- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Readiness for IPV6
by Phil Rosenthal 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support IPV6 (I could be wrong). While they probably aren't the most popular routers, they are very popular, and im sure plenty of cisco's smaller routers don't support it either. How ready is the 'net to transit to IPV6 in the future? Should everyone be factoring in replacing big routers with IPV6 being the only reason? Just curious on others' opinions on this. --Phil

7 8

Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by Joe St Sauver 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Hi, >There is also a "cart and horse" issue here: Where is the pervasive >content? At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, I suspect the market driver for IP multicast will be what it often is for these sort of things: pr0n. My prediction? When one of the big adult hosting speciality companies starts IP multicasting free full length "cable cut" R-rated adult films in watchable MPEG1 quality, people will begin lobbying their ISP's for IP multicast support. Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in the popularity of events such as the Victoria Secret webcast, which reportedly drew more than a million viewers worldwide, even when streaming video was being done at postage-stamp-sized resolution. Of course, at the same time the pr0n channels get rolled out, there will also need to be something innocuous, like the "Field Hockey Channel" or the "Brand-New-Bands-Live!-From-Small-Clubs Channel" so that people will be able to use those less-embarassing content choices as their nominal interest when calling to request IP multicast support: "Um, hi, my friends who connect via ISP Foo up the street tell me that if you do something to your network I can get the, uh, Field Hockey channel via IC muteypast. I'm, uh, a real big field hockey fan, and I'd really love to be able to watch, uh, field hockey on my PC." >Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their >billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given >moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things >that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their >advertisers for. That's why they'll go ahead and use it as a tease/for the free publicity they'll get if they're the first ones to do it. People have spent a lot more on publicity stunts that would get a lot less coverage than this sort of thing would. >There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could >get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. Some IP multicast products *do* offer the ability to track viewership (albeit at the cost of some degradation to IP multicast's otherwise essentially perfect scalability). Cisco's StreamWatch is one example that comes to mind. Regards, Joe

1 0

email problems part 2
by Richard Welty 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

if i try and reply personally to everyone, i'll be typing for years. thanks for the replies, i think we've got a handle on it now. some recent updates to some mail clients are interacting badly with some spurious c/r characters that Mahogany inserts after some headers. the mahogany developers are on it, i expect my client to be fixed in the near future. thanks again, richard -- Richard Welty rwelty(a)averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

1 0

email problems
by Richard Welty 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

apologies in advance for this somewhat off topic posting. back in may, a number of you contacted me indicating that there were problems with email that i was sending out (for example, some of you are getting no visible From: or To:) one of the authors of my email client wishes to investigate; if anyone can supply complete copies of such an email (including _complete_ headers), i'd appreciate it. obviously, send them directly to me, not to the entire nanog list. problems have been reported both with some versions of M$ Outlook and Netscape mail. thanks in advance, richard -- Richard Welty rwelty(a)averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

1 0

Dailup IP list and Earthlink email servers
by Ukyo Kuonji 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Within the last 24 hours, an email server I have been using for over 3 years has started being denied by Earthlink's email servers for being an open relay OR dailup server. The server is neither, and has been secured against relaying for well over 2 years. The server is sitting on a business ADSL line in the SJC area. My question is... What list of dialup servers is earthlink using, and how do these ip addresses get on this list? This is why I don't like these stupid lists, it's too easy to deny mail from a valid server by mistake. Any help would be appriciated. UK _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

1 0

Re: Readiness for IPV6
by Joe St Sauver 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

And of course in the American higher education space, IPv6 traffic handling was one of the factors that motivated the selection of Juniper's T640's for the next generation of the Abilene/Internet2 backbone (see: http://archives.internet2.edu/guest/archives/I2-NEWS/log200204/msg00003.html) Related to that, a growing number of Internet2 connectors now do native IPv6 peering with the Abilene backbone (rather than tunnelling their v6 connectivity), including NYSERnet, the Pittsburgh Gigapop, Great Plains, WiscNet, 6Tap, CUDI, ANS, MAX, Surfnet, and APAN. (see, for example: http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0207B&L=abilene-ops-l&P=R2) Regards, Joe

2 1

AS11443 / OLM-03 / 216.71.0.0/17 unreachable
by Ingo Flaschberger 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Hi over 4 hours the netblock 216.71.0.0/17 was not reachable. currently it works again (ober bbn-planet) OLM LLC (ASN-OLM) 3080 Ogden Ave Lisle, IL 60532 US before it was reachable over this paths (fom ris: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/ris/rrc05.html) 216.71.0.0/17 2002-07-09 07:43:20202.12.28.190 4777 2516 701 1 11443 216.71.0.0/17 2002-07-06 10:48:35 212.20.151.234 13129 6461 701 11443 216.71.0.0/17 2002-07-07 05:29:54 193.0.0.56 3333 9057 3549 11443 11443 at the routeserver of bbnplanet (genuity) the network was also not in bgp-table. gblx said, the the circuit to OLM was definitly down. reason unkown. does sbdy know more information about this? bye, Ingo Flaschberger -- we own the fibre; 09.06.1998 illiad

1 0

AS number inconsistencies
by Marwan Fayed 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Hi All, This is my first post to this list so please forgive me if it's in any way inappropriate, and as I know everyone has work to do, I'll try to be brief. I am a CS PhD student trying to track ASes (for reasons I'm happy to discuss offline). There is a grave inconsistency I have come across and can't explain. Simply, there seems to be many AS numbers in the non-private range that come into use at some point in time and advertise a range of IPs, but these AS numbers are not allocated until much later. More specifically, archived BGP tables show many AS numbers which ARIN shows not to have allocated (in their allocation history tables) until many months, sometimes a year/two, later. The number of such ASes has shrunk over time (from about 100 in 1999/2000 to 20-30 in 2002) but still exists. I don't want to "name ASes" <grin>. Does any one have any explanations? Are network operators "notified" of their new AS number well in advance of the actual receipt of that number on paper, for example? Any help is appreciated (and hopefully this occurence is of interest to nanog). Thanks, --marwan ps. If one wishes to refer to a cluster of members of nanog, are they referred to as "NANOs"? (Not to be confused with the salutation made famous by tv's Mork & Mindy, of course) :-) ******************************************************** "Theatre is not supposed to change the world, but it can show the world can change." --unnamed director ********************************************************

8 8

Re: Readiness for IPV6
by Rizzo Frank 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Alif The Terrible wrote: > Afraid not. How about you? Good to hear, Jerry. Have you forged any checks in the past, or are the guys on usenet full of it? Frank Rizzo

3 2

Re: Bogus bogon?
by Rob Thomas 08 Jul '02

08 Jul '02

Hi, John. ] 192.88.99.0/24 which is the 6to4 anycast network. Do we really want to be ] filtering that prefix? Good question. I'm re-reading RFC 3068 now, and the RFC appears to allow for the advertisement of this prefix into the global table. I'm wondering if this is wise, however. It seems this prefix would best be used internally. What do others think? Thanks, Rob. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);

3 2