April 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
by David Hubbard 09 Apr '10

09 Apr '10

From: William Herrin [mailto:bill@herrin.us] > > > It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a > net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past > action and it's the decent and charitable thing to do for the folks > who created the possibility of the lives we enjoy today. > LOL! I'm sure most legacy orgs are living on a fixed income and just trying to get by; here I was not even feeling sorry for them that they can't have some free IPv6 allocations when they're just trying to survive. ARIN's fees are hardly unreasonable, they need to stop crying and join the rest of us that haven't had to make their businesses work without the luxury of a free handout.

14 19

ARIN XXV Policy Discussions
by John Curran 09 Apr '10

09 Apr '10

One important note for NANOG folks - The ARIN XXV Public Policy and Members Meeting will be held in 10 days in Toronto. There are policy proposals which may effect you being discussed. You may participate in discussing these on the ARIN PPML mailing list or during the meeting via remote participation (details attached). My apologies for forwarding this message, but I would be remiss to not bring these policy discussions to your attention. Thank you! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: Member Services <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> Date: April 9, 2010 10:04:52 AM EDT To: arin-announce(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-announce@arin.net> Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN XXV Policy Discussions The ARIN XXV Public Policy and Members Meeting will be held very soon in Toronto. Whether you’re attending in person or participating remotely, be sure to review the agenda so you don’t miss your chance to share your thoughts during the policy discussions: Monday, 19 April 2010-3: Customer Confidentiality 2010-6: Simplified M&A transfer policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Assignment Unit 2010-5: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations Tuesday, 20 April 2010-7: Simplified IPv6 policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria 2010-4: Rework of IPv6 allocation criteria 2010-1: Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests View the agenda for specific times at https://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXV/agenda.html. The agenda is subject to change, but we will make every effort not to change the times for policy discussions. We will be sending daily agenda updates to all attendees and registered remote participants. You can also follow us on Twitter @TeamARIN for schedule updates. Be sure to use the #arin25 tag for your own tweets about the meeting. Complete information on the text of the draft policies being discussed is available at https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/. If you’re not able to be there in person, you can still take advantage of remote participation features that will allow your voice to be heard during critical policy discussions. In addition to following the video or audio webcast, you can read along with the live transcript, submit questions and comments, and vote in straw polls via Jabber chat. To register as a remote participant, learn more about the remote participation services, or access the meeting materials please go to https://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXV/remote.html. We look forward to your participation. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 0

APNIC's report on traffic directed to 1.0.0.0/8
by Scott Howard 09 Apr '10

09 Apr '10

http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2010/04/msg00002.… (There's also a PDF version with easier to enlarge images at http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.pdf ) Scott.

2 1

Juniper's artificial feature blocking (was legacy /8)
by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> wrote: > Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need > a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is > included in the base licence. Really? My level of respect for Juniper has just dropped a few notches after reading this NANOG post - I didn't know that they were engaged in such DRM-like feature blocking practices. Where can I find more information about Juniper's stance on such practices (having some feature X present in both HW and SW, but artificially blocked until one buys an unlock key from them) and the exact degree to which they engage in such? The reason I ask is because I've been considering building my own PIM for their J-series, a PIM that would terminate Nokia/Covad's flavor of SDSL/2B1Q at the physical layer and present an ATM interface to JunOS, optionally supporting NxSDSL bonding with MLPPPoA. I have no love for routers that aren't 100% FOSS, but I couldn't find any other existing router platform which could be extended with 3rd-party physical interface modules, and designing and building my own base router chassis is not a viable option if I want to actually have something built before the Sun swells into a red giant and engulfs the Earth. So I thought that even though it isn't 100% FOSS, JunOS ought to be at least tolerable given that it appears to be based on FreeBSD and I've heard that it even allows the user to get direct access to the underlying Unix shell (does it really?) - but hearing about DRM-like artificial feature blocking seems to negate that. I mean, how could their disabled-until-you-pay blocking of "premium features" be effective if a user can get to the underlying Unix OS, shell, file system, processes, etc? Wouldn't such access allow smart users to unblock whatever feature is artificially blocked? Someone please educate me... MS

5 4

Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?
by IPv3.com 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ? As /8s are needed by Carriers (not ISPs) they will likely be able to just take them. Who will stop them. They have the Imperial Walker Routers & Gear. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_%28Star_Wars%29

7 8

NANOG Seems to be Dominated by NON-North American People ?
by IPv3.com 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

NANOG Seems to be Dominated by NON-North American People ? ...odd ARIN seems to have a similar situation ...odd By the way, on likely scenarios, North America could become a Walled Garden making many /8s available for decades. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt The rest of the world would then have IPv6 Proxy Access. That could be a major boost to the U.S. economy with Information Export Fees. This could be a Great Time to Start an ISP in .USA - Plenty of IPv4+ Address Space. ...and fools are wasting their time and money on IPv6

4 3

Finding content in your job title
by Steve Bertrand 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

Hi all, This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered. I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable. Now, after 10 years, I reflect back on what I've done, and what I do now. To me, if a business is loose-knit with no clear job descriptions or titles (ie. too small to have CXO etc), I feel that a business card should reflect what one feels is the primary job responsibility, or what they do the most (or love the most). For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth. How does the ops community feel about using this designation? Is it intrusive or offensive to those who hold real engineering degrees? I'm content with 'network manager', given that I still do perform (in my sleep) numerous system tasks and have to sometimes deal with front-line helpdesk stuff. Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it. Steve

37 56

what about 48 bits?
by A.B. Jr. 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

Hi, Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long. What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be. Or it is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout the world? All those low cost switches and wifi adapters DO use unique mac addresses?

34 56

RIRs are More Interested in Selling NEW than Pre-Owned?
by IPv3.com 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

RIRs are More Interested in Selling NEW than Pre-Owned? It is a myth that IPv4 is "out of space". It has the same space it started with if 32-bits are routed. More bits can easily be used for routing purposes before switching to IPv6. People seem to be happy with 34 bits, one extra bit at each end. 1+32+1 RIRs may not like the reality of Selling Pre-Owned "Vehicles" There are many problems out there. http://www.iblocklist.com/lists.php The push to Sell Brand New Virgin IPv6 Space makes RIR life easy. Easy money.

4 3

IPv4+ 2010 Routable /8s for North America
by IPv3.com 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

IPv4+ 2010 Routable /8s for North America 12 63 64 65 68 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 99 139 151 192 199 204 205 206 207 216 ...eventually things will "Free Up" http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt

1 0