April 2012 - Test - lists.nanog.org

SIP Carrier Consolidation
by Elijah Savage 06 Apr '12

06 Apr '12

Anyone here that have gone through the process of SIP trunking consolidation care to comment offline on Whom do you utilize? What has been your experience operationally? What was your experience during transition/implementation? Thank you ahead of time.

3 4

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
by Matt Ryanczak 06 Apr '12

06 Apr '12

On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting AAAA records. It was prototype > code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have since sold the domains > and they moved to other registries. But they did support it for a while. I too had AAAA with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on regarding AAAA or IPvWhat?. I suspect all of the people there that know about these types of things have moved on. Netsol has been leaking people since their sale to web.com last year, from actual layoffs and fear of the same. ~matt

5 5

AUTO : Vincent FERRAN-LACOME est absent(e). (retour 16/04/2012)
by vincent.ferran-lacome＠bnpparibas.com 06 Apr '12

06 Apr '12

Je suis absent(e) du bureau jusqu'au 16/04/2012 Je suis absent pour le moment. En cas de nécessité, merci de transmettre vos messages à l'équipe CSIRT: csirt(a)bnpparibas.com +33 1 40 14 26 95 (office hours UTC +1/+2) -- I am currently out of office. If necessary, please forward your messages to the CSIRT team: csirt(a)bnpparibas.com +33 1 40 14 26 95 (office hours UTC +1/+2) Remarque : ceci est une réponse automatique à votre message "NANOG Digest, Vol 51, Issue 11" envoyé le 6/4/12 13:31:56. C'est la seule notification que vous recevrez pendant l'absence de cette personne. This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the intended addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error,or are not the intended recipient(s), please delete it and any copies from your systems and immediately notify the sender. Any unauthorized view, use that does not comply with its purpose, dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited. Since the internet cannot guarantee the integrity of this message which may not be reliable, BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall not be liable for the message if modified, changed or falsified. Do not print this message unless it is necessary,consider the environment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le "message") sont etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur ou s'il ne vous est pas destine, merci de le detruire ainsi que toute copie de votre systeme et d'en avertir immediatement l'expediteur. Toute lecture non autorisee, toute utilisation de ce message qui n'est pas conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite. L'Internet ne permettant pas d'assurer l'integrite de ce message electronique susceptible d'alteration, BNP Paribas (et ses filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce message dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie, deforme ou falsifie. N'imprimez ce message que si necessaire, pensez a l'environnement.

1 0

Looking for North American Carriage providers
by Ben Cornish 05 Apr '12

05 Apr '12

Hi All, I apologize for the Spam - We recently expanded into North America from Australia to service our Australian Clients with their international needs. We are seeking a Carrier or few carriers that can provide us with layer 2 Ethernet services that has coverage to the majority of North America. We are looking at the smaller services of 2 to 20mb area. Preferable handoff in Equinix-SV1(San Jose) or 1 Wilshire(Coresite LA) as VLAN's Seeking responses off list please. Cheers. Ben Cornish |Brennan IT| National Network Manager T: 0732349302 Direct: 0282353520 | M: 0417617204 | mailto:benc@brennanit.com.au | www.brennanit.com.au http://www.brennanit.com.au/press-release/brennan-it-named-1-managed-servic…

1 0

CAIDA's 2012 IPv6 survey -- need network operators to fill out
by k claffy 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

[direct link to IPv6 operational deployment [plans] survey if you don't need background: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/749797/ipv6survey ] hello folks, we're trying to do some quantitative modeling of the IPv4->IPv6 transition, including the impact of IPv4 markets on likely future trajectories, but really need some empirical data to parametrize our model. with much help from many patient reviewers of the questions, we finally have a survey ready for operators to fill out. below i'll give an extremely terse description of the model just to give you an idea of why we need this granularity. there are another 10 dense pages describing the model pending peer review at NSF, which i can send to anyone interested in giving us feedback on it. but it's not necessary for responding to the survey. also note the checkbox to indicate you're amenable to further followup questions. survey will be available till 12 april 2012. (or tell us if you want to fill it out but need more time.) survey link, again: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/749797/ipv6survey thanks much, k, amogh, emile ------------------------------ Most prior work on modeling the adoption of new technologies assumed a binary decision at the organization level -- in the context of IPv6, this decision means switching completely to IPv6 or not at all. We propose to account for the fact that an organization may deploy IPv6 incrementally in its network, meaning that it will continue to have both IPv4 and IPv6 space. A key aspect of our model is that instead of a binary state per organization, we work at the granularity of devices, which are entities that need to be assigned IP addresses. We consider a device to correspond to a single instance of an IP addressing need, which typically corresponds to an interface. Though there can be multiple interfaces (``devices'') on the same computer/router, and multiple addresses (``virtual interfaces'') on a single interface, we will model each need for an independent IP address as an independent device. We define device classes based on the nature of addresses used to number those devices, e.g., public IPv4, IPv6, dual-stack-NATv4, dual-stack-public-IPv4, etc. We model the network growth requirements of each network in terms of the number of additional devices in that network that need to be configured in one of these device classes. ... (then we catalog a list of costs and incentives associated with the decision to adopt IPv6 or satisfy one's addressing needs with IPv4-based technologies. costs parameters include the costs of IPv4 addresses, NAT deployment, renumbering, and translation between IPv4 and IPv6. we will also try to model incentives such as policies and regulations.) We will then model two separate decision processes for a network, based on whether it seeks to add new devices (to expand its network, provision for new customers, deploy new services, etc.), or whether it seeks to optimize the numbering of its existing devices from among the five device classes defined previously. The latter operation may be necessary if external factors and costs have changed such that the network could substantially lower its costs by numbering its devices differently. We want to structure the model (based on feedback from opsfolk like you) to capture both initial costs as well as ongoing operational costs of supporting a given configuration of devices for a specified window following the decision. Iteration of the decision process continues for each network until we reach a state where no network has the incentive to change the numbering of its devices, which represents the equilibrium. ....

2 1

Re: SORBS?!
by Chris Conn 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

On 2012-04-04 17:33: > > Hi, > > Actually knowing Chris, and his outfit, that 18k request seems unwarranted :( > > As for SORBS, they have a ticket system at http://support.sorbs.net/ which use the same username/password as https://www.us.sorbs.net. You can follow up there with your ticket #, if their robot is being a bit too fascist. > ( ecarbonel was the guy that help us in our case ) > > PS: The ticketing system is not that fast, so be patient. > > /wave Chris > Hi Alain! The 18K thing was another operator, but we have not had much luck. I will give my attention to the ticket for now and wait until something happens. Its not a crucial issue since from what I can tell its mostly a cosmetic thing (and a bit of a managerial pain to have to explain the implications to a customer). I have no beef with SORBS, we even rsync their zone on our DNS servers so we can provide faster access to it to our customers that might use it. However recently, getting listing action seems to fall into a void. Cheers, Chris

1 0

Re: DNS issues with tools.ietf.org
by Stephane Bortzmeyer 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 10:35:34PM +0200, Marco Davids (Prive) <mdavids(a)forfun.net> wrote a message of 15 lines which said: > And what about this: But two name servers, gamay and shiraz still work. So the domain works, so you can email the hostmaster :-)

3 2

DNS issues with tools.ietf.org
by Marco Davids (Prive) 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Hi, Something seems wrong with the DNS of 'tools.ietf.org'. Can anyone conform? -- Marco

5 5

Re: DNS issues with tools.ietf.org
by Stephane Bortzmeyer 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 10:26:11PM +0200, Marco Davids (Prive) <mdavids(a)forfun.net> wrote a message of 8 lines which said: > Something seems wrong with the DNS of 'tools.ietf.org'. Can you be more specific? It works for me except that one name server does not actually exist (but it does not prevent the domain from working). % zonecheck tools.ietf.org ERROR: Unable to find nameserver IP address(es) for grenache.levkowetz.com (NXDOMAIN, indeed)

1 0

Distributed DNS/etc checking
by Todd Snyder 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Good day all, There have been a few instances where we've wanted to check our external DNS servers from various external networks, so we've utilized the existing looking glass tools provided by many of you. However, it's a very manual process, given that all LG's I've found say no automating/scripting. If we want to check from a couple dozen sites around the world, it's a lot of clicking and typing and collecting. If we wanted to create an tool that our NOC could use to verify our services, we would need something we could script. Ideally, we'd be able to run this constantly to do health checks on our services, but one step at a time. I've been googling, but so far I'm unable to find any larger scale projects/toolsets that we could use to simplify this process. Is anyone aware of something that would allow for me to submit a "job" to some sort of distributed service (I care about DNS, but others may care about traceroutes, pings, bgp information, etc), that will then run run the "job" and give me back an answer? Similarly, but perhaps differently, those of you who may run large anycast DNS services, how do you gather "external" stats about routing, response time, availability, and so on? It seems like this sort of thing would be a fairly common requirement (lets see how my network looks to those outside of it) but everything I can find is very manual at this point. This looks like a somewhat promising option, however I don't think I could get buy-in to run a node in our network, so it's not on the table for now: https://ring.nlnog.net/ This same functionality would likely be very helpful internal to large networks as well. I would love to know if I'm missing something obvious, or pieces of something obvious we could work with. Failing something already existing, I'd value any information people care to share about how they do this now, either on or off list. I can summarize any findings if the community is interested. Cheers, Todd.

5 4