Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: It's being implied everywhere that native IPv6 is somehow important to seek, since we're running out of IPv4 addresses. Ok, so I'll give you that tunneling a really short bit, tunneling isn't too bad, but native is most of the time better. 5+ years back we used to run 6bone for out IPv6 connectivity. It was hugely broken. As soon as we started running native ipv6 in the core and started peering natively, quality improved hugely. So yes, 6RD or alike where tunneling is done locally within the ISP or very close to it, is a valid deployment scenario, but middle/long term, native is better. And IPv6 is not a short term fix for IPv4 address runout, it's a long term solution for it. As humankind, we just failed to get it deployed in time for the long term solution to be widely available before we ran out of IPv4 addresses. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
reliable tunnel bzzzt! oxymoron alert!!!
Possibly a little OT, has spam in theme
What is nifty.com? Is it legitimate? The web page is in Chinese. I noticed they were trying to do a lot of connects to our mail servers but were in the block list and seem to have been for years. So I opened it up because fool that I am I like to believe people mend their ways. It instantly began flooding us with spam, lottery-office@whatever, dictionary attacks, that kind of thing. So I blocked them again. I've never had a customer complaint about this block. It's making me lose faith in humanity, a little. Totally gratuitous internet governance snark: And they're meeting in Dubai because some countries believe they can be the new sheriff in town? HAH! We've got a hundred million teenagers with whiskey and loaded shotguns roaming the landscape and they think it's just a matter of showing a little authority from people with snappy new uniforms...good luck with that buckaroos! -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Possibly a little OT, has spam in theme
Actually it's in Japanese. Nifty is one of the oldest (and at one time, largest) access services in Japan. It's owned by owned by Fujitsu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifty_Corporation http://www.nifty.co.jp/english/ From here it looks like it's originated by AS2510, which is also Fujistsu. So it is legitimate, even if the unwanted traffic your receiving is not. TV On Dec 9, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Barry Shein wrote: What is nifty.com? Is it legitimate? The web page is in Chinese. I noticed they were trying to do a lot of connects to our mail servers but were in the block list and seem to have been for years. So I opened it up because fool that I am I like to believe people mend their ways. It instantly began flooding us with spam, lottery-office@whatever, dictionary attacks, that kind of thing. So I blocked them again. I've never had a customer complaint about this block. It's making me lose faith in humanity, a little. Totally gratuitous internet governance snark: And they're meeting in Dubai because some countries believe they can be the new sheriff in town? HAH! We've got a hundred million teenagers with whiskey and loaded shotguns roaming the landscape and they think it's just a matter of showing a little authority from people with snappy new uniforms...good luck with that buckaroos! -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Final Reminder: Call for Presentations: NANOG 57 in Orlando, FL
NANOG Community, The North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) will hold their 57th meeting in Orlando, FL on February 4th through the 6th. Of special note, this is the first meeting that will have a fully Monday through Wednesday agenda. Our host, CyrusOne is eagerly awaiting welcoming you to the Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 57 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet. Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. NANOG 57 submissions are welcome at http://pc.nanog.org http://pc.nanog.org/ For further information on what the Program Committee is seeking, please see http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog57/callforpresentations.htmlhttp://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog56/callforpresentations.html http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog56/callforpresentations.html This will also be our first meeting after the 2012 WCIT in early December, and we expect topical and timely presentations regarding the results When considering submitting a presentation, keep these important dates in mind: Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due: 10-December-2012 Final Slides Due: 7-January-2013 Draft Program Published: 14-January-2013 Final Agenda Published: 18-January-2013 Please submit your materials to http://pc.nanog.org Looking forward to seeing everyone in Orlando! -Dave Temkin
RE: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
That's a really good point, Patrick. We've received an interesting analysis from our customers recently where they reviewed the accounting on all the services they need in order to peer off approximately 1/3rd of their total traffic. They took their national wavelength cost, local access, colocation at carrier-neutral facilities at it came to roughly $.95/mbps. Although this is considerably less than what they spend on transit, their analysis failed to consider depreciation on their capital (routers and other hardware), associated warranty costs and the incremental operational overhead to operate a large national network. When all is said and done, they are probably spending as much on free peering as they are on transit. In the case of this customer they would have a lower total cost by simply staying regional and purchasing transit. In other cases, peering will only lower your marginal cost if there are strategic reasons for building and maintaining that backbone. Dave -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 8:23 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois? 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
Re: Possibly a little OT, has spam in theme
Actually it's in Japanese. Nifty is one of the oldest (and at one From here it looks like it's originated by AS2510, which is also Fujistsu. So it is legitimate, even if the unwanted traffic your receiving is not. Owning and using a domain name with 1 character difference from Nifty, its amazing what I used to receive via the catch-all. One of the many reasons I turned it off, ultimately. Chris
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: 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. The quote was tongue-in-cheek, of course. I don't agree that most people understand what is meant. I can't count the number of companies that unnecessarily get waves to exchanges and colocate there because they think peering there will reduce their costs, when it does not. I was not trying to argue that more traffic is bad. I'm just trying to argue that there are certain (often neglected) costs that you would only have with peering that you could avoid when not peering, and that it's more than just the exchange port. Also, it's a different topic, but I really don't think tier 3s (sigh) peering on public exchanges increases quality generally. It (usually) does decrease latency, but there is generally a lack of redundancy in most peering setups that is glaring when there is a failure somewhere. Of course, if you're a very competent network operator, you can have lots of redundancy for your peering, both at the edge and internally (in terms of doing the traffic engineering needed when you have lots of different paths traffic can take), but I'd say this is not the sort of setup a standard regional operator would have. -- Darius Jahandarie
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
Hi, Ok, so I'll give you that tunneling a really short bit, tunneling isn't too bad, but native is most of the time better. So sad that some companies mess up in such a way that their customers rather tunnel than use their native infra... :-( - Sander
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
On Dec 9, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: reliable tunnel bzzzt! oxymoron alert!!! Intellectually I want to agree with you, but after some reflection... We use lots of tunnels at my org - the IPsec variety. A quick non-scientific query of our monitoring logs reveals that our tunnels are exactly as reliable as the circuits and routers which underneath them. MTU issues aren't really a problem for us either, but then again we do control all the devices at at least one end if the tunnel. I defer to your experience and reputation Randy, and im syre you're right. But where are all these horrifically unreliable tunnels?
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
reliable tunnel bzzzt! oxymoron alert!!! We use lots of tunnels at my org - the IPsec variety. as does iij, very heavily. and it has some issues. A quick non-scientific query of our monitoring logs reveals that our tunnels are exactly as reliable as the circuits and routers which underneath them. I defer to your experience and reputation that would be almost as foolish as i am there is significant measurement and screaming showing the issues with v6 tunnel connectivity. geoff, of course. and then a bunch of us have been burned at conferences where the v6 was tunneled. yes, it can be better than no v6 at all. but we're well beyond the days where we bet our businesses on tuneled v6 transport. randy
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012, Ryan Malayter wrote: But where are all these horrifically unreliable tunnels? 6to4 is one example. I'd say since PMTUD is too often broken on IPv4 (if the tunneling routers even react properly to PMTUD need-to-frag messages for their tunnel packets) in combination with some ISPs supporting jumbo frames internally, makes a lot of tunneling work badly. So you might use tunnel broker tunnels that handle tunnel packet fragmentation for 1500 byte payload over 1500 byte infrastructure and that makes you feel they are reliable. My tunnels to my home where I run routing protocol over the tunnels to two separate tunnel routers at the ISP end (I control all endpoints) plus running ipv6 MTU 1400 in my home to avoid PTMUD for all TCP connections is also a very reliable setup, but I'd rather have native IPv6 and 1500 MTU end-to-end. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
RE: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
Ok, so I'll give you that tunneling a really short bit, tunneling isn't too bad, but native is most of the time better. So sad that some companies mess up in such a way that their customers rather tunnel than use their native infra... :-( The ISPs are unfortunately behind what the tunnel providers have supplied. It is what it is. Even 'companies' who were told by early adopters and said we should focus didn't. The result is :) Steve
