- Test - lists.nanog.org

A10
by Bill Blackford 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

Anyone on list have any experience with A10 app performance products? How do they compare with F5, CSS, Netscaler, etc. In particular, stability, throughput, how they handle affinity, stickiness, pools (adding, removing nodes live), load balancing algorithms, SSL accel, reports/stats, etc. Thanks in advance for any input -- Bill Blackford Network Engineer Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....

1 0

data center locations - recommendation's
by Santino Codispoti 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

I am hoping the list can help me out. We need to setup a few data center locations and I was looking for recommendation’s on City’s and possible providers to rent space from. I was thinking two within the US to service North America and possibility also South America. Then also two within Europe. We would replicate data between the two in Europe and the two within the US but we would not replicate Europe to US.

2 2

network name 101100010100110.net
by Day Domes 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?

13 17

XO BGP routing engineer?
by Ulf Zimmermann 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

Anyone from XO, could you please contact me off list for a routing problem I have inside of XO Fremont Datacenter, trying to file a ticket with XO isn't working as nobody is answering the phones. -- Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-865-0204 You can find my resume at: http://www.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html

1 0

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 91
by Rudolph Daniel 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

We all are waiving flags about the return of one solitary /8 to ARIN, (which is a good thing) but should we not waive flags about new v6 networks too? Let us waive the flags also for the v6 adopters...I think we need to evangelize v6 even more than we are already doing. RD > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:27:41 -0400 > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Joel Esler <joel.esler(a)me.com> > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTin4P826POmny_rNZvSZowkNih7zN1LMiFhAYQKN(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Joel Esler <joel.esler(a)me.com> wrote: > > Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple > of them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great. > > it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is > ~3 months of usage... there is no saving the move to v6, the bottom's > going to fall out on or about june 2011 it seems. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:28:44 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <EBF47E07-EDC2-47F7-89EE-5D2165A741EF(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> wrote: > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > >> > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > space > >> was returned to ARIN? > > > > less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > Not to be depressing, but a /8 (or 99% of one :-) is potentially less > than one month's drain on the global IPv4 free pool, if one considers > the allocations over the last 12 months to be predictive. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:29:58 -0400 > From: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand(a)xyonet.com> > Subject: Re: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4CBF0AF6.9030207(a)xyonet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I'd add Alcatel to that list. > > On 10/20/2010 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote: > > I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access > > equipment for a small metro-ethernet network. We're probably talking at > max > > 200-300 subs split between two termination points. Most customers will > > probably be at speeds of 100M or less. We'd like the backbone to be 10G > and > > be MPLS capable. That being said some of the companies we've been looking > at > > are > > > > > > > > Cisco > > > > Extreme > > > > Brocade > > > > Adtran > > > > Occam > > > > Zhone > > > > > > > > We're looking to build the network in a cost effective manner so we're > not > > opposed to doing using aftermarket or refurbished equipment but we don't > > want to start off with equipment that has no future of expanding. > > > > > > > > Any suggestions, success or horror stories are appreciated. ;) > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > Eric Merkel > > > > MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. > > > > Email: merkel at metalink.net > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:33:01 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <BB969AF1-E6DC-4E71-B3D7-A56DABDEB24B(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is > > ~3 months of usage... there is no saving the move to v6, the bottom's > > going to fall out on or about june 2011 it seems. > > I agree with Chris; this (and any other returns) won't change the IPv4 > depletion/IPv6 deployment timeline substantially, but it's also true > we have folks who are just now realizing IPv4 depletion is happening > and returned address space may make the difference for those who need > just a bit more time... > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:35:19 -0400 > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTimgWaS1Vk+WVeXDEkL8srCBE6wxEpLOaV8Ez1Hv(a)mail.gmail.com<AANLkTimgWaS1Vk%2BWVeXDEkL8srCBE6wxEpLOaV8Ez1Hv(a)mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:28 AM, John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > >> less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > > > Not to be depressing, but a /8 (or 99% of one :-) is potentially less > > than one month's drain on the global IPv4 free pool, if one considers > > the allocations over the last 12 months to be predictive. > > yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN > region drain rate. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:37:55 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <CC71D159-C46E-49C7-9A8B-6A99508CCB89(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > The problem with that is indeed in that little part about "aren't using > > them", if even only 50% is in use because one allocated it quite > > sparsely you won't be able to quickly clean it up and return it. > > Correct. It might make sense to do so, if you could recover the costs of > the work involved. This is the reasoning behind the Specified Transfer > policy that was recently adopted; it allows (once we're at depletion) for > parties to free up address space and get compensated. It's goal is not to > provide a windfall for those holding unused space; in theory, those with > unused address space should be returning it already if they can easily do > so. > > > One can of course wonder if they are supposed to use that or not. > > The fact that they do not have reverse DNS delegation for it says quite > > a bit already of course. > > One of the other benefits of improved utilization for returned space > is less space which is "sitting idle" and available to be hijacked. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:40:57 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <DBBFDC71-10D2-45CE-86C5-08496337CD02(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN > > region drain rate. > > Ah, good point. It may end up in the global pool, so comparison to > either drain rate is quite reasonable. > > /John > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:45:20 -0400 > From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <4CBF0E90.6070403(a)ttec.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Christopher Morrow wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard<nick(a)foobar.org> wrote: > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > >> > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > space > >> was returned to ARIN? > > > > less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > > > So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only > after depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to > be greater? > > Plus, those less altruistic could weigh the options better after real > value is associated with the scarce resource. > > > Joe > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:02:16 -0400 > From: Francois Menard <francois(a)menards.ca> > Subject: Re: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment > To: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand(a)xyonet.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <B861A05D-DB46-4E45-8818-A6C0C6356DB1(a)menards.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > We just bought a fair amount of MRV Optiswitches for that same purpose. > > F. > > On 2010-10-20, at 11:29 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: > > > I'd add Alcatel to that list. > > > > On 10/20/2010 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote: > >> I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access > >> equipment for a small metro-ethernet network. We're probably talking at > max > >> 200-300 subs split between two termination points. Most customers will > >> probably be at speeds of 100M or less. We'd like the backbone to be 10G > and > >> be MPLS capable. That being said some of the companies we've been > looking at > >> are > >> > >> > >> > >> Cisco > >> > >> Extreme > >> > >> Brocade > >> > >> Adtran > >> > >> Occam > >> > >> Zhone > >> > >> > >> > >> We're looking to build the network in a cost effective manner so we're > not > >> opposed to doing using aftermarket or refurbished equipment but we don't > >> want to start off with equipment that has no future of expanding. > >> > >> > >> > >> Any suggestions, success or horror stories are appreciated. ;) > >> > >> > >> > >> Eric > >> > >> > >> > >> ===== > >> > >> Eric Merkel > >> > >> MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. > >> > >> Email: merkel at metalink.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:03:46 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner(a)cluebyfour.org> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010201154270.17786(a)whammy.cluebyfour.org> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Joel Esler wrote: > > > Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple > > of them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great. > > > > Thank you interop for setting the example. > > Sure, it would be a nice gesture if MIT/HP/Ford/Xerox/Halliburton/etc gave > back the chunks of the /8s they weren't using, but it wouldn't > significantly affect when the IPv4 well runs dry. Also, without knowing > how those organizations have used the space internally, such an > altruistic gesture could also come at the cost of having to de-aggregate > a bunch of advertisements in BGP. > > The law of diminishing returns comes into play. > jms > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > >> > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > space was returned to ARIN? > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> On 20/10/2010 14:34, John Curran wrote: > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Joel Esler > > http://www.joelesler.net > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:04:29 -0400 > From: Ernie Rubi <ernesto(a)cs.fiu.edu> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <107A762E-D0A0-4CBA-92D8-376FCD6E266B(a)cs.fiu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way. > > Appreciation and value are words that most folks at ICANN don't want > network engineers to associate with IP addresses. > > "The real value is in routing"; is the party line. > > STLS to me is kind of double speak, ARIN says: "this isn't a capital > resource", but yet if you go through us and list your 'unused' blocks in > this space, we don't care what financial transaction happens behind the > scenes. > > Maybe John can shed more light on this. > > For some background, go over to the Internet-history mailing list, which > included a very lively discussion of "ownership interest" in IP addresses. > > Ernie > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > > So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only > after depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to be > greater? > > > > Plus, those less altruistic could weigh the options better after real > value is associated with the scarce resource. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 91 > ************************************* > -- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…> **1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…> * * *

3 2

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 93
by Rudolph Daniel 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

I believe that the vast majority of the legacy space is in fact in the US. RD > Not to stir an already boiling over pot and all, but is there any kind > of report or documentation on releasing of space from countries other > then the North American region? > > I'd hate to think that the rest of the world thinks that the US should > be the one to give up all their space so that they can continue to hand > out space like candy... > > -- > Brielle Bruns > The Summit Open Source Development Group > http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:52:00 +0100 > From: "Stephen D. Strowes" <sds(a)dcs.gla.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <1287593520.11548.15.camel@carney> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 17:40 +0100, John Curran wrote: > > > Also makes me wonder if there are historical versions of this registry > > > available. If reclamation of large blocks such as this becomes > > > commonplace, will many of the legacy allocations simply become > > > footnotes? (In the registry document, as well as in history?) > > > > This has already happened in many cases; address blocks previously > > held by US DoD, BBN, Stanford were returned, held for a period, > > and then reissued. > > Indeed yes. And these returned blocks aren't noted in the IANA registry > (for good reason I guess; the registry is meant to be current.) Is this > historical information noted anywhere? > > > -S. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:06:33 -0700 > From: Doug Barton <dougb(a)dougbarton.us> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <4CBF2199.4010700(a)dougbarton.us> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 10/20/2010 7:13 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > i think this is cool, but ... > > > >> 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. > > > > i know the us has the world series, but global> arin region > > I would like to join the chorus of applause for Interop's generosity. I > agree with those who've said that this only buys us a little more time, > but they did the right thing, and we should applaud them for that; along > with the DOD and others who have returned their unneeded space. > > As for the fact that the block was released to ARIN as opposed to going > back in the free pool, the effect may ultimately be the same. > Allocations from IANA to the RIRs happen under the policy posted at > http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-IPv4-rirs.html. The > determination of when to allocate a new /8 is based on the amount of > free space that the RIR has on hand at the time of the request. There > are 12 /8s remaining atm, and 5 of those will automatically be allocated > 1 per RIR when the other 7 have been allocated under the normal policy. > I am confident that ARIN will also do the right thing here and include > the /8 from Interop in their free space calculation before requesting an > allocation of one of the 7 /8s in the free pool. > > > hth, > > Doug > > -- > > Breadth of IT experience, and | Nothin' ever doesn't change, > depth of knowledge in the DNS. | but nothin' changes much. > Yours for the right price. :) | -- OK Go > http://SupersetSolutions.com/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:34:22 -0400 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: Brielle Bruns <bruns(a)2mbit.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <62EADAE5-5D10-4749-AD1F-9343A457FC5A(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > > > > Not to stir an already boiling over pot and all, but is there any kind of > report or documentation on releasing of space from countries other then the > North American region? > > You're not going to find a lot of large allocations which are unused in > other regions, predominantly because these allocations where made at the > earliest time of the Internet to organizations that were mostly in the > ARIN region. > > > I'd hate to think that the rest of the world thinks that the US should be > the one to give up all their space so that they can continue to hand out > space like candy... > > While it is true that some regions seem to be experiencing a real surge > in IPv4 demand recently, it's also important to remember that *all* of the > address space is for the Internet community at large, based on documented > need, on a first-come, first-serve basis. It's actually "global Internet > address space"; this is a fundamental principle of the Internet Registry > system as noted in RFC 2050. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:41:19 -0400 > From: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 91 > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: > <AANLkTinuCQ+1X8xO-aDctU_GBPFfT6_ZFEGzb7G4p36p(a)mail.gmail.com<AANLkTinuCQ%2B1X8xO-aDctU_GBPFfT6_ZFEGzb7G4p36p(a)mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > We all are waiving flags about the return of one solitary /8 to ARIN, > (which > is a good thing) but should we not waive flags about new v6 networks too? > > Let us waive the flags also for the v6 adopters...I think we need to > evangelize v6 even more than we are already doing. > > RD > > > > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:27:41 -0400 > > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: Joel Esler <joel.esler(a)me.com> > > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: > > <AANLkTin4P826POmny_rNZvSZowkNih7zN1LMiFhAYQKN(a)mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Joel Esler <joel.esler(a)me.com> wrote: > > > Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple > > of them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great. > > > > it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is > > ~3 months of usage... there is no saving the move to v6, the bottom's > > going to fall out on or about june 2011 it seems. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:28:44 -0400 > > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: <EBF47E07-EDC2-47F7-89EE-5D2165A741EF(a)arin.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> > wrote: > > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > > >> > > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > > space > > >> was returned to ARIN? > > > > > > less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > > > Not to be depressing, but a /8 (or 99% of one :-) is potentially less > > than one month's drain on the global IPv4 free pool, if one considers > > the allocations over the last 12 months to be predictive. > > > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > ARIN > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:29:58 -0400 > > From: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand(a)xyonet.com> > > Subject: Re: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment > > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <4CBF0AF6.9030207(a)xyonet.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > I'd add Alcatel to that list. > > > > On 10/20/2010 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote: > > > I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access > > > equipment for a small metro-ethernet network. We're probably talking at > > max > > > 200-300 subs split between two termination points. Most customers will > > > probably be at speeds of 100M or less. We'd like the backbone to be 10G > > and > > > be MPLS capable. That being said some of the companies we've been > looking > > at > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > Cisco > > > > > > Extreme > > > > > > Brocade > > > > > > Adtran > > > > > > Occam > > > > > > Zhone > > > > > > > > > > > > We're looking to build the network in a cost effective manner so we're > > not > > > opposed to doing using aftermarket or refurbished equipment but we > don't > > > want to start off with equipment that has no future of expanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any suggestions, success or horror stories are appreciated. ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > Eric Merkel > > > > > > MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. > > > > > > Email: merkel at metalink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:33:01 -0400 > > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: <BB969AF1-E6DC-4E71-B3D7-A56DABDEB24B(a)arin.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > > > it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is > > > ~3 months of usage... there is no saving the move to v6, the bottom's > > > going to fall out on or about june 2011 it seems. > > > > I agree with Chris; this (and any other returns) won't change the IPv4 > > depletion/IPv6 deployment timeline substantially, but it's also true > > we have folks who are just now realizing IPv4 depletion is happening > > and returned address space may make the difference for those who need > > just a bit more time... > > > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > ARIN > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:35:19 -0400 > > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: > > <AANLkTimgWaS1Vk+WVeXDEkL8srCBE6wxEpLOaV8Ez1Hv(a)mail.gmail.com<AANLkTimgWaS1Vk%2BWVeXDEkL8srCBE6wxEpLOaV8Ez1Hv(a)mail.gmail.com> > <AANLkTimgWaS1Vk%2BWVeXDEkL8srCBE6wxEpLOaV8Ez1Hv(a)mail.gmail.com<AANLkTimgWaS1Vk%252BWVeXDEkL8srCBE6wxEpLOaV8Ez1Hv(a)mail.gmail.com> > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:28 AM, John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > >> less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > > > > > Not to be depressing, but a /8 (or 99% of one :-) is potentially less > > > than one month's drain on the global IPv4 free pool, if one considers > > > the allocations over the last 12 months to be predictive. > > > > yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN > > region drain rate. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:37:55 -0400 > > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> > > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: <CC71D159-C46E-49C7-9A8B-6A99508CCB89(a)arin.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > > > The problem with that is indeed in that little part about "aren't using > > > them", if even only 50% is in use because one allocated it quite > > > sparsely you won't be able to quickly clean it up and return it. > > > > Correct. It might make sense to do so, if you could recover the costs of > > the work involved. This is the reasoning behind the Specified Transfer > > policy that was recently adopted; it allows (once we're at depletion) for > > parties to free up address space and get compensated. It's goal is not > to > > provide a windfall for those holding unused space; in theory, those with > > unused address space should be returning it already if they can easily do > > so. > > > > > One can of course wonder if they are supposed to use that or not. > > > The fact that they do not have reverse DNS delegation for it says quite > > > a bit already of course. > > > > One of the other benefits of improved utilization for returned space > > is less space which is "sitting idle" and available to be hijacked. > > > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > ARIN > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:40:57 -0400 > > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org Operators Group" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: <DBBFDC71-10D2-45CE-86C5-08496337CD02(a)arin.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > > yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN > > > region drain rate. > > > > Ah, good point. It may end up in the global pool, so comparison to > > either drain rate is quite reasonable. > > > > /John > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:45:20 -0400 > > From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: <4CBF0E90.6070403(a)ttec.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard<nick(a)foobar.org> > wrote: > > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > > >> > > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > > space > > >> was returned to ARIN? > > > > > > less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate. > > > > > > > So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only > > after depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to > > be greater? > > > > Plus, those less altruistic could weigh the options better after real > > value is associated with the scarce resource. > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:02:16 -0400 > > From: Francois Menard <francois(a)menards.ca> > > Subject: Re: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment > > To: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand(a)xyonet.com> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Message-ID: <B861A05D-DB46-4E45-8818-A6C0C6356DB1(a)menards.ca> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > We just bought a fair amount of MRV Optiswitches for that same purpose. > > > > F. > > > > On 2010-10-20, at 11:29 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: > > > > > I'd add Alcatel to that list. > > > > > > On 10/20/2010 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote: > > >> I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access > > >> equipment for a small metro-ethernet network. We're probably talking > at > > max > > >> 200-300 subs split between two termination points. Most customers will > > >> probably be at speeds of 100M or less. We'd like the backbone to be > 10G > > and > > >> be MPLS capable. That being said some of the companies we've been > > looking at > > >> are > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Cisco > > >> > > >> Extreme > > >> > > >> Brocade > > >> > > >> Adtran > > >> > > >> Occam > > >> > > >> Zhone > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> We're looking to build the network in a cost effective manner so we're > > not > > >> opposed to doing using aftermarket or refurbished equipment but we > don't > > >> want to start off with equipment that has no future of expanding. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Any suggestions, success or horror stories are appreciated. ;) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Eric > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ===== > > >> > > >> Eric Merkel > > >> > > >> MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. > > >> > > >> Email: merkel at metalink.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:03:46 -0400 (EDT) > > From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner(a)cluebyfour.org> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010201154270.17786(a)whammy.cluebyfour.org> > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Joel Esler wrote: > > > > > Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple > > > of them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great. > > > > > > Thank you interop for setting the example. > > > > Sure, it would be a nice gesture if MIT/HP/Ford/Xerox/Halliburton/etc > gave > > back the chunks of the /8s they weren't using, but it wouldn't > > significantly affect when the IPv4 well runs dry. Also, without knowing > > how those organizations have used the space internally, such an > > altruistic gesture could also come at the cost of having to de-aggregate > > a bunch of advertisements in BGP. > > > > The law of diminishing returns comes into play. > > jms > > > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > > > >> Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism. > > >> > > >> John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address > > space was returned to ARIN? > > >> > > >> Nick > > >> > > >> On 20/10/2010 14:34, John Curran wrote: > > >>> 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 > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > Joel Esler > > > http://www.joelesler.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 11 > > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:04:29 -0400 > > From: Ernie Rubi <ernesto(a)cs.fiu.edu> > > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > > 45/8 address block > > To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> > > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" > > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > Message-ID: <107A762E-D0A0-4CBA-92D8-376FCD6E266B(a)cs.fiu.edu> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way. > > > > Appreciation and value are words that most folks at ICANN don't want > > network engineers to associate with IP addresses. > > > > "The real value is in routing"; is the party line. > > > > STLS to me is kind of double speak, ARIN says: "this isn't a capital > > resource", but yet if you go through us and list your 'unused' blocks in > > this space, we don't care what financial transaction happens behind the > > scenes. > > > > Maybe John can shed more light on this. > > > > For some background, go over to the Internet-history mailing list, which > > included a very lively discussion of "ownership interest" in IP > addresses. > > > > Ernie > > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > > > > > So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only > > after depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to > be > > greater? > > > > > > Plus, those less altruistic could weigh the options better after real > > value is associated with the scarce resource. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > NANOG(a)nanog.org > > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 91 > > ************************************* > > > > > > -- > > Rudi Daniel > *danielcharles consulting< > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da… > > > **1-784 498 8277< > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da… > > > * > * > * > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:53:12 -0600 > From: Brielle Bruns <bruns(a)2mbit.com> > Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of > 45/8 address block > To: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <4CBF2C88.1070603(a)2mbit.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 10/20/10 11:34 AM, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > >>> > >>> Not to stir an already boiling over pot and all, but is there any > >>> kind of report or documentation on releasing of space from > >>> countries other then the North American region? > > You're not going to find a lot of large allocations which are unused > > in other regions, predominantly because these allocations where made > > at the earliest time of the Internet to organizations that were > > mostly in the ARIN region. > > > True, I didn't take that into account. :) > > > > >>> I'd hate to think that the rest of the world thinks that the US > >>> should be the one to give up all their space so that they can > >>> continue to hand out space like candy... > > While it is true that some regions seem to be experiencing a real > > surge in IPv4 demand recently, it's also important to remember > > that*all* of the address space is for the Internet community at > > large, based on documented need, on a first-come, first-serve basis. > > It's actually "global Internet address space"; this is a fundamental > > principle of the Internet Registry system as noted in RFC 2050. > > Understood, I'm just expressing concern over the current situation of > IPv4 exhaustion. As a spam fighter, I tend to see bursts of spam from > newly allocated space in various regions which leaves me scratching my > head as to why some places keep asking for more space and getting it so > easily. > > > -- > Brielle Bruns > The Summit Open Source Development Group > http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 93 > ************************************* > -- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…> **1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Da…> * * *

1 0

Re: network name 101100010100110.net
by Roland Perry 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

In article <20101018024021.GC8924(a)vacation.karoshi.com.?>, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com writes > the leading character restriction was lifted when the company > 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice > held true. And was the first all-numeric name 101.com (1995)? Dalmatians, not binary five. -- Roland Perry

6 5

Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
by Matthew Walster 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

On 20 October 2010 01:16, Julien Goodwin <jgoodwin(a)studio442.com.au> wrote: > MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply drop packets with a source > address of .0 or .255 coming from the legacy class C space, I did say in 83.x, but it's good to know that there are problems with old Class-C addresses. It pains me to type that, it really does :S M

1 0

Enterprise DNS providers
by Ken Gilmour 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

Hello any weekend workers :) We are looking at urgently deploying an outsourced DNS provider for a critical domain which is currently unavailable but are having some difficulty. I've tried contacting UltraDNS who only allow customers from US / Canada to sign up (we are in Malta) and their Sales dept are closed, and Easy DNS who don't have .com.mt as an option in the dropdown for transferring domain names (and also support is closed). Black Lotus looks like the next best contender, has anyone had experience with these or any other recommendations for how we can transfer a .com.mt to a reliable hosting provider during the weekend? Thanks! Ken

11 15

Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
by Zaid Ali 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. Zaid

34 86