- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Forum notify
by Dholtz 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

1 0

Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;)
by Owen DeLong 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Bundusch Germania Politzei Forgive my lack of German spelling/grammar, but, hopefully I came close. Owen --On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 18:45 +0100 Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > * Owen DeLong: > >> Why is my organization any less relevant on the global scale than >> say: > > May personal favorite is > > AS3280 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3281 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3282 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3283 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3284 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3285 BGS (German Border Police) > > Perhaps the "B" in BGP has confused them?

3 2

Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI]
by Owen DeLong 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

--On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 8:36 +0200 Pekka Savola <pekkas(a)netcore.fi> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> if the prices were one or two orders of magnitude higher, that might be >>> true. That's way too cheap as it is. 10000$ upfront, 5000$/yr for >>> renewal might scare away who _really_ don't need them. Have the RIRs >>> donate the markup to ISOC or whoever and we're done. >>> >> So, you think that global resources should be allocated solely on the >> basis of wealth. Well... I don't subscribe to that theory, so, on this >> we will certainly have to agree to disagree. > > No. I'm just saying that they need to distributed based on who _really_ > needs them and based on who is sufficiently relevant in the global scale > of things that cannot use some other mechanisms which do not require > presence at the global routing table. > Well... You said that your intended criteria for determining need was to make them pay $10,000 up front and $5,000/year for renewal. If I'm Ford Motor Company or Donald Trump, then, that's easy. On the other hand, if I'm a rural ISP in the american south west, multihomed to 5 or 6 upstream providers and a number of local peers churning in annual profits in the neighborhood of $100,000 to $500,000, then, that's an awful lot of money just to get a single integer. > Unfortunately, putting a sufficient cost to the resources is one of the > few ways to measure real need. If you have real need, and you're big > enough to be globally relevant, you _can_ afford e.g. 5k/yr. > Except that it has a number of problems: 1. It has no association with need. 2. We already see that some of the worst abusing organizations in general are also some of the best funded. 3. It penalizes a number of organizations with real need and poor funding. 4. It is an arbitrary and capricious attack on a significant portion of the community. > The point is to make PI/ASN-based multihoming sufficiently unattractive > to those who should be using local instead of global means. > Herein lies the major difference between your position and mine. You seem to have this mystical idea of some clear cut distinction between "Should be able to use PI/ASN based multihoming" and "Should be using PA space and local instead of global means" (whatever that actually means). My questions are: 1. How do you determine the distinction between these two classes? (An actual rule that can be applied fairly and consistently by RIR staff when considering resource requests) 2. Why do you think that criteria is a valid criteria? (I can't really refute it until I know what it is.) > For example, my own consulting company certainly (currently with a /24) > falls under that category.. sure, it would be nice to have PI and BGP for > multihoming -- but I don't have any delusions of grandeour that my site > would be worth it in the global scale of things. Just because it might > be easiest way for _me_ doesn't mean it's the way multihoming should be > done because of the impacts on the rest of the world. My focus isn't easiest, but, frankly, it's far more important as far as I am concerned to more people in Europe to be able to reliably reach my site for my consulting company (and other purposes hosted there) than to be able to reach WalMart. Again, I'll be interested to see what your actual criteria for making this determination are, but, I suspect we will not agree about what they should be, and, that we will, in the end, have to agree to disagree about who should be in the position to make the decision of whether a given organization is worthy of PI and dynamic multihoming. Owen

1 0

Looking for some program that will do this...
by Dan Lockwood 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Hi all, I'm looking for a program that can generate "real" looking traffic. It should be able to send TCP/UDP traffic to a large set of hosts (thousands), send traffic to random or semi-random ports and send packets/datagrams that are of random/semi-random size. Ideally it should run on windows or some sort of Perl script would be fine. Anyone have any ideas or should I dust off my programming books? Thanks, Dan

2 1

RE: Looking for some program that will do this...
by Dan Lockwood 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

No i'm not trying to DOS anyone. I want to stress test a netflow app that I wrote and need something that can generate the many flow cache entries that would be present with real traffic while i'm running it in my lab. Thanks all! ________________________________ From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Dan Lockwood Sent: Tue 11/30/2004 8:45 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Looking for some program that will do this... Hi all, I'm looking for a program that can generate "real" looking traffic. It should be able to send TCP/UDP traffic to a large set of hosts (thousands), send traffic to random or semi-random ports and send packets/datagrams that are of random/semi-random size. Ideally it should run on windows or some sort of Perl script would be fine. Anyone have any ideas or should I dust off my programming books? Thanks, Dan

1 0

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Miquel van Smoorenburg 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

In article <cistron.1100794375.3557.3.camel(a)firenze.zurich.ibm.com>, Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> wrote: >The business case of about 80% of the ISP's is Pr0n & W4R3z (or what >spelling is 'in' this year?) > >But.... it is not illegal to make adverts for say "Downloading the >newest movies over a cool 8mbit DSL line". But downloading it itself is >of course. Might be analogous to providing a busservice to the crack >dealers mansion. [OT] That depends on the jurisdiction. In many parts of the world, downloading is NOT illegal. But making copyrighted files available for download is illegal (without the proper autorization, ofcourse). Mike.

41 163

AOL Abuse/Email contact
by JDeane＠sungardfutures.com 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

If someone from AOL abuse and or email group could contact me off list to discuss mail delivery issues, it would be most appreciated. Attempts to resolve issues via generic contacts have proved fruitless. Regards, Jade Jade E. Deane Senior Network Engineer SunGard Futures Systems SunGard Systems International, Inc. jdeane(a)sungardfutures.com +1 (312) 577-6100

2 1

ATM SVC rerouting time
by Paul Khavkine 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hi folks. Does anyone know the time it takes or should take for an SVC to be rerouted in a small 4-6 switch ATM network running PNNI ? Is it part of the ATM spec or does it depend on the switch manufacturer ? Thanx Paul ************************************************ Paul Khavkine Network Administrator DISTRIBUTEL Communications. 740 Notre Dame West, Suite 1135 Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3C 3X6 1-514-877-5505 x 263 http://www.distributel.net ************************************************

3 4

RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI]
by Chris Burton 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

I was just throwing in the example of the private AS numbers to try and preempt anyone who might try to use that example if any on how transiting to 32-bit AS numbers would somehow cause a collapse of the world as we know it (It was not the best example). Let me qualify my statement; personally I don't think the policies in place should be anymore strict then they already are or changed in any fashion for the given circumstances (If the given circumstances change, well then I reserve the right to change my mind on the issue as do the governing bodies, and anyone else who wishes to change their mind); that being said I also do not believe the policies should be relaxed in any fashion (why add trouble if you do not have to). The current ASN policies are pretty cut and dry as to who can receive a non-private ASN and who cannot. I think overall you and I agree on this. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:49 PM To: Chris Burton; Pekka Savola Cc: Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Actually, no need for trouble with the existing private ASNs. Afterall, RFC 1918 is not exactly taken from any particular end of the IPv4 space. The same situation can exist with private ASNs... They simply become a hole in the list. I don't think we need stricter ASN policies. I think the current policies are quite adequate. If you think that the current policies are not sufficiently strict, I'd be interested in knowing in what way you think they are insufficient. In any case, there isn't a land-rush for ASNs under current policy as far as I can tell, and, I don't think increasing the available bits will change that. Owen --On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:38 -0800 Chris Burton <ChrisB(a)VMC.com> wrote: > The idea behind possibly making the policy stricter would be to > keep all of those "I want one too" people from getting an ASN number who > do not have a clear need and therefore conserve resources. Only because > you have the ability to give out ASNs does not me you should. Human > nature dictates for most people that if it is available they want one > also regardless of if the need exists. > > I have no problems with the phased move to 32-bit ASNs; it is a > logical step towards the future. I don't see what the big deal is; > although I do not write the code for the network equipment it seems that > the transition should be fairly transparent since the first 65536 ASN > numbers fit snuggly into the a 32-bit schema (there may be issues with > the private ASNs, but those also should fairly easy to transition) so > there shouldn't be much of a problem for existing users and none for new > users with the proper code/equipment. Future transitions to a 64-bit or > 128-bit ASN if the need should arise, again I do not see a major issue; > but this is just my opinion, YMMV. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:44 PM > To: Chris Burton > Cc: Owen DeLong; Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large > multi-site enterprises and PI] > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote: >> It is highly doubtful that the policies in place will become >> more relaxed with the introduction of 32-bit ASNs, the more likely >> scenario is that they will stay the same or get far stricter as with >> assignments of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. > > I find this hard to believe. When there is 64K times as much the > resource, there is no way the policies would get stricter, because it > can easily and logically be argued that they don't need to be > stricter. > >> As you had mentioned though, in the near term this definitely would >> not be scalable, but who knows what is going to happen 10, 15, or >> more years from now. > > So, let's delay the move until we know how to make it more scalable. > >> I think your numbers may be a little off 2^32 = 4,294,967,296; >> current world population give or take a few million is hovering around >> 6,300,000,000 according to the US Gov. If everyone and the mother > would >> like an ASN (Which is highly unlikely) you would need just a few more > to >> make that work. > > Yeah, I know the calculations :). Everyone can already get an IPv4 > address too, right? All we need is an AS number NAT.. oops, it's there > already. > > Face it, with 32 bit ASNs, pretty much anyone could have an ASN if > they wanted to unless the policies were very strict, and it would be > very difficult to justify why it would have to be strict because there > is so vast resource to be used.

1 0

ping SBC abuse/security/noc
by Christopher McCrory 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hello... Can someone from SBC contact me off list. (or help out with contact info for $RealPerson). For the past six months one of SBC's users has been constantly hammering my web servers. Apparently with SBC DSL you can cycle your network interface every five minutes and get another IP address. This makes blocking malcontents an exercise in futility. I have emailed abuse@ and security@ for the last four months with no response other than the automagic "we received your email bla bla bla" (hopefully) Thanks -- Christopher McCrory "The guy that keeps the servers running" chrismcc(a)pricegrabber.com http://www.pricegrabber.com Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is no defense. I tried it. Only tinfoil works.

1 0