Re: a new source for authoritative routing data: ARIN WHOIS

Shall we meet again, I owe you a beer. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Job Snijders" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:18:20 PM

Bandwidth distribution per ip

National operator here ask customers to distribute bandwidth between all ip's equally, e.g. if i have /22, and i have in it CDN from one of the big content providers, this CDN use only 3 ips for ingress bandwidth, so bandwidth distribution is not equal between ips and i am not able to use all

RE: Bandwidth distribution per ip

That seems completely unworkable to me. I would think most environment are going to have heavy hitting devices like firewalls and servers that cause traffic aggregation points in the networks. If they shape on their customer's uplink port I don't see why the individual addresses matter at

RE: IPSec SPI

It is definitely possible. The invalid SPI indicates that the device received a packet for which is does not have a valid SA. It is normal during a crypto rekey when the traffic was sent on an older or newer SA than the receiving device. It all depends how often it is happening. A couple a

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

On 20 December 2017 at 16:55, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > And for me, it sounds like faulty aggregation + shaping setup, for example, > i heard once if i do policing on some models of Cisco switch, on an > aggregated interface, if it has 4 interfaces it will install 25%

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

On 2017-12-20 17:52, Saku Ytti wrote: On 20 December 2017 at 16:55, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: And for me, it sounds like faulty aggregation + shaping setup, for example, i heard once if i do policing on some models of Cisco switch, on an aggregated interface, if it has

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 12/20/2017 8:55 AM: National operator here ask customers to distribute bandwidth between all ip's equally, e.g. if i have /22, and i have in it CDN from one of the big content providers, this CDN use only 3 ips for ingress bandwidth, so bandwidth distribution is

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

On 2017-12-20 19:16, Blake Hudson wrote: Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 12/20/2017 8:55 AM: National operator here ask customers to distribute bandwidth between all ip's equally, e.g. if i have /22, and i have in it CDN from one of the big content providers, this CDN use only 3 ips for ingress

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

Agreed. There now. We need cheap, open source, options for widespread adoption. Oliver On Dec 20, 2017 12:51, "Michael Crapse" wrote: > +1 for Nat64. dual stack is just keeping ipv4 around longer than it needs > to be > > On 19 December 2017 at 18:50, Owen DeLong

Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > some fun examples of the size of ipv6: > > https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm > > https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_is_ipv6/ > Every time I see these "Look how many more addresses we have now with

Re: historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

An interesting answer to this problem: whois --list-versions w.x.y.z/prefix - gotta know the object size, so some hunt & peck might be needed. And for the princely sum of $45/mo this site seems to have all sorts of info, and an API, but mysteriously there is no Maltego transform yet.

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On 2017-12-19 12:18 PM, UpTide . wrote: If we allocate a /64 like we do single ipv4 addresses now the space gets 2^56 (16777216) times larger; but if we start doing something crazy like allocating a /48 or /56 that number plummets. (256 times larger, and 65536 times larger respectfully.) But

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 12/20/2017 11:38 AM: On 2017-12-20 19:16, Blake Hudson wrote: Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 12/20/2017 8:55 AM: National operator here ask customers to distribute bandwidth between all ip's equally, e.g. if i have /22, and i have in it CDN from one of the big

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

On 2017-12-20 19:12, Saku Ytti wrote: On 20 December 2017 at 19:04, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: As person who is in love with embedded systems development, i just watched today beautiful 10s of meters long 199x machine, where multi kW VFDs manage huge motors(not

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

<> Are you claiming that your bandwidth is being equally divided 1024 ways (you mentioned a /22) or just that each host (IP) is not receiving the full bandwidth? What is the bandwidth ordered and what is the bandwidth you're seeing per host(IP)? Some facts from today. Ordered capacity 3.3Gbit

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

+1 for Nat64. dual stack is just keeping ipv4 around longer than it needs to be On 19 December 2017 at 18:50, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason < > jason_living...@comcast.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

On 20 December 2017 at 20:34, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > As you can see max single ip takes is 4.48% of bandwidth. > Also i cannot waste ipv4 for larger pools, just because of some deadly > flawed equipment/configuration. This indeed sounds unacceptable. I would suspect

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On 12/19/17, 11:52 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mark Andrews" wrote: > >> On 20 Dec 2017, at 2:39 am, Livingood, Jason >> wrote: >> >> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" >>

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 20 December 2017 at 13:23, Mike wrote: > in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P > link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6, > due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices, > you are told to "just use a

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Sounds prophetic... we will see ... or our (x)grandchildren will see... Yeah, if you give me a billion dollars, and I buy something for 1 million dollars every day for the next ~3 years, at the end of those 3 years, I would have no more, ... money-space :| I wonder if the 20 bit mpls label

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 12/20/17, 1:23 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike" wrote: >On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: >> some fun examples of the size of ipv6: >> >> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm >> >>

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

I won’t do the math for you, but you’re circumcising the mosquito here. We didn’t just increase our usable space by 2 orders of magnitude. It’s increased more than 35 orders of magnitude. Using a /64 for P2P links is no problem, really. Worrying about that is like a scuba diver worrying about

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Maybe my analogy of "billion" doesn’t correctly compare to 2^128 ip addresses -Aaron

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On 12/19/17, 8:50 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong" wrote: > >> On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason >> wrote: >> >> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" >>

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 20 December 2017 at 21:01, Aaron Gould wrote: > I wonder if the 20 bit mpls label will be re-thought down the road also ? No comment to the IPv6 discussion. But size of MPLS label is consideration, and we do spend two labels for one thing, partly due to size limit, partly

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 12/20/2017 12:07 PM: Still, i am running some dedicated servers on colo in EU/US, some over 10G(bonding), and _single_ ip on server, i never faced such balancing issues, thats why i am asking, if someone had such carrier, who require to balance bandwidth between

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

This may be helpful: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/ Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: NANOG en nombre de Mike Responder a: Fecha: miércoles, 20 de diciembre de 2017, 19:26

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

This may be useful as well, somehow related, as using /64 has a clear advantage: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-p2p-from-customer-prefix/ Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: NANOG en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

I am trying to imagine the corporate boards of APNIC, RIPE and ARIN planning for a venn diagram overlap between a grey goo scenario, and fully automated ipv6 allocations... Just imagine the size of the RPKI backend! On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Jens Link wrote: > Lee Howard

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Bill, You are correct. As a double check, I divided 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 by 4294967296, getting 79228162514264337593543950336, which is 28.8 orders of magnitude :) -mel On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:58 PM,

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM Oliver O'Boyle wrote: > Agreed. There now. We need cheap, open source, options for widespread > adoption. > http://jool.mx/en/index.html Free open source nat64 > Oliver > > On Dec 20, 2017 12:51, "Michael Crapse"

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

And something in the message stream tried to convert my elegantly computed result into a phone number. Sigh. -mel > On Dec 20, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > [This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear > to be. Learn about

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

This is based on feedback from a colleague that spent several years in Lebanon and did a fair amount of research into the AS-adjacency paths in and out of the country, and the OSI layer 1 (submarine fiber to Cyprus, etc) paths... It sounds to me like your upstream carrier does not actually have

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > I won’t do the math for you, but you’re circumcising the mosquito here. We > didn’t just increase our usable space by 2 orders of magnitude. It’s > increased more than 35 orders of magnitude. > Hi Mel, The gain is just shy

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Lee Howard writes: > I’ve tried several times to come up with a scenario that leads to > depletion in less than 200 years, and I haven’t managed it. Can you do it? Self replicating nano bots. Which will be a good thing (probably): https://xkcd.com/865/ SCNR Jens --

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

When the IETF decided on 128 bit addresses it was taking into consideration /80 sized subnet. Prior to that it was looking at a 64 bit address size and allocating addresses the IPv4 way with lots of variable sized networks. This was changed to /64 subnets to accomodate 64 bit MAC. After that

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

Ca By writes: > http://jool.mx/en/index.html > > Free open source nat64 And the DNS64 part can be done with powerdns (recursor), unbound, bind, ... All OpenSource Jens -- | Foelderichstr. 40 |

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

Excellent, thanks! Will dig into it. Oliver On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Ca By wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM Oliver O'Boyle > wrote: > >> Agreed. There now. We need cheap, open source, options for widespread >> adoption. >> > >

Re: Geolocation: IPv4 Subnet blocked by HULU, and others

I could use a contact for all of these as well. I have been trying to get my subnet unblocked with all of these providers and have reached out in many ways to all of them over the past few months, but never get a response. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On 2017-12-15 19:57, Mike Hammett

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:15:44 -0500, Joe Maimon said: > There is plenty more to wonder about, for example, will the rest of the > unicast space get Class E'd? That's a non-starter, as pretty much all the gear out there has code that says 'Class E is reserved" (including gear that's *already*

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:15:44 -0500, Joe Maimon said: There is plenty more to wonder about, for example, will the rest of the unicast space get Class E'd? That's a non-starter, as pretty much all the gear out there has code that says 'Class E is reserved"

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

William Herrin wrote: It's not a problem, exactly, but it cuts the gain vs. IPv4 from ~29 orders of magnitude to just 9 orders of magnitude. Your link which needed at most 2 bits of IPv4 address space now consumes 64 bits of IPv6 address space. Then we do /48s from which the /64s are

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

DNS64 “works” if you ignore what it breaks. MAP-T does NAT46 to the NAT64 and doesn’t have the side effects of DNS64. Why people insist that DNS64 is a “good" way to direct traffic to the NAT 64 I don’t understand. MAP-T directs the traffic to the NAT64 without the side effects. DNS64 was

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

The "minimum" network size for IPv4 is a /29 The "Minimum" network size for IPv6 is a /64 That means that IPv6 has 2**(64-29) more minimal sized networks that IPv4 (the fact that the size of those networks is different is immaterial). 2**(64-29) is 34,359,738,368 or 3.4e10 That is quite a few

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

As someone who has written a DNS64 implementation - DO NOT USE DNS64. DNS64 breaks stuff. Use MAP-T. For those of you using DNS64 on the cellar side MAP-T can use the NAT64 you already have. Mark > On 21 Dec 2017, at 9:33 am, Jens Link wrote: > > Ca By

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 5:54 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > As someone who has written a DNS64 implementation - DO NOT USE DNS64. > DNS64 breaks stuff. > > Use MAP-T. For those of you using DNS64 on the cellar side MAP-T can use > the NAT64 you already have. > > Mark > That’s just

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > > I’ve tried several times to come up with a scenario that leads to > depletion in less than 200 years, and I haven’t managed it. Can you do it? > during some ARIN discussions that revolved around Transition Technologies and

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

I think he's referring to all the Unicast IPv6 outside of 2000::/3 getting designated as "reserved", and therefore no gear will ever successfully route it... just like happened with the Class E space. You'd think we would know better than to let that happen, but there's a lot of things you'd

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

> On Dec 19, 2017, at 18:22 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:18:57 +, "UpTide ." said: >> If we allocate a /64 like we do single ipv4 addresses now the space gets 2^56 >> (16777216) times larger; but if we start doing something crazy like >> allocating >> a /48 or

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

On 20 December 2017 at 19:04, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > As person who is in love with embedded systems development, i just watched > today beautiful 10s of meters long 199x machine, where multi kW VFDs manage > huge motors(not steppers), dragging synchronously and printing

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

--- o...@delong.com wrote: From: Owen DeLong > But I'd argue that if I have personal nanotech, I *really* want > to use ULA addresses. They're *my* nanotech. :) Feel free. Personally, I still see ULA as an absurdity.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Handing out /48’s to homes was never ever going to cause us to run out of > IPv6 space. Even if the homes are are connected to multiple providers > there isn’t a issue. > Hi Mark, No single assignment practice would. Sadly

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

The RIR’s assignment to ISPs assume relatively dense assignment of /48 to customers. ISPs still have to justify the allocation based on the number of customers sites for shorter than a /32. RIR assignments to non ISPs are also relatively dense. If you have multiple sites you don’t need

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 20:09:08 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > That’s OK… You seem to have your directions reversed... > > > A /48 is 16 more bits than a /32, so 65536 times bigger. > > You mean smaller. The original poster obviously meant "bigger" as in "number of them available".