May 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Microsoft and Teredo
by Sean Siler 31 May '07

31 May '07

I understand some questions recently arose regarding Microsoft and Teredo. I tried reading through the archives but it has more twists that Pacific Coast Highway. Are there some specific requests/questions that I can help with? Best Regards, Sean Siler Sean Siler|IPv6 Program Manager|Microsoft sean.siler(a)microsoft.com<mailto:sean.siler@microsoft.com> | 703.485.1170 http://blogs.technet.com/ipv6 IPv6 is ready. Are you?

7 17

Re: IPv6 Deployment
by Fred Heutte 31 May '07

31 May '07

This is more in the way of a leading question for those who are attending NANOG 40. I'll ask it the same way I did at NZNOG back in February -- what problem is it that IPv6 is actually supposed to solve? I used to know the answer to this, but I don't now. In 1997 (or even years before, reading Scott Bradner's eloquent advocacy for it back then) it would have been: address space, security, extensions, QOS. But it seems to me these have either been sidestepped, addressed somewhat, or the benefits have not overcome the costs in a clear business case sense. As I said -- my purpose in posing this is to stimulate discussion at Bellevue. It was the most interesting thing talked about at Palmerston North, at least until the cold beer arrived. fh

7 9

Which ISPs Are Spying on You?
by Hank Nussbacher 31 May '07

31 May '07

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/isp_privacy -Hank Nussbacher http://www.interall.co.il

2 1

IPv6 Advertisements
by Donald Stahl 31 May '07

31 May '07

What is the smallest IPv6 advertisement that organizations are going to honour- are we still looking at a minimum of a /48? -Don

15 28

Lightning talks at NANOG 39!
by Steve Feldman 31 May '07

31 May '07

We have reserved one hour of the NANOG 39 agenda for "Lightning Talks". A lightning talk is a very short presentation or speech by any attendee on any topic relevant to the NANOG audience. These are limited to ten minutes; this will be strictly enforced. If you have a topic that's timely, interesting, or even a crackpot idea you want to share, we encourage you to consider presenting it. The Program Committee will decide which submissions are relevant (using criteria based on the NANOG mailing list AUP) and choose the best six to be presented. Use of slides is optional. All slides must be in PDF or Powerpoint format, and will be loaded in advance onto the speaker laptop on the podium. There is a good overview of the use of lightning talks at the Perl conference at http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/07/30/lightningtalk.html. Although their format is slightly different, many of their ideas will apply here. To submit a lightning talk proposal for NANOG 39, go to http://www.nanogpc.org/lightning/ See you in Toronto! Steve Feldman PC Chair

1 2

ULA BoF
by Randy Bush 30 May '07

30 May '07

due to much discussion of ula-c in rir fora, we just scheduled a bof on ulas for hellview. i need folk to do four short presos o What are ULAs? o What is ULA-C? o Pros o Cons and the discussion can degenerate from there :) please write to me privately to volunteer. randy

1 0

Sprint - Routing Problems
by Mills, Charles 30 May '07

30 May '07

We're seeing packet loss and significant latency with Sprint in Pittsburgh. Anyone else know anything. Sprint has confirmed an issue but I'm not sure how widespread it is. Chuck Charles L. Mills Senior Network Engineer Access Data Corporation / Pittsburgh, PA 15238 (412) 968-4024 FAX: (412) 967-9504 cmills(a)accessdc.com / http://www.accessdc.com Hosting, Colocation, D-R and Managed Services

2 1

RE: [ppml] A registered ULA policy proposal outline
by Azinger, Marla 30 May '07

30 May '07

Hello I have been reading all the ULA emails and decided some of you might be interested to know the following: A small group of people (including Jason Schiller, Thomas Narten, Marla Azinger, Bob Hinden, Geoff Huston) have been discussing this very subject and what actions we need to pursue in order to evolve from circular conversations. Here is what action we are taking: Bob Hinden is going to revise the expired Centralized ULA Internet Draft, updating it based on input received from various forum discussions. We plan to submit this draft to the v6ops WG in time for the Chicago IETF with a goal of having it published as an RFC. Part of the new wording will be to clarify the ULA ID properties needed to make it work but leave out the details of how to achieve this to the RIR's. So yes, this document will "request" RIR involvment. And if/when approved, the document would task IANA with disseminating the ULA Addresses to the RIR's for assignment. We believe significant changes have occured in the last two years that make ULA a reasonable and acceptable requirement and that to make it work it needs the cooperation of IANA, IETF and RIR's. We are working to bridge this gap with a revised proposal that will (hopefully!) get us out of the circular discussions. Thank you for your time Marla Azinger Frontier Communications -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces(a)arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:52 PM To: ppml(a)arin.net Subject: [ppml] A registered ULA policy proposal outline So after spending way too much time reading way too many messages about ULA-central, I think an actual policy proposal is needed to blow away the smoke and see whether the wood is actually dry enough to be useful for cooking marshmallows. My reading of the PPML discussion to date leads me to the following conclusions: * There are a number of organizations who would prefer to be able to acquire some form of registered unique local IPv6 addresses. * There are a number of arguments against a single central ULA registry centering around the desire to avoid "registry shopping." * For organizations in the ARIN region, there is consensus that organizations desiring to announce directly assigned space to transit providers should acquire space under ARIN's PI policy. * There are a number of organizations in the ARIN region who wish to acquire some form of registered ULAs for private, not-publicly-routed use (in addition to either PI or PA space). * Some people participating in the ARIN public policy process are uncomfortable asking ARIN to create a ULA registry without an RFC defining their various aspects, such as how registered ULAs should be allocated from IANA to the RIRs, how registered ULAs are intended to be used, etc. * Some people participating in the IETF process are (or have been) uncomfortable moving forward the existing ULA-central draft due to a perception of opposition at the RIRs. It is unclear to me whether this is largely historical (from before ARIN passed its PI policy) or whether it persists. If people who believe registered ULAs would meet a currently unmet need would like to move toward an ARIN ULA registry, I believe they should draft a policy something along the following lines, and then work to determine whether the particulars of the policy, and the idea as a whole, enjoy support among interested participants of the public policy process. (As before, I think a poll along the lines of Andrew Dul's 2005-1 IPv6 PI poll would be helpful.) So without further ado, here's a draft outline of a possible registered ULA policy proposal: * ARIN representatives should work with the IETF to help adopt an RFC defining the particulars of a registration function for Unique Local IPv6 Addresses (ULAs). A suitable RFC might define a range of IPv6 space for IANA to allocate to participating RIRs, which would then assign blocks to organizations. The RFC might also recommend that ULAs SHOULD NOT be announced to or accepted by Internet transit providers. * Upon adoption of such an RFC, ARIN should create a registry to assign registered Unique Local IPv6 Addresses (registered ULAs). The registry should assign a unique netblock to each registrant, should track and provide public information about such registrations through directory services like whois, and should provide reverse DNS delegation (ip6.arpa). * Upon creation of a registered ULA registry, ARIN should begin accepting applications for registered ULA netblocks. Such netblocks should be assigned to any organization in the ARIN region requiring registered ULAs for internal addressing purposes. ARIN should help ensure applicants are aware that ULAs are not intended to be routable (referencing the RFC), and should direct applicants to apply under the IPv6 PI policy or acquire space from their ISP(s) if they desire routable space. As I have no personal interest in registered ULAs (just a general interest in the good of the Internet community, and a desire to improve the signal to noise ratio of my ppml folder), I'm probably not the right person to actually write a registered ULA policy proposal. If there's support for the idea, I hope someone with an interested in registered ULAs can take the outline above, and the feedback it will inevitably generate, and draft a policy proposal. -Scott _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML(a)arin.net) Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

1 0

Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)
by Martin Hannigan 29 May '07

29 May '07

>So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a positive experience with >their transitions. Which ISP/NSP's? -M<

1 0

Advice requested
by Matthew Black 29 May '07

29 May '07

What would you do if a major US computer security firm attempted to hack your site's servers and networks? Would you tell the company or let their experts figure it out? matthew black network services california state university, long beach

18 18