- Test - lists.nanog.org

Myanmar Internet turned off
by Steve Gibbard 04 Oct '07

04 Oct '07

There have been several news stories today about Myanmar's government turning off the country's Internet connectivity to suppress news coming out of the country (for instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/world/asia/04info.html?ref=world) Doing some poking at it earlier today, here's what I found: The .MM top level domain has disappeared. It's served by three name servers: ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: mm. 172800 IN NS NS-MM.RIPE.NET. mm. 172800 IN NS NS.NET.mm. mm. 172800 IN NS NS0.MPT.NET.mm. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: NS.NET.mm. 172800 IN A 202.153.125.17 NS0.MPT.NET.mm. 172800 IN A 203.81.64.20 NS-MM.RIPE.NET. 172800 IN A 193.0.12.151 ns0.mpt.net.mm is in Myanmar, part of the network of Myanma Post & Telecommunication. It's unreachable. ns.net.mm is in address space registered to Powerbase DataCenter Services (HK) Ltd. in Hong Kong. It's also unreachable, which makes it difficult to confirm whether its physical location matches its registered location. It may also be in Myanmar. ns-mm.ripe.net is in Amsterdam. It's reachable, but is responding to all queries with a SERVFAIL response. Presumably, this means it hasn't been able to get updates from a master server for the .MM domain for long enough that its data has expired. Looking at the rest of Myanmar's connectivity to the outside world, Myanma Post & Telecommunication has two IP address blocks registered to it: 203.81.64.0/19 and 203.81.160.0/20. Both of those blocks were in the global Internet routing table on September 27, but but have not been since September 28 (according to daily snapshots of route-views data). It's pretty safe to say that Myanma Post & Telecommunication has completely turned off its connection to the outside world. This is no doubt following the example set by the King of Nepal during the coup there a couple years ago. The New York Times story says there are two ISPs in Myanmar. Myanma Post & Telecommunication is the only one with IP addresses registered to a mailing address within the country, so I'm not sure who the other one is, or what its status is. -Steve

4 4

Re: DDoS Question
by Paul Ferguson 03 Oct '07

03 Oct '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Hex Star" <hexstar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This problem is easily solved by simply rejecting mail sent by servers on > dynamic IP ranges... Great. I guess we can all go home now. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFG/IHXq1pz9mNUZTMRAveDAKD+NuO5KxZBod2tFqh2C6Y97V/eDQCbBwiN wCTDJbwN4XSxd0xdxpq7pig= =dKvk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

4 3

Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 03 Oct '07

03 Oct '07

On 2-okt-2007, at 23:52, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> But proxying can be that 80% solution and tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 >> can be a 100% solution so we don't have to raise NAT-PT from the >> dead. > Not until there's a protocol for autoconfiguring an HTTP proxy, and a > protocol for autoconfiguring an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel. If only there were a group of engineers tasked to write internet standards like this...

1 0

WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
by Scott Weeks 02 Oct '07

02 Oct '07

From: David Conrad: <snip> : Older routers will indeed fall over, as they are going to : fall over when we go over 240K routes, so folks will upgrade. I see we're pretty close to that: www.cidr-report.org/as2.0 Date Prefixes 03-10-07 239049 scott

1 0

Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
by Brandon Butterworth 02 Oct '07

02 Oct '07

> > End-to-end-ness is and has been "busted" in the corporate world AFAICT > > for a number of years. IPv6 "people" seem to think that simply > > providing > > globally unique addressing to all endpoints will remove NAT and all > > associated trouble. Guess what - it probably won't. > > If you don't want end-to-end, be a man (or woman) and use a proxy. Been doing that for a long time for v4, only a few protocols have been a problem where they've deliberately ignored this requirement to force the only end-to-end shall exist dogma. They die off or get worked around Real world is both exist and have their uses > Don't tell the applications they they are connected to the rest of > the world and then pull the rug from under them. This works in IPv4 > today but don't expect this to carry over to IPv6. And people wonder why v6 is going nowhere. Whilst I'm happy with proxy rather than fudging bits others want to fudge. > At least not without a long, bloody fight. I don't think they'll fight they'll say stuff v6 as it doesn't work. If v6 is to take over people will have to be a bit more flexible brandon

1 0

Rudimentary IPv6 Progress Report Page
by Mike Leber 02 Oct '07

02 Oct '07

I've been messing around with parsing MRT format IPv6 BGP tables and saw Randy's posts about deployment progress (or lack thereof), so I threw together this site: http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi It gives a rough estimate of the percentage of: * Networks that run IPv6 (currently 3%). * IPv6 reverse DNS servers that are reachable via IPv6 (currently 31.6%, believe it or not, most are only reachable via IPv4). If you have IPv6 reverse DNS servers, do they have an AAAA record for themselves? * ISPs on the ipv6tf.org ISP list with IPv6 websites (currently 32.2%). (I'll be the first to admit that Hurricane has a bunch of sites that need to be fixed to work with IPv6, we just added an AAAA record for bgp.he.net before posting this.) * Alexa 500 websites that are IPv6 enabled (currently 0%). The site is a work in progress. Feel free to send me suggestions. Mike. +----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+ | Mike Leber Wholesale IPv4 and IPv6 Transit 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation AS6939 | | mleber(a)he.net http://he.net | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
by Randy Bush 02 Oct '07

02 Oct '07

>> and that is not what happened last time, so why should it happen >> this time? > In fact, it's reasonable to assume that we will again filter > prefixes. i agree but fear that it will be harder to find the filter algorithms this time. > Hopefully, the ISP that is forced into this position will have the > insight to accept cash in exchange for filter exceptions. This will > be the start of the market place for routing table slots. last time, it was not offers of payment which caused the removal of phyltres, but the whining at the filterers' s&m folk. "we're very important and your customers will not be able to reach us. and we'll tell our mommy and all our friends that you're mean and nasty." randy

1 0

Re: Creating demand for IPv6
by William Herrin 02 Oct '07

02 Oct '07

On 10/2/07, John Curran <jcurran(a)mail.com> wrote: > >At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT, > >eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative > >demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up. > > #1 has been partially mitigated by NAT, and perhaps only temporarily. > > The last chapter of that book is yet to be written. John, I hated NAT when back when it was called "circuit level proxying," and I still do. Give me a packet filter any day. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that a huge number of installations have NAT dead center in their network security policies. Asking them to deploy IPv6 without NAT is asking them to refactor long held security policies as a -prerequisite- to using IPv6. And without IPv6 PI for all, asking them to give up NAT is also asking them to give up the best tool they have to mitigate the cost of changing ISPs. Both of those so they can spend lots of time and money deploying a protocol which offers them what exactly? I hope you see the problem here. On 10/2/07, Seth Mattinen <sethm(a)rollernet.us> wrote: > Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500 for end-user > allocations. Seth, You still pay the up-front but you pay only one annual fee. For an end user (i.e. PI space) that would have been $100 anyway. Where it makes a difference is for service providers: they pay a lot more than $100/yr but won't pay any more for the IPv6 addresses. Given that the SOHO and hobbyist users don't qualify for IPv6 PI addresses, the fact that its difficult for them to afford those addresses is moot. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin(a)dirtside.com bill(a)herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

1 0

RE: Creating demand for IPv6
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 02 Oct '07

02 Oct '07

> What I hope for in the near future is a consortium of > small-to-very-small providers together in one place hashing > out IPv6 addressing plans that make sense and are scalable > for our far-less-than academic size networks, right down to > even just a simple flat network. Yes, and I was hoping that ARIN's wiki pages here http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans might be the venue for that discussion since a wiki is better for developing a collaborative document than a mailing list. > Also, it does not help that I am the only person in our > organization that knows anything about IPv6, hence I have > nobody internally I can actually throw ideas at. I think that this is part of the reason why ARIN started the GetIPv6 wiki site. --Michael Dillon

1 0

OT: Need connectivity between St. Louis and NYC.
by sf＠lists.esoteric.ca 01 Oct '07

01 Oct '07

Hi all, Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm in a jam. I need two 10mbps connections based in St. Louis for the following sites: 1. 900 Walnut - 10mbps backhauled to 32 Avenue of the America's, NYC. 2. Chesterfield, MO to 900 Walnut St. Louis. Please ping me off list for more details and clarification. -- Stephen.

1 0