Everyone,
The NANOG Marketing Working Group has been working hard to help NANOG
find new profitable revenue to ensure the meetings keep getting better
without raising prices. The group's most active members are:
Betty Burke (Merit, SC)
Carol Wadsworth (Merit)
Greg Dendy
Dave Tempkin
Martin
Exactly correct. The number one priority, which trumps all others,
is making the abuse stop. Yes, there are many other things that
can
and should be done, but that's the first one.
Stopping the abuse is fine, but cutting service to the point that a
family
using VOIP only for their
On 04/10/2009 4:49, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
[...]
So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographical
regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s
and give back the /32? Sure seems like a lot of extra overhead.
Perhaps we should
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:04 PM
To: Peter Beckman
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for botted
clients
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Peter Beckman
Gadi Evron wrote:
Apparently, marketing departments like the idea of being able to send
customers that need to pay them to a walled garden. It also saves on
tech support costs. Security being the main winner isn't the main
supporter of the idea at some places.
I would love to do this both
Justin Shore wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
Apparently, marketing departments like the idea of being able to send
customers that need to pay them to a walled garden. It also saves on
tech support costs. Security being the main winner isn't the main
supporter of the idea at some places.
I would
Hi All,
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook application
that we were neither aware of nor condoned.
Thanks in advance.
Leland Vandervort
Director, Technical Operations
Gandi SAS
Paris
t: +33 1 70 39 37 59
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook
application
that we were neither aware of nor condoned.
Clearly I do not have all the information, so please
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook application
that we were neither aware of nor condoned.
Clearly I do not have all the
We have had issues with a FB application basically doing a DOS against a
network. This was not on our servers but somewhere out there on the
Internet. It was an application that was going rogue. It was talking to
several of our user¹s using this application. FaceBook caught it and made
the
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook application
that we were neither aware of nor condoned.
Clearly I
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook
application
that we were neither aware of nor condoned.
Clearly I do not have all the information, so
The application is not being hosted on the VPS servers, but rather on
the mutualised blog platform and is impacting on other customers of this
platform.
We have VPS services available for the app developer in question to host
his application on should he desire to do so.
Leland
On Mon,
I guess the facebook app allows any FB user to check availability of
domain names or to request Gandi's whois database.
From what I saw, FB people do not check every applications neither
before or after publication.
And that could create some issues out there.
Patrick W. Gilmore a écrit :
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook application
that we were neither aware of nor condoned.
You might be able to reach the right people at o...@facebook.com
From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is for
assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it is
currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
Thank you.
- Brian
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
We're considering adding a Verizon connection to our network in Florida, so
I've been looking unsuccessfully for a map of Verizon's fiber network in the
southeast to verify that I'll have diverse paths with my other providers.
Does anyone know if such
Thanks Justin... will give it a shot; hopefully they're relatively
rapid :)
Leland
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 11:31 -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are
Brian Johnson wrote:
From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is for
assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it is
currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
subnet,
This is a classic case of one of the problems of the increasingly numerous and
powerful Web dev platforms - as you let other people either control your app
through an API, or even write code that executes on the server-side, you're
increasing the cycles available to an attacker. It's similar to
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would
be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4 Internet^2 for
a single device!
Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?
- Brian
-Original Message-
On Oct 5, 2009, at 17:38, Seth Mattinen wrote:
The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
subnet, /56 if they need more than one.
Brrzt, wrong. Neither the end user nor you know the answer to that
question!
So the only sensible thing is to always give them a /56.
Yes, each and every network segment (especially multi-access ones) should be
/64s. Regardless of the types of machines, speed of link, etc. It is an
entirely different model of addressing, whose name just happens to start
with IP ...
/TJ
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Brian Johnson
Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 17:38, Seth Mattinen wrote:
The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
subnet, /56 if they need more than one.
Brrzt, wrong. Neither the end user nor you know the answer to that
question!
So the only sensible thing is to
It seems to be down, based on
http://routerproxy.grnoc.iu.edu/internet2/ and trying to get a
traceroute to he.net/2001:470:0:76::2 from the SEAT location. BGP
seems to be up, though.
Shouldn't this cause quite a few problems for Internet2 downstreams?
(We received a report from an academic site
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote:
From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is for
assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it is
currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
No. A /64 is one
more-or-less. Can I suggest you read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
Think of ipv6 not as 128 bits of address space, but more as a addressing
system with a globally unique host part and 2^64 possible subnets. In this
respect it's substantially different to ipv4.
And after reading
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook application
What would be wrong with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.
- Brian
-Original Message-
From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
William
Herrin
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:58 AM
To:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Brian Johnson wrote:
What would be wrong with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.
IPv6 CPE's may be designed to get one subnet per physical media via
DHCPv6-PD, so for example
Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com writes:
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
would be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4
Internet^2 for a single device!
Most people will have more than one device. And
Perhaps someone has said this but a potential implementation problem
in the US are anti-trust regulations. Sure, they may come around to
seeing it your way since the intent is so good but then again we all
decided to get together and blacklist customers who... is not a great
elevator pitch to an
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would
be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! Thatâs the IPv4 Internet^2
for a single device!
Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?
The fact that you could use
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:18:23PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com writes:
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
would be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That?s the IPv4
Internet^2 for a
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote:
What would be wrong with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.
It's a question of convenience... your customers', but more
importantly yours. Every time
On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
What would be wrong with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.
They probably don't -- but some appliance they buy might. Maybe some
home family-oriented box will put the
Oct 2, 2009:
Verizon identified it largest CORE Juniper router was creating issues
for all of it peering points to New York and Boston having said that all
of FairPoint's DIA, DSL, Fast customer had intermittent issues accessing
the internet partial service was restored after Verizon reroute
Am I the only one that finds this problematic?
No, but most of the people who find this problematic haven't done
any looking into the matter.
I mean, the whole point
of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again
have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not
[here we go again]
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:37:49 -0400, William Herrin
herrin-na...@dirtside.com wrote:
Some clever guy figured out that ... why not
add an extra 64 bits for that very convenient improvement? This is
called stateless autoconfiguration.
Except that clever guy was in fact an
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:34:51AM -0700, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this problematic? I mean, the whole point
of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again
have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not saying that this puts
us anywhere
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Whenever you declare something to be inexhasutable all you do is
increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that
there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource.
This is where I think there is a major
On 05/10/09 16:20 -0500, Chris Owen wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Whenever you declare something to be inexhasutable all you do is
increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that
there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource.
This
considered top posting to irritate a few folks, decided not to.
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:20:44PM -0500, Chris Owen wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Whenever you declare something to be inexhasutable all you do is
increase demand. Eventually you reach a point
The estimated mass of our galaxy is around 6x10^42Kg. The mass of earth is a
little less than 6x10^24Kg.
2^128 is around 3.4x10^38.
So in a flat address space we have about one IPV6 address for every 20,000Kg
in the galaxy or for every 20 picograms in the earth...
One would hope it would last
Brian Johnson wrote:
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would
be given 2^64 addresses?
No, that's a single subnet, typically they should be assigned more than
that.
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4 Internet^2
for a
This is where I think there is a major disconnect on IPv6. The size of
the pool is just so large that people just can't wrap their heads around it.
Why bother wrapping your head around it? Do you count how many computers are
in your house? Did you remember to count the CPU inside the PC
well - if we are presuming a -FLAT- space, then IPv4 will last
a great deal longer than 2011. and tell your vendors to pump up
the CAM/ARP table sizes ... and bring back the ARP storms of the
1980s. (who owns the vitalink codes base anyway?)
--bill
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:47:12PM
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:13:37 CDT, Dan White said:
a publicly routeable stateless auto configured address is no less
secure than a publicly routeable address assigned by DHCP. Security is, and
should be, handled by other means.
The problem is user tracking and privacy.
RFC4941's problem
It's very likely that they won't understand, won't have to, and will
still need them.
Let's face it, most customer's don't know what an IP address is,
really, but, they
still need them and they still use them all the time.
It is, as someone else stated, very likely that there will be home
On 05/10/09 18:35 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:13:37 CDT, Dan White said:
a publicly routeable stateless auto configured address is no less
secure than a publicly routeable address assigned by DHCP. Security is, and
should be, handled by other means.
The
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
Perhaps someone has said this but a potential implementation problem
in the US are anti-trust regulations. Sure, they may come around to
seeing it your way since the intent is so good but then again we all
decided to get together and blacklist
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 03:55:02PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
Perhaps someone has said this but a potential implementation problem
in the US are anti-trust regulations. Sure, they may come around to
seeing it your way since the intent is so
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:18:23PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com writes:
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band
connection
would be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future
On 10/05/2009 04:41 PM, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
as a residential customer, I will be provided a /64, which means each
individual on Earth
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the finite address space? 256 bits? 1024 bits?
I just don't get it. It's not like people get stressed out about
running
out of name space in English which is probably more
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
A lesson learned is that thinking about
If people start getting /32s because some ISPs are refusing to route /
48s, then,
the RIRs are not doing their stewardship job correctly and we should
resolve
that issue.
If addresses are handed out according to policies, there is more than
enough
space for every individual to have a /48. I
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4.
That's probably because IPv4 was a technology where the expected host
address allocation strategy was (last+1) and IPv6 is a technology where
the default
On 10/05/2009 04:59 PM, David Andersen wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the finite address space? 256 bits? 1024 bits?
I just don't get it. It's not like people get stressed out about running
out of
I've been trying to stay out of this discussion because it is
pointless, however as I can't help picking at scratching mosquito
bites either...
On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the finite address space?
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
A lesson learned is that thinking
Owen,
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If people start getting /32s because some ISPs are refusing to
route /48s, then,
the RIRs are not doing their stewardship job correctly and we should
resolve
that issue.
Since when do RIRs, good stewards or not, control routing policy
The fallacy here is the idea that IPv6 has a
128-bit namespace. It does not. It has
two 64 bit namespaces, where one is expected to be globally unique and flat,
While the other is hierarchical.
IPv6 has a lot more room than v4 does, but it is worth noting
Than in v4, a customer would
On 10/05/2009 05:09 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:20 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Um. How many /32s are their in IPv4? How many /32s are their in
IPv6?
Of course, that should be there in both cases. Wow.
Regards,
-drc
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
I'm sorry, but seeing a good fraction of my local IX simply containing
a few ISP's deaggregated view of their local internal networks versus
a sensible allocation policy makes me cry. IPv6 may just make this
worse. IPv6 certainly won't make it
Just for grins, put a unique IPv6 address in every active RFID
tag. ... and remember that there are RFID printers that can
put 18 tags on a single A4 sheet. Numbers will become disposible,
like starbucks coffee cups and MCD's bigmac containers.
--bill
Ignoring the
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:13:37 CDT, Dan White said:
a publicly routeable stateless auto configured address is no less
secure than a publicly routeable address assigned by DHCP. Security
is, and should be, handled by other means.
The problem is user tracking and privacy.
RFC4941's problem
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't
see any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4.
Consider
A lesson learned is that thinking about address allocation is
something you do not want to spend too many precious seconds of your life
on.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4.
Robert,
I would suggest that some of the lessons we learned are faulty.
Maladaptive. CIDR
So now Verizon is in open revolt against ARIN. They positively refuse
to carry /48's from legitimately multihomed users. Eff 'em. Perhaps
Verizon would sooner see IPv6 go down in flames than see their TCAMs
fill up again. Who knows their reasoning?
Agree or disagree, it is indeed food for
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:55:35 -0400, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
All of the items in the above list are true of DHCP. ...
In an IPv4 world (which is where DHCP lives), it's much MUCH harder to
track assignments -- I don't share my DHCP logs with anyone, nor does
anyone send theirs to
Tim Durack wrote:
Thing is, I'm an end user site. I need more that a /48, but probably
less than a /32. Seeing as how we have an AS and PI, PA isn't going to
cut it. What am I supposed to do? ARIN suggested creative subnetting.
We pushed back and got a /41. If IPv6 doesn't scratch an itch,
[ I normally don't say this, but please reply to the list only, thanks. ]
I've been a member of the let's not assume the IPv6 space is
infinite school from day 1, even though I feel like I have a pretty
solid grasp of the math. Others have alluded to some of the reasons
why I have concerns about
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:40:28 EDT, TJ said:
Isn't this really a security by obscurity argument?
No - security through obscurity is security measures that only seem to work
because you hope the attacker doesn't know how they are implemented. In
this case, making sure somebody else can't
joel jaeggli wrote:
Tim Durack wrote:
Thing is, I'm an end user site. I need more that a /48, but probably
less than a /32. Seeing as how we have an AS and PI, PA isn't going to
cut it. What am I supposed to do? ARIN suggested creative subnetting.
We pushed back and got a /41. If IPv6
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
As a practical matter we're stuck with /64 as the smallest possible
network we can reliably assign. A /60 contains 16 /64s, which
personally I think is more than enough for a residential customer,
even taking a long view
77 matches
Mail list logo
