- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: new guest room SSID for NANOG
by Lucy Lynch 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > >> Very nice. I wonder if this is an option we could try to use in future >> meetings. It makes sense, really, since we already have decent connectivity >> for the conference areas, and we wouldn't be destroying the hotel's outside >> connection (only their WiFi ;-) ) > > > With enough leverage in the contracting process, you may be able to > get them to agree to allow such (particularly since it can be next > to impossible to get a configuration clueful person involved early > in the process...) > > Whether they can actually deliver (i.e. do they have any control > over their own wireless network, any onsite staff that actually > knows networking, etc.) plus the potential liability that results > from changing that configuration is entirely another matter. > > Nearly every hotel you contract with for the first time results in > a different scenario, but I agree it is worth keeping in mind for > the hotels that have competent on-site access since diverting the > hotel room traffic for conference attendees improves performance > for everyone. There was a reason the IETF kept going back to Minneapolis for meetings and it wasn't just the wild rice porridge at Hell's Kitchen. The Hilton there was extremely geek friendly and allowed us to take over both show floor and room networks. Great venue for network... - Lucy > /John > >

1 0

Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters?
by steve pirk [egrep] 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Found a decent starting reference. It was a Network solutions limit... I *knew* it! LOL http://www.123-domain-register.com/longdomainnames.htm The domain in question was inspectorgadgetthemovie.com 27 characters long including the .tld. I was off by one, the limit was 22 characters for the A record name and 4 characters for .com, .net, .org, .gov and .edu. >From the 123-domain-register web page: > The word is out... and the experts have been taking advantage of a change > in Domain Name regulations that allows up to 67 characters in domain names. > > How this will impact you: > > - > > Long domain names filled with keywords can get you ranked higher on the > search engines. (yes, the search engines will rank them) > > - > > For those who could not get a DOT.COM domain name, or were limited by > the 22 character limit, those days are over...for awhile anyway. > > - > > This revolution is driven by entrepreneurs who can act quickly. If you > do not act soon, all the good domains will be gone, and you will have to pay > premiums you do not want to in order get the domain name you want. > > Since 1993, Network Solutions has registered more than 3.4 million domain > names -- all limited to 26 characters. Now that their exclusive government > contract is ending, competitors have tossed this artificial limit and are > allowing longer names. > Cool, I was not dreaming... ;-] --steve On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 15:00, <bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 02:54:38PM -0700, steve pirk [egrep] wrote: > > I seem to recollect back the 1999 or 2000 times that I was unable to > > register a domain name that was 24 characters long. Shortly after that, I > > heard that the character limit had been increased to like 128 characters, > > and we were able to register the name. > > > > Can anyone offer some input, or is this a memory of a bad dream? > > ;-] > > > > -- Steve Pirk > > Yensid > > the foundational DNS spec sez: > > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt > > 2.3.1 > [elided] > There are also some restrictions on the length. Labels must be 63 > characters or less. > > /bill > -- steve pirk refiamerica.org "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune kexp.org member august '09

8 12

Announcement of University of Washington routing study
by Ethan Katz-Bassett 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

Hi NANOG, >From August 24 to October 4, the University of Washington and Georgia Tech will conduct an Internet routing study using AS-PATH poisoning. The study will *only* affect the Georgia Tech experimental prefix 184.164.224.0/19(and its sub-prefixes). The prefix serves *no active users/services* so the study should not affect any production prefixes or users. We plan to insert AS numbers into our announcements to route around some networks. We will always start AS-PATHs with our own ASN 47065. We will limit ourselves to at most 10 announcement changes per hour (and generally will change the announcement for a given sub-prefix at most every 90 minutes). This experiment is almost identical to one that Georgia Tech conducted in June and July without problems or complaints (http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-June/037527.html) so we do not anticipate any issues. Others have done similar studies in the past (e.g., Randy Bush et al.: http://www.psg.com/~olaf/measurements/as3130/visibility.pdf<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.psg.com/~olaf/measurements/as31…>). If, for any reason, you want us not to include your ASN in announcements for our prefix, please opt-out at any time before August 24 at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9P2TD7T . A few ASes opted out of the previous Georgia Tech study, and we will continue to honor those opt-outs. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Cheers, Ethan Katz-Bassett http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/ethan/ University of Washington

2 3

2011.10.10 NANOG53 Monday afternoon session notes
by Matthew Petach 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

Many thanks to whomever fixed the stream; post lunchtime, things worked much, much better!!! I jotted down some notes from the afternoon sessions, before the video stream was shut off for the day; notes are posted at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.10.10-nanog53-afternoon-session.txt Have fun at the socials tonight! Matt

1 0

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 53 Survey
by Betty Burke 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

Hi Everyone: Again, for those who are viewing or attending, welcome to NANOG 53. The in person attendance and the NANOG Program continue to be simply outstanding! I encourage everyone to take note of the new NANOG Survey tool. You will find a Survey links on the agenda page for many of the presentations and breaks. Your feed-back in important to the NANOG Program Committee, as well as the operational staff of NANOG. Also, please visit http://www.nanog.org/ibin/c5i?mid=8&rid=49&gid=0&k1=459, also noted on the NANOG 53 meeting page, the General Meeting Survey with an additional NOGLab Survey. We have Sponsors who have once again provided an incentive gift. Please visit the General Meeting and NOGLab surveys, share your opinions, and as a reward are eligible for the survey drawing. Gifts will be awarded on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings! If you have any questions or concerns with the process, please send them to nanog-support(a)nanog.org. All very best! Betty -- Betty Burke NewNOG/NANOG Executive Director Office (810) 214-1218 Direct (510) 492-4030 _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

2011.10.10 NANOG53 day 1 morning session notes
by Matthew Petach 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

I tried to take my usual notes from the video stream, but the quality of the stream was really bad; it kept pausing for 10 seconds, then jumping ahead on the audio, so there's big gaps that just didn't exist. :( I'm hoping the post-lunch stream will be better behaved. Posting the notes anyway, in case there's people who couldn't even get the choppy stream. Morning session notes are at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.10.10-nanog53-morning-session.txt Matt

1 0

slides
by Randy Bush 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

i can not seem to see slides for this morning on http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog53/agenda.html what am i doing wrongly? randy

2 2

Amazon diagnosis
by Kristen Eisenberg 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

Sure they can, but as a thought exercise fully 2n redundancy is difficult on a small scale for anything web facing. I've seen a very simple implementation for a website requiring 5 9's that consumed over $50k in equipment, and this wasn't even geographically diverse. I have to believe that scaling up the concept of "doing it right" results in exponential cost increases. To illustrate the problem, I would give you the first step in the thought exercise: first find two datacenters with diverse carriers, that aren't on the same regional power grid (As we've learned in the (iirc) 2003 power outage, New York and DC won't work, nor will Ohio, so you need redundant teams to cover a very remote site). Kristen Eisenberg Billige Flüge Marketing GmbH Emanuelstr. 3, 10317 Berlin Deutschland Telefon: +49 (33) 5310967 Email: utebachmeier at gmail.com Site: http://flug.airego.de - Billige Flüge vergleichen

1 0

NeuStar locality .us domains.
by Alex Romanauskas 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

I know it's not very common these days but I am a big fan of the <locality>.<ST>.us domain structure as it was setup 25+ years ago. Having been in the ISP industry for more than half that time I have also dealt with 100's of these registrations although maybe only 25 in the last year. Guess I have been lucky since all of them were with previously delegated localities. So today I go to register a domain for a friend, in what I consider to be a large enough city to have at least been delegated in the past (Lowell, MA) but of course it is currently assigned to NeuStar. I send in the request anyways, figuring there will just be some additional paperwork. This is the response I receive. ..... The US Department of Commerce has specifically stated that only certain 4th level domains can be registered until further notice. The DoC has only allowed us to register fourth level domain names beginning with "borough", "ci." for city, "co." for county, "twp." or "town" for township, or "vil." for village. ..... I have had a couple back and forths with there support department. Waiting for a response coming during the work week. Does anyone know the actual status of the locality .us structure? Are they trying to push people to the .us pay domains? Isn't NeuStar up for renewal on their last 1 year extension? -- Alex Romanauskas ZipLink / GNAPs

2 1

Announcing BGP Secure Router Extension (BGP-SRx) Prototype Implementation
by Montgomery, Douglas 09 Oct '11

09 Oct '11

Announcing BGP Secure Router Extension (BGP-SRx) Prototype Implementation IETF SIDR working group is developing standards for BGP origin validation and AS path validation to strengthen the inter-domain routing infrastructure. At the IETF 80 in March 2011, NIST made an introductory presentation on a prototyping effort called BGP Secure Router Extension (BGP-SRx). SRx is an open source reference implementation and research platform for investigating emerging BGP security extensions and supporting protocols. BGP-SRx has three parts: SRx Server, SRx API, and Quagga SRx (integrates SRx API into Quagga router). The current focus in the BGP-SRx prototype is on origin validation, although it is designed to be be extended to path validation in the future (some stub functionality is already included in this version). The current release implements: The RPKI/Router Protocol and a variety of BGP policies for enforcing Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) conveyed from RPKI validating caches. Also included in the release are test client/server test harnesses for RPKI/Router and WireShark modules for debugging. For more information on BGP-SRx, and to download the prototype and tools, see: http://www-x.antd.nist.gov/bgpsrx/ For those wanting an easy way to experiment with BGP-SRx, in June we made an announcement about the BRITE system (BGPSEC/RPKI Interoperability Test & Evaluation): http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-June/038063.html You can use BRITE (http://brite.antd.nist.gov<http://brite.antd.nist.gov/>/) to run BGP-SRx (or any other implementation) through aseries of test scripts that exercise numerous interesting scenarios for BGP ROA processing under different policy assumptions. We will make a presentation at NANOG-53 on Monday (9/10/11) in the ISP Security BoF where we will briefly explain the functionalities of both BGP-SRx and BRITE and also give demos. Please attend the BoF if you are interested to learn more. Comments and feedback about SRx and BRITE are welcome. See the project page For details. dougm -- Doug Montgomery – Mgr. Internet & Scalable Systems Research / ITL / NIST

1 0