June 2011 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Huawei equiv of Cisco 7201 router and Cisco ME 4924 switch?
by Rogelio 20 Jun '11

20 Jun '11

I am in Brazil and am having a heckuva time finding a Cisco 7201 router and Cisco ME 4924 switch. Anyone have any ideas on where I could buy these easily? And if not, any suggestions on Huawei equivalents? -- Also on LinkedIn? Feel free to connect if you too are an open networker: scubacuda(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by brunner＠nic-naa.net 20 Jun '11

20 Jun '11

> Really, if you're going to opine on the disasters that will befall ICANN as a result of the new gTLD program, you might want to actually read what that program does and doesn't do. Really. you made my morning dave. thanks for the chuckle!

1 0

Business Ethernet Services
by Elliot Finley 18 Jun '11

18 Jun '11

Anyone using a CPE that is reliable and costs <= $300 ? features needed: SFP for uplink, QnQ, basic layer 2 functionality. If you're using something with the above parameters and you like it, please share. :) Thanks, Elliot

3 2

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by Jay Ashworth 18 Jun '11

18 Jun '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joel Jaeggli" <joelja(a)bogus.com> > >> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm > > > > That page doesn't appear to discuss the specific topic I'm talking about, > > and for the 9th or 10th time, I *know* they've been talking about expanding > > the root; I approved that message back in 1997, as posted earlier. > > It does. > > The process as described in 2009 places no lower bound on the > narrowness of the community which a gtld proposes to serve. > > 1.2.2 Community-Based Designation > All applicants are required to designate whether their > application is community-based. > > 1.2.2.1 Definitions2 > > For purposes of this Applicant Guidebook, a communitybased gTLD is a > gTLD that is operated for the benefit of a > defined community consisting of a restricted population. > > An applicant designating its application as communitybased will be > asked to substantiate its status as > representative of the community it names in the > application, and additional information may be requested > in the event of a comparative evaluation (refer to Section > 4.2 of Module 4). An applicant for a community-based > gTLD is expected to: > > 1. Demonstrate an ongoing relationship with a defined > community that consists of a restricted population. > 2. Have applied for a gTLD string strongly and specifically > related to the community named in the application. > 3. Have proposed dedicated registration and use policies > for registrants in its proposed gTLD. > 4. Have its application endorsed in writing by an > established institution representing the community it > has named. > > For purposes of differentiation, an application that has not > been designated as community-based will be referred to > hereinafter in this document as an open gTLD. An open > gTLD can be used for any purpose consistent with the > requirements of the application and evaluation criteria, > and with the registry agreement. An open gTLD may or > may not have a formal relationship with an exclusive > registrant or user population. It may or may not employ > eligibility or use restrictions I will concur with your assertion that it is *possible to infer* that Apple running a .apple registry for its own internal commercial purposes would fit their definition of "community"... but the phrasing of the restrictions they place on it makes it pretty clear, at least to me, that the people who wrote it weren't thinking about that possible use case. All of their restrictions/instructions become tautologies in that limiting case, do they not? And indeed: who arbitrates trademark conflicts, in what is now *necessarily* a global collision space? Forbidding the registration of gTLDs which conflict with trademarks registered with any national authority would seem to be only minimally sane, to me... but that's orthogonal to whether the issue's come up in specific detail, of course. My apologies for not reading deeper into your citation, though I'm not sure I would have caught that section as a response to me anyway. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

5 9

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by brunner＠nic-naa.net 18 Jun '11

18 Jun '11

howdy all from a cold room 100km north of the equator. > ... > That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on > point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language ... > ... i'm reading this from the meeting room where the generic names supporting organization council is meeting (saturday is gnso policy day), in what i've heard is disneyland with a death penalty. two things i think "of note" have occured in the past week+: 1. the deparment of commerce summarized (first round!) notice and comment period (see the apa or ask an admin practitioner near you or read fox, a worthwhile activity in its own right -- google "+fox +administrative-law") on the iana function contract, and 2. the department of justice responded to the department of commerce request for guidance on competition policy issues and the icann board resolution of november last to end structural separation in the competitive market created through the competitive registrar testbed in 2000. i read each as notice from the usg that the drift, or direction, depending on one's point of view, of a 501(c)(3) to which rule making may have been delegated, is subject to correction. so did anyone have a question or is my epistolary stylistic genius sufficient as topic of general interest? -e

3 2

good geographic for servers reaching the South East Asia market
by Michael DeMan 18 Jun '11

18 Jun '11

Hi All, I guess this is a bit off-topic since this is the North American network operators group, but I was wondering if anybody had much experience with fiber infrastructure in the South East Asia area. For reference, generally the WikiPedia entry on South East Asia describes the service delivery area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia Basically looking for tips on what cities/countries/locations have as much (mostly submarine cabling in this case?) fiber connectivity and redundancy. From there I can trim down where to begin looking specifically at data centers and colocation options. Also, if anybody offhand has any tips on political stability and/or the risk of some kind of unwanted censorship by a given country, that would be helpful as well. Feel free to post back on-list or off-list. Thanks, - Michael DeMan

4 6

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114
by internet＠cable-lynx.net 18 Jun '11

18 Jun '11

Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.s -----Original Message----- From: nanog-request(a)nanog.org Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:07:27 To: <nanog(a)nanog.org> Reply-To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog(a)nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request(a)nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner(a)nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: IPv6 BGP communities (Owen DeLong) 2. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (John Levine) 3. Re: IPv6 BGP communities (Leo Bicknell) 4. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (David Conrad) 5. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (David Conrad) 6. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (Jay Ashworth) 7. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (Jay Ashworth) 8. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (John Levine) 9. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (Joel Jaeggli) 10. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (Jay Ashworth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:18:49 -0700 From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP communities To: Serge Vautour <serge(a)nbnet.nb.ca> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <A6A3C283-2D5D-431D-804C-3DA172FDFB12(a)delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I think it actually makes complete sense to use the same BGP communities for the same purposes regardless of address family. Owen On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Serge Vautour wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking at re-writing our IPv4 BGP policies for IPv6. Does anyone see a > problem with re-using the same BGP community values? If we use AS:110 for LP 110 > under IPv4, can I just use AS:110 for LP 110 under IPv6? Technically it works - > at least I haven't seen a problem in my initial tests. It sure would make > everything easier than assigning new values. Is there a BCP for this? > > Thanks, > Serge > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: 17 Jun 2011 23:29:51 -0000 From: "John Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <20110617232951.14681.qmail(a)joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >Notwithstanding that, globally resolvable valid DNS names *with no dots >in them* are going to break a fair amount of software which assumes that's >an invalid case, and that is in fact a *different* situation, not triggered >by the expansion of the *generic* gTLD space. Just to be sure I understand, you're saying that since you haven't been paying attention until now, nobody else in the entire world could possible have thought about this? I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but this is the first you've heard about it, you really haven't been paying attention. R's, John ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:52:23 -0700 From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell(a)ufp.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP communities To: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <20110617235223.GA31147(a)ussenterprise.ufp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In a message written on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 06:08:13AM -0700, Serge Vautour wrote: > I'm looking at re-writing our IPv4 BGP policies for IPv6. Does anyone see a > problem with re-using the same BGP community values? If we use AS:110 for LP 110 > under IPv4, can I just use AS:110 for LP 110 under IPv6? Technically it works - > at least I haven't seen a problem in my initial tests. It sure would make > everything easier than assigning new values. Is there a BCP for this? Some of us run BGP implementations that allow us to process IPv4 and IPv6 routes in the exact same route policy. On behalf of that group I urge you to use the same communities where the meaning is in fact the same, because if you don't you'll double the work for that group when they have to write separate route policy. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110617/a91469c7/atta… ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:13:41 -1000 From: David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <CF383AB7-4D74-4834-B2ED-FECE1BB986B5(a)virtualized.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > FFS, David. I didn't say "new gTLDs". I said, rather specifically, > "commercial gTLDs", IE: gTLDs *proprietary to a specific commercial > enterprise*. http:///www.apple The third message (by Eric Brunner-Williams) in the thread I referenced mentions "trademark" or "brand" TLDs: "Finally, because pancakes are calling, the very complainants of squatting and defensive registration (the 1Q million-in-revenue every applicant for an "open", now "standard" registry places in its bizplan), the Intellectual Property Stakeholder Group is also an advocate for trademark TLDs, arguing that possession of $fee and a registry platform contract (there is now a niche industry of boutique ".brand" operators-in-waiting) and a $bond establishes an absolute right to a label in the IANA root. So, rather than memorizing the digits of Pi, for some later public recitation, one could start reciting brand names, for some later public recitation, for as long as there is a single unified root." See http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034692.html for full context. I didn't bother looking further. > And no, I had not heard *any noise* that anyone was seriously considering > this up until this announcement. Interesting data point. Regards, -drc ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:19:40 -1000 From: David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <27100748-F707-4B16-95C8-2895485FB6D1(a)virtualized.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to >> http://localhost/ or >> http://pcname/ >> >> Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname? >> Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld? > > No, of *course* ICANN didn't give any engineering thought to it. Cause the > engineers? Are all *here*. Perhaps relevant: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac045.pdf > And David Conrad's apparently the only guy who's heard about it. :-) When I used to go to ICANN meetings (haven't been to one in years), there were always a number of folks from the RIR community there, which at least in the ARIN region, tends to have non-trivial intersection with the NANOG community. I would be quite surprised if I was "the only guy who's heard about it". Regards, -drc ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:33:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <22308707.634.1308357188484.JavaMail.root(a)benjamin.baylink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible > idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but > this is the first you've heard about it, you really haven't been > paying attention. John, yes, I've been paying attention to the TLD space since Chris Ambler *first* put in his .web proposal -- what is that; 15 years now? 20? This is the first I've heard of *the possibility of TLD registrars being end-user internal/exclusive*. People have made jokes about company TLDs in the past, sure, but no, I never heard any specific discussion about it actually happening; I invite citations. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:37:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <13002116.636.1308357431779.JavaMail.root(a)benjamin.baylink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Conrad" <drc(a)virtualized.org> > "Finally, because pancakes are calling, the very complainants of > squatting and defensive registration (the 1Q million-in-revenue every > applicant for an "open", now "standard" registry places in its > bizplan), the Intellectual Property Stakeholder Group is also an > advocate for trademark TLDs, arguing that possession of $fee and a > registry platform contract (there is now a niche industry of boutique > ".brand" operators-in-waiting) and a $bond establishes an absolute > right to a label in the IANA root. > > So, rather than memorizing the digits of Pi, for some later public > recitation, one could start reciting brand names, for some later > public recitation, for as long as there is a single unified root." > > See http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034692.html > for full context. That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language, and buried in a thread I'd long since stopped paying attention to by that point; my apologies to you for not having seen it, since you seem to feel that's material. Cheers, -- jr 'I wouldn't call it a datapoint, though' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: 18 Jun 2011 00:40:58 -0000 From: "John Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <20110618004058.17116.qmail(a)joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >This is the first I've heard of *the possibility of TLD registrars being >end-user internal/exclusive*. People around ICANN have been arguing about the registry/registrar split for years, and whether to have special rules for TLDs where one party would own all the names. Really. If this is the first you've heard about it, you haven't been paying attention. Or, I suppose, you might be claiming that David and I are just lying. R's, John ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:43:11 -0700 From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <85838CB1-B3F9-4916-8786-19C13D835613(a)bogus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > >> I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible >> idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but >> this is the first you've heard about it, you really haven't been >> paying attention. > > John, yes, I've been paying attention to the TLD space since Chris Ambler > *first* put in his .web proposal -- what is that; 15 years now? 20? > > This is the first I've heard of *the possibility of TLD registrars being > end-user internal/exclusive*. > > People have made jokes about company TLDs in the past, sure, but no, I > never heard any specific discussion about it actually happening; I invite > citations. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 > ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:07:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <21342046.644.1308359243408.JavaMail.root(a)benjamin.baylink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joel Jaeggli" <joelja(a)bogus.com> > >> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm > > > > That page doesn't appear to discuss the specific topic I'm talking about, > > and for the 9th or 10th time, I *know* they've been talking about expanding > > the root; I approved that message back in 1997, as posted earlier. > > It does. > > The process as described in 2009 places no lower bound on the > narrowness of the community which a gtld proposes to serve. > > 1.2.2 Community-Based Designation > All applicants are required to designate whether their > application is community-based. > > 1.2.2.1 Definitions2 > > For purposes of this Applicant Guidebook, a communitybased gTLD is a > gTLD that is operated for the benefit of a > defined community consisting of a restricted population. > > An applicant designating its application as communitybased will be > asked to substantiate its status as > representative of the community it names in the > application, and additional information may be requested > in the event of a comparative evaluation (refer to Section > 4.2 of Module 4). An applicant for a community-based > gTLD is expected to: > > 1. Demonstrate an ongoing relationship with a defined > community that consists of a restricted population. > 2. Have applied for a gTLD string strongly and specifically > related to the community named in the application. > 3. Have proposed dedicated registration and use policies > for registrants in its proposed gTLD. > 4. Have its application endorsed in writing by an > established institution representing the community it > has named. > > For purposes of differentiation, an application that has not > been designated as community-based will be referred to > hereinafter in this document as an open gTLD. An open > gTLD can be used for any purpose consistent with the > requirements of the application and evaluation criteria, > and with the registry agreement. An open gTLD may or > may not have a formal relationship with an exclusive > registrant or user population. It may or may not employ > eligibility or use restrictions I will concur with your assertion that it is *possible to infer* that Apple running a .apple registry for its own internal commercial purposes would fit their definition of "community"... but the phrasing of the restrictions they place on it makes it pretty clear, at least to me, that the people who wrote it weren't thinking about that possible use case. All of their restrictions/instructions become tautologies in that limiting case, do they not? And indeed: who arbitrates trademark conflicts, in what is now *necessarily* a global collision space? Forbidding the registration of gTLDs which conflict with trademarks registered with any national authority would seem to be only minimally sane, to me... but that's orthogonal to whether the issue's come up in specific detail, of course. My apologies for not reading deeper into your citation, though I'm not sure I would have caught that section as a response to me anyway. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114 **************************************

1 0

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by brunner＠nic-naa.net 18 Jun '11

18 Jun '11

>> [...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy >> and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet. are either "confusing" or "messy" the best rationals for declining either or both of corporate names or trademarks? are these (corporate naming and trademark registration as generators) bounded generators of strings? what does unbounded change mean operationally? > Maybe we could demote the commercial ones to live under a single > TLD to make things simpler/neater... :-) well, back in wipo i or wipo ii time, there was the suggestion that a trademark tld would solve a bunch of problems. however, is the problem the absence of simplicity and/or neatness, or is dilution applied to a medium in which replication is policied differently than print the problem. see any of several presentations by lessig on the subject of basic applicability of property (intellectual) to new media, and if you're somewhat romantic (i am) rfc1591, on "ownership" of text labels. -e

1 0

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by brunner＠nic-naa.net 18 Jun '11

18 Jun '11

>> so did anyone have a question or is my epistolary stylistic genius >> sufficient as topic of general interest? > ... and he talked for 45 minutes, and no one understood a word that he said. i'm happy to leave the reportage and issue analysis to those better informed. you look to be someone better informed. please, type away. -e

1 0

IPv6 BGP communities
by Serge Vautour 17 Jun '11

17 Jun '11

Hello, I'm looking at re-writing our IPv4 BGP policies for IPv6. Does anyone see a problem with re-using the same BGP community values? If we use AS:110 for LP 110 under IPv4, can I just use AS:110 for LP 110 under IPv6? Technically it works - at least I haven't seen a problem in my initial tests. It sure would make everything easier than assigning new values. Is there a BCP for this? Thanks, Serge

3 2