Re: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)

The seven lawyers of the OSI model 1: Family lawyer (where it all starts) 2: Admiralty lawyer 3: Intellectual Property lawyer (because, of course) 4. Immigration lawyer 5. Real Estate lawyer 6. Entertainment lawyer 7. Labor lawyer -mel On Sep 29, 2023, at 10:03 PM, Jay R. Ashworth

Re: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)

Layer 8: People Layer 9: Money Layer 10: Lawyers. Cheers, -- jra - Original Message - > From: "David Conrad" > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 6:46:31 PM > Subject: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership) > Somewhat related (at least

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Each unit of mask length increase doubles the size of the table theoretically. About 60% of the table is /24 routes. Just going to /25 will probably double the table size. Not sure I'd like to extrapolate the estimate out to /27. Kind Regards, Jakob

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:26 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2023, at 15:14, William Herrin wrote: > > I'm less assuming it and more reading it from this SIGCOMM paper: > > https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf > > Fair enough, but interestingly, I think that the

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 15:14, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:11 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >> You continue to assume that there is a fast SRAM cache. I’m not sure >> that is true. I think that all of the FIB RAM on the line cards is fast SRAM >> and no cache. > > Hi Owen, >

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:03 PM Tom Beecher wrote: > General Purpose CPU : Can run Doom. > Trio ASIC : Cannot run Doom. Cute. False. But cute. At the risk of pedantry, the ATMega chip in the Arduino can't run Doom either, nor does it have any DRAM, only SRAM and flash ram. Nevertheless, it

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > I'm less assuming it and more reading it from this SIGCOMM paper: > https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf Which doesn't cover the subject at hand. Owen is correct here. The LU block has separate reduced latency RAM that holds the data it uses. (The FIB). Other

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:11 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > You continue to assume that there is a fast SRAM cache. I’m not sure > that is true. I think that all of the FIB RAM on the line cards is fast SRAM > and no cache. Hi Owen, I'm less assuming it and more reading it from this SIGCOMM paper:

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 14:48, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:13 PM Tom Beecher wrote: >>> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead >>> of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs >>> operating on a radix tree, exactly

RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

I am reminded of something I “saw” many years ago of a Quake server running on a Juniper M160, it wasn’t fast but oh the connectivity. From: NANOG On Behalf Of Tom Beecher Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 11:03 AM To: William Herrin Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

General Purpose CPU : Can run Doom. Trio ASIC : Cannot run Doom. Have a good weekend Bill. On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:48 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:13 PM Tom Beecher wrote: > >> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead > >> of employing

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:13 PM Tom Beecher wrote: >> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead >> of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs >> operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software >> router. > > Absolutely are

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On 9/29/2023 5:25 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Several people ate the cake. I received numerous positive comments on it and some of them are about the flavor of the cake. The question is did anyone from Cogent eat it? Did they have their cake and eat it too?

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Several people ate the cake. I received numerous positive comments on it and some of them are about the flavor of the cake. Owen > On Sep 29, 2023, at 14:11, Collider wrote: > > Peering cake... :-) > > i think i was a puppy when that happened and only heard about it way after > the fact >

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

s/DMS/DFZ/ — Not sure how autocrrect did that without me noticing, apologies. > On Sep 29, 2023, at 14:11, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > /32s are perfectly valid in the DMS, but there is currently an IETF limit of > ~500M of them (the other 3.5B are not yet released to the RIRs, only >

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 13:43, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:29 PM Saku Ytti wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 08:24, William Herrin wrote: >>> Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into >>> play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead > of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs > operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software > router. > Absolutely are not doing that with "general purpose CPUs". The LU

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

/32s are perfectly valid in the DMS, but there is currently an IETF limit of ~500M of them (the other 3.5B are not yet released to the RIRs, only 2000::/3). Owen > On Sep 29, 2023, at 12:54, Collider wrote: > > This thread is utter amateur hour. I too would rather /32s be valid in the > DFZ

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Peering cake... :-) i think i was a puppy when that happened and only heard about it way after the fact did anyone eat the cake? was it tasty? Le 29 septembre 2023 20:55:00 UTC, Owen DeLong via NANOG a écrit : >I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:54 PM Collider wrote: > This thread is utter amateur hour. I too would rather /32s be valid in the > DFZ - but they're not, for good reason (worstcase scenario = circa 4 bln. > routing table entries - no BGP hwaccel can swing that!). Howdy, Actually, BGP can swing

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my criticisms of him. However, HE decided to stop their free bop tunnel services due to problems with abuse. A free service which becomes a magnet for problems isn’t long for this world. It’s unfortunate, but boils down to

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On Sep 28, 2023, at 23:57, Vasilenko Eduard > wrote: > > Well, it depends. > The question below was evidently related to business. > IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes. The normal way for IETF (which is, IMHO, borked to put it mildly) is to use multiple

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:29 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 08:24, William Herrin wrote: > > Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into > > play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could > > easily be wrong, but if the number of

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

This thread is utter amateur hour. I too would rather /32s be valid in the DFZ - but they're not, for good reason (worstcase scenario = circa 4 bln. routing table entries - no BGP hwaccel can swing that!). Le 29 septembre 2023 19:51:29 UTC, Seth Mattinen via NANOG a écrit : >On 9/29/23 10:24,

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On 9/29/23 10:24, VOLKAN SALİH wrote: you guys become rich this way.. by playing penny pincher. I asked global firms like Huawei, not some local company called ADAMS! You joined the wrong mailing list then. This is NANOG, which has companies of all sizes and private individuals operating

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:43 AM VOLKAN SALİH wrote: > thanks for your response. Honestly thanks for everyones reponses. > > comunism is the future. IMO. > > tier-1 network count is decreasing. competition is always good. while > monopoly, duopoly, triopoly is not.. I dream an earth with 1000

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On 9/29/23 03:34, Mark Tinka wrote: RAM is not the issue... it's FIB. If you pay me for FIB slots, I'm happy to install /32's to your heart's content . And convergence times to process all that extra noise... The line in the sand has been drawn; just say no to >/24 ... --

RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Please, let’s keep politics out of nanog… Kind Regards Dominik [https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/m/en_us/signaturetool/images/banners/standard/cisco_email_sigs_08.jpg] Dominik Dobrowolski Technical Consulting Engineer dodob...@cisco.com Tel: +48 12 321 29 03 Cisco Systems

Weekly Global IPv4 Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG UKNOF, TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

word salad? example; russia decided that they are powerful enough, they are not now eating UA. They will never stop, coz Thats how world wars start. Now big network operators decided that they can destroy small competitors by mergers, acquitions, restrictive or "NO" peering policies.. and

Mail List Functions [WAS: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?]

Answers inline…. ~ Valerie > On Sep 29, 2023, at 13:51, Matthew Petach wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:42 AM Valerie Wittkop > wrote: >> There is one person that reviews the moderation queue of the NANOG list. My >> morning was rather hectic, and I

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:42 AM Valerie Wittkop wrote: > There is one person that reviews the moderation queue of the NANOG list. > My morning was rather hectic, and I didn’t get to the queue until just > before 12:30 EDT today. > > Apologies to all for the delay in the messages of this thread.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Apparently i ruffled some feathers with my reply about Cogent.My apologies to the list for my blunt reply…Y’all have a good weekend now.-MikeOn Sep 29, 2023, at 10:43, Valerie Wittkop wrote:There is one person that reviews the moderation queue of the NANOG list. My morning was rather hectic, and

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > word salad None of this has anything to do with why the IPv4 /24 limit is what it is. Good luck with your endeavors, whatever they may be. On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:46 PM VOLKAN SALİH wrote: > thanks for your response. Honestly thanks for everyones reponses. > > comunism is the future.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > RIB, FIB doesnt matter, internet is our future, so lets invest in it. > Uh, ok. On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:25 PM VOLKAN SALİH wrote: > I dont even have money for food/living. > > i am working poor. > > poverty line is 40 thousands turkish liras here.. > > but for a green card, I can carve

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

thanks for your response. Honestly thanks for everyones reponses. comunism is the future. IMO. tier-1 network count is decreasing. competition is always good. while monopoly, duopoly, triopoly is not.. I dream an earth with 1000 tier-1 networks.. capitalism give people more money than they

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

There is one person that reviews the moderation queue of the NANOG list. My morning was rather hectic, and I didn’t get to the queue until just before 12:30 EDT today. Apologies to all for the delay in the messages of this thread. Please note I try to check the queue a few times throughout

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Matt, It's not just you or Google, I just got those emails to my Office 365 at the same time. My guess is that the list admins/moderators got the emails and just responded without approving the moderated emails. Ryan From: NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Trolling NANOG on this subject? Let me get my popcorn... -- inoc.net!rblayzor XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net PGP: https://pgp.inoc.net/rblayzor/ On 9/28/23 17:25, VOLKAN SALİH wrote: hello, I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:42 AM VOLKAN SALİH wrote: > [...] > > I presume there would be another 50 big ASNs that belong to CDNs. And I am > pretty sure those top 100 networks can invest in gear to support /25-/27. > Volkan, So far, you haven't presented any good financial reason those top 100

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

I dont even have money for food/living. i am working poor. poverty line is 40 thousands turkish liras here.. but for a green card, I can carve mr leber or mr schaeffer settlement-free! _*JK!*_ lucifer told me to ask for green card, too.. ;P you guys become rich this way.. by playing penny

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Cogent can go fuck themselves. They deserve no charity from Mr. Leber (or anyone else, for that matter). Cogent was the basis for multiple peering wars over the last 20+ years because of their greediness. Cogent illegally scraped ARIN’s records for contact information for their sales teams.

RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Let me see if I can summarize, tell me where I’m wrong… You: Give me this for free, give me that for free, sponsor me, why isn’t HE giving me something for free, everyone else should spend money to upgrade infrastructure to handle my request for /27, but I shouldn’t have to pay for anything…

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > > As i said before, the future is coming just now. There must be ways to > increase CPU caches and memories of routers. > You continue to misstate and misunderstand the issue. I would suggest you refresh your understanding of the differences between the RIB and FIB in network devices. On

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Volkan, you are confusing routing and forwarding. Elmar. volkan.salih...@gmail.com (VOLKAN SALİH) wrote: > how would you route 800 Gigabit-ethernet that will soon be released as IEEE > standart? > > we were paying 1 usd per megabit several years ago. now it is as low as 4 > usd cent. > > As i

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or following/reading NANOG from archives. I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395) We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Can we get single-homed and dual-homed ASN counts worldwide by somebody here? Checking, https://bgp.he.net/country/US , more than half of networks are either single-homed or dual-homed. single-homed networks do not need full-table, for sure. Dual homed networks need to buy partial transit

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

CGNAT is not worse any more, IMHO. with Endpoint-independent-NAT you can accept incoming connections, as soon as you open the port automatically by sending packet to any host. Then any host can start connection to your host? thats perfect for gamers, streamers, webmasters.. etc.. Allows P2P

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Also keep in mind; single-homed networks never need full-table.. multi-homed networks could also do default routing just packet-mark incoming interface and then route packets out via same interface.. I do not see gain in running BGP full-table, _*excluding*_ networks using Intelligent

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

how would you route 800 Gigabit-ethernet that will soon be released as IEEE standart? we were paying 1 usd per megabit several years ago. now it is as low as 4 usd cent. As i said before, the future is coming just now. There must be ways to increase CPU caches and memories of routers. It

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Thanks for sharing ideas. I respect them all. 29.09.2023 07:31 tarihinde William Herrin yazdı: I think you'll convince the IETF to release the Class-E space before you convince the ISPs to broadly honor sub-/24 prefixes.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

IMO, No. ipv4 is not dead yet. we need to raise it, a bit. EINAT solutions are OK The future will come very quickly, right now. We just need to invest in the internet. 29.09.2023 07:11 tarihinde Owen DeLong yazdı: Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need? Owen On Sep 28, 2023, at

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On Sep 28, 2023, at 22:29, Saku Ytti wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 08:24, William Herrin wrote: > >> Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into >> play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could >> easily be wrong, but if the number

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > > Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into > > play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could > > easily be wrong, but if the number of routes being actively used > > pushes past the CPU data cache, the cache miss rate will go way up and > >

Re: Discord contacts

Hi! Here, now I can open Discord again in my browser. Regards, Uesley Corrêa - Analista de Telecomunicaciones CEO Telecom ISP Solutions / Telecom Trainings LLC On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 8:56 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:33:57PM +, > Drew Weaver wrote > a

Re: Discord contacts

This issue is also happening with services other than Discord, so pointing to a Cloudflare issue. Discord may be just the canary in the coal mine. Rubens On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:34 AM Drew Weaver wrote: > > Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking > 250,000

Re: Discord contacts

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:33:57PM +, Drew Weaver wrote a message of 172 lines which said: > Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking > 250,000 IP addresses. There is an unsubstiantated rumor (based on the fact that, from the same IP address, it works with

Re: Discord contacts

It happens the same to me here. My IP address is blocked by Cloudflare and I can't access Discord. Regards, Uesley Corrêa - Analista de Telecomunicaciones CEO Telecom ISP Solutions / Telecom Trainings LLC On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 8:36 AM Drew Weaver wrote: > Any contacts from Discord here?

RE: Discord contacts

No I think that's actually a perfect reason to ping NANOG. I think if Facebook did this it'd be the same. If you're from Discord and have a clue, reach out to Drew. Le 29 septembre 2023 12:40:03 UTC, Drew Weaver a écrit  : >Apparently most of the Internet has been blocked from Discord,

RE: Discord contacts

Apparently most of the Internet has been blocked from Discord, nevermind carry on. From: NANOG On Behalf Of Drew Weaver Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 8:34 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: Discord contacts Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking 250,000

Discord contacts

Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking 250,000 IP addresses. Thanks, -Drew

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On 9/28/23 23:25, VOLKAN SALİH wrote: hello, I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24.. I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly

RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Well, it depends. The question below was evidently related to business. IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes. If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66, Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming). Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M

ODP: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Hi, For testing/research take a look on dn42.net. Thanks, -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter http://fido.e-utp.net/ AS56662 Od: NANOG w imieniu użytkownika VOLKAN SALİH Wysłane: czwartek, 28 września 2023 23:25 Do: nanog@nanog.org Temat: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix