- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 01 Dec '10

01 Dec '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 5/8 and 37/8 from the IANA in November 2010. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size for these two /8s has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html> Additionally, please note that three "pilot" prefixes will be announced from each /8. The prefixes are: 5.0.0.0/16 5.1.0.0/21 5.1.24.0/24 37.0.0.0/16 37.1.0.0/21 37.1.24.0/24 They all originate in AS12654. More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the draft document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks" which can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html> Kind regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkz2My0ACgkQXOgsmPkFrjOT7wCgnNa0eUFwK/ebtSeus3YgMoxZ GnUAnRAPMBMth/eSgX2F/opnY0fQI+Co =z5iw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

TWT - Comcast congestion
by Jeff Wheeler 01 Dec '10

01 Dec '10

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> wrote: > uncongested access. This is the kind of action that virtually BEGS for > government involvement, which will probably end badly for all networks. This depends on the eventual regulatory mechanism and the goals it intends to promote. Everyone in our industry has been aware that security mechanisms related to BGP are needed, but after major incidents making it into the news regularly for ten years, little progress has been made. A regulator putting the hammer down might be a driving force to solve some of our basically solvable problems that no one is willing to spend any time or money on. Additionally, it is easy to make the argument that reduced interconnection cost for end-user ISPs would never motivate any innovation. If any network with 1000 DSL users could connect to the closest PAIX (in every NFL city, of course) and gain access to all the big players for nothing but the cost of transport, it would not significantly reduce their cost to serve their customers. The DSLAMs, tech support monkeys, transport, idiotic implementation choices, etc. cost an order of magnitude more than transit. No regulator is going to believe that eliminating the cost of transit will encourage more broadband deployment, higher broadband speeds, or new inventions that tax the network more heavily. On the other hand, it is very easy for regulators to imagine that, if Youtube had to bear the whole cost of moving bits from them to the end-user, and broadband access was free for anyone with a house and mailbox, developing new applications would be much more expensive and happen less frequently. I think eyeball networks had better start demonstrating how they are innovating new things that benefit the public, and working hard to run their networks and businesses efficiently, before the regulation gauntlet is thrown down. Otherwise, they will be on the losing end. In either case, I don't think it automatically must be bad for all networks, and everyone except those eyeball networks should hope it turns out to be good for the public, increasing consumer choice and bringing new forms of information and entertainment into their homes. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw(a)inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts

1 0

Level3 issues from Denver to San Jose?
by Jared Geiger 01 Dec '10

01 Dec '10

I'm seeing packetloss starting at ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net(4.69.132.37) destined down to San Jose (4.69.132.57). 10. ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net 1.5% 11. ae-3-3.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.6% 12. ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9% 13. ae-4-99.edge2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9% Is anyone else seeing the same thing? I know its not much, but at times it spikes up, this was just part of a small snapshot taken. ~Jared

3 2

Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010
by Leo Vegoda 01 Dec '10

01 Dec '10

Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of four /8 IPv4 blocks to ARIN and RIPE NCC in November 2010: 5/8, 23/8, 37/8 and 100/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt The complete list of IPv4 /8s allocated so far this year is: 1/8 5/8 14/8 23/8 27/8 31/8 36/8 37/8 42/8 49/8 50/8 100/8 101/8 105/8 107/8 176/8 177/8 181/8 223/8 Please update your filters as appropriate. The IANA free pool contains 7 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s. Regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA ICANN

4 3

Static routes and reverse DNS with Cogeco
by Brian Raaen 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

I am assist a small cable system that is using cogeco as their backbone provider, and am running into some issues. I was wondering if anyone else has had sucess working with them. My issues are the following. 1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was told they "do not do static routes" when I asked if I could have my /24 circuit converted to a /30 and have the remaining subnets routed to my end of /30. Their suggested meathod is to put a router running proxy arp in front of my CMTS. I am trying to escalate my case, but it looks like I am being forced into some kind of proxy-arp setup. --- Brian Raaen Network Architech

2 2

The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/16/internet-traffic-reportedly-rout… -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

12 20

starwars.com subdomain hijacked?
by Matt Disuko 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

It seems the subdomain "shop.starwars.com" is being redirected. Anybody else seeing this?

8 9

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
by Brandon Butterworth 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

> And before we get too much into HD vs Codecs vs 720P vs 1080p vs > "true HD" marketing BS, I capture out of my camera's HDMI port at > 3Gbit/s and I am not running 4:4:4 color. So what is HD and what it > the allowable compression for it still to be considered as such. Whatever marketing feel like, there is no absolute High Definition, it's really Higher Definition where the reference is undefined. When access speeds get to 1Gbit/s they'll no doubt be unhappy that we may stream something like this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11436939 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2010/10/super-hi-vision-t… If you make it they will fill it. brandon

2 1

experience with equinix exchange
by Shacolby Jackson 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

Has anyone had any experience (good or bad) with their exchange at any of their major datacenters, especially Great Oaks? We're wondering if people really love or hate it. -shac

16 21

Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
by Richard Hartmann 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

Hi all, as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term. Being highly pedantic Germans, this annoyed quite a few people within the DENOG community. This, in turn, lead to an I-D[1]. If any of you have any additional suggestions, you are more than welcome to share them. Additionally, I want to invite everyone to participate in an informal poll which we created[2]. We're fully aware that it's trivial to cheat on this poll; that's life. As of right now, Quibble leads with Hextet being a close second. All other options got significantly less votes. Thanks, Richard [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming [2] http://doodle.com/5q9gfvk4qe6zmzc6

21 60