- Test - lists.nanog.org

Global Crossing IPv6 on hold?
by Jeff Wheelhouse 15 Dec '09

15 Dec '09

Hi All, We recently received our ::/32 allocation from ARIN, and when we went to set up IPv6 BGP with one of our transit providers, Global Crossing, we were told new IPv6 sessions were (direct quote) "not available at this time." Attempts to get an ETA or even an explanation why have so far been fruitless. Can that be right? I've always thought of Global Crossing as an IPv6 leader. Has anyone else heard anything about this? Thanks, Jeff

1 1

level3 europe problems
by Bogdan 14 Dec '09

14 Dec '09

hello from friday, after a peer reset from level3, we've started to have some issues with the bgp session with level3 1. first they sent us just around 4000 prefixes (instead of ~300k) 2. then nothing, we opened a trouble ticket and they said they rebooted a router, and so on. (we saw an interesting graph in decix http://www.decix.net/content/network.html ) 3. after that, the connection seemed to be ok. all prefixes received but: - some websites, including level3.net were loading very slow sometimes, sometimes not at all. - dns issues with hosts around the world - some ipsec tunnel around the world not working, some did, and same with telnet/snmp. - mtr not working to some hosts, ping always looked ok. 4. the second i shutd the neighbor, all communication was ok. i made several tests, and as soon as the peer was up, the problem begun. peer down - all was ok on the other providers. did anyone else exeprienced this kind of issues? the ticket is still open, but we did't recieved any rfo etr for 2,5 days :)

1 0

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.
by Mark Newton 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

On 14/12/2009, at 9:38 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > I hope you're right. I really hope that there's this phenomenal transition > in 2011 of content from 0.1% IPv6-accessible to 99% IPv6-accessible. Forget content, they're just along for the ride. When most service providers have eye-wateringly shite CGNs acting as intermediaries between eyeballs and content, the content providers will be motivated to move to v6 even if only as a means of damage control. > And > not even by node count, but by percentage of traffic. And pain is one way > to get there. Every few months I think of the number of truck rolls we'll > need to do to swap out DSL modems and SOHO routers with their IPv6 > equivalents. Ah, that's something we don't have. Our customers own their own (which has its own slew of problems: I can't make them upgrade, and if I tell them they'll have to spend a hundred bucks to restore the functionality I broke for them last week I'll have a revolt on my hands...) - mark -- Mark Newton Email: newton(a)internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton(a)atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223

1 0

news from Google
by Eduardo A. Suárez 12 Dec '09

12 Dec '09

Hi, now Google DNS, anything more? http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2009/12/introducing-google-public-dns-new-dn… Eduardo.- -- Eduardo A. Suarez Facultad de Ciencias Astronomicas y Geofisicas Universidad Nacional de La Plata ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

62 110

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.
by Roger Marquis 12 Dec '09

12 Dec '09

Joe Greco wrote: > Everyone knows a NAT gateway isn't really a firewall, except more or less > accidentally. There's no good way to provide a hardware firewall in an > average residential environment that is not a disaster waiting to happen. Gotta love it. A proven technology, successfully implemented on millions of residential firewalls "isn't really a firewall, but rather "a disaster waiting to happen". Make you wonder what disaster and when exactly it's going to happen? Simon Perreault wrote: > We have thus come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be a > NAT-like firewall in IPv6 home routers. And that, in a nutshell, is why IPv6 is not going to become widely feasible any time soon. Whether or not there should be NAT in IPv6 is a purely rhetorical argument. The markets have spoken, and they demand NAT. Is there a natophobe in the house who thinks there shouldn't be stateful inspection in IPv6? If not then could you explain what overhead NAT requires that stateful inspection hasn't already taken care of? Far from the issue some try to make it out to be, NAT is really just a component of stateful inspection. If you're going to implement statefulness there is no technical downside to implementing NAT as well. No downside, plenty of upsides, no brainer... Roger Marquis

4 3

Data Centre - Advice? (Shenzhen, China)
by Scott E. MacKenzie 12 Dec '09

12 Dec '09

Hi, Does anyone have any great websites to share or advice where I can locate all the tier one Internet Data Centre (IDC) providers in Shenzhen China? My second question would be on any advice that anyone can offer about the problems that can be faced operating your technology foot print inside the PRC, if there are any? Warm Regards, Scott

2 1

Optical fiber question
by Deric Kwok 12 Dec '09

12 Dec '09

Hi My provider said they can provide single / mulit mode Optical fiber Apart from the length and cost different, what is the Adv/Disadv between them for our connection? Thank you

7 6

Information Request
by Stephane MAGAND 12 Dec '09

12 Dec '09

Hello, I am in load d' to study the establishment in North America a company specialized in: Mpls Networks Internet Access Housing/Colloc This establishment must this make is by a creation of a new structure at New York or Washington and at Montreal, or by the acquisition of a holding in a small local operator. Then i write in this list since qu' it touches a great number of professional. Except companies, interested by a bringing together with a European operator has human size, I seek has to know how this master key the collection of T1, DSL and other near the carriers in the USA and Canada. If you could give me ideas of how that this master key, I am taking Thank you Stephane Magand

1 0

Re: news from Google
by Scott Weeks 12 Dec '09

12 Dec '09

--- beckman(a)angryox.com wrote: From: Peter Beckman <beckman(a)angryox.com> At least Google seems to be honest about it. ---------------------------------------------- Yeah, trust them... --------------------------- What does Bing say they keep about you when you search, not logged into your Passport account? IP + searches, date and time? And what do they actually do? --------------------------- NOW you're getting warm. What IS the difference in what a corp says they do and what they actually do? --------------------------- What about Yahoo, now that they will use Bing? Or even AltaVista? How do we know the difference between the reality of what they do versus their Privacy Policy? ---------------------------- Yahoo and Altavista are one and the same. Excite is owned by www.iac.com who own many other companies that collect and make money from knowing what you do. Webcrawler is owned by InfoSpace (www.infospaceinc.com) They are ALL making money doing the same thing. ---------------------------------- You don't get to have Privacy on the Internet. It's a fallacy. You have to work really hard to truly have privacy on the 'net. And lie a lot. ---------------------------------- Yes, you have to work hard and (one last time :-) DBS. Use your sniffers at home to see what's talking to what; manage your cookies; force your ISPs machinery to change your DHCP-assigned address a lot; use SSH tunnels, blah, blah, blah. In FF goto "Tools", 'Options', 'Privacy', and select: "Accept cookies from sites'; 'Accept third-party cookies'; 'Keep until: <ask me every time> just to get a taste. Be sure to click on 'Show Details' when the flood of cookies comes and pay attention to the details. Don't go to sites that bork when you use these settings any longer. Also, look in 'Show cookies' and 'Exceptions'. Funny how M$ won't let you do that in IE AFAICT. scott

6 12

Re: news from Google
by Scott Weeks 12 Dec '09

12 Dec '09

--- sethm(a)rollernet.us wrote: The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this. --------------------------------------- Not everyone. ;-) scott

1 0