- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Ipv6 for the content provider
by Charles N Wyble 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, All the recurring threads about prefix length, security posture, ddos, consumer CPE support have been somewhat interesting to my service provider alter ego. Ipv6 is definitely on folks minds this year. The threads seem a lot less trollish as well. It appears some significant progress is being made, and peoples opinions are firming up. Hopefully this will help move ipv6 adoption forward. I have recently turned up an ipv6 tunnel with he.net and have end to end connectivity. I'm using pfsense as my routing platform. It was pretty easy (about 10 minutes of total work I think). So I can connect to various ipv6 enabled sites on the interwebz. This seems to be the first step in deployment. For the most part, I'm a data center/application administrator/content provider kind of guy. As such, I want to provide all my web content over ipv6, and support ipv6 SMTP. What are folks doing in this regard? Do I just need to assign ip addresses to my servers, add AAAA records to my DNS server and that's it? I'm running PowerDNS for DNS, Apache for WWW. Postfix for SMTP. Feel free to point me at any good manuals and say RTFM :) - -- Charles N Wyble (charles(a)knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars http://www.knownelement.com Mobile: 626 539 4344 Office: 310 929 8793 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNQGZvAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAt9ykP/ROLSWz3LmAF78OMBEhWEMvX MjOVR2QK6kQ3byV8WLro95tCOuyo8L8fUC60KyFh4XRsedb7xk6S8cTER80zmGzG rOAFVpNyJ1QzCcf4MYpj8xHn9zM6Fywft4VzKQEgDvlV8yD0VZKJi+fNj4noZ5oK tmM1s9Is5db3d5ldrC6M54TQJsbaZiuz+FrFtpkENraJIWlOeU3laM6kvwzvYpok BKtnaY6zBq42QovpJ+MU+lmanCB6Z0r3e2cSB+N7XJL0Va/Y2IW/eZn35S+dE3xk y7RPSZu2jDxJ6atQJVIBpjfL6oqUUr+0RHc+gX4VJyOrwpEuJQ/GvTiRDTUZkA0A twhvQnS6yc5G8L+iwID4YqkVKNCFcJUtAHUntqmy1FqTe9iQSlZdUPPhKrkRE7zW B2S2T0Lv6a/neHU5yfsGjiYbIAy7keXoiMPbR4ZJxC/KkogfWNgMZBVpjGVn0NI4 COOymyFYgvQFiXIpvmpQn0iLFcWmmGdwV2DPvxMArdmfw2SeyipJiBSeeEbb4ZG4 kw1LOrI7+OGnoDEByAtkZPh42wAbXbrSw9WeWvphAsQ2dAmASqXUKuHTDXd1laCC yi37NTRmWACNHKcVEhpk3saJDCsPPVx6ECYfhSsSALZDn6696BvFXZnN2423Fmk7 dtMKM38+rxz9r4IL5O+n =Mi6R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

22 47

2011.01.31 NANOG51 day 1 morning session notes posted
by Matthew Petach 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

I've posted my notes from the morning session of NANOG51 from Miami up at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.01.31-NANOG51-morning-notes.txt Congratulations, Josh, on the acquisition; wish I'd been able to fly out and join in the celebration. :) As always, apologies to everyone for slaughtering people's names--let me know when I've butchered yours horribly, and I'll update the page. ^_^; Matt

1 0

Comcast IPv6 Native Dual Stack Trials
by Brzozowski, John 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Comcast Activates First Users With IPv6 Native Dual Stack Over DOCSIS http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-nat ive-dual-stack-over-docsis.html 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 =========================================

4 3

Contact at level 3 RE IRR database?
by Andrew Alston 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Hi All, I was wondering if anyone had a direct contact at level 3 who deals with their IRR database, since my queries logged with them on Saturday to both noc@ and abuse@ have gone unanswered. I have just taken a look at the following: whois -h whois.radb.net \!gAS11908 and there is a *HUGE* amount of IP space registered in the Level3 IRR database that is propagating to the other databases that clearly does not belong to AS11908. (Beyond the initial prefix of ours that noticed). Thanks Andrew Alston TENET - Chief Technology Officer Phone: +27 21 763 7181

2 1

help needed - state of california needs a benchmark
by Mike 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Hello, My company is small clec / broadband provider serving rural communities in northern California, and we are the recipient of a small grant from the state thru our public utilities commission. We went out to 'middle of nowhere' and deployed adsl2+ in fact (chalk one up for the good guys!), and now that we're done, our state puc wants to gather performance data to evaluate the result of our project and ensure we delivered what we said we were going to. Bigger picture, our state is actively attempting to map broadband availability and service levels available and this data will factor into this overall picture, to be used for future grant/loan programs and other support mechanisms, so this really is going to touch every provider who serves end users in the state. The rub is, that they want to legislate that web based 'speedtest.com' is the ONLY and MOST AUTHORITATIVE metric that trumps all other considerations and that the provider is %100 at fault and responsible for making fraudulent claims if speedtest.com doesn't agree. No discussion is allowed or permitted about sync rates, packet loss, internet congestion, provider route diversity, end user computer performance problems, far end congestion issues, far end server issues or cpu loading, latency/rtt, or the like. They are going to decide that the quality of any provider service, is solely and exclusively resting on the numbers returned from 'speedtest.com' alone, period. All of you in this audience, I think, probably immediately understand the various problems with such an assertion. Its one of these situations where - to the uninitiated - it SEEMS LIKE this is the right way to do this, and it SEEMS LIKE there's some validity to whats going on - but in practice, we engineering types know it's a far different animal and should not be used for real live benchmarking of any kind where there is a demand for statistical validity. My feeling is that - if there is a need for the state to do benchmarking, then it outta be using statistically significant methodologies for same along the same lines as any other benchmark or test done by other government agencies and national standards bodies that are reproducible and dependable. The question is, as a hotbutton issue, how do we go about getting 'the message' across, how do we go about engineering something that could be considered statistically relevant, and most importantly, how do we get this to be accepted by non-technical legislators and regulators? Mike-

14 13

Level 3's IRR Database
by Andrew Alston 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Hi All, I've just noticed that Level 3 is allowing people to register space in its IRR database that A.) is not assigned to the people registering it and B.) is not assigned via/to Level 3. So, I have two queries A.) Are only customers of Level 3 allowed to use this database B.) Can someone from Level 3 please clarify if there are any plans to lock this down slightly At this point, it would seem that if you are a customer of level 3's, you can register any space you feel like in there, and announce anything you feel like once the filters propagate, which in my opinion completely nullifies the point of IRR in the first place. Though I think this also raises the question about IRR databases in general. Would it not be far more sane to have each RIR run a single instance each which talk to each other, which can be verified against IP address assignments, and scrap the distributed IRR systems that allow for issues like this to occur? (In the mean time I've emailed the relevant people to try and get the entries falsely registered in that database removed, and will wait and see if I get a response). Andrew Alston TENET - Chief Technology Officer Phone: +27 21 763 7181

11 13

[Fwd: [mat-wg] Visualizing the Egyptian disconnection]
by Mirjam Kuehne 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Hi, See below a link to a visualisation of the Egyptian disconnect using the RIPE NCC Resource EXplainer tool (REX). Mirjam -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [mat-wg] Visualizing the Egyptian disconnection Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:37:05 -0500 From: Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes(a)bbn.com> To: mat-wg(a)ripe.net Hey all, Looking to find some more different ways of looking at the current events in Egypt, I thought the routing graphs that the RIPE REX tool produces could be instructive. I've collated the relevant graphs with some notes on what they show in a brief RIPE Labs article: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/rbarnes/visualizing-the-egyptian-disconnection Best, --Richard

1 0

Re: Level 3's IRR Database
by Brandon Butterworth 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

> > I think it is too early in the deployment process to start dropping > > routes based on RPKI alone. We'll get there at some point, I guess. > > Do we really *want* to get to that point? I thought that was the point and the goal of securing the routing infrastructure is laudable. But the voices in my head say don't trust them with control of your routes, see what happened in Egypt. brandon

6 5

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt
by andrew.wallace 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

We should be asking the Egyptians to stagger the return of services so that infrastructure isn't affected, when connectivity is deemed to be allowed to come back online. Andrew Wallace --- British IT Security Consultant

6 5

NANOG lIst replay?
by Owen DeLong 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Is it my imagination, or, is the list replaying messages from several days ago? Owen

2 1