- Test - lists.nanog.org

Libya
by Randy Bush 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

gossip that libya is off net. any actual data? randy

12 16

Traffic to 5/8 and 37/8 - stats on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

Hello, During NANOG 51, Manish Karir gave a Lightning Talk showing how much and what kind of traffic is going to unallocated address space in 5/8 and 37/8 (among other ranges he tested). This is now also available on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mkarir/first-impressions-of-pollution-in-two-r… Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

3 2

IPv6 consumer perception
by Zed Usser 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

With marketing campaigns like these, no consumer will want to use IPv6, if it becomes associated with privacy problems. http://torrentfreak.com/huge-security-flaw-makes-vpns-useless-for-bittorren… It is, of course, totally irrelevant whether the reporting is factually correct or even based on real IPv6 issues or not, this is how public opinion is formed. The only takeaway from this to a non-technical user is that IPv6 is bad and the correct solution is to turn it off. - Zed

19 45

Re: [dnsext] zone cut semantics
by Jay Ashworth 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Reid" <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > On 21 Feb 2011, at 01:44, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > So: people-who-do: is my supposition/assertion above correct? If it is, > > is it reasonable to draw from it the inference that I do (IE, that Jim is > > correct and Brandon's not)? > > It's more than reasonable Jay: it's true! Then again, I would say > that. :-) > > But don't take my word for it. See for yourself. Query the parent > zone's name servers and the child's for the zone's NS RRset. Look who > sets and does not set the AA bit. You've misunderstood the granularity of my question, though, Jim. :-) I asked not what the default behavior was, but *whether it was even manually possible to override* that default behavior. I believe it is not, which would serve as much stronger evidence for your case. > You will of course need to use a decent lookup tool like dig to do > this. Or you could just read Section 6 of RFC2181. Brandon clearly > hasn't. :-) Yes; I know how to drive dig. +trace is *really* cool, in fact. I've been wanting to wrap +trace for nagios, so I can monitor my registries/registrars. :-) > BTW, BIND8 got zone cut semantics wrong. It used one monolithic data > structure (a hash table) for everything. [BIND9 uses discrete red- > black trees for each zone.] So the parent would set the AA bit in a > referral response even though it shouldn't have done that. This > incorrect behaviour broke things and also permitted zone and server > misconfigurations to appear to work: for instance no NS records in the > child. Another weird error this caused was phantom A records that > didn't exist in either the parent or child zone files! Secure DNS put > an end to this brokenness -- and as a side effect killed BIND8 -- > because it demands much stricter (and correct) zone cut sematics. Good you made a point of this discrepancy. When you say, though, that this permitted child zones to have no NS records in them, I presume you mean "when the same server is serving both the parent and the child in question"? Cheers, -- jra

1 0

Software Bugs
by Kasper Adel 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

Good Day, I have always been exposed to one vendor only so i can never compare but I am curious to know what every one here have seen in their lives on the below: 1) Which vendor has more bugs than others, what are the top 3 2) Who is doing a better job fixing them 3) What do you consider is a good job in fixing these bugs : response from technical support, educated support engineers

3 4

VZW LTE provisioning
by Jay Ashworth 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

Is there anyone on the list who can comment, on- or off-list, for-attribution or not, on what kind of job Verizon Wireless has done provisioning the data backbone for their new LTE "4G"[1] rollout? Given the fact that it is at 700MHz and will therefore have *substantially* better building penetration, and the fact that -- due to the Google imposed "any device, any app" restrictions the FCC placed on their license -- there is quite a bit higher possibility that we'll see better device competition on this service than we've seen before... the odds that we'll have to deal with it, as operators of larger end-networks, seem pretty high. Knowing what we're getting into would be nice. :-) Cheers, -- jra [1] The ITU has said that none of {HSDPA,LTE,WiMax} qualifies for "4G" designation by the standards, of which they (I understand) are the promulgating agency.

1 0

Off list contact for Quadranet
by Thomas York 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

If the network contact at Quadranet could contact me off list, I'd appreciate it. This is concerning the continual spamming of a proxy server I run from multiple hosts at Quadranet. Thomas York

1 0

Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
by Franck Martin 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> To: "Michael Ulitskiy" <mulitskiy(a)acedsl.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Thursday, 13 May, 2010 6:39:28 PM Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Michael Ulitskiy <mulitskiy(a)acedsl.com> wrote: > Hello, > > We're in the early stage of planning ipv6 deployment - > learning/labbing/experimenting/etc. We've got to the point when we're > also planning to request initial ipv6 allocation from ARIN. > So I wonder what ipv6 transit options I have if my upstreams do not > support native ipv6 connectivity? > I see Hurricane Electric tunnel broker BGP tunnel. Is there anything > else? Either free or commercial? 1) see gblx/ntt/sprint/twt/vzb for transit-v6 2) tunnel inside your domain (your control, your MTU issues, your alternate pathing of tunnels vs pipe) 3) don't tunnel beyond your borders, really just don't tunnels are bad, always. -chris I see so many times, that tunnels are bad for IPv6, but this is the way IPv6 has been designed to work when you cannot get direct IPv6. So I would not say tunnels are bad, but direct IPv6 is better (OECD document on IPv6 states the use of tunnels). If the issue with tunnel is MTU, then a non-negligible part of IPv4 does not work well with MTU different of 1500. With IPv6 we bring the concept of jumbo packets, with large MTU. If we cannot work with non standard MTUs in IPv6 tunnels, how will we work with jumbo packets?

11 13

New transit tests
by Eduardo Schoedler 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

Hi everyone. This is my first post here in Nanog. First of all, sorry my bad english -- I'm Brazilian. We are activating a new transit connection with 40 Mbps and I need to test it, but here in Brazil all the international transits are weak. I'm looking for a server that I can download/upload with full speed at New York or Miami, places that this transit have presence in some NAP/IXP (interconnections). Can be one url with a file of 1GB 'dd' generated file, but the server need to have this bandwidth avaliable. Can someone help me ? Thanks in advance. Regards, -- Eduardo Schoedler

3 2

Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
by Yaoqing(Joey) Liu 19 Feb '11

19 Feb '11

I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know, generally there are two types of IXPs type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3 type 2: use switches and Ethernet topology, which works in layer 2. So I have a couple of qustions: 1. For type 1, the exchange routers may use several IP prefixes for routing, how often does the IP prefixes have their own AS? 2. For type 2, all peers connected to the IXP must work in the same subnet required by Ethernet rules. Is possible that the subnet IP prefixes belong to some private IP address space, such as 192.168.x.x? How often does this happen? If the subnet only contains public IP addresses, how are the addresses announced? Thanks, Yaoqing

8 19