October 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Network Operators Europe?
by Day Domes 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

What is the name of the mailing list for Network Operators Europe?

5 4

Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
by Aleksi Suhonen 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

Hello, ML wrote: > IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool. I'm afraid I'm still doing it before it's cool. )-; -- Aleksi Suhonen () ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail

4 4

RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
by Johnny Eriksson 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf(a)tndh.net> wrote: > Actually nat does something for security, it decimates it. Any 'real' > security system (physical, technology, ...) includes some form of audit > trail. NAT explicitly breaks any form of audit trail, unless you are the one > operating the header mangling device. Given that there is no limit to the > number of nat devices along a path, there can be no limit to the number of > people operating them. This means there is no audit trail, and therefore NO > SECURITY. So an audit trail implies security? I don't agree. It may make post-mortem analysis easier, thou. Does end-to-end crypto break security? Which security? The security of the endpoints or the security of someone else who cannot now audit the communication in question fully? > Tony --Johnny

2 1

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 51 Call For Presentations now open
by David Meyer 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

Folks, Please take a look at the NANOG 51 Call For Presentations ( http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog51/callforpresent.php) he North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) will hold its 51st meeting in Miami on January 30 to February 2, 2011. NANOG51<http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog51/index.php>will be hosted by Terremark <http://www.terremark.com/>. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG51 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet. Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. NANOG51 submissions are welcome at http://pc.nanog.org. Acceptance notifications for NANOG51 will be sent by the Program Committee starting December 9, 2010, and will continue through January 13, 2011. Time to start thinking about the talk(s) you want to give in Miami! Thanks, Dave _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

12 years ago today...
by Rodney Joffe 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh.... http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html

12 12

Co-Lo and Connectivity options in Kuwait
by Dylan Ebner 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

Does anyone have any experience with Co-lo and connectivity in Kuwait. This would be my first time depolying in the middle east. Any advice, experiences anyone wishes to share is welcome. Thanks Dylan Ebner

4 3

36/8 and 42/8 allocated to APNIC
by Leo Vegoda 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of two /8 IPv4 blocks to APNIC in October 2010: 36/8 and 42/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt The complete list of IPv4 /8s allocated so far this year is: 1/8 14/8 27/8 31/8 36/8 42/8 49/8 50/8 101/8 107/8 176/8 177/8 181/8 223/8 Please update your filters as appropriate. The IANA free pool contains 12 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s. Regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA ICANN

1 0

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 (IPv6 STANDARDS)
by Bill Bogstad 17 Oct '10

17 Oct '10

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman(a)es.net> wrote: >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030 >> From: Mark Smith <nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> >> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100 >> Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: >> >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt >> > >> >> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they? > > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by > anyone with a large network running IPv6.) And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related. That seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have implemented them by now. Bill Bogstad

3 3

Re: network name 101100010100110.net
by Day Domes 17 Oct '10

17 Oct '10

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Joe Hamelin <joe(a)nethead.com> wrote: > 16 bit integers. Ok, a lame joke. > > 22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available. What are you trying to name? > > > -- > Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 > > > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Day Domes <daydomes(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> unsigned? >> >> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin <joe(a)nethead.com> wrote: >>> On Saturday night, Day Domes <daydomes(a)gmail.com> postulated: >>>> I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see >>>> any issues with this? >>> >>> >>> It's truly unsigned? >>> (15 bit) >>> >>> -- >>> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 >>> >> > A new network that we are going to use to connect all are global data centers and also use to peer with other networks to push data to the Internet

1 0

T-Mobile USA - Peering Policy
by Ryan Finnesey 16 Oct '10

16 Oct '10

Can someone on the list from T-Mobile USA please contact me. I have tried sending a message to admin(a)tmodns.net but the message bounces back and the mailbox for arintechcontact(a)t-mobile.com is full. I am trying to find out information regarding there peering policy. Cheers Ryan

2 2