- Test - lists.nanog.org

IPv6 words
by Jeroen van Aart 24 Jun '11

24 Jun '11

I am sure it has come up a number of times, but with IPv6 you can make up fancy addresses that are (almost) complete words or phrases. Making it almost as easy to remember as the resolved name. It'd be nice in a weird geek sort of way (but totally impractical) to be able to request IPv6 blocks that have some sort of fancy name of your choice. 2001:db8:dead:beef:: dead:beef:: dead::beef As seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28programming%29 "DEADBEEF Famously used on IBM systems such as the RS/6000, also used in the original Mac OS operating systems, OPENSTEP Enterprise, and the Commodore Amiga. On Sun Microsystems' Solaris, marks freed kernel memory (KMEM_FREE_PATTERN)" Bonus points if your organisation's name only contains HEX characters. Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 1.1 Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011 21:27:56 UTC Location: Southern California Latitude: 33.6613; Longitude: -116.7003 Depth: 17.10 km

10 10

Broken Teredo relay AS1101?
by Kevin Loch 24 Jun '11

24 Jun '11

This path for 2001::/32 leads to a broken teredo relay: 3257 1103 1101 http://ip6.me was using this path and not working from my client. When I routing to prefer 6939's relays it started working. - Kevin

2 1

Yup; the Internet is screwed up.
by Jay Ashworth 24 Jun '11

24 Jun '11

Even Cracked realizes this: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster That can't be good. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

48 105

Re: IPv6 words
by Scott Weeks 24 Jun '11

24 Jun '11

2607:f9a0::f0c:0ff >;-) scott

3 2

SMB Internet market?
by Ryan Finnesey 24 Jun '11

24 Jun '11

Can anyone recommend a good resource of metrics on the SMB Internet market? I am trying to find out which ISPs have the most market share and if they are using DSL, DS1, or Cable for access. Cheers Ryan

1 0

RE: ping me please...
by Daniel Espejel 24 Jun '11

24 Jun '11

Pinging behind my natted ISP conection (AS22566), seems to work: $ ping 65.5.48.2 PING 65.5.48.2 (65.5.48.2) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 65.5.48.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=240 time=72.5 ms 64 bytes from 65.5.48.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=240 time=72.9 ms 64 bytes from 65.5.48.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=240 time=73.4 ms 64 bytes from 65.5.48.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=240 time=73.4 ms ^C --- 65.5.48.2 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 72.528/73.076/73.455/0.428 ms But when tracing that IP a lot of hops doesn't respond: $ traceroute 65.5.48.2 traceroute to 65.5.48.2 (65.5.48.2), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 10.206.0.3 (10.206.0.3) 7.266 ms 7.459 ms 7.674 ms 2 10.12.1.2 (10.12.1.2) 11.622 ms 11.818 ms 12.283 ms 3 10.10.1.154 (10.10.1.154) 12.508 ms 13.473 ms 16.941 ms 4 63.221.133.1 (63.221.133.1) 16.978 ms 17.111 ms 17.327 ms 5 so-4-1-0.gar1.Houston1.Level3.net (4.59.122.13) 52.272 ms 55.217 ms 55.437 ms 6 ae-3-16.bar1.Houston1.Level3.net (4.69.140.205) 51.994 ms 39.478 ms 39.523 ms 7 ae-13-13.ebr1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.137.138) 48.342 ms 48.558 ms 48.606 ms 8 ae-61-61.csw1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.151.125) 49.114 ms ae-71-71.csw2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.151.137) 49.169 ms ae-61-61.csw1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.151.125) 49.251 ms 9 ae-4-90.edge10.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.210) 50.239 ms 53.285 ms ae-1-60.edge10.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.18) 53.336 ms 10 ATT (4.68.62.230) 53.556 ms 54.032 ms 55.245 ms 11 cr1.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.122.212.10) 74.479 ms 74.929 ms 77.851 ms 12 cr2.hs1tx.ip.att.net (12.122.28.158) 62.983 ms 63.210 ms 62.959 ms 13 cr1.hs1tx.ip.att.net (12.122.5.189) 63.661 ms 64.389 ms 64.858 ms 14 cr1.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.122.1.142) 67.812 ms 68.243 ms 68.455 ms 15 gar3.brhal.ip.att.net (12.122.100.85) 68.652 ms 68.881 ms 69.105 ms 16 12.248.15.46 (12.248.15.46) 79.204 ms 82.829 ms 82.894 ms 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:07:40 -0500 > From: Eric J Esslinger <eesslinger(a)fpu-tn.com> > Subject: ping me please... > To: "'nanog(a)nanog.org'" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <D2D37F15EBBD524693E9F3CB32D0208021CDA92C8F(a)exchange.corp.fpu-tn.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm getting a few reports from one customer that some of his users are unable to reach his system. > If I could get people on the list to ping 65.5.48.2, and if it fails, to do a traceroute and email it to me offlist? I'd appreciate it. > Thanks. > __________________________ > Eric Esslinger > Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities > http://www.fpu-tn.com/ > (931)433-1522 ext 165 > > This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. > -- Daniel Espejel Perez

1 0

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by brunner＠nic-naa.net 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

> Well I just asked the question during the "Getting Ready" panel at the > ICANN 41 meeting. keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or the saturday gnso gtld hours ("the kurt show"). > Q: How much on top of the $185K is required for a new gTLD zero, in applicatin fee, more, where the applicant seeks extended evaluation, more, where a party with standing pays an objection fee and the applicant choses to contest the objection ("loser pays" model), ... (multiple objections are possible, though they may be consolidated). there are service level agreements that have cost consequences. there is a continuity instrument requirement, which creates a funding requirement, and upon the event triggering "continuity", a cost to the applicant. the current number is three years of operating cost, which is the likely source of your panelist's unreflected response, but the actual functional requirements for continuity are not yet defined, and therefore not fixed costs, and there are means to reduce these substantially. how fully informed an answer did you really want at an intro event staffed by commercial service or application services providers? -e

3 3

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by brunner＠nic-naa.net 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

> My perception is that if you don't have access to ~$2M for that kind > of gTLD don't even waste your time. you may want to consult with a practitioner in the jurisdiction of your choice who does business organization and investor equity structures, as the cost to acquire a right to contract for a delegation in the iana root for a string likely to be in a contention set is unbounded. your ~$2m may be a total loss of $185k plus the time value of capital and a "slot" in the 201x evaluation cohort (nomianlly 500 units of evaluation, subject to some grouping if exceeded, for which there are art issues), or it may be a significant over-capitalization with excessive loss of initial investor equity paying for mezzanine or later capital which may be deferred and acquired at lower equity costs after the right to contract has been secured. pat answers are easy. your milage may vary if pat answers are best answers. > (Does the $185K include the given gTLD cocktail party at the seasonal > ICANN meeting ?) this is really a auction avoidance and/or investment invitation cost, and again, ymmv. does gmo improve the likely outome of its campaign to obtain "shop" by holding high cost socials? i don't know. for all i know a bid for .shop will be made by an entity capable of outbidding gmo, or gmo plus its line of auction risk capital and credit, and acquire both "shop" and the value of gmo's pre-auction marketing investment. there's a reason many people use "shoe" as an example of a generic. disclosure only increases risk and cost, except where a rule exist that pre-empts the allocation by auction rule. full disclosure: i spent last fall writing a memo making the case for the affirmative support or non-opposition requirement for iso3166 state capitals to be expanded to all city and geographic names where public administration(s) exists, on secondary meaning (trademark), contrary to the position of the board last fall, adding the public interest by secondary meaning (marks) to the gac's (sovereign) claim. the issue was vigorously discussed at the cartagena meeting, and i think(*) the final applicant's guidebook has the affirmative support or non-opposition requirement for the names of urban areas and other administered regional identifiers. where booze-pub adds value, by all means, spend $$ on booze-pub. where it does not, consider alternatives. -e (*) i've actualy been too busy doing policy work related to applicant support to catch the kurt show in its primary (saturday gnsoc) showing, or any of its reduced calorie repeats during the week, and i've not even opened the .pdf. all that can wait until next week, so for all i know my dagv1/v2/v3/v4/v5 data needs a refresh run over the redline, later.

1 0

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 53 Call For Presentations available!
by David Meyer 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

Folks, The Call for Presentations for NANOG 53 is up on http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog53/callforpresent.php Looking forward to your submissions and seeing you all in Philadelphia. Dave (for the NANOG PC) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

ping me please...
by Eric J Esslinger 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm getting a few reports from one customer that some of his users are unable to reach his system. If I could get people on the list to ping 65.5.48.2, and if it fails, to do a traceroute and email it to me offlist? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. __________________________ Eric Esslinger Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities http://www.fpu-tn.com/ (931)433-1522 ext 165 This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.

5 5