- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

VPN issue, and possible cBeyond Engineer request
by Blake Pfankuch 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

Howdy, So I'm fighting a VPN issue, trying to establish a Client to Firewall VPN for remote access with 3 of my customers. Customer is using a Sonicwall firewall (TZ210 or NSA240 with similar issues). We have ruled out the firewall being the issue by terminating the internet connection to a switch, static IPing a laptop outside the firewall and successfully establishing a tunnel. DHCP information is properly processed by the firewall every time, but under 25% of the time it is not received by the client. Any thoughts as to what might be intermittently eating this information? Alternatively anyone useful from cBeyond who might be able to assist me? This works perfectly fine for 50+ customers however we have 3 customers on cBeyond service that it does not work with. Again, we can bypass the cBeyond circuit and VPN client connections work as expected. Any other ideas? Blake Pfankuch

1 0

Issues with Wild Blue Internet Services
by Mike Maberry 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

All, We are receiving reports that customers using Wild Blue ISP are having trouble reaching our network. We have asked customers to provide us with packet captures and are still waiting on them. Our troubleshooting has not revealed any reason why customers can not access us from that ISP. The same customers report that from other networks they can reach us. I was wondering if any of you have had similar experiences with this ISP or could shed some light on what might be happening. Thanks for your valuable time, Mike

1 0

Issues with MSN and Rogers Blackberry
by Steve Bertrand 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

Hi all, I have a good friend who is on the Rogers network with a Blackberry Bold 9700. Frequently, but not always, MSN will dump with the following error: "There is a problem with the server. Please try again later.(100)". The 'net is littered with these complaints, and it appears to only affect Verizon/Rogers networks. Does anyone know of a workaround, or are there any Rogers/MSN engineers who can contact me off list to try to figure it out? Thanks, Steve

1 0

RE: NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 122
by Mick 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

Hi Jorge, What if the move to IPv6 was not too hard? What if the move to IPv6 did have some positive results? What if the move to IPv6 meant the reliance on IPv4 was significantly diminished? Would that be OK with you? Thanks, Mick -----Original Message----- From: nanog-request(a)nanog.org [mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org] Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 11:00 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 122 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: cost of IPv4 (Jorge Amodio) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:39:36 -0500 From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: cost of IPv4 To: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <AANLkTim=GJaVbjucAXJcZ8LKusbHqBqEzE3-7Kkp5gom(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> The end of IPv4 is near, but that doesn't mean the end of the Internet is here. ?The next chapter gets a new page turned. ?Maybe we will determine that IPv6 needs to go the way of IPX/Decnet/AppleTalk and some new system (non-IP even) will take over the world. IMHO, there is no such thing like "the end of IPv4 is near", what is near is the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space for new allocations. Unfortunately, as Bill mentioned, IPv6 does not offer much more than an expanded address space, quite a different situation with the proprietary protocols you mentioned, then there is no much benefit/motivation for many to switch in a hurry. No doubt that we need to move forward and keep pushing to get IPv6 deployed, but it will coexist for many many years with IPv4 which will probably never go 100% away. My .02 Jorge ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 122 **************************************

1 0

Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment
by Eric Merkel 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access equipment for a small metro-ethernet network. We're probably talking at max 200-300 subs split between two termination points. Most customers will probably be at speeds of 100M or less. We'd like the backbone to be 10G and be MPLS capable. That being said some of the companies we've been looking at are Cisco Extreme Brocade Adtran Occam Zhone We're looking to build the network in a cost effective manner so we're not opposed to doing using aftermarket or refurbished equipment but we don't want to start off with equipment that has no future of expanding. Any suggestions, success or horror stories are appreciated. ;) Eric ===== Eric Merkel MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. Email: merkel at metalink.net

11 12

A10
by Bill Blackford 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

Anyone on list have any experience with A10 app performance products? How do they compare with F5, CSS, Netscaler, etc. In particular, stability, throughput, how they handle affinity, stickiness, pools (adding, removing nodes live), load balancing algorithms, SSL accel, reports/stats, etc. Thanks in advance for any input -- Bill Blackford Network Engineer Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....

1 0

data center locations - recommendation's
by Santino Codispoti 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

I am hoping the list can help me out. We need to setup a few data center locations and I was looking for recommendation’s on City’s and possible providers to rent space from. I was thinking two within the US to service North America and possibility also South America. Then also two within Europe. We would replicate data between the two in Europe and the two within the US but we would not replicate Europe to US.

2 2

network name 101100010100110.net
by Day Domes 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?

13 17

XO BGP routing engineer?
by Ulf Zimmermann 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

Anyone from XO, could you please contact me off list for a routing problem I have inside of XO Fremont Datacenter, trying to file a ticket with XO isn't working as nobody is answering the phones. -- Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-865-0204 You can find my resume at: http://www.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html

1 0

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 91
by Rudolph Daniel 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

We all are waiving flags about the return of one solitary /8 to ARIN, (which is a good thing) but should we not waive flags about new v6 networks too? Let us waive the flags also for the v6 adopters...I think we need to evangelize v6 even more than we are already doing. RD > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:27:41 -0400 > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Joel Esler <joel.esler(a)me.com> > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTin4P826POmny_rNZvSZowkNih7zN1LMiFhAYQKN(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Joel Esler <joel.esler(a)me.com> wrote: > > Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple > of them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great. > > it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is > ~3 months of usage... there is no saving the move to v6, the bottom's > going to fall out on or about june 2011 it seems. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:28:44 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <EBF47E07-EDC2-47F7-89EE-5D2165A741EF(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> wrote: > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > >> > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > space > >> was returned to ARIN? > > > > less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > Not to be depressing, but a /8 (or 99% of one :-) is potentially less > than one month's drain on the global IPv4 free pool, if one considers > the allocations over the last 12 months to be predictive. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:29:58 -0400 > From: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand(a)xyonet.com> > Subject: Re: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4CBF0AF6.9030207(a)xyonet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I'd add Alcatel to that list. > > On 10/20/2010 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote: > > I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access > > equipment for a small metro-ethernet network. We're probably talking at > max > > 200-300 subs split between two termination points. Most customers will > > probably be at speeds of 100M or less. We'd like the backbone to be 10G > and > > be MPLS capable. That being said some of the companies we've been looking > at > > are > > > > > > > > Cisco > > > > Extreme > > > > Brocade > > > > Adtran > > > > Occam > > > > Zhone > > > > > > > > We're looking to build the network in a cost effective manner so we're > not > > opposed to doing using aftermarket or refurbished equipment but we don't > > want to start off with equipment that has no future of expanding. > > > > > > > > Any suggestions, success or horror stories are appreciated. ;) > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > Eric Merkel > > > > MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. > > > > Email: merkel at metalink.net > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:33:01 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <BB969AF1-E6DC-4E71-B3D7-A56DABDEB24B(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is > > ~3 months of usage... there is no saving the move to v6, the bottom's > > going to fall out on or about june 2011 it seems. > > I agree with Chris; this (and any other returns) won't change the IPv4 > depletion/IPv6 deployment timeline substantially, but it's also true > we have folks who are just now realizing IPv4 depletion is happening > and returned address space may make the difference for those who need > just a bit more time... > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:35:19 -0400 > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTimgWaS1Vk+WVeXDEkL8srCBE6wxEpLOaV8Ez1Hv(a)mail.gmail.com<AANLkTimgWaS1Vk%2BWVeXDEkL8srCBE6wxEpLOaV8Ez1Hv(a)mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:28 AM, John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > >> less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > > > Not to be depressing, but a /8 (or 99% of one :-) is potentially less > > than one month's drain on the global IPv4 free pool, if one considers > > the allocations over the last 12 months to be predictive. > > yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN > region drain rate. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:37:55 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <CC71D159-C46E-49C7-9A8B-6A99508CCB89(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > The problem with that is indeed in that little part about "aren't using > > them", if even only 50% is in use because one allocated it quite > > sparsely you won't be able to quickly clean it up and return it. > > Correct. It might make sense to do so, if you could recover the costs of > the work involved. This is the reasoning behind the Specified Transfer > policy that was recently adopted; it allows (once we're at depletion) for > parties to free up address space and get compensated. It's goal is not to > provide a windfall for those holding unused space; in theory, those with > unused address space should be returning it already if they can easily do > so. > > > One can of course wonder if they are supposed to use that or not. > > The fact that they do not have reverse DNS delegation for it says quite > > a bit already of course. > > One of the other benefits of improved utilization for returned space > is less space which is "sitting idle" and available to be hijacked. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:40:57 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <DBBFDC71-10D2-45CE-86C5-08496337CD02(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN > > region drain rate. > > Ah, good point. It may end up in the global pool, so comparison to > either drain rate is quite reasonable. > > /John > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:45:20 -0400 > From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <4CBF0E90.6070403(a)ttec.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Christopher Morrow wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard<nick(a)foobar.org> wrote: > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > >> > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > space > >> was returned to ARIN? > > > > less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > > > So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only > after depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to > be greater? > > Plus, those less altruistic could weigh the options better after real > value is associated with the scarce resource. > > > Joe > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:02:16 -0400 > From: Francois Menard <francois(a)menards.ca> > Subject: Re: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment > To: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand(a)xyonet.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <B861A05D-DB46-4E45-8818-A6C0C6356DB1(a)menards.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > We just bought a fair amount of MRV Optiswitches for that same purpose. > > F. > > On 2010-10-20, at 11:29 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: > > > I'd add Alcatel to that list. > > > > On 10/20/2010 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote: > >> I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access > >> equipment for a small metro-ethernet network. We're probably talking at > max > >> 200-300 subs split between two termination points. Most customers will > >> probably be at speeds of 100M or less. We'd like the backbone to be 10G > and > >> be MPLS capable. That being said some of the companies we've been > looking at > >> are > >> > >> > >> > >> Cisco > >> > >> Extreme > >> > >> Brocade > >> > >> Adtran > >> > >> Occam > >> > >> Zhone > >> > >> > >> > >> We're looking to build the network in a cost effective manner so we're > not > >> opposed to doing using aftermarket or refurbished equipment but we don't > >> want to start off with equipment that has no future of expanding. > >> > >> > >> > >> Any suggestions, success or horror stories are appreciated. ;) > >> > >> > >> > >> Eric > >> > >> > >> > >> ===== > >> > >> Eric Merkel > >> > >> MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. > >> > >> Email: merkel at metalink.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:03:46 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner(a)cluebyfour.org> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010201154270.17786(a)whammy.cluebyfour.org> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Joel Esler wrote: > > > Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple > > of them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great. > > > > Thank you interop for setting the example. > > Sure, it would be a nice gesture if MIT/HP/Ford/Xerox/Halliburton/etc gave > back the chunks of the /8s they weren't using, but it wouldn't > significantly affect when the IPv4 well runs dry. Also, without knowing > how those organizations have used the space internally, such an > altruistic gesture could also come at the cost of having to de-aggregate > a bunch of advertisements in BGP. > > The law of diminishing returns comes into play. > jms > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > >> > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > space was returned to ARIN? > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> On 20/10/2010 14:34, John Curran wrote: > >>> FYI, > >>> /John > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html > >>> > >>> > >>> Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 > >>> > >>> ARIN today recognizes Interop, an organization with a long-standing > presence in the Internet industry, for returning its unneeded Internet > Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space. > >>> > >>> Interop was originally allocated a /8 before ARIN's existence and the > availability of smaller-sized address blocks. The organization recently > realized it was only using a small portion of its address block and that > returning the remainder to ARIN would be for the greater good of the > Internet community. > >>> > >>> ARIN will accept the returned space and not reissue it for a short > period, per existing operational procedure. After the hold period, ARIN will > follow global policy at that time and return it to the global free pool or > distribute the space to those organizations in the ARIN region with > documented need, as appropriate. > >>> > >>> With less than 5% of the IPv4 address space left in the global free > pool, ARIN warns that Interop's return will not significantly extend the > life of IPv4. ARIN continues to emphasize the need for all Internet > stakeholders to adopt the next generation of Internet Protocol, IPv6. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Communications and Member Services > >>> American Registry for Internet Numbers > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Joel Esler > > http://www.joelesler.net > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:04:29 -0400 > From: Ernie Rubi <ernesto(a)cs.fiu.edu> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <107A762E-D0A0-4CBA-92D8-376FCD6E266B(a)cs.fiu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way. > > Appreciation and value are words that most folks at ICANN don't want > network engineers to associate with IP addresses. > > "The real value is in routing"; is the party line. > > STLS to me is kind of double speak, ARIN says: "this isn't a capital > resource", but yet if you go through us and list your 'unused' blocks in > this space, we don't care what financial transaction happens behind the > scenes. > > Maybe John can shed more light on this. > > For some background, go over to the Internet-history mailing list, which > included a very lively discussion of "ownership interest" in IP addresses. > > Ernie > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > > So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only > after depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to be > greater? > > > > Plus, those less altruistic could weigh the options better after real > value is associated with the scarce resource. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 91 > ************************************* > -- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…> **1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…> * * *

3 2