- Test - lists.nanog.org

dishnetwork.com down?
by Andy Ringsmuth 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Anyone know what's up with dishnetwork.com? www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com also reports it as being down. --- Andy Ringsmuth 7215 Dorchester Court Lincoln, NE 68521 (402) 304-0083 andyring(a)inebraska.com

2 2

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 52 Early Bird Registration ends 04/23/2011 -- Register now!
by David Meyer 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Looking forward to seeing you all in Denver. Dave (for the NANOG PC) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

eigrp set next hop
by Andrey Khomyakov 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Hi nanog I need to advertise EIGRP route with a different next-hop value than self Due to how the connections are setup, I have to run BGP between two peers that are 3 hops away from each other. router1--router2--firewall--router3 I'm running EBGP between router1 and router3 router1 is redistributing into EIGRP that's running with router2 The problem is that now router2 thinks that router3 routes are reachable via router1 so I have myself a route loop. Is there a way to advertise an EIGRP route with next hop of router3 (or firewall for that matter) rather than router1 which is what EIGRP does by default Thank you in advance for advice. -- Andrey Khomyakov [khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com]

3 4

RPKI in the real world: using MaxLength
by Alex Band 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

The RIPE NCC is running their Resource Certification system for a couple of months now, and we've got quite a number of prefixes covered by ROAs in the repository by now. So I decided to have a look at how people are creating their ROAs and in particular how the 'Maximum Length' feature is used, which authorises the AS to deaggregate the prefix to the specified point. We compared the repository to the prefixes seen by our RIS route collectors. It gives a good indication how people are using this option, and what the effects are when people base routing decisions on validation results. You can read the article here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/AlexBand/using-the-maximum-length-option-in-r… I'm interested to hear if you think we should change our implementation, and what choice you think is the best. -Alex

1 0

IPv4 address exchange
by Peter Thimmesch 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

John, Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2 March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy) <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accre ditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf > In addition we pointed out, in our opinion, that the current process for reviewing and approving a Global Policy is somewhat skewed towards the Regional Internet Registries. Hence we requested that due to this obvious and readily apparent Conflict-of-Interest (yes, I expect you will disagree with even this, which is so clear that to debate this would be simply too much even by the new standards that you have set recently in your online arguments with Prof. Mueller) we explore other forums to have the merits of the proposal aired. Regards, Peter Thimmesch Chairman

3 2

IPv4 address exchange
by Scott Weeks 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

Has this been discussed here? I did a quickie search and saw nothing. Other than spam to a technical mailing list, do you guys care, or is it a non-issue? scott --- Begin forwarded message: From: "Martin v. Löwis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de> To: apnic-talk(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [apnic-talk] IPv4 address exchange Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:07:59 +0200 With the address pool exhausted in APNIC for regular allocations, service providers will need a way to acquire additional address blocks for deployment; by discovering resources that are currently unused (or can be released by the current user with sufficient effort). In order to promote such address transfers, we are offering the Asia-Pacific region a platform, at http://tradeipv4.com/ While this platform is designed to ultimately allow transfer of addresses within and across all regions of the world, we expect that interest within the APNIC community will be largest, hence this announcement. Kind regards, Martin v. Löwis _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list apnic-talk(a)lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk

11 34

Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
by Daniel STICKNEY 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

Hello all, I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines (different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been invented. Has anyone already set this up or tested it ? In my research into the proposed solutions I came across this document "IEEE Communications Surveys - 2nd Quarter 2006, Volume 8, No. 2" (http://www.shim6.org/path-to-mh.pdf) which seems quite thorough. It compares routing methods, middle-box methods, and host-centric methods. It mentions "During the last years, the IETF has made several explicit or implicit architectural decisions regarding IPv6 multihoming. The main decision is to go down the path of developing the host-centric approaches" as well as "Host-centric multihoming, the approach promoted by the IETF for IPv6 multihoming, [...]". After the comparison of all host-centric methods it adds " [...], the IETF has decided by the end of 2004 to foster the SHIM approach." This approach looks interesting to me after all the comparisons, though I'm less familiar with it. I'm interested to hear your real-world experiences on this topic. Thanks, Daniel

20 52

Re: Easily confused...
by Scott Weeks 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

--- nanog(a)jima.tk wrote: From: Jima <nanog(a)jima.tk> On 2011-04-16 20:06, Michael Painter wrote: > Brielle Bruns wrote: >> I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed >> 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't >> been assigned from the global pool (yet). >> >> Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not use proper RFC assigned >> private IP space for their internal networking setup. > > Apologies...missed operative word 'internal'.<s> I was about to reply pointing that out. FWIW, they're not announcing that space, so I definitely agree with the poorly-thought-out private infrastructure theory. http://bgp.he.net/AS36149#_prefixes FWIW. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- When I was last there there was a definite lack of folks with hands-on experience managing that size of address space: a /15 and two /16s plus some swamp. Further there're a lot of companies that contract to them that suggest these things and the contractor's advice is always faithfully followed, so any blame will go to the vendor if trouble happens due to design flaws. Making waves by saying this or that is wrong definitely gets one into hot water... ;-) ----------------------------------------------------------- > They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they > renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?) Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 2607:f9a0::/32 for anything that ambitious...but I might be wishing for too much. (Also, that 123 block seems to have been allocated in 2006, so it'd be even more unprofessional to start projects with that space since then.) -------------------------------------------------------- I'm the one that got this space for them, but allocation of folks to IPv6 roll out was minimal due the the upcoming IPTV roll out. I was the lone IPv6 voice in the company for a long time, but when I left there was gaining interest in IPv6 strategies. Not enough netgeeks and too many projects rolling out. scott

3 2

Re: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative?
by AP NANOG 17 Apr '11

17 Apr '11

I would look into Asatro, they have a solid product and good support. If you want a contact person let me know and I will email you directly. On 4/9/11 11:55 AM, proth(a)cnsny.net wrote: > Andrew, > We use and offer Postini - a front end service. Postini is a anti virus and spam filter, and can spool mail if your circuits are down. Postini is a Google company and works like a charm. If you need more information please contact me offline proth(a)cnsny.net > > Paul > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Andrew Kirch"<trelane(a)trelane.net> > Date: Sat, Apr 9, 2011 10:39 am > Subject: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative? > To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)"<nanog2(a)adns.net>,<nanog(a)nanog.org> > > John, > > My suggestion isn't _QUITE_ an appliance, but it works very well and > I've been exceptionally happy with it. It's a distribution of linux > controlled via a web interface that does far more than just mail > filtering (at which it is both flexible and adept). Take a look at > http://www.clearfoundation.com/Software/overview.html. The hardware > requirements shouldn't be too insane, and the rules > updates/subscriptions for the various services are all month to month, > and not a bucket of insane. > > Andrew > > > On 4/8/2011 11:51 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: >> OK, its been a year since my Barracuda subscription expired. The unit >> still stops some spam. I figured that I would go and see what they >> would do if I tried to renew my subscription EXACTLY one year after it >> expired. Would their renewal website say "Oh, you are at your >> anniversary date", and renew me for a year? >> >> No such luck: They want me to PAY FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR for which I did >> NOT receive service and then for the current (upcoming year). Sorry - >> I don't allow myself to be ripped off like that. Sorry Barracuda - you >> get no money from me and I'll tell everyone I know about this policy >> of yours. >> >> I posted an article about this unscrupulous practice on my blog last >> year at http://www.john-palmer.net/wordpress/?p=46 >> >> My question is - does anyone have any suggestions for another e-mail >> appliance like the Barracuda Spam Firewall that doesn't try to charge >> their customers for time not used. I should be able to shut off the >> unit for a year or whatever and simply renew from the point that I >> re-activate the unit instead of having to pay for back-years that I >> didn't use. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >

2 1

mail admin contacts within gc.ca ?
by Jim Mercer 17 Apr '11

17 Apr '11

anyone have a method of determining who to contact about DNS/email issues within gc.ca? i tried emailing postmaster(a)pco.gc.ca, but got a bounce back saying i was not on the 'approved list'. (pco.gc.ca being the group i need to contact) -- Jim Mercer jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 You are more likely to be arrested as a terrorist than you are to be blown up by one. -- Dianora

2 1