- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

gTLDs opened up
by Randy Bush 12 Jul '13

12 Jul '13

AfriNIC put these wonderful people on stage at the African Internet Summit. In parallel, I should offer /16s from an alternet IP space for USD1,000, buy one and get one free. </sarcasm> randy

10 12

Updated CFP for RIPE 67
by Filiz Yilmaz 12 Jul '13

12 Jul '13

Dear colleagues, RIPE PC is now also accepting "Workshop" proposals for RIPE 67. Please find the updated CFP with pointers to all possible presentation formats below and at: https://ripe67.ripe.net/programme/cfp/ Note that the deadline for submissions is still 4 August 2013. Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz Chair, RIPE Programme Committee http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-meetings/pc ------------------ Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 67 will take place from 14-18 October 2013 in Athens, Greece. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary session presentations, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 67. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: • IPv6 deployment • Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations • Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses • Data centre technologies • Network and DNS operations • Internet governance and regulatory practices • Network and routing security • Content delivery • Internet peering and mobile data exchange Submissions RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. The RIPE PC accepts proposals for different presentation formats, including plenary session presentations, tutorials, workshops, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions) and lightning talks. See the full descriptions of these formats at https://ripe67.ripe.net/programme/i-want-to-present/presentation-formats/ Presenters who are proposing a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. In addition to presentations selected in advance for the plenary, the RIPE PC also offers several time slots for “lightning talks”, which are selected immediately before or during the conference. The following general requirements apply: • Proposals for plenary session presentations, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than 4 August 2013, using the meeting submission system (https://ripe67.ripe.net/submit-topic/) Proposals submitted after this date will be considered on a space-available basis. • Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe67.ripe.net/submit-topic/) and can be submitted just days before the RIPE Meeting starts or even during the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talk slots will be announced in short notice – in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the relevant session. • Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. See more information on time slot allocations per presentation format (https://ripe67.ripe.net/programme/i-want-to-present/presentation-formats/) • Proposals for talks will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panelists, presenters and moderators. • Due to potential technical issues, it is expected that most, if not all, presenters/panelists will be physically present at the RIPE Meeting. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net. ------------------

1 0

Call for presentations: APNIC 36, Xi'an
by Philip Smith 12 Jul '13

12 Jul '13

Hi everyone, If any of you are starting to plan your late August travel, please think about joining us at the APNIC 36 Conference, being held in Xi'an, China (home of the Terracotta Warriors). The Programme Committee would like your help. We are still on the look out for presentations and tutorial proposals of technical/operational relevance, with the technical sessions running from Monday 26th through to Thursday 29th August. The first round of paper acceptances closes at the end of today, and submissions received between tomorrow and 12th August will be reviewed on a first come first served basis. Please submit your proposal now to avoid disappointment: http://conference.apnic.net/36/program. And if you are planning to come to Xi'an, once you have submitted your presentation proposal, please register for the conference (http://conference.apnic.net/36/register) and book your hotel room now (http://conference.apnic.net/36/travel) - late August is busy holiday season and there are not many hotel rooms left! Thanks! Philip Smith/Mark Tinka/Dean Pemberton For the APNIC 36 PC --

1 0

Re: On topic of domains
by Larry Sheldon 12 Jul '13

12 Jul '13

On 7/11/2013 11:41 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > If the definition of "FQDN" in some RFCs (Informational or not) > always included the trailing dot, I'd be inclined to agree with you. > But that's not the case, so protocol slots have been established for > "FQDNs" that are actually domains qualified relative to the root. > Since this ambiguity has been around since the very dawn of the DNS, > I suspect there is little chance of re-educating everyone in the > world about this. I seem to recall back in the day being annoyed that some interfaces would not allow the trailing dot. My failing memory does not provide and example. (A test of Firefox and a URL I had just used, modified works. en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Server_Message_Block #) > > A > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Chris Hills <chaz(a)chaz6.com> > wrote: > >> On 11/07/2013 15:27, Jon Mitchell wrote: >>> >>> After .nyc thread, thought this IAB announcement may be of >>> interest. >>> >>> >> http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-st… >>> >>> >> -Jon >>> >> >> Whilst I am not a fan of dotless domains, as long as one uses the >> fully qualified domain name (e.g. http://ac./) there should not be >> any trouble using it in any sane software. It seems that most >> people aren't aware these days that a fqdn includes the trailing >> period (by definition). >> >> >> > -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

1 0

Re: Office 365..? how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
by Scott Weeks 12 Jul '13

12 Jul '13

--- wbailey(a)satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: From: Warren Bailey <wbailey(a)satelliteintelligencegroup.com> Anyone else planning on bailing from office365? http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-… ---------------------------------------------------------- Bail on M$ period. If they give the data willingly this way, I'm sure they also do it in other currently unknown ways. Company culture and all that... scott

3 2

On topic of domains
by Jon Mitchell 11 Jul '13

11 Jul '13

After .nyc thread, thought this IAB announcement may be of interest. http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-st… -Jon

9 8

roadrunner takes a really long excursion
by Randy Bush 11 Jul '13

11 Jul '13

ryuu.psg.com:/Users/randy> traceroute wrt-tokyo.rg.net traceroute to wrt-tokyo.rg.net (210.138.216.50), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 wrt-hawi.lan (192.168.0.1) 1.089 ms 0.838 ms 0.805 ms 2 cpe-72-130-240-1.hawaii.res.rr.com (72.130.240.1) 28.964 ms 27.591 ms 27.825 ms 3 tge7-5.klaohias-cer03.hawaii.rr.com (24.25.231.29) 40.011 ms 25.291 ms 48.273 ms 4 tge8-1.klaohias-cer02.hawaii.rr.com (72.129.46.144) 61.741 ms 62.058 ms 60.293 ms 5 tge0-4-0-2.kmlahi07-ccr01.hawaii.rr.com (72.129.46.128) 63.927 ms 74.082 ms 64.340 ms 6 agg31.tustcaft-ccr01.socal.rr.com (72.129.45.2) 71.929 ms 64.954 ms 64.037 ms 7 107.14.17.134 (107.14.17.134) 60.455 ms 65.103 ms 63.598 ms 8 ae-5-0.cr0.dca20.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.3) 130.063 ms 133.030 ms 134.285 ms 9 107.14.17.178 (107.14.17.178) 133.206 ms ae-0-0.cr0.dca10.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.30) 130.485 ms 107.14.17.178 (107.14.17.178) 132.164 ms 10 ae0.pr1.dca10.tbone.rr.com (107.14.17.200) 185.126 ms ae1.pr1.dca10.tbone.rr.com (107.14.17.202) 132.416 ms ae0.pr1.dca10.tbone.rr.com (107.14.17.200) 132.197 ms 11 209.48.38.225 (209.48.38.225) 153.804 ms 149.394 ms 152.942 ms 12 vb2000d2.rar3.washington-dc.us.xo.net (207.88.13.66) 158.140 ms 168.326 ms 168.755 ms 13 te-11-0-0.rar3.sanjose-ca.us.xo.net (207.88.12.69) 156.495 ms 160.694 ms 158.592 ms 14 207.88.14.226.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.226) 158.936 ms 161.480 ms 149.665 ms 15 216.98.100.253 (216.98.100.253) 142.506 ms 141.179 ms 140.945 ms 16 sjc002bf02.iij.net (206.132.169.9) 141.301 ms 143.095 ms sea001bf00.iij.net (206.132.168.1) 157.606 ms 17 tky009bf01.iij.net (206.132.169.122) 409.387 ms tky008bf00.iij.net (206.132.169.110) 325.051 ms tky008bf01.iij.net (206.132.169.174) 248.289 ms 18 tky001bb11.iij.net (58.138.80.42) 259.764 ms tky001bb10.iij.net (58.138.80.10) 243.385 ms tky001bb11.iij.net (58.138.80.42) 352.163 ms 19 tky001lip20.iij.net (58.138.100.214) 409.185 ms 406.441 ms tky001lip20.iij.net (58.138.100.210) 409.536 ms 20 tokyo10-ntteast0.flets.2iij.net (210.149.34.98) 257.222 ms 409.180 ms 314.596 ms 21 tokyo10-f03.flets.2iij.net (210.149.34.158) 299.887 ms 306.765 ms 307.255 ms 22 50.216.138.210.bn.2iij.net (210.138.216.50) 409.697 ms 409.540 ms 409.365 ms well, i guess it could have gone through europe after dca to get to their xo peering. i guess the root cause is that roadrunner is poorly peered. are they not actually twt? randy

5 5

roadrunner takes a really long excursion
by Randy Bush 11 Jul '13

11 Jul '13

ryuu.psg.com:/Users/randy> traceroute wrt-tokyo traceroute to wrt-tokyo.rg.net (210.138.216.50), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 wrt-hawi.lan (192.168.0.1) 1.089 ms 0.838 ms 0.805 ms 2 cpe-72-130-240-1.hawaii.res.rr.com (72.130.240.1) 28.964 ms 27.591 ms 27.825 ms 3 tge7-5.klaohias-cer03.hawaii.rr.com (24.25.231.29) 40.011 ms 25.291 ms 48.273 ms 4 tge8-1.klaohias-cer02.hawaii.rr.com (72.129.46.144) 61.741 ms 62.058 ms 60.293 ms 5 tge0-4-0-2.kmlahi07-ccr01.hawaii.rr.com (72.129.46.128) 63.927 ms 74.082 ms 64.340 ms 6 agg31.tustcaft-ccr01.socal.rr.com (72.129.45.2) 71.929 ms 64.954 ms 64.037 ms 7 107.14.17.134 (107.14.17.134) 60.455 ms 65.103 ms 63.598 ms 8 ae-5-0.cr0.dca20.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.3) 130.063 ms 133.030 ms 134.285 ms 9 107.14.17.178 (107.14.17.178) 133.206 ms ae-0-0.cr0.dca10.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.30) 130.485 ms 107.14.17.178 (107.14.17.178) 132.164 ms 10 ae0.pr1.dca10.tbone.rr.com (107.14.17.200) 185.126 ms ae1.pr1.dca10.tbone.rr.com (107.14.17.202) 132.416 ms ae0.pr1.dca10.tbone.rr.com (107.14.17.200) 132.197 ms 11 209.48.38.225 (209.48.38.225) 153.804 ms 149.394 ms 152.942 ms 12 vb2000d2.rar3.washington-dc.us.xo.net (207.88.13.66) 158.140 ms 168.326 ms 168.755 ms 13 te-11-0-0.rar3.sanjose-ca.us.xo.net (207.88.12.69) 156.495 ms 160.694 ms 158.592 ms 14 207.88.14.226.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.226) 158.936 ms 161.480 ms 149.665 ms 15 216.98.100.253 (216.98.100.253) 142.506 ms 141.179 ms 140.945 ms 16 sjc002bf02.iij.net (206.132.169.9) 141.301 ms 143.095 ms sea001bf00.iij.net (206.132.168.1) 157.606 ms 17 tky009bf01.iij.net (206.132.169.122) 409.387 ms tky008bf00.iij.net (206.132.169.110) 325.051 ms tky008bf01.iij.net (206.132.169.174) 248.289 ms 18 tky001bb11.iij.net (58.138.80.42) 259.764 ms tky001bb10.iij.net (58.138.80.10) 243.385 ms tky001bb11.iij.net (58.138.80.42) 352.163 ms 19 tky001lip20.iij.net (58.138.100.214) 409.185 ms 406.441 ms tky001lip20.iij.net (58.138.100.210) 409.536 ms 20 tokyo10-ntteast0.flets.2iij.net (210.149.34.98) 257.222 ms 409.180 ms 314.596 ms 21 tokyo10-f03.flets.2iij.net (210.149.34.158) 299.887 ms 306.765 ms 307.255 ms 22 50.216.138.210.bn.2iij.net (210.138.216.50) 409.697 ms 409.540 ms 409.365 ms well, i guess it could have gone through europe after dca to get to their xo peering in san jose. randy

1 0

File transfer speed between Hong Kong and Johannesburg, South Africa
by Luan Nguyen 11 Jul '13

11 Jul '13

Hello folks, Does anyone know what's the average speed for windows file transferring (SMB2) between Hong Kong and Johannesburg? Any guide on how to calculate/estimate this? Thanks. Regards, -Luan

10 13

Typical link speeds between COs
by Jean-Francois Mezei 11 Jul '13

11 Jul '13

What are the typical speeds used on fibre links between COs in North American and elsewhere ? I realise that there are special cases, such as Shaw using WDM to reach 400gigabits/sec in a link in Western Canada. But what are the most common speeds ? Is WDM in common use to multiplex multiple 10gbps, 40gbps links ? Or is that used mostly for intercity trunks and intra-city trunks tend to not bother with WDM because of ample supply of fibre ? Do telcos typically quickly upgrade fibre strands to newer speeds, or are there still many strands handling only 100mbps or 1gbps between COs because telcos never got around to upgrading legacy equipment/services (such as ATM etc) ? Also in terms of costing WDM, would one typically have a card that has the multiple colours in the card and outputs a single multi-colour signal or would one typically have separate cards for each colour and then use a WDM "filter" to combine/separate colours onto the single strand ?

2 1