November 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Level 3 NOC information.
by Niaz, Wajahat 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

Call 1877-4Level3 -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Majid Farid Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:19 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net Subject: Level 3 NOC information. Good Day, Any one from LEVEL3 on the list please contact me off the list or if someone has their NOC information I would greatly appreciate if you can share it. Regards, -- Majid Farid ISP Specialist Telecom Ottawa Limited. majidfarid(a)telecomottawa.com [P] 613.225.4631 ext 7220 [F] 613.225.0636

3 2

RE: Probe dns service - anycast network
by Anshuman Kanwar 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

http://www.digitarchy.com/anycast/phcd.tgz Will do pretty much what you want. My target was a HTTP based service rather than DNS. Modification for UDP health checks should be trivial. -ansh -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Gere geomag Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 3:03 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Probe dns service - anycast network Hi, We are thinking of deploying anycast in our network for dns servers. I have the following scenario: - 10 server DNS (isc-bind) , linux and zebra for propagating ospf ip anycast. Are there someone who has developed a "solid scripts (perl/c/ecc..)" that is used to probe a dns service (udp/tcp port 53) and in case of failure (or max lookup query time problem) automatic shutdown ospf annunce or remove a server from a anycast network? Best regards Antony Findanno

1 0

Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addresses
by Vince Hoffman 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

With all the recent discussion on IPv6 and the allocation thereof, I havent noticed any discussion of the Director of ITU-TSB's memorandum, "ITU and Internet Governance" To quote an email from the MD of RIPE to a large number of ripe mailing lists "This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based solely on national authorities. This could have a serious impact on RIPE NCC Members, Internet operators and the global Internet community at large"[1] The original ITU memorandum is available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.doc or http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.pdf Its not an idea that fills me with joy, but I'd be iterested to hear the opinions of this mailing list Vince [1] This email included the phrase "We urge our members and others in the Internet community to make their views about this issue known." so if anyone wants to read it who hasnt I can forward a copy.

6 6

RE: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addresses
by Network.Security 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

Interesting flow...who then enforces ITU "rules"? With what binding authority? Better yet, let the free market run the business. Brad -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:23 AM To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Vince Hoffman Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addresses Of course, then, the developing countries (and, more importantly, the countries with large viral or spammer populations) are then faced with the question of whether anyone will route their prefixes. Won't that make the ITU happy. Owen --On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:16 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch(a)muada.com> wrote: > > On 22-nov-04, at 21:16, Vince Hoffman wrote: > >> "This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address >> space distribution process, based solely on national authorities. > > This is not exactly what it says in > >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.p >> df > > A quote: > > "The early allocation of IPv4 addresses resulted in geographic > imbalances and an excessive possession of the address space by early > adopters. This situation was recognized and addressed by the Regional > Internet Registries (RIRs). However, despite their best efforts, and > even though a very large portion of the IPv4 space has not been > assigned, some believe that there is a shortage of IPv4 addresses and > voice concerns regarding the principles and managements of the current > system. Some developing countries have raised issues regarding IP > address allocation. It is important to ensure that similar concerns > do not arise with respect to IPv6. I have discussed with some industry > experts my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for allocation by > authorities of countries, that is, assigning a block to a country at > no cost, and letting the country itself manage this kind of address > in IPv6. By assigning addresses to countries, we will enable any > particular user to choose their preferred source of addresses: either > the countryassigned ones or the region/international-assigned ones." > -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.

1 0

RE: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addre sses
by Hannigan, Martin 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:17 AM > To: Vince Hoffman > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP > Addresses > > > > On 22-nov-04, at 21:16, Vince Hoffman wrote: > > > "This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address > > space distribution process, based solely on national authorities. > > This is not exactly what it says in > > > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-net > gov01.pdf > > A quote: > > "The early allocation of IPv4 addresses resulted in geographic > imbalances and an excessive possession of the address space by early > adopters. This situation was recognized and addressed by the > Regional > Internet Registries (RIRs). However, despite their best efforts, and > even though a very large portion of the IPv4 space has not been > assigned, some believe that there is a shortage of IPv4 addresses and > voice concerns regarding the principles and managements of > the current > system. Some developing countries have raised issues regarding IP > address allocation. It is important to ensure that similar > concerns do > not arise with respect to IPv6. I have discussed with some industry > experts my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for > allocation by > authorities of countries, that is, assigning a block to a country at > no cost, and letting the country itself manage this kind of > address in > IPv6. By assigning addresses to countries, we will enable any > particular user to choose their preferred source of addresses: either > the countryassigned ones or the region/international-assigned ones." That's a little different than what DOC thinks: " A. Need for Government Involvement in IPv6 Deployment 1. Reliance on Market Forces As a general matter, government policymakers in the United States prefer to rely on market forces for the large-scale deployment of new technologies. In most cases, reliance on the market tends to produce the most efficient allocation of resources, the greatest level of innovation, and the maximum amount of societal welfare. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether market forces alone will be sufficient to drive a reasonable and timely level of IPv6 deployment in the United States. For example, given commenters' views on the current and predicted rates of IPv6 deployment, do commenters believe those rates demonstrate a sufficient uptake of IPv6 in the United States? We ask commenters to identify the specific reasons for their positions. " DOC Comments Period in IPV6 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2004/IPv6RFCFinal.htm The actual comments: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/ipv6/commentsindex.html The July Public Meeting http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/ipv6/webcast.html

1 0

Fwd: Re: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addresses
by Hank Nussbacher 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

It would appear NANOG silently drops emails sent with Word attachments. Here is another try: <http://www.interall.co.il/reply to RIRs.doc> -Hank >Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:46:31 +0200 >To: Vince Hoffman <jhary(a)unsane.co.uk>, nanog(a)merit.edu >From: Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)mail.iucc.ac.il> >Subject: Re: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addresses > >At 08:16 PM 22-11-04 +0000, Vince Hoffman wrote: > >Attached is the Word file response I got from Houlin Zhao (TSBDir) on the >matter. > >REgards, >Hank > > >>With all the recent discussion on IPv6 and the allocation thereof, I >>havent noticed any discussion of the Director of ITU-TSB's memorandum, >>"ITU and Internet Governance" >>To quote an email from the MD of RIPE to a large number of ripe mailing >>lists "This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address >>space distribution process, based solely on national authorities. This >>could have a serious impact on RIPE NCC Members, Internet operators and >>the global Internet community at large"[1] >>The original ITU memorandum is available at: >>http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.doc >>or >>http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.pdf >> >>Its not an idea that fills me with joy, but I'd be iterested to hear the >>opinions of this mailing list >> >>Vince >> >>[1] This email included the phrase "We urge our members and others in the >>Internet community to make their views about this issue known." so if >>anyone wants to read it who hasnt I can forward a copy. >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System >>at the Tel-Aviv University CC.

1 0

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Paul Vixie 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

> >> It's wrong if these issues that have global impact are decided > >> regionally. > > > yes. i understand that the acid rain people, the ozone layer > > people, the ice cap people, the whale people, and the ocean oxygen > > level people, all have that same complaint. human nature on a grand > > scale isn't always pretty. > > Well if you feel you need to take your cues from environmental > semi-criminals, obviously there isn't much that I can say to stop you. i seem to be pretty much done defending myself against your bizarre misinterpretations of my positions. or at any rate, done for today, except to remind you that on the internet, everyone always acts globally, and most people nearly always thinks locally.

1 0

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Paul Vixie 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

the tyres on this this thread are getting threadbare. let's finish soon. > > (let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, and > > it was simpler than this.) > > Wasn't it more because a single A6 lookup could cause one (the resolver > that is ;) to have to follow a overly long chain of A6/DNAME chains, > which thus could cause maybe somewhat infinite lookups? no. > I rather like DNAME btw: "ip6.int DNAME ip6.arpa", which works quite fine. see http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/ for a way to do your own block while you wait for the toplevel ip6.int administrator to see things your way. > A6 is fortunately not supported any more by BIND. server-side support of A6 doesn't matter since no modern ipv6 client looks for it. just as client-side support of DNAME doesn't matter since the server will synthesize a CNAME whenever it emits a DNAME. > > 1. A6/DNAME were great idea, I'm really disappointed they are not going > > forward... > > It is, except maybe for the above noted 'problem'. that never was the problem. but the current problem is, AAAA got loose in the client population, so other than by server side A6->AAAA synthesis (which is either very difficult or impossible to do, depending on whom you ask), A6 is just plain dead. > > What is bad however is that IETF instead of pursuing it as > > one effort has several of them including MULTI6, HIP, etc. > > The fun of politics ;) this fun is by design, though. ietf does not speak with a single voice; even the periodic pronouncements from that era's IAB are at best advisory in nature. the reason you see several working groups working on unrelated solutions to the same problem is that several groups of people each wanted to work together on unrelated solutions to the same problem. there's no real facility in ietf for saying "no, we've already picked a different solution to this, don't try."

1 0

Stupid Ipv6 question...
by Dan Mahoney, System Admin 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

In preparation for the upcoming advent of ipv6, I'm playing with a tunnel I've gotten from HE's cool tunnelbroker, and I'm plagued by the question that about an hour of google searching can't answer for me. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around ipv6 style suffixes -- does anyone have a chart handy? How big is a /64, specifically? Most of the tutorials I've found seem to be a bit over-the-top on this. -Dan -- <Wrin> quick, somebody tell me the moon phase please? <Dan_Wood> Wrin: Plummeting. -Undernet #reboot, 9/11/01 (day of the WTC bombing) --------Dan Mahoney-------- Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org ---------------------------

13 17

RE: Goofle/Sprint having problems?
by Vandy Hamidi 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

Problem is fixed. Looks like a quick patch was put into place. Who is opentransit.net? 3 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms sl-gw27-stk-4-4-TS5.sprintlink.net [144.228.107. 4 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms sl-bb21-stk-9-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.4.245] 5 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms sl-bb24-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.181] 6 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms sl-st21-pa-15-1.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.40] 7 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms sl-franc2-6-0.sprintlink.net [144.223.243.82] 8 9 ms 9 ms 14 ms Google-EU-Customers.GW.opentransit.net [193.251. 9 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 216.239.48.174 10 11 ms 10 ms 11 ms 216.239.48.214 11 19 ms 16 ms 11 ms 216.239.48.210 12 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms 216.239.49.168 13 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms 216.239.49.2 14 10 ms 19 ms 16 ms 216.239.57.99 Trace complete. H:\> -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Paul G Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:43 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Goofle/Sprint having problems? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Donelan" <sean(a)donelan.com> To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:38 PM Subject: RE: Goofle/Sprint having problems? > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Vandy Hamidi wrote: > > Yeah, a visual route just showed my trace going to AUS and then > > Singapore. > > > > Hmm... You think Google is going to be pissed when they find out their > > site was being routed to Asia? > > > > Heads will roll... (lawsuit?) > > > NANOG recuring topic thread #4 > > Gee, maybe there should be a registry of authorized routes and who they > belong too that ISPs could check. We could even call it the Internet > Routing Registry. ... and we could then make fun of those few (sic/sar) that don't filter based on that data on a mailing list we could call nanog-l. paul --- paul galynin

3 2