- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
by Scott Weeks 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

--- Bryan(a)bryanfields.net wrote: From: Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net> Now this gets a lot more fun as we get closer to true IPv4 exhaustion. If there is a business case between two or more providers to side step a RIR process and recognize IP allocations that the RIR does not, who really has the power to stop them? -------------------------------------------------- The networking community in general. The usefulness of the space would be very limited. scott

1 0

FREE!!!111 Net Master
by Network IP Dog 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

Hey fellow WWW Zombies, Net Master appears to be Free for a limited? time. http://itunes.apple.com/app/net-master/id470646694?mt=8&affToken=55503 Quite a good tool to have on your <insert I device> if you don't already. Wish there was a Android version... ;^( - Network IPdog E = 4:32 & Cheers!!!

1 0

RE: /128 IPv6 prefixes in the wild?
by Brian Johnson 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

I think you will learn a lot of /128s from IGP, but not from eBGP. I consider the "wild" to be the DFZ or similar type of network and in that case, you should not see advertisements for anything longer than a /48. This is not hard and fast, but please correct me if I'm wrong. - Brian J. >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mtinka@globaltransit.net] >Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:30 AM >To: nanog(a)nanog.org >Subject: Re: /128 IPv6 prefixs in the wild? > >On Thursday, December 15, 2011 01:54:56 PM Glen Kent wrote: > >> In an IP/MPLS world, core routers in the service provider >> network learn the /32 loopback IPv4 addresses so that >> they can establish BGP/Targetted LDP sessions with >> those. > >That's right - not sure how things would have been if >'draft-swallow-mpls-aggregate-fec-01' had gained some >traction. > >> They then establish LSPs and VPN tunnels. > >Indeed. > >> Since >> we dont have RSVP for IPv6 and LDP for IPv6 (not yet >> RFC) we cannot form MPLS tunnels in a pure IPv6 only >> network. GIven this, would v6 routers have large number >> of /128 prefixes? >> >> What are the scenarios when IPv6 routers would learn a >> large number of /128 prefixes? > >I suspect ISP's that choose to assign broadband customers >/128 addresses because "they only ever need one address" may >be a situation where you see rise given to this. > >> I would presume that most IPv6 prefixes that the routers >> have to install are less than /64, since the latter 64 >> is the host part. Is this correct? > >This is certainly going to re-open some "wounds", but no, >not all providers are assigning /64 to interfaces. Some >(like us) are using longer prefix lengths such as /112 and >/126. > >But as for /128 prefix lengths, aside from the fact that >Loopbacks will be floating around the network, whether >you're using them to signal MPLS LSP's or setup iBGP >sessions, you will see them with ISP's that assign them to >customers and choose not to aggregate them at specific edge >routers. > >Cheers, > >Mark.

2 1

/128 IPv6 prefixs in the wild?
by Glen Kent 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

Hi, In the service provider networks, would we usually see a large number of /128 prefixs in the v6 FIB tables? In an IP/MPLS world, core routers in the service provider network learn the /32 loopback IPv4 addresses so that they can establish BGP/Targetted LDP sessions with those. They then establish LSPs and VPN tunnels. Since we dont have RSVP for IPv6 and LDP for IPv6 (not yet RFC) we cannot form MPLS tunnels in a pure IPv6 only network. GIven this, would v6 routers have large number of /128 prefixes? What are the scenarios when IPv6 routers would learn a large number of /128 prefixes? I would presume that most IPv6 prefixes that the routers have to install are less than /64, since the latter 64 is the host part. Is this correct? Glen

5 4

Multiple ISP Load Balancing
by Holmes,David A 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

>From time to time some have posted questions asking if BGP load balancers such as the old Routescience Pathcontrol device are still around, and if not what have others found to replace that function. I have used the Routescience device with much success 10 years ago when it first came on the market, but since then a full BGP feed has become much larger, Routescience has been bought by Avaya, then discontinued, and other competitors such as Sockeye, Netvmg have been acquired by other companies. Doing some research on how load balancing can be accomplished in 2011, I have come across Cisco's performance routing feature, and features from load balancing companies such as F5's Link Controller. I have always found BGP to be easy to work with, and an elegant, simple solution to load balancing using a route-reflector configuration in which one BGP client (Routescience Pathcontrol in my background) learns the best route to destination networks, and then announces that best route to BGP border routers using common and widely understood BGP concepts such as communities and local pref, and found this to lead to a deterministic Internet routing architecture. This required a knowledge only of IETF standards (common BGP concepts and configurations), required no specialized scripting, or any other knowledge lying outside IETF boundaries, and it seemed reasonable to expect that network engineers should eagerly and enthusiastically want to master this technology, just as any other technology must be mastered to run high availability networks. So I am wondering if anyone has experience with implementing load balancing across multiple ISP links in 2011, and if there have been any comparisons between IETF standards-based methods using BGP, and other proprietary methods which may use a particular vendor's approach to solving the same problem, but involves some complexity with more variables to be plugged in to the architecture. David ________________________________ This communication, together with any attachments or embedded links, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments or embedded links, from your system.

7 8

Coloc at Equinix Singapor
by Olivier CALVANO 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

Hi We search a colocation at Equinix Singapore: 1/4 Rack with in option 1/2 Rack. anyone know of a company that offers this service ? Cordialy Olivier

1 0

Re: Time Warner Routing Issue
by Courtney Smith 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:09 PM, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:46:52 -0500 > From: Brian Christopher Raaen <mailing-lists(a)brianraaen.com> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Time Warner Routing Issue > Message-ID: > <CAEV7mMFS7pAmxwB_SLNpYEq9m3OwAL792k0hpSx5Nse2H=uHtg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > They said the reason was they didn't > have an LOA (which they had gotten back in October) and the ip blocks were > not in the Level3 Radb list. I could still see announcement to some peers > (Shaw Cable in Canada) in a few looking glasses and BGP routers. However > my network blocks were not showing for the larger US carriers like Qwest > and AT&T. One of their techs just called me back and said that Level3 > should be advertising it, but I still do not see the routes on the AT&T > route server. After noting that the tech said that it may take another day > for BGP to "propagate" to other peers as they update their radb tables. In > my experience I've never seen anything where I had to wait for a route to > propagate other than standard routing table updates which usually take less > then an hour, and I'd really not expect this many problems between Tier1 > and Tier2 providers. I need to know if this matches other's experience and > wanting to know what other people were seeing with traceroutes and "show ip > bgp". The networks in question at the following 4 /24's > > 68.68.176.0/24 > 68.68.177.0/24 > 68.68.178.0/24 > 68.68.179.0/24 > > the serial ip address is 72.43.84.254 > > Thanks for your assistance. > > --- > Brian Raaen > Zcorum > Network Architect > I believe the TWC tech is referring to prefix filter updates and not routing table updates. Some of TWC's peers most likely use IRR based filters on their BGP sessions. Most networks only check once a day for IRR changes and apply those changes to filters. It looks TWC put in proxy route objects today for your blocks so I am guessing someone at TWC forgot to make the updates in advance. Work around is for them to reach out to the peers with IRR based filters and request a manual update. Sounds like that is what they are doing. route: 68.68.176.0/24 descr: RR-RC-Princetown Cable Company, Inc.-Albany origin: AS11351 notify: ipaddreg(a)rr.com mnt-by: MAINT-RR changed: ipaddreg(a)rr.com 20111214 source: RADB route: 68.68.177.0/24 descr: RR-RC-Princetown Cable Company, Inc.-Albany origin: AS11351 notify: ipaddreg(a)rr.com mnt-by: MAINT-RR changed: ipaddreg(a)rr.com 20111214 source: RADB Run the below on 12/15 and it should return your blocks. $ whois -h filtergen.level3.net radb::as11351 | grep 68.6 $ Courtney Smith courtneysmith(a)comcast.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

1 0

Time Warner Routing Issue
by Brian Christopher Raaen 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

I have a Time Warner circuit that has been giving me issues and what their tech support has been telling me has not matched my previous experience with other backbones. I have been trying to move the backbone on one site from a tier-3 provider to Time Warner. Yesterday TW started advertising BGP for the ip blocks I have (68.68.176.0/22 in /24's) before they had the circuit completed, so I had to make an emergency mid-day switch to move to Time Warner. Then yesterday night they stopped announcing my blocks so my site went down again and would still be completely down if we had not added NAT to the /30 point-to-point link. They said the reason was they didn't have an LOA (which they had gotten back in October) and the ip blocks were not in the Level3 Radb list. I could still see announcement to some peers (Shaw Cable in Canada) in a few looking glasses and BGP routers. However my network blocks were not showing for the larger US carriers like Qwest and AT&T. One of their techs just called me back and said that Level3 should be advertising it, but I still do not see the routes on the AT&T route server. After noting that the tech said that it may take another day for BGP to "propagate" to other peers as they update their radb tables. In my experience I've never seen anything where I had to wait for a route to propagate other than standard routing table updates which usually take less then an hour, and I'd really not expect this many problems between Tier1 and Tier2 providers. I need to know if this matches other's experience and wanting to know what other people were seeing with traceroutes and "show ip bgp". The networks in question at the following 4 /24's 68.68.176.0/24 68.68.177.0/24 68.68.178.0/24 68.68.179.0/24 the serial ip address is 72.43.84.254 Thanks for your assistance. --- Brian Raaen Zcorum Network Architect

1 1

Re: Time Warner Routing Issue
by Scott Weeks 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

: Yesterday TW started advertising BGP for the ip blocks I have : (68.68.176.0/22 in /24's) before they had the circuit completed How did they get the routes into their table if the ckt was not up and you were not advertising the routes to them? Did they also announce the covering prefix? scott --- mailing-lists(a)brianraaen.com wrote: From: Brian Christopher Raaen <mailing-lists(a)brianraaen.com> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Time Warner Routing Issue Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:46:52 -0500 I have a Time Warner circuit that has been giving me issues and what their tech support has been telling me has not matched my previous experience with other backbones. I have been trying to move the backbone on one site from a tier-3 provider to Time Warner. Yesterday TW started advertising BGP for the ip blocks I have (68.68.176.0/22 in /24's) before they had the circuit completed, so I had to make an emergency mid-day switch to move to Time Warner. Then yesterday night they stopped announcing my blocks so my site went down again and would still be completely down if we had not added NAT to the /30 point-to-point link. They said the reason was they didn't have an LOA (which they had gotten back in October) and the ip blocks were not in the Level3 Radb list. I could still see announcement to some peers (Shaw Cable in Canada) in a few looking glasses and BGP routers. However my network blocks were not showing for the larger US carriers like Qwest and AT&T. One of their techs just called me back and said that Level3 should be advertising it, but I still do not see the routes on the AT&T route server. After noting that the tech said that it may take another day for BGP to "propagate" to other peers as they update their radb tables. In my experience I've never seen anything where I had to wait for a route to propagate other than standard routing table updates which usually take less then an hour, and I'd really not expect this many problems between Tier1 and Tier2 providers. I need to know if this matches other's experience and wanting to know what other people were seeing with traceroutes and "show ip bgp". The networks in question at the following 4 /24's 68.68.176.0/24 68.68.177.0/24 68.68.178.0/24 68.68.179.0/24 the serial ip address is 72.43.84.254 Thanks for your assistance. --- Brian Raaen Zcorum Network Architect

3 2

Range using single-mode SFPs across multi-mode fiber - was Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56
by Marshall Eubanks 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:34 PM, oliver rothschild <orothschild(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is my first e-mail to the list and I hope it is not entirely As a suggestion, could you please in the future not use a subject such as "Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56" for posts. It is MUCH better to use a topical subject line (see my suggestion above); that helps people who filter their mail keep track of threads and topics. Regards Marshall > inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX > variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always > for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there > know how much distance we are likely to get? Thanks for your help in > advance. > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 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: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) >> 2. RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (O'Reirdan, Michael) >> 3. Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas >> Bonus Has Arrived) (John Curran) >> 4. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Leigh Porter) >> 5. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) >> 6. Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived >> (bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com) >> 7. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Justin M. Streiner) >> 8. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Mark Tinka) >> 9. Multiple ISP Load Balancing (Holmes,David A) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:42:51 +0530 >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> >> To: Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> >> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> <CAArzuouqU2SivNgcE-3ipe-AwSq7v7N1H4wWqOxzxsP8hxYCOA(a)mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >> >> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >> >> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >> >> --srs >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>> >>> ?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>> ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>> ?Authors: >>> ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>> ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>> ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>> ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>> ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:36:59 +0000 >> From: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan(a)Cable.Comcast.com> >> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com>, Hal Murray >> <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> >> Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> >> Subject: RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> <B13238AB0CB1514B9509DEEE5F98F2E00DE39363(a)PACDCEXMB13.cable.comcast.com> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. >> >> http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_C… >> >> Mike >> ________________________________________ >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists(a)gmail.com] >> Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 >> To: Hal Murray >> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship >> >> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >> >> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >> >> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >> >> --srs >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>> >>> Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>> DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>> Authors: >>> Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>> David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>> Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>> Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>> Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:18:56 +0000 >> From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> >> To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> >> Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> >> Subject: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas >> Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <131B2DA4-7C99-4DB8-924A-EBCB27EF9BF0(a)arin.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> >>> I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context). >> >> I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note >> that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer >> facilitators to the ARIN web site: >> >> <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> >> >> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to >> comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in >> compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of >> these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may >> make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service >> (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) >> but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available >> for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via >> transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). >> More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under >> "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. >> >> FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:30:06 +0000 >> From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter(a)ukbroadband.com> >> To: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> >> Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <8C3137B6-7690-4CF5-85B2-594E450CDB7B(a)ukbroadband.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >> >> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> >> -- >> Leigh >> >> >> On 14 Dec 2011, at 12:21, "John Curran" <jcurran(a)arin.net> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >>> >>>> I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context). >>> >>> I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note >>> that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer >>> facilitators to the ARIN web site: >>> >>> <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> >>> >>> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to >>> comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in >>> compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of >>> these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may >>> make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service >>> (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) >>> but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available >>> for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via >>> transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). >>> More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under >>> "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. >>> >>> FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> President and CEO >>> ARIN >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:01:06 +0530 >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> >> To: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan(a)cable.comcast.com> >> Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org>, Hal Murray >> <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> <CAArzuotafMx+1mRFT9dLqYyRvhyFBsPg=Cir48-Ez=QZxLLEPw(a)mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> Wonderful. I would urge SPs based stateside to strongly consider >> endorsing the MAAWG comments. >> >> thanks >> suresh >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, O'Reirdan, Michael >> <Michael_OReirdan(a)cable.comcast.com> wrote: >>> MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. >>> >>> http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_C… >>> >>> Mike >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists(a)gmail.com] >>> Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 >>> To: Hal Murray >>> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >>> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship >>> >>> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >>> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >>> >>> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >>> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >>> >>> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >>> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >>> >>> --srs >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> ?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>>> ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>>> ?Authors: >>>> ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>>> ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>>> ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>>> ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>>> ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:10:52 +0000 >> From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com >> To: Chaim Rieger <chaim.rieger(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived >> Message-ID: <20111214141052.GA7933(a)vacation.karoshi.com.> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Chaim Rieger wrote: >>> What do you have for those that don't do the whole Jesus thing ? >> >> babalyonian fertility icons? (you -did- bring an evergreen tree into your >> home, yes?) >> >> /bill >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:16:27 -0500 (EST) >> From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner(a)cluebyfour.org> >> To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1112140906460.30735(a)whammy.cluebyfour.org> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed >> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Leigh Porter wrote: >> >>> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >>> >>> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> Some of which seems to float between fear-mongering, possibly >> mis-appropriated quotes, half-truths and information that is flat-out >> wrong. I would not trust the judgment and opinions of someone who even >> admitted in one of their blog posts that they had "no hands-on Service >> Provider IPv6 experience." >> >> While I can understand why IPv4 address brokers would take a decidedly >> anti-IPv6 stance (deploying IPv6 cuts into their potential business), that >> doesn't make it any less underhanded. >> >> jms >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:18:41 +0800 >> From: Mark Tinka <mtinka(a)globaltransit.net> >> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <201112142218.42329.mtinka(a)globaltransit.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 08:30:06 PM Leigh Porter >> wrote: >> >>> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >>> >>> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> I'd have been more impressed if they actually came up with >> the stories by themselves, as opposed to linking to existing >> stories that their link titles take out of context. >> >> Mark. >>

5 6