October 2013 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Final Agenda Published - NANOG 59
by David Temkin 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

All, The final agenda for our meeting next week has been published at http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog59/agenda Please note that the program begins at 10AM on Monday and the tutorials can now be found on Tuesday morning. I hope you all share the excitement that I do for this great program. For newcomers, we'll host a welcome lunch on Monday at noon. Even if you're an old timer, we'd love to have you at this lunch to help introduce this potentially record-breaking crowd (we sit at 594 registered attendees at this moment) to NANOG and help them get the most of their time at the meeting. We'll provide you with more information on-site, and as always, feel free to seek out a member of any of the committees - Program, Development, Communications, and of course, the Board of Directors, if you have any questions. I promise we're a friendly bunch! Best Regards, -Dave Temkin Chair, NANOG Program Committee

1 0

semi-ot: network monitoring tools
by John Levine 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

I was talking to a bunch of people who run ISPs and other networks in LDCs (yes, including Nigeria) and someone asked about monitoring tools to watch traffic on his network so he can get advance warning of dodgy customers and prevent complaints and blacklisting. These people are plenty smart, but don't have a lot of money. Suggestions welcome. R's, John

6 6

Facebook NOC Contact
by Daniel Hood 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

Hi, Having some issues with traffic to Facebook. Is there anyone here from Facebook lurking on the list? Or does anyone have a better contact then their help form? Regards, Daniel

2 1

Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
by Larry Sheldon 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

On 9/27/2013 1:10 AM, Ryan McIntosh wrote: > I don't respond to many of these threads but I have to say I've > contested this one too only to have to beaten into my head that a /64 > is "appropriate".. it still hasn't stuck, but unfortunately rfc's for > other protocols depend on the blocks to now be a /64.. > > It's a waste, even if we're "planning for the future", no one house > needs a /64 sitting on their lan.. or at least none I can sensibly > think of o_O. Are you accounting for connections to your refrigerator, water heater, razor, vibrator, and on down to list so the gubermint can tell they when you can use power for them? -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

5 4

Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
by Scott Weeks 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

--- owen(a)delong.com wrote: From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> we will have plenty of address space to number the internet for many many years. ---------------------------------------------- You can't know the future and what addressing requirements it'll bring: "I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem." scott

1 0

TWC / MTC broadband
by Tim Durack 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

Anyone alive at TWC and/or MTC broadband? Looks like AS36100 (MTC Broadband) is incorrectly announcing 72.43.125.0/24. This is causing problems for TWC users who are in 72.43.125.0/24 -- Tim:>

1 0

minimum IPv6 announcement size
by Nathanael C. Cariaga 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

Hi, Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern..... I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the minimum IPv6 advertisement on BGP. My concern is that I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to get our /48 allocation from our RIR, I figured out I would it would be best for us to break down the /48 into smaller chunks (i.e /56s) and farm it out to our sites since a single /48 will be very big for our single site. Any advise will be very much appreciated. Regards, -- -nathan

24 44