On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:02:56AM -0400, Day Domes wrote:
What is the name of the mailing list for Network Operators Europe?
The closest one to that is RIPE's European Operators Forum WG mailing
list, but that one has zero traffic.
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/eof/index.html
Best regards,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 02:10:56PM -0800, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
Sprint keeps telling us they do not yet support IPv6.
http://www.sprintv6.net/sprintlink_ipv6_overview.html
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- d...@ircnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:22:41PM -0700, Khurram Khan wrote:
I'm seeing some packet loss out of one of my routers in San Diego, we peer
with L3.
ping 4.69.132.57 so gi3/8 repeat 1000 size 5000
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 1000, 5000-byte ICMP Echos to 4.69.132.57, timeout is 2
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:13:53PM -0500, Lars Carter wrote:
From an technical, operational, and security standpoint what would be the
preferred way to route traffic between these two networks?
Static routing - at least on the direct link. For extra security, you
might want to make sure that
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:05:54AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Juniper EX4500 has 40 fixed SFP/SFP+ ports plus 2 uplink modules that
can contain 4 SFP/SFP+ ports each for a total of 48 10GBASE-X ports.
Be aware, that IGMP snooping breaks some(!) IPv6 multicast (e.g.
DHCPv6). Affects whole
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:33:43PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:05:54AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Juniper EX4500 has 40 fixed SFP/SFP+ ports plus 2 uplink modules that
can contain 4 SFP/SFP+ ports each for a total of 48 10GBASE-X ports.
Be aware, that IGMP
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:43:35PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it)
Welcome to the life of being a network operator. :)
That's called carrier grade these days by all those vendors! :-)
SCNR,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber:
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 06:52:07AM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
Not disagreeing, I've never met this device, just curious about the
problem and wondering if it is a generic class of problem.
Is this device supposed to be IPv6-capable?
We're using EX switches currently only in L2-only roles,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:07:26AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
Double NAT prevents most of the work arounds working.
And quite important for residential ISPs of some size: have fun teaching
your call centers diagnosing double-NAT failure modes.
NAT444 is a hell I don't want to visit really.
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 06:01:46PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests,
Any pointers to study reports etc. heartly welcome.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 04:42:01PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually Comcast is willing to give out more than a /64 to a home,
they're waiting for the CPE to catch up.
Catch up to what? Are there dualstack CPE routers out there only able to
handle /64 prefix delegation?
I expect that they
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 04:49:55PM -0500, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
If only Cisco would sell software only support.
They do. You might have to make your sales droid know that YOU know
about it thought. :-)
Order items were CON-SW-... in the past, not sure about today.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Jeff Hartley wrote:
It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various
CPEs default to on the public-facing side. In the NetGear WNDR3700's
case after upgrading its firmware, options were included for:
Disabled (default)
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:30:31PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
GTLD -- Global Top Level Domain -- A domain which contains records for
entities not restricted
to a particular geographical area.
s/Global/Generic/
The G in GTLD is Global... I'm not asserting anything, it's flat out in the
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 05:55:53PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
The lack of NTP and certain other options in SLAAC is still a
disappointment and I would argue that a fully matured SLAAC process
would include a mechanism for specifying extensible choices of things.
That's O=1 and stateless DHCPv6.
On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 03:18:56PM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 1:48 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote:
Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical
internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes.
Anecdote. Sub-millasecond, with full
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:55:51AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I also find it a bit strange that the runout in APNIC and RIPE was very
different. APNIC address allocation rate accelerated at the end, whereas
RIPE exhaustion date kept creeping forward in time instead of closer in
time,
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 02:13:38PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Rather than simply double the size and break it
up into 32:32, the designers reserved the top 16 bits for type and
subtype attributes, leaving you only 48 bits to work with. Clearly the
only suitable mapping for support of
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:04:46PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
We've been using the MX-es as border routers for some time now. It's a
role that suits them very well in my opinion, no problems at all so far.
Caveat: no MAC accounting on LAGs (IEEE speak) / Aggregated Ethernet (Juniper
speak) /
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 03:34:36PM +0100, Ferretti Antonio wrote:
After upgrading Juniper MX960 from 4x10Gbe DPCE to 16x10Gbe MPC, I see
strange log messages like this:
Fpc10 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry 22
Seems to be only a cosmetic message,
PR/593386 and others. Wenth
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 07:30:17PM +, Dave Hart wrote:
42 THINK-AS [BJN1]
[BJN1]Bruce Nemnich TMC b...@mit-mc.arpa
I have no idea which registry was maintaining AS number registrations
when AS42 changed hands. I suppose it's
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:27:55PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Unfortunately, there are some ISPs that believe this is the right thing to do.
Some go so far as to claim that scrambling customer prefixes is a mechanism
to help insure customer privacy.
s/ISPs/governments, privacy people and
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:38:44AM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
1) is Cisco sending NS packets?
Yes.
2) is your Juniper receiving them?
It does not appear to. Tracing v6 stuff on juniper seems to be hit or miss.
[...]
Any switch on the path?
It is an L2 circuit that rides a
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
You might want to give this a read:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt
That doesn't really help us if we want to deploy before that draft
becomes a standard.
Well, it more or less
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:31:25AM +, Brzozowski, John wrote:
Are there any DHCPv6 servers currently that actually function in a
fashion that is suitable for service providers?
Without specifying your requirements, that's hard to say. If you're
looking for fully state-sync'ed DHCPv6
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 09:07:57PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
OK, I'll bite. What would qualify as a native IPv6 router?
Perhaps those which were designed with IPv4+IPv6 in mind from day 1,
both in hardware and software - like Juniper/JUNOS. In contrast to other
the gear where IPv6
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:23:20PM -0800, Rafael Rodriguez wrote:
You can do the same with Junos (calling a 'generic' policy as a
sub-routine).
You cannot pass parameters.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:25:06AM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
So...operators...what do *you* think the correct
definition is? And which way would you prefer
your router vendors to read RFC4291?
I would expect them to follow 2.4, even if the current spec says that
the 54 bits between /10 and
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 07:52:29AM -0600, Dave Temkin wrote:
Just to close the loop on this - UltraDNS has an issue with CNAMEs and
their Directional DNS service. We (Netflix) have applied a workaround and
it appears stable.
Hm, looking at http://v6launch.ripe.net/, whatever you changed
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 04:43:41PM -0700, David Temkin wrote:
What do you mean? www.netflix.com is dual stacked, which represents
availability of our website (and PC/Mac streaming clients) to100% of our
users who have IPv6.
The zero TTL on the CNAME an RRs makes www.netflix.com
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:19:10AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
The zero TTL on the CNAME an RRs makes www.netflix.com
zero-stacked at least for some resolvers:
Correction... I don't really know wether the zero TTL on the CNAME
provokes problems, but not returning any RR on ANY RRtype
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:11:20PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
$ dig @pdns3.ultradns.org www.netflix.com. A +norec +short
wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com.
$ dig @pdns3.ultradns.org www.netflix.com. +norec +short
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE
why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my
peers, but anyone here
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:35:51AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If it does, that's bad... You should never see IPv4 mapped addresses
on the wire.
... and some networks filter packets with source address in the mapped
range, so traceroute will be broken for 6PE intermediate P hops.
Best regards,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 01:45:54PM -0400, Derek Ivey wrote:
This is exactly the issue comcast6.net is currently experiencing :).
They seem to be blocking ICMP completely and that is causing my HE
IPv6 tunnel to be unable to access their site from a browser.
I've recently came across a
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:53:46PM -0600, devang patel wrote:
Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network?
Unfortunately noone of the major vendors have yet implemented MPLS
control plane via IPv6 transport. From my understanding, the protocol
specs are there, just no
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:33:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
Cisco 6500/7600 with SUP720-3BXL handles 1mil routes
If I remember correctly, using certain function(s) like e.g. uRPF
halves this value (in FIB).
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- d...@ircnet -- PGP:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:31:25PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
a quite expensive advanced licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
included in the base licence.
Interesting. So much for their IPv6 doesn't cost extra
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:05:59PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Some older equipment will unequally prefer certain links over others,
depending on the number of members in the LAG. I.e. a 2-member LAG might
load balance equally under ideal conditions, but a 3-member LAG might
naturally load
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 07:45:20AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I.e. a 2-member LAG might load balance equally under ideal conditions,
but a 3-member LAG might naturally load balance 2:2:1.
Even newer gear does that. TurboIron 24X for example.
I believe this has been fixed on s/w
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 08:25:59PM +, john.herb...@usc-bt.com wrote:
Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] spake:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
This does rather assume that users can access Google/Bing (both IPv6
day participants) to search for a solution to the problems
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:48:52PM -0400, Joly MacFie wrote:
What seems evident, looking at
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/06/monitoring-world-ipv6-day/ is that a
lot of folks switched it on - and then switched it off again pretty damn
quick!
I'd attribute that spike to people actively
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives
Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in
an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see
RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:34:25PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
Cisco has had MLD snooping support for some time. But they seem to
have broken it in a recent release, so it drops ND traffic and breaks
IPv6; been after them to fix it, but doesn't look like it's been
resolved yet.
Nice. Juniper
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Jeff Hartley wrote:
We've been using two workarounds:
1. Separate DNS resolvers (both BIND 9.8; one DNS64 and the other
DNS6). Have the client provisioning system assign the appropriate DNS
server IPs (dual-stack to anycast set 1, v6-only to anycast
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:29:47AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
DS-lite and NAT444 don't break existing applications.
They do, to different degrees. There is plenty of evidence for that.
Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives
Pick your poison. :-)
Best regards,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:41:17PM -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
VRRPv3 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5798) is still a bit broken
in that it makes mention of MUST advertise RA's
That's unintentional as per recent discussion on IETF VRRP mailing list
where I seeked for clarification as JUNOS
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:12:26PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
You must have RA to at least tell you:
Default Router
Go ask the DHCP server (M and/or O bit)
As it currently stands, an RFC-compliant host will not attempt to solicit
a DHCP response unless it receives an RA with the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:05:14AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
You tell named to listen on IPv6 (listen-on-v6). It already uses IPv6
to make queries unless you turned it off on the command line with named -4.
To go IPv6 only on a dual stack machine use named -6.
You add records to the
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:18:37AM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Also, one can argue that a dynamic prefix facilitates privacy
In Germany, there is significant political pushback against the idea to
give residential mom+pop static prefixed for that very reason.
I seriously doubt that any
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:57:44AM +, Franck Martin wrote:
I'm using a GRE IPv4 tunnel between a cisco and linux machines
Can you mail:
IOS:
- sh run int TuX
- sh int TuX | i MTU
- sh ip int TuX | i MTU
Linux:
- output of /sbin/ip link show greX (or whatever your GRE interface is
named)
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic meeting
in busan. real mesurements. sufficiently scary that people who were
heavily pushing nat444
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:06:11PM -0400,
jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com wrote:
I had the same question. I found Miyakawa-san's presentation has some
dramatic examples of CGN NAT444 effects using Google Maps:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 02:11:24AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
I thought AS-plain notation was the standard for 4-byte
ASN's?
as-plain is not the standard per se.
RFC5396 on as-plain is on track becoming one.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet --
Just send your request to the all-gods well-known multicast group.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 05:20:48PM +, Kain, Rebecca (.) wrote:
Which one?
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of ra...@psg.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 1:00 PM
To:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 01:26:37PM -0400, Ryan Shea wrote:
video loading takes frever on Android/Chromecast/GoogleTV
(which hints that happy eyeballs, if it exists for Android, isn't
working so well for the YouTube app).
Happy Eyeballs is only about TCP session setup race, not how the
57 matches
Mail list logo
