On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 06:12:34PM -0800,
Peter Eckersley p...@eff.org wrote
a message of 86 lines which said:
To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure
has been fairly uncontroversial [sic and re-sic] because America
is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, IPv4 Brokers wrote:
Do you have subnets that are not in use, or only used for specific
purposes? If so, please contact us.
We are paying up-front (or escrow) for the use of networks that are not
used. The networks are used for honeypots and other research.
You do not
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 02:36:49 PM Don Gould wrote:
I've been researching solutions with NAT and double NAT
in mind because it's obvious that v4 space is going to
become a growing problem.
We've started playing with Stateful NAT64 on a couple of
Cisco ASR1006's.
In general, it
I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal
departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others.
If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with
something, other operators could sign on to that as well.
The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less
MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA.
http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_Comments_2011-12.pdf
Mike
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12
To: Hal Murray
On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I believe this company is the one that sold the MS Borders blocks, so they
may be legit (whatever that means in this context).
I also do not know what legit means in this context, but will note
that we have added a public list of all
I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites!
http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm
--
Leigh
On 14 Dec 2011, at 12:21, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I believe this company is the one that sold the MS Borders blocks, so
Wonderful. I would urge SPs based stateside to strongly consider
endorsing the MAAWG comments.
thanks
suresh
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, O'Reirdan, Michael
michael_oreir...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Chaim Rieger wrote:
What do you have for those that don't do the whole Jesus thing ?
babalyonian fertility icons? (you -did- bring an evergreen tree into your
home, yes?)
/bill
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Leigh Porter wrote:
I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites!
http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm
Some of which seems to float between fear-mongering, possibly
mis-appropriated quotes, half-truths and information that is flat-out
wrong. I would not trust the
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 08:30:06 PM Leigh Porter
wrote:
I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites!
http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm
I'd have been more impressed if they actually came up with
the stories by themselves, as opposed to linking to existing
stories that
From time to time some have posted questions asking if BGP load balancers such
as the old Routescience Pathcontrol device are still around, and if not what
have others found to replace that function. I have used the Routescience
device with much success 10 years ago when it first came on the
I've asked several times about this in the past; although I learned quickly to
stop asking.
It seems that the consensus has generally been that the best way to handle
traffic engineering in networks where you have multiple full-feed up-streams is
to do it manually (i.e. set preference for your
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
I've asked several times about this in the past; although I learned quickly
to stop asking.
It seems that the consensus has generally been that the best way to handle
traffic engineering in networks where you have
/20111214/2168d8c3/attachment-0001.bin
--
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:07:04 -0800
From: Holmes,David A dhol...@mwdh2o.com
To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Multiple ISP Load Balancing
Message-ID:
922acc42d498884aa02b3565688af9953402d4e
Hi David,
You might want to take a look at work happening in ALTO
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/alto/)
Regards,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Holmes,David A [mailto:dhol...@mwdh2o.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:07 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Multiple ISP Load Balancing
The best applications for analyzing paths, that I've seen, have been
in-house development projects. So, admittedly, I don't have much experience
with commercial products for route optimization.
Projects I've seen that analyze best paths to Internet destinations via
multiple ISPs add
seems the feeling is that if you have multiple full feeds and need to
loadshare, you really don't want (in most cases) ispa=500mbps + ispb=500mbps.
you really want destinationA to be reached across the 'best path'
(best ... in some form, distance? packetdrop%? jitter? cost?) you'll most
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Holmes,David A wrote:
From time to time some have posted questions asking if BGP load
balancers such as the old Routescience Pathcontrol device are still
around, and if not what have others found to replace that function. I
have used the Routescience device with much
signed message part.
URL:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111214/2168d8c3/attachment-0001.bin
--
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:07:04 -0800
From: Holmes,David A dhol...@mwdh2o.com
To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Multiple
inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there
know how much distance we are likely to get? Thanks for your help in
advance.
We have specific situations where we have successfully used the Avaya CNA tool
(old Route Science Patch Control). Not for load balancing, but for sub second
failover from primary to a backup paths over MPLS VPN's. This is done on our
internal network where we have MPLS VPN's sometimes over
I have a Time Warner circuit that has been giving me issues and what their
tech support has been telling me has not matched my previous experience
with other backbones. I have been trying to move the backbone on one site
from a tier-3 provider to Time Warner. Yesterday TW started advertising
BGP
On 12/14/2011 3:37 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
Single mode just has a smaller core size for the smaller beam emitted by
laser vs. LED. it works although I've never done it outside of a lab (MM
is cheaper). As for the distance it theory that should come down to the
optics and your transmit
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Keegan Holley wrote:
inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there
know how much distance we are likely to get?
2011/12/14 Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Keegan Holley wrote:
inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone
On 15/12/11 09:54, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Keegan Holley wrote:
inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there
2011/12/14 Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu
On 12/14/2011 3:37 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
Single mode just has a smaller core size for the smaller beam emitted
by
laser vs. LED. it works although I've never done it outside of a lab (MM
is cheaper). As for the distance it theory that should
: Yesterday TW started advertising BGP for the ip blocks I have
: (68.68.176.0/22 in /24's) before they had the circuit completed
How did they get the routes into their table if the ckt was not up and
you were not advertising the routes to them? Did they also announce
the covering prefix?
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
and I have good attested data on that.
But all I can qualify for is a /18, and then in 3 months maybe a /17. This
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
and I have good attested data on that.
But all I can qualify for is a /18, and then in 3 months maybe a /17.
Brian,
wanting to know what other people were seeing with traceroutes and show ip
bgp. The networks in question at the following 4 /24's
68.68.176.0/24
68.68.177.0/24
68.68.178.0/24
68.68.179.0/24
Here's what I'm seeing on our L3 connection here in Denver, CO::
route1:~$ show ip bgp |
On 12/14/2011 4:20 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
You should easily qualify for a /32 or larger IPv6 block.
And it's curious that errors that are likely to be there for decades
are just now trying to be fixed as IPv4 pool is depleted, isn't it ?
His users can also switch to DECNET and reach about as
What do you mean by de-bogon? Do you mean that your customers'
addresses are listed in various RBLs for previous misbehavior? That
they are using addresses that were never properly allocated to them?
Something different?
You don't own IPv4 addresses; they are assigned or allocated to you
in
Hi Brian,
My school has 2x TW circuits. Tracing to 68.68.176.1 shows that it doesn't
leave TW's network. In Chris's previous email, the origion is AS 11351 which
is Road Runner (now owned by TW). It gets to Albany, NY then dies.
C:\Users\riddergtracert 68.68.176.1
Tracing route to
On Dec 14, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Just fyi, de-bogoning , or private rfc 1918 is not really an option even
with strong and consistent demonstrate load.
Any suggestions on how to navigate this policy ?
Given unmet demand, I'd think the solution would be fairly obvious (albeit
Thank you everyone for your assistance. Either having a tech spot my
post and make the change or me calling their bluff got them to fix it.
Thanks
---
Brian Raaen
Zcorum
Network Architect
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Brian Christopher Raaen
mailing-li...@brianraaen.com wrote:
I have a
filters and request a manual update. Sounds like that is what they are doing.
route: 68.68.176.0/24
descr: RR-RC-Princetown Cable Company, Inc.-Albany
origin: AS11351
notify: ipadd...@rr.com
mnt-by: MAINT-RR
changed:ipadd...@rr.com 20111214
source: RADB
route
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
and I have good attested data on that.
Thanks to all who responded to my clumsy first question (both on
matters of etiquette and technology). The group I work with (we are a
small project acting as a last mile provider) was in the midst of
deploying this solution when I posed the question. We put the single
mode Juniper SFPs (LX) on to
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:02:58PM -0500, oliver rothschild wrote:
Thanks to all who responded to my clumsy first question (both on
matters of etiquette and technology). The group I work with (we are a
small project acting as a last mile provider) was in the midst of
deploying this solution
2011/12/14 oliver rothschild orothsch...@gmail.com
Thanks to all who responded to my clumsy first question (both on
matters of etiquette and technology). The group I work with (we are a
small project acting as a last mile provider) was in the midst of
deploying this solution when I posed the
On 15/12/11 16:38, Keegan Holley wrote:
2011/12/14 oliver rothschild orothsch...@gmail.com
Thanks to all who responded to my clumsy first question (both on
matters of etiquette and technology). The group I work with (we are a
small project acting as a last mile provider) was in the midst of
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:38:47PM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
2011/12/14 oliver rothschild orothsch...@gmail.com
Thanks to all who responded to my clumsy first question (both on
matters of etiquette and technology). The group I work with (we are a
small project acting as a last mile
I stand corrected, but I haven't dealt much with 100BASE-FX. I was just
talking in terms of 1G/10G.
2011/12/14 Mark Foster blak...@blakjak.net
On 15/12/11 16:38, Keegan Holley wrote:
2011/12/14 oliver rothschild orothsch...@gmail.com orothsch...@gmail.com
Thanks to all who responded to
On 12/14/11 18:46 , Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
On Dec 14, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote
Wait... you had started using bogon addresses / squatted space not
allocated and claimed the number of IP addresses your network is using that
were not
allocated by a RIR settles the need justification question?
I'm confused. When justifying
Hi,
In the service provider networks, would we usually see a large number
of /128 prefixs in the v6 FIB tables?
In an IP/MPLS world, core routers in the service provider network
learn the /32 loopback IPv4 addresses so that they can establish
BGP/Targetted LDP sessions with those. They then
Had in interesting conversation with a transit AS on behalf of a customer
where I found out they are using communities to raise the local preference
of routes that do not originate locally by default before sending to a
other larger transit AS's. Obviously this isn't something that was asked
of
On Thursday, December 15, 2011 01:54:56 PM Glen Kent wrote:
In an IP/MPLS world, core routers in the service provider
network learn the /32 loopback IPv4 addresses so that
they can establish BGP/Targetted LDP sessions with
those.
That's right - not sure how things would have been if
For this very reason I have advocated using longest prefix BGP routing for some
years now, and checking periodically for the expected path, as it became
obvious from investigating traceroutes that traffic was not being routed as
intended using AS prepends.
-Original Message-
From:
I suppose so because prepend is so easily defeated, but sometimes you don't
own a prefix shorter than the one you need to advertise. Assuming I
understand your suggestion correctly.
2011/12/15 Holmes,David A dhol...@mwdh2o.com
For this very reason I have advocated using longest prefix BGP
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
Had in interesting conversation with a transit AS on behalf of a customer
where I found out they are using communities to raise the local preference
That sounds like a disreputable practice.
While not quite as
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
[snip]
I'm confused. When justifying 'need' in an address allocation request, what
difference does it make whether an address in use was allocated by an RIR or
was squatted upon? Last I heard, renumbering out of (say)
I always assumed that taking in more traffic was a bad thing. I've heard
about one sided peering agreements where one side is sending more traffic
than the other needs them to transport. Am I missing something? Would this
cause a shift in their favor allowing them to offload more customer
I'm also aware of at least one network that has consumed all private address
space, perhaps even including the testing /15 as well.
If you are using a /8 /12 and /16 in total, ones future life could be very
interesting. Almost makes the case for v6 easier at their site. I'm hoping we
see 2012
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
I always assumed that taking in more traffic was a bad thing. I've heard
about one sided peering agreements where one side is sending more traffic
than the other needs them to transport. Am I missing something?
57 matches
Mail list logo
