March 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

unsubscribe
by Ramsden, Colt 12 Mar '10

12 Mar '10

unsubscribe -- Colt Ramsden Programmer Analyst II Sam Houston State University 936.294.4488 - ramsden(a)shsu.edu -----Original Message----- From: nanog-request(a)nanog.org [mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:46 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 61 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog(a)nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request(a)nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner(a)nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: IP4 Space (Tim Chown) 2. Re: YouTube AS36561 began announcing 1.0.0.0/8 (Patrick W. Gilmore) 3. FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Marshall Eubanks) 4. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Jared Mauch) 5. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Randy Bush) 6. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Alan Clegg) 7. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Joe Greco) 8. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Joe Greco) 9. Re: 10GBase-t switch (Joe Provo) 10. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Sean Donelan) 11. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Joe Greco) 12. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Bret Clark) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:24:49 +0000 From: Tim Chown <tjc(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> Subject: Re: IP4 Space To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <EMEW3|8307ebe537c701ca160c7121d1426ccbm2BCOp03tjc|login.ecs.soton.ac.uk|20100312122449.GK21233(a)login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:42:50AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > Does it make sense/work to do this for internal operations even if our > > outside connections are IPv4 only (forget about tunneling). Even more > > mundane questions like how to deal with IPv4 only networked printers > > when everything else is IPv6? > > As for IPv4 only printers you can continue to run dual stack > internally forever if you want. Otherwise put them on their > own vlan and connect to them over NAT64 or run a proxy service. Our approach to v6 deployment has always been about enabling capability where it is available. The trick is then to have the right tools to manage and monitor it. The interesting thing about printers is that even quite low end network printers (like the HP Laserjet I have) have had IPv6 for quite a while. You can even configure DHCPv6 on the one I'm using. Just look for capabilities/features as you refresh equipment and it makes things that little easier. Tim ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:34:10 -0500 From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> Subject: Re: YouTube AS36561 began announcing 1.0.0.0/8 To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <6221C75D-A46C-457C-AC28-95D32ABA28D1(a)ianai.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:52 AM, Nathan wrote: > I'm hoping to alleviate the "what's going on!?" type messages here this time. :) Oh, I understand what's going on exactly. YouTube is trying to balance their ratios. :) -- TTFN, patrick > Here's an except from the APNIC provided LOA I provided to a couple > networks, to carry a new announcement... > > "To whom it may concern, > > APNIC and YouTube are cooperating in a project to investigate the > properties of unwanted traffic that is being sent to specific > destinations in the address block of 1.0.0.0/8. This address block has > been recently allocated to APNIC from the IANA, and > APNIC and YouTube are wanting to undertake this investigation prior to > the commencement of ordinary allocations. > Accordingly, APNIC authorizes AS36351 to periodically advertise a > route for 1.0.0.0/8 from now until 21 March 2010, and > requests that AS36351's peers and upstreams accept this as a > legitimate routing advertisement." > > > In a continuation of last weeks experiments... we are now announcing > 1.0.0.0/8 instead of 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.2.3.0/24. > > Cheers > ,N (nathan(a)youtube.com - AS36561) > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:43:22 -0500 From: Marshall Eubanks <tme(a)americafree.tv> Subject: FCC releases Internet speed test tool To: "nanog(a)nanog.org list" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <9085B96B-EF03-4BC9-86C7-BC096D5E3A63(a)americafree.tv> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed This might be useful to some. Article : http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312 site : http://www.broadband.gov/ It requires giving your address. Regards Marshall ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:55:39 -0500 From: Jared Mauch <jared(a)puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool To: Marshall Eubanks <tme(a)americafree.tv> Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org list" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <B72B6C72-EDA0-4CB4-BC1A-E61220B69C49(a)puck.nether.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If you have fios please don't use this, if you have relatives with dial, make them use it :) - Jared On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > This might be useful to some. > > Article : > > http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312 > > site : > > http://www.broadband.gov/ > > It requires giving your address. > > Regards > Marshall ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:57:59 +0900 From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool To: Marshall Eubanks <tme(a)americafree.tv> Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org list" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <m2hbolvdzs.wl%randy(a)psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > http://www.broadband.gov/ i suspect the bandwidth tests are a bit latency sensitive > It requires giving your address. did not really like a tokyo postal code randy ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:08:20 -0500 From: Alan Clegg <alan(a)clegg.com> Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org list" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: <4B9A4AD4.6000409(a)clegg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Marshall Eubanks wrote: > http://www.broadband.gov/ ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.broadband.gov. 86400 IN A 4.21.126.148 www.broadband.gov. 86400 IN RRSIG A 7 3 86400 20100309192609 ( 20091209192609 46640 broadband.gov. [...] ) Expired signatures... zone won't validate. AlanC

2 1

Need advise for a linux firewall
by Abdul Nazeer 12 Mar '10

12 Mar '10

Looking for advise on setting up a linux based dedicated firewall. Apparently, there are plenty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_router_or_firewall_distributions I'm looking to have the firewall sit in front of a public network of windows boxes. Also, would want to be able to load-balance and re-shape traffic inside the network. I was hoping to accomplish this using iptables, but if anyone has any other suggestion, I'd love to hear it. Thanks! Abdul Nazeer

12 13

RE: IPv6 enabled carriers?
by TJ 11 Mar '10

11 Mar '10

Hmm, apologies - I was not explicit in calling out VZW; meant to, my bad and thanks for pointing it out! Posting from phone, while distracted . less than ideal. /TJ From: TJ [mailto:trejrco@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 17:52 To: Christopher Morrow Subject: Re: IPv6 enabled carriers? VZW's LTE HW spec's mandate IPv6 support, that's why it is relevant. Yes, VZW - thought I made that pretty clear in my post ... (cough)also not verizon residential(cough) Yes, there are other carriers - none of which appear to have the level of coverage I need in the areas I spend my time. Or the Droid ;). (Although a strong IPv6 rollout might convince me ...) /TJ On Mar 11, 2010 5:05 PM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:54 PM, TJ <trejrco(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, ... how so exactly?? LTE is really just a 'last mile' tech... whether it's v4 or v6 doesnt' seem to matter (to the fact that it's LTE) > Another nit - They are also blocking Protocol41 on their EV-DO network. <cough>vzw not vzb</cough> > While this is a 'noble, if poorly thought out, effort' to prevent IPv6 from > impacting their cel... there are other carriers ya know?

3 2

ethernet to serial converters with ACLs
by Michael Holstein 11 Mar '10

11 Mar '10

Can anyone recommend a cheap Ethernet to Serial (RS232/422/485) converter with functionality like the Lantronix boxes .. except one that supports access lists (nothing complicated .. maybe a list of 5 approved hosts). I need a bunch of single port devices, not an access-server for a rack. I could build one out of a Pogoplug + USB/serial dongle .. (~$120 total) but would rather not re-invent the wheel. All the "secure" ones I see involve encrypting com port redirectors for the host PC .. I don't care about encrypting data in flight, I just want to restrict who can connect to the COM port on the other side of the IP device. It needs to work like the Lantronics ones do (take tcp/(port) and spit it out as rs232). Thanks, Michael Holstein Cleveland State University

8 7

Wireless Ethernet bridge
by Stefano Gridelli 11 Mar '10

11 Mar '10

Hi All, I need a wireless bridge solution that allows to pass jumbo frames over a distance of 3 miles, using the 5.8 GHz band. The original solution was a Proxim Tsunami GX 200, but unfortunately it doesn't go beyond an MTU of 1536 bytes: we need at least 1544 bytes, ideally between 4470 and 9212 bytes MTU. The handoff should be MM fiber, the desired throughput 200 Mbps. Thanks, Stefano

7 7

Re: FW: ethernet to serial converters with ACLs
by Express Networks 11 Mar '10

11 Mar '10

We've used mikrotik routerboards that support ev-do as wireless serial adapters.. It is only good for a single port application.. but it works.. and at a price of $99.. it would certainly support access lists.. we have them dial back to a pptp concentrator... just a thought.. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Meek [mailto:meekjt@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:52 PM > To: R. Benjamin Kessler > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: ethernet to serial converters with ACLs > > Avocent / Cyclades boxes have ACL capability (they run Linux) and can > be used with EV-DO/GSM modems. They may not be the lowest cost > solution, but there is a central management system and a wide range of > serial interface units from single port to at least 32 ports. > > Jon > Full disclosure: I was a member of their Customer Advisory Board > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM, R. Benjamin Kessler <rbk(a)mnsginc.com> > wrote: > > > >>On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Michael Holstein wrote: > > > >>> Can anyone recommend a cheap Ethernet to Serial (RS232/422/485) > >>> converter with functionality like the Lantronix boxes .. except one > > that > >>> supports access lists (nothing complicated .. maybe a list of 5 > > approved > >>> hosts). I need a bunch of single port devices, not an access-server > > for > >>> a rack. > > > >>We use SENA PS110 boxes ( > >>http://www.sena.com/products/device_servers/hd_ps_x10.php ). They work > >>very well, have various ACL features (dunno if it supports 5 named IP > > or >not), and other configurables. > > > >>Caleb > > > > On a similar topic, any good solutions for out-of-band serial > > console/Ethernet solutions that use EV-DO/GSM wireless Internet? > > > > > >

1 0

Qwest DNS Problems?
by Daniel 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

Did anyone notice any issues with Qwest DNS the past hour or two? We've had users with intermittent issues and the weird thing is while they can't resolve certain domains within Qwest's network I can query the same DNS servers from outside of Qwest's network and the names resolve just fine. Dan

2 1

Signing of the ARPA zone
by Joe Abley 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

Colleagues, This is a technical, operational announcement regarding changes to the ARPA top-level domain. Apologies in advance for duplicates received through different mailing lists. No specific action is requested of operators. This message is for your information only. The ARPA zone is about to be signed using DNSSEC. The technical parameters by which ARPA will be signed are as follows: KSK Algorithm and Size: 2048 bit RSA KSK Rollover: every 2-5 years, scheduled rollover to follow RFC 5011 KSK Signature Algorithm: SHA-256 Validity period for signatures made with KSK: 15 days; new signatures published every 10 days ZSK Algorithm and Size: 1024 bit RSA ZSK Rollover: every 3 months ZSK Signature Algorithm: SHA-256 Authenticated proof of non-existence: NSEC Validity period for signatures made with ZSK: 7 days; zone generated and re-signed twice per day The twelve root server operators [1] will begin to serve a signed ARPA zone instead of the (current) unsigned ARPA zone during a maintenance window which will open at 2010-03-15 0001 UTC and close at 2010-03-17 2359 UTC. Individual root server operators will carry out their maintenance at times within that window according to their own operational preference. The trust anchor for the ARPA zone will be published in the ITAR [2], and in the root zone in the form of a DS record once the root zone is signed. If you have any concerns or require further information, please let me know. Regards, Joe Abley Director DNS Operations, ICANN [1] <http://www.root-servers.org/> [2] <https://itar.iana.org/>

1 0

RE: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50
by Ralph Wallace 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

>Message: 13 >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:18:35 -0800 >From: Seth Mattinen <sethm(a)rollernet.us> >Subject: Re: IPv6 enabled carriers? >To: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <4B97F08B.2070500(a)rollernet.us> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >On 3/10/10 11:00 AM, Charles Mills wrote: >> Does anyone have a list of carriers who are IPv6 capable today? >> >> I would assume this would be rolled out in larger cities first but >> anything outside of "testbed environments" and "trials" as in >> Comcast's recent announcement seems to be all that is available. >> >> I'm being tasked with coming up with an IPv6 migration plan for a data center. >> >> Mostly interested in if ATT, Level3, GLBX, Saavis, Verizon Business >> and Qwest are capable as those are the typical ones I deal with. >> >Ones I have personal experience with: >GLBX - yes >SAVVIS - no >VZB - yes, good luck >ATT - "Beginning in 1Q2010 MIS will provide the ability to support IPv6 >in a dual stack mode." >When I disconnected my SAVVIS circuit in November 2009 I explicitly told >them IPv6 was a deciding factor. Not all of Verizon's pops are IPv6 >enabled, which may cause you trouble ordering it. It's put me in month >11 of trying to turn up a dual-stack circuit because they refuse to read >the order and keep putting it in Sacramento (v4 only) when it needs to >go to San Jose (dual-stack). Sprint wasn't on your list, but they are >rolling out native IPv6 support on all of 1239. I've been using their >6175 testbed since 2005. >~Seth ------------------------------ Here's what I know: ATT - Yes; http://www.corp.att.com/gov/solution/network_services/data_nw/ipv6/ Level3 - Yes; http://www.level3.com/downloads/IPv6_Brochure.pdf GLBX (If we're talking Global Crossing) - Yes (I talked with them right after they came out of bankruptcy; look at Wikipedia) http://www.globalcrossing.com/ipkc/ipkc_ipv6.aspx Saavis - Don't know; claim was made in 2006 they would be ready in 2008 (based on the above from Seth, they probably blew it off) Verizon Business - Yes; LTE roll out is coming to "officially" open the v6 doors mandating v6 support for all connections and just "enabling" v4 connections; Verizon Federal has supported (via MCI) the DoD DREN for years, at least since 2005. Qwest - Yes; (I'm moderating an IPv6 panel with Owen Delong from HE and Qwest in April) Ones you didn't ask about, but are significant v6 players Sprint - Yes; Absolutely (Colleagues of mine helped them with some of their IPv6 security issues in 2008) NTT - Absolutely yes (Check out the Google IPv6 Implementer's conference and Rocky Mountain IPv6 Summit presentations from last year's conferences) Cheers, Ralph

1 0

RE: IPv6 enabled carriers?
by Routing Bits 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

It looks like Comcast offers IPv6 today. Check the below link out to see if your data center is near any of their POP's. I believe Comcast's trials are for their Docsis products. http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/default.html

1 0