- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Google and IPv6 inverse?
by Hank Nussbacher 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

Will Google have inverse working by June 8th? [hank@noc ~]$ traceroute6 ipv6.google.com traceroute to ipv6.l.google.com (2a00:1450:8001::68) from 2001:bf8:0:3:202:b3ff:feaf:f3fc, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets 1 2001:bf8:0:3::1 (2001:bf8:0:3::1) 0.407 ms 221.144 ms 5.218 ms 2 2001:bf8:0:b::1 (2001:bf8:0:b::1) 0.559 ms 0.54 ms 0.486 ms 3 iucc-lb1.rt1.fra.de.geant2.net (2001:798:14:10aa::1d) 50.665 ms 50.611 ms 50.567 ms 4 google-gw.rt1.fra.de.geant2.net (2001:798:14:10aa::e) 56.821 ms 50.525 ms 50.486 ms 5 2001:4860::1:0:11 (2001:4860::1:0:11) 51.266 ms 51.106 ms 51.068 ms 6 2001:4860::1:0:4b3 (2001:4860::1:0:4b3) 58.309 ms 58.078 ms 58.442 ms 7 2001:4860::8:0:2db0 (2001:4860::8:0:2db0) 57.174 ms 57.339 ms 57.195 ms 8 2001:4860::2:0:66f (2001:4860::2:0:66f) 72.496 ms 60.803 ms 72.381 ms 9 2001:4860:0:1::1b (2001:4860:0:1::1b) 68.165 ms 62.21 ms 70.3 ms 10 2a00:1450:8001::68 (2a00:1450:8001::68) 61.21 ms 61.862 ms 61.331 ms Thanks, Hank

8 12

re: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right"
by Nick Olsen 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

I've got a 4 inch Springfield XD service model in .45ACP, I actually prefer the .40 round. Its a bit better at inducing Hydrostatic shock just because of its velocity:energy ratio. The handgun just to get me to the bigger guns :D -Nick Olsen ---------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Kirch" <trelane(a)trelane.net> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:42 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right" nothing like 40 short and wimpy! Might I interest you in a 45? :) On 6/6/2011 11:37 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: > Don't leave the house without my Glock 23 on my side. Truck always has a > loaded 12ga in it. In the house, I've got a handful of pistols and my > SR-556 (AR-15) in the "Guns and servers" closet. > I've had people call me Paranoid more then once. My stance is "Better to > have it and not need it, Then need it and not have it." > By banning guns from a community, Your only taking them out of the hands of > law abiding citizens. Not like most criminals get guns via legal channels > in the first place. > > -Nick Olsen > > ---------------------------------------- > From: "Daniel Seagraves" <dseagrav(a)humancapitaldev.com> > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:34 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human > right" > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > >> Nice try, but the human right you just made a case for is "the right to > rid >> yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for citizens > to have >> firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need to > be >> removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have to > be >> military - there are other types of force that work well too... > I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should have the right to be at > least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal has > access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should not be > forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my compliance > with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the > average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding > population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an > escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed than > their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent them > from being successful. > > At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms, and so > I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this situation > may change. > >

4 3

Re: UN declares Internet access a "human right"
by Daniel Espejel 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

Internet is a big set of tools just bundled in another big one. And just like another tool, we can use it for "good things and bad things". I think this UN declaration must invite us to think over how adecuate or inadecuate is the way that we use the Internet, as so as individuals and so as society. Tools aren't toys -- *Daniel Espejel Pérez *

1 0

RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right"
by Nick Olsen 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

Hence the (OT) tag. -Nick Olsen ---------------------------------------- From: "Mike Rae" <Mike.Rae(a)sjrb.ca> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:20 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right" Hi All : How is this an operational related discussion ? Perhaps it can be taken to more appropriate forum. thanks Mike -----Original Message----- From: Nick Olsen [mailto:nick@flhsi.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:15 AM To: Andrew Kirch; nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: re: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right" I've got a 4 inch Springfield XD service model in .45ACP, I actually prefer the .40 round. Its a bit better at inducing Hydrostatic shock just because of its velocity:energy ratio. The handgun just to get me to the bigger guns :D -Nick Olsen ---------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Kirch" <trelane(a)trelane.net> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:42 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right" nothing like 40 short and wimpy! Might I interest you in a 45? :) On 6/6/2011 11:37 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: > Don't leave the house without my Glock 23 on my side. Truck always has a > loaded 12ga in it. In the house, I've got a handful of pistols and my > SR-556 (AR-15) in the "Guns and servers" closet. > I've had people call me Paranoid more then once. My stance is "Better to > have it and not need it, Then need it and not have it." > By banning guns from a community, Your only taking them out of the hands of > law abiding citizens. Not like most criminals get guns via legal channels > in the first place. > > -Nick Olsen > > ---------------------------------------- > From: "Daniel Seagraves" <dseagrav(a)humancapitaldev.com> > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:34 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human > right" > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > >> Nice try, but the human right you just made a case for is "the right to > rid >> yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for citizens > to have >> firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need to > be >> removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have to > be >> military - there are other types of force that work well too... > I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should have the right to be at > least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal has > access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should not be > forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my compliance > with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the > average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding > population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an > escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed than > their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent them > from being successful. > > At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms, and so > I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this situation > may change. > >

2 1

Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right"
by Nick Olsen 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

Don't leave the house without my Glock 23 on my side. Truck always has a loaded 12ga in it. In the house, I've got a handful of pistols and my SR-556 (AR-15) in the "Guns and servers" closet. I've had people call me Paranoid more then once. My stance is "Better to have it and not need it, Then need it and not have it." By banning guns from a community, Your only taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Not like most criminals get guns via legal channels in the first place. -Nick Olsen ---------------------------------------- From: "Daniel Seagraves" <dseagrav(a)humancapitaldev.com> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:34 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right" On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > Nice try, but the human right you just made a case for is "the right to rid > yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for citizens to have > firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need to be > removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have to be > military - there are other types of force that work well too... I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should have the right to be at least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal has access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should not be forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my compliance with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed than their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent them from being successful. At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms, and so I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this situation may change.

4 3

blocking annoying 'bounce mail' "feature" from customers use.
by Eric J Esslinger 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

Mac Mail (and others) have a "feature" that allows my customers to generate a fake NDR message and send it back through my server. I get about a customer every few months that discovers this 'solution' to spam emails, and when it happens they cause delivery problems for my customer mail server by generating backscatter. Today I just ended up on a list that won't take me off for quite a while (or unless I pay). Does anyone know of a way for me to block the following, using postfix, either via refusing to accept the mail or by dropping it in /dev/null: Mail from <> or postmaster that originates within our customer IP blocks/is sent using authentication at the submission port and/or that does not have a valid local recipient. I can't find any ready made recipies online for this sort of thing in a short dig around for it, and while I think it's possible, I was wondering if anyone else was already dealing with this and could say 'oh yeah just put line blah in header_checks'. I would think it would be simple once you find it but you know how it is. (I've already dealt with the customer in question but I'm getting tired of this popping up every month or three.) __________________________ Eric Esslinger Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities http://www.fpu-tn.com/ (931)433-1522 ext 165 This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.

3 3

Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
by Brandon Butterworth 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

> > The original organizers of W6D have zero > > motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even > > consider it for more than a picosecond. This W6D is about turning v6 on. At some point, many years from now, when everyone has got bored of supporting legacy v4 for a hand full of legacy users there might be a v6 only day where we turn v4 off to test if it can be generally ceased. brandon

5 4

messagelabs.com contact - SMTP-side domaincheck checks IPv4 only, rejects domains with first MX on IPv6
by Jeroen Massar 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

As the subject states, MAILER-DAEMON(a)messagelabs.com: <....(a)ford.com>: Connected to 136.1.7.8 but sender was rejected. Remote host said: 501 Sender domain must exist As it obviously checks only the first MX record if there are A records, and if there are none it rejects it. This while there are AAAA records on the first MX, and even A records on the remaining MXs. Thus a proper fix would already be to check the other MXs and of course to check for AAAA too ;) And that affects all customers at messagelabs, thus if somebody can pass that along to them to fix it, that would be great ;) Oh and of course the check is also there for postmaster@ thus no way to tell them through that route. Greets, Jeroen

2 2

Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
by Scott Weeks 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

--- Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it. ----------------------------------------- There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-) scott

9 13

IPv6 day - request for datasets
by Manish Karir 06 Jun '11

06 Jun '11

I know quite a few folks are planning some sort of monitoring/measurement activity related with IPv6 day. If there is any chance you might be able to make this information(raw or derived data) available to the broader network research community please let me know. Merit and the University of Michigan are involved in an ongoing research effort to collect/archive and make available such datasets. If you are uncertain regarding privacy/ anonymization issues please feel free to get in touch with me and we might be able to make some suggestions. If you are planning some data collection/monitoring activity it would be great if you could drop me a quick email off list. The more diverse the datasets (data types,views,scales) the better. Thanks. -manish Manish Karir Merit Network Inc.

1 0