September 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: routing issue for verizon dsl customers in western massachusetts
by Seth Mos 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Congratulations on your nat444 connection. I suspect a autoblocklist of sorts. They somehow always end up blocking the hosts you are using. I vaguely remember my watchguard firebox 1000 doing so. It was red too. Regards and good luck, Seth typed on a tiny touchscreen, why exactly? Steve Bohrer <skbohrer(a)simons-rock.edu>schreef: >On Sep 15, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Brian Gold <bgold(a)simons-rock.edu> >> wrote: >>> Over the past week, we've discovered that there is an issue with >>> the way >>> some Verizon DSL customers are being routed in Western >>> Massachusetts that is >>> preventing them from reaching my employers public IPs. The problem >>> is only >>> limited to Verizon DSL customers, everyone else can reach these IP >>> addresses >>> just fine. After many hours on the phone with Verizon tech support, I >>> finally managed to get myself and one of my coworker's home dsl >>> connections >>> switched from a "redback router" to a "juniper router" which >>> resolved the >>> issue, but only for us. > >[...] >> >> If you buy verizon services at your day job you can probably make >> noise through your sales droids better than here (sadly)... verizon >> likes to jump when customers have problems, if the customer is a large >> corporation or other 'important' customer. > > >That is just the problem! The college does not buy any Verizon network >stuff directly, so we don't really have any access to their support. >(We have a few cell phones, but not enough to be "important".) > >Brian Gold (who first posted) happens to have their DSL to his house, >and he was one of five who have reported the problem, so that gave him >a slight in. But the only techs he could reach as an "end user" were >not high enough up to fix this problem in a general way. After >pressing them for literally hours, he was able to get transfered to >their NOC, and get the problem resolved for his one address. But, they >would not give him the NOC contact, and he had to repeat this multi- >hour process to get it fixed for an other user. Verizon's DSL support >suggested that we get our bandwith provider involved, and so they >tried to pitch in, but they don't have any Verizon NOC contact either, >especially since this issue is purely within a small corner of >Verizon's DSL network, not on any of Verizon's links to our provider. > >This issue hits only a few Verizon DSL users in NW Mass. It does not >really seem like a routing problem, because the affected users can >reach many of the servers in our AS, but not some addresses. >Unfortunately, the "blocked" addresses include our web server and our >mail server, so our staff who live out there noticed the issue pretty >quickly. Traceroutes from Brian's house show that for our blocked >hosts, the users don't get beyond Verizon's NAT. > >The Verizon tech's "fix" of re-patching Brian's DSL line in to a >different router feels to me like there is a config problem in the >other router, but the tech we got is not authorized to alter the >config. It would be nice if we could reach someone who could actually >edit the broken config and make it right. Anyone from Verzion's NOC >for Western Mass reading this? Or, does anyone else have useful >contact info for them? > >FWIW, Simon's Rock is 208.81.88.0/21, AS 19345. Here are a failed and >a good trace from Brian's house, to different servers on our campus : > >FAILS: >Tracing route to wilbur.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.15] >over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.10.1 > 2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1 > 3 53 ms 104 ms 116 ms 10.14.1.1 > 4 * * * Request timed out. > 5 * * * Request timed out. > 6 * * * Request timed out. > 7 * * * Request timed out. > >WORKS: >Tracing route to dev.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.25] >over a maximum of 30 hops: > >1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.10.1 >2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1 >3 87 ms 54 ms 54 ms 10.14.1.1 >4 99 ms 109 ms 103 ms at-0-3-0-1711.WMA-CORE-RTR2.verizon- >gni.net [130.81.10.77] >5 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms so-7-3-1-0.NY5030-BB-RTR2.verizon- >gni.net [130.81.20.6] >6 19 ms 17 ms 17 ms 0.xe-3-1-0.BR3.NYC4.ALTER.NET >[152.63.2.81] >7 18 ms 21 ms 18 ms 204.255.168.194 >8 108 ms 188 ms 116 ms pos5-0-2488M.cr1.BOS1.gblx.net >[67.17.94.57] >9 24 ms 28 ms 23 ms pos0-0-0-155M.ar1.BOS1.gblx.net >[67.17.70.162] >10 121 ms 160 ms 127 ms 64.213.79.250 >11 77 ms 77 ms 78 ms 208.81.88.25 > >Trace complete. > >Anyways, thanks for any suggestions you can offer. > >Steve Bohrer >Network Administrator >ITS, Bard College at Simon's Rock >413-528-7645 > > >

1 0

Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
by Meftah Tayeb 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

ok, that's a positive answer. but let me ask you a question: do HE.NET peer with cogent? level3? that the way i'm looking arround SIXXS and they look like a IPV6 POLICE ! ----- Original Message ----- From: Arjan Van Der Oest To: Meftah Tayeb Cc: ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de ; nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:20 PM Subject: Re: Open Letters to Sixxs On 15Sep, 2011, at 16:02 , Meftah Tayeb wrote: Hello People i have one question: why SIXXS is very strict like that ? Why sent this to this list. Consider using another tunnelbroker if you're not satisfied with Sixxs. I can recommend Hurricane, www.tunnelbroker.com (this is, by no means, a judgement on Sixxs and their services). -- Met vriendelijke groet, Arjan van der Oest Senior Network Engineer / Security Officer Voiceworks BV - Editiestraat 29 - 1321 NG Almere __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

3 3

Re: ouch..
by Chris Adams 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Once upon a time, Jima <nanog(a)jima.tk> said: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building > > a > > new store directly across from the Apple store there. > > It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year > ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a > really absurd coincidence. They could be following the (possibly urban legend) Burger King model. Supposedly, McDonald's would spend a bunch of time and money doing market research, surveys, and such before placing a new restaurant. Burger King would wait for McDonald's to spend the time and money, and then open a new restaurant across the street. -- Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

2 1

Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
by Brandon Butterworth 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

> I concur in all respects with your assessment of SIXXS. Being a > volunteer does not give you carte-blanche to act like the rear end of a > horse. Actually it does, it's theirs to do as they wish. Anyone else is free to make what they may consider to be a better service. > I don't care if your service is free, your behavior is slowing, > not speeding the adoption of IPv6. Grow up. Tunnels are not the future, it's probably just as well they make it hard to create more. IPv6, do it properly, do it now brandon

1 0

Open Letters to Sixxs
by Meftah Tayeb 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Hello People i have one question: why SIXXS is very strict like that ? forcing a special address format is a idiotic work everyone have a format of address everyone have his way of saying address every country have there language. there's bilion of address definition at this time. signed up for Sixxs for 2 times and resulted in a refuse because of bad address Sixxs, please would you revise your requiremant ? Emailed you for one month and still have no reply ? did you has a coppy of my passport ? did you saw my identity card ? have you called me ? anyway, i have realy not seen any Strict service like you, SIXXS. i can evean pay for your service, if you wish. just fix your policy and by nice with people like everyone is. Thank you. Meftah Tayeb IT Consulting http://www.tmvoip.com/ phone: +21321656139 Mobile: +213660347746 __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

2 1

Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
by Meftah Tayeb 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Pim Van, i am just looking for a alternative way. i don't need this stupid SixXs at all anymore. also, Pim, are you Pim for Multicast? no IGMP? :D :) Thank you ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pim van Pelt" <pim(a)ipng.nl> To: "Meftah Tayeb" <tayeb.meftah(a)gmail.com> Cc: <ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de>; <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:28 PM Subject: Re: Open Letters to Sixxs > Hoi, > > Meftah perhaps you mailed the wrong people -- you seem to be > specifically addressing SixXS, but you mailed nanog(a)nanog.org and > ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de, both of which may not be able to > authoritatively answer your questions. > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Meftah Tayeb <tayeb.meftah(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> why SIXXS is very strict like that ? > I suppose it's up to SixXS to define their policy (one account per > person comes to mind *) and revise it if they see a need. They are > free to accept or reject any user and I do not believe they have an > obligation to serve any given user (ie access is a privilege not a > right), and I think they have a right to ask for information just as > much as users have a right to not use their service if they believe > the amount of information SixXS wants to know about them and their > intended use is too much. In general I think they are rather > transparent about rejection reasons, in your case likely because you > neglected to heed the FAQ item on one account per person. > > I'm not sure bringing this up in the scope of nanog or ipv6-ops is > productive. It's not clear to me, except for your plethora of > questions, what you are trying to accomplish. > > I'm sorry you feel that SixXS is not the right place for you. Luckily > there's plenty of choice in high quality tunnelbrokers, as others in > this thread have pointed out. > > groet, > Pim > > *) http://www.sixxs.net/faq/account/?faq=oneaccount > -- > Pim van Pelt <pim(a)ipng.nl> > PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/ > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la > base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________ > > Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

1 0

Microsoft deems all DigiNotar certificates untrustworthy, releases updates
by Network IP Dog 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

FYI!!! http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2016132391_microsoft_dee ms_all_diginotar_certificates_untrust.html Google and Mozilla have also updated their browsers to block all DigiNotar certificates, while Apple has been silent on the issue, a emblematic zombie response! Cheers.

34 51

Re: ouch..
by Paul 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/CRS-1x100GE_DS.ht… ? James Jones <james(a)freedomnet.co.nz> wrote: >Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where. > >Sent from my iPhone > >On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter <leigh.porter(a)ukbroadband.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Always Learning [mailto:nanog@u61.u22.net] >>> Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 >>> To: N. Max Pierson >>> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >>> Subject: Re: ouch.. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: >>> >>>> Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the >>>> fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form >>>> somewhere for some feedback :) >>> >>> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> With best regards, >>> >>> Paul. >>> England, >>> EU. >> >> >> Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? >> >> -- >> Leigh >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >

3 2

RE: NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 55 - Re: ouch..
by Sutton, Allen 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

Well, I'm not surprised at all, being that Cisco also does this to Alcatel-Lucent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX3zvjX3c5Q I think Cisco is just running scared now. If they didn't charge so much for their products, they wouldn't have this problem. In addition, I think they also thought that they would be # 1 forever and that nobody could touch them, so they just stopped trying to stay ahead of the competition. _________________________________ Allen -----Original Message----- From: nanog-request(a)nanog.org [mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:56 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 55 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: NAT444 or ? (Dan Wing) 2. ouch.. (Martin Hepworth) 3. Re: ouch.. (Vlad Galu) 4. Re: ouch.. (Nick Hilliard) 5. Re: ouch.. (Brian Raaen) 6. Re: ouch.. (Always Learning) 7. Re: ouch.. (Frank Habicht) 8. HP A-series, H3C, Huawei and their capabilities in real-life (Mark Smith) 9. RE: ouch.. (Erik Bais) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:28:17 -0700 From: "Dan Wing" <dwing(a)cisco.com> To: "'Owen DeLong'" <owen(a)delong.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: NAT444 or ? Message-ID: <0a4d01cc729f$1bc0abc0$53420340$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:43 PM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: 'Leigh Porter'; 'David Israel'; nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: NAT444 or ? > > >> > >> Good point, but aside from these scaling issues which I expect can > be > >> resolved to a point, the more serious issue, I think, is > applications > >> that just do not work with double NAT. Now, I have not conducted > >> any serious research into this, but it seems that > >> draft-donley-nat444- impacts does appear to have highlight issues > >> that may have been down > to > >> implementation. > > > > Draft-donley-nat444-impacts conflates bandwidth constraints with CGN > > with in-home NAT. Until those are separated and then analyzed > carefully, > > it is harmful to draw conclusions such as "NAT444 bad; NAT44 good". > > > > Continuing to make this claim does not make it any more true. > > Draft-donley took networks and measured their real-world functionality > without NAT444, then, added NAT444 and repeated the same tests. > Regardless of the underlying issue(s), the addition of NAT444 to the > mix resulted in the forms of service degradation enumerated in the > draft. I disagree it reached that conclusion. That may have been its intent. > Further, I would not ever say "NAT444 bad; NAT44 good". I would say, > rather, "NAT44 bad, NAT444 worse". I think that's a pretty safe and > non-harmful thing to say. Yes, your statement is completely accurate. I agree that IPv4 address sharing causes additional problems (which encompasses all forms of IPv4 address sharing), and CGN causes additional problems. > >> Other simple tricks such as ensuring that your own internal > >> services such as DNS are available without traversing NAT also help. > > > > Yep. But some users want to use other DNS servers for performance > > (e.g., Google's or OpenDNS servers, especially considering they > > could point the user at a 'better' (closer) CDN based on Client IP), > > to avoid ISP DNS hijacking, or for content control (e.g., "parental > > control" of DNS hostnames). That traffic will, > necessarily, > > traverse the CGN. To avoid users burning through their UDP port > > allocation for those DNS queries it is useful for the CGN to have > > short timeouts for port 53. > > > If the user chooses to use a DNS server on the other side of a NAT, > then, they are choosing to inflict whatever damage upon themselves. > I'm not saying that short UDP/53 timeouts are a bad idea, but, I am > saying that the more stuff you funnel through an LSN at the carrier, > the more stuff you will see break. This would lead me to want to avoid > funneling anything through said NAT which I could avoid. Then again, I > run my own authoritative and recursive nameservers in my home and > don't use any NAT at all, so, perhaps my perspective is different from > others. Yeah, you are probably of about 1000 or maybe 3000 people in the world that do that. Seems to be a minority. > >> Certainly some more work can be done in this area, but I fear that > the > >> only way a real idea as to how much NAT444 really doe break things > will > >> be operational experience. > > > > Yep. (Same as everything else.) > > > > I'm sure that will happen soon enough. I, for one, am not looking > forward to the experience. Neither am I. But if major content providers cannot provide AAAA on their properties, and if ISPs and CPE vendors do not make IPv6 available and working, and if web browsers don't adopt faster fallback to IPv4 when IPv6 is borked .... We will all be behind NATs. -d ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:42:35 +0100 From: Martin Hepworth <maxsec(a)gmail.com> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: ouch.. Message-ID: <CAGDKorJEvBHG21zOtmoS634pCKgGb2o96ahCuePKqmunSX402Q(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ -- Martin Hepworth Oxford, UK ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:51:00 +0200 From: Vlad Galu <galu(a)packetdam.com> To: Martin Hepworth <maxsec(a)gmail.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. Message-ID: <E963444C-A6C5-4399-AB1D-806F59C63389(a)packetdam.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Martin Hepworth wrote: > http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ Saying the other brand sucks doesn't make yours any better. Besides, there are other big players on the market. Terribly lame of Cisco... Vlad Galu galu(a)packetdam.com ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:54:59 +0100 From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. Message-ID: <4E708803.5040506(a)foobar.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 14/09/2011 11:42, Martin Hepworth wrote: > http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ Wow, classy. Nick ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:15:08 -0400 From: Brian Raaen <nanog(a)rhemasound.org> To: Martin Hepworth <maxsec(a)gmail.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. Message-ID: <20110914111508.GA6498@brian> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site. whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 05-sep-2011 Creation Date: 05-sep-2011 Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012 Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET Created on: 05-Sep-11 Expires on: 05-Sep-12 Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11 Administrative Contact: Private, Registration OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET(a)domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Technical Contact: Private, Registration OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET(a)domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Domain servers in listed order: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN A 98.129.229.190 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns36.domaincontrol.com. OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns35.domaincontrol.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046 IN A 216.69.185.18 ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046 IN A 208.109.255.18 braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190 ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> -x 98.129.229.190 ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300 IN SOA ns.rackspace.com. hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300 --- Brian Raaen Network Architect Zcorum On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote: > http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ > > > -- > Martin Hepworth > Oxford, UK ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:20:15 +0100 From: Always Learning <nanog(a)u61.u22.net> To: Brian Raaen <nanog(a)rhemasound.org> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. Message-ID: <1315999215.15630.3.camel(a)m6.u226.com> Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 07:15 -0400, Brian Raaen wrote: > Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip > do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted > their logo all over the site. (1) If Cisco were responsible, would they want to advertise the fact ? (2) If Cisco feel their intellectual and copyright property is being abused, Cisco lawyers would have the Cisco name and branding removed in seconds ! Paul, England, EU. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:20:56 +0300 From: Frank Habicht <geier(a)geier.ne.tz> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. Message-ID: <4E708E18.3070006(a)geier.ne.tz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Main cisco page has a link to it... Frank On 9/14/2011 2:15 PM, Brian Raaen wrote: > Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site. > > > > whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net > > Whois Server Version 2.0 > > Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered > with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net > for detailed information. > > Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET > Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. > Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com > Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com > Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM > Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM > Status: clientDeleteProhibited > Status: clientRenewProhibited > Status: clientTransferProhibited > Status: clientUpdateProhibited > Updated Date: 05-sep-2011 > Creation Date: 05-sep-2011 > Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012 > > Registrant: > Domains by Proxy, Inc. > DomainsByProxy.com > 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 > Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 > United States > > Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) > Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET > Created on: 05-Sep-11 > Expires on: 05-Sep-12 > Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11 > > Administrative Contact: > Private, Registration OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET(a)domainsbyproxy.com > Domains by Proxy, Inc. > DomainsByProxy.com > 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 > Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 > United States > (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 > > Technical Contact: > Private, Registration OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET(a)domainsbyproxy.com > Domains by Proxy, Inc. > DomainsByProxy.com > 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 > Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 > United States > (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 > > Domain servers in listed order: > NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM > NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM > > > > braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET > > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339 > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN A > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN A 98.129.229.190 > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns36.domaincontrol.com. > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns35.domaincontrol.com. > > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046 IN A 216.69.185.18 > ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046 IN A 208.109.255.18 > > > braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190 > > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> -x 98.129.229.190 > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507 > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300 IN SOA ns.rackspace.com. hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300 > > > > --- > Brian Raaen > Network Architect > Zcorum > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote: >> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ >> >> >> -- >> Martin Hepworth >> Oxford, UK > ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:27:20 +0300 From: Mark Smith <markrefresh12(a)gmail.com> To: NANOG(a)nanog.org Subject: HP A-series, H3C, Huawei and their capabilities in real-life Message-ID: <CAE79DorP-waM_EdHQJvQMw+mftM+BAv35tGhTz7TeYJTy-ON1Q(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi list Does anyone have (or know somebody who has) real-life experience of HP A-series (former Huawei and H3C) high-end routers in service provider environment? From the specs they look very good (both features and performance) but the specs don't tell everything and nothing can replace real-life experience. The features I'm interested in include (not in any specific order) - v4 and v6 routing - BGP (full feed) - OSPF and IS-IS - MPLS(-TE) P/PE functionality (RSVP, L3VPN, VPLS) For example this box http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/products/routers/HP_A8800_Router_Series/ind… Any info or pointers greatly appreciated. Rgds, Mark ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:55:47 +0200 From: "Erik Bais" <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> To: "'Frank Habicht'" <geier(a)geier.ne.tz>, <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: RE: ouch.. Message-ID: <00a601cc72d5$3dc653b0$b952fb10$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Frank, http://blogs.cisco.com/tag/overpromise/ Quote from the blog: "Some vendors have repeatedly over-promised and under delivered, and still somehow receive credit for their vision! (You can read more about one vendor's repeated broken promises here.)" http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ https://twitter.com/#!/CiscoSystems/status/113226120601677825 https://twitter.com/#!/CiscoNL/statuses/113577908525744129 Personally I think this is a pathetic action from Cisco, however I'm not surprised by them doing it ... Regards, Erik Bais > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Habicht [mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz] > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:21 PM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: ouch.. > > Main cisco page has a link to it... > > Frank > > On 9/14/2011 2:15 PM, Brian Raaen wrote: > > Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip > do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted > their logo all over the site. > > > > > > > > whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net > > > > Whois Server Version 2.0 > > > > Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered > > with many different competing registrars. Go to > http://www.internic.net > > for detailed information. > > > > Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET > > Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. > > Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com > > Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com > > Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM > > Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM > > Status: clientDeleteProhibited > > Status: clientRenewProhibited > > Status: clientTransferProhibited > > Status: clientUpdateProhibited > > Updated Date: 05-sep-2011 > > Creation Date: 05-sep-2011 > > Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012 > > > > Registrant: > > Domains by Proxy, Inc. > > DomainsByProxy.com > > 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 > > Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 > > United States > > > > Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) > > Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET > > Created on: 05-Sep-11 > > Expires on: 05-Sep-12 > > Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11 > > > > Administrative Contact: > > Private, Registration > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET(a)domainsbyproxy.com > > Domains by Proxy, Inc. > > DomainsByProxy.com > > 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 > > Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 > > United States > > (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 > > > > Technical Contact: > > Private, Registration > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET(a)domainsbyproxy.com > > Domains by Proxy, Inc. > > DomainsByProxy.com > > 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 > > Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 > > United States > > (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 > > > > Domain servers in listed order: > > NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM > > NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM > > > > > > > > braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET > > > > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET > > ;; global options: +cmd > > ;; Got answer: > > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339 > > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 > > > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > > ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN A > > > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN A 98.129.229.190 > > > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS > ns36.domaincontrol.com. > > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS > ns35.domaincontrol.com. > > > > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > > ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046 IN A 216.69.185.18 > > ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046 IN A 208.109.255.18 > > > > > > braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190 > > > > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> -x 98.129.229.190 > > ;; global options: +cmd > > ;; Got answer: > > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507 > > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 > > > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > > ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR > > > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > > 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300 IN SOA ns.rackspace.com. > hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300 > > > > > > > > --- > > Brian Raaen > > Network Architect > > Zcorum > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote: > >> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Martin Hepworth > >> Oxford, UK > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3895 - Release Date: 09/13/11 End of NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 55 *************************************

1 0

NAT444 or ?
by Serge Vautour 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

Hello, Things I understand: IPv6 is the long term solution to IPv4 exhaustion. For IPv6 to work correctly, most of the IPv4 content has to be on IPv6. That's not there yet. IPv6 deployment to end users is not trivial (end user support, CPE support, etc...). Translation techniques are generally evil. IPv6->IPv4 still requires 1 IPv4 IP per end user or else you're doing NAT. IPv4->IPv6 (1-1) doesn't solve our main problem of giving users access to the IPv4 Internet. I expect like most companies we're faced with having to extend the life of IPv4 since our users will continue to want access to the IPv4 content. Doing that by giving them an IPv6 address is not very feasible yet for many reasons. NAT444 seems like the only solution available while we slowly transition over to IPv6 over the next 20 years. Based on the this RFC, NAT444 breaks a lot of applications! http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 Has anyone deployed NAT444? Can folks share their experiences? Does it really break this many apps? What other options do we have? Thanks, Serge

25 65