Re: Job: Head of Network Operations - NEXTDC - Sydney Australia - 457 Available
I wasn't aware it was... as someone else politely pointed out. But Randy, feel absolutely free not to ever look at anything I ever post or apply for any job with anyone I am associated with. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: hardest thing is knowing the aups of the mailing lists you're spamming. no grown-ups look at offers from spammers
Job: Head of Network Operations - NEXTDC - Sydney Australia - 457 Available
Hi all, On Seek.com.au - http://www.seek.com.au/job/28150202?pos=1type=standout I know a bit about this role, so feel free to chat to me offline if you are wondering if you are suitable or just apply directly :) I'm helping them find the right person... hardest thing is knowing who is out there and looking for a role like this. I will be in Japan at the Apricot/APNIC conference in a couple of weeks if you're there and you are interested in the role and would like to catch-up and chat about it. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design
My views are that if artistic endeavour is involved, then it is IP. Architecture is certainly that... the look... but, the pipes, sewerage, electricity, door locks... are not. They are products, bought of the shelf and assembled. It would be debatable if there is artistic endeavour in Network Architecture. Sure, there are clever approaches... such as Facebooks Fabric they released recently... https://code.facebook.com/posts/360346274145943/introducing-data-center-fabric-the-next-generation-facebook-data-center-network/ - is this something they could have claimed IP over? (I know they didn't, but COULD they have?). Personally, I don't think so. Sure some awesomely smart engineers designed this... but did they 'create' anything to do it? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Ahad Aboss a...@telcoinabox.com wrote: William, I beg to differ though this is getting slightly off topic. Art = something different, unexpected, not quite in your ordinary experience yet related to your ordinary experience. Art is connected to what we experience every day but it represents some kind of transformation of the everyday. Something that is not actually entirely real, it can’t be found by locating it. It requires human intervention, it’s the finger print if you will, of our existence in the world that has its impact on things that we transform through the use of imagination. How can architecture being an interaction of time, process, flow, people and things be art? The answer is elegance. It inspires people to see things in a new way and the interaction with people is the clearest point where architecture becomes an art. Properly architected network not only need to work well now, they must also provide a foundation for business and transform business, provide boundaries for information and people, and yet enable collaboration. We are entering an age of agile service creation with virtualized IT infrastructure, breaking down old constraints in many domains, including the delivery of services. No need to dwell further in to this era of SDN and NFV. To achieve all this, network designs must go beyond mechanical algorithms, and even beyond the uncertain empirical, into the world of abstract concept, mathematical theory, and raw power. Network architecture is not just about configuring routers, switches, firewalls or load balancers. One must think beyond that. How does technology drive the business? What is the perception of the network within the organization? What is the perception of the technology stance beyond the organization? If competitors see your network design, will they wonder why they didn’t think of it, or just wonder why it works at all? If a potential partner sees your network design, will they see the future or the past? All these things contribute art to the world of network architecture. Here is a question for you; When you observe a beautifully architected building, what do you see? (Link to some examples) http://www.azuremagazine.com/article/2014-top-10-architecture-projects/ Is it all about noticing the details, making observation about textures, lines materials, shapes, proportions, light and shadow? Or do we agree that architects don't only deal with buildings - they think of people, places, materials, philosophy and history, and only then consider the actual building? Ahad -Original Message- From: William Waites [mailto:wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, 13 February 2015 8:55 PM To: a...@telcoinabox.com Cc: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com; o...@delong.com; b...@herrin.us; nanog@nanog.org Subject: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:43:14 +1100, Ahad Aboss a...@telcoinabox.com said: In a sense, you are an artist as network architecture is an art in itself. It involves interaction with time, processes, people and things or an intersection between all. This Friday's off-topic post for NANOG: Doing art is creative practice directed to uncover something new and not pre-conceived. Successful acts of art produce something that not only wasn't there before but that nobody thought could be there. The art is the change in thinking that results. Whatever else is left over is residue. An engineer or architect in the usual setting, no matter how skilled, is not doing art
Intellectual Property in Network Design
Hi all, I have two perspectives I am trying to address with regard to network design and intellectual property. 1) The business who does the design - what are their rights? 2) The customer who asked for the rights from a consultant My personal thoughts are conflicting: - You create networks with standard protocols, configurations, etc... so it shouldn't be IP - But you can design things in interesting ways, with experience, skill, creativity.. maybe that should be IP? - But artwork are created with colors, paintbrushes, canvas... but the result is IP - A photographer takes a photo - it is IP - But how are 'how you do your Cisco/Juniper configs' possibly IP? - If I design a network one way for a customer and they want 'IP', does that mean I can't ever design a network like that again? What? I've seen a few telcos say that they own the IP related to the network design of their customers they deploy... which based on the above... feels uncomfortable... I'm really conflicted on this and wondering if anyone else has come across this situation. Perhaps any legal cases/precedent (note, I am not looking for legal advice :) If this email isn't appropriate for the list... sorry, and please feel free to respond off-line. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design
Actually Bill... I have two (conflicting) perspectives as I said but to clarify: 1) A customer asked 'Can you make sure we have the IP for the network design' which I was wondering if it is even technically possible 2) If I design some amazing solutions... am I able to claim IP. My gut feeling is no to both of them... because, if it happen (VERY LIKELY) that somewhere, someone designs an network to the exact same specifications - to the config line - Would that mean they have infringed on my IP unknowingly, and how would I even know if I was unique in the first instance? What I am really looking for is some working, experience, precedence that backs up the view that IP on network design is actually not possible... which is my gut feeling. In the past I have always stated that, and it's never been challenged... and nor is it in this case... but, it is an important think I guess many of us should probably be aware of where we stand. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: I include a no intellectual property ownership is transferred between the Parties clause in just about everything we do. Doesn't demand that any of the questions you raise be answered, but shuts the door to problems pretty firmly. -Bill On Feb 12, 2015, at 17:20, Skeeve Stevens skeeve+na...@eintellegonetworks.com wrote: Hi all, I have two perspectives I am trying to address with regard to network design and intellectual property. 1) The business who does the design - what are their rights? 2) The customer who asked for the rights from a consultant My personal thoughts are conflicting: - You create networks with standard protocols, configurations, etc... so it shouldn't be IP - But you can design things in interesting ways, with experience, skill, creativity.. maybe that should be IP? - But artwork are created with colors, paintbrushes, canvas... but the result is IP - A photographer takes a photo - it is IP - But how are 'how you do your Cisco/Juniper configs' possibly IP? - If I design a network one way for a customer and they want 'IP', does that mean I can't ever design a network like that again? What? I've seen a few telcos say that they own the IP related to the network design of their customers they deploy... which based on the above... feels uncomfortable... I'm really conflicted on this and wondering if anyone else has come across this situation. Perhaps any legal cases/precedent (note, I am not looking for legal advice :) If this email isn't appropriate for the list... sorry, and please feel free to respond off-line. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design
Hey Randy, I'm keen to see how you might think that fits in to the context? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering 2015-02-12 21:19 GMT+11:00 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com: creative commons
Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design
I like this take on it... thanks David. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:27 AM, David Barak thegame...@yahoo.com wrote: On Thursday, February 12, 2015 7:38 AM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve+na...@eintellegonetworks.com wrote: Actually Bill... I have two (conflicting) perspectives as I said but to clarify: 1) A customer asked 'Can you make sure we have the IP for the network design' which I was wondering if it is even technically possible 2) If I design some amazing solutions... am I able to claim IP. It is worth differentiating between the design itself and the documentation of said design. The latter is clearly and totally IP, and you could present that to the customer as theirs: theirs and not yours - that is, you would use different templates, naming conventions, etc. if you created from whole cloth a similar design for a different customer in a similar situation. They may be attempting to make sure that their network documents don't show up as examples or other presentations for other customers. As an example, an architecture document or a network assessment would be covered by copyright law, and as such could be assigned to the author, the company which created it, or could be work-for-hire and assigned to the hiring company, depending on the contract in question. As to an amazing design solution, the USPTO has rules for that - you could patent your design, but in our line of work that'd be a high bar given prior art. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.cdbaby.com/all/thefranchise http://www.listentothefranchise.com/ http://www.listentothefranchise.com/
Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design
Exactly my thoughts Mark ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On 12/Feb/15 14:36, Skeeve Stevens wrote: What I am really looking for is some working, experience, precedence that backs up the view that IP on network design is actually not possible... which is my gut feeling. I've designed some pretty unique and profitable features using tech. (not necessarily open standards, but available to anyone who buys the hardware) because I was able to interpret the feature better than the competition, and make it do things it wasn't originally intended for. Now, when I leave that company and repeat the same at new company (out of sheer fun, perhaps), can the previous company claim IP, or would I be the one to claim IP since I was the one who thought up the idea in the first place? Configurations between operators are all the same. How you put them together is what can set you apart in your market. I suppose your question is whether how you put them together that sets up apart from the competition is worth the IP debate. Mark.
Cumulus List
Hi all, I am looking to get a better understanding of some features of Cumulus Linux their pre-sales is a bit inundated, but I am wondering if there is a Cisco-NSP or something similar out there for Cumulus... Thanks :) ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Re: Checkpoint IPS
+100% agree. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder Chief Network Architect* eintellego Networks Pty Ltd Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038 ; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On 5 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Michael O Holstein wrote: Personally I'm of the belief that *all* IPS systems are equally worthless, unless the goal is to just check a box on a form. Concur 100%. Securing hosts/applications/services themselves is the way to protect them from compromise. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net
Google GCI API
Hi all. I've searched high and low on cloud.google.com looking for the Good Cloud Platform Carrier Internet API specifications. Does anyone know where I could find them? Replied Off-list thanks! ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cumulus Linux - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Re: ISP Shaping Hardware
I know and feel the same way Roland. Just trying to figure out the best way to get these users with a scare resource under control. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On 20 October 2014 21:12, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Oct 20, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve+na...@eintellegonetworks.com wrote: I have a client which has thousands of customers on Satellite and needs to restrict some users who are doing a lot. Is QoS in the network infrastructure coupled with strictly-enforced quotas insufficient to needs? These permanently-inline boxes and blades that dork around with general Internet traffic to/from eyeball networks can be a support/troubleshooting headache . . . --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net
Re: ISP Shaping Hardware
What I'd really love is a vAppliance. Some of these hardware solutions are VERY expensive for offering only an average solution. I'd also rather not rely on their hardware, but servers with VMware (or whatever) that we can design our own redundancy. Does anyone know if Allot does a Virtual Appliance? I've also heard that pfSense is an interesting option... That could easily be virtualised I would assume. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On 20 October 2014 22:31, Nurul Islam Roman nu...@apnic.net wrote: Used following two product to shape traffic on packet level (L3). Had no issue with several thousand customer. Allot http://www.allot.com/netenforcer.html ET http://www.etinc.com/ Found Allot is very popular for satellite based Internet specially in south pacific island countries. -R On 20/10/14 2:55 PM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve+na...@eintellegonetworks.com wrote: Hey all, Just wondering what/if people are using any shaping hardware/appliances these days, and if so, what. I have a client which has thousands of customers on Satellite and needs to restrict some users who are doing a lot. So I wanted to see what the current popular equipment out there is. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
ISP Shaping Hardware
Hey all, Just wondering what/if people are using any shaping hardware/appliances these days, and if so, what. I have a client which has thousands of customers on Satellite and needs to restrict some users who are doing a lot. So I wanted to see what the current popular equipment out there is. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
Hi all, I have had the A10 Thunder platform recommended off-list by a couple of people and by all reading it looks good, but anyone can do good marketing material. Anyone else here used the Thunder (looking at the 930 or 1030S, maybe even the vThunder) as a NAT444/LSN solution? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve+na...@eintellegonetworks.com wrote: Hi all, I am sure this is something that a reasonable number of people would have done on this list. I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider other options, including open source Obviously the cheaper the better. This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which may work. This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 months)... it is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and once it reaches that point then funds will be freed up to roll out a more robust, carrier-grade and long term solution (which will include v6). So no criticism on not doing v6 straight up please. Happy for feedback off-list of any solutions that people have found work well... Note, I am in Australia so any vendors which aren't easily accessible down here, won't be useful. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
Hi all, I am sure this is something that a reasonable number of people would have done on this list. I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider other options, including open source Obviously the cheaper the better. This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which may work. This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 months)... it is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and once it reaches that point then funds will be freed up to roll out a more robust, carrier-grade and long term solution (which will include v6). So no criticism on not doing v6 straight up please. Happy for feedback off-list of any solutions that people have found work well... Note, I am in Australia so any vendors which aren't easily accessible down here, won't be useful. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
Hi Rob, Interesting insights. I hadn't thought of an older 6500/7600... certainly might be worth considering if I want to stay Cisco. Yes, PPS is the key, but I thought someone might have some comments on the metrics/pps I'd expect with that kind of user profile and speeds. It doesn't need to not have v6, I'm just not using it at the moment. The timeframes are my numbers based on the proof of concept for the larger business model/design - which is modular as such. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Robert Drake rdr...@direcpath.com wrote: On 6/30/2014 1:59 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: Hi all, I am sure this is something that a reasonable number of people would have done on this list. I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider other options, including open source Obviously the cheaper the better. Total PPS or bandwidth is the number you need rather than number of customers. Assuming 1Gbps aggregation then almost anything will work for your requirements and support NAT. Obviously if you have a large number of 100Mbps customers then 1Gbps wouldn't cut it for aggregation. Based on your looking at the ASR I would guess you're somewhere around 1Gbps, maybe 2Gbps. If you're closer to 1Gbps and want to stay with a 1RU solution then I would advise checking out the ASA5512 which is much cheaper than an ASR. If you want to go ultra cheap but scalable to 4Gbps you could use a Cisco 6500/sup2/FWSM (all used.. probably totals less than $1000USD, but I don't know how much it is in Australia). That would let you replace parts later to move to SUP720/ASASM for around 16Gbps throughput. FWIW, I doubt you'll find a NAT platform with no IPv6 support, so you can start your IPv6 work now if need be. Older stuff like the FWSM won't support things like DS-Lite though, so if you plan to go v6-only in your backbone then that's something to think about. This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which may work. This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 months)... it is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and once it reaches that point then funds will be freed up to roll out a more robust, carrier-grade and long term solution (which will include v6). So no criticism on not doing v6 straight up please. Be wary if someone thinks this is going to last 6-9 months. That's less than a funding cycle for a company and longer than an outage. That means the boss is pulling the number out of his ass and it could last anywhere from 30 days to 10 years depending on any number of factors. Happy for feedback off-list of any solutions that people have found work well... Note, I am in Australia so any vendors which aren't easily accessible down here, won't be useful. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
Roland, as always you remind me of the important things to remember. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Robert Drake rdr...@direcpath.com wrote: Total PPS or bandwidth is the number you need rather than number of customers. Also, be sure you have S/RTBH or some other mechanism southbound of the NAT for dealing with compromised/abusive hosts which can chew up the state-table with SYN-floods and the like. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
Roland, what methods are the easiest/cheapest way to deal with this? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Jun 30, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Tony Wicks t...@wicks.co.nz wrote: From experience (we ran out of IPv4 a long time ago in the APNIC region) this is not needed, I've seen huge problems from compromised machines completely killing NATs from the southbound side. what is needed however is session timeouts. This can help, but it isn't a solution to the botted/abusive machine problem. They'll just keep right on pumping out packets and establishing new sessions, 'crowding out' legitimate users and filling up the state-table, maxing the CPU. Embryonic connection limits and all that stuff aren't enough, either. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
Hi Valdis, Re 1.. completely understand. The environment is such that we will openly state what does and doesn't work. It is a captive environment and the users don't have a choice who they use. Think large university dorm (about 600) for part of the customer base. Re 2.. The larger design is already approved and budgeted for... this is a proof-of-concept cheap solution to see if the uptake happens as expensive. I agree with you that we should just build it the right was the first time, but the people paying want to do it this way. And in the end, I am just the designer, if they leave it in place, it is not really my concern, they have my advice. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:59:47 +1000, Skeeve Stevens said: I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which may work. Pitfall 1: Make sure you have enough support desk to handle calls from everybody who's doing something that doesn't play nice with CGN/NAT444. And remember that unless screw you, find another provider is an acceptable response to a customer, those calls are going to be major resource sinks to resolve to the customer's satisfaction... Pitfall 2: These sort of short-term solutions often end up still in use well after their sell-by date. If you're planning to deploy a new solution in 6 months, maybe throwing resources at a short-term fix is counterproductive and the resources should go towards making the current solution hold together and deploying the long-term solution...
Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
Great advice Stepan. Re user support. It is a greenfield environment so we're in the position to say 'this is how it is and what you get'. Re usage profile. No idea what to expect from users as there is nothing to measure. I've actually not designed a NAT444 solution for residential profiles before so never had to worry about what they did. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru wrote: On 30.06.2014 14:12, Roland Dobbins wrote: I've seen huge problems from compromised machines completely killing NATs from the southbound side. It depends on CGN solution used. Some of them will just block new translations for that user after reaching the limit, and that's it. On 30.06.2014 09:59, Skeeve Stevens wrote: I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind. I am looking at a Cisco ASR1001/2, pfSense and am willing to consider other options, including open source Obviously the cheaper the better. ASR1k NAT is known to be problematic (nat overload specifically), don't know if they fixed it yet. I recommend to check this with the vendor first. New Juniper MS-MIC/MS-MPC multiservices cards can be used but feature-parity with MS-DPC isn't there yet. For example, you can have a working CGN with most bells and whistles, but you can't use IDS. You can (probably) use deterministic nat with max ports/sessions per user, but sometimes it's not enough. Again, ask the vendor for details/roadmaps/solutions. Both those options aren't really cheap though. Cheaper would be something like Mikrotik but I wouldn't touch that sh*t with a ten-foot pole. It might work but you'll pay for that with your sanity and sleep hours. Speaking of cheap and open-source, I know several relatively large implementations using Linux boxes. One Linux NAT box can chew on at least 1Gb/s of traffic, or even more with a careful selection of hardware and even more careful tuning, and you can load-balance between them, but it's much more effort and it isn't robust enough (which is the reason why they all migrate to better solutions later). BTW, I agree that you should speak in PPS and bandwidth instead of number of users, those are much better as a metric. This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the typical residential users. Any pitfalls would be helpful to know - as in what will and and more importantly wont work - or any work-arounds which may work. Try to pair a user IP with a public IP, that way you'll workaround most websites/games/applications expecting publicly visible user IP to be the same for all connections. Start with selected few active customers, check how much connections they use with different NAT settings. Double/triple that. Then do the math of how many ports/IPs you need per X users, don't just guess it. Then try to limit it and see if anything breaks. By working with them you can also workaround some of the problems you didn't think about before. Seriously. Fix it before you roll it out. What anyone implementing CGN should expect is complaints from users for any number of reasons, like their IPSEC or L2TP tunnel stopped working, or some application behaves strangely and so on. Prepare your techsupport for that. This solution is not designed to be long lasting (maybe 6-9 months)... it is to get the solution going for up to 1000 users, and once it reaches that point then funds will be freed up to roll out a more robust, carrier-grade and long term solution (which will include v6). So no criticism on not doing v6 straight up please. Heh. Nothing lasts longer than temporary solutions. You should implement it like you're going to live it for years (probably true) or you'll create yourself a huge PITA very soon.
H3C Technical List
Hey all, Anyone know of a Mailing list like Cisco-NSP/Juniper-NSP for HP/H3C equipment? I have some questions regarding some H3C Switch spanning-tree behaviour, but I can't find anyone to ask. The couple of lists on puck have had almost no traffic for a ling time. Thanks all. * * *Skeeve Stevens, CEO - *eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco – IBM - Brocade - Cloud - Check out our Juniper promotion website for Oct/Nov! eintellego.mx Free Apple products during this promotion!!!
Re: using reserved IPv6 space
See RFC 3849 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3849 Which pre-scribed the range: 2001:DB8::/32 for use in Documentation. I suppose this could be used for lab testing. *ducks flames* * * *Skeeve Stevens, CEO - *eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco – IBM On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:38 AM, -Hammer- bhmc...@gmail.com wrote: OK. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get some flak for this but I'll share this question and it's background anyway. Please be gentle. In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or non-routable space Internally in production for segments that won't be seen anywhere else. Examples? A sync VLAN for some FWs to share state. An IBGP link between routers that will never be seen or advertised. In those cases, we have often used 192.0.2.0/24. It's reserved and never used and even if it did get used one day we aren't routing it internally. It's just on segments where we need some L3 that will never be seen. On to IPv6 I was considering taking the same approach. Maybe using 0100::/8 or 1000::/4 or A000::/3 as a space for this. Other than the usual Hey, you shouldn't do that can anyone give me some IPv6 specific reasons that I may not be forecasting that would make it worse doing this than in an IPv4 scenario. I know, not apples to apples but for this question they are close enough. Unless there is something IPv6 specific that is influencing this -- -Hammer- I was a normal American nerd -Jack Herer
Re: The Cidr Report
I think the effort to moderate this particular list would be far to much effort. * * *Skeeve Stevens, CEO - *eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco – IBM On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.comwrote: if the admins are not going to moderate this list... give me the admin password to the list serve and i will set it up right... gees
Re: [Outages-discussion] Recent outage in Australia affecting Telstra
I would probably suggest that there wouldn't be any. *Skeeve Stevens, CEO* eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 06:01, Gary Buckmaster gary.buckmas...@digitalpacific.com.au wrote: On 2/25/2012 2:46 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de One of Telstra's downstream customers, a smaller ISP called Dodo, accidentally announced the global table to Telstra (or perhaps a very large portion of it.) Enough of it to cause major disruption. This is good. There is a chance that Telstra will learn from it, and do proper customer-facing filters now. OTOH, there also is a chance that Telstra lawyers will just sue the customer, and not change anything... Perhaps. I am not familiar with Australian jurisprudence, but the US there is the doctrine of Last Clear Chance[1]... and the work necessary on Telstra's part to avoid this problem is a) well known, b) arguably considered best practice for a company in their field, and c) not disproportionately onorous for them to have undertaken... so even if they sue, it's not at all a clear cut case for them to win. Cheers, -- jra [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_clear_chance Being a relatively recent immigrant to Australia from the US, I can say that, although I have no background in Australian legal shenanigans, they aren't quite the litigious bastards we Americans tend to be. Most of the commentary on AUSNOG tended towards that was foolish, hopefully they learn from that. I suspect the chances of there being any legal fallout from this are slim.
Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000
The MX80 license locked is not 5Gb The MX5 is 20Gb TP - 20 SFP ports card, only one MIC slot active The MX10 is 40Gb TP - 20 SFP ports card. both MIC slots active The MX40 is 60Gb TP - 20 SFP ports card, both MIC slots + 2 of the onboard 10GbE ports The MX80 is 80Gb TP - 20 SFP ports card, both MIC slots + all 4 of the onboard 10GbE ports The MX80-48T is 80Gb TP - 48 Copper ports, both MIC slots + all 4 of the onboard 10GbE ports Last year the licensed versions were called MX80-5G, MX8-10G and so on, but as on this month they've renamed them to MX5, MX10, MX40's - note that the old MX80 could come with or without -T timing support, the new ones ONLY have timing. …Skeeve On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:50 AM, PC paul4...@gmail.com wrote: While the ASR1002 does offer more services, I generally disagree with some parts of this comparison. Juniper has some very aggressive pricing on mx80 bundles license-locked to 5gb, which are cheaper and blow the performance specifications of the equivalent low end ASR1002 out of the water for internet edge BGP applications. Unlike the ASR, a simple upgrade license can unlock the boxes full potential. Just my opinion as a customer of both vendors... On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2012-01-19 12:10 -0800), jon Heise wrote: Does anyone have any experience with these two routers, we're looking to buy one of them but i have little experience dealing with cisco routers and zero experience with juniper. It might be because of your schedule/timetable, but you are comparing apples to oranges. MX80 is not competing against ASR1k, and JNPR has no product to compete with ASR1k. MX80 competes directly with ASR9001. Notable differences include: ASR9001 has lot more memory (2GB/8GB) and lot faster control-plane ASR9001 has 120G of capacity, MX80 80G ASR9001 BOM is higher, as it is not fabricless design like MX80 (this shouldn't affect sale price in relevant way) ASR9001 does not ship just now As others have pointed out ASR1k is 'high touch' router, it does NAPT, IPSEC, pretty much anything and everything, it is the next-gen VXR really. ASR9001 and MX80 both do relatively few things, but at high capacity. -- ++ytti -- *Skeeve Stevens, CEO* eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.net.au ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000
The ASR1000 series are like most Ciscos, they can be used for a lot of things. They are a swiss-army knife of routers and basically are the upgrade from the Cisco 7200 series. If you want low level LNS functionality, then the Cisco is the way to go as the Juniper MX80 does not have LNS functionality (and looks like it never will). But if you are looking for a beast of a border router for BGP and so on, then the MX80 (MX5/10/40/80) kick ass with their throughput. MX80 series are also supposed to be supporting Virtual Chassis at some point (was supposed to be now, but I hear it is delayed). We're deploying a variety of MX5, MX10's for different projects at the moment. The other thing is that the MX80 platform, comes in very cheap options like the MX5 - with 20Gb of TP and 20Gig interfaces at under 25k, that is awesome. The MX5/10/40 are the exact same hardware and you can just upgrade with a license. The base MX5 has 4 * 10GbE interfaces which aren't usable until you go to MX40 (2 of them) or MX80 (all 4). But in an MX10, with the second slot active, you can put in a 2 port 10GbE card which works just fine. …Skeeve On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Ariel Biener ar...@post.tau.ac.il wrote: On 01/19/2012 11:40 PM, Leigh Porter wrote: -Original Message- From: jon Heise [mailto:j...@smugmug.com] Sent: 19 January 2012 21:37 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000 Does anyone have any experience with these two routers, we're looking to buy one of them but i have little experience dealing with cisco routers and zero experience with juniper. I have lots of MX80s and they have all been fantastic. But if you have no experience of Juniper it will be a different learning curve (one that is, IMO, worth the effort). I have not used the asr1000 but it looks like a capable box. You would do well to look at the MX80 fixed chassis, it comes with 48 1G interfaces and 4 10G interfaces. They are pretty good value, I think. It well depends on your requirements (not talking about throughput). The ASR1000 series is a services box. It does more in terms of services (using license enablers) than the MX80 does, and it costs more. So, it very much depends on what you want to do with the boxes. --Ariel -- Leigh Porter __**__** __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __**__** __ -- -- Ariel Biener e-mail: ar...@post.tau.ac.il PGP: http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/**pgp.htmlhttp://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html -- *Skeeve Stevens, CEO* eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.net.au ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
Juniper MX80 Virtual Chassis
Hey all, Thought I'd ask here to see if anyone has heard. In May 2010 Juniper announced that Virtual Chassis would be available in the MX80 platform in the second half of 2011. Anyone know if it is still being planned for release or if its been removed from the platform features? …Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade
Re: [routing-wg] BGP Update Report
I read them all too. BUT, I get some 5 or 6 copies of them from all the lists I am on. I would rather subscribe to a list that was just for those. …Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade On 16/10/11 7:24 AM, Lynda shr...@deaddrop.orgmailto:shr...@deaddrop.org wrote: On 10/15/2011 4:26 AM, Geoff Huston wrote: While I am at it, does anyone read this report, or is this weekly report also just part of the spam load on this list? I read both of them, and also the Weekly Routing Report. I will regret the loss, and consider all three to be far more valuable than 90% of the traffic on the list. -- Last week we lost a giant in the world of computing. Last weekend we lost the giant on whose shoulders he stood. Rest in peace, friend. (Tim Pierce, on the deaths of Dennis Ritchie and Steve Jobs)
Re: [routing-wg] BGP Update Report
John, Bit hard for Geoff to devnull them, he is the author ;-) …Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade On 16/10/11 7:30 AM, John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.commailto:john-na...@johnpeach.com wrote: On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:26:36 +1100 Geoff Huston g...@apnic.netmailto:g...@apnic.net wrote: While I am at it, does anyone read this report, or is this weekly report also just part of the spam load on this list? If you don't want them, filter them to /dev/null. regards, Geoff -- John
iCloud - Is it going to hurt access providers?
Hey all, I've been thinking about the impact that iCloud (by Apple) will have on the Internet. My guess is that 99% of consumer internet access is Asymmetrical (DSL, Cable, wireless, etc) and iCloud when launched will 'upload' obscene amounts of gigs of music, tv, backups, email, photos, documents/data and so on to their data centres. Now, don't misunderstand me, I love the concept of iCloud, as I do DropBox, but from an Access Providers perspective, I'm thinking this might be a 'bad thing'. From what I can see there are some key issues: * Users with plans that count upload and download together. * The speed of Asymmetric tail technology such as DSL * The design of access provider backhaul (from DSLAM to core) metrics * The design of some transit metrics So basically the potential issue is that a large residential provider could have thousands of users connect to iCloud, their connections slowed because of uploading data, burning their included bandwidth caps, slowing down the backhaul segment of the network, and as residential providers are mostly download, some purchase transit from their upstreams in an symmetric fashion. This post is really just to prompt discussion if people think there is anything to actually worry about, or there are other implications that I've not really thought of yet. …Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintell...@facebook.commailto:eintell...@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade
Re: 365x24x7
I was offered a similar role… but more painful (Imho) 4 days 8am till 8pm 4 days off 4 days 8pm till 8am 4 days off Rinse and repeat. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintell...@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis On 17/04/11 9:34 PM, Wayne Lee linkconn...@googlemail.commailto:linkconn...@googlemail.com wrote: Rotating shifts between daytime and nighttime is a horrible thing to do to your workers, both for their health and their attention span. One of the places I worked had the following pattern. It was horrible 2 days/shifts of 6am till 6pm 2 days/shifts of 6pm till 6am 4 days off Wayne
Re: How is IPv6 deployment going in the APNIC region?
All… as of early this morning, APNIC is empty. Last /8 Policy is now in effect. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintell...@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis On 15/04/11 7:01 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.commailto:iljit...@muada.com wrote: On 14 apr 2011, at 13:02, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Based on that file, APNIC still has 17.57 million regular + 2.27 M legacy = 19.84 M total address space, so another 0.5 M wouldn't deplete what's left. I just got the 15 apr file which has the info for 14 apr (sigh...) and indeed 1100 blocks adding up to 0.52 million addresses were given out today. And that still leaves 2.27 million legacy addresses available, including all of 43.224.0.0/11 except 43.244 and 43.253, as well as 0.34 million non-legacy, non-103/8 addresses. 103/8 is apparently going to be the special final /8. It's still wide open except a /16, a /22 and a /24 that are registered to the debogon project (as of a week and a half ago).
Re: How is IPv6 deployment going in the APNIC region?
Just an email from APNIC 3 hours ago to all regional mailing lists. Kinda authoritative I would say. --- On 15/04/11 6:25 AM, APNIC Secretariat apnic-no-re...@apnic.netmailto:apnic-no-re...@apnic.net wrote: ___ APNIC IPv4 Address Pool Reaches Final /8 ___ Dear APNIC community We are writing to inform you that as of Friday, 15 April 2011, the APNIC pool reached the Final /8 IPv4 address block, bringing us to Stage Three of IPv4 exhaustion in the Asia Pacific. For more information about Stage Three, please refer to: http://www.apnic.net/ipv4-exhaustion/stages Last /8 address policy -- IPv4 requests will now be assessed under section 9.10 in Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region: http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy#9.10 APNIC's objective during Stage Three is to provide IPv4 address space for new entrants to the market and for those deploying IPv6. http://www.apnic.net/ipv4-stage3-faq From now, all new and existing APNIC account holders will be entitled to receive a maximum allocation of a /22 from the Final /8 address space. For more details on the eligibility criteria according to the Final /8 policy, please refer to: http://www.apnic.net/criteria Act NOW on IPv6 --- We encourage Asia Pacific Internet community members to deploy IPv6 within their organizations. You can refer to APNIC for information regarding IPv6 deployment, statistics, training, and related regional policies at: http://www.apnic.net/ipv6 To apply for IPv6 addresses now, please visit: http://www.apnic.net/kickstart ___ APNIC Secretariat secretar...@apnic.netmailto:secretar...@apnic.net Asia Pacific NetworkInformation Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 AustraliaFax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD http://www.apnic.nethttp://www.apnic.net/ ___ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary. --- ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintell...@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis On 15/04/11 8:09 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.commailto:iljit...@muada.com wrote: On 15 apr 2011, at 0:04, Skeeve Stevens wrote: All… as of early this morning, APNIC is empty. Why do you say that? Do you have information that contradicts my numbers?
CSI New York fake IPv6
All, I just thought this is amusing that in CSI: New York – Season 7, Episode 17, they do a 'Remote Desktop' hack and they enter in the following details… http://www.eintellego.net/public/CSINY.s07e17-fakev6.jpg Promoting IPv6 = Win! Dodgy Address = Fail! But seriously… That a major TV show is actually using IPv6 addressing (or pretending to) is an awesome thing in my opinion. …Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintell...@facebook.commailto:eintell...@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
Especially since 148.18 is Department of Defence - but it doesn't seem to be routed at the moment. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintell...@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis On 21/03/11 9:29 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edumailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edumailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:44:50 +1100, Skeeve Stevens said: http://www.eintellego.net/public/CSINY.s07e17-fakev6.jpg Promoting IPv6 = Win! Dodgy Address = Fail! Intentional Fail, probably, similar to how most phone numbers on a TV show are in the 555 exchange. You put a number on TV, and drunk idiots will call it, as a number of annoyed people found out after Tommy Tutone had an actual hit song... 257 seems to be a popular octet value. (Personally, I'm surprised 148.18.1.193 got used in that image)
Re: SmartNet Alternatives
Interesting Question... And do they consider the JUNOS included a separate item? Or can it happily be sold with the hardware. Juniper will have a couple of years before it has to worry about a refurb market like Cisco has - especially in volume. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 12:49:24 +1100 To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: SmartNet Alternatives On 2/12/2011 13:33, Ryan Finnesey wrote: This is one of the reasons we are starting to look at Juniper for a new network build. It is my understanding we set software updates for life for free. Cheers Ryan How does Juniper feel about used hardware? ~Seth
Re: SmartNet Alternatives
Different rules for different countries. Can't buy CON-SW from Australian distributors (I've tried 3), but I can buy it from the UK with support for Australia. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis -Original Message- From: Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:46:36 +1100 To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: SmartNet Alternatives On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 04:49:55PM -0500, Andrey Khomyakov wrote: If only Cisco would sell software only support. They do. You might have to make your sales droid know that YOU know about it thought. :-) Order items were CON-SW-... in the past, not sure about today. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: SmartNet Alternatives
Started a few weeks ago for us. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis -Original Message- From: Michael Loftis mlof...@wgops.com Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:26:56 +1100 To: John Macleod jmacl...@alentus.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: SmartNet Alternatives Cisco is making noises that they'll eventually be restricting software access to ONLY those devices which have an active SmartNet contract associated to your CCO account. I don't know where this currently stands, and it sure will be a huge pain in my rear if/when it happens. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:41 PM, John Macleod jmacl...@alentus.com wrote: Just interested in other peoples experience to companies offering alternatives to SmartNet? Pros/Cons/Tradeoffs? We currently have a mix of SmartNet and internal parts supply. John __ John Macleod Alentus UK Limited Seymour House South Street Bromley BR1 1RH +44 (0)208 315 5800 +44 (0)208 315 5801 fax alentus.co.uk | alentus.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail This e-mail (and/or any attachment) contains information, which is confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose or disclose the contents to any person. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender. The information contained in this e-mail (and any attachments) is supplied in good faith, but the sender shall not be under any liability in damages or otherwise for any reliance that may be placed upon it by the recipient, nor does it constitute a contract in any way. Any comments or opinions expressed are those of the originator not of Alentus Corporation unless otherwise expressly stated.
Re: quietly....
Not necessarily. There was a proposal passed at ARIN and I have a similar one proposed for APNIC where you can request a second allocation should you need it for a variety of justification. For example: disparate non-connected networks under a different AS's. This is the one that is bothering me at the moment. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - On 2/02/11 3:05 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said: We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times the normal request rate... that would be a rush. Any trending on the rate of requests for IPv6 prefixes? More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an initial allocation and requiring more. People asking for the first one just indicates initial adoption rates. Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under the impression that IPv6 allocations are designed to avoid that being necessary for an extended period of time. If that is not true, then that's a flag. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: quietly....
One each of the remaining /8′s will be allocated to each RIR. Once the RIR’s are out of space in their current supply and they only have this 1 /8 left, it will trigger policies relating to how that /8 will be allocated. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. On 1/02/11 11:20 AM, Patrick Greene patri...@layer8llc.commailto:patri...@layer8llc.com wrote: I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA. -Original Message- From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:36 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: quietly That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride! As good old Frank said, And now, the end is near, we face the final curtain... cheers! Carlos On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.commailto:ra...@psg.com wrote: 039/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED 106/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED it's been on most of the lists. sunny will probably post to nanog shortly. the announcement is really well phrased, but i will not steal sunny's thunder. randy -- -- = Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://www.labs.lacnic.net =
Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
Class Action? ;-) ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. -Original Message- From: Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:21:20 +1100 To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses World to run out of IP addresses soon, Internet expert says http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2011-01/26/c_13708282.htm Vint Cerf, who helped create IPv4 in 1977 and one of the founding fathers of the Web, told Australia's Sydney Morning Herald that IP addresses will be used up soon, perhaps within weeks. I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses would be enough to do an experiment, Cerf was quoted as saying, adding it is his fault that we were running out of the addresses. Glad we cleared that up! :-) -Hank
Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
Lasse, We use /112's – last chazwazza being 65k addresses… Requires little effort in remembering the ranges…. With one end being :1 and the other :F This leaves more than enough addresses for HSRP/VRRP and all the other things like it. Also means we can introduce addressing on the link for diagnostics quite easily. We actually use the /96 of 1C (to mean 1nterConnect) - makes it recognisable to engineering staff. There is the issue of the pingpong affect, but I'm hoping vendors (if they haven't already) will introduce features to protect against it when (if) they implement RFC4443. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. On 24/01/11 11:48 PM, Lasse Jarlskov l...@telenor.dkmailto:l...@telenor.dk wrote: Hi all. While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now all /64. I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful. However while implementing IPv6 in our network, I've encountered several of our peering partners using /127 or /126 for point-to-point links. What is the Best Current Practice for this - if there is any? Would you recommend me to use /64, /126 or /127? What are the pros and cons? -- Best regards, Lasse Jarlskov Systems architect - IP Telenor DK
Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
Doh, I meant the /80 of 1C for interconnects. ::zz::1C::1 and :F in a /112 ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. On 25/01/11 12:43 AM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net wrote: Lasse, We use /112's – last chazwazza being 65k addresses… Requires little effort in remembering the ranges…. With one end being :1 and the other :F This leaves more than enough addresses for HSRP/VRRP and all the other things like it. Also means we can introduce addressing on the link for diagnostics quite easily. We actually use the /96 of 1C (to mean 1nterConnect) - makes it recognisable to engineering staff. There is the issue of the pingpong affect, but I'm hoping vendors (if they haven't already) will introduce features to protect against it when (if) they implement RFC4443. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. On 24/01/11 11:48 PM, Lasse Jarlskov l...@telenor.dkmailto:l...@telenor.dkmailto:l...@telenor.dk wrote: Hi all. While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now all /64. I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful. However while implementing IPv6 in our network, I've encountered several of our peering partners using /127 or /126 for point-to-point links. What is the Best Current Practice for this - if there is any? Would you recommend me to use /64, /126 or /127? What are the pros and cons? -- Best regards, Lasse Jarlskov Systems architect - IP Telenor DK
DSL (or other similar) Connection in Singapore
Hey all, I have an urgent (today/tomorrow) requirement for how to deliver a normal internet service in Singapore... most likely the downtown area. Has anyone got any contacts or links to pricing - also maybe someone who can install a router configured in Australia. I'm looking for a good download limit includes, or flat rate, with static IP a must. Please reply off-list. PS.. I realise this is NANog, but I assume people on this list may service international offices for their organisations. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Arista - Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
Karl, Where does the 6K come from? AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the Associate Member Fee (AUD 675) and the IP Resource Application Fee (AUD 3,500) Then AUD1180 for a /48 each year. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Arista - -Original Message- From: Karl Auer [mailto:ka...@biplane.com.au] Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 10:00 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 01:46 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: If your big enough to get your own GUA and have the dollars to get it routed then do that. If you are forced to use PA (think home networks) then having a ULA prefix as well is a good thing. home network: 2620:0:930::/48 In Oz it costs real money to get IPv6 address space from the RIR (APNIC). Around AUD$6K in the first year, around AUD$1100 each year thereafter. Your /48, according to the ARIN website, cost you US$625 this year, will cost US$937.50 next year, and $1250 every year thereafter. Fairly trivial amounts for most commercial entities, but prohibitive for all but the most enthusiastic home user. Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156 Old fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF 1
RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
Small correction - there is no annual fee in the first year ;-) But I agree.. it is too much, and APNIC have been reviewing the Initial allocation fee for a while now, but haven't made any move on it. I'd like to see a new class of membership - 'Individual' which had a small allocation (well, in comparison) and had a cheaper membership level and was not required to be multi-homed, but was portable - and a small, if any initial allocation fee. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Arista - -Original Message- From: Karl Auer [mailto:ka...@biplane.com.au] Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 10:48 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote: Where does the 6K come from? AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the Associate Member Fee (AUD 675) and the IP Resource Application Fee (AUD 3,500) Then AUD1180 for a /48 each year. Er - apologies. Yes, the initial fee covers the first year's annual fee, so it's $4175 in the first year ans $1100 in subsequent years. The point still stands though - that's WAY too much for home users. While for Owen such costs might be doable, for the vast majority of home users in the AP region the only viable alternatives for internal addressing will be PA or ULA. Even with the lower costs that ARIN users pay, the prices are still IMHO too high for home users to be using PI in any significant numbers. Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156 Old fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today
Hey all, As the subject says, APNIC was allocated 14/8 and 223/8 today... which does seems a little close after 1/8 and 27/8 in January 2010 - since 1/8 hasn't started, I'm surprised about the new ones. Not sure why I haven't seen any announcements about it... just thought I'd break the news... ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
RE: AARNet AS7575 announcing 1.0.0.0/24, 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.2.3.0/24 soon
Hey George, If AARNet or someone has the bandwidth, would it not be of value to announce the entire 1/8 and see what areas are targeted by traffic - clearly analysing it and removing DoS or scan traffic. I'm just wondering if there are any /24's or space that is unsuitable to allocate inside 1/8. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? -Original Message- From: George Michaelson [mailto:g...@apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2010 1:55 PM To: NANOG Subject: AARNet AS7575 announcing 1.0.0.0/24, 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.2.3.0/24 soon As part of the ongoing measurement of traffic in 1.0.0.0/8 three /24s from the range are shortly going to be announced by AARNet, via AS7575: 1.0.0.0/24 1.1.1.0/24 1.2.3.0/24 This will be happening over the next week or so. cheers -George
FW: BoF for APNIC 28 in Beijing - IPv6 Promotion
FYI for those that might be attending APNIC 28 in Beijing next week. -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? From: Skeeve Stevens Sent: Monday, 17 August 2009 9:05 PM To: 'apnic-t...@apnic.net' Cc: aus...@ausnog.net; nznog Subject: BoF for APNIC 28 in Beijing - IPv6 Promotion Greeting all that will be attending APNIC 28 in Beijing, While we are in China at APNIC 28, and as per the spirit of 1.3 of http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/3117/sig-guidelines.pdf I am proposing that we hold a BoF for the purpose of seeing if there are enough interested parties to get together to discuss the issue of IPv6 promotion in the APNIC region with the 'maybe' end of it becoming a SIG. I am asking for some leeway in this request as this region is a complex one with a very broad range of cultural differences and language barriers that that don't always translate across the entire membership. For example, the way we might want to accomplish something in Australia could be very different to the way it would be done in say Japan, China or India. IPv6 promotion is something that APNIC has been doing for quite a while now, with some degree of success. But given the timeframes in which we have till things get very painful for many organisations, I do not believe that APNIC has sufficient resources (whether that be man-power, financial, etc) to effectively promote it across all the economic communities that it represents. I would like the hold a BoF to gauge the interest on how members themselves can be more involved in their region, what they would/could be prepared to do, and to discuss the challenges that we are having, developing new ideas and focusing on specific ways to promote IPv6 - without all the technical mumbo-jumbo. I am suggesting a much less technical perspective needs to take shape. I realise that a very large percentage of us are technical people, but there are many business minded people who I am sure have many great ideas... and if there isn't that many... let's get them involved somehow. Many members in the APNIC region have their own NIR (JPNIC, CNNIC, etc) to assist in these kinds of matters (I assume), but in Australia and NZ specifically speaking for my area of focus, we deal directly with APNIC... so I don't know how appropriate having people who deal with their NIR directly on these matters, but the more the merrier. There is no suggestion in this proposal that the many people who talk at conferences about IPv6, or APNIC themselves have not done a good job... My suggestion is that we can do more, and time is of the essence. I am inspired to bring this about by my own passion regarding IPv6 adoption, and I am willing to put (and already have put) the resources and passion of me and my company behind efforts to help finding new ways to foster IPv6 adoption in this region. There seems to be an issue of room availability at APNIC28, but if I have to put up some $$ myself and we go take over the local McDonalds, I am willing to do so to try and help make this BoF happen. I think timing is important... and I think now is the time we need to start discussing these things. Big machines like APNIC move rather slowly, and I am willing to try to do what it takes to try and push things along. So, if you're going to be in Beijing, and you really are passionate about IPv6 adoption, please come and see me - the big bald aussie-guy - and let's get something happening. I will be looking at the schedule to see where we can fit a couple of hours to chat. Also, you might be approached by myself or others who are also interested in making this happen. All I can ask is to please be involved, and DO - rather than talk about it. -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them
RE: IPv6 Addressing Help
Really? You just say 'Gimme v6 please' to APNIC and they do. -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? -Original Message- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jer...@unfix.org] Sent: Saturday, 15 August 2009 1:18 AM To: Chris Gotstein Cc: Nanog Subject: Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Chris Gotstein wrote: We are a small ISP that is in the process of setting up IPv6 on our network. We already have the ARIN allocation and i have a couple routers and servers running dual stack. Wondering if someone out there would be willing to give me a few pointers on setting up my addressing scheme? Strange, I recall that you had to submit one when requesting address space from ARIN. Why don't you use that one? I've been mulling over how to do it, and i think i'm making it more complicated than it needs to be. You can hit me offlist if you wish to help. Thanks. It all depends on your network and how you want to set it up, but for the sake of internal aggregation: * Determine the expected amount of IPv6 customers at a certain location for the next X years, making X 2 (though 10 is probably a better idea, just in case, if don't want to do it again ;) ) * Take that number round it up to a power of 2 * Every customer gets a /48, you know the number, which is a power of 2, thus root it, and you know how many bits you need at that site eg expect 200 customers, round to power of 2 thus 256, which is 2^8, thus you will need a /48 + 8 bits = /40 at that location. You now know how much address space you need at that location for the next X years. Repeat that for all your locations / routing areas, basically the PoPs or termination points of your customers; or if you are really big do that per city/town/suburb. Keep enough space (the rounding helps there quite a bit, especially with numbers like 50k customers ;) Now you have an overview of what you expect to be allocating at each and every site. To add a little growth/future proof and to make live easy, you could either opt at this stage to round everything off to 'nice' numbers, eg only use /40's or /36's per PoP. Thus making everything the same, or doing things like grouping smaller PoPs together. Then when you have done that, take those blocks, and try to squeeze them a bit together. You should now have arrived to the address plan that you originally submitted to ARIN. Fill those blocks into a nice database, roll a PHP/shell/perl/whatever script to spit out your router configuration and presto: you are done. Enjoy the weekend ;) Greets, Jeroen
US Based Server host on v6
Hey guys, I mostly use Ezzi.net and a couple of others for server hosting. I am looking for the same, but with dual-stack traffic and ipv6 addresses. in theory it should be the same cost. Anyone know any companies doing this yet? .Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens - ske...@skeeve.org www.skeeve.org / Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 msn://ske...@skeeve.org ; skype://skeeve twitter://skeevestevens ; Also facebook (ske...@skeeve.org) and LinkedIn (ske...@eintellego.net) eintellego - ske...@eintellego.net - www.eintellego.net -- I'm a groove licked love child king of the verse Si vis pacem, para bellum
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
With new dual-stack border devices people will be able to move bit by bit, and there is no real reason to have to run around and change everything that you have internally. These will change and update over time. These internal applications aren't running on public IP addresses anyway. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Zaid Ali [mailto:z...@zaidali.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:19 AM To: Roger Marquis Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the willingness to. Technical issues can be resolved if you and people around you are motivated to do so. I think there are some hard facts that need to be addressed when it comes to IPv6. Facts like 1. How do we migrate to a IPv6 stack on all servers and I am talking about the thousands of servers that exist on peoples network that run SaaS, Financial/Banking systems. 2. How do we make old applications speak IPv6? There are some old back-end systems that run core functions for many businesses out there that don't really have any upgrade path and I don't think people are thinking about this. From a network perspective IPv6 adoption is just about doing it and executing with your fellow AS neighbors. The elephant in the room is the applications that ride on your network. Zaid - Original Message - From: Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 9:39:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria that would allow them to deny any. So far, nobody's shown interest in plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it... Catch 22? From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it fully supports NAT. Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future. Roger Marquis
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now. As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48), APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this. Yes, you have to pay for it, but the addresses will be yours, unlike the RFC1918 ranges which is akin to 2.4Ghz wireless.. lets just share and hope we never interconnect/overlap. I can't find a RFC1918 equivalent for v6 with the exception of 2001:0DB8::/32# which is the ranges that has been assigned for documentation use and is considered to NEVER be routable. In that /32 are 65536 /48's... way more than the RFC1918 we have now. If I was going to build a v6 network right now, that was purely private and never* going to hit the internet, and I could not afford to be a NIC member or pay the fees... then I would be using the ranges above I wonder if that will start a flame war *puts on fire suit*. ...Skeeve * never say never! # http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments -Original Message- From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mh...@ox.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:25 AM To: 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis' Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP address owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it is easy for us to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, we will look at deploying ipv6, but not until then. That's not a technical issue, but rather a business decision, and it's not going to change. We aren't depending our network resources on an external third-party, especially given their track record. Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 -Original Message- From: Zaid Ali [mailto:z...@zaidali.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:19 PM To: Roger Marquis Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the willingness to. Technical issues can be resolved if you and people around you are motivated to do so. I think there are some hard facts that need to be addressed when it comes to IPv6. Facts like 1. How do we migrate to a IPv6 stack on all servers and I am talking about the thousands of servers that exist on peoples network that run SaaS, Financial/Banking systems. 2. How do we make old applications speak IPv6? There are some old back- end systems that run core functions for many businesses out there that don't really have any upgrade path and I don't think people are thinking about this. From a network perspective IPv6 adoption is just about doing it and executing with your fellow AS neighbors. The elephant in the room is the applications that ride on your network. Zaid - Original Message - From: Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 9:39:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria that would allow them to deny any. So far, nobody's shown interest in plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it... Catch 22? From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it fully supports NAT. Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future. Roger Marquis
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
See my other email. You don't need to use a providers range. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mh...@ox.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 8:35 AM To: 'Måns Nilsson'; 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis' Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space DNS is great, but there is plenty of stuff to change that doesn't use DNS (ACLS, etc...). The point is, why should we go through the pain of renumbering, and have to do it everytime our relationship with our ISP changes? We aren't going to go there. It isn't renumbering that's the problem, the problem is that it being tied to an external company. Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 -Original Message- From: Måns Nilsson [mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:19 PM To: Matthew Huff; 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis' Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space --On tisdag, tisdag 3 feb 2009 13.24.59 -0500 Matthew Huff mh...@ox.com wrote: It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP address owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it is easy for us to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, we will look at deploying ipv6, but not until then. That's not a technical issue, but rather a business decision, and it's not going to change. We aren't depending our network resources on an external third-party, especially given their track record. Renumbering will happen. Be prepared or cry louder when it happens. DNS was invented for this, and v4 PA space is functionally equivalent to v6 here. Getting PI space only pushes the inevitable a bit, while lessening the incentives to DTRT wrt IP address mobility. -- Måns Nilsson M A C H I N A YOW!!! I am having fun!!!
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
OK, I will make an (what looks to this list) embarrassing admission. We use 1.0.0.0/8 for our internal ranges, but this is on a small scale. We do it because of the kind of business we do... we manage many other much larger networks which already use every possible overlapping RFC1918 network you can imagine... we have half a dozen networks using 192.168.0, and even more using many varied masks in the 10.0.0.0/8. We already have issues with the overlapping networks as is, without making it worse for us by using on of them. I chose to go the 1.0.0.0 path because: - It wont conflict with my customers and us doing our business - As long as it is not APNIC who gets it, the chances of it conflicting will be extremely minimal (rolls dice) - We don't design customer networks with non-RFC1918 ranges unless there is some extreme reason - Yes it is potentially allocate-able in the future, but if it happens I will deal with it then - just renumber or see the next point - We will be fully IPv6 within 6-9 months with a separate VLAN which will support legacy equipment with NAT-PT... this will still be an issue interconnecting to customer networks, but we will think of something. ..Skeeve -Original Message- From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org] Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:48 AM To: Bruce Grobler Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. Is this true? This will cause endless entertainment when IANA allocates 1.0.0.0/8 sometime within the next two or three years... Regards, -drc
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
And for those kinds of applications, yell at your vendors to come up with a solution. They say that there is about 2 years of ipv4 left. Then we’re screwed. If people sit with their thumbs up their asses now, and are not out planning budgets and migration strategies, they will be caught when they want to do network expansions. Note… the running out of IPv4 will NOT effect your current operations in any way. Your providers transit will (or already has) become dual stack, and you will continue to be able to talk to the internet as a whole unless native v6 only content starts to appear, which it will and then problems will appear. This situation will be able to go on for years without your changing anything….. unless you want these applications to keep communicating with the ever growing internet on ipv6… and if you do, plan for it… decide if you’re going to do it now, in a year, or in 10 years and how you want to look to your shareholders or stakeholders… because eventually, they will ask… they may not want to pay for it just now… but there is a lot of things you can do before you have to start paying real money for things. - Getting your assignment/allocation - Developing your documentation/plan of how it will be assigned internally - Start to identify what parts of your infrastructure will not cope (everyone will need to use NAT-PT internally for some 10 years or more) - Start talking to your hardware and software vendors about v6 and understanding their product roadmaps, timelines and so on. With all this, when it becomes inevitable you won’t have to suddenly do a ton of work…. Or you could buy ‘Migrating my corporate network to IPv6 for Dummies’ …Skeeve From: Dave Temkin [mailto:dav...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 9:06 AM To: ske...@skeeve.org Cc: 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space The problem with that solution mainly being that the application itself still needs some sort of intelligence as well as the border device potentially doing L7 operations (header insertion/etc.) - unless you're OK with generally losing all information about the source of incoming traffic at the backend (except for looking at NAT tables...) -Dave Skeeve Stevens wrote: With new dual-stack border devices people will be able to move bit by bit, and there is no real reason to have to run around and change everything that you have internally. These will change and update over time. These internal applications aren't running on public IP addresses anyway. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Zaid Ali [mailto:z...@zaidali.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:19 AM To: Roger Marquis Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the willingness to. Technical issues can be resolved if you and people around you are motivated to do so. I think there are some hard facts that need to be addressed when it comes to IPv6. Facts like 1. How do we migrate to a IPv6 stack on all servers and I am talking about the thousands of servers that exist on peoples network that run SaaS, Financial/Banking systems. 2. How do we make old applications speak IPv6? There are some old back-end systems that run core functions for many businesses out there that don't really have any upgrade path and I don't think people are thinking about this. From a network perspective IPv6 adoption is just about doing it and executing with your fellow AS neighbors. The elephant in the room is the applications that ride on your network. Zaid - Original Message - From: Roger Marquis mailto:marq...@roble.com marq...@roble.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 9:39:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria that would allow them to deny any. So far, nobody's shown interest in plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it... Catch 22? From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it fully supports NAT. Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future. Roger Marquis
FW: News Delivery Report (Failure)
Broken? ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: mail [mailto:postmas...@mail.theyscrewedusagain.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 9:05 AM To: ske...@skeeve.org Subject: News Delivery Report (Failure) Your Article RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:03:06 +1100) could not be successfully delivered to the following news groups :- homeless.security News Server: news.barkto.com Response: 441 Faulty message ID format Your message is quoted below :- From: Skeeve Stevens ske...@skeeve.org Newsgroups: homeless.security Path: mail.theyscrewedusagain.com To: 'Zaid Ali' z...@zaidali.com, 'Roger Marquis' marq...@roble.com References: 16474135.451233684880488.javamail.z...@turing-2.local 10812089.471233685164238.javamail.z...@turing-2.local In-Reply-To: 10812089.471233685164238.javamail.z...@turing-2.local Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:03:06 +1100 Lines: 71 Organization: eintellego Message-ID: !!AAAYAN5U5OuspydJheQZRk7Gfl7CgAAAEHeeRJOLMjdAuUKTBGjm njmba...@skeeve.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcmGLAntiH4eXFtJRiuUjFBXl6Hk+QAHrz0w Content-Language: en-au Cc: nanog@nanog.org X-BeenThere: nanog@nanog.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ske...@skeeve.org List-Id: North American Network Operators Group nanog.nanog.org Delivered using the Free Personal Edition of Mailtraq (www.mailtraq.com)
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
Exactly. So.. do I have to be in the US to get ARIN space? Technically space you get is announceable anywhere in the world... Can I just have a /32 from ARIN please and not pay the ton of money that APNIC ask for? I can setup a POBOX in New York if that will help? ;-) Actually, that is an interesting question... If I have a network I am building in the US/other locale, but I am based here, can I become an ARIN/RIPE/etc member and get a range out of them? ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Peter J. Cherny [mailto:pet...@luddite.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 11:06 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong wrote: ... I don't know what the APNIC fees and membership requirements are. A succinct summary, see below ! However, in the ARIN region, you do not need to be a member to get address space. The renewal fee for end-user space is $100/year. If you can't afford $100/year, how are you staying connected to the network or paying to power your equipment? APNIC fees are an order of magnitude (or more) higher ! http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html#non_mem_fee ftp://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/non-member-fees-2008 (APNIC-118) I quote from APNIC-118 : A host address in IPv4 is defined as a /32 and a site address in IPv6 is defined a /48. The initial fee for an assignment or allocation of IP addresses is AU$1.27 per host or site address, with a minimum fee of AU$10,384. After the first year of the initial assignment or allocation, there is an annual registration fee is AU$0.127 per host or site address, with a minimum fee of AU$1,038.40.
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
It isn't ipv6 that needs to support NAT, it is the devices doing dual-stack. This is where NAT-PT (v6-v4 NAT) will come in. My opinion is that we only aren't further along because the hardware vendors are slackers, mostly the low end guys like D-Link, Belkin, Netgear and so on who provide most of the home networking equipment. The big boys have supported v6 NAT and NAT-PT for ages. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Roger Marquis [mailto:marq...@roble.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 4:40 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria that would allow them to deny any. So far, nobody's shown interest in plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it... Catch 22? From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it fully supports NAT. Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future. Roger Marquis
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
OK. Following myself up, and referencing a link someone else gave me in regards to IPv6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network Has the entry: Private use of other reserved addresses Several other address ranges, in addition to the official private ranges, are reserved for other or future uses, including 1.0.0.0/8 and 2.0.0.0/8[1]. In recent years, large companies have begun to use this address space internally. Though discouraged, it appears to have become an accepted practice among larger companies to use these reserved address spaces when connecting two private networks, to eliminate the chance of address conflicts when using standards-based private ranges. --- Now I'm not using this as justification just interesting to see people have put it up there, and comment that a lot of large companies are using 1/8 and 2/8 for private networking. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Skeeve Stevens [mailto:ske...@skeeve.org] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 9:48 AM To: 'David Conrad'; 'Bruce Grobler' Cc: 'NANOG list' Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space OK, I will make an (what looks to this list) embarrassing admission. We use 1.0.0.0/8 for our internal ranges, but this is on a small scale. We do it because of the kind of business we do... we manage many other much larger networks which already use every possible overlapping RFC1918 network you can imagine... we have half a dozen networks using 192.168.0, and even more using many varied masks in the 10.0.0.0/8. We already have issues with the overlapping networks as is, without making it worse for us by using on of them. I chose to go the 1.0.0.0 path because: - It wont conflict with my customers and us doing our business - As long as it is not APNIC who gets it, the chances of it conflicting will be extremely minimal (rolls dice) - We don't design customer networks with non-RFC1918 ranges unless there is some extreme reason - Yes it is potentially allocate-able in the future, but if it happens I will deal with it then - just renumber or see the next point - We will be fully IPv6 within 6-9 months with a separate VLAN which will support legacy equipment with NAT-PT... this will still be an issue interconnecting to customer networks, but we will think of something. ..Skeeve -Original Message- From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org] Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:48 AM To: Bruce Grobler Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. Is this true? This will cause endless entertainment when IANA allocates 1.0.0.0/8 sometime within the next two or three years... Regards, -drc
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote it? ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Matthew Palmer [mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:26 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 11:57:36AM +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote: OK. Following myself up, and referencing a link someone else gave me in regards to IPv6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network Has the entry: Private use of other reserved addresses Several other address ranges, in addition to the official private ranges, are reserved for other or future uses, including 1.0.0.0/8 and 2.0.0.0/8[1]. In recent years, large companies have begun to use this address space internally. [citation required] - Matt
RE: [Update] Re: New ISP to market, BCP 38, and new tactics
Agreed. Keeping it separate works very well. Can be the same interface sure... but do it as a separate session. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Nathan Ward [mailto:na...@daork.net] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:40 PM To: nanog list Subject: Re: [Update] Re: New ISP to market, BCP 38, and new tactics On 4/02/2009, at 2:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: - Currently, (as I write), I'm migrating my entire core from IPv4 to IPv6. I've got the space, and I love to learn, so I'm just lab-ing it up now to see how things will flow with all iBGP v4 routes being advertised/routed over v6. Don't advertise v4 prefixes in v6 sessions, keep them separate. If you do, you have to do set next-hops with route maps and things, it's kind of nasty. Better to just run a v4 BGP mesh and a v6 BGP mesh. -- Nathan Ward
RE: APNIC offline
Back now, crisis avderted ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Alex H. Ryu [mailto:r.hyuns...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 9:07 AM To: manolo Cc: na...@merit.edu Subject: Re: APNIC offline Website www.apnic.net is not accessable from my desktop, either. But it is responded with ping, so it may be the issue with specific application such as web server daemon? Alex manolo wrote: All, Is anyone else seeing www.apnic.net offline? I have tried from two locations and the website does not respond. whois is working as expected though. Manolo
RE: Australian Co-Lo
If it doesn't need to be Melbourne, there is a good selection in Sydney. The best being Equinix and Globalswitch ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, Managing Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The ISP Specialists [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.eintellego.net Phone: (+612) 8197 2760, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there? -Original Message- From: Martin Barry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 1:05 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Australian Co-Lo $quoted_author = Bernard Becker ; Looking for recommendations for carrier neutral co-lo facility for Melbourne Australia. Our searches so far seem to turn up sites either on Telstra or Optus affiliated co-lo facilities. We need to be in a carrier neutral space with access to any of the major providers. This was created by a SAGE-AU member in response to a similar request. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0msid=117984623075363696099.000439d39e1c 7bd8d46c2ie=UTF8z=12 cheers Marty
