[NANOG-announce] vote.nanog.org

2012-10-22 Thread Betty Burke
NANOGers: If you have not yet joined NANOG as a member, become a member by visiting https://www.nanog.org/signup/ .. Members do play an important role in helping to sustain and direct NANOG. Note, voting for the 2011/2013 Board and Bylaw amendments will close at 5:00 PM CST on October 23, 2012.

Re: forward and reverse DNS (was: Please, talk me down.)

2012-10-22 Thread Jimmy Hess
On 10/22/12, Joe Abley wrote: > I will further note that just because dnsop can't agree on something doesn't > mean that it's not worth agreeing on. [snip] Some of the IETF WGs' members wouldn't be able to agree what color the sky appears to be on a clear sunny day. But it is common MTAs, to be

Re: forward and reverse DNS (was: Please, talk me down.)

2012-10-22 Thread Joe Abley
On 2012-10-22, at 11:36, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:18:52PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: >> records are consistent. It is however good practice that these exist and >> are consistent. > > I will note that the IETF DNSOP WG was unable to agree even on that > latter claim.

Re: Semi-automated L3 interface DNS records

2012-10-22 Thread Joe Abley
On 2012-10-18, at 14:57, "Pedersen, Sean" wrote: > Does anyone out there have any experience with a script, tool or appliance > that would help manage the creation and maintenance of DNS records for Layer > 3 interfaces on routers and switches? http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog26/presentati

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Justin Krejci
And since owen has not yet mentioned it, consider something that supports having : in its address as well.  Sort of tangentially related, I had a support rep for a vendor once tell me that a 255 in the second or third octet was not valid for an ipv4 address. Hard to troubleshoot a problem when

Re: IP tunnel MTU

2012-10-22 Thread Dobbins, Roland
On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Since tunnels always reduce the effective MTU seen by data packets due to the > encapsulation overhead, the only two ways to accommodate > the tunnel MTU is either through the use of path MTU discovery or through > fragmentation and reassemb

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Jimmy Hess
On 10/22/12, Paul Zugnoni wrote: [snip] > Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy…. Since > it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommending > against the use of .0 or .255 addresses for this reason. ISA is old, and might not be supported anymore

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Joe Greco
> Ten year old equipment should be CIDR aware. It's not like it CIDR > wasn't in wide spread using in 2002. And BCP38 has had sufficient time to be globally deployed. What's your point, again? ;-) I was pretty careful in trying to outline that it's still expected that there are defective prod

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <201210222307.q9mn7aiv063...@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes: > > d be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you > = > > should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP or N > = > > AT pool, or subnets larger than /24). Yet I've run

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Joe Greco
> d be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you = > should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP or N= > AT pool, or subnets larger than /24). Yet I've run into a commercial IP mgm= > t product and getting reports of M$ ISA proxy that is specif

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Scott Weeks
--- j...@instituut.net wrote: From: Job Snijders > Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard > .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should > be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you > should exp

hotmail.com live.com admin needed

2012-10-22 Thread Carlos M. Perez
Hi, We're trying to resolve some delivery issues reported by hotmail users. Started happening a few weeks ago. Getting immediate NDRs, and the server that is supposed to receive the email has no records of attempts. The messages also don't match what the receiving server should be sending. The

RE: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread David Hubbard
From: Paul Zugnoni [mailto:paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com] > > Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that > automatically regard .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as > src/dst in packets as traffic that should be considered > invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you

IP tunnel MTU

2012-10-22 Thread Templin, Fred L
Hello, Several months ago, there was discussion on the list regarding IP tunnel maximum transmission unit (MTU). Since that time, it has been brought to my attention by members of my company's network operations staff that tunnel MTU is a very real problem they need to cope with on a daily basis -

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Dan White
On 10/22/12 17:18 -0500, Matt Buford wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni wrote: Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy…. Since it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommending against the use of .0 or .255 addresses for this

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Job Snijders
Hi Paul, On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni wrote: > Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard .0 > and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should be > considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you shoul

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Matt Buford
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni wrote: > Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy…. Since > it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommending > against the use of .0 or .255 addresses for this reason. > Way back in the late 90's I tr

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Bryan Tong
As far as I know. There is no RFC based restrictions based on having those as usable IPs. We have been routing customers IP blocks on our network for a while and never had a problem with 0 or .255 as the assigned IP even with Microsoft Windows 2003 as the operating system. Im not sure how to fix

Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

2012-10-22 Thread Paul Zugnoni
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP

forward and reverse DNS (was: Please, talk me down.)

2012-10-22 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:18:52PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > records are consistent. It is however good practice that these exist and > are consistent. I will note that the IETF DNSOP WG was unable to agree even on that latter claim. A -- Andrew Sullivan Dyn Labs asulli...@dyn.com

RE: Semi-automated L3 interface DNS records

2012-10-22 Thread Pedersen, Sean
Thanks to everyone that responded. Based on the information from this list and several other areas I posted the same question, it seems like a feasible goal. If anyone has any ideas on how to either reduce my sleeping requirements or extend the number of hours in a day so that I can actually im