Re: /27 the new /24

On 12 Oct 2015, at 11:23, Todd Underwood wrote: it's also not entirely obvious what the point of having local IXes that serve these kinds of collections of people. I think that's true. But I don't think it's always the case this means there is no point. When Citylink (incubated by the

Re: /27 the new /24

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Todd Underwood wrote: > > it's also not entirely obvious what the point of having local IXes > that serve these kinds of collections of people. > > how much inter-ASN traffic is there generally for a city of 100k > people, even if they all

Re: /27 the new /24

it's also not entirely obvious what the point of having local IXes that serve these kinds of collections of people. how much inter-ASN traffic is there generally for a city of 100k people, even if they all have 1Gb/s connections? are they all torrenting, accessing local business web pages that

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/12/15 1:57 AM, Henrik Thostrup Jensen wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Jeremy Austin wrote: > >> Juneau, I'm not so surprised; how many other cities that small and >> isolated >> have IXes? I'm curious. It's an interesting prospect, at least for some >> value of $location. > > Several small

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Jeremy Austin wrote: Juneau, I'm not so surprised; how many other cities that small and isolated have IXes? I'm curious. It's an interesting prospect, at least for some value of $location. Several small cities in Sweden have IXes. Not sure than any of them are quite as

Re: /27 the new /24

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Todd Underwood wrote: > it's also not entirely obvious what the point of having local IXes > that serve these kinds of collections of people. > one might consider that localized services or peer-to-peer traffic might not want to burden the

Re: /27 the new /24

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Todd Underwood wrote: > all, > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Todd Underwood wrote: >>> it's also not entirely obvious what

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/09/2015 05:22 AM, Lee Howard wrote: NO, THERE IS NOT. We operate in rural and underserved areas and WE DO NOT HAVE realistic choices. Can you see me from your ivory tower? I looked up tiedyenetworks.com, and I think he¹s 100 miles from Sacramento. I hope some sales person from a transit

Re: /27 the new /24

all, On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Todd Underwood wrote: >> it's also not entirely obvious what the point of having local IXes >> that serve these kinds of collections of people. >> >

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/12/15, 1:49 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike" wrote: > >Thats not even the half of it. > >My personal heroics in solving the connectivity problem here, is that we >became a CLEC in order to take the bull on by the short and

Re: /27 the new /24

On 12 October 2015 at 19:49, Mike wrote: > No, it's not going to help. v6 over current wireless doesn't work for the > reasons that multicast is a gaping hole. Why is IPv6 multicast any different than IPv4 broadcast (required for ARP and many other things)? If

Re: /27 the new /24

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Todd Underwood wrote: > > you already know that that's not how the internet in the rural west works. > it's fine. smile and nod and pretend that they are making sensible claims > and move back to trying to figure out how to make things

Re: /27 the new /24

As Jeremy has described in detail, the problem is at OSI layer 1. Not a lack of peering exchanges such as the VANIX. There is no dark fiber route from Alaska via the Yukon to Vancouver. I know where most of the Telus (ILEC) and Northwestel (Bell) fiber is in northern BC and none of interconnects

Re: /27 the new /24

In general, most of NANOG recipients live in the populated metros and know very little about what it's like to try to provide internet access in the hinterlands. do not pay attention to there magical claims of 'just connect to some IX and everything will be fine'. you already know that that's

Re: /27 the new /24

> >>Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of > >>things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I > >>do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get > >>IPv6 transit, > > > >There are lots of transit providers that provide

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > The future is here, but it isn't evenly distributed yet. I'm in North > America, but there are no IXPs in my *state*, let alone in my *continent* > -- from an undersea fiber perspective. There is no truly competitive IP >

Re: /27 the new /24

est-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaus...@gmail.com> To: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org, "James Jun" <ja...@towardex.com> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 3:51:12 PM Subject: Re: /27 the

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/8/15, 6:45 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike" wrote: > > >On 10/08/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >> Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of >> things to implement, but the barriers are

Re: /27 the new /24

- From: "Jason Baugher" <ja...@thebaughers.com> To: "James Jun" <ja...@towardex.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 7:21:05 PM Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 This thread, while originally interesting and helpful, see

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/08/2015 07:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it over IPv6 it is that long ago. It happens every day for me, which only amplifies my perception that v6 IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. Yet you refuse to troubleshoot your issues with

Re: /27 the new /24

--- morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: From: Christopher Morrow ... and trying to jam your favorite flavor of spam down the other person's throat is only going to make them hate hawaii. -- FYI... :-)

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Jeremy Austin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Jun wrote: > >> >> If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a transport >> circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Mike wrote: > > On 10/08/2015 07:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it over >> IPv6 it is that long ago. >>> It happens every day for me, which only amplifies my

Re: /27 the new /24

(I'm going to regret this but...) On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Mike wrote: > On 10/08/2015 07:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> >> I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it over >> IPv6 it is that long ago. >>> >>> It happens every day

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/09/2015 08:18 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: (I'm going to regret this but...) No good deed ever goes unpunished. (I'm sure there's a Dune quote to be used here somewhere as well...) Indeed: "A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to delivering IPv6. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the time the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses.

Re: /27 the new /24

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:49:44 -0400, Matthew Kaufman said: > > > > On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > > I don't have to. I'm sure some AG will do so soon enough. > > There's always an optimist around. > > Good luck with that. And I happened to get a big

Re: /27 the new /24

In message <56166c30.3070...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes: > > > On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone pointing > > out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to delivering > > IPv6. *Every* ISP should have

Re: /27 the new /24

Around 2004 I noted that the fear was without v4 something in the network would break. (It was considered crazy then to consider v6 only). Now I'm seeing concern that something in the applications will break. The difference is that networks can't guarantee to push static IPv4 to those problems

Re: /27 the new /24

On Thu, 10/8/15, Mark Andrews wrote: > This is today's reality and ISP's are not meeting > today's needs. > It's not just about > having enough IPv4 addresses. It's about > providing the infrastructure to allow your > customers to

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/08/2015 06:14 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to delivering IPv6. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the

Re: /27 the new /24

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:45:38PM -0700, Mike wrote: > > NO, THERE IS NOT. We operate in rural and underserved areas and WE DO > NOT HAVE realistic choices. Can you see me from your ivory tower? Who is your upstream provider? I think you're confused on how the IP transit industry works. If

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/08/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get IPv6 transit, There are lots of

Re: /27 the new /24

In message <561699f3.1070...@tiedyenetworks.com>, Mike writes: > On 10/08/2015 06:14 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > > > > On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > >> I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone > >> pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late

Re: /27 the new /24

This thread, while originally interesting and helpful, seems to have degraded to a contest to see who can be the most arrogant, condescending and insulting. Congrats. On Oct 8, 2015 6:25 PM, "James Jun" wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:45:38PM -0700, Mike wrote: > > > >

Re: /27 the new /24

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Jun wrote: > > If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a transport > circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data center. Once > you do that, you will suddenly find that virtually almost everyone in

Re: /27 the new /24

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:45:38 -0400, Mike wrote: WE DO NOT HAVE realistic choices. Or, apparently, realistic expectations. You, do, indeed, deserve public shaming for your complete lack of willingness to support IPv6. Your customers have no "realistic

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Mark Andrews wrote: Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get IPv6 transit, There are lots of transit

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/08/2015 05:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: You are an ISP. You don't get to say "NO!" to IPv6. It is what the global internet is moving towards. You _WILL_ support it, or you will be left behind, and your customers who have little or no other options will suffer for it. ISP == "Internet Service

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Mike wrote: > > > > On 10/08/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >> Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of >> things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I >> do have an

Re: /27 the new /24

In message <56172237.5030...@satchell.net>, Stephen Satchell writes: > On 10/08/2015 05:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: > > You are an ISP. You don't get to say "NO!" to IPv6. It is what the > > global internet is moving towards. You _WILL_ support it, or you will be > > left behind, and your customers

Re: /27 the new /24

In message <520ce953-012c-4599-a85b-69517e090...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman w rites: >> >> >> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >> In message , Matthew >> Kaufman w >> rites: >>> >>> On Oct 7, 2015, at

Re: /27 the new /24

Here is a quick starting point for filtering IPv6 on a Linux host system if you don't feel comfortable opening up all ICMPv6 traffic: http://soucy.org/tmp/v6firewall/ip6tables.txt I haven't really re-visited it in a while, so if I'm forgetting something let me know. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:13

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > I don't have to. I'm sure some AG will do so soon enough. There's always an optimist around. Good luck with that. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)

Re: /27 the new /24

We know. I recommend you read the whole thread before reacting. -mel beckman > On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: >> >> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 10/04/2015 06:40 AM, Matthias Leisi wrote: >> Fully agree. But the current state of IPv6 outside "professional“ >> networks/devices is sincerely limited by a lot of poor CPE and >> consumer device implementations. >

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Mel Beckman wrote: > >> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to >> support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. > > Go tell cisco that. IIRC, the first

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to > support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. Not true. IPSec is recommended, not mandatory. This change was made in favor of

Re: /27 the new /24

In message , Matthew Kaufman w rites: > > > > On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Instead, the followup question is needed=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s g > = > reat, but how does that help

Re: /27 the new /24

On 7 Oct 2015, at 9:29, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an IPv4 address?” At the present time, a web

Re: /27 the new /24

Memory footprint is still an issue in lots of things like ESP8266 (which doesn’t yet support IPv6, but hopefully will soon). Not everything is a cell phone or larger. There are lots of cool new things coming out in the SoC world where you’ve got a micro controller, GPIOs, CAN, SPI, WiFi, and

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that > help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an IPv4 address?” > > Owen > At the present time, a web site that doesn't have

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > >> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> >> >> Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that >> help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t

Re: /27 the new /24

This is excellent feedback, thank you. On 10/07/2015 04:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: My bookshelf is full of books describing IPv4. Saying "IPv6 just works" ignores the issues of configuring intelligent firewalls to block

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/07/2015 06:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an IPv4 address?” At the present time, a web

Re: /27 the new /24

On Wednesday, 7 October, 2015 12:54, "Owen DeLong" said: > There are some important differences for ICMP (don’t break PMTU-D or ND), > but otherwise, really not much difference between your IPv4 security policy > and > your IPv6 security policy. The IPv4 world would have been

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message , Matthew Kaufman > w > rites: >> >> >>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> Instead, the followup

Re: /27 the new /24

Keep in mind that IPv6 has IPSec VPN built into the protocol. It doesn't need to be in the router. Unlike IPv4, where the IPSec VPN protocol is an add-on, optional service, with IPv6 it's built into every device, because IPsec is a mandatory component for IPv6, and therefore, the IPsec

Re: /27 the new /24

If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. There's really no excuse for not supporting IPSec, as it's a widely available open source component that costs nothing to incorporate into an IPv6 stack.

Re: /27 the new /24

Randy, Your claim is a red herring. IPSec has nothing to do with IPv6 deployment. Deployment doesn't require global IPSec, which need only reside in endpoint nodes. It's not needed at all in the routjg and distribution infrastructure, which is where deployment happens The vast majority of

Re: /27 the new /24

Hi, > Op 4 okt. 2015, om 16:52 heeft Mel Beckman het volgende > geschreven: > > If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to > support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. I think you're still looking at an old version of the

Re: /27 the new /24

> Building a secure firewall takes more than just knowing how to issue > ip6table commands; one also needs to know exactly what goes into those > commands. NANOG concentrates on network operators who need to provide a > good Internet experience to all their downstream customers, which is why I >

Re: /27 the new /24

I recommend any of a number of online courses for a quick understanding of IPv6. But nothing beats making your own IPv6 lab and getting hands-on experience. Here's a course I built walking you through that process: http://windowsitpro.com/build-your-own-ipv6-lab-and-become-ipv6-guru-demand

Re: /27 the new /24

> Keep in mind that IPv6 has IPSec VPN built into the protocol. yet another ipv6 fantasy. it may be in the powerpoint but it is not in the implementations.

Re: /27 the new /24

> Keep in mind that IPv6 has IPSec VPN built into the protocol. It doesn't need > to be in the router. > > Unlike IPv4, where the IPSec VPN protocol is an add-on, optional service, > with IPv6 it's built into every device, because IPsec is a mandatory > component for IPv6, and therefore, the

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/04/2015 06:40 AM, Matthias Leisi wrote: Fully agree. But the current state of IPv6 outside "professional“ networks/devices is sincerely limited by a lot of poor CPE and consumer device implementations. I have to ask: where is the book _IPv6 for Dummies_ or equivalent? Specifically, is

Re: /27 the new /24

i give < plonk >

Re: /27 the new /24

> One or more of these things will be the death of IPv4: IPv4 will not die, it will be superseded by something better :) What I have found to be the greatest obstacle to IPv6 adoption is the state of IPv6 support in various types of CPEs / network equipment. The support is mostly OK in

Re: /27 the new /24

> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. by that criterion, ipv6 deployment is effectively zero

Re: /27 the new /24

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Mel Beckman wrote: If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. Go tell cisco that. IIRC, the first network I dual-stacked, I was kind of surprised when I found I could not use

Re: /27 the new /24

What Cisco routers, and what vintage IOS, are you finding have no IPSec support? I've not run into that problem. -mel beckman > On Oct 4, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: > >> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Mel Beckman wrote: >> >> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really

Re: /27 the new /24

On 04/10/2015 16:03, Randy Bush wrote: > yet another ipv6 fantasy. it may be in the powerpoint but it is not in > the implementations. the ipsec tickbox was removed from ipv6 in rfc6434 (2011). Nick

Re: /27 the new /24

Stefann, You're right. I remember hearing rumblings of vendors requesting this change, mostly because embedded processors of the time had difficulty performing well with IPv6. I see that in 2011 rfc6434 lowered IPSec from "must" to "should". Nevertheless, plenty of products produced before

Re: /27 the new /24

sup720-3bxl, but this was a number of years ago. I don't recall the exact version. It was probably 12.2SXI-something. On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Mel Beckman wrote: What Cisco routers, and what vintage IOS, are you finding have no IPSec support? I've not run into that problem. -mel beckman

Re: /27 the new /24

A lot has changed since 12.2 :) I believe all shipping gear supports IPSec in IPv6. -mel beckman > On Oct 4, 2015, at 11:48 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: > > sup720-3bxl, but this was a number of years ago. I don't recall the exact > version. It was probably 12.2SXI-something.

Re: /27 the new /24

The race is on… One or more of these things will be the death of IPv4: 1. Not enough addresses 2. Routing Table Bloat due to one or more of: A. Traffic Engineering B. Stupid configuration C. Address

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote: > However, what do we do about the new networks which > want to do BGP but only can get small allocations from > someone (either a RIR or one of their upstreams)? Hi Justin, Rent or sell them a /24 and make money. If

Re: /27 the new /24

in Wilson - MTIN" <li...@mtin.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 9:48:33 AM Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 A /24 isn't that expensive yet... Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Oct 2, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN <li...@

Re: /27 the new /24

Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matt...@matthew.at> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 10:48:29 AM Subject: Re: /27

Re: /27 the new /24

g Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matt...@matthew.at> > To: "Justin Wilson - MTIN" <li...@mtin.net> >

Re: /27 the new /24

On 2 Oct 2015, at 10:50, Mike Hammett wrote: If someone's network can't match that today, should I really have any pity for them? In my view, no. Hardware-based routers with sufficient RIB/FIB/TCAM are table-stakes for edge connectivity. But it's easy for me to spend other people's money.

Re: /27 the new /24

Besides which more than one provider filters by a minimum prefix length per /8 - wasn't Swisscom or someone similar doing that? So multi homing with even a /24 is somewhat patchy in terms of effectiveness --srs > On 02-Oct-2015, at 8:54 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> On

Re: /27 the new /24

A /24 isn't that expensive yet... Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Oct 2, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote: > > I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were talking > about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept

Re: /27 the new /24

In a message written on Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:47:31AM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote: > Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are not > filtering out anything shorter than /24? My expectation is that they are > dropping shorter than /24, just like I am. Not exactly, but it's

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > Bill, I see where I went wrong now that I went back and re-read your > comment. I was conflating "longer" and "shorter". Thanks for your patience > on this trying Friday. Hi Jason, No sweat. Bit of an interesting

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router > I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If > someone's network can't match that today, should I really have > any pity for them? Hi Mike, The

Re: /27 the new /24

t; Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router > I bought ten years ago

Re: /27 the new /24

There would be a default route sure - but the filter simply means that if your packets from say a src IP in a level 3 /24 (where the minimum alloc size was what, /20) wouldn't go through if you sent them though say a cogent interface --srs > On 02-Oct-2015, at 10:04 PM, William Herrin

Re: /27 the new /24

Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are not filtering out anything shorter than /24? My expectation is that they are dropping shorter than /24, just like I am. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every *NOG BGP best practices document I've read has advocated dropping all

Re: /27 the new /24

On Oct 2, 2015 12:47 PM, "Jason Baugher" wrote: > > Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are not filtering out anything shorter than /24? My expectation is that they are dropping shorter than /24, just like I am. You mean longer. A /16 is shorter

Re: /27 the new /24

Bill, I see where I went wrong now that I went back and re-read your comment. I was conflating "longer" and "shorter". Thanks for your patience on this trying Friday. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2015 12:47 PM, "Jason Baugher"

Re: /27 the new /24

On 02/10/15 15:32, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote: > I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were > talking about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept > prefixes smaller than a /24. A few were saying they thought about > going down to as small as a /27. This was

Re: /27 the new /24

My incorrect verbiage aside, what did you think about the question I asked? On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2015 12:47 PM, "Jason Baugher" wrote: > > > > Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Besides which more than one provider filters by a minimum prefix length > per /8 - wasn't Swisscom or someone similar doing that? So multi > homing with even a /24 is somewhat patchy in terms of effectiveness

Re: /27 the new /24

* t...@ninjabadger.net (Tom Hill) [Fri 02 Oct 2015, 18:34 CEST]: Any RIR - or LIR - that considers allocating space in sizes smaller than a /24 (for the purpose of announcing to the DFZ) would do well to read this report from RIPE Labs:

Re: /27 the new /24

There are lots of transits that will take le 32 on their customers inbound but filter le 24 on egress announcements. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are not > filtering out anything

Re: /27 the new /24

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Hammett > Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 20:38 > An: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Betreff: Re: /27 the new /24 > > Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degre

Re: /27 the new /24

//www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mel Beckman" <m...@beckman.org> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 2:22:29 PM

Re: /27 the new /24

gt; > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > - Original Message - > > From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> > To:

Re: /27 the new /24

telligent Computing Solutions > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> >

  1   2   >