February 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 93
by Rudolph Daniel 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Is anyone on this list aware of any IPv6 ready networks in the English speaking caribbean? Rudi Daniel On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:19 PM, <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: > 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: quietly.... (Owen DeLong) > 2. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Simon Leinen) > 3. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Fred Richards) > 4. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (Joel Jaeggli) > 5. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Cameron Byrne) > 6. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (John Curran) > 7. Re: quietly.... (Roland Perry) > 8. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (Joel Jaeggli) > 9. Re: quietly.... (Roland Perry) > 10. Re: quietly.... (Owen DeLong) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:22:55 -0800 > From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > Subject: Re: quietly.... > To: "Lee Howard" <lee(a)asgard.org> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <BE9E6EDB-4C0B-4313-BA18-D38F8C881970(a)delong.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > Firewalls merely constrict it. Not that I advocate against the use of > > firewalls; > > in fact, I think I'm agreeing with you, and extending the argument a > little > > further, > > that we should move from NAT to firewalls, then from stateful firewalls > to > > secure hosts and network security appliances. > > > > Lee > > > > > I would be fine with that. However, in terms of the art of the possible > with the tools available today, IPv6 has no need of NAT, but, firewalls > cannot yet be safely removed from the equation. > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:43:04 +0100 > From: Simon Leinen <simon.leinen(a)switch.ch> > Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? > To: Tim Chown <tjc(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <aatyghjeqv.fsf(a)macsl.switch.ch> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Tim Chown writes: > > Which of the big boys are doing it? > > Google - although there don't call themselves a web hoster, they can be > used for hosting web sites using services such as Sites or App Engine. > Both support IPv6, either using the opt-in mechanism or by using an > alternate CNAME (ghs46 instead of ghs.google.com) That's what I use. > > None of the other large "cloud" providers seems to support IPv6 for > their users yet. In particular, neither Amazon's AWS not Microsoft > Azure have much visible activity in this direction. Rackspace have > announced IPv6 support for the first half of 2011. > > Concerning the more traditional webhosting offerings, I have no idea > about the "big boys". Here in Switzerland, a few smaller hosters > support IPv6. And I saw IPv6 mentioned in ads for some German server > hosting offering. Germany is interesting because it has a > well-developed hosting ecosystem with some really big players. > -- > Simon. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:49:06 -0500 > From: Fred Richards <fredr(a)geexology.org> > Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? > To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTiksv84+tSm80AjyXg-XZDfX3NGJz1FJM0KQ64Hp(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I ran across this link a while back, it shows, of the top 100k > websites (according to Alexa), which ones are IPv6 enabled: > > > http://www.atoomnet.net/ipv6_enabled_popular_websites.php?complete_list=true > > > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Simon Leinen <simon.leinen(a)switch.ch> > wrote: > > Tim Chown writes: > >> Which of the big boys are doing it? > > > > Google - although there don't call themselves a web hoster, they can be > > used for hosting web sites using services such as Sites or App Engine. > > Both support IPv6, either using the opt-in mechanism or by using an > > alternate CNAME (ghs46 instead of ghs.google.com) ?That's what I use. > > > > None of the other large "cloud" providers seems to support IPv6 for > > their users yet. ?In particular, neither Amazon's AWS not Microsoft > > Azure have much visible activity in this direction. ?Rackspace have > > announced IPv6 support for the first half of 2011. > > > > Concerning the more traditional webhosting offerings, I have no idea > > about the "big boys". ?Here in Switzerland, a few smaller hosters > > support IPv6. ?And I saw IPv6 mentioned in ads for some German server > > hosting offering. ?Germany is interesting because it has a > > well-developed hosting ecosystem with some really big players. > > -- > > Simon. > > > > > > > > -- > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Fred > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:15:09 -0800 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market > To: John Curran <jcurran(a)istaff.org> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <4D4ED71D.7020104(a)bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 2/6/11 8:00 AM, John Curran wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > >> What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the > >> address allocation market. > > > > Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for obtaining routing of a > > given prefix, combined with IPv6 vast identifier space, could actually > > satisfy the primary goals that we hold for a long-term scalable address > > architecture, and enable doing it in a highly distributed, automatable > > fashion: > > So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing > table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use > of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of > the slots that I need subtract the royalities I recieve from the other > participants and if I'm close to the mean number of slots per > participant then it nets out to zero. > > Routing table growth continues but with some illusion of fairness and > the cost of maintaining an elaborate system which no-one needs. > > Yay? > > > > Aggregation would be encouraged, since use of non-aggregatable address > > space would entail addition costs. These costs might be seen as minimal > > for some organizations that desire addressing autonomy, but others might > > decide treating their address space portable and routable results in > > higher cost than is desired. Decisions about changing prefixes with > > ISPs can be made based on a rational tradeoff of costs, rather than in > > a thicket of ISP and registry policies. > > > > Conservation would actually be greatly improved, since address space > > would only be sought after because of the need for additional unique > > identifiers, rather than obtaining an address block of a given size > > to warrant implied routability. In light of IPv6's vast address > > space, it actually would be possible to provide minimally-sized but > > assured unique prefixes automatically via nearly any mechanism (i.e. > > let your local user or trade association be a registry if they want) > > > > With a significantly reduced policy framework, Registration could be > > fully automated, with issuance being as simple as assurance the right > > level of verification of requester identity (You might even get rid > > of this, if you can assure that ISPs obtain clear identity of clients > > before serving them but that would preclude any form of reputation > > systems based on IP address prefix such as we have in use today...) > > > > Just think: the savings in storage costs alone (from the reduction in > > address policy-related email on all our mailing lists) could probably > > fund the system. :-) > > > > Oh well, one project at a time... > > /John > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:27:58 -0800 > From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? > To: fredr(a)geexology.org > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTikjc1e_YoUt7ntFHtdSneMH44-TBZ-ZJ8VLTNA9(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I have used both softlayer and arpnetworks. Both have v6 by default, but > only softlayer can be considered a big boy... multiple sites. Cloud and > dedicated servers ... softlayer is a class act with v6 added for free > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:32:17 -0500 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)istaff.org> > Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market > To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <83EF5AB0-741E-4FB2-A348-00477482A848(a)istaff.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > > > So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing > > table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use > > of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of > > the slots that I need subtract the royalities I recieve from the other > > participants and if I'm close to the mean number of slots per > > participant then it nets out to zero. > > > > Routing table growth continues but with some illusion of fairness and > > the cost of maintaining an elaborate system which no-one needs. > > One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates > backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities > receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table > slots. > > Note that our present system lacks both consistent backpressure on > consumption of routing table slots and compensation for carrying > additional routes. > > /John > > p.s. While I do believe there would be a net benefit, it also > should be noted that there is no apparent way to transition > to such a model in any case, i.e., it could have been done > that way from the beginning, but a large scale economic > reengineering effort at this point might be impossible. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:45:46 +0000 > From: Roland Perry <lists(a)internetpolicyagency.com> > Subject: Re: quietly.... > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <uCKSinaK5tTNFATH(a)perry.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed > > In article <85D304BA-6C4E-4B86-9717-2ADB542B8606(a)delong.com>, Owen > DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> writes > > >> Part of the problem is knowing in advance what ISPs will and won't > >>do. It's all very well saying one shouldn't patronise an ISP that > >>blocks port 25, for example, but where is that documented before you buy? > >> > >If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the contract > >and the contract says they are providing internet access, then, they > >are in breach and you are free to depart without a termination fee and > >in most cases, demand a refund for service to date. > > You may be right about enforcing that in the USA (is it an FCC thing?), > but it won't fly in most other places. > > >Admittedly, I'm not over-fussed about email on my phone and I don't use > >a tether device at this point. > > The 3G I'm discussing is a dongle intended for general access. > > >I mostly expect 3G and 4G networks to be broken internet anyway. I was > >more speaking in terms of land-line providers. > > Apparently there are something like three times as many people with > mobile phones in the world, as with Internet access. And a lot of > network expansion is expected to be based on mobile connectivity as a > result. > -- > Roland Perry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:49:12 -0800 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market > To: John Curran <jcurran(a)istaff.org> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <4D4EDF18.3000207(a)bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 2/6/11 9:32 AM, John Curran wrote: > > One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates > > backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities > > receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table > > slots. > > > > Note that our present system lacks both consistent backpressure on > > consumption of routing table slots and compensation for carrying > > additional routes. > > The costs of carrying routes is unevenly distributed. when I have to > carry 2 million routes in my fib on few hundred 120Gb/s line cards it's > a bit different than someone with a software router who just has to make > sure they have 4GB of ram... > > That has very attractive properties along some dimensions. e.g. the cost > at the margin of connecting a new participant to the internet is rather > low. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:49:28 +0000 > From: Roland Perry <lists(a)internetpolicyagency.com> > Subject: Re: quietly.... > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <5iyXqtbo8tTNFAyd(a)perry.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed > > In article <20110205131510.BE13E9B5167(a)drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews > <marka(a)isc.org> writes > >> And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small > >> enterprise attract their attention and get the features added? > > > >You return the equipment as not suitable for the advertised purpose > >and demand your money back. Renumbering is expected to occur with > >IPv6, part of renumbering is getting the name to address mappings > >right. With DHCP the DHCP server normally does it. With SLAAC the > >host has to do it as there is no other choice. > > > >Here in Australia it is Repair/Replace/Refund if the product purchased > >is faulty. That applies to all products. If the milk is off when > >we get home we go back and get it replaced and if the store is out > >of stock we get a refund. I've returned and had replaced plenty > >of stuff over the years. > > I think you are just confirming my view that moving from IPv4 to IPv6 > will involve more than the ISP doing some magic that's transparent to > the majority of users. And good luck returning a 3 year old PS/3 for a > refund on the basis it doesn't support IPv6. > -- > Roland Perry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:17:00 -0800 > From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > Subject: Re: quietly.... > To: Roland Perry <lists(a)internetpolicyagency.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <BC37A5F0-78DE-4881-B649-0D42610BE7BF(a)delong.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > In article <20110205131510.BE13E9B5167(a)drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews < > marka(a)isc.org> writes > >>> And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small > >>> enterprise attract their attention and get the features added? > >> > >> You return the equipment as not suitable for the advertised purpose > >> and demand your money back. Renumbering is expected to occur with > >> IPv6, part of renumbering is getting the name to address mappings > >> right. With DHCP the DHCP server normally does it. With SLAAC the > >> host has to do it as there is no other choice. > >> > >> Here in Australia it is Repair/Replace/Refund if the product purchased > >> is faulty. That applies to all products. If the milk is off when > >> we get home we go back and get it replaced and if the store is out > >> of stock we get a refund. I've returned and had replaced plenty > >> of stuff over the years. > > > > I think you are just confirming my view that moving from IPv4 to IPv6 > will involve more than the ISP doing some magic that's transparent to the > majority of users. And good luck returning a 3 year old PS/3 for a refund on > the basis it doesn't support IPv6. > > -- > > Roland Perry > > I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update. > > Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this transition. > > No, it can't be 100% magic on the part of the service provider. > > It still has to happen. There is no viable alternative. > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 93 > ************************************* > -- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…> **1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…> * * *

1 0

802.11g with WPA-PSK
by Atticus 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Im not familiar with wpa_supplicant, but you can preface external commands to execute in ifconfig.* with ! On Feb 6, 2011 1:08 PM, "Andrew Ball" <aball(a)students.prairiestate.edu> wrote: Hello, I have a NetBSD host that I would like to connect to an existing wireless LAN using a rum(4) interface (Belkin F5D7050B USB 802.11g adaptor). I have tried configuring wpa_supplicant via rc.conf but it does not seem to start and I don't know why. Is there some other way to launch wpa_supplicant, perhaps via ifconfig.rum0? - Andy Ball

2 1

Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters
by Heinrich Strauss 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Hi, NANOG. Something's just struck me: every IPv4 allocation over a certain threshold has a monetary cost (sometimes in the tens of thousands of USD) and according to our RIR, the first equivalent IPv6 allocation is given as a freebie (to encourage migration). (Disclaimer: I'm on the Dark Continent of Africa) So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to the free pool, since Business would see it as an unnecessary cost. This would seem to counteract the forced move to IPv6, since, once the early adopters move their services exclusively to IPv6 (or maintaining very small IPv4 blocks), there would be plenty of IPv4 space for the late adopters to request (after the RIR quarantine period, etc). Naturally, 6to4 functionality must remain for a while to interoperability reasons, so their resources would be available to the IPv6 world for time to come. Unless I'm misunderstanding the RIRs policy regarding IPv4 allocations; has it been stated by all RIRs that IPv4 blocks are unallocatable once the exhaustion phase kicks in? Or is there another mechanism to ensure that we don't hand out the space being handed back once IPv6 is the norm? :) Regards, -H.

12 15

US Warships jamming Lebanon Internet
by Joly MacFie 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the country's Internet.. http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E00… "The problem, however, is due to a coordination error related to waves," > Nahhas told OTV, adding that an investigation was underway to find out > whether this act is "intentional or not." also at http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/EFCEF203B3C315A5C225… -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

7 6

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators > don't participate much in the standards setting process so its > no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "blind-spots" when it comes to > operational reality. > > and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single > consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's > just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be > a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by > a particular type of network operator. To the extent that the operator community does not participate in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts not to participate in the open policy development process in the Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality. Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes. (my humble opinion alone) /John

14 24

nlayer contact
by William Pitcock 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Hi, Could an nLayer network engineer contact me offlist regarding a service or core router at I'm guessing One Wilshire that is having serious problems? Thanks. William

1 0

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the policies > under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps? Bill - RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framework. Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN. We've adhered to these principles from RFC 2050 in address management without exception, and even in policy development today. When you speak of the policies of old allocations, please be specific. If they predated Jon, that would indeed be quite interesting. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

2 1

External sanity checks
by Philip Lavine 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

To all, Does any one know a Vendor (NOT Keynote) that can do sanity checks against your web/smtp/ftp farms with pings, traceroutes, latency checks as well as application checks (GET, POST, ESMTP, etc) Thank you, Philip

16 16

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:27 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> ... >> It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates. >> >> Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint. >> >> -Bill > > there is no complaint here bill. there is simply the observation that > if I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, > that it is, at best, presumptious to presume the power of expropriation > without taking into account the doctrine of eminent domain. If the > RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away - > I expect to be compensated at fair market value. ... Bill - That seems like a particularly strong reason on your part to participate in the policy development process. I happen to believe that the community needs to be particularly respectful of the ability of all address holders to use their space undisturbed, but at the end of the day we have to run according to whatever policies the community develops. /John

1 0

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
by John Curran 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:18 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific. > http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20… > but thats just me. FYI - Also remember to consider the views from papers that have actually been peer-reviewed and published (attached)... /John > "Legal And Policy Aspects Of Internet Number Resources" > > Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal. > > Volume 24 > Issue 2 > Page 335 > > Authors: Stephen M. Ryan, Esq. , Raymond A. Plzak , and John Curran > > http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/files/media/articles/v024/v024.i2.Ryan.p…

1 0