- Test - lists.nanog.org

Why is www.google.cat resolving?
by Tim Tuppence 05 May '09

05 May '09

Hello, I am seeing that www.google.cat resolves from three different networks. It even resolves from here: http://www.squish.net/dnscheck/ What is going on? Thanks, Tim

7 8

Alcatel as Peering and MSE(PE)
by Mauritz Lewies 05 May '09

05 May '09

Hi I'm based in Africa and involved in SP/Telco consulting and deployments. We have a customer that has chosen Alcatel (political choice) as their Layer-3 core devices for P, MSE, BGP Route Servers and Peering/Transit devices. All based on the Alcatel 7750 chassis. Unfortunately Alcatel is not very widely used in Africa on layer-3 (But as transmission and Layer-2 kit they are widely deployed) and so we have very little experience with them at this layer. What is the general consensus of them in these layers of the network and can anyone point out some strong points/short falls? We've mostly worked on Juniper/Cisco and a little experience on Redback so I can not comment much on the Alcatel layer-3 kit and need some advise on the true technical abilities of the kit. (ie non vendor marketing or competitor shoot down information) Thanks, Mauritz Lewies

3 2

Re: several messages
by Jack Bates 05 May '09

05 May '09

Dean Anderson wrote: > Suresh: Did you know that Vixie, Levine, and Joffe were owners and > directors of Whitehat, a spam company that 'listwashes' spam-trap > addresses? If so, then you seem to have some discredit coming, too. > Did you mistake nanog for an anti-spam mailing list? If Vixie was the largest spammer on the planet, it wouldn't really effect network operations, unless his spam clogged up our bgp sessions or he started stealing IP blocks or something similarly boring. ;) Jack

1 0

Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
by Charles＠thewybles.com 05 May '09

05 May '09

Re sending... I know operational content is frowned on :) ... However in an effort to avoid this thread getting kicked to the curb... we have just seen days of the same arguments between the same posters over and over. Let's gather some data on current operational (there's that evil word again) practices and see how its working or not working out. Anyone care to field my question? how do existing providers hand out space? I know that Hurricane electric (via its tunnel service) hands out a /64 by default and a /48 is a click away. How do other providers handle it? I'm in the us and only have native v4 connectivity :( Do the various traditional last mile providers (sprint/Verizon/att/patch etc ) offer it for t1 and better? If they do then what do they hand out by default, what's available, at what price point and what's the upgrade path? Is it one click like he? No provider I have talked to offers it for residential connectivity in the united states. What does free.fr do? If there is this level of confusion and disagreement around addressing schemes then will it ever be offered to residences over traditional last mile loops? ------Original Message------ From: Stephen Sprunk To: Bill Stewart Cc: north American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Cc: Joe Greco Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses Sent: May 4, 2009 2:36 PM Bill Stewart wrote: > When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead, so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier, but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet. It's supposed to be a /48 per customer, on the assumption that 16 bits of subnet information is sufficient for virtually anyone; exceptions should be rare enough that they can be handled as special cases. The /56 monstrosity came about because a US cable company wanted to assign a prefix to every home they passed, regardless of whether it contained a customer, so that they'd never need to renumber anything ever again. However, that would require they get more than the /32 minimum allocation, and ARIN policy doesn't allow _potential_ customers as a justification for getting a larger allocation, so they had to shrink the per-customer prefix down to a /56 to fit them all into a single /32. If all those assignments were to _real_ customers, they could have gotten a /24 and given each customer a /48 as expected. And, after that, many folks who can't wrap their heads around the size of the IPv6 address space appear to be obsessed with doing the same in other cases where even that weak justification doesn't apply... > Does anybody know why anybody thought it was a good idea to put the extra bits in the middle, or for IPv6 to adopt them? > Why the switch from EUI-48 to EUI-64? Someone in the IEEE got worried about running short of MAC (er, EUI-48) addresses at some point in the future, so they inserted 16 bits in the middle (after the OUI) to form an EUI-64 and are now "discouraging" new uses of EUI-48. The IETF decided to follow the IEEE's guidance and switch IPv6 autoconfig from EUI-48 to EUI-64, but FireWire is the only significant user of EUI-64 addresses to date; if you're using a link layer with EUI-48 addresses (e.g. Ethernet), an extra 16 bits (FFFE) get stuffed in the middle to transform it into the EUI-64 that IPv6 expects. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

3 2

Re: AW: Why is www.google.cat resolving?
by Brielle Bruns 05 May '09

05 May '09

12mbit DSL: $80 Firefox for platform of choice: $0 Knowing you can do a 10 second google search for answers to simple questions: priceless For everything else, there's I Can Has Cheezburger. Brielle (Bored, tired, and on her blackberry) ------Original Message------ From: Tim Tuppence To: Brielle Bruns Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: AW: Why is www.google.cat resolving? Sent: May 5, 2009 1:31 AM > A quick google and wikipedia check shows... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cat Thanks. -- Brielle Bruns http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org

1 0

Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
by Charles＠thewybles.com 05 May '09

05 May '09

Thanks for the in depth reply. There have been many v6 threads and perhaps I haven't paid enough attention or looked hard enough for the answers. :) I will send a more detailed reply tomorrow when I'm at a mail client that can do in line replies. :) Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

1 0

Re: several messages
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 05 May '09

05 May '09

Oh lord, just when I thought it was safe to clean out the filter file .. is it kook season again, already? On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Dean Anderson <dean(a)av8.com> wrote: > > This would be a good time to do a little background research on John > Levine, and discover that he's a spammer, pretending to be an > anti-spammer, with all the anticipated ill-effects on spam blocking. > > http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/JohnLevine/index.html > > John Levine is a spammer: > > http://www.iadl.org/whitehat/whitehat-story.html > > As are a couple of other prominent "anti-spammers". > > --Dean

1 0

DSX cross-connect solution
by sjk 05 May '09

05 May '09

I am trying to find hardware for a rebuild of our DS1 cross-connect frame and can't seem to find much out there. We've got ~300 DS1s that need to be x-connected between our M13s and I'm seeking an easy to manage solution. I've looked at the Telect panels but I'm concerned that my staff can't deal with wirewrap terminations. Has anyone seen, simply, a high density 66 field that can fit in a 23" rack? TIA -- steve

7 6

RE: DSX cross-connect solution
by Carlos Alcantar 04 May '09

04 May '09

Digital cross connect is the way to go if you have the budget to do that. Turin now force 10 make a good dacs and or the cisco 15454 with a ds3-12xm card can do it as well. -carlos -----Original Message----- From: Chatfield, Terry [mailto:Terry.Chatfield@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 2:37 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: DSX cross-connect solution Alternatively, one could use a digital cross-connect. Terry -----Original Message----- From: Ricky Beam [mailto:jfbeam@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:23 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: DSX cross-connect solution On Mon, 04 May 2009 16:05:30 -0400, Wallace Keith <kwallace(a)pcconnection.com> wrote: > I would stick with wire wrap, 66 blocks make an inferior connection. True, but a 66 block will work. Usually. And is easily re-punched. > If someone cannot deal with wire wrapping, they are not living in a > telecom world. Really. Seriously, who cannot do wire wrap? It takes, literally, 5 minutes to learn to do it. And that's with a "screw driver" wirewrap tool. With one of these [http://www.datacomtools.com/catalog/Wire-Wrap-tools/jonard-wire-wrap-gu n.htm], it takes about 10s, and you get a consistent, near perfect wrap every time. (yes, it's a bit pricey, but very worth the cost even if you only use it once to wire a single panel.) --Ricky PS: That's just the gun; it'll need a tip/sleeve. I recommend a complete kit. [http://www.datacomtools.com/catalog/Wire-Wrap-tools/wire-wrap-kits.htm]

1 0

Re: Minnesota to block online gambling sites?
by Scott Weeks 04 May '09

04 May '09

--------------------------------------- > successful. I can see a big nightmare heading this way if ISPs start > caving in to requests like this. --------------------------------------- It's happening all over the place. Not picking on any country or list, just to post a few examples... [AusNOG] Conroy censoring dissent? http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/2008-October/thread.html http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/2008-November/thread.html http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22999659-2,00.html [swinog] Censurship in Germany http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog@lists.swinog.ch/msg03581.html [swinog] Justice Order to block websites http://lists.swinog.ch/public/swinog/2008-January/thread.html scott

1 0