Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
On 9/27/12 5:58 AM, Darius Jahandarie wrote: On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/terabit-ethernet-is-dead-for-now/ Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons as the ones in this article, but then 100Gbit/s being the technology that actually ended up in most places. Could this be the same thing happening? 40Gb/s appears to be doing just fine in top of rack switches and datacenter distribution layer. Given that it's in most server NIC roadmaps in the relatively near term it doesn't have significant barriers to becoming the volume offering of choice. getting datacenters off of om3/4 multimode distribution is a long project however.
Re: guys != gender neutral
Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au writes: On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using guys is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. * The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=usq=guys (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee? * As other many words in the English language there are multiple definitions, and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is very much gender neutral (either sex - it doesn't get much clearer than that!) Well, either sort of implies that there are only two sexes. I believe people of any sex would have been better. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender Bjørn
Re: guys != gender neutral
Given the lack of truly neutral terms in english, I have taken to alternative my pronouns interchangably when I write. Folks? I really do mean folks when I write guys, but I do understand why it can come across as exclusionary, and I try to force myself into the habit of folks. It sounds a bit odd in English, although not as archaic as chaps, which I'm also guilty of; I'm assuming there's no additional cultural assumptions attached to folks in American? Cheers, Tim.
Re: guys != gender neutral
Folks? I really do mean folks when I write guys, pedantry folk is the plural and, as far as the use of gender-biased terms, as someone said well the other day, when you are in a hole, stop digging randy
Re: guys != gender neutral
The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned nowadays. On 28/09/2012, at 6:30 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au writes: On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using guys is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. * The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=usq=guys (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee? * As other many words in the English language there are multiple definitions, and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is very much gender neutral (either sex - it doesn't get much clearer than that!) Well, either sort of implies that there are only two sexes. I believe people of any sex would have been better. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender Bjørn
RE: guys != gender neutral
Maybe the OP for really nasty attacks in hindsight wishes NANOGers was used instead to address the list. :) Having all walks of life essentially all around, it really makes one careful to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with everything we have going on, but no one is perfect. The bottomline is, no one can really sastifisfy any indivdual and their preference of how they would liked to be addressed. If one is to be offended or looks for offense they will capitalize on it period. I try much as possible to avoid those situations. When we refer to our clients in a mass communication we either utilize our tools to auto fix their name to the letter or we address them as OCOSA Family or All or Clients. We are a very family-oriented business and are down to Earth. We'd like to believe our clients are apart of our family and some may take offense but you might or never would know unless an opportunity presented itself. Personally, I practice using the person's name, I am in communication with...not buddy, bud, pal, man, guys, gal y'all and etc. When addressing mixed gender groups, I simply speak or address as all. Thus, no mistakes. When addressing both genders you have to be extremely careful. Ultimately, It depends on the audience and treating all with respect seems to work for me. For example: You could address a group a men and call them boys. Well, that might offend some, especially if they are older than you. For example: You could address a group of young adults and call them kids. Well, that might offend some. As Owen mentioned saying human seems okay and true but then again, because it's not the norm it raises some question. (Internal thinking process, Oh I'm a HUMAN, well I that is true then your temperature gets back to normal) :) In general, this is life and I simply have fun and enjoy it because it's too short. Otis
Re: guys != gender neutral
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using guys is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. * The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=usq=guys (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee? * As other many words in the English language there are multiple definitions, and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is very much gender neutral (either sex - it doesn't get much clearer than that!) The modern English language generally lacks gender-neutral singular personal pronouns that are distinct from the masculine versions; this is either a bug or a feature of the language, but it is also a fact. Some advocate the use of indefinite pronouns to work around this lack, but fundamentally, if you want to interoperate with others who speak English, it is going to be a losing battle to be offended when guys is used. The argument in the first quoted paragraph isn't strictly rational. It could easily be argued that women get the special term gals that does refer exclusively to women, while men get the more general term guys that does not exclusively refer to men. This could easily be taken to mean that women matter more than men, because they get their own special term. However, in reality, this appears to be mostly an exercise in how to find ways to be offended at random things that are simply part of the language, and if someone is just setting out to find ways to be offended, nobody better open their mouth to begin with... I would propose that randomly switching back and forth between guys and gals is a violation of Postel's robustness principle (look at that NANOG tie-in!), because being conservative about what you're sending probably means not referring to males with the term gals. On the other hand, using indefinite pronouns when speaking would be a suitable workaround under that guidance. Rather than further breaking the language, it might be more sensible to modify the language to address the deficiency. Maybe that's an RFC, or just needs a real-world working implementation, but I'll note that several gender-neutral pronouns have died out, so maybe there's just no demand. :-) ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: guys != gender neutral
Given that this thread started out as a query re. a really nasty attack, and resulted in: 5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on guys) 20 responses re. guys (I stopped counting) It occurs to me that maybe morons or idiots might be an appropriate gender-neutral framing. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: RIRs give out unique addresses (Was: something has a /8! ...)
not how i read that section Owen... ...networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity. One does not have to request RFC 1918 space from ARIN (or other RIR) and the NRPM is mute on legacy address assignments wrt connectivity. /bill On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 07:32:17PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: I believe that this section of NRPM says no. 4.3.5. Non-connected Networks End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see RFC 1918). When private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity. Owen On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: I suppose that ARIN would say that they do not guarantee routability because they do not have operational control of Internet routers. However, Wouldn't you say that there is a very real expectation that when you request address space through ARIN or RIPE that it would be routable? I would think that what ARIN and RIPE are really saying is that they issue unique addresses and you need to get your service provider to route them. FWIW, the discussion of the military having addresses pulled back is pretty much a non-starter unless they want to give them back. When the management of IP address space was moved from the US DoD, there were memorandums of understanding that the military controlled their assigned address space and nothing would change that. I know this for a fact because I was around this discussion in the US Air Force. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:40 AM To: Jeroen Massar Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: RIRs give out unique addresses (Was: something has a /8! ...) On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote: On 2012-09-20 16:01 , John Curran wrote: It's very clear in the ARIN region as well. From the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four11 - 4.1. General Principles 4.1.1. Routability Provider independent (portable) addresses issued directly from ARIN or other Regional Registries are not guaranteed to be globally routable. While close, that is not the same. The RIPE variant solely guarantees uniqueness of the addresses. The ARIN variant states we don't guarantee that you can route it everywhere, which is on top of the uniqueness portion. Agreed - I called it out because ARIN, like RIPE, does not assert that the address blocks issued are publicly routable address space (i.e. which was Tim Franklin's original statement, but he did not have on hand the comparable ARIN reference for that point.) FYI, /John
Re: guys != gender neutral
On 27 September 2012 22:34, Lorell Hathcock lor...@hathcock.org wrote: Police-clown. Yep! Here in the UK, apparently the government preferred term for policepersons is pleb... http://duckduckgo.com/?q=police+pleb Aled
Re: guys != gender neutral
Are we really still talking about this? On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Aled Morris al...@qix.co.uk wrote: On 27 September 2012 22:34, Lorell Hathcock lor...@hathcock.org wrote: Police-clown. Yep! Here in the UK, apparently the government preferred term for policepersons is pleb... http://duckduckgo.com/?q=police+pleb Aled
RE: guys != gender neutral
From: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. [mailto:o...@ocosa.com] As Owen mentioned saying human seems okay and true but then again, because it's not the norm it raises some question. (Internal thinking process, Oh I'm a HUMAN, well I that is true then your temperature gets back to normal) :) Listen up you prehistoric screwheads... Jamie
Re: RIRs give out unique addresses (Was: something has a /8! ...)
Bill, I am unable to make sense of your reply. The question I was answering was: Wouldn't you say that there is a very real expectation that when you request address space through ARIN or RIPE that it would be routable? (Which I admit at the time I interpreted to also indicate an expectation that it would be routed, but I see now could be ambiguous). In that context, I believe that the policy section I quoted indicates that there is no expectation that numbers issued by ARIN or RIPE (or any other RIR) will be routed and other policy sections certainly convey that ARIN (and the other RIRs) have no control over routers, so I'm not sure it matters what they say about routability. As to your statement about legacy assignments, I fail to see any part of ARIN policy that distinguishes them from any other assignment with regards to the application of policy. However, other than the section quoted below (which essentially states that some level of connectivity is required to justify new resource allocations or assignments), I believe that the NRPM is mute with regards to connectivity on all addresses. Since there are, by definition, no new legacy allocations or assignments, I'm not sure how legacy is relevant to the discussion at hand. Owen On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:07 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: not how i read that section Owen... ...networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity. One does not have to request RFC 1918 space from ARIN (or other RIR) and the NRPM is mute on legacy address assignments wrt connectivity. /bill On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 07:32:17PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: I believe that this section of NRPM says no. 4.3.5. Non-connected Networks End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see RFC 1918). When private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity. Owen On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: I suppose that ARIN would say that they do not guarantee routability because they do not have operational control of Internet routers. However, Wouldn't you say that there is a very real expectation that when you request address space through ARIN or RIPE that it would be routable? I would think that what ARIN and RIPE are really saying is that they issue unique addresses and you need to get your service provider to route them. FWIW, the discussion of the military having addresses pulled back is pretty much a non-starter unless they want to give them back. When the management of IP address space was moved from the US DoD, there were memorandums of understanding that the military controlled their assigned address space and nothing would change that. I know this for a fact because I was around this discussion in the US Air Force. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:40 AM To: Jeroen Massar Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: RIRs give out unique addresses (Was: something has a /8! ...) On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote: On 2012-09-20 16:01 , John Curran wrote: It's very clear in the ARIN region as well. From the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four11 - 4.1. General Principles 4.1.1. Routability Provider independent (portable) addresses issued directly from ARIN or other Regional Registries are not guaranteed to be globally routable. While close, that is not the same. The RIPE variant solely guarantees uniqueness of the addresses. The ARIN variant states we don't guarantee that you can route it everywhere, which is on top of the uniqueness portion. Agreed - I called it out because ARIN, like RIPE, does not assert that the address blocks issued are publicly routable address space (i.e. which was Tim Franklin's original statement, but he did not have on hand the comparable ARIN reference for that point.) FYI, /John
WAY OT Re: guys != gender neutral
- Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com As a form of address. Hey, people is ... well, nearly abrasive. (Envision a waitron walking up to a mixed table of 10.) Sure, in that limited context. In such a circumstance, I believe the phrase ladies and gentlem[ae]n is usually adequate and equally gender neutral. Yes, cause Hooters waitresses are gonna use that phrasing all day long. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: guys != gender neutral
On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Folks? I really do mean folks when I write guys, pedantry folk is the plural and, as far as the use of gender-biased terms, as someone said well the other day, when you are in a hole, stop digging randy According to my Dictionary, both folk and folks are acceptable plurals. Owen
Re: WAY OT Re: guys != gender neutral
On 9/28/2012 9:18 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com As a form of address. Hey, people is ... well, nearly abrasive. (Envision a waitron walking up to a mixed table of 10.) Sure, in that limited context. In such a circumstance, I believe the phrase ladies and gentlem[ae]n is usually adequate and equally gender neutral. Yes, cause Hooters waitresses are gonna use that phrasing all day long. :-) Cheers, -- jra I like it when they call me sweetie. Is that sexist? :)
Re: guys != gender neutral
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:43:21 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: Given that this thread started out as a query re. a really nasty attack, and resulted in: 5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on guys) 20 responses re. guys (I stopped counting) It occurs to me that maybe morons or idiots might be an appropriate gender-neutral framing. I usually use 'critters' for that. salescritters, congresscritters, trollcritters. pgpRp20h0lWvm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: guys != gender neutral
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:18:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said: On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Folks? I really do mean folks when I write guys, pedantry folk is the plural and, as far as the use of gender-biased terms, as someone said well the other day, when you are in a hole, stop digging randy According to my Dictionary, both folk and folks are acceptable plurals. Somebody I know once described somebody else as 'pendantic'. I asked Don't you mean pedantic? and he replied No, *you're* pedantic for asking. He just hangs around with nothing better to do. :) pgpXu1bNGtbmL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: guys != gender neutral
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:43:21 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: Given that this thread started out as a query re. a really nasty attack, and resulted in: 5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on guys) 20 responses re. guys (I stopped counting) It occurs to me that maybe morons or idiots might be an appropriate gender-neutral framing. I usually use 'critters' for that. salescritters, congresscritters, trollcritters. I'm kind of a fan of Greg House on this one. Or Mel Brooks, from Blazing Saddles: “They’re common people – the salt of the earth. You know – Morons”. :-) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: guys != gender neutral
- Original Message - From: Eric Parsonage e...@eparsonage.com The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned nowadays. Mammals have sex. *Words* (and only words) have gender. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: guys != gender neutral
- Original Message - From: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com Having all walks of life essentially all around, it really makes one careful to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with everything we have going on, but no one is perfect. The bottomline is, no one can really sastifisfy any indivdual and their preference of how they would liked to be addressed. If one is to be offended or looks for offense they will capitalize on it period. I try much as possible to avoid those situations. As is embodied in the FidoNet Principle: Be ye not overly annoying... nor *too easily annoyed*. (Emphasis mine). It comes down to if you accuse people of malice in things they said without any, of course they're going to start a fight with you. Cheers, -- jar -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: guys != gender neutral
Note: this will be my one and only contribution to this thread. While this thread has generated some very interesting and thought-provoking discussions, I still think it strays pretty far from being on-topic for NANOG. That being the case, let's all get back to operating our respective networks and let this thread go. Thanks jms
Re: guys != gender neutral
Le 2012-09-28 12:15, Jay Ashworth a écrit : The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned nowadays. Mammals have sex. *Words* (and only words) have gender. There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, about the GENDER vCard property: 6.2.7. GENDER Purpose: To specify the components of the sex and gender identity of the object the vCard represents. Value type: A single structured value with two components. Each component has a single text value. Cardinality: *1 Special notes: The components correspond, in sequence, to the sex (biological), and gender identity. Each component is optional. Sex component: A single letter. M stands for male, F stands for female, O stands for other, N stands for none or not applicable, U stands for unknown. Gender identity component: Free-form text. ABNF: GENDER-param = VALUE=text / any-param GENDER-value = sex [; text] sex = / M / F / O / N / U Examples: GENDER:M GENDER:F GENDER:M;Fellow GENDER:F;grrrl GENDER:O;intersex GENDER:;it's complicated Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart -- http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source-- http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server -- http://numb.viagenie.ca
Re: guys != gender neutral
On 09/28/2012 09:43 AM, Simon Perreault wrote: Le 2012-09-28 12:15, Jay Ashworth a écrit : The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned nowadays. Mammals have sex. *Words* (and only words) have gender. There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, about the GENDER vCard property: 6.2.7. GENDER Purpose: To specify the components of the sex and gender identity of the object the vCard represents. Value type: A single structured value with two components. Each component has a single text value. Cardinality: *1 Special notes: The components correspond, in sequence, to the sex (biological), and gender identity. Each component is optional. Sex component: A single letter. M stands for male, F stands for female, O stands for other, N stands for none or not applicable, U stands for unknown. Gender identity component: Free-form text. ABNF: GENDER-param = VALUE=text / any-param GENDER-value = sex [; text] sex = / M / F / O / N / U Examples: GENDER:M GENDER:F GENDER:M;Fellow GENDER:F;grrrl GENDER:O;intersex GENDER:;it's complicated Simon +1 for bringing it back to a technical discussion in a round about way. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Re: guys != gender neutral
Original Message - From: Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca *Words* (and only words) have gender. There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, about the GENDER vCard property: And kudos to Simon for bring it back to a semblence of on-topic-ness. Glad to see that the authors of 6350 were thinking ahead, but I (and I think OED) will continue to quibble with the choice of word. Just appropriating words that mean other things is generally not a safe approach... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
RFC becomes Visio
Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Joe
Re: RFC becomes Visio
I've seen requests for a drawing of some sort, but never specifically and exclusively visio. If they insist on visio, I would send them a LART (at high velocity) instead. -Randy - Original Message - Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Joe
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On 9/28/12 11:08 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Hand draw two squares, label them our AS and your AS with a line between them labeled GigE. Bonus points for pencil. ~Seth
Re: RFC becomes Visio
And super duper bonus points is you draw pigeons carrying packets between the two blocks and stating that you are RFC 1149 compliant. -Mike On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote: On 9/28/12 11:08 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Hand draw two squares, label them our AS and your AS with a line between them labeled GigE. Bonus points for pencil. ~Seth -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
Re: RFC becomes Visio
As a person who often draws out + scans diagrams, I support this message. On 09/28/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: Hand draw two squares, label them our AS and your AS with a line between them labeled GigE. Bonus points for pencil. ~Seth
Re: RFC becomes Visio
Wow... talk about someone who doesn't want your business. Randy Carpenter wrote: I've seen requests for a drawing of some sort, but never specifically and exclusively visio. If they insist on visio, I would send them a LART (at high velocity) instead. -Randy - Original Message - Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Joe -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: RFC becomes Visio
Just make sure to name the scanned file VisioDi~1_vsd.png, and maybe they won't notice. -Randy - Original Message - As a person who often draws out + scans diagrams, I support this message. On 09/28/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: Hand draw two squares, label them our AS and your AS with a line between them labeled GigE. Bonus points for pencil. ~Seth
Re: RFC becomes Visio
As a person who often draws out + scans diagrams, I support this message. Hand draw two squares, label them our AS and your AS with a line between them labeled GigE. Bonus points for pencil. Exactly - hand draw it, scan it it in and save the .JPG/.PNG in a .VSD. There, it is in Visio. It is Friday, yes? /TJ
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On 28/09/2012 19:08, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? I was once asked by a vendor support department for a network diagram for a case which involved a standalone switch. I almost sent them a picture of a switch, but decided not as it might have confused the person handling the case. Here's a visio diagram you can send them: http://www.foobar.org/~nick/bgp-network-diagram.vsd Nick
Re: need help about 40G
Deric Kwok wrote: Hi all Do you have experience in 40G equipments eg: switch and NIC? I have never used 40 gig but this: http://www.extremenetworks.com/products/blackdiamond-x.aspx appears to have 192 ports of it. I have never seen or used this product so am not recommending it or attempting to sell it to you. I have not seen Extreme mentioned in other replies so far, is all. It may or may not have advantages over other products mentioned so far. I have no idea since I've never seen or used any 40gig product.
Weekly Routing Table Report
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, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith pfsi...@gmail.com. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 29 Sep, 2012 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 427331 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 178718 Deaggregation factor: 2.39 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 209290 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 42215 Prefixes per ASN: 10.12 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 33672 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15754 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5612 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:141 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.6 Max AS path length visible: 35 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 48687) 24 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 769 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 279 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 3336 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:2931 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:7916 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 12 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:164 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2601743212 Equivalent to 155 /8s, 19 /16s and 115 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 70.3 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 70.3 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 93.7 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150222 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 102740 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 32571 APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.15 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 103414 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:42743 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4766 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.70 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1237 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:773 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.7 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 26 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:315 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 708388512 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 57 /16s and 38 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 82.8 APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 131072-133119 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:154519 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:78181 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.98 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 155430 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 69144 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:15250 ARIN Prefixes per ASN:10.19 ARIN Region origin ASes
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0400, Randy Carpenter said: Just make sure to name the scanned file VisioDi~1_vsd.png, and maybe they won't notice. That's eeevil. ;) pgpekRqJeA2WL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On Sep 28, 2012, at 12:17 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0400, Randy Carpenter said: Just make sure to name the scanned file VisioDi~1_vsd.png, and maybe they won't notice. That's eeevil. ;) echo $Vladis_Statement evil_indeed.vsd /r
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:22:14AM -0700, Mike Lyon wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote: On 9/28/12 11:08 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Hand draw two squares, label them our AS and your AS with a line between them labeled GigE. Bonus points for pencil. And super duper bonus points is you draw pigeons carrying packets between the two blocks and stating that you are RFC 1149 compliant. on a napkin. -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research j...@reptiles.org+1 416 410-5633 He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? In my quaint little corner of the world, this was once fairly routine actually. It seems to have been more popular amonsgt the enterprise crowd than anything else. Joe wfms
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? I can understand wanting to diagram a complex design, so everyone involved has a clear picture of what needs to happen, but for an ISP to bring up BGP to a customer? If that's not something that can be done in a relatively cookie-cutter fashion, there is something horribly broken with that ISP. My diagram would be something along the lines of your_router [GIG-E WITH BGP] my_router = :) your_router [GIG-E WITH NO BGP] my_router = :( jms
Re: RFC becomes Visio
Yo Joe! On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Network diagrams are required for PCI compliance. 1.1.2 Current network diagram with all connections to cardholder data, including any wireless networks A high-level network diagram (either obtained from the entity or created by assessor) of the entity’s networking topography that includes: - Connections into and out of the network - Critical components within the cardholder data environment, including POS devices, systems, databases, and web servers, as applicable - Other necessary payment components, as applicable RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RIRs give out unique addresses (Was: something has a /8! ...)
ah... again the distinction between routed and routable. RFC 1918 space is clearly routeable and routed. one does not need ARIN to assign such space. what i -think- the NRPM section you refered to actually touches on (but does not state outright) the concept of uniqueness. In the dim mists of the past, the NIC (SRI) ran two sets of books, the connected database and the unconnected database. There was a lack of address block uniquenss between these two databases; e.g. 192.146.13.0/24 was assigned -TWICE-. This occured for hundreds of delegations I was responsible for - I can only assume there were thousands of sites affected (Impacted for the gramatically challanged). This was problematic when unconnected sites connected... and is why some of the admonitions in RFC 1918 exist. The section of the ARIN NRPM you quote was developed when there was: a) a shortage of globally unique IPv4 blocks available and b) NAT and RFC 1918 space was easy. Hence the admonishion to use RFC 1918 space if you were unconnected and when you decided to connect, ARIN would be willing to listen to your request. Two thing have changed: a) IPv4 is nearing equalibrium ... Most of it is fielded and so it is not clear ARIN can supply IPv4 on demand as it has in the past. Yes, please tell me the IPv6 story Grandpa, I've -never- heard it before... :( b) Many networks are not connected or unconnected (begs the question, from what PoV/ASN?) but are transients - with connections being sporadic either in time or by service. What this boils down to is global uniqueness - not routed (by whom) or routability (are the headers legal)... And that (IMHO) is a key attribute of what the RIRs are trying to protect. YMMV of course. /bill On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 07:04:43AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: Bill, I am unable to make sense of your reply. The question I was answering was: Wouldn't you say that there is a very real expectation that when you request address space through ARIN or RIPE that it would be routable? (Which I admit at the time I interpreted to also indicate an expectation that it would be routed, but I see now could be ambiguous). In that context, I believe that the policy section I quoted indicates that there is no expectation that numbers issued by ARIN or RIPE (or any other RIR) will be routed and other policy sections certainly convey that ARIN (and the other RIRs) have no control over routers, so I'm not sure it matters what they say about routability. As to your statement about legacy assignments, I fail to see any part of ARIN policy that distinguishes them from any other assignment with regards to the application of policy. However, other than the section quoted below (which essentially states that some level of connectivity is required to justify new resource allocations or assignments), I believe that the NRPM is mute with regards to connectivity on all addresses. Since there are, by definition, no new legacy allocations or assignments, I'm not sure how legacy is relevant to the discussion at hand. Owen On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:07 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: not how i read that section Owen... ...networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity. One does not have to request RFC 1918 space from ARIN (or other RIR) and the NRPM is mute on legacy address assignments wrt connectivity. /bill On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 07:32:17PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: I believe that this section of NRPM says no. 4.3.5. Non-connected Networks End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see RFC 1918). When private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity. Owen On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: I suppose that ARIN would say that they do not guarantee routability because they do not have operational control of Internet routers. However, Wouldn't you say that there is a very real expectation that when you request address space through ARIN or RIPE that it would be routable? I would think that what ARIN and RIPE are really saying is that they issue unique addresses and you need to get your service provider to route them. FWIW, the discussion of the military having addresses pulled back is pretty much a non-starter unless they want to give them back. When the management of IP address space was moved from the US DoD, there were memorandums of understanding that the military controlled their assigned
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Gary E. Miller wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Network diagrams are required for PCI compliance. I can understand (and fully support) the need for customers to have detailed diagrams of their network for (insert-requirement-here) compliance, but a provider requiring a customer to supply a diagram for basic connectivity? Seems sketchy (no pun indended) to me. jms
Re: RFC becomes Visio
Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? I can understand wanting to diagram a complex design, so everyone involved has a clear picture of what needs to happen, but for an ISP to bring up BGP to a customer? If that's not something that can be done in a relatively cookie-cutter fashion, there is something horribly broken with that ISP. My diagram would be something along the lines of your_router [GIG-E WITH BGP] my_router = :) your_router [GIG-E WITH NO BGP] my_router = :( jms I figured they are expecting something other than cookie cutter, so I gave them a multi session + multi hop. 4 boxes with labels, 4 lines and some router commands in vendor 'C' language in a text box. If they dont like that, they can provide me with their own diagram. Someone did mention that perhaps its a vetting/hoop-jumping process. My takeaway is that it is always easier to not accept the circuit until BGP is up, rather then saving that for a step 2. Joe
Re: RFC becomes Visio
If memory serves me right, Seth Mattinen wrote: Hand draw two squares, label them our AS and your AS with a line between them labeled GigE. Bonus points for pencil. Double-bonus for crayon (why yes I do have a young child, why do you ask?). Bruce. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On 9/28/2012 1:08 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Joe Regardless of all the other comments here making fun of the request, I can somewhat understand why they might do this. Some of the requests I have gotten from customers are so misguided and confusing that a simple diagram can go far to clear things up. I know it seems crazy to everyone here that can set up BGP peering in their sleep, but when you're getting a new request from someone who hasn't gotten an ASN yet, and has never heard of a routing registry? All they know is a consultant told them they needed to do BGP with their ISP? Jason
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Sep 28 21:13:05 2012 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 PrefixesCIDR Agg
21-09-12430248 247201
22-09-12430292 247204
23-09-12430355 247399
24-09-12430537 247542
25-09-12430165 248082
26-09-12430853 248401
27-09-12430947 248124
28-09-12429749 247960
AS Summary
42330 Number of ASes in routing system
17613 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
3290 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS6389 : BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.
113770720 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 28Sep12 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 429943 247849 18209442.4% All ASes
AS6389 3290 180 311094.5% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.
AS28573 2141 57 208497.3% NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
AS4766 2984 943 204168.4% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS17974 2356 612 174474.0% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
Telekomunikasi Indonesia
AS7029 3164 1478 168653.3% WINDSTREAM - Windstream
Communications Inc
AS18566 2084 423 166179.7% COVAD - Covad Communications
Co.
AS22773 1888 285 160384.9% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
Cox Communications Inc.
AS10620 2190 807 138363.2% Telmex Colombia S.A.
AS2118 1399 97 130293.1% RELCOM-AS OOO NPO Relcom
AS4323 1580 393 118775.1% TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
inc.
AS7303 1561 449 111271.2% Telecom Argentina S.A.
AS1785 1921 823 109857.2% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.
AS4755 1624 550 107466.1% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly VSNL
is Leading ISP
AS7552 1108 182 92683.6% VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel
Corporation
AS8151 1600 730 87054.4% Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS18101 1016 172 84483.1% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
Reliance Communications
Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI
AS4808 1124 352 77268.7% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network
AS7545 1762 1023 73941.9% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
Pty Ltd
AS13977 859 120 73986.0% CTELCO - FAIRPOINT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
AS855686 52 63492.4% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant
Regional Communications, Inc.
AS3356 1113 485 62856.4% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications
AS17676 711 87 62487.8% GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.
AS36998 772 148 62480.8% SDN-MOBITEL
AS22561 1038 434 60458.2% DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital
Teleport Inc.
AS19262 1002 404 59859.7% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online
LLC
AS24560 1039 443 59657.4% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
Services
AS3549 1026 438 58857.3% GBLX Global Crossing Ltd.
AS4780 852 277 57567.5% SEEDNET Digital United Inc.
AS6458 600 38 56293.7% Telgua
AS4804 653 97 55685.1% MPX-AS Microplex PTY LTD
Total 45143125793256472.1% Top 30 total
Possible Bogus Routes
10.86.64.32/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS-
BGP Update Report
BGP Update Report Interval: 20-Sep-12 -to- 27-Sep-12 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS8402 102990 5.0% 62.8 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC Vimpelcom 2 - AS163729779 1.4% 391.8 -- DNIC-AS-01637 - Headquarters, USAISC 3 - AS982926912 1.3% 32.1 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone 4 - AS11081 26535 1.3% 603.1 -- United Telecommunication Services (UTS) 5 - AS22561 23401 1.1% 172.1 -- DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital Teleport Inc. 6 - AS13118 19358 0.9% 403.3 -- ASN-YARTELECOM OJSC Rostelecom 7 - AS24560 18482 0.9% 95.3 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services 8 - AS23966 17138 0.8% 49.2 -- LDN-AS-PK LINKdotNET Telecom Limited 9 - AS38547 16790 0.8% 38.6 -- WITRIBE-AS-AP WITRIBE PAKISTAN LIMITED 10 - AS27947 16669 0.8% 22.1 -- Telconet S.A 11 - AS211811325 0.6% 8.0 -- RELCOM-AS OOO NPO Relcom 12 - AS958311278 0.6% 10.9 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 13 - AS702911245 0.5% 5.7 -- WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc 14 - AS10620 10971 0.5% 5.2 -- Telmex Colombia S.A. 15 - AS21599 10586 0.5% 135.7 -- NETDIRECT S.A. 16 - AS21299 10526 0.5% 75.2 -- ORBITA-PLUS-AS ORBITA-PLUS Autonomous System 17 - AS755210505 0.5% 8.2 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel Corporation 18 - AS20115 10413 0.5% 12.4 -- CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications 19 - AS269710298 0.5% 156.0 -- ERX-ERNET-AS Education and Research Network 20 - AS38264 10017 0.5% 34.1 -- WATEEN-IMS-PK-AS-AP National WiMAX/IMS environment TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS2033 8659 0.4%8659.0 -- PANIX - Panix Network Information Center 2 - AS6629 8858 0.4%4429.0 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA 3 - AS177627506 0.4%2502.0 -- HTIL-TTML-IN-AP Tata Teleservices Maharashtra Ltd 4 - AS146806719 0.3%2239.7 -- REALE-6 - Auction.com 5 - AS364112168 0.1%2168.0 -- RAUXA - Rauxa Direct, LLC 6 - AS204061606 0.1%1606.0 -- BRASLINK - Braslink Network Inc 7 - AS444104761 0.2%1587.0 -- ENTEKHAB-AS ENTEKHAB INDUSTRIAL GROUP 8 - AS365292275 0.1%1137.5 -- AXXA-RACKCO - Rackco.com 9 - AS6197 1096 0.1%1096.0 -- BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc 10 - AS198582022 0.1%1011.0 -- GENSLER - Gensler and Associates Architects 11 - AS25600 939 0.1% 939.0 -- MATRIKON-1 - Matrikon Inc. 12 - AS48696 924 0.0% 924.0 -- TEMP-AS TEMP Ltd. 13 - AS399155443 0.3% 907.2 -- PREM-AS Premiere Global Services 14 - AS29564 865 0.0% 865.0 -- ASN-ITALDATA Italdata S.p.A 15 - AS388571613 0.1% 806.5 -- ESOFT-TRANSIT-AS-AP e.Soft Technologies Ltd. 16 - AS33158 771 0.0% 771.0 -- DATA-SERVICES-INC - Data Services Incorporated 17 - AS29126 725 0.0% 725.0 -- DATIQ-AS Datiq B.V. 18 - AS44240 642 0.0% 642.0 -- ALGORYTHM-AS Algoritm LLC 19 - AS264073698 0.2% 616.3 -- GUILFORD-COMMUNICATIONS - Guilford Communications, Inc. 20 - AS11081 26535 1.3% 603.1 -- United Telecommunication Services (UTS) TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 109.161.64.0/19 19140 0.9% AS13118 -- ASN-YARTELECOM OJSC Rostelecom 2 - 184.159.130.0/23 11557 0.5% AS22561 -- DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital Teleport Inc. 3 - 184.157.224.0/19 10598 0.5% AS22561 -- DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital Teleport Inc. 4 - 200.46.0.0/19 10392 0.5% AS21599 -- NETDIRECT S.A. 5 - 209.48.168.0/248659 0.4% AS2033 -- PANIX - Panix Network Information Center 6 - 190.60.31.0/24 7612 0.3% AS18747 -- IFX-NW - IFX Communication Ventures, Inc. 7 - 202.41.70.0/24 7236 0.3% AS2697 -- ERX-ERNET-AS Education and Research Network 8 - 182.64.0.0/16 6864 0.3% AS24560 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services 9 - 122.161.0.0/16 6449 0.3% AS24560 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services 10 - 12.139.133.0/245409 0.2% AS14680 -- REALE-6 - Auction.com 11 - 95.128.195.0/245397 0.2% AS39915 -- PREM-AS Premiere Global Services 12 - 194.63.9.0/24 4901 0.2% AS1273 -- CW Cable and Wireless Worldwide plc 13 - 192.58.2.0/24 4452 0.2% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA 14 - 192.58.232.0/244406 0.2% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA 15 - 49.248.72.0/21 4352 0.2% AS17762 -- HTIL-TTML-IN-AP Tata Teleservices Maharashtra Ltd 16 -
Re: RFC becomes Visio
Jason Baugher wrote: On 9/28/2012 1:08 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Regardless of all the other comments here making fun of the request, I can somewhat understand why they might do this. Some of the requests I have gotten from customers are so misguided and confusing that a simple diagram can go far to clear things up. I know it seems crazy to everyone here that can set up BGP peering in their sleep, but when you're getting a new request from someone who hasn't gotten an ASN yet, and has never heard of a routing registry? All they know is a consultant told them they needed to do BGP with their ISP? Isn't it a role of sales engineering/support to help customers through this process? I know that, if a vendor told me that I had to jump through hoops to do business with them, I'd be complaining to my sales rep., and looking for another vendor. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
RE: RFC becomes Visio
I agree. Perhaps the ISP goes a little above and beyond most, and will provide configuration assistance to the downstream if they have issues. Useful info they might want to see on the diagram could be your AS (duh), ASes downstream from you, are you multihomed, and with who, what prefixes and or communities would you want? Sure this info can be put in a text form, but a diagram can help the ISP understand what the customer is wanting to do, and can get a clue-level about the customer from such documentation. Chuck -Original Message- From: Jason Baugher [mailto:ja...@thebaughers.com] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:59 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: RFC becomes Visio On 9/28/2012 1:08 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Joe Regardless of all the other comments here making fun of the request, I can somewhat understand why they might do this. Some of the requests I have gotten from customers are so misguided and confusing that a simple diagram can go far to clear things up. I know it seems crazy to everyone here that can set up BGP peering in their sleep, but when you're getting a new request from someone who hasn't gotten an ASN yet, and has never heard of a routing registry? All they know is a consultant told them they needed to do BGP with their ISP? Jason
Re: RFC becomes Visio
Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote: On 9/28/12 11:08 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I dont know). Has anybody else seen this brain damage? Hand draw two squares, label them our AS and your AS with a line between them labeled GigE. Bonus points for pencil. And super duper bonus points is you draw pigeons carrying packets between the two blocks and stating that you are RFC 1149 compliant. No, no, *NO*!! The proper approach is to ask the vendor for RFC 1149 trasport for the BGP session, and whether it terminates in a shared cage, or if a fully private one is required. Including an 'envionmental impact statement'. Explaining that this info is required in order to produce an accurate Visio diagram.
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:41 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: SNIP/ The proper approach is to ask the vendor for RFC 1149 trasport for the BGP session, and whether it terminates in a shared cage, or if a fully private one is required. Including an 'envionmental impact statement'. Explaining that this info is required in order to produce an accurate Visio diagram. Ladies and gentlemen, it seems that we have a winner!
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
You won't have enough addresses for Dark Matter, Neutrinos, etc. Atoms wind up using up about 63 bits (2^10^82) based on the current SWAG. The missing mass is 84% of the universe. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM To: John Levine Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. we assign them /64s
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
You won't have enough addresses for Dark Matter, Neutrinos, etc. Atoms wind up using up about 63 bits (2^10^82) based on the current SWAG. The missing mass is 84% of the universe. Fortunately, until we find it, it doesn't need addresses. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM To: John Levine Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. we assign them /64s Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
