February 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Strange L2 failure
by Jack Bates 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Has anyone seen issues with IOS where certain MACs fail? 54:52:00 (kvm) fails out an old 10mbit port on a 7206 running 12.2 SRE. I've never seen anything like this. DHCP worked, ARP worked, and arp debugging showed responses for arp to the MAC, however, tcpdump on the host system showed no unicast or arp responses coming from the router, while the switch management ip and other stuff on the local segment communicated fine with the vm. This broke for IPv6 as well. I changed the vm's MAC to 54:51:00, 50:52:00 and still failed. Changed it to 40:52:00 and it works for both v4 and v6. Was there a change which would cause certain hardware to not accept a MAC starting with 50: or higher? Jack

4 5

Is your ASN advertising v6 prefixes?
by Fred Richards 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Mine is. Well? -- Fred

6 5

Re: Is your ASN advertising v6 prefixes?
by Scott Weeks 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

--- ios.run(a)gmail.com wrote: From: Raul Rodriguez <ios.run(a)gmail.com> http://www.ris.ripe.net/mt/asdashboard.html?as=26773 -------------------------------------------------- http://www.ris.ripe.net/mt/no_cookies.html?success_args=as;success_args=267… "Please turn on the cookies on your browser to view this site. " No, fix your site or I go elsewhere. scott

3 2

Top webhosters offering v6 too?
by Tim Chown 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

Which of the big boys are doing it? Tim

16 18

IPv6 status
by Franck Martin 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

Looking at the recent exchange on the list re IPv6, it seems we are in the "whose fault is it?" • Denial (this isn't happening to me!) • Anger (why is this happening to me ?) • Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if ...) • Depression (I don't care anymore) • Acceptance ( I'm ready for whatever comes) So I guess we progressed from last year which was denial! Can we move on with the program and get to the bargaining phase?

3 3

Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters
by gb10hkzo-nanog＠yahoo.co.uk 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

> Hint: even IPs not pingable from the Internet are being used. Not > everyone is an ISP/Webhoster ... with public services. I thought that was why we have RFC1918 ?

11 13

Is it permissible to advertise number resources allocated by one RIR to a ISP in a region governed by a different RIR? Practical?
by Crooks, Sam 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

Is it permissible, from a policy perspective, for a multi-homed end user to announce the numbering resource allocation received from one RIR (for discussion purposes, let's say ARIN) to upstream service providers in a different region (for example, in the RIPE region)? Is it feasible from a practical perspective? I've looked through IANA and ARIN policy and can't find anything which covers such a scenario. I have seen some things about transferring number resources from one RIR to another RIR, which is similar, but not exactly the same. Rationale: Suppose you are a large global enterprise, truly globalized in practice, not in mere name, and performance concerns aside, you provide failover for Internet access of enterprise users in one region by failing over to internet access in a different region. Since you probably are using 10/8 addressing within your network and you NAT the private IPv4 addresses to a public IPv4 address before sending the traffic on.., so this works. Given lack of NAT66, and the best practice IPv6 numbering which is purported to use globally routable IPv6 addresses within your enterprise network, the achievable way to accomplish the same use possible today in IPv4 would seem to be to advertise the IPv6 addressing from one RIR to a ISP in a region governed by a different RIR (or LIR).

5 4

pf not redirecting packets
by Atticus 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

I did indeed. I found an error in the file I attatched, but fixing it made no difference. Remove quick from 'block in on wm0' On Feb 9, 2011 2:00 PM, "bart sikkes" <b.sikkes(a)gmail.com> wrote: if NAT works it probably isn't this, but who knows, did you turn packet forwarding on? net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 bart On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Atticus <grobe0ba(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Okay, so maybe I'm just retar...

1 0

verizon (as701/mci/worldcom/alternet/uunet) ipv6 contact needed
by jason jeffries 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

I hate to do this to ya'll again... but I need to talk to someone in as701/Verizon-land that can get us IPv6 connectivity on our existing circuit. The unfailingly awesome technical persons behind the help email addresses at 701 told us to take it to our account rep, and therein lies the problem. Verizon _used to be_ the ILEC here, and we ordered this circuit in some CLECy way that apparently means we don't have any of the usual credentials or account managers and blahblahlblah other things that I don't care about. What it comes down to is: Multiple attempts by our suited idiots to contact your suited idiots have failed. If a technical-type person can point me in the right direction, it'd be much appreciated. thanks! jason jeffries - jjeffries <at> labs.net labyrinth solutions - as26097

2 1

Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
by Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

The subject says it all... anyone with experience with a setup like this ? I am particularly wondering about possible NDP breakage. cheers! Carlos -- -- ========================= Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://www.labs.lacnic.net =========================

51 145