server (either virtual or physical) as setting up a reliable tunnel on such a server is just so damn easy, reliable, fast and hassle-free. I still think that native IPv6 is important for end-users at home and on the go from the operator's perspective (T-Mobile USA is practically ready to shutdown IPv4 w/ NAT44 and go with IPv6 + NAT64 + DNS64 + 464XLAT), but for individual servers close to an IX with HE.net, where all native IPv4/IPv6 traffic has to go through that very same Internet eXchange point anyways, native IPv6 can only be slower, more expensive, more insecure and less feature rich. And the providers have no incentives (quite the opposite, as I've contemplated above), since it's not like in the server room they could drop IPv4 support any time soon anyways -- no client would approve. In summary, I'd be very happy to try out hetzner.de's native IPv6 if they sort it out one day and will offer short, abbreviatable addresses, and without violating my privacy; until then, I'm very happy with their prices and being a proven shop, and still happy to be their customer with a bring-your-own IPv6 aka tunnelbroker.net. :-) C.
