Re: historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

[Yang Yu]

APNIC has whowas also
https://www.apnic.net/static/whowas-ui/

For RWhois, check with the organization operating rwhoisd? They might
have the information beyond RWhois.


Yang

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Benoit Panizzon  wrote:
> Well @ RIPE ist is quite simple to query historical data:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/types-of-queries/16-12-historical-queries
>
> I don't know if other registries offer similar services.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüssen
>
> -Benoît Panizzon-
> --
> I m p r o W a r e   A G-Leiter Commerce Kunden
> __
>
> Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel  +41 61 826 93 00
> CH-4133 PrattelnFax  +41 61 826 93 01
> Schweiz Web  http://www.imp.ch
> __

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Phil Bedard]

I’m pretty sure Comcast, along with most other MSOs in NA, use squat space for 
various endpoints because they have run out of public and private IPv4 space.   
Everyone obviously wants to get to all IPv6 but there are millions of end 
devices and other gear they speak to which do not support it.  For the most 
part I think they try to re-use space and use the transition space when they 
can, but some deployed squat space before that came about or it’s simply not 
enough.  

Phil 

On 12/18/17, 3:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mark Andrews" 
 wrote:

Companies like COMCAST did. They manage the modems over IPv6. 

They also supported DS-Lite’s development as a transition mechanism so they 
wouldn’t have to run IPv4 to their customers.  They wanted to be able to go 
IPv6 only. That meant having IPv4 as a service available. 

-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 19 Dec 2017, at 06:34, Harald Koch  wrote:
> 
>> On 17 December 2017 at 17:48, Tom Carter  wrote:
>> 
>> RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large
>> internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8
>> would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to 
number
>> video set top boxes and voice end points? I don't think anyone goes out 
and
>> says "Lets go use someone else's space, because I don't want to use this
>> perfectly good private space".
>> 
> 
> :cough:
> 
> They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure it
> out, surely an ISP can...
> 
> -- 
> Harald

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Robert Webb]

Who are you alluding to who helped fund the development of the internet?

Get Outlook for Android



From: Scott Morizot
Sent: Monday, December 18, 16:09
Subject: Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal 
routing
To: Robert Webb
Cc: Mark Andrews, nanog@nanog.org




On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Robert Webb 
> wrote:
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> > On 18 Dec 2017, at 1:20 pm, Robert Webb 
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Where I work I have the opposite issue. They have a lot of public IPv4
> > space and only use it internally never be advertised to the internet.
> > Something I have never agreed With doing.
>
> Why?  This is a perfectly legitimate use of the IP addresses.  The purpose of
> assigning addresses is so that they are unique WORLD WIDE in whatever
> context you wish to use them in.

I going to guess you were talking about the use internally of public IP 
addresses..

But there are rules governing what to use where. So it is OK to hoard publicly 
addressable IPv4 IP's for internal
use that will never reach the outside world? No the way I have been taught.

Maybe I just lack that big picture..


I think the big picture here is that they helped fund the development of IP and 
received
large enough v4 allocations at the outset that they haven't had to use kludges 
like RFC1918
as much as most others have. It's not "hoarding" IPs if you're using them, 
whether or
not you choose to advertise and make them accessible to other networks.

It's the world everyone gets to live in with the current version of IP.

Scott

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
>
> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/
> 2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_is_ipv6/


Hi Eric,

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Both projections assume that IPv6 addresses
are assigned the same way we assign IPv4 addresses. They are not.

There are several practices which consume IPv6 at a drastically higher rate
than IPv4. The most notable is the assignment of a /64 to every LAN. Your
/26 LAN that used to consume 2^6th IP addresses? Now it's 2^64th. Used to
consume RFC1918 addresses? Now it's 2^64th of the global IPv6 addresses.

Why did we need a /64 for each LAN? So we could incorporate the Ethernet
MAC address in to the IP address. Only we can't actually do that because it
turns out to be crazy insecure. Nevertheless, the 3 computers in your
basement will still consume 2^64th IPv6 addresses between them. But hey,
what's 20 orders of magnitude between friends.

We have ISPs that have received allocations of entire /19s. A /19 in IPv6
is exactly the same percentage of the total address space as a /19 in IPv4.
Before considering reserved addresses, it's 1/2^19th of the total address
space. For a single ISP. Think about it.

Meanwhile the IETF has learned nothing from the gargantuan waste that is
224.0.0.0/4 ($2billion at current prices). They went and assigned FC00::/7.
 /7!! Almost 1% of the IPv6 address space gone in a single RFC.

I haven't attempted to compute the actual rate of IPv6 consumption but it's
not inconceivable that we could exhaust them by the end of the century
through sheer ineptitude.

On the plus side, we're mostly only screwing around with 2000::/3 right
now. After we burn through that in the next 20 years, we can if we so
desire change the rules for how (and how quickly) we use 4000::/3.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Scott Morizot]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Robert Webb  wrote:

> > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> > > On 18 Dec 2017, at 1:20 pm, Robert Webb  wrote:
> > >
> > > Where I work I have the opposite issue. They have a lot of public IPv4
> > > space and only use it internally never be advertised to the internet.
> > > Something I have never agreed With doing.
> >
> > Why?  This is a perfectly legitimate use of the IP addresses.  The
> purpose of
> > assigning addresses is so that they are unique WORLD WIDE in whatever
> > context you wish to use them in.
>


> I going to guess you were talking about the use internally of public IP
> addresses..
>
> But there are rules governing what to use where. So it is OK to hoard
> publicly addressable IPv4 IP's for internal
> use that will never reach the outside world? No the way I have been taught.
>
> Maybe I just lack that big picture..
>
>
I think the big picture here is that they helped fund the development of IP
and received
large enough v4 allocations at the outset that they haven't had to use
kludges like RFC1918
as much as most others have. It's not "hoarding" IPs if you're using them,
whether or
not you choose to advertise and make them accessible to other networks.

It's the world everyone gets to live in with the current version of IP.

Scott

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Mark Andrews]

Companies like COMCAST did. They manage the modems over IPv6. 

They also supported DS-Lite’s development as a transition mechanism so they 
wouldn’t have to run IPv4 to their customers.  They wanted to be able to go 
IPv6 only. That meant having IPv4 as a service available. 

-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 19 Dec 2017, at 06:34, Harald Koch  wrote:
> 
>> On 17 December 2017 at 17:48, Tom Carter  wrote:
>> 
>> RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large
>> internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8
>> would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to number
>> video set top boxes and voice end points? I don't think anyone goes out and
>> says "Lets go use someone else's space, because I don't want to use this
>> perfectly good private space".
>> 
> 
> :cough:
> 
> They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure it
> out, surely an ISP can...
> 
> -- 
> Harald

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Harald Koch]

On 17 December 2017 at 17:48, Tom Carter  wrote:

> RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large
> internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8
> would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to number
> video set top boxes and voice end points? I don't think anyone goes out and
> says "Lets go use someone else's space, because I don't want to use this
> perfectly good private space".
>

:cough:

They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure it
out, surely an ISP can...

-- 
Harald

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

The RLEC infrastructure doesn't include the ROW. That belongs to the 
municipality. 

You are largely correct that you don't have access to RLEC infrastructure. 
IANAL, so I don't know the precise limitations. Many have been made to port 
their numbers, but some are still protected. 

You won't see me defending USF-funded golden toilets. 

That said, RLECs are a fairly small amount of the problem and you can always do 
fixed wireless to overcome economics in their areas. 

The biggest thing stopping a CLEC from building in the ROW is economics? That's 
generally the biggest inhibitor to any infrastructure, but it's being overcome 
all of the time. I know a lot of guys have the cost per home for FTTH well 
under $1k/home. Depending on services sold, that's a reasonable 1 - 3 year ROI. 

You don't have to be cheaper, you just have to be better. One of my clients is 
still going doing CLEC DSL for about 13 years. 


They don't mess with their customer's traffic. They have good customer support. 
We all know you can't expect them to have a superior service and compete on 
price. If you want something not shit, buy it. Don't force someone to polish a 
turd. 

There are thousands of WISPs in the US. I know because I've been one for about 
13 years, I go to the trade shows, and I have the largest WISP-focused podcast. 
I'll go tell them that they can't do what they're doing. Those urban guys are 
pretty new to the scene and represent probably less than 5% of the WISP 
industry. Some of the non-urban ones are delivering 100M+ services. Some of 
them are in the middle of nowhere, building their own infrastructure to deliver 
the only non-satellite service available. 

The biggest WISPs I know (100k+ customers) are all outside of urban areas. 
There are a ton that are 10k+. Most are probably 500 - 5k. Obviously nothing 
compared to the incumbents, but I'm not sure being like the incumbents is what 
anyone wants. 



I think the biggest thing this thread reveals is that just because someone 
operates a network doesn't mean they know how all types of networks operate (or 
are available). 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Steve Naslund"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:19:54 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

That must be recent change then because last time I looked RLECs are pretty 
well protected from CLEC competition. That was the original telecom act 
difference between CLECs and RLECs. Their argument was that it was so hard to 
be economically viable in low density areas that they deserved to have 
exclusive access to their infrastructure. However the biggest thing stopping a 
CLEC from building in a ROW is economics. The RLEC wouldn't even be there 
without all of the government subsidies they got to build in the first place. 

I think the market has already spoken pretty resoundingly about building out 
infrastructure as a CLEC. You would have to step over all of the corpses on 
your way to doing so. In fact, I can’t off the top of my head think of a single 
CLEC that has widespread coverage over their own infrastructure. They almost 
universally use the ILEC infrastructure for last mile. Even the giants like 
Level 3 are pretty much unavailable unless you are in the heart of the NFL 
sized city. As far as rural wireless, we have found very few options in any of 
the markets we have looked into. The same density issues that prevent high 
quality cellular build outs also applies to WISPs. In the rural area the WISP 
still needs backhaul and antenna infrastructure. The lack of national scale 
WISPs tells me that model is not going to be viable at scale. Too much 
infrastructure for too few customers is the common killer of CLECs and WISPs. 
The biggest WISPs I know of are mostly urban as alternatives to the ILEC 
infrastructure not in rural areas and are used mostly as backup providers. 

Most facilities based DSL providers (i.e. equipment collocated with the ILECs) 
died quite some time ago. There were lots of them in the 1999 - 2005 timeframe 
and they are all dead now. You just can't compete with the ILEC cost model. 

I think the only model that would possibly bring out any viable competition in 
the last mile would be municipality owned infrastructure. The problem with that 
model is the municipalities love to offer exclusive contracts instead of an 
open infrastructure because they get the big payday. 

Steven Naslund 
Chicago IL 


>-Original Message- 
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:43 AM 
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 
> 
>There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an 
>RLEC area. 
> 
>Fixed wireless is the most cost effective way to deploy in rural environments, 
>other 

Re: 40G and 100G optics options

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 06:01:39PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km links?

LR4 and weak ER4 (flexoptix were trying to get a 40km part out,
only 25km has emerged so far) then you're into coherent stuff in
a separate box (which per 100G doesn't cost a lot more than the ER4's)

> I need stronger modules that can do more than 10 km without being 
> extremely expensive. Or DWDM modules in the 1550 nm band so I can use 
> external amplifiers.

We use 1310 amplifiers for now, originally these

http://www.hubersuhner.com/en/solutions/cube-optics/products/active-systems/metro-transport/soa-semiconductor-optical-amplifier-unit-c-250

but there is a fibrestore version too now
https://www.fs.com/products/69350.html

> Am I looking in the wrong place? Is this expected 
> to be available in the near future?

Eventually there will be something once they can make
it fit in qsfp package size and power limits.

brandon

Re: 40G and 100G optics options

[Fredrik Korsbäck]

This is the "failure" of us (the business) choosing QSFP as the de-factor formfactor for 100G, there is not power in 
that cage to make 10km+ optics in an easy way. If we would have pushed for CFP4 as the "last" formfactor in 100G land we 
would be much better off.


The options you have to choose from realistically is QSFP28-ER4L

It exist in a fec and non-fec option that does 30 and 40km respectively although a few vendors spec them at 25km cause 
its really hard to validate them in their upper ranges. But this is quite and expensive optic.


On the horizon you have QSFP28-4WDM20 and 4WDM40 which uses FEC. Not sure where 
the MSA stands on that.

If you need more then 30-40km reliable stuff you need to either to PAM4 (The "Inphi ColorZ" optic) which is 80km at 
best. These should not be confused for the regular 10G ZR-optics with a fixed lambda you can buy for $300 from china. 
These are dual-laser optics that runs two 50G PAM4 carriers with very low launchpower. They need pre and post-amps 
aswell as tuned DCM and a MUX to fully work. Also they are fixed wave so you need 44 different optics to populate a full 
MUX. These optics are great if you need tons of 100Gs on very short metro-spans.


It always almost ends up with coherent being the better option in the end anyway if you wanna go beyond 20-25km. There 
is like 30 different competing products on the market now that acts as a stupid little transponder with a QSFP28 in one 
end (where you plug your DAC in) and a CFP2-ACO (or DCO) in the other end that let you run a couple of hundred 
kilometers (or thousands) with a proper coherent DWDM signal.


Now that CFP2-DCO is GA finally i hope to see more linecards and switches that 
has CFP2 slots in them.



Hi

What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km links?

I see a lot of switches offered with QSFP+ and QSFP28. But I do not seem
to find the necessary optics to build the links I want.

For example, take a look at the options available at Fiberstore:

https://www.fs.com/c/generic-40g-qsfp-891

Generic Compatible 40GBASE-LR4 and OTU3 QSFP+ 1310nm 10km LC Transceiver
for SMF
$340

Generic Compatible 40GBASE-ER4 and OTU3 QSFP+ 1310nm 40km LC Transceiver
for SMF
$1500

https://www.fs.com/c/generic-qsfp28-100g-transceivers-2858

Generic Compatible QSFP28 100GBASE-LR4 1310nm 10km Transceiver
$1999

Generic Compatible QSFP28 100GBASE-ER4 1310nm 40km Transceiver
$7000

That is it. Four modules and the 40km are prohibitive expensive. The
situation at other vendors appears to be similar.

I need stronger modules that can do more than 10 km without being
extremely expensive. Or DWDM modules in the 1550 nm band so I can use
external amplifiers. Am I looking in the wrong place? Is this expected
to be available in the near future?

Regards,

Baldur




--
hugge



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Naslund, Steve]

It absolutely is the same issue.  Rural electrification and rural 
telecommunications are the same model, neither one happened without govt 
subsidies because the economics don't work any other way.  Same kind of 
engineering challenges when you build a large expensive distribution system for 
a very inexpensive product (kilowatts or megabits don't matter much).  The ROI 
is really difficult unless you have a captive audience.  That is why you don't 
see big CLEC build outs.  Why pay to put in a fiber cable with a 100 year 
lifecycle to a customer that might move and/or dump you in the next six months? 
 The churn will kill you.  You cannot amortize the cost of the infrastructure 
within any reasonable time frame.  Go ahead and tell a VC that your 
infrastructure has a 10 - 20 year ROI (if you are lucky) and see if you get 
laughed out of the room.  The WISPs and satellite guys are just like putting in 
windmills and solar panels to avoid the power company.  Some will do it but 
most don't like the inconvenience or complexity of it.  A fringe group at best. 
 Telecom is even worse that power because there is a very good chance that your 
infrastructure will be obsolete or devalued before it pays for itself.  Look at 
how DWDM technologies murdered the dark fiber markets and oceanic fiber links.  
Global Crossing ring a bell anyone?

In some municipalities the city owns the infrastructure now but they want that 
big payday from the award of the exclusive contract so there really is not much 
competition there.  In the "open" power market most cities find out that the 
most viable option turns out to be the incumbent power company that originally 
built out the infrastructure in the first place.  Chicago was a major failure 
of the open power market when all of the "competitors" had huge price swings 
and everyone went back to the incumbent Commonwealth Edison.  The real 
motivator was that the city really just wanted a way to get in between the 
customers and power company, they just could not resist the revenue.  Same 
thing in cable service where the city gets their share of the money for 
essentially locking out the competition.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL





>-Original Message-
>From: UpTide . [mailto:upt...@live.com] 
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:55 AM
>To: Naslund, Steve
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
>Sounds like the history of the electric companies.

Re: 40G and 100G optics options

[joel jaeggli]

On 12/18/17 09:01, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Hi
>
> What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km
> links?
>
> I see a lot of switches offered with QSFP+ and QSFP28. But I do not
> seem to find the necessary optics to build the links I want.
>
> For example, take a look at the options available at Fiberstore:
>
> https://www.fs.com/c/generic-40g-qsfp-891
>
> Generic Compatible 40GBASE-LR4 and OTU3 QSFP+ 1310nm 10km LC
> Transceiver for SMF
> $340
>
> Generic Compatible 40GBASE-ER4 and OTU3 QSFP+ 1310nm 40km LC
> Transceiver for SMF
> $1500
>
> https://www.fs.com/c/generic-qsfp28-100g-transceivers-2858
>
> Generic Compatible QSFP28 100GBASE-LR4 1310nm 10km Transceiver
> $1999
>
> Generic Compatible QSFP28 100GBASE-ER4 1310nm 40km Transceiver
> $7000
>
> That is it. Four modules and the 40km are prohibitive expensive. The
> situation at other vendors appears to be similar.
>
> I need stronger modules that can do more than 10 km without being
> extremely expensive. Or DWDM modules in the 1550 nm band so I can use
> external amplifiers. Am I looking in the wrong place? Is this expected
> to be available in the near future?
qsfp28 is heavily constrained by power budget. The inability to put a
serdes in the package does also very much constrain the form factor
since it's 4x25 wavelengths.

cfp2-aco is the approach that stops paying for the DSP with every optic
(DCO does that) gets you long haul single wave, DWDM and tunables, but
it's  a bit of an incovenient form-factor for fixed configuration 1ru
switches.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: 40G and 100G optics options

[Tim Pozar]

Have you checked out Flexoptix?

https://www.flexoptix.net/en/transceiver/qsfp_

Tim

On 12/18/17 9:01 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Hi
> 
> What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km links?
> 
> I see a lot of switches offered with QSFP+ and QSFP28. But I do not seem
> to find the necessary optics to build the links I want.
> 
> For example, take a look at the options available at Fiberstore:
> 
> https://www.fs.com/c/generic-40g-qsfp-891
> 
> Generic Compatible 40GBASE-LR4 and OTU3 QSFP+ 1310nm 10km LC Transceiver
> for SMF
> $340
> 
> Generic Compatible 40GBASE-ER4 and OTU3 QSFP+ 1310nm 40km LC Transceiver
> for SMF
> $1500
> 
> https://www.fs.com/c/generic-qsfp28-100g-transceivers-2858
> 
> Generic Compatible QSFP28 100GBASE-LR4 1310nm 10km Transceiver
> $1999
> 
> Generic Compatible QSFP28 100GBASE-ER4 1310nm 40km Transceiver
> $7000
> 
> That is it. Four modules and the 40km are prohibitive expensive. The
> situation at other vendors appears to be similar.
> 
> I need stronger modules that can do more than 10 km without being
> extremely expensive. Or DWDM modules in the 1550 nm band so I can use
> external amplifiers. Am I looking in the wrong place? Is this expected
> to be available in the near future?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Naslund, Steve]

  That must be recent change then because last time I looked RLECs are pretty 
well protected from CLEC competition.  That was the original telecom act 
difference between CLECs and RLECs.  Their argument was that it was so hard to 
be economically viable in low density areas that they deserved to have 
exclusive access to their infrastructure.  However the biggest thing stopping a 
CLEC from building in a ROW is economics.  The RLEC wouldn't even be there 
without all of the government subsidies they got to build in the first place.  

I think the market has already spoken pretty resoundingly about building out 
infrastructure as a CLEC.  You would have to step over all of the corpses on 
your way to doing so.  In fact,  I can’t off the top of my head think of a 
single CLEC that has widespread coverage over their own infrastructure.  They 
almost universally use the ILEC infrastructure for last mile.  Even the giants 
like Level 3 are pretty much unavailable unless you are in the heart of the NFL 
sized city.  As far as rural wireless, we have found very few options in any of 
the markets we have looked into.  The same density issues that prevent high 
quality cellular build outs also applies to WISPs.  In the rural area the WISP 
still needs backhaul and antenna infrastructure.  The lack of national scale 
WISPs tells me that model is not going to be viable at scale.  Too much 
infrastructure for too few customers is the common killer of CLECs and WISPs.  
The biggest WISPs I know of are mostly urban as alternatives to the ILEC 
infrastructure not in rural areas and are used mostly as backup providers.

Most facilities based DSL providers (i.e. equipment collocated with the ILECs) 
died quite some time ago.  There were lots of them in the 1999 - 2005 timeframe 
and they are all dead now.  You just can't compete with the ILEC cost model.

I think the only model that would possibly bring out any viable competition in 
the last mile would be municipality owned infrastructure.  The problem with 
that model is the municipalities love to offer exclusive contracts instead of 
an open infrastructure because they get the big payday.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:43 AM
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
>There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an 
>RLEC area. 
>
>Fixed wireless is the most cost effective way to deploy in rural environments, 
>other than at some point ultra rural, satellite takes over. That's kinda what 
>WISPs have been doing for 20 years. 
>
>So don't own cable. Build fiber. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. 
>
>If you're going CLEC and using the ILEC's copper, go bigger. Most of the big 
>ILECs are still rolling with sub 10 megabit speeds. I know some CLECs doing 
>ADSL2+, VDSL, etc. Not as wide-reaching, no, but it's something and generates 
>?>revenue while you build your own plant. 
>
>
>
>
>- 
>Mike Hammett 
>Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
>Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
>The Brothers WISP 

40G and 100G optics options

[Baldur Norddahl]

Hi

What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km links?

I see a lot of switches offered with QSFP+ and QSFP28. But I do not seem 
to find the necessary optics to build the links I want.


For example, take a look at the options available at Fiberstore:

https://www.fs.com/c/generic-40g-qsfp-891

Generic Compatible 40GBASE-LR4 and OTU3 QSFP+ 1310nm 10km LC Transceiver 
for SMF

$340

Generic Compatible 40GBASE-ER4 and OTU3 QSFP+ 1310nm 40km LC Transceiver 
for SMF

$1500

https://www.fs.com/c/generic-qsfp28-100g-transceivers-2858

Generic Compatible QSFP28 100GBASE-LR4 1310nm 10km Transceiver
$1999

Generic Compatible QSFP28 100GBASE-ER4 1310nm 40km Transceiver
$7000

That is it. Four modules and the 40km are prohibitive expensive. The 
situation at other vendors appears to be similar.


I need stronger modules that can do more than 10 km without being 
extremely expensive. Or DWDM modules in the 1550 nm band so I can use 
external amplifiers. Am I looking in the wrong place? Is this expected 
to be available in the near future?


Regards,

Baldur

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an 
RLEC area. 

Fixed wireless is the most cost effective way to deploy in rural environments, 
other than at some point ultra rural, satellite takes over. That's kinda what 
WISPs have been doing for 20 years. 

So don't own cable. Build fiber. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. 

If you're going CLEC and using the ILEC's copper, go bigger. Most of the big 
ILECs are still rolling with sub 10 megabit speeds. I know some CLECs doing 
ADSL2+, VDSL, etc. Not as wide-reaching, no, but it's something and generates 
revenue while you build your own plant. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Steve Naslund"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:39:43 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

Not if you are in an RLEC controlled territory you can't. They are protected 
monopolies by definition. You could do fixed wireless but not real cost 
effective to deploy in low density rural environments. Especially when there is 
a lack of cellular infrastructure to piggyback the infrastructure on. 

Anyone that has been a CLEC knows that the ILEC have squeezed the CLECs out of 
the wireline space pretty effectively. It is nearly impossible to compete with 
the already amortized ILEC wireline networks and you can't do your own cable 
infrastructure without a city franchise in most areas. 

Steven Naslund 
Chicago IL 

>-Original Message- 
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:28 AM 
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 
> 
>Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of 
>becoming a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in 
>without this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access 
>as the >ILEC. 
> 
>Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless. 
> 
>- 
>Mike Hammett 
>Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
>Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
>The Brothers WISP 

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Naslund, Steve]

Not if you are in an RLEC controlled territory you can't.  They are protected 
monopolies by definition.  You could do fixed wireless but not real cost 
effective to deploy in low density rural environments.  Especially when there 
is a lack of cellular infrastructure to piggyback the infrastructure on.

Anyone that has been a CLEC knows that the ILEC have squeezed the CLECs out of 
the wireline space pretty effectively.  It is nearly impossible to compete with 
the already amortized ILEC wireline networks and you can't do your own cable 
infrastructure without a city franchise in most areas.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:28 AM
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
>Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of 
>becoming a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in 
>without this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access 
>as the >ILEC. 
>
>Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless. 
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
>Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
>The Brothers WISP 

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Naslund, Steve]

They may not be monopolies by definition but they act like one when there is 
only a single viable option.  In Chicago I have access to Comcast Cable (city 
franchise cable provider in this area), AT Uverse (no fiber to the home so 
its DSL), or some wireless options (line of sight is tough, and non-LOS is not 
very fast).  If I want always on > 50 mbps service it is pretty much Comcast.  
If you don't like the reliability or customer service, too bad.

At my summer home in Wisconsin we have access to CenturyLink (the protected 
RLEC) or satellite.  That's it.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:05 AM
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
>BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside 
>from possibly Native American reservations. 
>
>
>
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
>Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
>The Brothers WISP 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of becoming 
a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in without 
this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access as the 
ILEC. 

Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: timrutherf...@c4.net 
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:25:37 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

The problem lies in the contracts that the big providers make the 
municipalities sign. Basically says that the incumbent cable provider cannot be 
ousted without breach of contract. The towns all sign because their only other 
choice is to roll out their own infrastructure which very few see the real 
value in. 

-Original Message- 
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:05 AM 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from 
possibly Native American reservations. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Edwin Pers"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:03:52 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local 
govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other 
people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time 

-Original Message- 
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Max Tulyev"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access 
to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>> here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services 
>> such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets. 
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are 
> limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the 
> FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 
> million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a 
> company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
> continues to undermine the policy today. 
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited 
> competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million 
> Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million 
> Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating 
> network neutrality." 
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut 
> rality 
> 

RE: Free access to measurement network

[timrutherford]

The problem lies in the contracts that the big providers make the 
municipalities sign.  Basically says that the incumbent cable provider cannot 
be ousted without breach of contract.   The towns all sign because their only 
other choice is to roll out their own infrastructure which very few see the 
real value in. 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:05 AM
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from 
possibly Native American reservations. 




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Edwin Pers" 
To: "Mike Hammett" 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:03:52 AM
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local 
govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other 
people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Max Tulyev" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access 
to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>> here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services 
>> such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are 
> limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the 
> FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 
> million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a 
> company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
> continues to undermine the policy today.
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited 
> competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million 
> Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million 
> Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating 
> network neutrality."
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut
> rality
> 

Re: historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

[Benoit Panizzon]

Well @ RIPE ist is quite simple to query historical data:

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/types-of-queries/16-12-historical-queries

I don't know if other registries offer similar services.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

-Benoît Panizzon-
-- 
I m p r o W a r e   A G-Leiter Commerce Kunden
__

Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel  +41 61 826 93 00
CH-4133 PrattelnFax  +41 61 826 93 01
Schweiz Web  http://www.imp.ch
__

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from 
possibly Native American reservations. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Edwin Pers"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:03:52 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local 
govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other 
people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time 

-Original Message- 
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Max Tulyev"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access 
to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>> here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services 
>> such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets. 
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are 
> limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the 
> FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 
> million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a 
> company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
> continues to undermine the policy today. 
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited 
> competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million 
> Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million 
> Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating 
> network neutrality." 
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut 
> rality 
> 

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Edwin Pers]

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local 
govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other 
people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Max Tulyev" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access 
to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>> here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services 
>> such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are 
> limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the 
> FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 
> million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a 
> company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
> continues to undermine the policy today.
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited 
> competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million 
> Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million 
> Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating 
> network neutrality."
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut
> rality
> 

Re: historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

[Mike Hammett]

ARIN's WhoWas service? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Neal Rauhauser"  
To: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 2:41:57 PM 
Subject: historic SWIP (or rwhois) data? 

Hello, 


I'm working on a forensics problem rather than a network operations issue. 

I've got a /28 that I can see is currently assigned to a certain company 
via rwhois. 

What I want to do is see this block's history over the last five years. It 
was involved in some problematic behavior back in 2012, I'd really like to 
know whose name was on it then. 

It would be ideal if this data were available in some sort of flat file 
format, or if a sensible API to it exists. 

I've been searching a little bit, just found this, not really seeing any 
place to download any of this data though. 

https://gist.github.com/NetwarSystem/eed78b65d881d0d384664ab713cf5e1f 

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Narseo Vallina Rodriguez]

We found a number of such instances when working in our last year's
Internet Measurements Conference (IMC) paper [1] "A Multi-perspective
Analysis of Carrier-Grade NAT Deployment".

Back then, spring-summer 2016, we found a number of large cellular
ISPs using routable IP address space for their private IP address
space.

Some cases were AS3651 (Sprint US) AS22140 (T−Mobile US) and AS24608
(H3G SpA IT) among others.

We found this practice to be common in other ISPs but we did not have
enough data to drive anything conclusive for them.

One of the most common blocks was assigned to the UK Ministry of
Defense as Shaun also pointed out for Microsoft.

You can find the whole discussion is in Section 6.1 and Figure 7.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05606


On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Jason Iannone  wrote:
> My previous employer used 198.18/15 for CE links on IPVPN services.
> Walgreens used an American SP's space internally and couldn't talk to
> any users in that space as a result.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
>> some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
>>
>> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_is_ipv6/
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Large Hadron Collider <
>> large.hadron.colli...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Missent.
>>>
>>> Welcome to IPv6, where you have technically-reserved-for-future-use space
>>> that should never actually need to be used. Quite likely, you can use
>>> something like 440::/16 as your private space, but please don't do that
>>> unless you've exhausted the true private space.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/12/2017 14:57, James Downs wrote:
>>>
 On Dec 17, 2017, at 14:33, Matt Hoppes 
> wrote:
>
> Had a previous employee or I discovered it on the network segment after
> we had some weird routing issues and had to get that cleaned up. I don't
> know why anyone would do that when there is tons of private IP space.
>
 Unless there isn't.. I've worked at more than one company that had used
 up all the private space. Then you have the cases where some M causes
 overlapping IP space. In addition, you'd also be surprised how many people
 just assign the entire 10/8 space into a flat IP space.

 -j

>>>
>>>



-- 

Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez
Research Staff, ICSI
Personal web: http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~narseo
Twitter: https://twitter.com/narseo

historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

[Neal Rauhauser]

Hello,


I'm working on a forensics problem rather than a network operations issue.

I've got a /28 that I can see is currently assigned to a certain company
via rwhois.

What I want to do is see this block's history over the last five years. It
was involved in some problematic behavior back in 2012, I'd really like to
know whose name was on it then.

It would be ideal if this data were available in some sort of flat file
format, or if a sensible API to it exists.

I've been searching a little bit, just found this, not really seeing any
place to download any of this data though.

https://gist.github.com/NetwarSystem/eed78b65d881d0d384664ab713cf5e1f

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Tom Carter]

RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large
internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8
would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to number
video set top boxes and voice end points? I don't think anyone goes out and
says "Lets go use someone else's space, because I don't want to use this
perfectly good private space".

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Richard  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/17/2017 04:30 PM, Robert Webb wrote:
>
>> Will anyone comment on the practice of large enterprises using non
>> RFC1918 IP space that other entities are assigned by ARIN for internal
>> routing?
>>
>> Just curious as to how wide spread this might be. I just heard of this
>> happening with a large ISP and never really thought about it until now.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> It is more common than you would think. Why use public IP's when you
> can have many rfc1918 options. Always amazes me after the initial confusion.
> Richard
>

Call For Presentations - DNS-OARC Workshop 28, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 8th/9th March 2018

[Shumon Huque]

[with apologies to those who see this on multiple lists]

Call For Presentations

The 28th DNS-OARC Workshop will be hosted by ICANN in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, and will take place on March 8th and 9th immediately
before ICANN61 (March 10th - 15th)  [*]

The Workshop's Program Committee is now requesting proposals for
presentations.  All DNS-related subjects are welcome.

The first day of the workshop will start with a Members-only session
which will include reports on DNS-OARC's activities.  If you are an
OARC member and have a sensitive topic that you wish to present during
that session those can be accommodated.

A timeslot will also be available for lightning talks (5-10 minutes)
on day two of the workshop for which submissions will be accepted
on the first day of the workshop, until 4pm.

Workshop Milestones:

19 Jan 2018 - Deadline for submission
23 Jan 2018 - Initial contribution list published
16 Feb 2018 - Full agenda published
02 Mar 2018 - Deadline for slideset submission

Details for presentation submission are published here:



The workshop presentations will be organized by common themes, depending
on the topics and the timing of each presentation. There are 30-minute
and 15-minute slots, let us know your preference in your submission.

To allow the Programme Committee to make objective assessments of
submissions, so as to ensure the quality of the workshop, submissions
SHOULD include slides.  Draft slides are acceptable on submission.

If you have questions or concerns you can contact the Programme Committee:

https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme

via 

Shumon Huque, on behalf of the OARC Programme Committee

OARC depends on sponsorship to fund its workshops and associated social
events.  Please contact  if your organization is
interested in becoming a sponsor.

(Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a
position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.)

[*] 

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:58:37AM -0500, Jason Iannone 
wrote:
> My previous employer used 198.18/15 for CE links on IPVPN services.

This one is mostly legit:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Jason Iannone]

My previous employer used 198.18/15 for CE links on IPVPN services.
Walgreens used an American SP's space internally and couldn't talk to
any users in that space as a result.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
> some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
>
> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_is_ipv6/
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Large Hadron Collider <
> large.hadron.colli...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Missent.
>>
>> Welcome to IPv6, where you have technically-reserved-for-future-use space
>> that should never actually need to be used. Quite likely, you can use
>> something like 440::/16 as your private space, but please don't do that
>> unless you've exhausted the true private space.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17/12/2017 14:57, James Downs wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 2017, at 14:33, Matt Hoppes 
 wrote:

 Had a previous employee or I discovered it on the network segment after
 we had some weird routing issues and had to get that cleaned up. I don't
 know why anyone would do that when there is tons of private IP space.

>>> Unless there isn't.. I've worked at more than one company that had used
>>> up all the private space. Then you have the cases where some M causes
>>> overlapping IP space. In addition, you'd also be surprised how many people
>>> just assign the entire 10/8 space into a flat IP space.
>>>
>>> -j
>>>
>>
>>