- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Sprint - Routing Problems
by Mills, Charles 30 May '07

30 May '07

We're seeing packet loss and significant latency with Sprint in Pittsburgh. Anyone else know anything. Sprint has confirmed an issue but I'm not sure how widespread it is. Chuck Charles L. Mills Senior Network Engineer Access Data Corporation / Pittsburgh, PA 15238 (412) 968-4024 FAX: (412) 967-9504 cmills(a)accessdc.com / http://www.accessdc.com Hosting, Colocation, D-R and Managed Services

2 1

RE: [ppml] A registered ULA policy proposal outline
by Azinger, Marla 30 May '07

30 May '07

Hello I have been reading all the ULA emails and decided some of you might be interested to know the following: A small group of people (including Jason Schiller, Thomas Narten, Marla Azinger, Bob Hinden, Geoff Huston) have been discussing this very subject and what actions we need to pursue in order to evolve from circular conversations. Here is what action we are taking: Bob Hinden is going to revise the expired Centralized ULA Internet Draft, updating it based on input received from various forum discussions. We plan to submit this draft to the v6ops WG in time for the Chicago IETF with a goal of having it published as an RFC. Part of the new wording will be to clarify the ULA ID properties needed to make it work but leave out the details of how to achieve this to the RIR's. So yes, this document will "request" RIR involvment. And if/when approved, the document would task IANA with disseminating the ULA Addresses to the RIR's for assignment. We believe significant changes have occured in the last two years that make ULA a reasonable and acceptable requirement and that to make it work it needs the cooperation of IANA, IETF and RIR's. We are working to bridge this gap with a revised proposal that will (hopefully!) get us out of the circular discussions. Thank you for your time Marla Azinger Frontier Communications -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces(a)arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:52 PM To: ppml(a)arin.net Subject: [ppml] A registered ULA policy proposal outline So after spending way too much time reading way too many messages about ULA-central, I think an actual policy proposal is needed to blow away the smoke and see whether the wood is actually dry enough to be useful for cooking marshmallows. My reading of the PPML discussion to date leads me to the following conclusions: * There are a number of organizations who would prefer to be able to acquire some form of registered unique local IPv6 addresses. * There are a number of arguments against a single central ULA registry centering around the desire to avoid "registry shopping." * For organizations in the ARIN region, there is consensus that organizations desiring to announce directly assigned space to transit providers should acquire space under ARIN's PI policy. * There are a number of organizations in the ARIN region who wish to acquire some form of registered ULAs for private, not-publicly-routed use (in addition to either PI or PA space). * Some people participating in the ARIN public policy process are uncomfortable asking ARIN to create a ULA registry without an RFC defining their various aspects, such as how registered ULAs should be allocated from IANA to the RIRs, how registered ULAs are intended to be used, etc. * Some people participating in the IETF process are (or have been) uncomfortable moving forward the existing ULA-central draft due to a perception of opposition at the RIRs. It is unclear to me whether this is largely historical (from before ARIN passed its PI policy) or whether it persists. If people who believe registered ULAs would meet a currently unmet need would like to move toward an ARIN ULA registry, I believe they should draft a policy something along the following lines, and then work to determine whether the particulars of the policy, and the idea as a whole, enjoy support among interested participants of the public policy process. (As before, I think a poll along the lines of Andrew Dul's 2005-1 IPv6 PI poll would be helpful.) So without further ado, here's a draft outline of a possible registered ULA policy proposal: * ARIN representatives should work with the IETF to help adopt an RFC defining the particulars of a registration function for Unique Local IPv6 Addresses (ULAs). A suitable RFC might define a range of IPv6 space for IANA to allocate to participating RIRs, which would then assign blocks to organizations. The RFC might also recommend that ULAs SHOULD NOT be announced to or accepted by Internet transit providers. * Upon adoption of such an RFC, ARIN should create a registry to assign registered Unique Local IPv6 Addresses (registered ULAs). The registry should assign a unique netblock to each registrant, should track and provide public information about such registrations through directory services like whois, and should provide reverse DNS delegation (ip6.arpa). * Upon creation of a registered ULA registry, ARIN should begin accepting applications for registered ULA netblocks. Such netblocks should be assigned to any organization in the ARIN region requiring registered ULAs for internal addressing purposes. ARIN should help ensure applicants are aware that ULAs are not intended to be routable (referencing the RFC), and should direct applicants to apply under the IPv6 PI policy or acquire space from their ISP(s) if they desire routable space. As I have no personal interest in registered ULAs (just a general interest in the good of the Internet community, and a desire to improve the signal to noise ratio of my ppml folder), I'm probably not the right person to actually write a registered ULA policy proposal. If there's support for the idea, I hope someone with an interested in registered ULAs can take the outline above, and the feedback it will inevitably generate, and draft a policy proposal. -Scott _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML(a)arin.net) Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

1 0

Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)
by Martin Hannigan 30 May '07

30 May '07

>So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a positive experience with >their transitions. Which ISP/NSP's? -M<

1 0

Advice requested
by Matthew Black 29 May '07

29 May '07

What would you do if a major US computer security firm attempted to hack your site's servers and networks? Would you tell the company or let their experts figure it out? matthew black network services california state university, long beach

18 18

Adelphia Postmaster?
by Kotaro Fukasawa 29 May '07

29 May '07

If someone has a contact for Adelphia.net postmaster, could you please contact me off list? One of our mail server is blocked without any reason. We are getting nowhere with their postmaster/abuse contacts. Thanks. Kotaro Fukasawa Kita Cable Network, Inc. fukasawa(a)kitanet.co.jp

2 1

swbell DNS admin?
by Mark Jeftovic 29 May '07

29 May '07

Don't suppose there's an swbell.net dns admin around somewhere? Please give me a shout offlist, thx -mark -- Mark Jeftovic <markjr(a)easydns.com> Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc. ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225 fx. +1-(866) 273-2892

2 1

Re: IPv6 Advertisements
by Brandon Butterworth 29 May '07

29 May '07

> I understand the problems but I think there are clear cut cases where > /48's make sense- a large scale anycast DNS provider would seem to be a > good candidate for a /48 and I would hope it would get routed. Then again > that might be the only sensible reason... Don't give people an excuse to deagg their /32 brandon

3 3

Re: IPv6 Advertisements
by Brandon Butterworth 29 May '07

29 May '07

> > That's not what I said. If /48 are accepted by * then people with > > a /32 or whatever will deagg to /48. > Obviously you don't need to accept /48's from anywhere- you can restrict > it to the PI pool- then /32's don't deaggregate but networks approved by > ARIN or RIPE or whomever still work. Obviously one can but will others. If they don't then others pressure you not to. I've seen this with v4, lets say a friend (no, really), a conscientious provider filters at registry allocations plus a few bits has reachability issues to massively deagg'd shed colo. Good ISP then gets pressure from customers who can't reach bad ISP, filters get relaxed Even with todays limited v6 deployment a few other posts have shown we don't have a coherent view of what filters are applicable to which prefix ranges. Roll forward to general deployment and it'll be swamp. I don't mind buying FIB to be part of a working net, I don't want to buy extra so people can be muppets. > If we start giving out /32's to work around filters I'm not sure that > solves any problems :) And if no one is going to honor a /48 then why > bother to give them out? I'm not too fussed what size and how many filters we have as long as they're the same at all ISPs so there is no doubt or confusion to be exploited. KISS ftw. brandon

1 0

Re: IPv6 Advertisements
by William F. Maton Sotomayor 29 May '07

29 May '07

On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> f-root does this on the IPv6 side: 2001:500::/48 >> >> Whether that's available everywhere on IPv6 networks, is as Bill >> pointed-out, another question. > > Have a look at it: > http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?when=now&year=2007&month=05&day=29&hour=… Ironically, AS25689 (that's me) does peer with the local f-root via IPv6, but SIXXS claims I don't see it. :-) wfms

2 1

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
by John Curran 29 May '07

29 May '07

At 9:36 AM -0700 5/29/07, todd glassey wrote: >> >>This is an issue for the ISP community, in that a day >>will come where you're going to desperately want to >>connect a new customer to the "Internet" via IPv6 >>and give them a reasonable customer experience. > >Uhhh OK - but if you built you NAT model right, IPv4 would still suffice for some time to come... making that "day" likely a long time in the future. The real issue is ARIN giving away /8's and defending it. No one needs a fully routable network with a flat addressing scheme these days. You're going to need to explain the "giving away /8's" statement... What are you referring to? >>They're likely to to balk, and may not even have a >>full set of applications that work over IPv6, but that's >>still not going to matter. > >Uhhh Yes IT is... with your existing customer's this may break the SLA and for the new Customer's, when they find out you only do new customer's with IPv6 Services they will simply find another provider. Finding another provider works only for very short time and then the answer becomes the same among providers. >>ISP's are going to have to actually *lead* the transition >>to IPv6 both in terms of infrastructure and setting >>customer expectations. > >Uhh - No... ISP's MUST meet their SLA terms and conditions or they will go out of business, and that is that. True, I stand corrected. There's nothing wrong with continuing to operate as-is... I had presumed that folks investment model also required demonstrating growth. /John

1 0