- Test - lists.nanog.org

MPLS forwarding for L3VPN only (IOS)
by Manu Chao 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

I have only GRT and L3VPN traffic and would like to use MPLS forwarding only for L3VPN. Is it possible? Thanks & Best Regards, Manu

2 1

wikileaks unreachable
by Randy Bush 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

anyone know why https://www.wikileaks.org/ is not reachable? nations state level censors trying to close the barn door after the horse has left? randy

40 66

(wikileaks) Fwd: [funsec] And Google becomes a DNS..
by Gadi Evron 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

I withhold comment... "discuss amongst yourselves". Best, Gadi. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [funsec] And Google becomes a DNS.. Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:34:50 +0200 From: Imri Goldberg <lorgandon(a)gmail.com> To: funsec <funsec(a)linuxbox.org> Found on reddit: http://i.imgur.com/Q5SVu.png -- Imri Goldberg -------------------------------------- http://plnnr.com/ - automatic trip planning http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/ -------------------------------------- -- insert signature here ----

3 3

Want to move to all 208V for server racks
by Jay Nakamura 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

I really want to move all newly installed internal and customer racks over to all 208v power instead of 120v. As far as I can remember, I can't remember any server/switch/router or any other equipment that didn't run on 208v AC. (Other than you may need a different cable) Anyone have any experience where some oddball equipment that couldn't do 208v and regret going 208v? We won't have any TDM or SONET equipment, all Ethernet switches, routers and servers. I have control over internal equipment but sometimes customers surprises you.

34 84

Google mail admin contact needed (STARTTLS capabilities issue)
by Brent Jones 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

There appears to be a widespread issue with Google inbound MX's yesterday/today and I am unable to reach sufficient levels of support from Google tickets or forums. The problems seems to be many, if not all inbound Google MX records for Gmail.com and Google Apps hosted domains are no longer reliably advertising TLS as being supported over port 25 via STARTTLS. It also appears TLS on connect over port 465 is also spotty at best, with some servers responding, and some not. Previously 465 was recommended by Google for mail clients to use, but seems to be experience issues the last day or so intermittently. This has been preventing opportunistic TLS from working over the last couple days for my personal Google apps domain, and verified with several other Google apps hosted domains. However, Postini inbound MX'es still show STARTTLS in the capabilities list after EHLO, so this seems to be only Google MX'es, not impacting those who use Postini. For example, below shows the same MX at Google responding with and without TLS. I attempted about a dozen times over a few minutes to the same MX until I got STARTTLS listed in the capabilities list, but the next attempt to the same MX would no longer show STARTTLS Any assistance on or off list would be appreciated. (08:17 PM Fri Dec 03)-(~) $ telnet alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com 25 Trying 209.85.229.27... Connected to alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mx.google.com ESMTP y73si4442013weq.155 ehlo domain.com 250-mx.google.com at your service, [64.124.180.7] 250-SIZE 35651584 250-8BITMIME 250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES (08:20 PM Fri Dec 03)-(~) $ telnet alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com 25 Trying 209.85.229.27... Connected to alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mx.google.com ESMTP j3si4484656wbc.99 ehlo domain.com 250-mx.google.com at your service, [64.124.180.7] 250-SIZE 35651584 250-8BITMIME 250-STARTTLS 250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES (08:22 PM Fri Dec 03)-(~) # telnet alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com 25 Trying 74.125.67.27... Connected to alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mx.google.com ESMTP g16si6002830ibb.2 ehlo domain.com 250-mx.google.com at your service, [64.124.180.7] 250-SIZE 35651584 250-8BITMIME 250-STARTTLS 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250 PIPELINING (08:26 PM Fri Dec 03)-(~) # telnet alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com 25 Trying 74.125.67.27... Connected to alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mx.google.com ESMTP e7si5973534ibb.84 ehlo domain.com 250-mx.google.com at your service, [64.124.180.7] 250-SIZE 35651584 250-8BITMIME 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250 PIPELINING (08:28 PM Fri Dec 03)-(~) $ telnet ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM 25 Trying 74.125.91.27... Connected to ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mx.google.com ESMTP n7si5304773qcu.37 ehlo domain.com 250-mx.google.com at your service, [64.124.180.7] 250-SIZE 35651584 250-8BITMIME 250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES STARTTLS 502 5.5.1 Unrecognized command. n7si5304773qcu.37 -- Brent Jones brent(a)servuhome.net

4 4

ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of 45/8 address block
by John Curran 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

FYI, /John ---- https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 ARIN today recognizes Interop, an organization with a long-standing presence in the Internet industry, for returning its unneeded Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space. Interop was originally allocated a /8 before ARIN's existence and the availability of smaller-sized address blocks. The organization recently realized it was only using a small portion of its address block and that returning the remainder to ARIN would be for the greater good of the Internet community. ARIN will accept the returned space and not reissue it for a short period, per existing operational procedure. After the hold period, ARIN will follow global policy at that time and return it to the global free pool or distribute the space to those organizations in the ARIN region with documented need, as appropriate. With less than 5% of the IPv4 address space left in the global free pool, ARIN warns that Interop's return will not significantly extend the life of IPv4. ARIN continues to emphasize the need for all Internet stakeholders to adopt the next generation of Internet Protocol, IPv6. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers

23 40

Looking for security/abuse contact at EGIHosting
by John Adams 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

Contact me off list please. Thanks, -john

1 0

list archive
by Randy Bush 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

how do i find archives of this list from the '90s and early '00s? randy

4 6

Impact of Attacks and Outages
by Glen Kent 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

Hi, Is there any paper/link that discusses the financial repercussions when an ISP's network goes down because of an attack/outage? What i am looking at is something that i can explain to a lay person, about why the networks need to remain secure so that they cant be hacked into, as once it comes down, not only does it impact the ISP but also the enterprises inside that service provider's domain. I tried googling but couldnt really come up with something. Any help in this regard would be really appreciated. Glen

2 1

The scale of streaming video on the Internet.
by Leo Bicknell 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

Hidden in the Comcast and Level 3 press release war are some facinating details about the scale of streaming video. In http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcasts-letter-to-fcc-on-level-3.html, Comcast suggest that "demanded 27 to 30 new interconnection ports". I have to make a few assumptions, all of which I think are quite reasonable, but I want to lay them out: - "ports" means 10 Gigabit ports. 1GE's seems too small, 100GE's seems too large. I suppose there is a small chance they were thinking OC-48 (2.5Gbps) ports, but those seem to be falling out of favor for cost. - They were provisioning for double the anticipated traffic. That is, if there was 10G of traffic total they would ask for 20G of ports. This both provides room for growth, and the fact that you can't perfectly balance traffic over that many ports. - That substantially all of that new traffic was for Netflix, or more accurately "streaming video" from their CDN. Thus in round numbers they were asking for 300Gbps of additional capacity across the US, to move around 150Gbps of actual traffic. But how many video streams is 150Gbps? Google found me this article: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/03/estimates-… It suggests that low-def is 2000Kbps, and high def is 3200Kbps. If we do the math, that suggests the 150Gbps could support 75,000 low def streams, or 46,875 high def streams. Let me round to 50,000 users, for some mix of streams. Comcast has around ~15 million high speed Internet subscribers (based on year old data, I'm sure it is higher), which means at peak usage around 0.3% of all Comcast high speed users would be watching. That's an interesting number, but let's run back the other way. Consider what happens if folks cut the cord, and watch Internet only TV. I went and found some TV ratings: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/11/30/tv-ratings-broadcast-top-25-sun… Sunday Night Football at the top last week, with 7.1% of US homes watching. That's over 23 times as many folks watching as the 0.3% in our previous math! Ok, 23 times 150Gbps. 3.45Tb/s. Yowzer. That's a lot of data. 345 10GE ports for a SINGLE TV show. But that's 7.1% of homes, so scale up to 100% of homes and you get 48Tb/sec, that's right 4830 simultaneous 10GE's if all of Comcast's existing high speed subs dropped cable and watched the same shows over the Internet. I think we all know that streaming video is large. Putting the real numbers to it shows the real engineering challenges on both sides, generating and sinking the content, and why comapnies are fighting so much over it. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

30 52