RE: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org
-Original Message- From: Michael Hallgren [mailto:m.hallg...@free.fr] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:11 PM To: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com Cc: Wessels, Duane; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 20:18 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com a écrit : On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 03:10:13PM -0500, George, Wes wrote: From: Wessels, Duane [mailto:dwess...@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:41 PM Subject: Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org The brief problem in accessing www.nanog.org was due to numerous parallel downloads of a large video file by a single source IP address. We have no reason to believe it was malicious in intent, but the offender has been blocked anyway. [WEG] In the lovely CGN future, not only will you see this type of behavior (multiple pulls from the same IP) all of the time, your response to block it would have taken tens or hundreds of users out of service simultaneously. /troll Not meant to fault your response, merely to point out yet one more way that CGN is likely to break things where an assumption of 1 IP = 1 user/host/network exists. Wes George Hum... thats not how I read Duanes response at all.. I thought they blocked the (excessively) large video file from download... :) Depends of how we (are supposed to) interpret ``the offender has been blocked anyway'' :) Cheers, mh /bill There was a single source IP with 200+ open, active http connections to a single large media file. The single IP address was blocked. The file itself is still available on the site. Mike
Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org
On Jan 4, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksm...@adhost.com wrote: There was a single source IP with 200+ open, active http connections to a single large media file. The single IP address was blocked. The file itself is still available on the site. oh! so the 200 or so users on tulip.net that were downloading nanog content were blocked, bummer :( /troll-mode=on And now if everyone would open their laptop and go to the following address… Err, while we're talking about video files and nanog, why is the video content still served off (stored content I mean) nanog.org servers? Why not use one of the many video serving services? some of which are free even :) (that part's not a troll, a real question, even!) -chris The website work hasn't yet begun, so that is certainly still on the table. If you would like to volunteer some of your time… Mike
Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org
going offlist Mike On Jan 4, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksm...@adhost.com wrote: Err, while we're talking about video files and nanog, why is the video content still served off (stored content I mean) nanog.org servers? Why not use one of the many video serving services? some of which are free even :) (that part's not a troll, a real question, even!) -chris The website work hasn't yet begun, so that is certainly still on the table. If you would like to volunteer some of your time… I'm sure we could arrange some process to ingest videos to some form of video-hosting-website... a videotubes site let's say. who should I chat with? -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: BGP noob needs monitoring advice
Hey: Manually speaking, you can always telnet to route-views.routeviews.org which is a restricted Cisco interface. Log in with username rviews and don't enable. From the prompt you can do all the show ip bgp commands you need to see whether or not your /24 is being announced via your upstream providers. As an example 'sho ip bgp x.x.x.x' where x.x.x.x is your /24. You should see the announcement originating from your AS over multiple providers that includes both of yours. If not, you know you have a problem. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Dave Pooser [mailto:dave.na...@alfordmedia.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:53 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: BGP noob needs monitoring advice Earlier this year I got a /24 of PA space, set up our shiny new router, got BGP working with both my upstreams, and heaved a sigh of relief: I'll never have to think about THAT again! (Okay, quit laughing; I SAID I was a noob!) Now, I discover that one of my upstreams quit announcing our route in November (fortunately the provider who assigned us the /24, so we're still covered in their /18) and the other upstream apparently started filtering our announcements last week. I'm working with both of them to get that fixed, but it's made it clear to me that I need to be monitoring this. My question for the group is, how? I can and do monitor my own router, and I can see that I'm receiving full routes from both ISPs. I am capable of manually accessing route servers and looking glass servers to check if they're receiving routes to me, but I'd like something more automated. Free is nice, $$ is not a problem, might become a problem. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. -- Dave Pooser Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
NANOG Website and ARO Maintenance
Hello All: There will be maintenance performed to the NANOG Website and ARO system on Saturday, October 22, 2011, starting at 4 PM Pacific (2300 GMT) and lasting approximately 4 hours. During the window there will be brief periods where the website and ARO system are unavailable. Please note this outage will not affect any of the NANOG mailing lists. If you have any questions feel free to let me know. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Re: 2011.10.12 NANOG53 weds morning session notes
And as always, thank you Matt for taking the time and effort to do all of this work to provide a great service to the community. Thanks again, Mike On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Matthew Petach wrote: Wow. As always, Geoff Huston really knows how to deliver a message in a way that just reaches right out and grabs you; awesome, awesome keynote talk, that's going to be another one for the archives. ^_^ Notes from this morning's session have been posted to http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.10.12-nanog53-morning-session.txt Thanks again to all the speakers for a great conference--see you all in San Diego!! Matt -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Re: meeting network
Just an FYI - even though you approved the wireless charge, it's actually free. They pull the per-diem/week charge off your bill. That applies to all NANOG attendees. Mike On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I don't think it is. I think that you can negotiate and I will point out that the hotel here has wanted our business enough that they have now scrambled to make life significantly better. You can also bet I'll be demanding that they credit my $54 that I put on the in-room access be credited to my bill even though ARIN would pay it. I routinely do this when the conference network (or the in-room network) sucks and it's provided by the hotel. I have yet to have one refuse my refund request. Owen On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: Holding the last 10% of the meeting room payment seems like a good start for any venue. But as others have indicated, the market may be too small for free-market principles to be fully effective. Frank -Original Message- From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:36 PM Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: meeting network On 10/10/11 7:00 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: It would be wise for NANOG to approach future venues and specifically discuss these things with the hotel IT departments in question ahead of time so that they have some remote chance of being prepared. I tried this approach many years ago, for a Blogher conference. The hotel's IT people were uncooperative, and incompetent, and they lied both about their network design and their equipment capabilities. I have since learned that this is par for the course. IMHO the only way to solve this problem is with big $$$ penalties in the contract, big enough that the incompetent IT people realize their jobs are on the line and relinquish control so experts can get access and set-up things properly. Also note - the conference or hotel's IT people will always claim they have done this before with no problems even when they haven't. jc -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: vyatta for bgp
-Original Message- From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:56 AM To: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: vyatta for bgp On Sep 13, 2011, at 1:42 AM, Ben Albee wrote: Does anybody currently use vyatta as a bgp router for their company? The days of public-facing software-based routers were over years ago - you need an ASIC-based edge router, else you'll end up getting zorched. How do you come to this conclusion? I think a software-based router for enterprise level (let's say on the 1G per provider level) can handle a fair amount of zorching. I checked the Cisco and Juniper docs and neither vendor is anywhere near releasing their anit-zorching ASICs. Mike
Administrivia - Recreating Archives
Hello Everyone: I am recreating the archives for the primary NANOG list, so they will be unavailable for a little while, probably a couple of hours. The list will function as expected and all messages to the list will be archived during this process. Regards, Mike
NANOG List Cutover Schedule
Hello All: We will be moving the mailing list at 12:00 PDT (GMT -7). The following is the cutover schedule and expected issues during the cutover. 1) 12:00 - move DNS for mailman.nanog.org (the MX for nanog.org) 2) 12:00 - shut down Mailman on s0.nanog.org (mailman.nanog.org) 3) 12:01 - final rsync of list data over to new server 4) 12:05 - send out a TEST message to the NANOG list 5) 12:30 - if message is not seen on list and no correctable errors are detected in the logfiles, revert to s0.nanog.org, troubleshoot, report and reschedule. If anyone has any questions or concerns please let me know. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) _ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
TEST
This message is testing the new list server configuration. Please ignore. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) _ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
RE: NANOG List Cutover Schedule
We are holding on this conversion at the moment and running on the existing configuration. I will update the list shortly with a revised schedule. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksm...@adhost.com] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:44 AM To: NANOG list (nanog@nanog.org) Subject: NANOG List Cutover Schedule Hello All: We will be moving the mailing list at 12:00 PDT (GMT -7). The following is the cutover schedule and expected issues during the cutover. 1) 12:00 - move DNS for mailman.nanog.org (the MX for nanog.org) 2) 12:00 - shut down Mailman on s0.nanog.org (mailman.nanog.org) 3) 12:01 - final rsync of list data over to new server 4) 12:05 - send out a TEST message to the NANOG list 5) 12:30 - if message is not seen on list and no correctable errors are detected in the logfiles, revert to s0.nanog.org, troubleshoot, report and reschedule. If anyone has any questions or concerns please let me know. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) _ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
NANOG List Cutover Schedule - COMPLETE
Hello: We have moved the NANOG mailing list to its new location. I've sent and received a test message successfully. If anyone is having issue after they have confirmed they have the correct DNS settings, please send me an email directly. 204.93.212.138 And 2001:1838:2001:3:2a0:d1ff:fee9:4f94 Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksm...@adhost.com] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:21 PM To: NANOG list (nanog@nanog.org) Subject: RE: NANOG List Cutover Schedule We are holding on this conversion at the moment and running on the existing configuration. I will update the list shortly with a revised schedule. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksm...@adhost.com] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:44 AM To: NANOG list (nanog@nanog.org) Subject: NANOG List Cutover Schedule Hello All: We will be moving the mailing list at 12:00 PDT (GMT -7). The following is the cutover schedule and expected issues during the cutover. 1) 12:00 - move DNS for mailman.nanog.org (the MX for nanog.org) 2) 12:00 - shut down Mailman on s0.nanog.org (mailman.nanog.org) 3) 12:01 - final rsync of list data over to new server 4) 12:05 - send out a TEST message to the NANOG list 5) 12:30 - if message is not seen on list and no correctable errors are detected in the logfiles, revert to s0.nanog.org, troubleshoot, report and reschedule. If anyone has any questions or concerns please let me know. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) _ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Change in NANOG IPv6 Address
Hello Everyone: The correct and updated IPv6 address for the NANOG list is 2001:1838::cc5d:d48a. Forward and reverse records are updated and the other address will continue to work while the DNS change propagates. Regards, Mike
NANOG List change schedule
Hello Everyone: We have tested successfully the Mailman configuration on the new server and are ready to proceed with moving the various NANOG lists over to that server using the following schedule. At approximately 12:00 PDT on Monday, July 25th we will move DNS over for mailman.nanog.org to the new server. We will disable Mailman on the old server simultaneously, so some users may experience delivery issues to the list while DNS propagates. We've set the TTL on the domain to 5 minutes in an effort to minimize propagation delays. For your reference, the new IP's are: 204.93.212.138 2001:1838::cc5d:d48a Thank you to everyone that participated in the list test over the past week. The testing process was instrumental in getting the server configured and making sure everything will work as expected. I will announce to the list when we're making the change and again when it's complete. If you are experiencing issues with list delivery, please send email to me directly, as the adm...@nanog.org may not be available for you. -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) _ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
NANOG - Call for Volunteers
Hello All: Given the issues we had with the mailing list transition, we would like to solicit volunteers to assist in testing the new configuration. Please note, we are just moving the existing Mailman configuration to a new server under our control, but we have to move the list due to contractual obligations. Here's the basic scenario. 1) Build replica of existing NANOG Mailman server and configuration, except we are updating all of the underlying applications, including the actual OS. 2) Create a t...@mailtest.nanog.org mailing list 3) Have volunteers hammer the list and make sure the software setup is correct 4) Sync the existing list data to the new server 5) Flip DNS so that nanog@nanog.org is now served from the new server If you are available and willing to assist in this test, please send me an email directly with the address you would like to use. I will add you to the new list when the software is configured and you will receive the usual welcome message. Our timeline is tight for this transition; we have to be moved over to the new server no later than July 31st, so active testing and reporting is key. Thank You, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
NANOG Move - Moved back
Hello All: We're back on the old configuration for now. I will send an update later this afternoon once I speak with AMS about the issues we experienced over night. Regards, Mike
NANOG Updates - Important
Thank you for your patience as we moved forward with our NANOG transition. We are excited to announce the opening of NANOG 53 registration. You will notice a new format and the need to create a user id and password to complete your registration. We are confident you will find the new system very intuitive and helpful as we continue to move forward. As always, there are opportunities to improve. Feel free to send any questions, suggestions, or concerns to nanog-supp...@nanog.org With respect to NANOG list services. The NANOG Board has decided not to move forward with the mail list and archive transition from Mailman to ARO at this time. For the time being we are operating on our existing hardware in Ann Arbor, MI. We will however, be preparing for a move to an alternate site. As we confirm further details we will be sure to send them along to you. Again, if you have any questions, suggestions, or concerns please send them to nanog-supp...@nanog.org. Sincerely, Michael K. Smith NANOG CC Chair
IMPORTANT: NANOG List Cutover Test
Hello: I'll be testing the list cutover again at 10:00 PM PDT (GMT -7). Please ignore the subsequent NANOG TEST email that comes through to the list. Regards, Mike
NANOG TEST
As per my previous message - please ignore. Mike NANOG CC Chair
NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
Hello All: Thankfully, the current test has been a success. We are going to stay in the present setup through tomorrow morning at approximately 11:00 AM PDT (GMT -7). Below is a brief description of the present state and the changes that will be made tomorrow. Present State Mailman is shut down on s0.nanog.org and mail is being routed directly to mail.amsl.com where it is being processed by our new list (etc.) system. Tomorrow --- We will cut DNS over for nanog.org so that mail and web are all being handled natively within the new system. There will likely be some delivery issues related to stale DNS for some people, but we hope that most folks here will be able to receive and process the DNS updates for nanog.org in a timely fashion. If you have any questions or concerns please let me know. Thanks, Mike
NANOG List Cutover Schedule
Hello All: We are going to cut the mailing list over to the new location at 4:00 PM PDT (GMT -7). We will be testing the cutover on this list to make sure everything goes smoothly. Please filter on the subject NANOG TEST. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
[NANOG] NANOG TEST
Please ignore -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
UPDATE: NANOG List Cutover Schedule
Hello: We have moved the NANOG list back to its original location for the time being. We have a few issues to address before we can cut the system over permanently. I will let everyone know again when we are ready to proceed. Thanks, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksm...@adhost.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 3:38 PM To: NANOG list (nanog@nanog.org) Subject: NANOG List Cutover Schedule Hello All: We are going to cut the mailing list over to the new location at 4:00 PM PDT (GMT -7). We will be testing the cutover on this list to make sure everything goes smoothly. Please filter on the subject NANOG TEST. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
IMPORTANT ADMINISTRIVIA - NANOG list and website changes over the next week
Hello Everyone We are going to be moving the NANOG mailing list over to our new service provider beginning this week. There are several changes that will occur over time that will, hopefully, reduce the service impact to users. One key note - the new system doesn't use Mailman, so your filtering rules may need to be changed to accommodate the new system. - July 8th - We will begin the transition of the NANOG website to its new location with our service provider. - There may be service glitches through the weekend on the site, but nothing catastrophic - July 9th - Mailman will be modified to use our service provider's MX for outbound messages. - Hopefully this will be transparent to list participants, but users can add mail.amsl.com to their filters. - July 9th - Subscription changes to the list will be frozen and the list archives will be unavailable. - Administrivia requests will receive a bounce message during this phase. - July 11th - MX records will be updated so all inbound/outbound mail goes through their system. - At this stage, mail.amsl.com will be the only MX for NANOG list services. - July 11th - DNS records will be updated for the website as well. - At this point, all services will have been moved to our provider. If you have any questions or concerns you can send them to me directly. I'd be happy to provide more specifics if people are interested, but I thought a brief and to-the-point message to the list was more appropriate. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.
On 6/22/11 12:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote: Steven Bellovin wrote: When I was in grad school, the director of the computer center (remember those) felt that there was no need for 1200 bps modems -- 300 bps was fine, since no one could read the scrolling output any faster than that anyway. Right now, I'm running an rsync job to back up my laptop's hard drive to my office. I hope it finishes before I leave today for Denver. I understand the sentiment, but the comparison is flawed in my opinion. The speeds back then were barely any faster than you could type, I know all too well the horrors of 1200/75 baud connectivity. Luckily nowadays now it's about getting your dvd torrent downloaded in 2 minutes, vs. 20 minutes, or 2 hours. Or your whole disk backed up before your flight leaves. You're now able to back it up online to begin with. The thing here is that I talk about *necessity*. Once connectivity has reached a certain speed threshold having increased speed generally starts leaning towards *would be nice* instead of *must*. And so far the examples people gave are almost all more in the realm of luxury problems than problems that hinder your life in fundamental ways. If you have a 100 mbps broadband connection and your toddlers are slowing down your video conference call with your boss by watching the newest Dexter (hah!). Then your *need* can be easily satisfied by telling your toddlers to cut the crap for a while. Sure it'd be nice if your toddlers could watch Dexter kill another victim whilst you were having a smooth video conference talk with your boss, but it's not necessary. Greetings, Jeroen To paraphrase Randy Bush - I hope all my competitors work on their version of what their customers need versus what they want. Why on earth would you not want to give them what they want? Why does need have anything to do with it, particularly when need is impossible to quantify? Mike
Re: [Nanog-futures] GoogleGroups and Nanog (was Re: IPv6 Availability on XO)
Sorry about that - I approved it to the list without looking at it in depth (hit Approve to quickly). Mea Culpa Mike On behalf of the NANOG CC -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Lynda [mailto:shr...@deaddrop.org] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:06 AM To: Nanog Futures Subject: [Nanog-futures] GoogleGroups and Nanog (was Re: IPv6 Availability on XO) On 5/23/2011 8:16 PM, Ryan Malayter wrote: (stuff about XO and IPv6) This was sent to nan...@googlegroups.com instead of to Nanog, and my mail client conveniently marked it as spam. In the old days, when a mailing list was gatewayed to Usenet, I think it may have been simpler for people to recognize that they were replying to a Usenet group, and a mailing list, and set the headers accordingly. I'm guessing that (since I just moved to a new machine, and spam filtering needs to be trained all over again) NANOG has been accepting email from googlegroups for quite a while, and I just never noticed. I'm busy being a Luddite today (Google managed to step on my last nerves last night), but the headers still seemed extra strange to me. Is it just me? ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
New vyatta-nsp list
Hello All: There is a new Vyatta NSP list, sponsored by Jared on puck.nether.net. If you are running Vyatta hardware and/or software please join and share your questions, comments and experiences. http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-nsp Regards, Mike
NANOG 52 - Room block filling up!
Hello All: NANOG 52 in Denver is fast approaching. If you're planning on attending and want to get the benefits of the NANOG room rate, you should consider signing up as soon as possible. We're at 85% of our room block capacity and the cutoff date for the NANOG rate is May 29th at 5:00 PM Denver time (GMT -6). For more information please see http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog52/index.php. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: IPv6 Prefix announcing
-Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:52 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing On 4/26/2011 09:39, Kate Gerry wrote: Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :( This is becoming the exception now, not the rule. Last year I was fighting with Verizon about their refusal to carry /48s. That, together with the impasse of figuring out how to put dual stack IPv6 on an Ethernet port (it was delivered as IPv4 only multiple times), I never accepted it and went with a competitor who got it right the first time. However, I've had several sources tell me Verizon has since backpedaled and now accepts /48s. ~Seth * 2001:67C:120::/482001:504:16::1B1B 150 0 6939 701 12702 43751 6716 i Mike
Re: Easily confused...
On 4/16/11 4:24 PM, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote: Was trying to determine where this 'honolulu' speedtest was hosted: Tracing route to honolulu.speedtest.net [74.209.160.12] over a maximum of 30 hops: 122 ms ** 123.87.93.224 227 ms29 ms25 ms hawaiian-telcom-inc.gigabitethernet2-17.core1.lax2.he.net [184.105.134.170] 384 ms90 ms84 ms gige-g2-17.core1.lax2.he.net [184.105.134.169] 492 ms98 ms99 ms 10gigabitethernet7-3.core1.sjc2.he.net [184.105.213.5] 5 112 ms 114 ms 112 ms 10gigabitethernet4-3.core1.sea1.he.net [72.52.92.158] 6 113 ms 113 ms 114 ms six.netriver.net [206.81.80.160] 7 113 ms 113 ms 113 ms static-74-209-160-12.lynnwood.netriver.net [74.209.160.12] Trace complete. 123.87.93.224? inetnum:123.64.0.0 - 123.95.255.255 netname:CTTNET country:CN descr: China TieTong Telecommunications Corporation Well, the DNS name is for a colocation facility in Lynnwood, WA via the Seattle Internet Exchange. I can confirm that the 6th hop actually does traverse the SIX, in as much as that IP is correct. Regards, Mike
RE: Syngenta space
-Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:11 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Syngenta space Hi, sorry for the noise, but my contact at Syngenta says they have 147.0.0.0/8 168.0.0.0/8 and 172.0.0.0/8, which is obviously bogus. They do have a 168.246.0.0/16 however. Any tool to look the other two up quickly, without having to iterate through the entire second octet? Thanks! I just scraped the BGP output from one of my border routers and came up with discrete more specific routes and AS's in all three blocks. Given that Sygenta doesn't appear to have an AS, we can assume they are not amongst them. Regards, Mike
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
I thought iced-over fiber was a little bit like muffler-bearings. Great excuse if they buy it. Mike On 4/1/11 6:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss. Owen On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:30 AM, GP Wooden wrote: I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ... - Reply message - From: Scott Morris s...@emanon.com Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am Subject: v6 Avian Carriers? To: nanog@nanog.org Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner? I'll vote with packet loss, 'cause tunneling seems pretty gross. ;) Scott On 4/1/11 2:41 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling? http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/ Marc
Re: DWDM Metro Access Design
On 3/21/11 5:36 PM, Livio Zanol Puppim livio.zanol.pup...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I don't know if this is the appropriate list for this kind of subject, so if anyone knows another specific list, please tell me... I'm analysing several DWDM designs to implement at my city, but I'm still a bit confusing about the Metro acess design. I'm supposed to build a physical ring topology with 6 pairs of fiber with an hub-and-spoke logical topology. The ring will have about 40Km. At the HUB we'll install our point-of-presence with a MPLS equipment, and at the spokes we'll use only IP routers. We need an flexible design where we can add or remove spokes as needed with the minimum effort possible. We are planning to have, at a initial deployment, about 200 hundred spokes, and all these spokes are talking only with the HUB site. Everything should work like in an FTTH or FTTB design, no other type of transportation is allowed (wireless and copper). We can't use SONET/SDH. The solution must be only IPoDWDM or complemented with TDMoIP at the access equipment. The problem, is that all documents that I'm reading specifies that we should be worried with faults scenarios at the spokes, so that the optical network does not stops. For example, if the OADM equipment at the spoke is down, the lambda dropped at that site will be down too... Or at least, if we use a lot of lambdas, we need to keep and eye at the points where we have regenerators. We need bandwidth from 10Mbps to 1000Mbps at these spokes. My question is: Is it possible to make such a network in a way that we don't need to worry about faults (electrical or others) at the spokes? If so, how can I do this? I don't want the spokes sites interfering directly at the operation for the whole network. Thanks for your help. Hello Livio: At some point you will have a single point of failure, it's just a matter of where. If you are running a single-threaded lambda or set of them into a spoke site, that node will go down should your transport gear fail. If you want your add-drop sites to be redundant through the network layer you will have to feed each spoke site from the East and West side of your ring on separate add-drop gear. That will be expensive. If price is no object, you can do that and then use your upper layer protocols to determine path availability. Or, you can build your add drop site with a single device and built-in redundancy (controller cards, power supplies, etc.) to keep the cost down. Long story short, if you need those sites to stay up regardless of anything else, you have to build two of everything at each site. It can certainly be done and many a vendor would like to talk to you about solutions I'm sure! :-) Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
NANOG List Outages
Hello: We had a system issue over the weekend that interrupted delivery of all of the NANOG mailing lists. We are working presently to clear the queues of the various applications that service the lists. I anticipate we will have complete delivery within a few hours. If you find that messages you sent to the lists have not been processed and you feel they need to be part of the lists, please send your message(s) again. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you have further issues please send emal to adm...@nanog.org and we will do our best to assist you. Regards, Mike On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Re: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware.
Potentially the Cisco 4900M. I can't find specifically about the GRE support however. My google-fu just finds discussion about v4 to v6 tunnels in software. The chassis has 8 built-in ports and two expansion modules that can each do another 4 TenG ports in a not-oversubscribed configuration. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) On 2/18/11 6:30 AM, Matt Newsom matt.new...@rackspace.com wrote: I am looking for a switch with a minimum of 12 X 10GE ports on it, that can has routing protocol support and can do GRE in hardware. Does anyone have a suggestion that might fit. Keep in mind I am looking for something in the 1-2U range and not a chassis. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
I have both Level3 and NTT v6 connections and there are no additional charges for the service. I recall NTT had one a few years ago, but I think that's fallen by the wayside. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) On 2/17/11 7:01 PM, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote: We pick up v6 from HE currently (like the rest of the world). L3 offered us dual stack also, but they wanted money to set it up plus MRC. None of our Bits That Matter (tm) go over v6 anyhow. (I guess the right phrase would be revenue producing bits). -Jack Carrozzo On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Eric Van Tol e...@atlantech.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:49 PM To: Jack Carrozzo Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection I'm curious what providers have not gotten their IPv6 plans/networks/customer ports enabled. I know that Comcast is doing their trials now (Thanks John!) and will be presenting at the upcoming NANOG about their experiences. What parts of the big I Internet are not enabled or ready? We don't see Savvis, Level3, or AboveNet with IPv6 capabilities in our region (DC). Two years ago, neither Verizon or ATT had IPv6, either. Not sure about them now, as we no longer use them for transit. One would think everyone would have v6 capabilities in the heart of government territory, but okay. For whatever reason, Verio actually charges (or used to) for their IPv6 separately from IPv4 and to top it all off, it wasn't significantly discounted. -evt
RE: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:04 PM To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksm...@adhost.commailto:mksm...@adhost.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.commailto:joey.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM To: nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know, generally there are two types of IXPs type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3 type 2: use switches and Ethernet topology, which works in layer 2. So I have a couple of qustions: 1. For type 1, the exchange routers may use several IP prefixes for routing, how often does the IP prefixes have their own AS? 2. For type 2, all peers connected to the IXP must work in the same subnet required by Ethernet rules. Is possible that the subnet IP prefixes belong to some private IP address space, such as 192.168.x.x? How often does this happen? If the subnet only contains public IP addresses, how are the addresses announced? Thanks, Yaoqing Hello: On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned addresses that we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above). Hopefully the addresses aren't being announced at all, although we sometimes have to chase down people that announce it. Those addresses aren't the destination for any traffic, they are merely part of the transport to a destination, so there is no need for them to be in the DFZ. But I just checked the IXP prefix list, and found SIX owns prefix 206.81.80.0/23http://206.81.80.0/23. And it has been announced by three ASNs, AS11537(Internet 2), AS3130(RGnet, LLC) and AS25973(Mzima Networks, Inc). I'm not sure if my info is correct. Does SIX own its own ASN other than the three above? Yaoqing
RE: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
-- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:04 PM To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksm...@adhost.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know, generally there are two types of IXPs type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3 type 2: use switches and Ethernet topology, which works in layer 2. So I have a couple of qustions: 1. For type 1, the exchange routers may use several IP prefixes for routing, how often does the IP prefixes have their own AS? 2. For type 2, all peers connected to the IXP must work in the same subnet required by Ethernet rules. Is possible that the subnet IP prefixes belong to some private IP address space, such as 192.168.x.x? How often does this happen? If the subnet only contains public IP addresses, how are the addresses announced? Thanks, Yaoqing Hello: On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned addresses that we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above). Hopefully the addresses aren't being announced at all, although we sometimes have to chase down people that announce it. Those addresses aren't the destination for any traffic, they are merely part of the transport to a destination, so there is no need for them to be in the DFZ. But I just checked the IXP prefix list, and found SIX owns prefix 206.81.80.0/23. And it has been announced by three ASNs, AS11537(Internet 2), AS3130(RGnet, LLC) and AS25973(Mzima Networks, Inc). I'm not sure if my info is correct. Does SIX own its own ASN other than the three above? Sorry for the misfire on my last email. The 206.81.80.0/23 network is assigned to the SIX from ARIN. In general, we don't want people to announce that space to the DFZ, so the three providers listed above are not filtering their announcements properly. It is, as others have said, a good idea to announce the exchange block to your customers, but not out to the DFZ. Regards, Mike
RE: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
-Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:34 AM To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost Cc: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksm...@adhost.com wrote: Sorry for the misfire on my last email. The 206.81.80.0/23 network is assigned to the SIX from ARIN. In general, we don't want people to announce that space to the DFZ, so the three providers listed above are not filtering their announcements properly. It is, as others have said, a good idea to announce the exchange block to your customers, but not out to the DFZ. why is it a good idea to send this to your customers? the next-hop info is surely only useful to your local network? done right it's even only relevant to the IX connected router, right? it seems wholely unusful to your customers. (to me at least) I was thinking about what Leo said about tools that test each hop through a path. At least my downstream customers will be able to test through the SIX connection if I announce the /23 to them. Mike
RE: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
-Original Message- From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know, generally there are two types of IXPs type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3 type 2: use switches and Ethernet topology, which works in layer 2. So I have a couple of qustions: 1. For type 1, the exchange routers may use several IP prefixes for routing, how often does the IP prefixes have their own AS? 2. For type 2, all peers connected to the IXP must work in the same subnet required by Ethernet rules. Is possible that the subnet IP prefixes belong to some private IP address space, such as 192.168.x.x? How often does this happen? If the subnet only contains public IP addresses, how are the addresses announced? Thanks, Yaoqing Hello: On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned addresses that we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above). Hopefully the addresses aren't being announced at all, although we sometimes have to chase down people that announce it. Those addresses aren't the destination for any traffic, they are merely part of the transport to a destination, so there is no need for them to be in the DFZ. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Re: ANNOUNCE: NANOG List and Website Downtime
Hello All: It appears that Merit has corrected the v6 redirect loop so all services should be operational at this point. If anyone is having any ongoing issues please let me know. Regards, Mike On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) On 2/14/11 6:43 AM, David Freedman david.freed...@uk.clara.net wrote: Somebody has helpfully pointed out that this is only broken over v6, v4 is fine $ curl -I -4 nanog.org HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:43:10 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.6 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.8e DAV/2 PHP/5.2.4 with Suhosin-Patch X-Powered-By: PHP/5.2.4 Content-Type: text/html Dave. David Freedman wrote: Has this move completed yet? I'm getting redirect loop: $ curl -I www.nanog.org HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:15:04 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.6 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.8e DAV/2 PHP/5.2.4 with Suhosin-Patch Location: http://www.nanog.org Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: Hello All: The NANOG website and NANOG mailing list will be unavailable during the times listed below. There is an issue with the present location within the University of Michigan environment that requires a physical move of the NANOG servers to a discrete location. We apologize for the short notice and will do our best to minimize the associated downtime. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know or you can address it on nanog-futures as well. Date of Outage: Sunday, February 13th, 2011 Start of Outage: 0500 EST (GMT -5) End of Outage: 0900 EST (GMT -5) Impact: www.nanog.org will be unavailable and the NANOG mailing list will not accept mail. Regards, Mike On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -- David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Group
Data Center Recommendations - Germany and China
Hello All: I need to find rack space in data centers in Germany and China, although the China requirement is more for low(er) latency access into China rather than needing to be physically in-country. Both data centers have to have the local equivalent of a SAS 70 Type II validation. Please feel free to send these to me offlist and I will summarize if there is an interest. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Helpful hint from the NANOG Communications Committee
Hello Everyone: If you receive an auto-responder message to a NANOG posting, please forward a copy to adm...@nanog.org and we'll set the account to no-mail and contact the sender. If you don't send us a copy we won't see it necessarily, so feel free to do so. Regards, Mike NANOG Communications Committee Chair -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: ARIN and IPv6 Requests
Hello Adam: You may want to post this on the ARIN PPML list since the policy folks are all there. They will be able to point your directly to the portion of the NPRM that applies. In addition, this would be the appropriate list to submit policy changes if you don't like the way things are being done now. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: adw...@dstsystems.com [mailto:adw...@dstsystems.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:23 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ARIN and IPv6 Requests But how is it relevant? Ever? It's like a bank asking you to justify your need for a loan by asking you how many apples you can pick in an hour. -- Adam Webb From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com To: adw...@dstsystems.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Date: 02/10/2011 04:10 PM Subject: Re: ARIN and IPv6 Requests Some policies allow you to use your IPv4 usage as justification of your need for IPv6. If you are applying under one of those policies, you need to fill in that information. If you are applying under a different qualification criteria, I believe you can leave that section blank. Owen On Feb 10, 2011, at 11:50 AM, adw...@dstsystems.com wrote: Initial. Documenting IPv4 usage is in the request template. -- Adam Webb From: Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com To: nanog@nanog.org Date: 02/10/2011 01:45 PM Subject: re: ARIN and IPv6 Requests We requested our initial allocation without any such questions. Is this your initial or additional? Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 From: adw...@dstsystems.com Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:38 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: ARIN and IPv6 Requests Why does ARIN require detailed usage of IPv4 space when requesting IPv6 space? Seems completely irrelevant to me. -- Adam Webb EN ES Team desk: 816.737.9717 cell: 916.949.1345 --- The biggest secret of innovation is that anyone can do it. --- - Please consider the environment before printing this email and any attachments. This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the individual or company to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure or unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all copies from your system.
ANNOUNCE: NANOG List and Website Downtime
Hello All: The NANOG website and NANOG mailing list will be unavailable during the times listed below. There is an issue with the present location within the University of Michigan environment that requires a physical move of the NANOG servers to a discrete location. We apologize for the short notice and will do our best to minimize the associated downtime. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know or you can address it on nanog-futures as well. Date of Outage: Sunday, February 13th, 2011 Start of Outage: 0500 EST (GMT -5) End of Outage: 0900 EST (GMT -5) Impact: www.nanog.org will be unavailable and the NANOG mailing list will not accept mail. Regards, Mike On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: Membership model
-Original Message- From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:m...@latt.net] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:29 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Membership model On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 12:40:41PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: I'll happily join Newnog/NANOG and pay my dues when I can reach the web site ot do so on IPv6 rather than legacy IPv4. I noticed that too, but shoot, I'm not even sure their host supports it. Besides, you'd still be v4 to Paypal. I opted to use IPv0 and mail them a check. --msa Yes it does. 2001:4970::::2 I'm bugging the powers-that-be about getting forward records working. [root@wa-geeks ~]# host 2001:4970::::2 2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.7.7.7.7.e.e.e.e.0.7.9.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain name pointer www.newnog.org. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring to NewNOG
Also not for the board, but it's also likely to be a DBA because of the 501(c)3 election process, which was initiated under the NewNOG name. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 6:36 AM To: Brian Johnson Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring to NewNOG I can't speak for the board, but as I understand it, it will probably be DBA (doing business as). The expense of going back and redoing all the work is just too much. Hopefully, we'll only see NewNOG used on legal documents from now on Dan On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote: Will there be a move to change the name of NewNOG to NANOG now that the IP has been transferred, or will this be more like a DBA situation? - Brian J. -Original Message- From: Steven Feldman [mailto:feld...@newnog.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:12 AM To: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring to NewNOG Yesterday, NewNOG and Merit Network signed an agreement to transfer the NANOG trademark and related resources to NewNOG, effective Monday, Feb. 7. This includes the nanog.org domain, the NANOG logo, and the contents and archives of the NANOG mailing lists and web site. NewNOG and Merit are working on a transition plan to migrate the mailing list and web infrastructure by the end of March with minimal downtime. For more information, see our joint press release: http://www.merit.edu/news/newsarchive/article.php?article=20110201_ nan og Steve, for the NewNOG board ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NewNOG membership policy adopted
Hello Brian: If you go to the Donors page (http://www.newnog.org/donors.php) there is a PayPal link there. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) On 1/17/11 6:37 AM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote: Who do I write out the check to, or can I use PayPal to pay? - Brian J. -Original Message- From: Steve Feldman [mailto:feld...@newnog.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:01 AM To: nanog-futures Subject: [Nanog-futures] NewNOG membership policy adopted Based on the proposal sent last month and discussion on this list, the NewNOG Board has adopted a membership policy. As in the proposal, there are two components: a Bylaws amendment to establish a framework, and a board resolution to set the policy. The full text of both parts are appended below. The amendment text is unchanged from the proposal. It takes effect immediately, but will need to be ratified by the membership during the fall election. After discussion on the list, we changed one element of the proposed framework, to allow the member registration discount to be applied to the general early registration rate and only exclude its use from special rates (such as for students.) This change appeared to have broad consensus. We chose to go with this simple set of rules, and can adjust them as needed as we gain experience. As always, discussion on this list is encouraged. Over the next few days, we will establish procedures to become a member, and will announce them here. Thanks, Steve (for the Board) === === Bylaws amendment, adopted by unanimous vote of the Board on January 4, 2011, effective immediately but subject to ratification by the membership: - Replace the current section 5 in its entirety with: 5. Membership 5.1 Membership Qualifications Membership in NewNOG is open to any individual with an interest in Internet operations, engineering, or research and who wishes to further education and knowledge sharing within the Internet operations community. Any individual may become a member of NewNOG by completing an application and payment of dues. 5.2 Membership Classes There shall be only one class of membership, with all the rights and privileges specified in these Bylaws. 5.3 Membership Dues The Board of Directors shall specify the cost of annual membership dues. The Board may establish discounts for members meeting certain criteria, or for members wishing to pay for more than one year in advance. 5.4 Rights and Benefits of Members Members in good standing shall be entitled to these privileges: * Vote in all NewNOG elections. * Run as a candidate for the Board of Directors * Serve on an administrative committee, as defined in section 9 * Other privileges as specified by the Board of Directors 5.5 Policies and Procedures The Board of Directors shall establish and publish policies and procedures for implementation of the membership program. === === Membership Policies and Procedures, adopted by Board resolution Jan. 4, 2011: 1. Annual Dues 1.1 Standard rate The standard annual dues is $100. 1.2 Student discount Students enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate degree program at an accredited institution will receive a 50% discount for annual dues. Proof of enrollment is required. This may not be combined with any other discount. 1.3 Multi-year discount Individuals who prepay three or more years of membership in advance will receive a 10% discount. This may not be combined with any other discount. 2. Membership Terms 2.1 Start of membership The term of membership shall begin immediately upon receipt of the member's application and payment for dues. 2.2 Expiration of membership 2.2.1 New memberships For new members, the term of membership shall expire one year after the last day of the month during which the membership started, unless membership is renewed. 2.2.2 Continuing memberships For continuing members, the term of membership shall expire one year after the previous expiration date, unless membership is renewed. 2.3 Renewal A member may renew by submitting payment of the current dues amount before the expiration of the current membership term. Members who have prepaid for more than one year in advance shall be automatically renewed for the additional years prepaid. 3. Additional Benefits 3.1 Meeting discount Members in good standing will receive a $25 discount on registration fees for any conference operated by NewNOG. This discount may not be applied any to any special registration rates, such as for speakers, students, sponsors, or members of the press. === ===
NANOG Server Maintenance - 1700 EST
Hello Everyone: Merit will be performing maintenance on the server providing for the NANOG mailing list at 5:00 PM EST today. The anticipated downtime is less than 5 minutes. If you have any questions please send let us know at adm...@nanog.org. Regards, Mike On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Here's what I see: Level 3: 2949 HE: 3775 NTT: 3867 Init7: 3665 Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:08 PM To: 'Jared Mauch' Cc: NANOG list Subject: RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons The provider who gave me the information didn't tell me what public route server they used. They didn't analyze all ASNs, just the handful I listed. It would be interesting if someone set up a daily report that documented all the IPv6 routes an ASN carried, and then tracked both the absolute numbers and percentages over time. Frank -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:51 PM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Not sure what route-server you are speaking of, but a quick peek at what we send on a customer session I see: NTT (2914) sends 3868 prefixes. If the route server contacts me in private, we can likely set up a view from 2914 or 2914-customer perspective. - Jared On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Frank -Original Message- From: Bryan Fields [mailto:br...@bryanfields.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:56 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes :-D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On Dec 21, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 12/21/2010 14:18, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Does this mean Verizon is carrying PI /48s now? ~Seth Yes they are. Mike
NANOG Server Maintenance
Hello All: This Friday morning, December 17, at 5:00 a.m. EST, Merit staff will relocate the server that operates the NANOG mailing lists and website. This will result in a list outage that should last not more than two hours. If you have any questions, please send them to adm...@nanog.org. Regards, Mike On behalf of the Communications Committee -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
-Original Message- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:15 PM To: Sean Figgins Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote: If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee. If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not sure why NewNOG should say no. I would strike the whole of 4.1. I see no reason for it. If orchid enthusiasts want to join NANOG, let them join. +1 I don't think we have the resources as a volunteer/community-led organization to vet every new member, a la the IEEE. The community is completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we wouldn't have that same inclusivity in the new organization. Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
RE: P2P link over STM-1
-Original Message- From: Peter Rudasingwa [mailto:peter.rudasin...@altechstream.rw] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 1:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: P2P link over STM-1 I have clients who want a P2P link over STM-1. How can I achieve this? What kind of equipment do I need. At the moment I have a cisco 6500 and 7200VXR Thanks, Peter R. AFAIK you can get a channelized STM-1 card and offer your customers E-1's, etc. Or, if you are looking to do Ethernet you would have to move into the 15454 type chassis. Mike
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable commitment? Specifically what is your objection to offering life membership? i thought i was pretty clear, if terse. we do not have consensus over membership categories. life membership is unwindable should we decide against it. personally, i am not strongly against it, but am sceptical. it may get a cash infusion now, but what will it do to income down the road when folk don't need to renew? [0] does newnog actually need the infusion up front? are there other ways to deal with the financial problem that the attempt to create of this class of membership implies? randy Short term cash supply is important; we have a decent lag between now and NANOG 52 where there will be a significant outflow of cash for salaries, hotel contracts, etc. without any meeting revenue. Having lifetime members commit early will help the balance sheet through this period. In the long run I don't believe it will have a detrimental effect because meeting and development revenue will be coming in. Regards, Mike finance-wg member hat ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] NANOG 50 Dali Exhibit
Hello All: If you are attending NANOG 50 in Atlanta and have free time there is an exhibit of Salvador Dali's late period works at the High Museum that is incredible. And if you are here now there will be a discussion with his former students and models as well as the exhibit curator at 2 EDT. Hope to see you there! Mike Sent from my iPhone ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
RE: Randy in Nevis
-Original Message- From: Lyndon Nerenberg [mailto:lyn...@orthanc.ca] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:30 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Randy in Nevis On 10-09-27 7:20 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: Cannot establish SSL with SMTP server 67.202.37.63:465 does not sound like a 587 problem to me. netalyzr folks? comment? Sorry, I hit send too soon ... I've heard from a couple of people that the PIX will remap 587 (and 25) to oddball ports if you fiddle the config just right. Given all the other bogosity that box does with SMTP I wonder if there's truth to the rumour. (I haven't found anyone who can reproduce this on demand, so it's still apocryphal for now.) Static (inside,outside) tcp outside ip 25 inside ip 65535 Access-list outside_acl permit tcp any any eq 25 No fixup smtp That will redirect port 25 to port 65535, allow port 25 through the firewall, and remove the fixup that changes the server banner to *, which breaks most mail communications. Regards, Mike
RE: US hunters shoot down Google fibre
-Original Message- From: Reese [mailto:re...@inkworkswell.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:36 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre At 11:39 21 09 10, Leslie wrote: I don't think anyone is claiming all hunters/gun owners are irresponsible, Re-read the article. [h]unters it said, not some hunters or irresponsible hunters. How broad must the brush be, before you feel personally impugned and maligned? but, as with any segment of the population, when you have a large group there will be a percentage of complete idiots out there who take stupid actions. I acknowledged that. I regret its truthiness. But with Google and only Google as a named victim of the hardware DoS, I have yet to read anything that convinces me that it was not corporate sabotage. My point was not that wires and insulators do not get shot or shot at, but that hunters was a convenient excuse that other things could be too-conveniently classified with. Who, here, hunts? Shoot at wires and insulators on towers, do you? Reese I live in Washington State and have managed a fiber network along paths similar to the ones being taken by Google. Every winter we had at least 4 shotgun-blast outages, sometimes in the middle of nowhere and sometimes with a direct line of site to the back porch of a local manufactured home.You would be amazed at what people find fun with during a long, cold winter and a belly full of libations. And I can almost guarantee you it wasn't sabotage. In many cases, the revelers were shooting at power lines and happened to hit the fibers wrapped around the ground wire. These are 500 kV lines by the way. Long story short, you can't account for stupid. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
[NANOG-announce] Call for Nominations - Communications Committee
Hello: Nominations for the NANOG Communications Committee are now open. This is a great way to become involved and serve the NANOG community. From the website: The Communications Committee is a group of five individuals from the NANOG community who together are responsible for the administration and moderation of the NANOG mailing lists. A new Communications Committee will be selected by the Steering Committee after the election in October. Two positions are to be filled. The currently-serving Communications Committee members whose terms are expiring are Randy Epstein and Tim Yocum. The main NANOG mailing list serves an important role in the community by providing a day-to-day forum for network operators. Participating as a member of the Communications Committee gives you the opportunity to make a noticeable contribution. The Communications Committee is covered under section 7.1.2 of the NANOG charter. If you are interested in volunteering on the Communications Committee, please either volunteer yourself or nominate someone you feel would be willing and able to serve. Please send nominations to nominati...@nanog.org and include your name, company affiliation, a brief biography and a statement of interest. This information will be posted to the NANOG website in the coming weeks. Please see http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2010elections/index.php for more information as well as samples of previous candidate submissions. Kind Regards, Michael K. Smith NANOG Communications Committee Chair ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
RE: POS to Ethernet Converter
-- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Alan Bryant [mailto:a...@gtekcommunications.com] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:00 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: POS to Ethernet Converter I did a quick google search for a converter but either I'm not understanding, or I'm not searching for the right thing. We currently have a POS OC-3 that I would like to be able to convert it to Ethernet, if possible. Do such devices exist? -- Alan Bryant | Systems Administrator Gtek Computers Wireless, LLC. a...@gtekcommunications.com | www.gtek.biz O 361-777-1400 | F 361-777-1405 You mean something like this? http://www.rad.com/10/GbE-over-STM-1-OC-3-SFP-Converter/17834/ Regards, Mike
Brief NANOG Mailing Lists Outage - 8/18/2010
Hello All: This Wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. EDT, Merit staff will replace the power supply on the NANOG server that operates the mailing lists. (The original power supply failed some time ago and was swapped for a part owned by a different project. In the operation on Wednesday, a new power supply will be installed.) This will result in a list outage that should last not more than 15 minutes if all goes well. Regards, Mike NANOG Communications Committee Chair
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
snip In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a transition where 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with identified problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' (this would have taken time) 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the community (was not really developed fully), and yet 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. This due to... a classic inter-group conflict that could have been better handled with a mediator and informal discussions. I suspected the same when the initial announcement came out, that some interpersonal conflict triggered a rush to action rather than a well orchestrated transition. It seems that 2) above is being addressed to a large extent. But 1) above is the real How we got here question. I have heard allusions to disagreements with regard to meeting schedules and locations, but I have no idea what those disagreements were. Did Merit want more meetings and the SC fewer, or the other way around? What happened at that closed meeting with no minutes with Merit uninvited? Who at the SC felt that who at Merit had polluted their Cheerios, and why? Again, why is this so important? Even as Bill said, the concept of NANOG going on its own has been around since the beginning of the organization, and has been discussed formally for at least 5 years. You are concerned with the ongoing relationship between NANOG and Merit and I would suggest that the SC is acutely aware of this relationship and wants it to be amicable as well. Why get into a he-said, she-said between the two organizations? Nothing good can come of that approach and I think that both the SC and Merit have done an excellent job of keeping this on a business level. Polluting the Cheerios discussion can become personal very quickly and this is not a personal decision. Actions are usually taken to solve specific problems. According to previous list postings, the SC took this action at a closed meeting, without minutes, without Merit present, and came up with a unanimous decision that immediate action was needed, which Merit thought was a bad idea. Much of this was addressed in the community meeting. There have been scheduling conflicts in the past where NANOG has been scheduled on top of other network-oriented meetings, causing many community members to have to decide what meeting to attend. Also, the scheduling of meetings is something that happens far in advance. In order to make sure we got NANOG 52 contracted, we had to get the organization formalized in short order to sign those contracts. The community has not been informed as to the specific problem that needed this immediate solution. Those who chose to take this action at a meeting without minutes, with no community involvement, have appointed themselves as the BoD of the new organization. This is worrisome to me. Again, the BoD is following the SC-elections exactly. As an example, Joe Provo will term out at the end of this year, and he will also term out from the BoD of NewNOG. The SC appointed themselves because we had to have a wireframe organization in place to begin the 501(c)(3) application as well as to sign contracts for upcoming meetings. There is no cabal. There are working groups being established with community volunteers that will determine what NewNOG will look like. A call for volunteers was issued at NANOG 49 and many have responded. If you have strong opinions about governance I suggest you become involved. If I had seen a large group of opposition to the concept at NANOG 49 I would certainly have rethought my position, but since there wasn't such a group. We were lucky that we can have an amicable parting of the ways, so it appears the timing was right. I don't think it's all that amicable, based on the initial posting to this list and Merit's response. We in the cheap seats may never know. It was really too late by NANOG 49 to unring the bell. By that time whether wasn't really a viable option. No large opposition because people didn't know the How we got here, and no real way to stop it. By that time it was a done deal. There are a few, vocal opponents, but I don't see they are opposed to NewNOG. Rather, they are opposed to the procedural decision of the SC to act on behalf of the community in creating NewNOG. I suggest they also volunteer to help shape the new organization. I can't disagree more strongly with your statement that we've lost an opportunity. All the SC did was to create a wireframe organization that directly mirrors the present structure, sans Merit, of course. The community now has the opportunity to shape that organization through volunteering and direct involvement in the new organization. Doing the nuts and bolts work of creating a new organization is not done through committee, unless you want to
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
snip aol but where the heck are pro forma financial projections for the new nanog? we were to get them with lead time to actualy study and ask questions before now. randy The hope is to get the pro forma out before the end of the week. We just received additional data from Merit that had to be incorporated into the document, adding to the costs side of the equation in a fairly significant way. The wireframe of the pro forma is not particularly complex and I have no doubt everyone will be able to digest it in short order. Regards, Mike On behalf of the transition team ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
-Original Message- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 4:57 AM To: Sean Figgins Cc: Nanog Futures Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update On 2010-06-09, at 07:08, Sean Figgins wrote: I would think that there may also me less apprehension if as part of incorporating, THIS SC was disbanded, and a new election was held for the new board of directors. We certainly should reward all the hard work that it takes make this happen, but anything that THIS SC does, should not mean automatic entitlement to some type of corporate royal status. If the replacement schedule for board members of NANOG, Inc. matched the existing replacement schedule for the SC, I don't see why any extraordinary measures would be called for. We're assuming that the NANOG, Inc. board has the same members as the SC, of course, which I don't remember hearing in any public context. The present BoD mirrors exactly the present SC, and the existing NANOG by-laws were used for the new organization. The plan, as it stands now, is to have a direct relationship between the two groups. So, when a new SC member is voted in, they will be on the BoD for NewNOG. Regards, Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] The NewNOG Website
Hello Everyone: The NewNOG website is up at http://www.newnog.org. It is definitely in its nascent stage but more data is being added every day. Please take a look at the site and look at the documentation that has been posted already. This includes the Board of Directors information, the Certificate of Incorporation, the initial bylaws and donor information. The meeting minutes for previous Board meetings will be added in the near future, as will the initial Pro Forma. If there is any information you would like to see added, please don't hesitate to let me know, or you can send email directly to the board at bo...@newnog.org. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
-Original Message- From: Pete Templin [mailto:peteli...@templin.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:31 PM To: joel jaeggli Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update joel jaeggli wrote: Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC. That's my point. Merit has numerous people working on NANOG, but as far as I know they don't have staff 100% dedicated to NANOG (1). As a result, if NANOG separates from Merit, they'll have to reorganize their staff across the remaining Merit activities, likely leading to a few layoffs. Therefore, in the interest of not laying people off, Merit won't want to let NANOG go independent. Hence, the skin in the game, and a strong reason they won't speak objectively about NANOG's separation. pt [1] Betty Burke has said on multiple occasions that Merit doesn't want NANOG to occur in late June, as it conflicts with Merit's year-end. If the Merit staff assigned to NANOG were 100% dedicated to NANOG, this conflict wouldn't exist. I've been working with the SC as part of the transition team, but I am not a member of the BoD, so this is not an official proclamation in any capacity. I don't think it's wise to pre-suppose what will happen on the Merit side. They will be represented at the Community Meeting at NANOG 49 and any questions about their intentions, motivations and perceptions about the change are best held until that meeting. There is a lot of work going on in the background in preparation for the transition itself and the upcoming NANOG. Real work is being accomplished on key components of the transition, including but not limited to a budget, 501(c)(3) status, the structure of the new organization and its membership, as well as cogent answers to all of the questions that have been posted to -futures in the last weeks. All of the concerns raised in -futures are being discussed and will be addressed to the best of everyone's ability at the Community Meeting. Personally, I think this is preferable to multiple back and forth discussions on the -futures list, given that there is a lot of overlap of questions and concerns that can all be addressed in one shot when we all meet face to face. My .02, worth every penny. Regards, Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
-Original Message- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:41 AM To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost Cc: Pete Templin; joel jaeggli; nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update On 2010-06-03, at 13:00, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: Personally, I think this is preferable to multiple back and forth discussions on the -futures list, given that there is a lot of overlap of questions and concerns that can all be addressed in one shot when we all meet face to face. For those who will not be able to attend and hear the update in person (e.g. we have a root zone to sign), it'd be nice to know that there will be - a way to watch the proceedings without being there, and - some notes of the salient points available promptly after the meeting is over, for those whose schedules don't allow them to watch it in real-time I appreciate we can't always get what we want :-) Joe I can't speak for the interactive video but, I will volunteer to take notes of the proceedings and get them posted to the -futures list as quickly as possible. Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
RE: BGP Transit AS
-Original Message- From: Rafael Ganascim [mailto:rganas...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: BGP Transit AS Hi all, I have a doubt about the bellow scenario, where the ISP1 use eBGP sessions to its peers and is a BGP Transit AS. NSP 1 -- ISP 1 Router2 --- NSP 2 | | | | | | | annunce /21 | | | Customer1 --- ISP 1 Router1 announce /20 The Customer1 is client on both ISPs (ISP1 and NSP1) and have an /20 IP prefix. To NSP1, it announce two /21 prefixes. To ISP1, it announce a /20 prefix. If traffic comes from NSP 2 (connected only to ISP 1) to Customer1, the ISP 1 Routers try to send data over NSP 1, ignoring the Custormer1-ISP1 link. To solve this question, an solution that I found is filter Customer1 prefixes in BGP session between NSP1 and ISP1 Router2. But this don't appear scalable... Is this solution right ? What is the better solution for this scenario? How large ISPs solve this kind of problem? The more specific /21's are winning over the /20, so they will always be preferred by default. If you want to change that, you could announce the /20 to NSP1, or announce the /21's to ISP1. Mike
RE: Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?]
-Original Message- From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:40 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?] I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's more, they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no gratitude. It is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will be derided. Filter someone and they get flamed. Leave someone allowed to post and they get reamed. I'm shocked anyone would actually want the job. So why can't the Communications Committee do a little communicating. Sure it's thankless work if you do it in secret and in silence. But the occasional message to the list wouldn't hurt. People WOULD feel thankful if they see that the CC is making an attempt. So, I propose a new rule: To flame the CC, you MUST have volunteered to be on the CC. Right, so you are an unvolunteer on the CC. Why do we only hear from unvolunteers? Hello: The Communications Committee follows a published procedure for handling violations of the AUP, found at http://www.nanog.org/governance/communications/warningpolicy.php. The process is not instantaneous, but is designed to insure we are not acting with undue haste when taking action against a particular list participant. We are always open to suggestions and comments regarding the process and the best forum for that is nanog-futures. This is also an appropriate venue for discussing the idea of more formal and/or frequent notifications from the Communications Committee regarding actions we have taken. Kind Regards, Michael Smith On behalf of the Communications Committee
RE: Best VPN Appliance
-Original Message- From: Blomberg, Orin P (DOH) [mailto:orin.blomb...@doh.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:37 AM To: sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net; Voll, Toivo; Chris Campbell; Dawood Iqbal Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Best VPN Appliance There is also the fact to consider that Cisco has said there will be no support for Windows 64-bit on their IPSEC client, they are pushing people to the AnyConnect (An SSL-based clientless IPSEC) who want to use Windows 64-bit or other OSs, so in the future the argument for having a separate box for client-based IPSEC will be moot. The beta 64-bit VPN client has been released, FYI. Mike
Moderated Post - SORBS...
Hello Everyone: The thread Sorbs on autopilot? has been moderated. Kind Regards, Mike (on behalf of the NANOG CC) -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Request for Information - IPv6 Routing Table Snapshots
Hello Everyone: I am requesting the assistance of operators who are receiving full IPv6 routing tables from upstream, transit providers. If you could send me a copy of your full IPv6 table, as plain text or whatever format best suits, I would be sincerely grateful. I am doing some preliminary work on a potential NANOG presentation regarding the differences in IPv6 routing tables presentation from various large transit providers, because I've seen some oddities in announcement variations between several of them and want to dig deeper. Sadly, I only have two v6 transit providers, although I've had a third in the past and will again in the near future, so I will have 3 tables to compare. It would be good to have as many sample objects as possible. Please note this isn't a matter of looking at the global routing table from a looking glass - I'm interested to see what each provider is presenting to their customer, and extrapolating internal policies and potential pitfalls in the future as IPv6 is deployed in earnest. I have tables from NTT, TWTC and HE already. If you could add to this I would be grateful. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns as well. Kind Regards, Mike Smith -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: Request for Information - IPv6 Routing Table Snapshots
-Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:14 AM To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Request for Information - IPv6 Routing Table Snapshots you might take a look at route-views6.routeviews.org last I looked it had 22 neighbors. you can either telnet to it (it's quagga) or look in the archived ribs here: http://archive.routeviews.org/route-views6/bgpdata/ Thanks Joel. 15 active peers, by the way. Perhaps now is a good time to plug connecting to the v6 Route Views server... Regards, Mike
RE: Help -- Having trouble trying to activate a GigE connection
Hello Michael: -Original Message- From: Michael Ruiz [mailto:mr...@telwestservices.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:02 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Help -- Having trouble trying to activate a GigE connection Group, I am having an issue with activating a Gige interface between a Cisco 7206 VXR w/IO-1GE module to a 7606 w/sup720-3bxls connecting to a line module WS-X6416-GBIC. I have verified that the GBIC-MMF have good light reading and the MMF fiber jumper are not reversed. The GigE connection comes up briefly for about a few seconds, takes a burst of errors and goes down. I have tried to set the speed to nonegotiate on both ends, set one end to speed auto. No dice. Here is the copy of the configuration. On my 7606 I show that the GigE interface is up/up but on the 7206vxr I show down/down. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! I don't think there is any reason to have hard-set speed and duplex, particularly between two Cisco's. Why not just set *both* sides (you can't set just one) to auto-negotation - 'no speed nonegotiate' on the 7606 side. Is this a straight shot, single fiber pair between the two or are there intermediate junctions or optics? It sounds like you have questionable fiber or optics in the path. It could be the fiber itself or the GBICs on either side. Regards, Mike
RE: multicast nightmare #42
As an aside, the 6-port GigE card is not oversubscribed. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Philip Lavine [mailto:source_ro...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:07 PM To: Eric Ortega; nanog Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Thank you Eric you are a genius, that has solved and issue that has plagued me for 3 years. the problem was exactly as you said over subscription of the 8 ports tied to 1 ASIC From: Eric Ortega eric_ort...@mmi.net To: Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 9:51:43 AM Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Depending on the model of blade there is an 8-to-1 over subscription on the 4500s. I have had all kinds of headaches with this myself. The 48 port SFP gig blade can only have 1 gig per each set of 8 ports. The aggregate ports are known as gigaports. The layout is gigaport 1 = 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 gigaport 2 = 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16 and so on. I bet that if add up the total bandwidth in each gigaport you might be over the limit Philip Lavine wrote: I wish that was the case but the switch is a 4500 and the data rates are less than 100 mbps on a 1 gig blade/sup From: Eric Ortega eric_ort...@mmi.net To: Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:24:59 AM Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Are you over subscribing either the link or the backplane of the switching device? Philip Lavine wrote: Please explain how this would be possible: 1 sender 1 mcast group 1 receiver = no data loss 1 sender 1 mcast group 2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment = data loss -- Eric R. Ortega Network Engineer Midcontinent Communications 605.357.5720 eric_ort...@gmail.com -- Eric R. Ortega Network Engineer Midcontinent Communications 605.357.5720 eric_ort...@gmail.com
RE: IPv6 in the ARIN region
-Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:28 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IPv6 in the ARIN region New thread: who will route the full IPv6 table? So far I'm seeing PI /48's out of 2620:0:/23 from: NTT, 2914 ATT, 7018 Sprint, 1239 and 6175 Hurricane, 6939 Level 3, 3356 Global Crossing, 3549 Qwest, 209 You can add Time Warner, AS 4323, to the list. Regards, Mike
RE: cross connect reliability
Hello Michael: -Original Message- From: Michael J McCafferty [mailto:m...@m5computersecurity.com] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:46 PM To: nanog Subject: cross connect reliability All, Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider. From memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to fail while in service, in 4yrs and recently there was a bad SFP on their end as well. This seemes like a high failure rate to me. When I asked about the high failure rate, they said that they run a lot of cables and there is a lot of jiggling and wiggling... lots of chances to get bent out of whack from activity near my patches and cables. Until a few years ago my time was spent mostly in single tenant data centers, and it may be true that we made fewer cabling changes and made less of a ruckus when cabling... but this still seems like a pretty high failure rate at the colo. I am curious; what do you expect the average reliability of your FastE or GigE copper cross-connects at a colo? Thanks, Mike I agree with their Reason for Outage, but it sounds like a design issue. We prewire all of our switches to patch panels so they don't get touched once they're installed. The patch panels are much more friendly to insertions and removals than a 48 port 1-U switch. We also have multiple connections on the fiber side to avoid those failures. With all of that, we still have failures, but their effect and frequency are minimized. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: Datacenter recommendations - China and Latin America
Sorry to respond to my own message! Given the replies so far I think I should expand China to include Hong Kong. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksm...@adhost.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:41 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Datacenter recommendations - China and Latin America Hello Everyone: Does anyone have any recommendations for data centers in China (PRC) and Latin America? The Latin America site doesn't have to be in any particular country within the region, although facilities with good network connectivity are obviously preferred. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Datacenter recommendations - China and Latin America
Hello Everyone: Does anyone have any recommendations for data centers in China (PRC) and Latin America? The Latin America site doesn't have to be in any particular country within the region, although facilities with good network connectivity are obviously preferred. Regards, Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Datacenter recommendations - China and Latin America [SUMMARY]
Hello: Thank you to everyone that provided off-list recommendations. I've compiled the list of providers in no particular order. Regards, Mike Latin America - Securehost - http://www.securehost.com - Triara (Telmex) - http://www.triara.com/Datacenter.htm - KIO Networks - Xertix - Hortolandia - CyDC (Brazil Telecom) - http://www.cydc.com.br - ALOG - http://www.alog.com.br - Terremark - http://www.terremark.com.br - Locaweb (Brazil) China/Hong Kong - Telehouse Beijing - http://www.telehouse.com/globalfacilities.php#asia - Vianet - http://www.21vianet.com/en/index.jsp - Mega-Iadvantage - http://www.iadvantage.net/facilities/facilities_megai_main.html - Dailan - InterNAP (partnering with Equinix) - Equinix - http://www.equinix.com/locations/map/asiapacific/hongkong/ -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
RE: Fire, Power loss at Fisher Plaza in Seattle
-Original Message- From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:t...@byrneit.net] Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 10:20 AM To: David Hubbard; NANOG list Subject: RE: Fire, Power loss at Fisher Plaza in Seattle This begs the question of what basic parameters should be for a carrier hotel or co-lo. Given that we're getting designated Critical Infrastructure, we'd getter start coming up with some, or we'll have them defined for us. I think the more important question is, what do you consider redundancy? We have facilities in Plaza East (no down) and Plaza West (unaffected). If you are critical infrastructure there is no amount of redundancy that you should offload onto a colo provider. Instead, you build your redundancy across different data centers, different providers, different everything. If you rely on a single provider for any of the aforementioned then you have built in at least one single point of failure, regardless of the resiliency of the underlying provider. My .02, worth almost every penny. Mike
RE: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!
That was my assumption when I checked the UCLA is wrong button on the form. We only have one downstream, but it's a distinct ASN so that says not stub to me. Mike Randy top posting - will wonders never cease. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:58 AM To: Ricardo Oliveira Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly,see it now on the net! OK,a buckety of salt. From my pov, a stub has zero downstreams. randy, on iPhone On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:39, Ricardo Oliveira rvel...@cs.ucla.edu wrote: Jack, Please give me your ASN and i'll double check our data. As long as the network has 4 or less downstreams, it's being labeled as stub. More details here: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/completeness-ton.pdf Thanks, --Ricardo On Jun 24, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Jack Bates wrote: Randy Bush wrote: please do check your as at http://psg.com/default/ and then actually look at your router config. i found one of my routers still had a default from when i was bringing it up. Ick. Nothing was right. Reported as mixed, though that may be my fault and not your testing. Hmmm. Or your test didn't take some things into account like changes over time. Normally I keep a default route available, but due to changing IGP internally I actually have a default which points interior from the edge routers. So when I shut down the last BGP session on the old cisco, the defaults to the transits went away. Was also reported as a stub. Glad to know that I don't have BGP customers. Oh, wait, I do. :) Jack
Re: [Nanog-futures] Countermeasures for spam from social networks
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Joe Provo nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:51:45AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote: [snip] aol Is this really enough of a problem to devote the MLC and Merit's energy toward solving it? I do agree that if this really is worth the effort, filtering on the subject will cause much less collateral damage than filtering on the sender's domain. /aol Eh. I think aol has lost its relevance. You were there went it meant something. It's (and other phraseology) cultural significance is less and less everyday and is indicative of the nature of change that takes place on the Internet, oh, every two years now I suppose. The more we can automate to match community policy the easier it is to maintain and the more fair it is to the users and the admins. No? Best, Martin ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
RE: IXP
Hello Deepak: -Original Message- So here is an idea that I hope someone shoots down. We've been talking about pseudo-wires, and the high level of expertise a shared-fabric IXP needs to diagnose weird switch oddities, etc. As far as I can tell, the principal reason to use a shared fabric is to allow multiple connections to networks that may not justify their own dedicated () router port. Once they do, they can move over to a PNI. However, an IXP is (at the hardware level at least) trying to achieve any-to-any connectivity without concern for capacity up to the port size of each port on every flow. Scaling this to multiple pieces of hardware has posed interesting challenges when the connection speed to participants is of the same order as the interconnection between IXP switches. So here is a hybrid idea, I'm not sure if It has been tried or seriously considered before. Since the primary justification for a shared fabric is cost savings What if everyone who participated at an IXP brought their own switch. For argument's sake, a Nexus 5xxx. It has 20+ ports of L2, wire speed 10G. [Michael K. Smith - Adhost] This sounds like fertile ground for unintended consequences. Unmanaged spanning tree topological changes as three people, previously connected to their own switch and to others, now decide to connect to each other as well, using those inexpensive L2 ports. Regards, Mike
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)
IPv4-style utilization ratios do make some sense under IPv6, but not at the address level - only at the network level. First, it was (mostly) a joke. Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand each cable modem a /64? At the least. Some would say a /56 is more appropriate. So, one /64 for your desktop and one /64 for your open wireless. :-) Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
RE: out-of-band access bandwidth
Hi all, A quick question, what is the common bandwidth for out-of-band access? Thanks. In the optical world it's often 192 Kb/sec. Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
RE: What to do when your ISP off-shores tech support
-Original Message- From: Matthew Black [mailto:bl...@csulb.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 10:32 AM To: Etaoin Shrdlu; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What to do when your ISP off-shores tech support On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:10:33 -0800 Etaoin Shrdlu shr...@deaddrop.org wrote: Matthew Black wrote: On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:51:41 -0800 Tomas L. Byrnes t...@byrneit.net wrote: Cox Communications has fully on-shore support. Here in SD they are actually LOCAL. In Verizon land, residential customers do not have CLEC voice or DSL alternatives. We do not have Cox. Our area is served by Charter Communications who has the broadband cable monopoly. Verizon has the fiber monopoly with their FIOS. ATT fiber is not possible in Verizon land. Nobody competes against Verizon for residential service in Southern California. Sir, both COVAD and DSLExtreme beg to differ. Seriously. I just checked. -- The histories of mankind are histories only of the higher classes. Thomas Malthus Going through COVAD's interactive DSL chooser, there are no options for RESIDENTIAL service. http://covad.com/web/index.html DSLextreme is charging a higher price than Verizon and I suspect they are simply reselling Verizon's DSL rather than connecting my copper to their network. That's hardly what I consider CLEC service. I could be wrong and would switch if I could. But I don't see them offering voice and that's why I conclude they are reselling Verizon's DSL service. matthew black california state university, long beach They are probably using Verizon for the local loop, but they also hopefully have their own DSLAM's and Layer 3 network to transport your data. That would be a good question to ask them. It sounds like you have a price/quality issue going on. Do you want to pay a little more for better service? If price is your main qualifier then you may be stuck vis a vis quality. Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
RE: 10GE CWDM
Hello Alex: Depending how cheap and ghetto you want to get, there's also possibility of doing WDM on 1310/1300. I have custom-manufactured splitters filtering 1307nm +-2nm - and any given LR XFP [*1] will be either within that band or outside [*2]. Test a bunch of them, split them into two groups, use on the tested wavelength. Bunch of friendsfamily are using this technology in production. This gives you an ability to do 20G with very cheap optics. [*1] Except ones with very temperature dependent wavelength - mark them as warms up to 1300 and use if you don't care that your links will take about 5 minutes to warm up and come up. :) [*2] Any LX4 Xenpak would be outside of the band as well, and you can use LX4 concurrently with LR. There are some more ghetto fabulous things you can do, described in http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/presenter-pdfs/pilosov.pdf ;) -alex Do you have any issues with four wave mixing or other crosstalk issues or do you account for this in your channel plan? Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
-Original Message- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:36 AM To: Joel Jaeggli Cc: nanog-futures Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout? It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. -M http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/chess_clocks/ChessTimer+Plus+Digital+Chess+Clock?ac=froogl Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
-Original Message- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:51 AM To: Alex Pilosov Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage On Nov 28, 2007 1:33 PM, Alex Pilosov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo. In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup with this autoresponder policy. Please don't confuzzle things. Was it an email *to* the list or was it private email to J.Oquendo? Is his mail bouncing or not? You seem to like to apply standards to things based on how you want to react. So far, I've been reading Dillon, Bush, Oquendo, whine about being asked to be on topic. We've had agreement on Bush's bad behavoir here before, Dillons as well, not Oquendo, but he over-reacted based on a message that he did not see which he didn't know about -- since he didn't see it. To date, nobody has been warned. :-) It's amazing that challenging someones validity causes such a ruckus. Mail from the list to the list subscriber is not bouncing. Thus, no violation of the AUP. It doesn't matter what it was in response *to*. Private email between list members is not covered by AUP. In case this still isn't clear, if I send a private email response to someone in response to their list post that contains off-topic information, that's not the AUP violation. To insist that any email between list members need to comply to AUP is silly. Um. That's what happens when someone elses mailer responds to yours and mail doesn't route through Merit's mailer. It's conversation between your assets and mine. If Merit were somehow involved, you might be right. To the list, as a result of a list post, etc. They work exactly the same as far as I can tell. Mail from the list to the list subscriber is not bouncing. Thus, no violation of the AUP. I do not wish to see action taken against J Oquendo related to mail bouncing between you and him. Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
