Re: IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024, 05:29 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > Most firewalls are default deny. Routers are default allow unless you put > a filter on the interface. > This is not relevant though. NAT when doing port overloading, as is the case for most CPE, is not default-deny or default-allow.

Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)

On Sat, 7 Jan 2023, 20:52 Masataka Ohta, wrote: > Matthew Walster wrote: > > > No... It's action based. You can send it a different route, you can > > replicate it, you can drop it, you can mutate it... > > Replication is a poor alternative for multicast. > You conv

Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)

On Sat, 7 Jan 2023, 03:17 Masataka Ohta, wrote: > Matthew Walster wrote: > > > it's just one aspect of it. Some use it for > > classifying guest traffic etc. > > If special path is provided for guest or otherwise > prioritized traffic, that's QoS routing. > No... I

Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, 18:38 Mike Hammett, wrote: > I suspect it always will have value, whether it's peering routers, POP > routers, multi-homed customer routers, etc. > Indeed. It's not "clean" but it is an acceptable tradeoff if you know what you're doing, and how traffic sloshes around etc. I

Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, 11:25 Forrest Christian (List Account), < li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > In the end though, I do expect that the hassle of setting up and managing > a solution like this is likely to result in most people deciding that it > isn't worth the extra complexity just to avoid

Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, 17:07 Masataka Ohta, wrote: > Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > Some of the reasoning behind 'i need/want to do SDN things' is 'low fib > > device' sort of reasonings. > > What? > > SDN is a poor alternative for those who can't construct a > network with fully automated QoS

Re: Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, 19:41 Dave Taht, wrote: > I am deeply concerned by the onrushing move to udp for QUIC, > IMO, it's a fad that will die away. IMHO, QUIC should also one day become its own protocol number also, > If that was feasible, we would likely be using SCTP by now. TCP, UDP, and

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, 11:22 Masataka Ohta, wrote: > Saku Ytti wrote: > > > Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll > > be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the > > price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes. > > Indeed,

Re: V6 still not supported

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 15:20, Tom Beecher wrote: > You appear to run a residential ISP. There are essentially 3 things you > would have to do to deploy IPv6. > [...] > Putting aside the 'zero value' idea, if you were to decide to take steps > today , what are your blockers? > I'm going to turn

Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022, 07:42 Stephane Bortzmeyer, wrote: > The only problem is the less friendly IP address (although this will > be less and less a problem with IPv6, since 2001:4860:4860:: is > not really friendly). Au contraire, I find 2600:: easy to remember :P This can be partially

Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging

(as posted to outages) On Wed, 9 Feb 2022, 04:53 Mark Tinka, wrote: > It is clear that a number of Internet users find pinging "reliable" IP > addresses useful, regardless of whether it actually is or isn't, or > whether it's ethical or not. > > Like we have done with other public services such

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:35, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Nov 20, 2021, at 03:16 , Matthew Walster wrote: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, > wrote: > >> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov >> 20, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoti

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:14, Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast > public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:51:24AM -0800 Quoting William Herrin ( > b...@herrin.us): > All the heavy lifting in video production via IP is done over >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 13:47, Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 11:16:59AM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org): > > 3. IPv6 "port forwarding" isn't really an easy thing -- people are

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta ( > mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > > > > We cope, > > > because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and

Re: Need for historical prefix blacklist (`rogue' prefixes) information

On Fri, 29 Oct 2021, 15:55 A Crisan, wrote: > Hi Matthew, > I was reading the above exchange, and I do have a question linked to your > last affirmation. To give you some context, the last 2021 ENISA report seem > to suggest that internet traffic is "casually registered" by X actors to > apply

Re: Need for historical prefix blacklist (`rogue' prefixes) information

ew days (of collecting responses, > if any). > I would strongly encourage engaging with the IETF ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sidrops/about/ et al) who are much more likely to be able to point you in the right direction. Matthew Walster

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, 13:03 Jens Link, wrote: > I ran into this some time ago with deb.debian.org on an IPv6 only Debian > VM with a locally installed resolver. I opened a ticket which was closed > in record time: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961296 > > After some ranting and

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, 19:28 Fred Baker, wrote: > I’m not sure I disagree, but let throw in a point of consideration. > Historically, as you note, the caller pays the toll. However, the caller > also CHOSE to call, even though the called party might find the call > irritating. With a CDN, the

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 17:43, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2021, at 06:30 , Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail) < > allenmckinleykitc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I totally agree that this is not a perfect analogy. But I have some > sympathy for both parties in this debate. > > Close enough on the

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 19:53, Jared Brown wrote: > “When the rules were created 25 years ago I don’t think anyone would have > envisioned four or five companies would be driving 80% of the traffic on > the world’s internet. They aren’t making a contribution to the services > they are being

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021, 02:24 Owen DeLong, wrote: > > A 4K 2 hour movie is about 40GB. Most modern smart TVs around 32GB of RAM > and can probably devote about 20GB of that to buffering a stream, so yeah, > that should actually be doable. > Most users are not streaming 4K, it's a very small

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 21:05, Matthew Petach wrote: > I think it would be absolutely *stunning* for content providers > to turn the model on its head; use a bittorrent like model for > caching and serving content out of subscribers homes at > recalcitrant ISPs, so that data doesn't come from

Re: PeerinDB refuses to register certain networks [was: Setting sensible max-prefix limits]

hat extensively happens between networks in LATAM outside of public IXPs for example, which is why that statement above indicates it also facilitates the interconnection of networks outside of IXPs. Whether that is desirable or not is a topic for another day. Matthew Walster

Re: Setting sensible max-prefix limits

ter certain networks, right? > It is most certainly not a single source of truth. > Would you care to expand on this? Matthew Walster >

Re: My First BGP-Hijacking Explanation

understand... He's really good at that, and has done a great job with this! Matthew Walster

Re: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 21:16 Mark Tinka, wrote: > > > On 7/Jan/20 12:01, Martijn Schmidt via NANOG wrote: > > So while the IP space is registered to Cogent and allocated to its > > customer, the AS-path might be something like ^174_456$ but it's > > entirely possible that ARIN would observe it as

Re: Are network operators morons? [was: CloudFlare issues?]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, 14:31 Patrick W. Gilmore, wrote: > I must be old. All I can think is Kids These Days, and maybe Get Off My > BGP, er Lawn. > Maybe they ought to [puts on shades] mind their MANRS. M (scuttling away) >

Re: AT/as7018 now drops invalid prefixes from peers

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 00:24, Job Snijders wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:30 PM Matthew Walster > wrote: > > As it stands today, RPKI is only useful to prevent fat-fingering of ebgp > routing policies, where routes are leaked from a point of "legitimate" >

Re: AT/as7018 now drops invalid prefixes from peers

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 16:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Matthew Walster wrote on 12/02/2019 14:50: > > For initial deployment, this can seem attractive, but remember that one > > of the benefits an ROA gives is specifying the maximum prefix length. > > This means that someo

Re: AT/as7018 now drops invalid prefixes from peers

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, 01:52 Jay Borkenhagen ... but there is one place where I disagree with Niels. He advised > against lowering the local-pref of invalid routes. I agree that this > should not be anyone's target policy, but it is a useful step along > the way. > For initial deployment, this

Re: Wave service providers in Hong Kong metro area

On 8 May 2018 at 18:58, wrote: > Can anyone recommend wave providers on the Hong Kong area? I need to reach > between two colo facilities there. Feel free to ping me off-list. > ​Hong Kong island (e.g. REACH near Admiralty or Mega i-advantage near Chai Wan) or in the Tsuen Wan

Re: Favorite Speed Test Systems

On 5 December 2016 at 14:50, Graham Johnston wrote: > Are there others? What is your preferred one and why? > ​Generally I don't bother with speed testers unless I'm wanting a quick guesstimate -- I wouldn't recommend using them as a measure of how "fast" an internet

Re: CDN Overload?

On 20 Sep 2016 9:14 am, "George Skorup" wrote: > > Now lets move the Windows 10 updates. A 'buried in the sticks' customer on Canopy 900 FSK. 1.5Mbps/384k. Multiple streams from Microsoft and LLNW at the same time. LLNW alone had maybe 10 streams going and was sending at over

Re: Do you have INOC-DBA set up? (was: Re: PCH.net questions and thoughts - Re: Prefix hijacking by AS20115)

On 29 September 2015 at 17:13, Bob Evans wrote: > Neils, do you actually work at in a NOC operation with BGP operations and > policies you can change - a backbone with customers? ​"lolz" as the kids say.​ > SayAn email/ text might work well or even better

Re: 10Gb iPerf kit?

I find nuttcp very useful in those situations. Be sure to use one of the recent betas, I have been using 7.2.1 for UDP with excellent results (decent loss stats and jitter calc) http://nuttcp.net/nuttcp/beta/nuttcp-7.2.1.c As I understand it, it's still developed, 7.3.2 is now out. M On 7 Dec

Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?

On 30 October 2014 08:04, Ben Sjoberg bensjob...@gmail.com wrote: That 3Mb difference is probably just packet overhead + congestion control. Goodput on a single TCP flow is always less than link bandwidth, regardless of the link. ​I've always found it useful to refer to this:

Re: BGPMON Alert Questions

On 3 April 2014 04:43, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: i very much doubt this is a 7007, where bgp was redistributed into rip, which sliced it into a jillion /24s, and then redistributed from rip back into bgp. ​I could be wrong, but I thought AS7007 was nothing to do with RIP?

Re: Open source hardware

On 2 January 2014 15:53, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Have you looked at Mikrotik.com (Software) and Routerboard.com (Hardware) That's not Open Source. M​​

Re: Logs Bank

On 8 November 2011 19:59, joshua.kl...@gmail.com wrote: If I may ask, is there any OSS that can serve as a log bank or log server, snip Do you mean OSS, or do you mean free? /bugbear M

Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA

On 20 October 2010 01:16, Julien Goodwin jgood...@studio442.com.au wrote: MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply drop packets with a source address of .0 or .255 coming from the legacy class C space, I did say in 83.x, but it's good to know that there are problems with old Class-C

Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth

On 25 September 2010 21:16, Rodrick Brown rodrick.br...@gmail.com wrote: I think most people are aware that the Blizzard World of WarcCraft patcher distributes files through Bittorrent, snip I once read an article talking about making BitTorrent scalable by using anycasted caching services at

Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth

On 26 September 2010 00:47, Adrian Chadd adr...@creative.net.au wrote: I don't recall any protocols being standard. Plenty of people sell p2p caches but they all work using magic, smoke and mirrors. I had the P4P (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive_network_Provider_Participation_for_P2P)

Re: Proxy Server

On 6 August 2010 22:04, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Apparently it can be made to work: Indeed, I used the above instructions to setup IPv6 on my home pfSense box, with the upstream being a HurricaneElectric v6v4 tunnel. It worked very well - though it only worked with RA, there's

Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

On 29 July 2010 18:08, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote: There's a good chance that in the long run multi-subnet home networks will become the norm. With all due respect, I can't see it. Why would a home user need multiple subnets? Are they really likely to have CPE capable of routing

Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

On 30 July 2010 08:32, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote: On 2010-07-30 09:27, Matthew Walster wrote: On 29 July 2010 18:08, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote: There's a good chance that in the long run multi-subnet home networks will become the norm. With all due respect, I can't

Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

On 30 July 2010 09:20, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: Even today, people are deploying multiple subnets in their homes.  For example, Apple's Airport allows you to trivially set up a guest network that uses a different prefix (192.168.0.0/24) and different SSID than your normal

Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

On 30 July 2010 09:53, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: 2.      Yes, they are already available. A moderate PC with 4 Gig-E        ports can actually route all four of them at near wire speed.        For 10/100Mbps, you can get full featured CPE like the SRX-100        for around $500.

Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

On 23 July 2010 01:45, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote: Unless I've misunderstood Matthew, and he was suggesting that the /64 be the link network. That would indeed effectively give the customer a single address, unless it was being bridged rather than routed at the CPE. Not sure bridging

Re: Web expert on his 'catastrophe' key for the internet

On 28 July 2010 04:52, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: Right, I think I pointed out it was basically SMS, despite being billed as enterprise paging, which brings us back to the previous question Or are you saying that there are SMS networks out there that aren't part of the cellular

Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Band al...@ripe.net wrote: There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree? I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the better idea would be to assign your bog standard

Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right

On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the E-Rate program) instead of improving rural communications... As someone who's always been in the tech field,

Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP

On 30 June 2010 21:50, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote: Typos are just as simple (even more simple) on an HP.  There's no add/remove mode for vlan port membership.  You specify the entire list every time. conf t vlan 1000 tag 1 tag 22 untag 44 exit exit write memory exit Result: vlan 1000 is

Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP

irritating? Kind regards, Matthew Walster

Re: DWDM hardware recommendations

On 22 May 2010 16:52, ML m...@kenweb.org wrote: Does anyone have a recommendation that might fit these requirements? I've used the MRV Lambdadrivers for a ring using DWDM, 16 channel MUX/DEMUX, with one channel using an 8-in-1 10G TDM device (tunable). No complaints here apart from the need to

Re: BGP and convergence time

On 12 May 2010 02:36, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote: You set the timers on your side and the two sides negotiate then select the lowest timer settings.  The BGP session automatically hard resets on some equipment when changing the timers, so be aware of that. Hold timers are

Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR

a single label stack, and RSVP not LDP - plus they have a restricted BGP table size, so VPLS is out of the question. Matthew Walster

109/8 - not a BOGON

it and update it as soon as possible please? His addresses in 89/8 and 83/8 work just fine, hence this presumption of BOGON filtering. Matthew Walster

Re: Route table prefix monitoring

2009/9/4 Olsen, Jason jol...@devry.com:  Are there any tools that people are using to track when/what prefixes are added/withdrawn from their routing tables, Could you use something like BGPMon? http://bgpmon.com/ Matthew Walster

Re: Passive DWDM in Production Service

If it's passive, surely it doesn't matter whether it's 1GigE, 10GigE or whatever, it's passive - it just uses mirrors and lenses to add the signals into one big chunky trunk port feed? M 2009/6/22 Vincent J. Bono vb...@2nplus1.com: Hey Everyone, If anyone is using, in production, passive