Re: SP's and v4 block assignments
On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote: As for charging for residential static assignments, I don't think it's all that odd, or 'despicable'. Allocating static assignments consumes engineer time for configuration and documentation. On a business class service, you can eat that cost fairly easily. On a low-yield residential circuit, there has to be some long term ROI because that work probably takes the margin out of the service for months. Engineer time is not an issue. If it requires an engineer for configuration and documentation, the provisioning process is already flawed. The reason to not want residential users to have static IPs is that these users represent large chunks of traffic which can be easily moved from one group of HFC channels to another when additional capacity must be created by breaking up access network segments. If many users had a static IP, this would be more difficult. Since most users don't have a static IP, the overhead of dealing with the few users who do is entirely manageable, especially when these users are paying a higher fee. This assumes an HFC network and not a PON or DSL topology where it is not an issue. Owen
Re: Simple Low Cost WAN Link Simulator Recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
0n Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:27:18AM -0700, Jim Logajan wrote: Loopback loopb...@digi-muse.com wrote: Need the ability to test Network Management and Provisioning applications over a variety of WAN link speeds from T1 equivalent up to 1GB speeds. Seems to be quite a few offerings but I am looking for recommendations from actual users. Thanks in advance. FreeBSD + DummyNet [http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=dummynetsektion=4] -Alex IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
Re: SP's and v4 block assignments
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: This assumes an HFC network and not a PON or DSL topology where it is not an issue. It assumes that the access network topology does not employ any kind of triangular routing to terminate the subscriber's layer-3 traffic on a desired access router, as opposed to one dictated by where the subscriber's layer-1 facility terminates. It's really not an issue of HFC or DSL, and I guess I should have spelled it out since several folks failed to understand that -- it's an issue of carrying routes for customer static IPs in your IGP or being able to steer their sessions to a certain device. I'm sure we all remember the days when ordinary dial-up subscribers could get a static IP address from nation-wide dial-up ISPs, and the network took care of routing that static IP to whatever box was receiving the modem call. The problems with scaling up static IPs for fixed-line services are much less troublesome than a nation-wide switched access service like dial-up; but the same basic constraints apply -- you need triangular routing, or a bigger routing table, when users' static IPs are not bound to an aggregate pool for their layer-3 access router. Almost Static IPs, which remain unchanged until your ISP has some need to reorganize their access network and move you into a different IP address pool, are a good compromise that are okay for many end-users. That eliminates all the technical challenges (from the ISP perspective) and yet there are many ISPs that offer this product only to business customers, not ordinary residential subscribers -- which means you're still left with the issue that they simply don't want to offer anything like a static IP to the lowest-margin customers, as they hope it will force some subscribers to upgrade to a higher-cost service. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
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: Simple Low Cost WAN Link Simulator Recommendations
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Loopback loopb...@digi-muse.com wrote: Need the ability to test Network Management and Provisioning applications over a variety of WAN link speeds from T1 equivalent up to 1GB speeds. Seems to be quite a few offerings but I am looking for recommendations from actual users. Thanks in advance. We've used FreeBSD + dummynet on a multi-NIC box in bridging mode to do 'bump on the wire' WAN simulations involving packet loss, latency, and unidirectional packet flow variances. Works wonderfully, and the price is right. Matt
Re: Simple Low Cost WAN Link Simulator Recommendations
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comwrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Loopback loopb...@digi-muse.com wrote: Need the ability to test Network Management and Provisioning applications over a variety of WAN link speeds from T1 equivalent up to 1GB speeds. Seems to be quite a few offerings but I am looking for recommendations from actual users. Thanks in advance. Linux tc netem: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/netem Has worked well for us. -- Tim:
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
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) pgpKIGsV8gHLU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:29 PM, 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) So am I. But I'm surprised 1918 space was used as well. ANY v4 address will get typed into ping or a browser or something by someone if it is on TV. How many corporations have 1918 space that their VPN'ed home users are about to abuse because of that? Is 127.0.0.1 / ::1 the Internet version of 555? Or will I hurt myself, so now I'm going to sue you mean we can't even use that? - - -- TTFN, patrick - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk2GgTEACgkQznMLL4aoth+u3wCglGK+yrFj3PhI61O78IEqQ40V KyMAoK0MJ26OxPab10za4LQ6U8qomrPU =uJz7 - -END PGP SIGNATURE- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk2GgTcACgkQznMLL4aoth9c8ACgkT0XYIAsZ2IORlYH+nopOLmH z/sAoLILGcEnxhR1QHXnU+NvJPDuaYvT =RNrE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
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: CSI New York fake IPv6
On 3/20/2011 11:44 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: 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. Makes a good change from a 5 octet IP number I remember them using in one episode revolving around an adult webcam website. Paul
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
- Original Message - From: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net Is 127.0.0.1 / ::1 the Internet version of 555? Or will I hurt myself, so now I'm going to sue you mean we can't even use that? I'm a touch surprised that *you're* asking that question, Patrick. I figured your chapeau was geriatric enough you'd already know. :-) No, there are several reserved stretches of both IPv4 and DNS space for just such reasons. example.com is the most common and well known, but see also RFC 3330 and RFC 5737, not necessarily in that order. Anyone who really *wants* to run nmap on camera has lots of safe networks to point it at. Cheers, -- jra
RE: CSI New York fake IPv6
-Original Message- From: Paul Graydon [mailto:p...@paulgraydon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 But seriously. That a major TV show is actually using IPv6 addressing (or pretending to) is an awesome thing in my opinion. Makes a good change from a 5 octet IP number I remember them using in one episode revolving around an adult webcam website. I remember seeing that show. I think they had Jim Fleming on as a consultant. ; Stefan Fouant
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
- Original Message - From: Stefan Fouant sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net Makes a good change from a 5 octet IP number I remember them using in one episode revolving around an adult webcam website. I remember seeing that show. I think they had Jim Fleming on as a consultant. ; Shhh... don't say his name. I think he Kibozes. Cheers, -- jra
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: No, there are several reserved stretches of both IPv4 and DNS space for just such reasons. example.com is the most common and well known, but see also RFC 3330 and RFC 5737, not necessarily in that order. See also this thread http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034179.html from less than two weeks ago for discussion of this in relation to IPv6. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Is 127.0.0.1 / ::1 the Internet version of 555? Or will I hurt myself, so now I'm going to sue you mean we can't even use that? It'd be nice if TV producers even knew that not all of 555 was to be used for television shows*, let alone that there's an internet equivalent. Heck, it'd be nice if phone companies knew they weren't supposed to route all of 555 to information (Hi, Global Crossing). I can only assume it's some sort of stupid tax for people who dial crap they see on TV. -Paul * = http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/form555MasterReport.do?method=display555MasterReport Only the range of 0100-0199 is to be used for ficticious use
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
On 3/20/2011 4:44 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: 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. More curious, for me, is their choice of a hardware vendor: Alacron, Inc. ( http://www.alacron.com/ ) (Source: Address in screenshot: 2002:sc0c:0198:0 ... 22:42ff:fe2d:48563 -- making the MAC prefix ??:22:42. `grep '^..2242' /usr/share/nmap/nmap-mac-prefixes` = 002242 Alacron, double-checked as the only match against the latest http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/oui/oui.txt ) Jima
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
LinkedIn Rod James Bio requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn: -- Ted, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Rod James Accept invitation from Rod James Bio http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-glizhral-1k/q0XU4EiXDUS2IbxL1NdPb3ZaZI/blk/I1208666905_3/1BpC5vrmRLoRZcjkkZt5YCpnlOt3RApnhMpmdzgmhxrSNBszYPnPkMejoSdzwMcz59bR0SsShJjkxnbPwNdPkPd30Qdj8LrCBxbOYWrSlI/EML_comm_afe/ View invitation from Rod James Bio http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-glizhral-1k/q0XU4EiXDUS2IbxL1NdPb3ZaZI/blk/I1208666905_3/3dvdj0VdzoSe30OckALqnpPbOYWrSlI/svi/ -- DID YOU KNOW that LinkedIn can find the answers to your most difficult questions? Post those vexing questions on LinkedIn Answers to tap into the knowledge of the world's foremost business experts: http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-glizhral-1k/ask/inv-23/ -- (c) 2011, LinkedIn Corporation
