December 2005 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Addressing versus Routing (Was: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter)
by Andrew Dul 22 Dec '05

22 Dec '05

> -------Original Message------- > From: Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com > Subject: Re: Addressing versus Routing (Was: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter) > Sent: 22 Dec '05 03:55 > > > The RIRs have not made any decisions yet about offering > geotop addresses, but 7/8 of the IPv6 address space has > been reserved for different types of allocation schemes. > I believe that geotop addresses or something similar, > will eventually be offered by ARIN and the other RIRs. > In order to get to that point, small and mid-sized companies > need to make their voices heard. > This is not solely a RIR decision, creating a geotopo address space would likely require the IETF to instruct the IANA to make this address space available to the registries. Likely this would also require the IETF to publish an RFC that would state in general how the address space should be allocated. Maybe in this new world of ICANN, the RIRs could create a global policy, through the NRO, that ICANN would ratify to instruct the IANA to make the address space available. In any case, this is not an activity that only will require the work of the RIRs. Andrew

1 0

Cisco GSS 4480 Remote Management
by James Baldwin 22 Dec '05

22 Dec '05

Is anyone aware an API/CLI or other interface that allows for manipulation of the GSS's dns rules, answers, answer groups, and domain lists? I dug through a few of the reference manuals and could find no reference to manipulation of the devices configuration beyond basic system settings and database backup utilities (both the Administration Guide and the Command Reference came up short) over its CLI. If you can suggest a more appropriate list to interrogate, I'd also be appreciative. --- James Baldwin

1 0

MSN admins Mails disappears into ether
by Elijah Savage 22 Dec '05

22 Dec '05

Is there any MSN admins on the list that can help. We have a customer that sends mail to an msn account and sometimes it goes and sometimes it does not and they are getting very frustrated with our service of course blaming us. I have logs that show we sent the mail and it was accepted for delivery but the person on the other end never gets it. This customer can send the same mail 5 minutes apart for testing and we show it being delivered and accepted both times but the guy on the other end will get 1 out of the 2 messages so we do not think it is being marked as spam on your end and dropped. If anyone can please contact me off list or if anyone has had any success with contacting a MSN admin that info would be greatly appreciated. Thank you -- http://www.digitalrage.org/ The Information Technology News Center

1 0

Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
by Hannigan, Martin 22 Dec '05

22 Dec '05

Daniel - it should be public IMO only because you don't want some lesser experienced operators wandering into these IRC brothels and catching something or worse, giving them something...so to speak. I can wander into any chat really and say I'm vaul pixie and make you do bad things potentially, like make you buy a CB and contact me on 'secure' Channel 19 with your name server password so I can 'help'. That's 'bad', yes yes, digital certs, pgp, etc. All that. I wouldn't cry if IRC was deprecated, or archie, or gopher, but..that'll never happen so better to use education as the 'jimmy hat'. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: Wed Dec 21 21:50:27 2005 To: nanog list Subject: Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:06:02AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote: > >>I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. > > > >That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who > >do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: > >"dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in". :-) > > > >Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough > >self discipline to stay mostly on topic. > > It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I visited. You are certainly talking about a different channel than me. The one I was talking about (and that should have been a private reply, not a reply to the list) isn't named #nanog. Anyway, apologies to stir this discussion, it should have been off-list anyway. :-Z Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

1 0

http://weblog.disgu.st down
by Tyrone Chickenbone 22 Dec '05

22 Dec '05

ne one able to reach0r this site, it appearz to be d0wnz0rs!!! sev0!!! 0h n0z!!! supply of cirpple and midget scat pix0rz gone!!!1 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

8 9

RE: Addressing versus Routing (Was: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter)
by Hannigan, Martin 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

Woops. This is the URL I meant to preface the comment with: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Interfra… -M<

1 0

RE: Addressing versus Routing (Was: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter)
by Hannigan, Martin 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

> > Thus spake <sysadmin(a)citynetwireless.net> > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:36:00PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > > Last time I checked, Ethernet is still CSMA/CD. Ok, sure, half-duplex. People using auto-neg. > Only if you're running half-duplex, which is generally an > error condition in > modern networks. > And inter(frame)gap delay. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1997-11/msg00189.html This is why, IIRC, rs would have to wake up and go down to the MAE and reboot the giggle switch. -M<

1 0

RE: Addressing versus Routing (Was: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter)
by Hannigan, Martin 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:43:58PM -0600, > sysadmin(a)citynetwireless.net wrote: > > > Really? Where are the limits of BGP? Can you show me any numbers? > > > You'd be the first. I'm not aware of any protocol inherent scaling > > > brickwalls like with other protocols where certain timing > constraints > > > place limits (or thinking of L1 systems, you remember CSMA/CD?). > > > > Last time I checked, Ethernet is still CSMA/CD. > > Correct. And there you have minimum frame spacing requirements (IFG) > and (e.g. with 10Base2 networks) minimum distance between stations > attached to the bus to allow CSMA/CD work correctly. Interframe gap has no dependancy on station vector. The dependancy for CSMA/CD was bits on the wire and the alogorithm backed off until it was free to transmit. Are you talking about something else? -M< -M<

2 1

Re: [ipv6-wg] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Daniel Roesen 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:54:37PM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote: > | The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2A01:0000::/16 from > | the IANA in December 2005. > Yaay, finally decently sized chunks to RIRs. Well done. You're jumping to conclusions. As Jeroen mentioned, it could be just someone getting an /17 (with a /17 above reserved for expansion). Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

1 0

RE: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
by Hannigan, Martin 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

> > > I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could > chat. About what? I'm on an IRC and we chat about off topic NANOG posts. Maybe this could chat about off topic IRC off topic NANOG posts? :-) Seriously, I think there is already a #nanog. -M<

1 0