November 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

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

22 Nov '04

> > for all these reasons, large or multihoming endsystems will need V6 > > PI allocations and at some point the RIRs are going to have to > > define/allow this. > > I find your attitude in this regard disturbing, especially as: > > > (note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor as a member-elect of > > arin's board of trustees, i'm just another bozo on this bus.) > > You're bascially saying that you and people like you are so important > that you deserve to receive benefits that go against the public good. actually, i'm just trying to keep my role as member-elect of arin's BoT separate from my role as an internet citizen. as it turns out, arin's BoT does not have a policy formation role. when this issue comes up in PPML or the AC, i'll speak up, but i'll be explicitly hatless when i do. > While you're high and dry, the hoi polloi can renumber while at the > same time suffering increased ISP costs because of the unnecessarily > high hardware costs created by all those PI prefixes. In other words, > today's equivalent of "let them eat cake". you are drastically misunderstanding my hopes, my goals, and my role. > It also shows contempt for the IETF, as you reject all possible > alternatives to PI out of hand. i never rejected all possibilities, just the ones i've personally studied so far. i'm also on record as saying that the easiest time to have fixed this was before the current IPng approach was annointed; now we're playing catchup. even you in your multi6 role ought to be wishing that more had been done before "IPv6" was cast in stone. > > there is no possibility that any enterprise where i am responsible > > for planning or design will ever run PA addresses out to the desktop > > -- it makes multihoming impossible, which would leave me at the > > mercy of a single provider's uptime, and a single provider's > > pricing. > > Work is underway to remedy this. However, if the RIRs decide to open > up PI in IPv6, people will take the quick fix and there won't be any > push to get the (admittedly) more complex but more scalable solutions > to these problems off the ground. somehow i don't think that's going to sway wal-mart's thinking at all, but i do look forward to a lively debate next time this comes up on PPML. the codification of the current approach as "IPng" in spite of objections raised at that time amounted to a recommendation of "let them eat NAT."

2 1

Could somebody from shaw.ca contact me please?
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

I think we have a networking / connectivity issue between your mailservers and our netblock 205.158.62.0/24, and quite a few shawcable users are writing to us, to complain about it. thanks --srs -- suresh ramasubramanian suresh(a)outblaze.com gpg # EDEDEFB9 manager, security & antispam operations, outblaze limited

1 0

Real-world Force10 opinions?
by William Petrisko 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

Can anyone offer any real-world Force10 E-series opinions? L3, 10GE, GE, POS, BGP, and IS-IS is what we will be evaluating them for. Any opinions, gotchas or other advice would be appreciated. Looking through the archives, I see that there have a been a few similar questions in the past year or two, but no replies. I can summarize to the list if others are interested. thanks bill

1 0

Netranger
by Chris Moody 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

Would anyone with Netranger IDS experience please contact me off-list? Cheers, -Chris

1 0

Re: Diffserv service classes
by Joe St Sauver 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

Hi, #There are certainly applications and users out there that would #like to use all of the bandwidth possible, but do not need #to step on other, more bit sensitive, services. They might want to, but unfortunately we (the Internet2 community as a whole) have had limited success in helping them routinely achieve higher throughput for bulk transfers. Again refering to http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/20041108/ see Table 1: -- The median throughput for bulk TCP flows is still less than 3Mbps. -- The 95th percentile for bulk TCP flows is still less than 15Mbps. There is an I2 end-to-end performance initiative designed to improve those numbers, but at root, because most of the PCs that scientists and students work from are not shipped from the vendor pre-tuned for high throughput, average throughput numbers remain low. When PC vendors begin to read http://www.psc.edu/networking/perf_tune.html or http://www.web100.org and offer higher education special SKU's preloaded with OS's tweaked per those approaches, then, maybe, we'll see average performance routinely increase and congestion become a pragmatic issue. Until then, it will be routine to see most Abilene connectors run at only a fraction of their potential capacity, e.g., see: http://stryper.uits.iu.edu/abilene/aggregate/html/report-2004-11-20.html Shrug. Regards, Joe

1 0

Re: Diffserv service classes
by Joe St Sauver 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

Hi, Less-than-best effort traffic as implemented via the Internet2 Scavenger Service (see: http://qbone.internet2.edu/qbss/ ) never really took off; for example, see http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/20041108/#dscp which notes that Scavenger Service (DSCP=8) tagged traffic makes up less than 1% of all octets and less than 1% of all packets. One can argue chicken-and-egg (e.g., had it been supported on the commodity Internet, it would have been more successful), but I think the bottom line reality was that because -- Internet2 was/is uncongested, and because -- the typical university user of I2 pays $0/Mbps used anyhow, the motivation for users to tag traffic as Scavenger was typically non-existent (offering a "discount" from a price of zero is hard unless the model would involve PAYING people who generate less-than-best-effort traffic, a model which strikes me as, well, somewhat unsustainable/politically difficult). A network administrator at a site might unilaterally tag all traffic of a particular type as less-than-best-effort, but again, unless there is congestion, that tagging would be to no effect. Regards, Joe St Sauver (joe(a)oregon.uoregon.edu) University of Oregon Computing Center

2 1

Diffserv service classes
by Sean Donelan 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

In the continuing effort to make Diffserv useful on the Internet, the Transport Area working group has the draft: http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes/ The draft has a little bit for everyone. Lots of rope/flexibility for application developers. But have any network operators thought how they could actually support the framework in any meaningful way? And assuming the network actually supported it, what happens when you throw such fine grain differentiated traffic at the network?

4 4

Central Europe Web hosting recommendations
by Michael Airhart 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

I apologize for asking on the NA list (this is the only one I am one), but I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations of a good hosting site in central Europe (Amsterdam is great!)... Looking for basic space sold by the rack (+ bandwidth) with limited on site support (power backup assumed standard)... (offline is great) Thanks in advance! Michael Airhart

4 4

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Paul Vixie 20 Nov '04

20 Nov '04

> How much would it add to the pain of the v4-v6 transition, to just bite > the bullet and do tcp-sctp at the same time? I'd sure rather be a > network troubleshooter going through that than living with NAT forever. it's the delta between the finite and the infinite. sctp requires a flag day whereas nat can be deployed incrementally. sctp isn't going to happen, at least not on the scale that nat has happened or that ipv6 will happen.

1 0

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Brandon Butterworth 20 Nov '04

20 Nov '04

> > I've run into very few enterprises that know they'd even be allowed to > > join an IX, much less actually interested in doing so. Subject: Exchange Update - New Participant Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:49:59 -0800 Equinix would like to introduce the following peers to the GigE Exchange peering fabrics: - ASH: Walmart.com connected to the Ashburn GigE Exchange You may not have met them but they're out there > > They'd rather pay > > one or two companies to drop big, fat pipes into their datacenter and > > collect on SLAs when something goes wrong. We used to do that, we learned. > Very few, even in the Fortune > 100, have the staff to handle their own BGP configs and keep things > running smoothly. Humans cost more money than they'd probably save on > transit, and the money often comes out of different pockets anyways. Many CCIE(paper) end up in enterprises as they still have money and networks large enough to need engineers. I'm sure plenty of them are looking to keep the ISP section of their CV up to date by running the enterprises BGP. We also have enterprises doing BGP between each other on internal, non internet, networks Assumptions about what people should/will want to do are clouding engineering judgment and making things like IPV6 unworkable brandon

1 0