On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Marco Hogewoning mar...@marcoh.net wrote:
On 15 aug 2010, at 20:05, Randy Bush wrote:
rfc1918 packets are not supposed to reach the public internet. once you
start accommodating their doing so, the downward slope gets pretty steep
and does not end in a nice
Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
from eachother? Anyone got advice either way? Should I try to give
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49, Mike mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my nameservers
and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective wisdom still says
On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:49 AM, Mike wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my nameservers
and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective wisdom still says
heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away from eachother? Anyone
got
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:49:05 PDT, Mike said:
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
from eachother? Anyone got advice either
On 8/16/2010 2:49 AM, Mike wrote:
from eachother? Anyone got advice either way? Should I try to give
If you have a dedicated subnet for /32s (e.g., router loopback
interfaces), i'd pick from there.
if you eventually require geo-redundancy or want to load balance your
queries, it's much
for authoritatuve servers, i try to have one on a very different
backbone on a distant continent. i make deals with friends. there have
been just too many failures where servers were in the same facility, or
behind the same routing, or on a single backbone. see rfc 2182.
for customer- and
For resolvers, I guess it would make sense to advertise them as /32s as
dynamic prefixes coming from some SLB device...
You can have multiple VIPs, each representing a different POP/network
domain...
Arie
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Mike mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
On 2010-08-16 08:49, Mike wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
from eachother? Anyone got advice either
On Aug 16, 2010, at 1:44 AM, William Herrin wrote:
...
The retort you want to make is that ARIN just wouldn't do that. That's
not the kind of people they are. Fine. So update the LRSA so it
doesn't carefully and pervasively establish ARIN's legal right to
behave that way.
Bill -
Divide
Florian Weimer wrote:
What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
source address validation? Is it recommended? Discouraged?
(One argument in favor of exceptions is that it makes PMTUD work if
transfer networks use private address space.)
IMHO, operators who
Hello NANOG, first time writing to here.
My inquiry for you is on the subject of IPv6 Geolocation tools; or
better yet, the lack accuracy in them. My main problem comes from
YouTube.com and other Google Geolocation required tools (Google Voice,
being an example). I must set
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:02:50 +0200, Florian Weimer said:
* Valdis Kletnieks:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:46:49 +0200, Florian Weimer said:
And that connection that's trying to use PMTU got established across the
commodity internet, how, exactly? ;)
ICMP fragmentation needed, but DF
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Would the policy process be an appropriate venue for a proposition to
change the ARIN mission, restricting it's activities exclusively to
registration services while requiring a reduction in fees and budget?
Jeffrey -
Some historical
On 2010-08-16 13:01, Harry Strongburg wrote:
Hello NANOG, first time writing to here.
My inquiry for you is on the subject of IPv6 Geolocation tools; or
better yet, the lack accuracy in them. My main problem comes from
YouTube.com and other Google Geolocation required tools (Google Voice,
What does originating mean? Creating the packets? Or forwarding
them?
Either way, there's no excuse.
First off, remember that BCP38 and 1918 don't apply on your set of
interconnected private networks, no matter how big a net it is. You want to
filter between two of your private
John,
That was just the elevator speech, I wouldn't go off and write an
entire proposal without a better understanding on how the community at
large feels about the issue and exactly where the boundary would be
drawn. My intent was not primarily cost, the registration fees are
indeed low. I was
The retort you want to make is that ARIN just wouldn't do that. That's
not the kind of people they are. Fine. So update the LRSA so it
doesn't carefully and pervasively establish ARIN's legal right to
behave that way.
John/Steve,
Bill makes a reasonable point here. Is there a way to, in
On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
John/Steve,
Just me (we don't pay Steve to read Nanog, although I do
forward him legalistic emails depending on content :-)
Bill makes a reasonable point here. Is there a way to, in the next round of
LRSA mods, include something to the effect
On Aug 16, 2010, at 4:41 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2010-08-16 13:01, Harry Strongburg wrote:
Hello NANOG, first time writing to here.
My inquiry for you is on the subject of IPv6 Geolocation tools; or
better yet, the lack accuracy in them. My main problem comes from
YouTube.com and
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable
breaks the whole Internet as far as users are concerned.)
How do you do this in the IPv6 world,
On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable
breaks the whole Internet as far as users are
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable
breaks the whole Internet as far as users are
In IPv6 you should be able to advertise up to /48 with no problem...
Arie
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
your entire
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:50:00 CDT, Joe Greco said:
What *possible* use case would require a 1918-sourced packet to be
traversing
the public internet? We're all waiting with bated breath to hear this one.
;)
It's great for showing in traceroutes who the heel is.
Like I said, at that
I have the feeling that the systems is not able to understand at all IPv6 for
geolocation therefore default to foreign.
I'm not aware of anyone providing IPv6 geolocation at the moment? Anyone has
pointers?
- Original Message -
From: Harry Strongburg harry.na...@harry.lu
To:
On 2010-08-16 14:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
Thus don't forget to provide all your private details in as many places
as possible, the more they know about you, the better they can serve you.
Wow... That's pretty absurd. I order stuff from Amazon/etc. from IP addresses
all over the world to be
Randy Bush wrote:
and why in hell would i trust these organizations with any control of
my routing via rpki certification? they have always said thay would
never be involved in routing, but if they control the certification
chain, they have a direct stranglehold they can use to extort fees.
Randy Bush wrote:
Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
have actually been fixed by the RIR's.
no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood you are taking
about, and i know where
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:39:47 +1200 (FJT), Franck Martin
fra...@genius.com wrote:
I have the feeling that the systems is not able to understand at all
IPv6 for geolocation therefore default to foreign.
I'm not aware of anyone providing IPv6 geolocation at the moment?
Anyone has pointers?
Joe -
Excellent question, and one which I know is getting
some public policy attention. There is a session at
upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in
Vilnius
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010Viewwspid=158
specifically
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:13 PM
To: Kevin Loch
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
the fracking rirs, in the name of marla and and lee, actually went to
the ietf last
Hello all,
I'm looking for someone with space in the One Wilshire Radio Room.
Please contact me off list.
Thanks
Max
(310) 906-0296
max.cl...@gmail.com
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:57:51 EDT, Joe Maimon said:
Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of RPKI
might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried talking
about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear enough.
I'm not at all convinced this would
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Frank Bulk wrote:
This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one
of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed
like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the only oddball pushing
the IPv6 feature requirement.
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:57:51 EDT, Joe Maimon said:
Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of RPKI
might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried talking
about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear enough.
I'm
On 16/08/10 09:47 -0700, John Springer wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Frank Bulk wrote:
This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one
of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed
like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the only
and, to continue the red herring with jc, i bet you 500 yen that arin
paid their travel expenses to go to maastricht nl to do this stupid
thing.
You lose your bet.
then owe you 500Y. paypal?
randy
Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of
RPKI might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried
talking about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear
enough.
first, let's remember that the rpki is a distributed database which has
a number of
Is anyone aware of a fiber cut that could be affecting the Washington DC area?
Just opened a ticket with Verizon and heard of a fiber cut through some side
conversations.
--
Mike Gatti
On 16/08/2010 21:46, Randy Bush wrote:
it is stopping fat fingers such as pk/youtube, 7007, and the every day
accidental mis-announcements of others' prefixes.
I am dying to hear the explanation of why the people who didn't bother
with irrdb filters are going to latch on en-masse to rpki
In message 4c69cb8d.4000...@foobar.org, Nick Hilliard writes:
On 16/08/2010 21:46, Randy Bush wrote:
it is stopping fat fingers such as pk/youtube, 7007, and the every day
accidental mis-announcements of others' prefixes.
I am dying to hear the explanation of why the people who didn't
42 matches
Mail list logo
