- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Comcast's 6to4 Relays
by Brzozowski, John 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

Folks, Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The availability of our 6to4 relays should improve the experience of others using 6to4 as a means to access content and services over IPv6. We have been open about our IPv6 activities and wanted to follow suit by reaching out to the community and soliciting feedback before moving forward. As always we wish to continue to advocate and support the universal deployment of IPv6. Please send any comments or questions to the list or if you wish to me directly. John ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net =========================================

20 29

YOU-TUBE-IN.edge2.SanJose1.Level3.net
by Andreas Petersson 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Hi, Not sure this is the right place to ask, but I see lots of pl to www.google.com from my servers. Anyone else that have the same problem? Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 6. ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net 0.0% 7 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.1 7. ae-4-90.edge2.SanJose1.Level3.net 0.0% 7 1.1 17.3 1.1 67.9 25.0 8. YOU-TUBE-IN.edge2.SanJose1.Level3.net 42.9% 7 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.3 0.1 9. 72.14.232.136 66.7% 6 2.7 5.0 2.7 7.2 3.1 10. 64.233.174.15 60.0% 6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 0.1 11. 74.125.224.49 60.0% 6 3.2 5.8 3.2 8.4 3.7 BR Andreas Petersson

3 2

[NANOG-announce] NANOG Membership Update
by Steve Gibbard 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

NANOG Community, As many of you know, NANOG has been taken over by a new membership-based non-profit corporation, NewNOG, Inc. Things are going well so far. The NANOG Intellectual Property transfer is moving along nicely. We've been signing up lots of sponsors for the Denver meeting coming up in June, and are getting lots of interest in sponsorship for next fall's Philadelphia meeting. We expect to have great programs for those meetings as well. We began signing up members during the Miami NANOG meeting at the end of January, and are now up to 160 members. In addition to providing some of the organization's financial support, the membership makes the decisions on how the organization is run. In effect, the membership is NANOG. The current list of members is at https://newnog.org/members.php. The membership policy is at https://newnog.org/membership-policy.php. For those of you who haven't joined yet, we'd like to once again ask you to become members. Membership is $100 per year, with a 10% discount for pre-paying for three or more years. Student membership is $50 per year. Members receive a $25 per meeting registration discount. You can join at https://newnog.org/join.php. We will also have a membership table set up at NANOG52 in Denver, which you can visit for information or assistance. For those of you who were having trouble with our PayPal sign-up process, or for those outside the United States, we are now also accepting credit card payments via Google Checkout. Thanks for your support, Steve Gibbard NANOG Membership Chair NANOG Development Committee _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

dishnetwork.com down?
by Andy Ringsmuth 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Anyone know what's up with dishnetwork.com? www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com also reports it as being down. --- Andy Ringsmuth 7215 Dorchester Court Lincoln, NE 68521 (402) 304-0083 andyring(a)inebraska.com

2 2

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 52 Early Bird Registration ends 04/23/2011 -- Register now!
by David Meyer 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Looking forward to seeing you all in Denver. Dave (for the NANOG PC) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

eigrp set next hop
by Andrey Khomyakov 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Hi nanog I need to advertise EIGRP route with a different next-hop value than self Due to how the connections are setup, I have to run BGP between two peers that are 3 hops away from each other. router1--router2--firewall--router3 I'm running EBGP between router1 and router3 router1 is redistributing into EIGRP that's running with router2 The problem is that now router2 thinks that router3 routes are reachable via router1 so I have myself a route loop. Is there a way to advertise an EIGRP route with next hop of router3 (or firewall for that matter) rather than router1 which is what EIGRP does by default Thank you in advance for advice. -- Andrey Khomyakov [khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com]

3 4

RPKI in the real world: using MaxLength
by Alex Band 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

The RIPE NCC is running their Resource Certification system for a couple of months now, and we've got quite a number of prefixes covered by ROAs in the repository by now. So I decided to have a look at how people are creating their ROAs and in particular how the 'Maximum Length' feature is used, which authorises the AS to deaggregate the prefix to the specified point. We compared the repository to the prefixes seen by our RIS route collectors. It gives a good indication how people are using this option, and what the effects are when people base routing decisions on validation results. You can read the article here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/AlexBand/using-the-maximum-length-option-in-r… I'm interested to hear if you think we should change our implementation, and what choice you think is the best. -Alex

1 0

IPv4 address exchange
by Peter Thimmesch 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

John, Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2 March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy) <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accre ditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf > In addition we pointed out, in our opinion, that the current process for reviewing and approving a Global Policy is somewhat skewed towards the Regional Internet Registries. Hence we requested that due to this obvious and readily apparent Conflict-of-Interest (yes, I expect you will disagree with even this, which is so clear that to debate this would be simply too much even by the new standards that you have set recently in your online arguments with Prof. Mueller) we explore other forums to have the merits of the proposal aired. Regards, Peter Thimmesch Chairman

3 2

IPv4 address exchange
by Scott Weeks 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

Has this been discussed here? I did a quickie search and saw nothing. Other than spam to a technical mailing list, do you guys care, or is it a non-issue? scott --- Begin forwarded message: From: "Martin v. Löwis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de> To: apnic-talk(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [apnic-talk] IPv4 address exchange Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:07:59 +0200 With the address pool exhausted in APNIC for regular allocations, service providers will need a way to acquire additional address blocks for deployment; by discovering resources that are currently unused (or can be released by the current user with sufficient effort). In order to promote such address transfers, we are offering the Asia-Pacific region a platform, at http://tradeipv4.com/ While this platform is designed to ultimately allow transfer of addresses within and across all regions of the world, we expect that interest within the APNIC community will be largest, hence this announcement. Kind regards, Martin v. Löwis _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list apnic-talk(a)lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk

11 34

Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
by Daniel STICKNEY 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

Hello all, I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines (different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been invented. Has anyone already set this up or tested it ? In my research into the proposed solutions I came across this document "IEEE Communications Surveys - 2nd Quarter 2006, Volume 8, No. 2" (http://www.shim6.org/path-to-mh.pdf) which seems quite thorough. It compares routing methods, middle-box methods, and host-centric methods. It mentions "During the last years, the IETF has made several explicit or implicit architectural decisions regarding IPv6 multihoming. The main decision is to go down the path of developing the host-centric approaches" as well as "Host-centric multihoming, the approach promoted by the IETF for IPv6 multihoming, [...]". After the comparison of all host-centric methods it adds " [...], the IETF has decided by the end of 2004 to foster the SHIM approach." This approach looks interesting to me after all the comparisons, though I'm less familiar with it. I'm interested to hear your real-world experiences on this topic. Thanks, Daniel

20 52