August 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

IPv6 Hackers mailing-list
by Fernando Gont 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

Folks, We have created the "IPv6 Hackers" mailing-list for discussion of IPv6 security issues and low-level issues. The charter of the list is: ---- cut here ---- This list was created for the discussion of IPv6 security issues and low/packet-level issues related to the IPv6 protocols. It is meant to provide forum for IPv6 security researchers and IPv6 networking professionals to discuss low-level IPv6 networking and security issues that could eventually lead to advances and improvements in the area of IPv6 security and IPv6 networking. Discussion of unrelated networking or security topics are considered "off topic". Subscription to the list is open to the community. ---- cut here ---- You can subscribe to the mailing-list here: http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers/ Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando(a)gont.com.ar || fgont(a)acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

1 0

US internet providers hijacking users' search queries
by Bino Gopal 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking… Thoughts?

18 27

[Fwd: [v6ops] RFC 6343 on Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment]
by Brian E Carpenter 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

This is principally addressed to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including those that do not yet support IPv6, and to Content Providers. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [v6ops] RFC 6343 on Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 20:21:00 -0700 (PDT) From: rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org To: ietf-announce(a)ietf.org, rfc-dist(a)rfc-editor.org CC: v6ops(a)ietf.org, rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6343 Title: Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment Author: B. Carpenter Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: August 2011 Mailbox: brian.e.carpenter(a)gmail.com Pages: 20 Characters: 51496 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-02.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6343.txt This document provides advice to network operators about deployment of the 6to4 technique for automatic tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4. It is principally addressed to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including those that do not yet support IPv6, and to Content Providers. Some advice to implementers is also included. The intention of the advice is to minimize both user dissatisfaction and help-desk calls. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

1 0

AS376
by Zaid Ali 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

Can someone from AS 376 contact me offline? s'il vous plaît? I am seeing a routing issue in your AS. Merci, Zaid

1 0

Errant Advertisement - 128.1/16
by Rick Altmann 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

Is there anyone from AT&T on the list that could help with a likely misconfiguration? I have not received any response yet to my complaint (see below) submitted to the abuse address on July 26. We have since started advertising this space and would like to resolve the MOAS condition we have created. //////////////// The 128.1.0.0/16 address block is registered to BBN Technologies (AS11488) but is currently unused on any BBN networks. BBN would like to begin using this address space however AS7018 is currently originating public BGP routes for this address block. We believe this to be a configuration error. Please help us resolve this. A traceroute to 128.1.0.1 shows the following routers as the last 4 responding hops: cr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.81.106) cr81.nw2nj.ip.att.net (12.122.105.30) gar18.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.105.101) 12.89.231.190 //////////////// Thanks, Rick

5 5

AT&T/SBC Global to AS13285 routing issue
by dlr＠bungi.com 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

If someone from AT&T or SBC global could contact me off list, please? 2.96.0.0/13 is pretty much unreachable from portions of the Bay Area from the sbcglobal network. I've opened a couple of tickets on this, but no joy yet. Thank you --

1 0

Corporation for Sale with IPv4 Assets
by IPv4 Brokers 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

North American Corporation (domiciled in Nevada) is for sale. All non-IPv4 assets and debts (and other liabilities) have been transferred to another related corporation. IPv4 Assets include: 1 - ASN; and 3 - /20 networks (12,288 IP Addresses) direct allocations (non-legacy). Multiple options available for sale/purchase. Motivated sellers. Please e-mail: ipv4brokers(a)gmail.com or call/text: (404) 532-9535. Available on Saturday and Sunday for discussion.

2 1

AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue?
by Graham Wooden 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

Hi folks, Anyone else noticed a localpref change on Qwest network in regards to AT&T prefixes? I noticed my AT&T assigned prefixes dropping to 80, causing my backup transit peering with Centurylink to take preference with Qwest originators ... All was working fine with my prepends .. But not anymore... Any insight would be great. I haven¹t reached out to AT&T or Qwest yet. Curious if this is a bigger change than just me. Thanks, -graham

5 7

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 43, Issue 24
by Artis Schlossberg 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

unsubscribe On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 00:55, <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: IPv6 end user addressing (Joel Jaeggli) > 2. Re: AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue? (Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu) > 3. Re: AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue? (Joel Jaeggli) > 4. Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries > (Joe Provo) > 5. Re: IPv6 end user addressing (Jeff Wheeler) > 6. RE: IPv6 end user addressing (Jonathon Exley) > 7. Re: IPv6 end user addressing (Joel Jaeggli) > 8. Re: IPv6 end user addressing (David Conrad) > 9. Re: STRIKE: VZN (Matthew S. Crocker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 08:26:09 -0700 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> > To: Brian Mengel <bmengel(a)gmail.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing > Message-ID: <404AD93A-F84C-4ABD-8954-216109F22C60(a)bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote: > >> In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little >> agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end >> users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being >> slightly preferred. >> >> I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying >> to address this problem. It provides 16 /64 subnetworks, which seems >> like an adequate amount for an end user. >> >> Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6? > > When you have a device that delegates, e.g. a cpe taking it's assigned prefix, and delegating a fraction of it to a downstream device, you need enough bits that you can make them out, possibly more than once. if you want that to happen automatically you want enough bits that user-intervention is never (for small values of never) required in to subnet when connecting devices together... > > the homenet wg is exploring how devices in the home might address the issue of topology discovery in conjunction with delegation, which realistically home networks are going to have to do... > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:39:31 -0400 > From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu > To: Graham Wooden <graham(a)g-rock.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue? > Message-ID: <121127.1312731571(a)turing-police.cc.vt.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:53:05 CDT, Graham Wooden said: >> I should also note that Centurylink has been less than cooperative on even >> thinking about changing my routes to a pref of 70 on our behalf (they don't >> accept communities). I think time to get the account rep involved ... > > "they don't accept communities"??!? Just... wow. ;) > > (That's if they flat out don't support it - there's a separate ring of Hell > reserved for the ones who do support it but forget to document the part > about singing the Zimbabwe national anthem backwards while standing on > your head...) >

1 0

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries
by Anthony Pardini 05 Aug '11

05 Aug '11

Not surprising.. Ten years ago a vender pitched inserting referral cookies when customers visted shopping sites. We ultimately convinced management that collecting comissions in this manner wasn't the best of ideas. On Aug 5, 2011 7:05 PM, "Bino Gopal" <Bino.Gopal(a)citrix.com> wrote:

1 0