- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Youtube Geolocation
by Dan White 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

We're experiencing very poor quality with You Tube, and it appears we're subject to a bad entry within a geolocation database somewhere. When we attempt to view videos, the contact comes back to us from IPs like: 208.117.226.21 (traceroute's through Frankfurt) 173.194.50.47 74.125.100.29 All of those IPs are >125ms away from us (67.217.144.0/20, and 216.14.144.0/20). However, we've never experienced redirection problems with Google before (we always land at www.google.com) so I'm not sure where to take our trouble. The page at: http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/request.py?contact_type=ip isn't of much help as it assumes the problem is google.com redirection. Are there any contacts at Youtube who could provide some assistance? Thanks, -- Dan White

7 10

VPN over slow Internet connections
by Ben Whorwood 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

Dear all, Can anyone share any thoughts or experiences for VPN links running over slow Internet connections, typically 2kB/s - 3kB/s (think 33.6k modem)? We are looking into utilising OpenVPN for out-of-office workers who would be running mobile broadband in rural areas. Typical data across the wire would be SQL queries for custom applications and not much else. Some initial thoughts include... * How well would the connection handle certificate (>= 2048 bit key) based authentication? * Is UDP or TCP better considering the speed and possibility of packet loss (no figures to hand)? * Is VPN over this type of connection simply a bad idea? Many thanks in advance. Kind regards, Ben Whorwood

17 22

365x24x7
by harbor235 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

If I were going to provide a 365x24x7 NOC, how many teams of personnel do I need to fully cover operations? I assume minimally you need 3 teams to cover the required 24 hr coverage, but there is off time and schedule rotation? thoughts, experience? Mike

29 35

Stupid Cisco ACL question
by up＠3.am 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

Ok, I've done a lot of Cisco standard and extended ACLs, but I do not understand why the following does not work the way I think it should. Near the end of this extended named ACL, I have the following: permit tcp any eq 443 any permit tcp any eq 80 any deny ip any host 2.2.3.4 permit ip any any This is applied to an inbound interface(s). We want anybody outside to be able to reach ports 80 and 443 of any host on our network, no matter what, then block ALL other access to select hosts, such as 2.2.3.4, even ICMP. However, as soon as I apply this rule to the interface, ports 80 and 443 of that host become unreachable. A telnet to 2.2.3.4 443 gets "Connection refused" until I tear out the deny ACL above. I even tried adding udp for both ports, to no avail. I had always thought that these ACLs were processed in order, so that the explicit permit statement, though limited to a specific protocol but for all hosts, gets considered before the explicit deny statement for all IP to a particular host. What did I forget to consider? TIA,

5 5

Re: Bandwidth Growth
by Curran, David 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:36:54 +0800 > From: Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)creative.net.au> > Subject: Re: Bandwidth growth > To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <20110421023654.GE13776(a)skywalker.creative.net.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > If it's a true research project, wouldn't you really be interested in both > evidence for/against? :-) > > Just my 2c here, > > > Adrian Touche. Fortunately not being in the academic world allows me to be completely biased! :) But your point is well taken, and I'll take evidence for either side. I appreciate all of the responses I've received thus far. Especially the links to the IX graphs. While I agree you can't account for peering/de-peering, it also strikes me that on the aggregate the graphs do indeed show a significant increase around the "holidays" (the US ones anyway). The LINX, TORIX, and SIX graphs provided earlier, for example, seem relatively flat until the Nov. timeframe at which point they seem to seek a new higher "normal". Could just be my lack of sleep and my biased opinion though. As one might infer, I'm trying to find evidence corroborating my own experiences. My theory being that all of those cool Internet connected toys (Blue Ray, TVs, Ipads, etc) that hit the market this past year have lead to a substantial increase in residential Internet traffic. If that were true, I guess I'd expect that enterprise oriented service providers would not see the same uptick as residential providers. Thanks again to all have responded (and anyone else that might still). David *************************************************************************************** The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Windstream requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or its attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else.

3 2

Re: Doubt in ISIS
by Savyasachi Choudhary 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

> Thank you for the response. Its very detailed, and I am yet to understand > it completely. > > Following is the problem I am facing on Ericsson Routers. > > (static route) > Router1---------------------------------------------------------------------Router2 > ip route 202.1.1.0/24 null0 cost 9 > > In this 2 router topology, I have imported a static route 202.1.1.0/24 > with cost 9. > > And I am giving the following redistribute command on Router1, and later > observe show ip route command on Router2 > > PROTOCOL COMMAND (in Router1) > COST (Router2) OBSERVATION > > ISIS #redistribute static > 10 > default > #redistribute static metric 7 mertic-type external > 17 > configured in redist + 10 > #redistribute static metric 7 mertic-type internal > 17 > configured in redist + 10 > > What is observed is, it completely ignores the cost (9) that is configured > with the static route. In case of OSPF, they consider cost 9 also. > So, I have a doubt, whether ISIS RFC describes to ignore the route cost? Or > it is just implementation dependent. > > > Regards, > Savyasachi > 7676077879 > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Vitkovsky, Adam <avitkovsky(a)emea.att.com>wrote: > >> Isis doesn't have type-1 and type-2 external routes >> It has something similar though >> Metric of a prefix can be marked as internal metric or external metric >> >> These are my isis notes section regarding internal and external: >> >> the metric type for ext(redistributed) routes can be set as int/ext >> -by default internal metric is asigned during redistribution >> if nothing is specified >> >> ext metric has the I/E bit set -bit 7 >> => higher metric value +64 >> -------------------------------------- >> but cisto doesn't set bit 7 but bit 8 >> -when narrow metric is used bit 8 of the metric field is set by cisco >> => external metric than appears to be increased by 128 >> -------------------------------------- >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> Narrow metric: >> 8th bit is S-bit -support for qos metrics (only 0 is supported) >> 7th bit is the internal/external bit >> And the remaining 8 bits are for the metric >> >> 1b 1b 6bits => max 63 values >> 0 i/e default metric value >> 1 i/e delay metric value >> 1 i/e expense metric value >> 1 i/e error metric value >> -------neighbor ID-------- >> >> Internal is default on cisco >> If you set external the bit 7 is set -thus the metric appears to be +64 >> higher compared to the same route redistributed as internal >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> TLV specified by ISO 10589 contain metric info: >> ES neighbor type 2 >> IS neigh tyep 3 >> prefix neigh type 5 >> >> ______________________________________________ >> TLV specified by RFC 1195 contain metric info: >> ip internal reachability type 128 >> ip external reachability type 130 >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> ISIS metric extensions >> >> extended IS reachability tlv type 22 >> extended ip reachability tlv type 135 >> and >> trafic engineering rotuer ID tlv type 134 >> >> >> -the borrowed the metric fields for delay, expense, error >> -as they are not used >> >> -but the first S-bit and the I/E-bit remained >> So the same apply to the extended metric as well >> >> >> >> These are my notes form the labs: >> _____________________________________________________________ >> R1 >> route-map static-routes permit 10 >> match ip address prefix-list static-routes >> ! >> router isis 1 >> redistribute static ip route-map static-routes metric-type external >> level-1 >> >> -everything explicitely set in the redistribute cmd >> _____________________________________________________________ >> R2 >> route-map static-routes permit 10 >> match interface Null0 >> set metric-type external >> set level level-1 >> ! >> router isis 1 >> redistribute static ip route-map static-routes >> >> -everything set in the route-map used during the redistribution >> _____________________________________________________________ >> >> R7#sh isis dat ver >> >> IS-IS Level-1 Link State Database: >> LSPID LSP Seq Num LSP Checksum LSP Holdtime >> ATT/P/OL >> R1.00-00 0x00000007 0x23CA 642 1/0/0 >> Area Address: 49.0001 >> NLPID: 0xCC >> Hostname: R1 >> IP Address: 1.1.1.1 >> Metric: 10 IP 13.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> Metric: 10 IP 17.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> Metric: 0 IP 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 >> Metric: 10 IS R7.00 >> Metric: 0 IP-External 200.10.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> Metric: 0 IP-External 200.20.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> Metric: 0 IP-External 200.30.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> R2.00-00 0x00000015 0x5DA2 1049 1/0/0 >> Area Address: 49.0001 >> NLPID: 0xCC >> Hostname: R2 >> IP Address: 2.2.2.2 >> Metric: 10 IP 24.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> Metric: 10 IP 27.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> Metric: 0 IP 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 >> Metric: 10 IS R7.00 >> Metric: 64 IP-External 200.10.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> Metric: 64 IP-External 200.20.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> Metric: 64 IP-External 200.30.0.0 255.255.255.0 >> >> >> -so definition of external metric in redistribution cmd >> did not touch the metric -not sure how come it's still marked as ext >> -as the bit 7 or 8 should have been set >> >> -and definition of external metric in route-map >> did set the bit 7 of the metric -thus we see increase in metric of 64 >> >> -but none of the cmds have set the bit 8 as stated in the book :) >> >> >> >> >> adam >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Savyasachi Choudhary [mailto:savyasachi.choudhary@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:56 AM >> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Doubt in ISIS >> >> I have a doubt in ISIS. >> While redistributing routes from other protocols, how the metric is >> decided? >> OSPF has deccribed this in RFC 2328 Section 16.4 : >> >> '4) Let X be the cost specified by the preferred routing >> table >> >> entry for the ASBR/forwarding address, and Y the cost >> specified in the LSA. X is in terms of the link state >> metric, and Y is a type 1 or 2 external metric. >> >> (5) Look up the routing table entry for the destination N. If >> no entry exists for N, install the AS external path to N, >> with next hop equal to the list of next hops to the >> forwarding address, and advertising router equal to ASBR. >> If the external metric type is 1, then the path-type is set >> to type 1 external and the cost is equal to X+Y. If the >> external metric type is 2, the path-type is set to type 2 >> external, the link state component of the route's cost is X, >> >> and the type 2 cost is Y.' >> >> What is the behavior in ISIS? >> Regards, >> Savyasachi >> 7676077879 >> >>

1 0

Doubt in ISIS
by Savyasachi Choudhary 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

I have a doubt in ISIS. While redistributing routes from other protocols, how the metric is decided? OSPF has deccribed this in RFC 2328 Section 16.4 : '4) Let X be the cost specified by the preferred routing table entry for the ASBR/forwarding address, and Y the cost specified in the LSA. X is in terms of the link state metric, and Y is a type 1 or 2 external metric. (5) Look up the routing table entry for the destination N. If no entry exists for N, install the AS external path to N, with next hop equal to the list of next hops to the forwarding address, and advertising router equal to ASBR. If the external metric type is 1, then the path-type is set to type 1 external and the cost is equal to X+Y. If the external metric type is 2, the path-type is set to type 2 external, the link state component of the route's cost is X, and the type 2 cost is Y.' What is the behavior in ISIS? Regards, Savyasachi 7676077879 On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:07 PM, <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: > 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: CIsco IOS bug info request (Randy Bush) > 2. Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays (Jim Gettys) > 3. Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays (Owen DeLong) > 4. Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays (TJ) > 5. Bandwidth growth (Curran, David) > 6. Re: Bandwidth growth (Patrick W. Gilmore) > 7. Re: Bandwidth growth (Adrian Chadd) > 8. Re: Bandwidth growth (Martin Millnert) > 9. Re: NEBS compliant Server (Jess Petty) > 10. Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121 (Savyasachi Choudhary) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:02:15 +0900 > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Subject: Re: CIsco IOS bug info request > To: Ingo Flaschberger <if(a)xip.at> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <m2wriotz54.wl%randy(a)psg.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > A "little" bit older one, but bigger - took down the whole internet: > > for a small value of "whole internet" > > same for ripe/duke experiment gone bad > > randy > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:26:26 -0400 > From: Jim Gettys <jg(a)freedesktop.org> > Subject: Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4DAF4F82.3030201(a)freedesktop.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 04/20/2011 04:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> The best way to make 6to4 diminish has always been and still remains: > >>> > >>> Deploy Native IPv6 Now. > >>> > >>> That's a plan and a necessity at this point, but, execution is still > somewhat lagging. > >>> > >> Of course, Comcast *is* deploying native IPv6; see, for example, > >> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-January/031624.html > >> It just takes a while -- and a non-trivial number of zorkmids -- to > >> do things like replacing all of the non-v6 CPE. > >> > >> > >> --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb > > Comcast was not the target of my comment... The networks saying Comcast > shouldn't help the rest of the net by providing open 6to4 relays were the > ones I was referring to. > > > > I again applaud Comcast's leadership on IPv6 to the end user, even if > they haven't gotten > > it to me yet. ;-) > > > > They already have if you can run either 6rd or 6to4 and are a Comcast > customer, even if you didn't happen to know they had. (Though they do > plan to turn off the 6rd hack they were using this summer; their native > trial and 6to4 work well enough to not need yet another transition > mechanism). > > Their kind offer is to extend availability of their 6to4 relays to > others who aren't even Comcast customers... > > (Says this reasonably happy participant in Comcast's IPv6 trial; my > unhappiness is the state of CPE firmware, not with how well Comcast's > end of things work; I plan to ditch commercial firmware on my home > router for OpenWRT momentarily...) > - Jim > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:55:02 -0500 > From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > Subject: Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays > To: Jim Gettys <jg(a)freedesktop.org> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <AEFA7162-80E6-4F3C-9BCA-E2D1FB04FE3C(a)delong.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jim Gettys <jg(a)freedesktop.org> wrote: > > > On 04/20/2011 04:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>>> The best way to make 6to4 diminish has always been and still remains: > >>>> > >>>> Deploy Native IPv6 Now. > >>>> > >>>> That's a plan and a necessity at this point, but, execution is still > somewhat lagging. > >>>> > >>> Of course, Comcast *is* deploying native IPv6; see, for example, > >>> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-January/031624.html > >>> It just takes a while -- and a non-trivial number of zorkmids -- to > >>> do things like replacing all of the non-v6 CPE. > >>> > >>> > >>> --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb > >> Comcast was not the target of my comment... The networks saying Comcast > shouldn't help the rest of the net by providing open 6to4 relays were the > ones I was referring to. > >> > >> I again applaud Comcast's leadership on IPv6 to the end user, even if > they haven't gotten > >> it to me yet. ;-) > >> > > > > They already have if you can run either 6rd or 6to4 and are a Comcast > customer, even if you didn't happen to know they had. (Though they do plan > to turn off the 6rd hack they were using this summer; their native trial and > 6to4 work well enough to not need yet another transition mechanism). > > > I'm already running IPv6 over 6in4 tunnels to my cool routers. 6rd is not > an improvement. > > I'm looking forward to the day when Comcast can deliver straight native > IPv6 to me. > > > Their kind offer is to extend availability of their 6to4 relays to others > who aren't even Comcast customers... > > > > (Says this reasonably happy participant in Comcast's IPv6 trial; my > unhappiness is the state of CPE firmware, not with how well Comcast's end of > things work; I plan to ditch commercial firmware on my home router for > OpenWRT momentarily...) > > - Jim > > > > > lol... The commercial JunOS on my home gateway seems to be working OK. > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:57:23 -0400 > From: TJ <trejrco(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <BANLkTin5FwULR-k=V5=u1bCDURskx+qo4g(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 16:09, Doug Barton <dougb(a)dougbarton.us> wrote: > > > On 04/20/2011 12:50, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> Turnning off the servers will not reduce the brokenness of 6to4, it will > >> increase it. > >> > > > > Depends on your definitions of "increase" and "broken." If all the relays > > disappeared tomorrow then the failure rate would be 100%, sure. But that > > would mean a single, (more or less) instant, deterministic failure that > any > > modern OS ought to be able to handle intelligently; rather than the > myriad > > of ways that 6to4 can half-succeed now. To me, that's a win. > > > > While I can appreciate that 6to4 is far from perfect, and can create broken > situations - I will also admit to using 6to4 on more than an occasional > basis ... whether that be because: > > - my aircard gets a public IPv4 address, and thus 6to4 spins up > automatically > - my Linksys CPE, out of the box, does 6to4 (SLAAC-advertising a prefix) > - thus all of my home PCs do it as well (Win*, Ubuntu, etc.) > > I find 6to4 to be far superior to no IPv6 connectivity, far easier than > launching a TSP client (which I also have, just in case) ... and, in fact, > to largely "just work" for all of my machines. More relays will do nothing > but make this better, and as native IPv6 becomes available I will happily > (and automatically!) move to that instead. > > > /TJ ... also a happy Comcast 6RD-beta user right now, so technically I am > not using 6to4 at home *right now* (but will be using 6to4 again after June > 30th, when the 6RD trial ends). > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:35:22 -0500 > From: "Curran, David" <David.Curran(a)windstream.com> > Subject: Bandwidth growth > To: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <C9D4FCC7.B4B5%david.curran(a)windstream.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet usage > (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates in > the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. Any graphs or otherwise > would be greatly appreciated. The purpose is for an internal research > project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, > nor will the sources. > > Thanks in advance, > > David Curran I New Technology Planning I Windstream > O-864.331.7132 I C-864.905.0522 I david.curran(a)windstream.com<mailto: > david.curran(a)windstream.com> > > *************************************************************************************** > The information contained in this message, including attachments, may > contain > privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered > only to the > person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the > person > responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, > Windstream requests > that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the > message or its > attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to > anyone else. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:55:30 -0400 > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> > Subject: Re: Bandwidth growth > To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <2AE1BD67-2C59-4333-A5D1-9FE9B61EA438(a)ianai.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Curran, David wrote: > > > I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet > usage (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates > in the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. Any graphs or otherwise > would be greatly appreciated. The purpose is for an internal research > project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, > nor will the sources. > > <https://stats.linx.net/aggregate.html> > <http://www.ams-ix.net/historical-traffic-data/> > <http://de-cix.net/content/network.html> > <http://www.seattleix.net/agg.htm> > <http://www.torix.net/stats.php> > > Etc. > > I don't know if that proves your theory. And one could argue public IX > stats are actually not representative of growth, since many networks move > peers to private connections as they grow. But it is data, and it is > available. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:36:54 +0800 > From: Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)creative.net.au> > Subject: Re: Bandwidth growth > To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <20110421023654.GE13776(a)skywalker.creative.net.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > If it's a true research project, wouldn't you really be interested in both > evidence for/against? :-) > > Just my 2c here, > > > Adrian > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Curran, David wrote: > > > > > I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet > usage (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates > in the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. Any graphs or otherwise > would be greatly appreciated. The purpose is for an internal research > project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, > nor will the sources. > > > > <https://stats.linx.net/aggregate.html> > > <http://www.ams-ix.net/historical-traffic-data/> > > <http://de-cix.net/content/network.html> > > <http://www.seattleix.net/agg.htm> > > <http://www.torix.net/stats.php> > > > > Etc. > > > > I don't know if that proves your theory. And one could argue public IX > stats are actually not representative of growth, since many networks move > peers to private connections as they grow. But it is data, and it is > available. > > > > -- > > TTFN, > > patrick > > > > -- > - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid > Support - > - $24/pm+GST entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA > - > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:13:24 -0400 > From: Martin Millnert <millnert(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Bandwidth growth > To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <BANLkTim08-kM4b_UDQpT7z6xqub00JREnA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> > wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Curran, David wrote: > > > >> I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet > usage (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates > in the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. ?Any graphs or otherwise > would be greatly appreciated. ?The purpose is for an internal research > project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, > nor will the sources. > > > > <https://stats.linx.net/aggregate.html> > > <http://www.ams-ix.net/historical-traffic-data/> > > <http://de-cix.net/content/network.html> > > <http://www.seattleix.net/agg.htm> > > <http://www.torix.net/stats.php> > > Growth unsurprisingly also varies by region: > http://www.msk-ix.ru/eng/traffic.html > It has seen plenty of growth recently. > > If any MSK-IX staff reads this, a 3-, 5- or all-year graph would be an > interesting add! > > > I don't know if that proves your theory. ?And one could argue public IX > stats are actually not representative of growth, since many networks move > peers to private connections as they grow. ?But it is data, and it is > available. > > Aggregate IX statistics also fail to identify what part of the growth > is due to people moving traffic onto IX:es, from private connections > (transits). It is certainly data, aggregate data. I wouldn't hang my > heart-lung machine off of it's accuracy in predicting individual > networks short-term traffic developments though, so to speak. :) > > Regards, > Martin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:32:47 -0700 > From: Jess Petty <jess.petty(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: NEBS compliant Server > To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <BANLkTik3tgNQ3VQiirw-gLtvki8wJhTvmg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > We use Sun Netra. > > > Thanks, > Jess > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:05:54 +0530 > From: Savyasachi Choudhary <savyasachi.choudhary(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121 > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <BANLkTinC_uVkaPm+9GbP7UkckMvNaz=8Vg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I have a doubt in ISIS. > While redistributing routes from other protocols, how the metric is > decided? > OSPF has deccribed this in RFC 2328 Section 16.4 : > > '4) Let X be the cost specified by the preferred routing > table > > entry for the ASBR/forwarding address, and Y the cost > specified in the LSA. X is in terms of the link state > metric, and Y is a type 1 or 2 external metric. > > (5) Look up the routing table entry for the destination N. If > no entry exists for N, install the AS external path to N, > with next hop equal to the list of next hops to the > forwarding address, and advertising router equal to ASBR. > If the external metric type is 1, then the path-type is set > to type 1 external and the cost is equal to X+Y. If the > external metric type is 2, the path-type is set to type 2 > external, the link state component of the route's cost is X, > > and the type 2 cost is Y.' > > What is the behavior in ISIS? > > Regards, > Savyasachi > 7676077879 > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:01 AM, <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: > > > 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: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates) > > 2. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) > > 3. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates) > > 4. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) > > 5. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Joel Jaeggli) > > 6. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Owen DeLong) > > 7. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) > > 8. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Matthew Kaufman) > > 9. Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective (Joel Jaeggli) > > 10. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:00:19 -0600 > > From: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: George Bonser <gbonser(a)seven.com> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <4D532A93.50504(a)brightok.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote: > > > I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so > that > > > individual nodes in the home network get global IPs. > > Bridge only CPE's given off this node. > > > > 1043 IP addresses handed out > > 1024 Unique interfaces > > > > Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :) > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:00:45 +1100 > > From: Mark Andrews <marka(a)isc.org> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: david raistrick <drais(a)icantclick.org> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <20110210000045.EA41D9DCA79(a)drugs.dv.isc.org> > > > > > > In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102091459200.15471(a)murf.icantclick.org>, > > david rai > > strick writes: > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote: > > > > > > > Scott Helms <khelms(a)ispalliance.net> writes: > > > > > > > >> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy > > > >> layer 2 gear > > > > > > > > I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how > long? > > > > 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media > you > > > > > > And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they > > > could purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 > > > years, but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear > with > > > adequate v6 support. > > > > And who's fault is that? The ISP's and the vendors. The ISP's > > could have been requesting IPv6 support. The ISP's could have been > > running trials and providing feedback to the vendors. The vendors > > could have asked the ISP's to trail their IPv6 products. > > > > We have been saying for years "make sure you are ready". That means > > buying and testing equipment. Lots of those that tested went on to > > production years ago. > > > > As a vendor we like feedback on our products, good or bad. It's > > hard to work in a vacuum. > > > > -- > > Mark Andrews, ISC > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:01:46 -0600 > > From: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs(a)seastrom.com> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <4D532AEA.2090505(a)brightok.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > > Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade > > > schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade > > NAT. > > > > ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests, and is native v6. > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:07:26 +1100 > > From: Mark Andrews <marka(a)isc.org> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: "George Bonser" <gbonser(a)seven.com> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <20110210000726.3CABE9DCC09(a)drugs.dv.isc.org> > > > > > > In message < > > 5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC1397D(a)RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>, " > > George Bonser" writes: > > > > Cost's might be lower but service will be worse. NAT breaks a lot of > > > > applications file sharing will not work properly and running your own > > > > web server at home will not work properly. Well you always get what > > > you > > > > pay for and people will buy any crap if it is cheap enough. > > > >=20 > > > > Jens > > > > > > While that is true, it is no worse than the situation right now. In > the > > > US, the vast majority of users are already behind a NAT (I would say > > > over 90% of them are) so they are already experiencing this breakage. > =20 > > > > But for the most part they can work around breakages with a single NAT. > > Double NAT prevents most of the work arounds working. > > > > Mark > > -- > > Mark Andrews, ISC > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:08:10 -0800 > > From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: George Bonser <gbonser(a)seven.com> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <4D532C6A.20209(a)bogus.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > On 2/9/11 3:43 PM, George Bonser wrote: > > >> Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their customers. > > > > > > Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I > have > > > had has NATed me. I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT > > > when I went broadband. I have a friend that has another service and > she > > > is NATed too. Boot up in her network and you get 192.168.1.x > > > > The the cpe... In all likelihood it has a public ip on the outside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:10:46 -0800 > > From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: david raistrick <drais(a)icantclick.org> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <582356A9-5ADC-4244-8BA0-EE1F2F3EF388(a)delong.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:16 PM, david raistrick wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > >>>> I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how > long? > > >>>> 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media > > you > > >>> > > >>> And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they > > could purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 > years, > > but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with > adequate > > v6 support. > > >>> > > >> This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it > from > > their > > >> vendors during that time. > > > > > > > > > I was purchasing for and building small SP networks during that time. > > > > > > Requiring v6 of our vendors would have meant we just never got > anything, > > so we'd have never provided service. Come to think if it, maybe it > -would- > > have been better for everyone involved (except those of us who just got > > paychecks and experience out of it) to just simply not do it - but we > didn't > > know that at the time 15 years ago! > > > > > Requiring it delivered day one, sure. Putting in a requirement for "Will > > support" so that they are required to provide an upgrade path, OTOH, to > me > > seemed like it was basic good business sense. It worked out pretty well > for > > the organizations I was working for back then. We got upgradeable > hardware > > and the vendors got awareness of the demand. Admittedly, I wasn't working > in > > the last mile arena. However, pressuring vendors is possible without > > sacrificing immediate needs. > > > > > > > > Vendor C and J don't provide gear that fits into all network topologies > > (WISPs, MTU DSL, and smallish ADSL roll outs come to mind, certain during > > the time period in question. Sure, they eventually bought products in > those > > markets...but even still, I had sub 6 figure budgets to build with - I > > certainly had no leverage). > > > > > I don't think that networks with sub-6-figure buildouts are the ones > we're > > too worried about right now. > > They can probably upgrade for sub-6-figure amounts. > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:22:31 +1100 > > From: Mark Andrews <marka(a)isc.org> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: Scott Helms <khelms(a)ispalliance.net> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <20110210002231.23F0E9DCFDD(a)drugs.dv.isc.org> > > > > > > In message <4D531B52.70404(a)ispalliance.net>, Scott Helms writes: > > > On 2/9/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:00 PM, david raistrick wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Scott Helms<khelms(a)ispalliance.net> writes: > > > >>> > > > >>>> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of > legacy > > > >>>> layer 2 gear > > > >>> I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how > > long? > > > >>> 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media > > you > > > >> And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear > they > > coul > > > d purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 > years, > > but > > > I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate > > v6 su > > > pport. > > > >> > > > > This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it > from > > the > > > ir > > > > vendors during that time. > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely, just as the ISPs didn't see demand, and don't today, from > > > their users and thus the circle of blame is complete :) > > > > And some of their customers have been asking for IPv6 all along. > > > > I started asking my ISP at home in 2003. I suspect if all the ISPs > > here were honest they would say that they have had a trickle of > > IPv6 requests for the last 8 years. > > > > Mark > > > > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:54:05 +1000 > > To: Mark_Andrews(a)isc.org > > From: cablesupport(a)optusnet.com.au > > Subject: Re: [TT#6556559] HELPDESK Feedback Form - Mon Jun 16 09:52:50 > 2003 > > > > Return-Path: nobody(a)pts.optusnet.com.au > > Delivery-Date: Mon Jun 16 10:00:00 2003 > > Return-Path: <nobody(a)pts.optusnet.com.au> > > X-Original-To: marka(a)farside.isc.org > > Delivered-To: marka(a)farside.isc.org > > X-Loop: pts > > Reply-To: cablesupport(a)optusnet.com.au > > > > Hello, > > > > Thank you for your email regarding the OptusNet Cable service. > > > > At the moment there are no plans for any IPv6 deployment, when this is > due > > to happen we will notify all customers. > > > > Regards, > > Alex > > OptusNet Cable Technical Support > > > > -- > > Mark Andrews, ISC > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:27:51 -0800 > > From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew(a)matthew.at> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <4D533107.5010202(a)matthew.at> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/2011 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > > > On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote: > > >> I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so > that > > >> individual nodes in the home network get global IPs. > > > Bridge only CPE's given off this node. > > > > > > 1043 IP addresses handed out > > > 1024 Unique interfaces > > > > > > Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :) > > > > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for > > IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class > > of home appliances will need its own subnet. > > > > Matthew Kaufman > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:29:54 -0800 > > From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > > Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective > > To: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <4D533182.6020505(a)bogus.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs. > > > > > > If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future > events, > > I will > > > be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions. > > > > program committee would no doubt love to hear from you. > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote: > > > > > >> With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now > kind > > of > > >> puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next > couple > > of > > >> NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :) > > >> > > >> -Mike > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps > > >>>> compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. > This > > >>>> means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break > > >>>> my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6. > But > > >>>> that's not the worst part... as the folks my customers interact with > > >>>> over the next couple of years make their first not-quite-correct > IPv6 > > >>>> deployments, my access to them is going to break again. And again. > And > > >>>> again. And I won't have the foggiest idea who's next until I get the > > >>>> call that such-and-such isn't working right. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> What scares me most is that every time I upgrade a router to support > > needed > > >>> hardware or some badly needed IPv6 feature, something else breaks. > > Sometimes > > >>> it's just the router crashes on a specific IPv6 command entered at > CLI > > (C) > > >>> or as nasty as NSR constantly crashing the slave (J); the fixes > > generally > > >>> requiring me to upgrade again to the latest cutting edge releases > which > > >>> everyone hates (where I'm sure I'll find MORE bugs). > > >>> > > >>> The worst is when you're the first to find the bug(which I'm not even > > sure > > >>> how it's possible given how simplistic my configs are, isis > > multitopology, > > >>> iBGP, NSR, a few acls and route-maps/policies), it takes 3-6 months > or > > so to > > >>> track it down, and then it's put only in the next upcoming release > (not > > out > > >>> yet) and backported to the last release. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it) > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:30:46 -0600 > > From: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > > To: matthew(a)matthew.at > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <4D5331B6.60902(a)brightok.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > On 2/9/2011 6:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > > > > And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for > > > IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class > > > of home appliances will need its own subnet. > > > > I wonder if their RIR justification was for /64 to household or /48. :) > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > NANOG(a)nanog.org > > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121 > > ************************************** > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 39, Issue 68 > ************************************* >

1 0

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121
by Savyasachi Choudhary 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

I have a doubt in ISIS. While redistributing routes from other protocols, how the metric is decided? OSPF has deccribed this in RFC 2328 Section 16.4 : '4) Let X be the cost specified by the preferred routing table entry for the ASBR/forwarding address, and Y the cost specified in the LSA. X is in terms of the link state metric, and Y is a type 1 or 2 external metric. (5) Look up the routing table entry for the destination N. If no entry exists for N, install the AS external path to N, with next hop equal to the list of next hops to the forwarding address, and advertising router equal to ASBR. If the external metric type is 1, then the path-type is set to type 1 external and the cost is equal to X+Y. If the external metric type is 2, the path-type is set to type 2 external, the link state component of the route's cost is X, and the type 2 cost is Y.' What is the behavior in ISIS? Regards, Savyasachi 7676077879 On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:01 AM, <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: > 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: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates) > 2. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) > 3. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates) > 4. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) > 5. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Joel Jaeggli) > 6. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Owen DeLong) > 7. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) > 8. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Matthew Kaufman) > 9. Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective (Joel Jaeggli) > 10. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:00:19 -0600 > From: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: George Bonser <gbonser(a)seven.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4D532A93.50504(a)brightok.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote: > > I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that > > individual nodes in the home network get global IPs. > Bridge only CPE's given off this node. > > 1043 IP addresses handed out > 1024 Unique interfaces > > Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :) > > > Jack > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:00:45 +1100 > From: Mark Andrews <marka(a)isc.org> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: david raistrick <drais(a)icantclick.org> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <20110210000045.EA41D9DCA79(a)drugs.dv.isc.org> > > > In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102091459200.15471(a)murf.icantclick.org>, > david rai > strick writes: > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote: > > > > > Scott Helms <khelms(a)ispalliance.net> writes: > > > > > >> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy > > >> layer 2 gear > > > > > > I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long? > > > 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media you > > > > And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they > > could purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 > > years, but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with > > adequate v6 support. > > And who's fault is that? The ISP's and the vendors. The ISP's > could have been requesting IPv6 support. The ISP's could have been > running trials and providing feedback to the vendors. The vendors > could have asked the ISP's to trail their IPv6 products. > > We have been saying for years "make sure you are ready". That means > buying and testing equipment. Lots of those that tested went on to > production years ago. > > As a vendor we like feedback on our products, good or bad. It's > hard to work in a vacuum. > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:01:46 -0600 > From: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs(a)seastrom.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4D532AEA.2090505(a)brightok.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade > > schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade > NAT. > > ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests, and is native v6. > > > Jack > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:07:26 +1100 > From: Mark Andrews <marka(a)isc.org> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: "George Bonser" <gbonser(a)seven.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <20110210000726.3CABE9DCC09(a)drugs.dv.isc.org> > > > In message < > 5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC1397D(a)RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>, " > George Bonser" writes: > > > Cost's might be lower but service will be worse. NAT breaks a lot of > > > applications file sharing will not work properly and running your own > > > web server at home will not work properly. Well you always get what > > you > > > pay for and people will buy any crap if it is cheap enough. > > >=20 > > > Jens > > > > While that is true, it is no worse than the situation right now. In the > > US, the vast majority of users are already behind a NAT (I would say > > over 90% of them are) so they are already experiencing this breakage. =20 > > But for the most part they can work around breakages with a single NAT. > Double NAT prevents most of the work arounds working. > > Mark > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:08:10 -0800 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: George Bonser <gbonser(a)seven.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4D532C6A.20209(a)bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 2/9/11 3:43 PM, George Bonser wrote: > >> Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their customers. > > > > Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I have > > had has NATed me. I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT > > when I went broadband. I have a friend that has another service and she > > is NATed too. Boot up in her network and you get 192.168.1.x > > The the cpe... In all likelihood it has a public ip on the outside. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:10:46 -0800 > From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: david raistrick <drais(a)icantclick.org> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <582356A9-5ADC-4244-8BA0-EE1F2F3EF388(a)delong.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:16 PM, david raistrick wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >>>> I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long? > >>>> 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media > you > >>> > >>> And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they > could purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 years, > but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate > v6 support. > >>> > >> This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it from > their > >> vendors during that time. > > > > > > I was purchasing for and building small SP networks during that time. > > > > Requiring v6 of our vendors would have meant we just never got anything, > so we'd have never provided service. Come to think if it, maybe it -would- > have been better for everyone involved (except those of us who just got > paychecks and experience out of it) to just simply not do it - but we didn't > know that at the time 15 years ago! > > > Requiring it delivered day one, sure. Putting in a requirement for "Will > support" so that they are required to provide an upgrade path, OTOH, to me > seemed like it was basic good business sense. It worked out pretty well for > the organizations I was working for back then. We got upgradeable hardware > and the vendors got awareness of the demand. Admittedly, I wasn't working in > the last mile arena. However, pressuring vendors is possible without > sacrificing immediate needs. > > > > > Vendor C and J don't provide gear that fits into all network topologies > (WISPs, MTU DSL, and smallish ADSL roll outs come to mind, certain during > the time period in question. Sure, they eventually bought products in those > markets...but even still, I had sub 6 figure budgets to build with - I > certainly had no leverage). > > > I don't think that networks with sub-6-figure buildouts are the ones we're > too worried about right now. > They can probably upgrade for sub-6-figure amounts. > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:22:31 +1100 > From: Mark Andrews <marka(a)isc.org> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: Scott Helms <khelms(a)ispalliance.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <20110210002231.23F0E9DCFDD(a)drugs.dv.isc.org> > > > In message <4D531B52.70404(a)ispalliance.net>, Scott Helms writes: > > On 2/9/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:00 PM, david raistrick wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote: > > >> > > >>> Scott Helms<khelms(a)ispalliance.net> writes: > > >>> > > >>>> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy > > >>>> layer 2 gear > > >>> I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how > long? > > >>> 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media > you > > >> And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they > coul > > d purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 years, > but > > I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate > v6 su > > pport. > > >> > > > This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it from > the > > ir > > > vendors during that time. > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely, just as the ISPs didn't see demand, and don't today, from > > their users and thus the circle of blame is complete :) > > And some of their customers have been asking for IPv6 all along. > > I started asking my ISP at home in 2003. I suspect if all the ISPs > here were honest they would say that they have had a trickle of > IPv6 requests for the last 8 years. > > Mark > > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:54:05 +1000 > To: Mark_Andrews(a)isc.org > From: cablesupport(a)optusnet.com.au > Subject: Re: [TT#6556559] HELPDESK Feedback Form - Mon Jun 16 09:52:50 2003 > > Return-Path: nobody(a)pts.optusnet.com.au > Delivery-Date: Mon Jun 16 10:00:00 2003 > Return-Path: <nobody(a)pts.optusnet.com.au> > X-Original-To: marka(a)farside.isc.org > Delivered-To: marka(a)farside.isc.org > X-Loop: pts > Reply-To: cablesupport(a)optusnet.com.au > > Hello, > > Thank you for your email regarding the OptusNet Cable service. > > At the moment there are no plans for any IPv6 deployment, when this is due > to happen we will notify all customers. > > Regards, > Alex > OptusNet Cable Technical Support > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:27:51 -0800 > From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew(a)matthew.at> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4D533107.5010202(a)matthew.at> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 2/9/2011 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > > On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote: > >> I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that > >> individual nodes in the home network get global IPs. > > Bridge only CPE's given off this node. > > > > 1043 IP addresses handed out > > 1024 Unique interfaces > > > > Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :) > > > > > > Jack > > > > > And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for > IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class > of home appliances will need its own subnet. > > Matthew Kaufman > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:29:54 -0800 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective > To: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4D533182.6020505(a)bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs. > > > > If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, > I will > > be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions. > > program committee would no doubt love to hear from you. > > > > Owen > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote: > > > >> With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind > of > >> puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple > of > >> NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :) > >> > >> -Mike > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > wrote: > >> > >>> On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >>> > >>>> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps > >>>> compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This > >>>> means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break > >>>> my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6. But > >>>> that's not the worst part... as the folks my customers interact with > >>>> over the next couple of years make their first not-quite-correct IPv6 > >>>> deployments, my access to them is going to break again. And again. And > >>>> again. And I won't have the foggiest idea who's next until I get the > >>>> call that such-and-such isn't working right. > >>>> > >>> > >>> What scares me most is that every time I upgrade a router to support > needed > >>> hardware or some badly needed IPv6 feature, something else breaks. > Sometimes > >>> it's just the router crashes on a specific IPv6 command entered at CLI > (C) > >>> or as nasty as NSR constantly crashing the slave (J); the fixes > generally > >>> requiring me to upgrade again to the latest cutting edge releases which > >>> everyone hates (where I'm sure I'll find MORE bugs). > >>> > >>> The worst is when you're the first to find the bug(which I'm not even > sure > >>> how it's possible given how simplistic my configs are, isis > multitopology, > >>> iBGP, NSR, a few acls and route-maps/policies), it takes 3-6 months or > so to > >>> track it down, and then it's put only in the next upcoming release (not > out > >>> yet) and backported to the last release. > >>> > >>> > >>> Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it) > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:30:46 -0600 > From: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> > Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... > To: matthew(a)matthew.at > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4D5331B6.60902(a)brightok.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 2/9/2011 6:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > > And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for > > IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class > > of home appliances will need its own subnet. > > I wonder if their RIR justification was for /64 to household or /48. :) > > Jack > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121 > ************************************** >

1 0

NEBS compliant Server
by Richard Zheng 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

Hi, We are looking for some NEBS compliant servers. What do you use for DC powered servers colocated in CO? Thanks, Richard

3 2

Bandwidth growth
by Curran, David 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet usage (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates in the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. Any graphs or otherwise would be greatly appreciated. The purpose is for an internal research project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, nor will the sources. Thanks in advance, David Curran I New Technology Planning I Windstream O-864.331.7132 I C-864.905.0522 I david.curran(a)windstream.com<mailto:david.curran@windstream.com> *************************************************************************************** The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Windstream requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or its attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else.

4 3