February 2009 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
by Scott Weeks 04 Feb '09

04 Feb '09

------ mmc(a)internode.com.au wrote: -------- From: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc(a)internode.com.au> Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of PD? If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter drop in a park. Especially interested in CPE etc. ----------------------------------------------- Please state on list. Many of would like to learn from your experiences. scott

1 0

Database backed DNS Management Solutions
by Ross Dmochowski 04 Feb '09

04 Feb '09

Dear NANOG: I hope I can solicit some feedback from this venerable group. :-) Currently, my group operates 16 BIND servers across 5 datacenters, handling internal and external namespace duties. These servers are responsible for both internal and external forward and reverse name and IP spaces. There are also a number of Windows AD servers that hold their own namespaces, that the BIND servers slave from this info from, so names resolve between these domains. Windows AD forwards queries for internal zones it does not own to the appropriate namespace holder. So Windows DNS server interoperability is a business requirement. Some of these zones are dynamic, some are static. None of the dynamic zones are populated via DHCP, but by self-registration. We have heretofore used some in-house scripts for managing this, but obviously, the thought of keeping and managing this data in something other than its current form has caught on in our minds, and so therefore we are looking at a proposal put forth, to replace all of our BIND servers with a PowerDNS infrastructure. BIND has been the backbone of the Internet, and so many of us are wary of replacing BIND, when in essence, BIND itself is not the issue, nor is it broken. Has anyone done any in house comparance of PowerDNS versus BIND-DLZ? Googling has led to some useful info but no useful side by side comparances that are not obviously partisan. I favor something like ProBIND2, that keeps the data in the DB, but does not tie the serving of the data, etc to anything other than BIND. Any success/horror stories from implementing BIND management solutions is very welcome. If anyone has any success/horror stories about PowerDNS, BIND-DLZ, or a system like ProBind2 or NetDB (from Stanford) to manage BIND and its configurations in a DB, I would be very interested in hearing them. :-) Thank you. Best Regards, Ross S. Dmochowski Sr. Linux Administrator IGN/Gamespy/Fox Interactive Media ross(a)ign.com

6 5

outblaze contact
by Jacques Marneweck 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Hi, I'm looking to chat to someone from outblaze. If anyone works at outblaze or has a contact there can you chat to me offlist. Regards --jm

1 0

FW: News Delivery Report (Failure)
by Skeeve Stevens 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Broken? ...Skeeve -----Original Message----- From: mail [mailto:postmaster@mail.theyscrewedusagain.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 9:05 AM To: skeeve(a)skeeve.org Subject: News Delivery Report (Failure) Your Article "RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space" (Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:03:06 +1100) could not be successfully delivered to the following news groups :- homeless.security News Server: news.barkto.com Response: 441 Faulty message ID format Your message is quoted below :- From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve(a)skeeve.org> Newsgroups: homeless.security Path: mail.theyscrewedusagain.com To: "'Zaid Ali'" <zaid(a)zaidali.com>, "'Roger Marquis'" <marquis(a)roble.com> References: <16474135.451233684880488.JavaMail.zaid(a)turing-2.local> <10812089.471233685164238.JavaMail.zaid(a)turing-2.local> In-Reply-To: <10812089.471233685164238.JavaMail.zaid(a)turing-2.local> Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:03:06 +1100 Lines: 71 Organization: eintellego Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAN5U5OuspydJheQZRk7Gfl7CgAAAEAAAAHeeRJOLMjdAuUKTBGjm NjMBAAAAAA==(a)skeeve.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcmGLAntiH4eXFtJRiuUjFBXl6Hk+QAHrz0w Content-Language: en-au Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org X-BeenThere: nanog(a)nanog.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: skeeve(a)skeeve.org List-Id: North American Network Operators Group <nanog.nanog.org> ________________________________________________________________________ Delivered using the Free Personal Edition of Mailtraq (www.mailtraq.com)

1 0

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
by Roger Marquis 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one >> trillion IP addresses. > > Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy > is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria > that would allow them to deny any. So far, nobody's shown interest in > plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if > IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it... Catch 22? From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it fully supports NAT. Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future. Roger Marquis

2 1

can I ask mtu question
by adrian kok 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Hi What is max mtu in jumbo frame? ls it 9000? Do I need to reboot the switch to take effect after setting up it? if it doesn't need to reboot, How can I know the switch is running fine in this mtu 9000? eg: cisco any tools to check? Thank you for your help Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

12 14

Re: Peer Filtering
by Martin Barry 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

$quoted_author = "John van Oppen" ; > > Here in the US we don't bother, max-prefix covers it... It seems that > US originated prefixes are rather sporadically entered into the routing > DBs. ...and you are not worried about someone leaking a subset of routes? I understand that most failure cases would trigger a max-prefix but a typo could allow just enough leakage to not hit max-prefix and yet still make something "important" unreachable. cheers marty -- with usenet gone, we just don't teach our kids entertainment-level hyperbole any more. --Paul Vixie http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2006-01/msg00593.html

4 3

Peer Filtering
by Paul Stewart 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

Hi folks... I would like to know whether folks are limiting their peering sessions (BGP peering at public exchanges) only by max-prefix typically? Are we the only folks trying to filter all peers using IRR information? We've run across several peers now with 10,000+ prefixes who do not register barely half their prefixes in an IRR ... meaning that we deny the rest by default. I like to think that filtering on IRR is much better (not perfect by any means) as a practice but it's probably more *practical* to just limit max-prefix peers? We can't force our peers to register at a IRR and the only party that pays the price is us in that sense.. Am I thinking right on this? ;) Cheers, Paul ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."

2 1

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
by David Barak 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, David Coulson <david(a)davidcoulson.net> wrote: > I'm curious - Any particular > technical reason not to assign out of 0.0.0.0/8? Can't say > I've ever tried to use it, but I'd think it should work. I have long wondered why two entire /8s are reserved for host self identification (0 and 127, of course...) - it's too bad that we can't use either those or class E space while folks {delay | prepare for} ipv6 adoption... David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com

2 1

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
by Johnny Eriksson 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

"Paul Stewart" <pstewart(a)nexicomgroup.net> wrote: > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done > sometimes.... Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than RFC1918 gives you. In a closed lab. Yes, it is ugly. Been there. Sometimes ugly can not be avoided. > Paul --Johnny

2 1