Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

On 5 Apr 2022, at 8:38 PM, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) wrote: > But say they sign an LRSA: Those $0 fees would go up to 150, this year, 175 > next year, 200 the following...250 in year five... to be able to simply add > DNSSEC, RPKI, and Validated IRR. Hi Dan, Speaking for myself, I'd be happy to pay

Re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40 hours until potentially significant routing changes (re: Retirement of ARIN Non-Authenticated IRR scheduled for 4 April 2022)

Hope this is 40 business hours -- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > On Apr 5, 2022, at 22:42, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > For the inclusion of proxy objects in ALTDB for ARIN-NONAUTH, this is > the

Re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40 hours until potentially significant routing changes (re: Retirement of ARIN Non-Authenticated IRR scheduled for 4 April 2022)

For the inclusion of proxy objects in ALTDB for ARIN-NONAUTH, this is the current state of objects among known IRRs: source total obj rt objaut-num obj

ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

On 5 Apr 2022, at 8:38 PM, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) mailto:d...@prime.gushi.org>> wrote: But say they sign an LRSA: Those $0 fees would go up to 150, this year, 175 next year, 200 the following...250 in year five... to be able to simply add DNSSEC, RPKI, and Validated IRR. $25 a year does not

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Of course there's an argument that say "mom and pop should not run their own mailserver, there are professionals for that!" but at the end of the day what this really serves is deliberate and pre-mediated centralisation, slowly but steadily

Re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT -

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Owen DeLong wrote: On Apr 4, 2022, at 17:40 , John Curran wrote: On 4 Apr 2022, at 7:42 PM, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) wrote: Ironically, to find the way forward, ARIN would require incorporation, the signing of a RSA, and Moar Money for this same

Re: [nanog] 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40

On 5 Apr 2022, at 5:31 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: On Apr 4, 2022, at 17:40 , John Curran mailto:jcur...@istaff.org>> wrote: ... Interesting – as ARIN’s fee schedule was designed specifically so that every IPv4 customer can get a corresponding-sized IPv6 block without any

Re: [nanog] 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40

> On Apr 4, 2022, at 17:40 , John Curran wrote: > > >> On 4 Apr 2022, at 7:42 PM, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) > > wrote: >> >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote: >> >>> I think all of us recognize a need to declaw "third party" IRR databases >>> like RADB

Re: antique CGN complaints, was V6 still not supported

> On Apr 4, 2022, at 11:56 , John Levine wrote: > > It appears that JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG > said: >> Related to the LEA agencies and CGN: >> >>

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

> On Apr 4, 2022, at 08:13 , Robert Kisteleki wrote: > > > On 2022-04-03 07:18, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> I’ve not experienced this problem sending emails via IPv6 to gmail >> destinations from my personal domain. >> (delong.com ) >> Likely this email will, in fact,

Re: V6 still not supported

There are other problematic examples out there for CGN as well… For example, Philips Hue assumes that if you are presenting the same public IP to the internet, you must be in the same household. Yes, this means that an opportunistic neighbor behind the same CGNAT address as you can gain

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Apr 4, 2022, at 05:06 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: >> No, isn't only a Sony problem, becomes a problem for every ISP that has >> customers using Sony PSN and have CGN (NAT444), their IP blocks are >> black-listed when they are detected as used

Re: RPKI adoption (was: Re: 2749 routes AT RISK )

From: NANOG on behalf of John Curran > Along these lines, I’d like to remind everyone of a fairly important > consultation that Andrew Hadenfeldt posted here last month > (FCC) seeks comment on vulnerabilities threatening the security and integrity > of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)...

RE: More product suggestions: small/cheap IS-IS or VXLAN devices?

Probably not an option for us, but thank you – I wasn’t aware VyOS included VXLAN. Merci, -Adam Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services [MERLIN] 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)

Re: More product suggestions: small/cheap IS-IS or VXLAN devices?

Le mer. 23 févr. 2022 à 00:44, Adam Thompson a écrit : > At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’m asking for product > suggestions yet again: > > > > We’re wondering if anything small & cheap (think CPE-grade) exists that > supports either IS-IS or VXLAN? > > > > If IS-IS, total route

Re: V6 still not supported

Worse yet, this ship sailed anyway even farther with a ton of devices using private/dynamic MAC addresses ... FWIW, large-ish ISP here, originally an ipv4-only shop. A few years back we overhauled everything and naively tried to go all ipv6, since we owned the data/voice terminals and set top

Re: ICANN Survey on DNS Suffix Usage and New gTLD Delegation

Last reminder! Thank you to all those that you have taken our survey! We are kindly soliciting all the input we can get for our study, to better understand the impact of delegating new strings into the root zone. https://forms.gle/ntvsn6eqzYH9YcTN6 See below for more information. Many

Re: V6 still not supported

Jared Brown wrote: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: If I'm a gamer, and one of my possible ISPs is using CGN, and from time to time stops working, and another ISP is providing me a public and/or static IPv4 address, always working, and there is not too much price difference, what I

Re: V6 still not supported

Francis Booth wrote: > I think you’re jumping to conclusions that Sony is doing this purely from the > darkness in their hearts. I confess to being momentously surprised if this wasn't the driving reason :) > The same thing could be said about Netflix and Hulu blocking traffic from >

RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hello Dave: If you have a v4 only network and are willing to migrate to v6 that’s certainly neat and the YATT traffic will just be another v6 traffic that your BCP 38 rules will process. Still you’ll find IPv4 only customers, and you’ll end up with both v4 and v6, and CG NATs, etc. This is

Re: V6 still not supported

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: > If I'm a gamer, and one of my possible ISPs is using CGN, and from time to > time stops working, and another ISP is providing me a public and/or static > IPv4 address, always working, and there is not too much price difference, > what I will do? Changing

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hi Pascal, >From what I'm reading, it seems like you're implying that the bulk of the ISP network does not need to change to implement this new IP protocol. If that is the case, then you are incorrect. Without the router that the customer connects to being aware of this new protocol, then you

RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hello Dave: The problem we have not solved is with the (host, gateway, ISP network) that will not move; and I’m hearing in this list that there’s one big reason: because the step (the leap really) is too wide. And I also read a consensus that dual stack and large NATs are not the long term

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Considering this requires updating every single IP stack that wants to utilise this, what are the benefits of it other than just moving to IPv6? Regards, Dave On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 08:24, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > Hello Matthew > > > > At the moment the

RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hello Matthew At the moment the draft has a general architecture, and it will take the right minds and experience to turn a model into a live network. Considering what the people in this list have already built, it’s no gigantic leap to figure they can build that too. Most of the building