- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Cogent on-net corporate building
by Lewis,Mitchell T. 29 Dec '17

29 Dec '17

Anyone a cogent customer in an on-net corporate building(Not a Cogent or Carrier Neutral Datacenter)? I have a few questions about setup. Off list responses are fine. Regards, Mitchell T. Lewis [ mailto:MLewis@TechCompute.Net | MLewis(a)TechCompute.Net ] [ http://linkedin.com/in/mlewiscc ] |203-816-0371 PGP Fingerprint: 79F2A12BAC77827581C734212AFA805732A1394E [ https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2AFA805732A1394E | Public PGP Key ]

1 0

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
by Scott Weeks 29 Dec '17

29 Dec '17

> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out? > > I like that one! :-) >> Seriously. All I was trying to say is there're going to be things not thought of yet that will chew up address space faster than ever before now that everyone believes it's essentially inexhaustible. And, I expect, sooner than imagined. scott

3 3

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
by Scott Weeks 29 Dec '17

29 Dec '17

:: Now think about scaling. Yes :: If the population doubles, we're now down to four spare /3s. :: If that doubled population doubles the number of devices, :: we're down to two spare /3s. If the population doubles :: again, there will be no civilization left, let alone an :: Internet. Etc. So realistically, the current address space :: allocation policies can handle a doubling of the planet's :: population, with each person having a quarter of a million :: addressable nodes. Each node having its own /64 to address :: individual endpoints within whatever that 'node' represents. Space: the final IP frontier These are the voyages of the range of IPv6 Its many-year mission: to explore strange new device implementations; to seek out new planet-covering nano-device applications and new ad-hoc networking technologies; to boldly go via DTN where no internet segment has gone before. <cue space-like music> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out? I like that one! :-) scott

4 3

Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 28 Dec '17

28 Dec '17

In many ocassions you have MUCH better support from the OpenSource community than from vendors …. Look at Ubiquity and Mikrotik, supporting a very reduced set of transitions mechanisms. I’ve many WISP that have big troubles to keep growing because that, and you know what, at the end they reflash that “nice” hardware with LEDE, and done! Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Loganaden Velvindron <logan(a)hackers.mu> Responder a: <logan(a)hackers.mu> Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 12:04 Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> CC: <nanog(a)nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:43 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> wrote: > I’ve customers with have 1Gbit FTTH link using LEDE with NAT. > > Depending on the hardware (I’m talking about Chinese made routers with cost less than 50 USD) they easily reach 9xx Mbits. It may depend on the chip set, as some LEDE implementations take advantage of hardware NAT. > > I’ve tested it myself with iperf, simulating a WAN link to traverse the router in a 2 LAN lab environment. The tests have been done using both, native IPv4 and CLAT (so having only IPv6 in the WAN link). > > Regular LEDE stable firmware, in most of the devices, don’t support by default hardware NAT, so you can in those cases, reach 500-600 Mbits, again, depending on specific hardware. > > So, I don’t think number of users is an issue. > > Not sure if that’s responding your question … > Thanks for sharing. It's interesting to see enterprise customers adopting OpenWRT/LEDE despite no official support from CPE vendors for 3rd party firmware on their products. > Regards, > Jordi > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Loganaden Velvindron <logan(a)hackers.mu> > Responder a: <logan(a)hackers.mu> > Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 10:52 > Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > CC: <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Asunto: Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:11 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> wrote: > > Nice ;-) > > > > I’ve been doing this for some time already … and have trials with several customers (tens of thousands of customers). > > > > Note that most of the routers that support LEDE (quite a big list), will work by default with a standard stable release. > > > > I'm curious about the limits in terms of number of users from running > OpenWRT/LEDE on this kind of gear. Afaik, LEDE or OpenWRT do not have > customer drivers that push a lot of traffic. Often the linux driver > running on the default firmware is developed out of the free. > https://pappp.net/?p=1525 > > > > You mention it, but we use something like for the offload: > > ethtool --offload eth0 gro off lro off > > ethtool --offload eth1 gro off lro off > > > > Also, for the DNS64, I use exclude. It can be improved also to avoid including (in the exclusion) the prefixes for transition mechanisms, such as 2001::/32, 2002::/16, etc. > > > > dns64 64:ff9b::/96 { > > clients { any; }; > > mapped { any; }; > > exclude { 0::/3; 4000::/2; 8000::/1; 2001:db8::/32; }; > > break-dnssec no; > > }; > > > > I’ve an ID on this: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-464xlat-deployment/ > > > > > > I’m working in the next few days in a review of this, so any inputs are welcome! > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: NANOG <nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org> en nombre de Brock Tice <brock(a)bmwl.co> > > Responder a: <brock(a)bmwl.co> > > Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 1:48 > > Para: <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Asunto: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP > > > > We recently deployed our first half-dozen IPv6-only customers after 6+ > > months of testing, using 464XLAT. > > > > It took me ages to sort all this out, so I hope someone finds this > > helpful. Feedback very much welcome. > > > > https://blog.brocktice.com/2017/12/27/deploying-464xlat-for-ipv6-only-clien… > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > > IPv4 is over > > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > > http://www.consulintel.es > > The IPv6 Company > > > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

2 1

Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 28 Dec '17

28 Dec '17

I’ve customers with have 1Gbit FTTH link using LEDE with NAT. Depending on the hardware (I’m talking about Chinese made routers with cost less than 50 USD) they easily reach 9xx Mbits. It may depend on the chip set, as some LEDE implementations take advantage of hardware NAT. I’ve tested it myself with iperf, simulating a WAN link to traverse the router in a 2 LAN lab environment. The tests have been done using both, native IPv4 and CLAT (so having only IPv6 in the WAN link). Regular LEDE stable firmware, in most of the devices, don’t support by default hardware NAT, so you can in those cases, reach 500-600 Mbits, again, depending on specific hardware. So, I don’t think number of users is an issue. Not sure if that’s responding your question … Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Loganaden Velvindron <logan(a)hackers.mu> Responder a: <logan(a)hackers.mu> Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 10:52 Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> CC: <nanog(a)nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:11 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> wrote: > Nice ;-) > > I’ve been doing this for some time already … and have trials with several customers (tens of thousands of customers). > > Note that most of the routers that support LEDE (quite a big list), will work by default with a standard stable release. > I'm curious about the limits in terms of number of users from running OpenWRT/LEDE on this kind of gear. Afaik, LEDE or OpenWRT do not have customer drivers that push a lot of traffic. Often the linux driver running on the default firmware is developed out of the free. https://pappp.net/?p=1525 > You mention it, but we use something like for the offload: > ethtool --offload eth0 gro off lro off > ethtool --offload eth1 gro off lro off > > Also, for the DNS64, I use exclude. It can be improved also to avoid including (in the exclusion) the prefixes for transition mechanisms, such as 2001::/32, 2002::/16, etc. > > dns64 64:ff9b::/96 { > clients { any; }; > mapped { any; }; > exclude { 0::/3; 4000::/2; 8000::/1; 2001:db8::/32; }; > break-dnssec no; > }; > > I’ve an ID on this: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-464xlat-deployment/ > > > I’m working in the next few days in a review of this, so any inputs are welcome! > > Regards, > Jordi > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: NANOG <nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org> en nombre de Brock Tice <brock(a)bmwl.co> > Responder a: <brock(a)bmwl.co> > Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 1:48 > Para: <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Asunto: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP > > We recently deployed our first half-dozen IPv6-only customers after 6+ > months of testing, using 464XLAT. > > It took me ages to sort all this out, so I hope someone finds this > helpful. Feedback very much welcome. > > https://blog.brocktice.com/2017/12/27/deploying-464xlat-for-ipv6-only-clien… > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP
by Brock Tice 28 Dec '17

28 Dec '17

We recently deployed our first half-dozen IPv6-only customers after 6+ months of testing, using 464XLAT. It took me ages to sort all this out, so I hope someone finds this helpful. Feedback very much welcome. https://blog.brocktice.com/2017/12/27/deploying-464xlat-for-ipv6-only-clien…

3 2

Geolocation: IPv4 Subnet blocked by HULU, and others
by Michael Crapse 27 Dec '17

27 Dec '17

I am a local WISP. And my customers have trouble reaching Hulu, Disney now, and previously netflix and amazon prime(both resolved). I have emailed, mailed, and called both HULU and Disney now to get my 196.53.96.0/22 subnet unblacklisted as a VPN provider(no longer so) from their services. They have replied saying it takes 3-5 days to resolve the issue, that was several weeks ago. Can i get contact from those two services that can help my customers reach their services, thank you. Thank you for the help. -Michael

14 20

mailchimp contact
by Dennis Burgess 26 Dec '17

26 Dec '17

Would a MailChimp contact pelase hit me off-list :) Dennis Burgess - Network Solution Engineer - Consultant MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> - MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com<http://www.towercoverage.com/> Office: 314-735-0270 E-Mail: dmburgess(a)linktechs.net<mailto:dmburgess@linktechs.net>

1 0

Re: AS PATH limits
by Ken Chase 23 Dec '17

23 Dec '17

If you're on cogent, since 22:30 UTC yesterday or so this has been happening (or happened). *> 186.177.184.0/23 38.*.*.* 45050 0 174 262206 262206 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 ? oddly, i see other pops with 174 sources giving a more sane route (even 6939 is giving us a route that goes thru 174 after 2 hops). 'Sup, 174? Wonder if this is just stuck in the router Im looking at and the update process is failing because the route is too long to process properly for removal or something. mmm, bugs!) /kc -- Ken Chase - math(a)sizone.org Guelph Canada

9 19

Re: AS PATH limits
by Scott Weeks 22 Dec '17

22 Dec '17

--- bill(a)herrin.us wrote: From: William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> Well, that's a brilliant platitude, but what do you do when it breaks over and over until the other guy upgrades? --------------------------------------------------- Filter that network out of your tables until it's fixed? :) scott

2 1