May 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Adelphia Postmaster?
by Kotaro Fukasawa 29 May '07

29 May '07

If someone has a contact for Adelphia.net postmaster, could you please contact me off list? One of our mail server is blocked without any reason. We are getting nowhere with their postmaster/abuse contacts. Thanks. Kotaro Fukasawa Kita Cable Network, Inc. fukasawa(a)kitanet.co.jp

2 1

swbell DNS admin?
by Mark Jeftovic 29 May '07

29 May '07

Don't suppose there's an swbell.net dns admin around somewhere? Please give me a shout offlist, thx -mark -- Mark Jeftovic <markjr(a)easydns.com> Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc. ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225 fx. +1-(866) 273-2892

2 1

Re: IPv6 Advertisements
by Brandon Butterworth 29 May '07

29 May '07

> I understand the problems but I think there are clear cut cases where > /48's make sense- a large scale anycast DNS provider would seem to be a > good candidate for a /48 and I would hope it would get routed. Then again > that might be the only sensible reason... Don't give people an excuse to deagg their /32 brandon

3 3

Re: IPv6 Advertisements
by Brandon Butterworth 29 May '07

29 May '07

> > That's not what I said. If /48 are accepted by * then people with > > a /32 or whatever will deagg to /48. > Obviously you don't need to accept /48's from anywhere- you can restrict > it to the PI pool- then /32's don't deaggregate but networks approved by > ARIN or RIPE or whomever still work. Obviously one can but will others. If they don't then others pressure you not to. I've seen this with v4, lets say a friend (no, really), a conscientious provider filters at registry allocations plus a few bits has reachability issues to massively deagg'd shed colo. Good ISP then gets pressure from customers who can't reach bad ISP, filters get relaxed Even with todays limited v6 deployment a few other posts have shown we don't have a coherent view of what filters are applicable to which prefix ranges. Roll forward to general deployment and it'll be swamp. I don't mind buying FIB to be part of a working net, I don't want to buy extra so people can be muppets. > If we start giving out /32's to work around filters I'm not sure that > solves any problems :) And if no one is going to honor a /48 then why > bother to give them out? I'm not too fussed what size and how many filters we have as long as they're the same at all ISPs so there is no doubt or confusion to be exploited. KISS ftw. brandon

1 0

Re: IPv6 Advertisements
by William F. Maton Sotomayor 29 May '07

29 May '07

On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> f-root does this on the IPv6 side: 2001:500::/48 >> >> Whether that's available everywhere on IPv6 networks, is as Bill >> pointed-out, another question. > > Have a look at it: > http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?when=now&year=2007&month=05&day=29&hour=… Ironically, AS25689 (that's me) does peer with the local f-root via IPv6, but SIXXS claims I don't see it. :-) wfms

2 1

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
by John Curran 29 May '07

29 May '07

At 9:36 AM -0700 5/29/07, todd glassey wrote: >> >>This is an issue for the ISP community, in that a day >>will come where you're going to desperately want to >>connect a new customer to the "Internet" via IPv6 >>and give them a reasonable customer experience. > >Uhhh OK - but if you built you NAT model right, IPv4 would still suffice for some time to come... making that "day" likely a long time in the future. The real issue is ARIN giving away /8's and defending it. No one needs a fully routable network with a flat addressing scheme these days. You're going to need to explain the "giving away /8's" statement... What are you referring to? >>They're likely to to balk, and may not even have a >>full set of applications that work over IPv6, but that's >>still not going to matter. > >Uhhh Yes IT is... with your existing customer's this may break the SLA and for the new Customer's, when they find out you only do new customer's with IPv6 Services they will simply find another provider. Finding another provider works only for very short time and then the answer becomes the same among providers. >>ISP's are going to have to actually *lead* the transition >>to IPv6 both in terms of infrastructure and setting >>customer expectations. > >Uhh - No... ISP's MUST meet their SLA terms and conditions or they will go out of business, and that is that. True, I stand corrected. There's nothing wrong with continuing to operate as-is... I had presumed that folks investment model also required demonstrating growth. /John

1 0

ULA Registry
by Jeroen Massar 29 May '07

29 May '07

[Major cross post, set reply-to to NANOG, please honor it... ] [Note: I am not talking about ULA Central here, though it could apply] To stop the pesky emails about ULA, I hereby present a (partial) solution to this problem. We have ULA as per RFC4193. With a little math one can generate a ULA prefix sized /48 which is most likely globally unique. According to the RFC with 10.000 connections the collision probability is still a huge 4.54*10^-05. Some people have expressed a problem with this, especially when they want to use the generated ULA prefix for their large organization. The simple, cheap and quick solution: a ULA registry. This comes close to ULA-Central, but what we do is simply make a list of the "in use" ULA's, without any allocation policies whatsoever except: first come first serve and no cash to pay. The tool is here: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ The page allows one to generate a ULA based on a given MAC address (multicast + locally defined + unregistered are not accepted) and then register it. The Name + Email are mandatory to restrict abuse a little bit. Email is not shown, except in whois and can be used to possible contact people who are leaking ULA prefixes. Note, it is indeed a _partial_ solution. When somebody still generates the same ULA prefix and does not check the list you can still collide. As this is primarily a problem for big organizations, they should be checking this list for collisions and registering their prefix when they see that they have a need for that. The list is available from the website, but also per whois.sixxs.net which is now serving up fd00::/8. It does not cover ULA-C (fc00::/8). As SixXS is a private hobbyproject kind of thing, we of course are not liable for anything that this might cause to you, your family, company etc. But enjoy it nevertheless. Full copies of the list in inet6num format are available from the site. Greets, Jeroen PS: GRH still classifies ULA's as "BAD" of course PPS: Thanks to Peter van Dijk for the multicast/locally defined MACs PPPS: Folks registering prefixes like crazy will nicely get locked out automatically, so don't even try... PPPPS: Thanks to SUZUKI Shinsuke and Holger Zuleger for the generator.

1 0

RE: IPv6 Advertisements
by Azinger, Marla 29 May '07

29 May '07

/48's handed out by ARIN are most likely in the PI range that ARIN has deamed for PI use only. Networks are aware of the PI block and have opened their filters to let /48 or more specific through if and only if it comes from the special IP block. That said...not everyone is letting more specific than a /32 through no matter what IP block it comes from. ~Marla -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Donald Stahl Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 6:26 AM To: Pekka Savola Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Advertisements > Anything more specific than /32 is going to be filtered at some portion of > the ISPs whether for the good or bad. There are some subsets of the v6 > address space that have a higher chance of /48 working (for some definition > of 'working') than other parts of the address space, though. More specific advertisements always stand a chance of being blocked. I was more interested in whether or not people know of places where they are actively being blocked and why. That said- ARIN is handing out /48's- should we be blocking validly assigned networks? -Don

1 0

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
by William B. Norton 29 May '07

29 May '07

On 5/29/07, John Curran <jcurran(a)istaff.org> wrote: : : > P.S. I'm not at this NANOG, and it's probably too late > to round up presentations, but what might be > really helpful to most folks would be presentations > which cover some or most aspects (getting transit, > address planning, routing, firewall, DNS/DHCP) of > dropping IPv6 into existing IPv4 service providers > with destroying today's production services by > accident. Real world experience is preferred over Thanks for the thoughtful post John. Along these lines, we have some time during the Peering BOF at the upcoming NANOG in Bellevue if there are folks that can speak to + operational experiences peering IPv6 traffic, + maybe some gotchas, + lessons learned types of things. For a BOF we don't need formal slides, approvals, etc. just folks willing to share their experiences with the group in 2-5 minutes... Send me email if you are interested. Bill

1 0

wiki
by Randy Bush 29 May '07

29 May '07

i hope folk are aware of the meeting wiki, thanks to cluepon http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG_40 and folk looking to save money by sharing a room, http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG40_Roommates_Wanted randy

1 0