I would like to know the issues as well because we are looking to going
into at least 4 of their centers.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:r...@seastrom.com]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 3:30 AM
To: Justin Horstman
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Mehmet Akcin
Subje
In message <4ce6d919.2000...@mompl.net>, Jeroen van Aart writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Firstly I would use a tunnel broker instead of 6to4. Easier to
> > debug failures.
>
> Thanks all for the helpful response. Using the same names for IPv6 and
> IPv4 doesn't appear to be much of a problem,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:45, William Herrin wrote:
>> I have an anti-naming proposal: Allow users to place the colons
>> -anywhere- or even leave them out altogether without changing the
>> semantics of the IPv6 address.
>
> A decade or
This report has been generated at Fri Nov 19 21:11:36 2010 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 11-Nov-10 -to- 18-Nov-10 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS14420 27730 2.2% 48.5 -- CORPORACION NACIONAL DE
TELECOMUNICACIONES - CNT EP
2 - AS9
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin wrote:
> Bit, nibble and /64 then. /64 is treated specially by functions in the
> protocol (like SLAAC) thus it's a protocol boundary rather than a
> social one (/12 IANA allocations, /32 ISP allocations, /48 end-user
> assignments).
I would argue th
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:45, William Herrin wrote:
> I have an anti-naming proposal: Allow users to place the colons
> -anywhere- or even leave them out altogether without changing the
> semantics of the IPv6 address.
A decade or two of established syntax disagree. IPv6 addresses, UUIDs
and si
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 11/19/10 12:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The meaningful boundaries in the protocol itself are nibble and /64.
>> If you want socially significant boundaries, add /12, /32 and /48.
>
> It is possible and desirable to be able to describe a
On 11/19/10 12:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Richard Hartmann
> wrote:
>> as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
>> two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
>> a description like I just did instead of a
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
> two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
> a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
Hi Richard,
I have an anti
It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee
with a unanimous (!) vote :
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/pirate-slaying-censorship-bill-gets-unanimous-support.ars
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billte
I use HE.NET in a few installations (with BGP) and they have good support
(which is quite awesome for a free service).
As people pointed out avoid 6to4, Apple just rendered it nearly useless in its
latest OS-X.
- Original Message -
From: "Jeroen van Aart"
To: "NANOG list"
Sent: Saturd
On 11/19/10 10:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It is always two bytes. A byte is not always an octet. Some machines do
>
> It is always two OCTETS. A byte is not always an octet...
Assuming you have a v6 stack on your cdc6600 a v6 address fits in 22
bytes not 16.
>> have byte sizes other than 8 bit
Mark Andrews wrote:
Firstly I would use a tunnel broker instead of 6to4. Easier to
debug failures.
Thanks all for the helpful response. Using the same names for IPv6 and
IPv4 doesn't appear to be much of a problem, especially considering this
is a trial which concerns office/home ISP connect
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, wrote:
>>
>>> problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
>>
>> It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
>>
The GRE encap on a software based router like an ISR should be
resolved in CEF from the start, so it shouldn't be two CEF lookups.
However, on the software based platforms, every feature you turn on
takes a little more CPU so even with a single lookup I wouldn't expect
the same performance from GRE
I have a quibble with this discussion. When I defined a "byte" as "a mouthful
of bits" to my boss back in 1977, he nearly fired me on the spot. He did not
care about PDP-10 , much less PDP-11, data constructs.
By now, octet has become essentially synonymous with byte and nibble with
4-bits. C
On Thursday 18 November 2010 18:18:04 Sam Chesluk wrote:
> There are a couple potential issues, that when looked at in whole, add
> up to a significant performance impact.
>
> 1) IPSec + GRE involves two forwarding operations, one to send it to the
> tunnel interface , and another to send the now-
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 17:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It is always two bytes. A byte is not always an octet. Some machines do
> have byte sizes other than 8 bits
Vice versa. It's always two octects, but on some systems it may not be
two bytes.
>, although few of them are likely to have
> IPv6 st
Greetings,
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> I'm sorry to quibble with the majority here, but, in this case, I think
> >> we have enough problems with ambiguous terminology in
> >> networking and this opportunity to avoid creating one more should
> >> not be missed.
> >
> (The above p
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, wrote:
>
>>problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
>
> It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
> social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
It is alwa
>> I'm sorry to quibble with the majority here, but, in this case, I think
>> we have enough problems with ambiguous terminology in
>> networking and this opportunity to avoid creating one more should
>> not be missed.
>
(The above paragraph was mainly so that I had an opportunity to toss
quibble
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 17:06 +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Morris wrote:
>
> > If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
>
> When does it become a meal and, more importantly, do you want to
> supper (sic) size?
>
The supersize option offered
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Morris wrote:
> If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
When does it become a meal and, more importantly, do you want to
supper (sic) size?
RIchard
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:57, George Bonser wrote:
> That's exactly what I was going to say but didn't want to quibble. We tend
> to call them "quads" at work. What do you call that indeterminate space
> between two colons :: where it might be four or more zeros in there? That's a
> bunch o
On 2010-11-19 16:35, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> What now is more disturbing is that there appears to be a couple of
>> prefixes out there which are not in the ARIN registry anymore which are
>> still being used (Hexago/Gogo6/Freenet6/nameoftheday's 200
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Jeroen Massar wrote:
What now is more disturbing is that there appears to be a couple of
prefixes out there which are not in the ARIN registry anymore which are
still being used (Hexago/Gogo6/Freenet6/nameoftheday's 2001:5c0::/32 is
an exemplary one) but also 2001:1890::/32
On 11/19/2010 4:57 AM, George Bonser wrote:
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
That's exactly what I was going to say but didn't want to quibble. We tend to call them
"quads" at work. What do you ca
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 02:47:35PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> The ISR series do have onboard hardware crypto, but I don't know offhand
> if it can handle a full DS3 worth.
>
> My first guess is fragment reassembly would probably kill it fast.
We're not seeing fragmentation. The MTU of the phys
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:18:04PM -0800, Sam Chesluk wrote:
> 2) While the IPSec portion is hardware accelerated, the GRE
> encapsulation is not, unless this is a Cat6500/CISCO7600 router, or
> 7200VXR with C7200-VSA card. Because of this, the GRE process itself
> will consume a fairly large amou
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
;)
Scott
On 11/18/10 10:45 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
>> two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
>> a description like
Job Snijders wrote:
> They are missing roughly 1000 prefixes.
See http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/status/
which just now when I peeked stated at the top:
8<-
2704 good/required prefixes
Minimum of 1714 prefixes (-990)
Average of 3513 prefixes (+809)
Maximum of
> > That's what I'm hearing. Cogent refuses to peer with HE via IPv6.
> > So cogent IPv6 Customers currently can not hit things at HE. And they can't
> > do anything about it. Besides 6to4 tunneling and BGP peering with HE (or
> > native, If they can).
>
> A few weeks ago I compared what cogent
I second that, we're only getting ~2665 IPv6 prefixes from Cogent
compared to the ~3650 from our other transits. (been like that for more
then a year now)
Cogent's stance on it is 'You're multihomed with other transits, so
you're still reachable anyways' which strikes me as very odd for someon
Hello,
On 19 nov 2010, at 00:00, Nick Olsen wrote:
> That's what I'm hearing. Cogent refuses to peer with HE via IPv6.
> So cogent IPv6 Customers currently can not hit things at HE. And they can't
> do anything about it. Besides 6to4 tunneling and BGP peering with HE (or
> native, If they can).
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, wrote:
>
> > problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
>
> It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
> social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
>
>
> Richard
That's exactly what I was going to say but didn't
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:09, Frank Habicht wrote:
> I saw 'field' somewhere
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-2.1
> seems to agree.
I seem to remember "field" being used with the understanding that it's
a placeholder and not a definite term. As I can't find an actual
source fo
Another option is a static BGP tunnel with HE which can be configured
at http://tunnelbroker.net. It's not ideal and only useful for relatively low
bandwidth. If your needs are greater, we would much rather sell
you transit or peer with you as appropriate. As everyone should know
by now, we have an
"George, Wes E [NTK]" writes:
> > Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty.
>
> Bill, I know that you mean well and you're just trying to push IPv6
> deployment, and sometimes a little public shame goes a long way, but in the
> future, before you call my company out in public with tenuous assertio
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:42, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
> express my preference here.
I considered using the Condorcet method [1] (modified for NotA), but
as past experience has shown that people get easily confused by it, I
decid
On 11/18/10 2:24 PM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
> [WES] Because in most companies, sales owns the direct relationship with the
> customer, so when they ask about a new feature or service, they work with
> sales, and sales gets the right technical folks involved. A clarification
> that is probably
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, wrote:
> problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
:-> "William" == William Herrin writes:
> Hiya folks,
> Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
> matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP
> addresses or BGP? Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty. How many of
> the rest of you
Paul is pretty clueful; I think he was asking for specifics as to what
the layer 8/9 issues are at Equinix, rather than an explanation of
what layer 8 and 9 means.
"Fly Fast",
-r
Justin Horstman writes:
> 8 users
> 9 politics and policies
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Paul WALL [m
I saw 'field' somewhere
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-2.1
seems to agree.
Frank
On 11/19/2010 10:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
> express my preference here. While I find the term quibble fun and
> amusing, I thi
46 matches
Mail list logo
