Steven Bellovin wrote:
VRRP? The Router Discovery Protocol (RFC 1256). But given
how much more reliable routers are today than in 1984, I'm
not convinced it's that necessary these days.
VRRP is an absolutely essential protocol in today's Internet. We use
it on every non-bgp customer port.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 24 Dec 2011, at 6:32 , Glen Kent wrote:
I am trying to understand why standards say that using a subnet
prefix length other than a /64 will break many features of IPv6,
including Neighbor Discovery (ND), Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)
[RFC3971], .. [reference
Ravi Duggal wrote:
We thus have draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00 that extends
DHCPv6 to do what RA does. And now, we have
draft-bcd-6man-ntp-server-ra-opt-00.txt that extends RA to advertise
the NTP information that is currently done via DHCPv6.
My question is, that which then is the
Dave Hart wrote:
AS path geeks:
At the risk of invoking ire and eliciting comparisons to the
widely-reviled and growing practice of selling IPv4 addresses, I'm
wondering if anyone has sold legacy AS numbers for quick cash.
I have heard first hand stories of folks being offered 5 figures
for
Christopher Pilkington wrote:
Is it common in the industry for a colocation provider, when requested to put
an egress ACL facing us such as:
deny udp any a.b.c.d/24 eq 80
…to refuse and tell us we must subscribe to their managed DDOS product?
We have always accommodated temporary ACL's
Jack Bates wrote:
I'm curious if anyone has a pointer on traffic manipulation for
classified traffic.
Basics, I have a really cheap transit connection that some customers are
paying reduced rates to only use that connection (and not my other
transits). Though I've considered support for
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:13:09PM +0200, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
Now you could argue that the DHCPv6-supplied gateway addresses should have
higher priority than the ones learned from RAs. At least that solves the
problem. However, that solution
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and
even begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not the same thing.
I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this
This path for 2001::/32 leads to a broken teredo relay:
3257 1103 1101
http://ip6.me was using this path and not working from my client. When I
routing to prefer 6939's relays it started working.
- Kevin
Jeremy Kister wrote:
Does anyone know of a competent .io registrar who charges in the =
$75/yr area ?
I've been using tierra.net (domaindiscover.com) but they continually
break my domains.
this year, although their website says my domain expires 4/2012, my
domain stopped working today.
bas wrote:
Hi,
We've recently opened a POP in northern Virginia.
The DC does not have a lot of connectivity options to choose from.
So we've ordered dark fiber to Equinix Ashburn DC2, we will light it
up with our own DWDM, and pick up connectivity there.
We do however need a second point to
Jared Mauch wrote:
Maybe this is a good place to start..
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/
- Jared
On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made
a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different
Randy Bush wrote:
(and to answer Randy - the only control over the administration is based
on the policies adopted. Reduce the corpus of applicable policy if that
is your desire.)
we created careers for junior policiy weenies. arin and other rirs have
become well-funded playgrounds for the
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
*If* the whole IPv6 config can be driven from the same database. For
the time being, DHCPv6 cannot deliver a default gateway to customers
(and there is a religious faction within the IPv6 community which
seem to want to prevent this at all costs).
s/IPv6/IETF/
I
Jeffrey Negro wrote:
In our case I believe we would be dealing with just static routes and a
lines of ACL.
In that case a linux/FreeBSD router would work great.
- Kevin
Axel Morawietz wrote:
Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
[...] Its
amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile phones.
And I'm not sure what they are doing when they are going
Drew Weaver wrote:
Hi,
As my Avaya CNA/Route Science box begins to seriously age, and without the
support of Avaya for 'Service Provider' uses of the product, I have been
looking for alternatives to the product.
The value we get from this product is mainly in the ability to easily manage
Thomas Magill wrote:
I am thinking about implementing a filter to block all traffic with
private AS numbers in the path. I see quite a few in my table though so
I am concerned I might block some legitimate traffic. In some cases,
these are just prefixes with the private appended to the end but
Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
Hello,
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE NCC did some
measurements to find out how polluted this block really is.
See some surprising results on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18
Please also note the call for feedback at the
Ketan Mangal wrote:
Yes there is a Newyork to Philadelphia fiber cut is there
It might not be an outage it might be high latency due to multiple
routes going out via there buffalo POP.
That fiber cut was at 9:30EST this morning, the major Cogent internal
routing problems started around 12:10
Bin Dai wrote:
Hi:
These days, in the research, the interdomain multipath routing is pretty
hot but i doubt its actually use in reality.
Does anyone tell me any use of interdomain multipath routing like
multipath BGP in the real world?
BGP multipath is extremely common and used to load
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break
the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their
presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
In some configurations not all hosts are supposed to use the same
router. We need
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 okt 2009, at 10:03, Andy Davidson wrote:
Support default-routing options for DHCPv6 !
This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards packets
makes RAs much more robust than
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 19/10/2009, at 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 18, 2009, at 3:05 AM, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 18/10/2009, at 11:02 PM, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 18 Oct 2009, at 09:29, Nathan Ward wrote:
RA is needed to tell a host to use DHCPv6
This is not ideal.
Why?
Remember
TJ wrote:
In some cases different devices on a segment need a different
default router (for default). This is the fundamental
This capability is also defined, more specific routes - but no one
encouraged any vendors that I know of to support it - so they don't. Big
demand?
by Default I
Chris Adams wrote:
I guess I'm missing something; what in section 3 is this referring to?
I can understand /64 or /126 (or maybe /124 if you were going to
delegate reverse DNS?), but why /112 and 16 bits for node identifiers
on a point-to-point link?
The only thing special about /112 is that
Greg Hankins wrote:
We also started a Wiki with content based on the presentation that has
more updated information, including a current list of vendor support.
If you see a vendor missing, let us know and we can update the list.
Or better yet, create an account and add some content yourself
David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
My understanding is that the RIRs are doing sparse allocation, as
opposed to reserving a few bits. I could be wrong.
Last I heard, with the exception of APNIC and contrary to what they
indicated they'd do prior to IANA
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Jay Hennigan wrote:
Tier 1, tier 2 etc. are terms used primarily by salespeople, and
don't have a lot to do with technical matters.
Sure it does. If you're multihoming it will increase your AS path length.
There is no general correlation between AS path length and
Benjamin Billon wrote:
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could
start to accept whitelisted senders
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:06:58PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
This conversation has gone places I didn't expect. Leo, that card is
pretty cool, but for a few hundred $$ more, you can get a light meter
(if someone is smart enough to use the card...)
In a pinch the camera on a MacBook pro can be
Something is definately happening, 50% drop in inbound
traffic to our PHX datacenter across all transit providers.
- Kevin
Ray Sanders wrote:
Are there any fiber cuts or other routing issues anyone in the Phoenix
area is aware of?
Thanks.
Kevin Loch wrote:
Something is definately happening, 50% drop in inbound
traffic to our PHX datacenter across all transit providers.
- Kevin
Ray Sanders wrote:
Are there any fiber cuts or other routing issues anyone in the Phoenix
Update: Qwest did not appear to be affected
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the
anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with
the same origin AS?
Yes, and it is commonly done.
I was
Jo Rhett wrote:
Cisco 6500/7600 with SUP720-3BXL handles 1mil routes
Sounds great on paper but a sup720 can barely handle full tables today.
Depending on how many full tables you take and what else you are doing
with it, cpu resources are unreasonably tight. Having many vlans with
vrrp and
David Conrad wrote:
Yeah. Rants about the IETF should probably be directed elsewhere.
Just how DO we get the message to the IETF that we need all the tools we
have in v4 (DHCP, VRRP, etc) to work with RA turned off?
- Kevin
Leo Bicknell wrote:
It wouldn't be so bad if we could just turn it off. Indeed, in
part you can. On a static LAN there is no need for RA's. Static
IP the box, static default route, done and done.
VRRPv6 however is relevant to static environments and also needs to
(optionally) work with
marco wrote:
From what I heard, it was some some malfunction with a router in
Washington D.C. which terminated a 100GB bundle from Paris. It was
carring about 50GB at the time of the failure.
Not sure why routes within the US would be effected.
We connect to level3 in Ashburn/DC and saw
Christopher Morrow wrote:
GRH is too slow to get me an answer on what it thinks the v6 table
size should be :( Geoff says though:
1627 routes
(http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html)
route-views6 is another good place to look. 1481 is the max
seen there. Perhaps there are some
Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Philip L. wrote:
This is on a Sup720-3BXL by the way:
'sh mls netflow table-con detailed:'
Earl in Module 5
Detailed Netflow CAM (TCAM and ICAM) Utilization
TCAM Utilization : 100%
ICAM Utilization : 6%
William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
government run and regulated backbone);
Which
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Kevin Loch wrote:
While you're at it, you also placed the reachable-via rx on
all your customer interfaces. If you're paranoid, start with the 'any'
rpf and then move to the strict rpf. The strict rpf also helps with
routing loops.
Be careful
Jared Mauch wrote:
While you're at it, you also placed the reachable-via rx on
all your customer interfaces. If you're paranoid, start with the 'any'
rpf and then move to the strict rpf. The strict rpf also helps with
routing loops.
Be careful not to enable strict rpf on multihomed
Randy Bush wrote:
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
some of us remember when we thought similarly
Tony Hain wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote:
That's because the 'v6 network' is broken enough that putting
records on sites that need to be well reachable is a bad idea.
So why didn't you put up a 6to4 router and put records in that pointed
to the 6to4 prefix for those servers?
That
Andreas Ott wrote:
Hi,
since when does ftp://ftp.arin.net/info/asn.txt contain dotted
AS numbers? Where is the new formatting documented, asn.h ?
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-04.txt
6.0 B6WM110-ARIN (Tech)
6.1
Donald Stahl wrote:
If ARIN is going to assign /48's, and people are blocking anything
longer than /32- well then that's a problem :)
To be specific, ARIN is currently assigning up to /48 out of
2620::/23.
I noticed that http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
has the following
Jared Mauch wrote:
Some providers (eg: www.us.ntt.net) have their sales/marketing
path ipv6 enabled. Perhaps this will help self-select customers that are
clued? ;)
Most European/Asian based providers/peers don't even blink when I
mention turning up IPv6. Not so with most US based
48 matches
Mail list logo
