- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

AT&T and IPv6 Launch
by Jared Mauch 27 Jan '12

27 Jan '12

Is there someone who can talk about how to get IPv6 on AT&T residential:? Thanks, - Jared -- snip -- ISPs participating in World IPv6 Launch will enable IPv6 for enough users so that at least 1% of their wireline residential subscribers who visit participating websites will do so using IPv6 by 6 June 2012. These ISPs have committed that IPv6 will be available automatically as the normal course of business for a significant portion of their subscribers. Committed ISPs are: • AT&T -- snip --

8 9

Akamai/Integra issue?
by Thomas Magill 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

This morning we began having issues at one of our sites. Eventually the systems teams tracked it down to some Akamai hosted content. I did some debugs and found that traffic transiting Integra is getting back RST packets for anything at *.akamaiedge.net. I rerouted the known bad hosts through our backup provider and that resolved the issue, but more keep popping up due to DNS changes. Has anyone else had any issues with akamaiedge.net today? If an Akamai operator is on please email me offline. Thomas Magill Sr. Network Engineer Office: (858) 909-3777 Cell: (858) 869-9685 mailto:tmagill@providecommerce.com provide-commerce 4840 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 ProFlowers<http://www.proflowers.com/> | redENVELOPE<http://www.redenvelope.com/> | Cherry Moon Farms<http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/> | Shari's Berries<http://www.berries.com/>

3 3

Who is IANA, these days?
by Jay Ashworth 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

Specifically, who manages the TCP and UDP port number registries? 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

2 1

Re: LX sfp minimum range
by Pierre-Yves Maunier 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

2012/1/26 Pierre-Yves Maunier <pierre-yves(a)maunier.fr> > > > 2012/1/26 Holmes,David A <dholmes(a)mwdh2o.com> > > I have found that -5dB or -10dB attenuators must be used on the send or >> receive strands between Cisco LX connected switches at relatively short >> distances of < 1 km over standard singlemode fiber. >> >> Other Vendors' SFPs rated up to 25 km do not need attenuators at >> distances <1 km. >> > > Cisco standard LX TX between -3dBm and -9dBm > RX sensitivity is from -9dBm to -19dBm > Oups typo, RX from -3 dBm to -19 dBm -- Pierre-Yves Maunier

1 0

mysql.org down?
by Ingo Flaschberger 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

Hi, from my location / austria, mysql.org seems to be down: traceroute to 213.136.52.82 (213.136.52.82), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 7 at-vie-xion-pe01-vl-2061.upc.at (84.116.229.21) 39.009 ms 38.957 ms 39.001 ms 8 at-vie01a-rd1-vl-2050.aorta.net (84.116.228.193) 36.824 ms 35.930 ms 61.089 ms 9 nl-ams05a-rd2-xe-0-1-0.aorta.net (213.46.160.145) 38.910 ms nl-ams05a-rd2-xe-0-0-2.aorta.net (84.116.130.73) 36.573 ms nl-ams05a-rd2-xe-0-1-0.aorta.net (213.46.160.145) 38.631 ms 10 84.116.134.145 (84.116.134.145) 36.539 ms 84.116.134.61 (84.116.134.61) 40.418 ms 84.116.136.22 (84.116.136.22) 36.507 ms 11 ams-ix.ams-cr1.bahnhof.net (195.69.144.99) 38.430 ms 38.473 ms 42.336 ms 12 ams-cr1.cph-cr1.bahnhof.net (46.59.112.26) 42.201 ms 38.980 ms 36.493 ms 13 cph-cr1.mmo-cr1.bahnhof.net (85.24.151.246) 47.877 ms 49.929 ms 49.882 ms 14 mmo-cr1.sto-cr3.bahnhof.net (85.24.151.108) 46.963 ms 46.938 ms 55.098 ms 15 sto-cr1.pio-dr3.bahnhof.net (85.24.151.225) 53.173 ms 52.898 ms 52.927 ms 16 pio-dr3.pio-dr2.bahnhof.net (85.24.151.72) 52.863 ms 51.261 ms 49.389 ms 17 sto-cr1.sto-cr2.bahnhof.net (85.24.151.1) 51.399 ms 46.986 ms 49.730 ms Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger

5 4

volunteer.gov dns admin
by Basil Baby 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

We tried many ways to get a dns admin for volunteer.gov. If anyone available in this list, please contact me off the list. Sorry to spam on this list. Thanks, -Basil Baby

3 2

Scaled broadband access with pppoe
by Mike 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

Hi, I am looking for pointers or stories from the field concerning the operational challenges faced by operators of large scale broadband access, particularly those who serve lots of PPPoE. I'm interested in hearining about your pain, what heroics you have had to jump thru to get what you wanted, what kinds of things keep you up at night (or let you sleep, your choice). No sales, I'm an operator too and have my own list of pain points and just wanna compare notes is all. Thank you. Mike-

1 0

RE: LX sfp minimum range
by George Bonser 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

> > I believe you've got that backwards. See ciscos's sfp pages. Lx will go > 550m on mm, 10k on sm. (though it doesn't tend to do that well on mm in > my experience. ) I sure did! Thanks for pointing that out. George

1 0

DC wiring standards
by Leigh Porter 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

Hi all, Does anybody know where I can find standards for DC cabling for -48v systems? I'm looking for general best common practices, cable colouring etc. Thanks, -- Leigh Porter ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

7 8

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
by Owen DeLong 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Jima wrote: > On 2012-01-26, Owen DeLong wrote: >> If you can't point to some specific advantage of ULA over secondary >> non-routed GUA prefixes, then, ULA doesn't have a reason to live. > > My biggest concern with secondary non-routed GUA would be source address > selection. If you're trying to talk to something in 2000::/3, it's > obvious to the OS that it should be using its address in 2000::/3 rather > than the one in fc00::/7. When both the "external" and "internal" > addresses live in 2000::/3, more care has to be taken to ensure the > system DTRT. > It's very easy to configure SAS to handle this. Frankly, you have the same challenge with ULA in many scenarios. >> I'm not sure where DNS64/NAT64 comes into play here for v6 to v6 >> communication. For IPv4, I don't see any advantage in ULA+NAT64 vs. the >> more reliable and easier RFC-1918 with NAT44 possibilities, even if you >> have to run multiple RFC-1918 domains to get enough addresses, that will >> generally be less complicated and break fewer things than a NAT64 >> implementation. > > My best guess there is the ability to a) only manage a single-stack > network (I really wish more software supported IPv6 so this could be a > more feasible reality), and b) use the same NAT64 prefix across various > NAT64 instances (64:ff9b::/96 is a blocker if you actually want to allow > NAT64 to RFC1918 space). While I can see the potential appeal of the > second point, I'm not sure I'd agree with it myself. > But with NAT64, you're supporting both stacks, you just move the problem around. Having done experiments with both methods, I assure you it is a true statement based on experience. NAT64 really offers more problems than it solves, not the least of which is the stateful DNS interaction problem. Owen

2 1