February 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

[Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]
by Adam Waite 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

I didn't see this on NANOG yet, but it's caused a stir on the RIPE list.

32 60

2009 IPv4 Address Use Report
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 23 Mar '10

23 Mar '10

[ (Non-cross)posted to NANOG, PPML, RIPE IPv6 wg, Dutch IPv6 TF. Web version for the monospace font impaired and with some links: http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace2009.php ] 2009 IPv4 Address Use Report As of January first, 2010, the number of unused IPv4 addresses is 722.18 million. On January 1, 2009, this was 925.58 million. So in 2009, 203.4 million addresses were used up. This is the first time since the introduction of CIDR in 1993 that the number of addresses used in a year has topped 200 million. With 3706.65 million usable addresses, 80.5% of the available IPv4 addresses are now in some kind of use, up from 75.3% a year ago. So the depletion of the IPv4 address reserves is continuing in much the same way as in previous years: Date Addresses free Used up 2006-01-01 1468.61 M 2007-01-01 1300.65 M 167.96 M 2008-01-01 1122.85 M 177.80 M (with return of 16.78 M to IANA) 2009-01-01 925.58 M 197.27 M 2010-01-01 722.18 M 203.40 M These figures are derived from from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority's IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry page and the records published on the FTP servers of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs): AfriNIC, which gives out address space in Africa, APNIC (Asia-Pacific region), ARIN (North America), LACNIC (Latin American and the Caribbean) and the RIPE NCC (Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Middle East). The IANA list shows the status of all 256 blocks of 16777216 addresses identified by the first 8-bit number in the IPv4 address. http://www.bgpexpert.com/ianaglobalpool.php is a graphical representation of the IANA global pool (updated weekly). The RIR data indicates how much address space the RIRs have delegated to internet service providers (and sometimes end-users). The changes over the course of 2009 are as follows: Delegated Blocks +/- 2009 Addresses Used Available to/status (in millions) AfriNIC 2 33.55 14.89 18.66 APNIC 34 +4 570.42 540.36 30.06 ARIN 31 520.09 486.58 33.51 LACNIC 6 100.66 79.77 20.89 RIPE NCC 30 +4 503.32 450.11 53.21 RIRs subtotal 103 +8 1728.05 1571.71 156.34 LEGACY 92 1543.50 1413.88 129.62 UNALLOCATED 26 -8 436.21 436.21 Totals 221 3707.76 2985.59 722.17 The RIRs requested an unusually small number of /8s from IANA: only eight. As a result, APNIC is well below the nine months working inventory threshold, so it should be getting no less than six additional /8s soon to get back to 18 months working inventory. Similarly, ARIN should be getting five additional /8s soon. This would bring us to 15 /8s remaining in the IANA global pool, and should allow for regular operation for about the rest of the year. Then in early 2011, the next round of delegations will have to happen, which may or may not hit the magic fifth-to-last /8, after which the remaining four will be given to the other four RIRs and then each RIR will run out of IPv4 space at its own pace. The total number of available addresses is slightly higher than the previously mentioned figure at 3707.76 million because the table above includes 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16, which are set aside for private use. Networks 0.0.0.0/8 and 127.0.0.0/8 aren't usable because of special uses and 10.0.0.0/8 is also set aside for private use. 224 - 239 are multicast addresses, and 240 - 255 is class E, which is "reserved for future use". The 2985 million addresses currently in use aren't very evenly distributed over the countries in the world. The current top 15 is: 2010-01-01 2009-01-01 increase Country 1 - US 1495.13 M 1458.21 M 2.3% United States 2 - CN 232.45 M 181.80 M 27.9% China 3 - JP 177.15 M 151.56 M 16.9% Japan 4 - EU 149.48 M 120.29 M 24.3% Multi-country in Europe 5 (6) DE 86.51 M 81.75 M 5.8% Germany 6 (9) KR 77.77 M 66.82 M 16.4% Korea 7 - CA 76.96 M 74.49 M 3.3% Canada 8 - FR 75.54 M 68.04 M 11.0% France 9 (5) GB 74.18 M 86.31 M -14.1% United Kingdom 10 - AU 39.77 M 36.26 M 9.7% Australia 11 - BR 33.95 M 29.75 M 14.1% Brazil 12 - IT 33.50 M 29.64 M 13.0% Italy 13 (14) RU 28.47 M 23.18 M 22.8% Russia 14 (13) TW 27.10 M 24.01 M 12.9% Taiwan 15 (17) NL 22.84 M 21.67 M 5.4% Netherlands The reduction in address use by the UK is because net 51.0.0.0/8 is now registered as country "EU" rather than "GB". In 2008, the United States was the biggest user of new address space with 50 million new addresses put into use. China was second with 46.50 million. In 2009, they swapped places: China used up 50.65 million addresses and the US a mere 36.92 million. The US now holds 50.1% of the IPv4 address space in use, down from 52.4% last year. The total for the top 15 excluding the US is now 38%, up from 35.8%. The rest of the world gets the remaining 12%, up from 11.8%. The size of address blocks given out was increasing until 2005, and then started decreasing. The table below shows the number of delegations for a certain range of block sizes (equal or higher than the first, lower than the second value). 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 < 1000 745 1022 1309 1507 1830 1896 1747 1000 - 8000 1009 1516 1891 2265 2839 3235 3185 8000 - 64k 1014 1100 1039 1192 1015 1129 1169 64k - 500k 215 404 309 419 395 410 403 500k - 2M 46 61 60 57 62 82 70 > 2M 6 7 18 17 24 18 21 In millions of addresses: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 < 1000 0.25 0.35 0.44 0.51 0.63 0.65 0.59 1000 - 8000 3.45 4.49 5.07 5.83 6.93 7.75 7.55 8000 - 64k 14.00 15.99 15.46 18.01 15.67 17.40 18.01 64k - 500k 25.51 42.01 34.23 50.86 50.83 52.58 50.50 500k - 2M 31.98 44.63 41.63 46.69 45.50 57.41 49.28 > 2M 12.58 20.97 68.62 52.43 67.37 54.00 54.12 Numbers of delegations and their average size: Year Blocks Addresses (M) Average block size 2000 2794 78.35 28043 2001 2824 88.95 31497 2002 2463 68.93 27985 2003 3035 87.77 28921 2004 4110 128.45 31252 2005 4626 165.45 35765 2006 5457 174.32 31945 2007 6165 186.92 30320 2008 6770 189.79 28035 2009 6595 180.06 27302 (The numbers of addresses given out are lower here because ARIN often attributes the delegation of new addresses to a previous year, this view doesn't correct for that.)

3 3

Re: Spamcop Blocks Facebook?
by deleskie＠gmail.com 04 Mar '10

04 Mar '10

Maybe I'm wrong on this, and I'm not a mailadmin anywhere nor have I been or pretended to have been in the past. But I'm pretty sure FB only sends you mail based on the prefrences you choose, and I know this is the answer you where given so mostly a statement. How does that equal spam :) ------Original Message------ From: Reed Loden To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Spamcop Blocks Facebook? Sent: Feb 26, 2010 12:46 AM On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:14:37 -0800 Shon Elliott <shon(a)unwiredbb.com> wrote: > Anyone from Facebook or Spamcop lurking around to look into this? It's quite > annoying.. I can't imagine how many other users are scratching their heads on > this one... I'm a long-time SpamCop member, so I forwarded your mail to the deputies. They are aware that facebook's servers have been sporadically listed, and one of them specifically said the following: "Not much we can do about the listings. They're sending spam to our traps in large enough numbers that raises the score to a listing level. If Facebook were to follow best practices the spam complaints and trap hits would drop to levels that keeps them from getting listed." ~reed -- Reed Loden - <reed(a)reedloden.com> Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

11 12

Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Daniel Senie <dts(a)senie.com> wrote: > Better than western Massachusetts, where there's just no connectivity at = > all. Even dialup fails to function over crappy lines. Hmm. Although I've never been to Western MA and hence have no idea what the telecom situation is like over there, I'm certainly aware of quite a few places in "first world USA" where DSL is still a fantasy, let alone fiber. As a local example, I have a friend in a rural area of Southern California who can't get any kind of "high-speed Internet". I've run a prequal on her address and it tells me she is 31 kft from the CO. The CO in question has a Covad DSLAM in it, but at 31 kft those rural residents' options are limited to either IDSL at 144 kbps (not much point in that) or a T1 starting at ~$700/month. The latter figure is typically well out of range for the kind of people who live in such places. That got me thinking: ISDN/IDSL and T1 can be extended infinitely far into the boondocks because those signal formats support repeaters. What I'm wondering is how can we do the same thing with SDSL - and I mean politically rather than technically. The technical part is easy: some COs already have CLECs in them that serve G.shdsl (I've been told that NEN does that) and for G.shdsl repeaters are part of the standard (searching around shows a few vendors making them); in the case of SDSL/2B1Q (Covad and DSL.net) there is no official support for repeaters and hence no major vendors making such, but I can build such a repeater unofficially. The difficulty is with the political part, and that's where I'm seeking the wisdom of this list. How would one go about sticking a mid-span repeater into an ILEC-owned 31 kft rural loop? From what I understand (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!), when a CLEC orders a loop from an ILEC, if it's for a T1 or IDSL, the CLEC actually orders a T1 or ISDN BRI transport from the ILEC rather than a dry pair, and any mid-span repeaters or HDSLx converters or the like become the responsibility of the ILEC rather than the CLEC, right? So how could one extend this model to provide, say, repeatered G.shdsl service to far-outlying rural subscribers? Is there some political process (PUC/FCC/etc) by which an ILEC could be forced to allow a third party to stick a repeater in the middle of their loop? Or would it have to work by way of the ILEC providing a G.shdsl transport service to CLECs, with the ILEC being responsible for the selection, procurement and deployment of repeater hardware? And what if the ILEC is not interested in providing such a service - any PUC/FCC/etc political process via which they could be forced to cooperate? Things get even more complicated in those locations where the CO has a Covad DSLAM in it serving out SDSL/2B1Q, but no other CLEC serving G.shdsl. Even if the ILEC were to provide a G.shdsl transport service with repeaters, it wouldn't help with SDSL/2B1Q. My idea involves building a gadget in the form factor of a standard mid-span repeater that would function as a converter from SDSL/2B1Q to G.shdsl: if the loop calls for one mid-span repeater, stick this gadget in as if it were that repeater; if the loop calls for 2 or more repeaters, use my gadget as the first "repeater" and then standard G.shdsl repeaters after it. But of course this idea is totally dependent on the ability of a third party to stick these devices in the middle of long rural loops, perhaps in the place of loading coils which are likely present on such loops. Any ideas? MS

12 14

Re: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith(a)gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.rric.net/ I'm very familiar with those folks of course, they've been an inspiration to me for a long time. However, my needs are different. RRIC's model basically involves a specific community with a well-defined boundary: bring the bandwidth into the community via a bulk feed, then sublet inside the community. But I don't have a specific community in mind - I'm trying to develop a more generic solution. (The case of my friend who is at 31 kft from a Covad-enabled CO is only an example and nothing more.) Again, consider a town with a Covad-enabled CO plus an outlying countryside. The people in the town proper already have Covad xDSL available to them, and if we could stick my SDSL/2B1Q repeater in the middle of some longer loops, it would enable the people in the countryside to get *exactly the same* Covad (or ISP-X-via-Covad) services as those in the town proper. My repeater approach would also allow me to stay out of ISP or ISP-like business which I really don't want to get into - I would rather just make hardware and let someone else operate it. A repeater is totally unlike a router, it is not IP-aware, it just makes the loop seem shorter, allowing farther-outlying users to connect to *existing* ISPs with an already established business structure. Anyway, I just saw a post on NANOG about an area deprived of "high-speed Internet" services and thought I would post my idea in the hope that someone would have some ideas that would actually be *helpful* to what I'm trying to do. If not - oh well, I'll just put the idea back on the dusty shelf in the back of my mind until I'm ready to try presenting it to the folks who own the CO-colocated DSLAMs it would have to work with - gotta finish a few other things before I open that can of worms in the earnest. MS

6 5

1.0.0.0/8 route from MERIT ?
by Alex H. Ryu 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Today I jumped into one of our routers, and I found that 1.0.0.0/8 is announced from AS237, which is MERIT. Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 1.0.0.0/8 4.59.200.5 0 60 0 (65001 65105) 3356 7018 237 i Is this supposed to be? I thought 1.0.0.0/8 is allocated to APNIC. Alex

10 11

Fwd: Comcast IPv6 Trials Update
by Michael Greb 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

Received this message today. They haven't updated the <http://www.comcast6.net/> site yet. Mike Begin forwarded message: > An Important Message From Comcast > > Dear Comcast Customer, > > Thank you for volunteering to participate in Comcast's IPv6 trials! I wanted to provide you with a quick update on what our next steps are and when you can expect to hear from us again. > > As you know, we have four trials described at http://www.comcast6.net. We're in detailed planning on the first three: 6RD, plus native dual-stack for residential and for commercial customers. We expect each of these to start sometime within the next 90 days or so. > > 6RD Trial: > We anticipate having customers from around our network, not limited to any specific areas, participate. We will start the trial on a very small scale and then progressively increase the number of participants. We plan to ship a new home gateway device to each trial participant. > > Residential Native Dual-Stack Trial: > This trial will be limited to a few areas in our network. We are in the midst of determining precisely what those areas will be, based on where we have volunteers and where the infrastructure will be ready. If trial participants do not have an IPv6-capable home gateway and cable modem, one will be provided. > > Commercial Native Dual-Stack Trial: > This trial will be limited to a few areas in our network. We have tentatively identified these trial areas and will soon be in touch with potential trial users. > > Within approximately the next 30 days we will begin to contact some of our volunteers regarding each of these trials, so expect to hear from us soon. > > Thanks again for your interest! > > Regards > Jason Livingood > Internet Systems Engineering > Comcast

6 5

6to4 on Sprint Wireless Broadband
by Izaac 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

A few months ago, is appears that Sprint started dropping 6to4 encapsulated packets. Egress is fine. Ingress silently drops. Anyone see anything similar? Or am I the only guy crazy enough to be doing this sort of thing in the first place? -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \ / |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

2 1

Re: Tsunami
by Scott Weeks 27 Feb '10

27 Feb '10

--- jeffshultz(a)wvi.com wrote: Last time I checked, Pipeline was on the north side of the island, was it not? Activity coming from Chile would be on the east and southern sides. -------------------------------------- Wrap around. The tsunami sirens were going off, folks were getting to high ground with all their stuff, the only road was closed and one idiot in the ocean waiting to surf it. Strange day here indeed... scott

1 0

Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.
by Wade Peacock 27 Feb '10

27 Feb '10

We had a discussion today about IPv6 today. During our open thinking the topic of client equipment came up. We all commented that we have not seen any consumer grade IPv6 enable internet gateways (routers/firewalls), a kin to the ever popular Linksys 54G series, DLinks , SMCs or Netgears. Does anyone have any leads to information about such products (In production or planned production)? We are thinking that most vendors are going to wait until Ma and Pa home user are screaming for them. Thoughts? -- Wade Peacock Sun Country Cablevision Ltd

43 91