June 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

Just in case anyone was wondering, U.S. gummint agencies will be screaming in migration agony for the next couple of years. ;-) http://www.fcw.com/article89432-06-29-05-Web - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

48 114

E-Mail authentication fight looming: Microsoft pushing Sender ID
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Not wanting to throw gasoline on an already raging e-mail authentication fire, but it _does_ look like a fight is gearing up between Domainkeys Identified Mail (DKIM), a joint effort between Cisco, Yahoo and a number of other vendors, and Microsoft's Sender ID scheme. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=872527 [and] http://www.scmagazine.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=newsDetails&newsUID=207… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

10 14

ATM
by Philip Lavine 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

I plan to design a hub and spoke WAN using ATM. The data traversing the WAN is US equities market data. Market data can be in two flavors multicast and TCP client/server. Another facet of market data is it is bursty in nature and is very sensitive to packet loss and latency (like voice). What type of ATM AAL format would be best for this topology? Is there any other concerns I should be aware of. Thx, Philip __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

11 13

U.S. Won't Cede Control of Net Computers
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 05 Jul '05

05 Jul '05

I've reached my post limit for the day after this one. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050630/ap_on_hi_te/internet_c… [snip] The U.S. government said Thursday it would indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet's main traffic-controlling computers, ignoring calls by some countries to turn the function over to an international body. The announcement marked a departure from previously stated U.S. policy. Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the U.S. Commerce Department, shied away from terming the declaration a reversal, calling it instead "the foundation of U.S. policy going forward." The signals and words and intentions and policies need to be clear so all of us benefiting in the world from the Internet and in the U.S. economy can have confidence there will be continued stewardship," Gallagher said in an interview with The Associated Press. [snip] - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

4 5

mobile user strawman argument
by Mike Leber 04 Jul '05

04 Jul '05

Directed at no specific person because I've seen several people use it in their examples recently... I'm seeing alot of arguments in the form of "I have mobile users and they aren't going to be able to send email if you use injection IP mail filtering approach X" (where X is SPF, MX+, or what have you); which take the same form as the arguments people made against closing open relays. For those that don't remember, prior to around 1995 or so most all mail servers would relay may for anybody by default. People that got tired of being abused made it so only their customers could use their mail servers to relay mail by methods such as: POP AUTH, only relaying mail for their customer IPs, only accepting mail to be relayed from domains that were hosted on that server, etc. At that time some people swore up and down it was unworkable because all of their mobile users wouldn't be able to send mail using their mail servers because the remote users use random dynamic IPs from all over the Internet. After a large amount of gnashing of teeth and whining, and the spread of knowhow of the several different methods to close an open server yet still allow your users to send mail, these objections were overcome and the open relays were closed. Ok... fast forward to the present in which we can now assert that service providers don't use open relays to provide service to their customers. So now I'm supposed to believe that its impossible for service providers to coordinate which mail server a user is supposed to use to send their mail through (with the information about authorized sending IPs for a domain communicated to receipient SMTP servers according to the method of your choice) when they already force their users to use only SMTP servers that they have authorized access to relay through. Ya, ya, ya... you are going to say 1) its impossible to get people to use designated servers for outgoing email. Or you will say 2) even if you do this there will still be *spam*! (egads shock horrror!) Ugh please. 1) Getting customers to use designated servers is already done and standard operating procedure. 2) Most people would agree that closing the open relays as they were was worthwhile and a sound security decision. The fact that spam still exists doesn't make the decision wrong, it just means that you should not be so naive or disingenuous as to expect various limited practical precautions to solve all the world's spam problems. So much deja vu I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round. Mike. +----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

7 13

RE: ATM
by James Laszko 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

Most MPLS networks use a combination of point to point, frame and ATM facilities as the infrastructure. The phone companies use ATM just about everywhere to deliver voice across their networks. I don't see ATM/FR equipment being EOL'd anytime in the near future. James Laszko Pipeline Communications, Inc. james(a)pcipros.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher L. Morrow Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:25 AM To: Jason Frisvold Cc: Petri Helenius; Philip Lavine; nanog Subject: Re: ATM On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Jason Frisvold wrote: > > On 6/29/05, Petri Helenius <pete(a)he.iki.fi> wrote: > > Maybe the small fact that ATM is fading away and building new networks > > with technology going away is going to explode your operational cost in > > a few years time. Business grade IP networks will provide you with equal > > if not better performance than a "dedicated" ATM WAN. > > And being replaced with .... ? GigE? DPT/RPR? MPLS? > > ATM is a great technology... Unfortunately, I don't think it was ever > fully utilized.. From what I understand, MPLS takes some of the good > bits and combines it with traditional routing.. But I don't see a lot > of MPLS implementations either... look to the private networks luke... Seriously, many large private ATM/Frame networks are transitioning to MPLS networks because the ATM or Frame gear is/was/will-be-shortly EOL/EOS from the vendors. The costs to run these networks don't jibe well with the alternatives. Now, start the discussion on: "private network" and "mpls vpn" and "oops, hey, that runs over the same routers as that bad-old Internet thing with the haxors and such!" :)

4 3

Equinox Power Failure
by Pablo's Gmail 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

Does anyone have related and/or specific outage information to the Equinox IBX facility in Chicago that occurred this past weekend? I'm more curious of actual root cause of their power facilities, outage timelines, response times...etc. thanks, Pablo

2 1

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

The author of the TechWeb article wrote those words extolling "improved security measures", not me, dude. :-) I stated explicitly that all of the "new features" lauded by v6 proponents have effectively been retro-fitted to v4, thereby negating almost every v6 migration argument, with the exception of a larger host address pool. Equally dumbfounded in v4-land, - ferg -- "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow(a)mci.com> wrote: > over the current IPv4 technology. Among the additional > advantages of IPv6 are improved security measures and > additional links for wireless devices. > which 'security measures' are included in ipv6? which additional links for wireless devices? This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures' is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's level of 'security' is no better (and probably worse at the outset, for the implementations not the protocol itself) than v4. I could be wrong, but I'm just not seeing any 'inherent security' in v6, and selling it that way is just a bad plan. -dazed and confused in ipv4-land. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

5 6

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

I'm glad you brought that up. :-) As a follow-up to the two posts that I made earlier about Congressional hearings and the OMB mandate, let me applaud Congressman Tom Davis (did I really just say that?!?) for making a salient point during the hearings yesteday: "Asian countries have been aggressive in adopting IPv6 technology, because Asia controls only about 9 percent of the allocated IPv4 addresses and yet has more than half of the world's population," Congressman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, said at the hearings. Davis noted that Asian governments have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in IPv6 technology, which vastly opens up the number of Internet addresses over the current IPv4 technology. Among the additional advantages of IPv6 are improved security measures and additional links for wireless devices. ref: http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/164904243 In addition to Davis' point, I think that it bears to remember that "newer" doesn't mean "better". The Internet is about end-to-end connectivity, not if one version of a particluar set of protocols is "newer" than another. It's all about the connectivity, man. Bear in mind--and as Congressman Tom Davis mentions in the article above--the primary reason that Asia (and to a lesser extent Europe) is primarily interested in IPv6 is that it has a larger pool of available IP host addresses. Virtually all of the "newer" functionality that IPv6 offers has been retro-fitted into IPv4. No, back to your regularly scheduled programming. - ferg -- Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi(a)niif.hu> wrote: > GOSIP II anybody? Will it be different this time than it was with OSI? > Everyone had to scramble in the late 1980s to get OSI stuff done, then the > gov't never used it. > Certainly will be different. Lots of network in Asia and Europe already started to use IPv6 in production..... -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

New IANA IPv4 allocation for RIPE NCC (89/8, 90/8, 91/8)
by Doug Barton 30 Jun '05

30 Jun '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated the following three (3) IPv4 /8 blocks to RIPE NCC: 89/8 90/8 91/8 For a full list of IANA IPv4 allocations please see: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space> - -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCxEwgwtDPyTesBYwRAjajAJ9bo5grWwRRsKakb4mgn9Mh2/GL7QCgheO6 Xirb1dsrMytiQeUa8GZKE4Y= =sDQ0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0