Hello, list.
Please send me off-list abuse contact for as702.
--
Serg Shubenkov, MAcomnet, Internet Dept., Head of Inet Department
phone: +7 495 7969392/9079, +7 916 5316625, mailto:s...@macomnet.net
icq uin: 101964103, Skype: serg.v.shubenkov
Whois is hard, let's go shopping:
ja...@anna ~ $ whois as701
#
# The following results may also be obtained via:
# http://whois.arin.net/rest/asns;q=as701?showDetails=true
#
ASNumber: 701 - 705
ASName: UUNET
ASHandle: AS701
RegDate:1990-08-03
Updated:
Quick comment:
IGP bloat != BGP bloat. Your customers cannot announce the space you gave
them externally - unless ~/32s, i.e. forced aggregation.
Also, your customers shouldn't need to come back for more very often and
ideally you have some reservations for them a well :).
/TJ
PS - apologies
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010, Cutler James R wrote:
Jack,
I agree that whois is hard. Please explain how you knew to query AS701 when
Serg asked about AS702.
Brainfart. I understand why people confuse 701 with 702.
$ whois -h whois.ripe.net AS702
% Information related to 'AS702'
aut-num:
On 2010-10-26 15:57, Jack Bates wrote:
[..]
Am I missing something, or is this minimalist approach going to cause
issues in BGP the same as v4 did?
You are missing the point of making a proper plan which can justify
address space for your business for the next years.
If done properly, you have
Whois really isn't that hard Maybe reading: ASNumber: 701 - 705 is though..
t...@shitbox:/var/log$ whois a 702 -h whois.arin.net
#
# The following results may also be obtained via:
# http://whois.arin.net/rest/asns;q=702?showDetails=true
#
ASNumber: 701 - 705
ASName: UUNET
In article 4cc62b29.4040...@blastro.com, Alex Thurlow
a...@blastro.com writes
I'm trying to find out if there are currently any resources available
for teaching people how to be safe online. As in, how to not get a
virus, how to pick out phishing emails, how to recognize scams. I'm
sure
On 10/26/2010 9:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You are missing the point of making a proper plan which can justify
address space for your business for the next years.
According to ARIN, initial allocations due NOT allot for growth, only
for the existing infrastructure.
If done properly, you
Well, I whois'd 702, got no match, said hm, I see 701 all over the place,
lemmy take a look and found:
ASNumber: 701 - 705
ASName: UUNET
etc. Sorry, it was left as an exercise to the reader - didn't mean to be
flippant.
-Jack CArrozzo
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Adrian
On 10/26/2010 9:06 AM, TJ wrote:
Quick comment:
IGP bloat != BGP bloat. Your customers cannot announce the space you
gave them externally - unless ~/32s, i.e. forced aggregation.
Still waiting on ARIN to get back to my argument that I am allowed to
assign /32s to my subtending ISPs who are
Must admit I thought what Jack supplied said between AS 701 - 705 which is
MCI/Verizon and correct?
ASNumber: 701 - 705
ASName: UUNET
ASHandle: AS701
RegDate:1990-08-03
Updated:2008-07-24
Ref:http://whois.arin.net/rest/asn/AS701
If you done some
whois on 702(Verizon)
http://www.robtex.com/as/as702.html
goodluck.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Serg Shubenkov s...@macomnet.net wrote:
Hello, list.
Please send me off-list abuse contact for as702.
--
Serg Shubenkov, MAcomnet, Internet Dept., Head of Inet Department
phone: +7 495
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 19:13, Alex Thurlow a...@blastro.com wrote:
I'm trying to find out if there are currently any resources available for
teaching people how to be safe online. As in, how to not get a virus, how
to pick out phishing emails, how to recognize scams. I'm sure everyone on
* Jack Bates:
So, the best that I can tell (still not through debating with RIR),
the IPv6 routing table will see lots of bloat. Here's my reasoning so
far:
1) RIR (ARIN in this case, don't know other RIR interpretations) only
does initial assignments to barely cover the minimum. If you
I am hoping someone can guide me to a internet resource that provides
information
on newly contstructed cell sites and what provider they are affiliated with?
I did some google fu and found a couple sites like antennasearch,towersource
etc
still no joy, in all cases this new tower does not
Well, I'm not sure if there is a database of who is actually colo'ed on a
tower.
But as for who a tower is owned by, The FCC database works. They also have
a cool google earth file that will show you the location of all of them
http://www.fccinfo.com/fccinfo_google_earth.php
Nick Olsen
Network
You didn't miss anything, past ARIN practice has been broken, though using
sparse allocation it is not quite as bad as you project. In any case, ISP's
with more than 10k customers should NEVER get a /32, yet that is what ARIN
insisted on giving even the largest providers in the region. Every ISP
Totally agree.
In IPv6, polices are in some RIRs and MUST be in all them, balancing
conservation and aggregation, but in case of conflict aggregation is the top
priority.
I can read it at the NRPM:
6.3.8. Conflict of goals
The goals described above will often conflict with each other, or with
On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:06 AM, TJ wrote:
Quick comment:
IGP bloat != BGP bloat. Your customers cannot announce the space you gave
them externally - unless ~/32s, i.e. forced aggregation.
He's talking about the bloat that comes from ISPs getting slow-started and then
only being able to
You may find this site helpful:
http://www.cellreception.com/towers/
---rsk
I am hoping someone can guide me to a internet resource that provides
information
on newly contstructed cell sites and what provider they are affiliated with?
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchGeographic.jsp
You can do a coordinate search among other things.
Note .. this
dusty old routers with ram problems...
solution there: re-think the way you do your routing and compare the price
of ram versus cpu cycles. (as well as having custom hardware developed to
do it on, intel simply does not offer enough address bus lines to maintain
bigass tables and address them
On 26/10/2010 17:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
He's talking about the bloat that comes from ISPs getting slow-started and then
only being able to increase their network in increments of 2x each time, so,
effectively ISP gets:
[...]
Probably not quite as bad as IPv4, but, potentially close.
In
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes it
possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it may
seem.
Except, if you are given bare minimums, and you are assigning out to
subtending ISPs bare
On 26/10/2010 18:19, Jack Bates wrote:
My minimum /30 allocation per ARIN met a /27 in HD-Ratio thresholds. To not
be given the threshold space means no reservations for subtending ISPs, no
room for subtending ISPs to grow, and multiple assignments. If ARIN only
does /29 boundaries, I'll also be
I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries.
My personal opinion is that it should be even more sparse, and that allocations
should be done on nibble boundaries. Any reasonably-sized ISP should get at
least a /28.
I deal with many small-ish ISPs, and most are 5,000-10,000
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote:
Well, I whois'd 702, got no match, said hm, I see 701 all over the place,
lemmy take a look and found:
There is a match... I think WHOIS as702 is erroneous WHOIS query syntax,
typing asX not being the way to search
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it
may
seem.
Except, if you are given bare minimums, and you are
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
The folks at NRC in Canada will do cryptographically authenticated NTP
with you for an annual fee. I have no idea if there is something
Robert,
Thanks for the shout. NRC does do this, more info here:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 21:19, Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 21:19, Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate
On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate subsequent
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Randy Carpenter
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
On 10/26/2010 1:01 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Wait... If you are issuing space
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 14:20, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
On 10/26/2010 1:01 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Wait... If you are issuing space to ISPs that are multihomed, they
should be getting their
2. RIPE has always issued PI space to LIRs (ISPs are by
definition LIRs).
ISPs are not per-se LIRs.
LIRs register IP space on behalf of customers
customers that do not make delegations themselves (i'm quite sure you
don't put each and every one of your access customers into
HAHA that would totally make the MAFIAA's day...
entering all your dialup and adsl customers into whois as they would be
end users :P quite sure the EU would not agree on that definition of
what constitutes an end-user, and therefore, its quite possible to provide
access services on PI space
Shared hosting ISPs also do not make subdelegations and generally
don't
even uses the ips on a one-specific-customer-per-ip basis.
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did they get it without going to an RIR and
paying a fee?
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, George Bonser wrote:
To: Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net
Shared hosting ISPs also do not make subdelegations and generally
don't
even uses the ips on a one-specific-customer-per-ip basis.
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did they
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 14:45, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
Shared hosting ISPs also do not make subdelegations and generally
don't
even uses the ips on a one-specific-customer-per-ip basis.
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did they get it
eh don't know about you americans but here in europe you just go to a LIR
and ask them to register an AS for you.
there are ofcourse maintenance fees nowadays.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, George Bonser wrote:
Shared hosting ISPs also do not make subdelegations and generally
don't
even uses the
We also have various customers that only obtain LIR registration services
and have no network links whatsoever with us (so just PI and/or AS
registration, no transit or whatever)
which -is- what a LIR does.. operating a network has nothing to do with
being a LIR per-se.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010,
On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:45 PM, George Bonser wrote:
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did they get it without going to an RIR and
paying a fee?
I beleive Jack said that they have redundant connections to his network. I
took that to mean that they did not
On 10/26/2010 2:26 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
This is actually not that uncommon. You see it a lot in the smaller
level. I had several such clients at my last job. They want to be
multi-homed for redundancy, but either don't have enough space, or
don't want to pay full time people, so they use a
what's the problem anyway
with 32bit ASN's there should be enough AS namespace to give everyone that
wants to multihome their ipv6/ipv4 PI their own AS number...
should pretty much be the de-facto standard (unless ofcourse you want to
tie your customers to your internet-provider-activities
Why would the assumption be the ISP = knowledgeable or even caring about
RIRs, etc.?
When I started my ISP 6 years ago I knew someone issued IP addresses to
my upstream provider, but I really didn't care who that was. The
upstream took care of everything related to getting and assigning
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:45:45PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
Well, get space from one of your providers, and an LOA
to get the other to announce the deaggregate for you.
Or they've got legacy space, and never had an AS; just
get their
From: Chris Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:08 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
I beleive Jack said that they have redundant connections to his
network. I took that to mean that they did not multihome to different
AS.
Ok, that is where my mental
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:19:30 -0500
Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes it
possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it may
seem.
Except, if you
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:25:39 -0400
Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net wrote:
Why would the assumption be the ISP = knowledgeable or even caring about
RIRs, etc.?
When I started my ISP 6 years ago I knew someone issued IP addresses to
my upstream provider, but I really didn't care who that was.
I think APNIC has a policy that defines the minimum IPv6 allocation based on
your current IPv4 allocation/usage. This would fix the problem?
- Original Message -
From: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net
To: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October,
It would be nice as a start, but does not really take into consideration future
expansion needs.
I would think that you could draw some parallels, though.
Something like:
v4 /16 ~ v6 /32
v4 /12 ~ v6 /28
v4 /8 ~ v6 /24
I know it we don't want to equate v4 and v6, but it may help as a
Yes indeed, but you don't have to justify much if you only ask for the minimum,
if you want more you need to ask...
Also, and this I like less, your membership is calculated from the number of
IPs you have... I think in short $$=max(1180x1.3(log2(Addresses in
/32)-8),Feev6 =
It's very interesting to me that wee keep discussing RIRs other than ARIN when
talking about allocation policies and issues for NANOG.
The NA in NANOG puts the vast majority of it within the ARIN service region. The
only other RIR which has territory within NA has not even been mentioned until
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
To: Franck Martin fra...@genius.com
Cc: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net, nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 11:48:58 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
It's very interesting to me that wee
On Oct 25, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Alex Thurlow wrote:
I'm trying to find out if there are currently any resources available for
teaching people how to be safe online. As in, how to not get a virus, how to
pick out phishing emails, how to recognize scams. I'm sure everyone on this
list knows
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 05:48:13PM -0400, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Someone who Randy didn't attribute wrote:
I think APNIC has a policy that defines the minimum IPv6 allocation
based on your current IPv4 allocation/usage. This would fix the
problem?
It would be nice as a start, but does not
So, the best that I can tell (still not through debating with RIR), the
IPv6 routing table will see lots of bloat.
96 more bits, no magic
Also the FTC has set up a comprehensive site to protect kids, including a
guide for parents on kid's use of social networks.
http://www.onguardonline.gov/
j
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:04 PM, J.D. Falk jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.orgwrote:
On Oct 25, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Alex Thurlow wrote:
I'm
The Membership WG has created a new draft for the community to review and
discuss.
This draft is not intended to be language for bylaw amendment. Once general
consensus is reached on the membership policies work will begin on writing
language for bylaw amendment where necessary.
The
60 matches
Mail list logo
