- Test - lists.nanog.org

Cisco Cache Engine Log Applications?
by Doiron, Brian (ITD) 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

Hello, Does anyone have any experience or suggestions on Cisco Cache Log Analyzing/Reporting tools? I've downloaded Sawmill which isn't too bad but I would like to evaluate a couple more. Windows and Open Source apps are possible candidates. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brian

1 0

IPv6 and BGP
by Mike Hyde 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

On the subject of ipv6, is there currently any way to multi-home with IPv6 yet?

4 3

OT: carpool/train from OC to NANOG 35?
by matthew zeier 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Anyone interested in ride-sharing from Orange County (Irvine area) to LA? I'm not looking forward to a solo drive :( Taking the train from Irvine looks like a lost cause, unless I'm unaware of some convienent public transportation method.

1 0

RE: SONET MUX
by Wallace Keith 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Nortel OM3400 (up to OC 12) or 3500 (if you need more than an OC12) series work great and are widely deployed in just about every CO I've ever been in. We use them and have had no issues. -Keith -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Erik Sundberg Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:13 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: SONET MUX Hello, We are looking for a OC3 -> 3xDS3 MUX. (If it can grow up to a OC12 -> 12xDS3 thats a plus) Sonet side will be 1+1 protected I have looked at the following equipment is there any other sonet muxes that i should look at? Adtran Opti-3 Adtran OPTI-6100 Cisco ONS 15310, 15327 Fujitsu Flashwave 4010, 4100, 4300 Fujitsu FLM 150 Does anybody have and horror stories about the products that i have listed, recommendations, other products??? Thanks Erik

1 0

SONET MUX
by Erik Sundberg 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Hello, We are looking for a OC3 -> 3xDS3 MUX. (If it can grow up to a OC12 -> 12xDS3 thats a plus) Sonet side will be 1+1 protected I have looked at the following equipment is there any other sonet muxes that i should look at? Adtran Opti-3 Adtran OPTI-6100 Cisco ONS 15310, 15327 Fujitsu Flashwave 4010, 4100, 4300 Fujitsu FLM 150 Does anybody have and horror stories about the products that i have listed, recommendations, other products??? Thanks Erik

1 0

Re: IPv6 news
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

No, I actually meant IP version (IP as a protocol), but even if we pay for the IP address (also in Spain, 12 Euros per month for a single static IPv4 address), we pay it because the services associated to it, not the IP address itself, right ? Regards, Jordi > De: "Edward W. Ray" <eray(a)netsecdesign.com> > Organización: NetSec Design & Consulting, Inc. > Responder a: <eray(a)netsecdesign.com> > Fecha: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:45:43 -0700 > Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Asunto: RE: IPv6 news > > "Consumers don't pay for IP at all" > > If you are referring to IP addresses, I pay $50/month for my Class C space, > which I use from home to run my (small) company servers. > > If you want a static IP from any ISP, they usually charge for it. > > > > Edward W. Ray > CISSP, MCSE 2003+Security, P.E., SANS GCIA Gold, SANS GCIH Gold > President > NetSec Design & Consulting > (714) 997-9226 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:21 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: IPv6 news > > > I don't think people upgrade anymore to 98, but at least to XP (if they do > now, at the end of next year will be doing to Vista). > > I don't think either all the corporations take so long as 2 years to > upgrade. > > Of course, I don't have concrete logs to show on anything of this, but is > not marketing just personal view based on experience with customers ;-) By > the way, if we start requiring logs for any comment that we do in this list, > then it may happen that the list is not so useful. > > I disagree also that IPv6 is painful for the consumer, on the other way > around. Today they need to look into manuals for configuring STBs and other > devices. Most of the time this cost a lot of troubleshooting and support to > vendors and ISPs, which I know is not worth for even if charged to the > customer. > > Consumers don't pay for IP at all, but for having things easier (not reading > manuals, not needing to configure tech stuff), having more services and > apps. Having more services and apps running into our networks will mean more > revenue, depending on your business model (such as more free and PAY TV > channels in a sat dish), and possibly because the increase in BW demand. > > I also see much more customers interest in IPv6 outside of NA, but may be my > wrong perception, and not talking about academia. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> De: Sean Figgins <sean(a)labrats.us> >> Responder a: <owner-nanog(a)merit.edu> >> Fecha: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:56:27 -0600 (MDT) >> Para: "nanog(a)merit.edu" <nanog(a)merit.edu> >> Asunto: Re: IPv6 news >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> >>> And in 6-12 months the new Vista will start replacing XP, >> >> Will start replacing XP on new consumer-grade computers. Corporations >> will take another 2-4 years to switch, and other people might have >> upgraded to windows 98 from 3.11 by then. >> >> I think that we need to buy as much time as possible for IP, as V6 is >> going to be extremely painful for the consumer, and thus the consumer >> is not going to want to adopt it. >> >> Our jobs, as network designers and operators will be make it seemless >> to the consumer without forcing them to shell out a thousand or more >> dollars on new Windows software, and the hardware that will be >> required to run it on. If that is devising some sort of NAT for the >> large percentage of customers that don't care, then that may be the > direction we need to take. >> >> I have thought for a long time that which v6 is a worthy academic >> persuit, customers are hardly interested in it when what they have now > works. >> >> -Sean > > > > > ************************************ > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Information available at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > ************************************ The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

[Opinion] Re: IPv6 news
by James R. Cutler 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

It is short-sighted to insist that currently separate IP networks will never interoperate directly as part of the "BIG I" Internet. Given the flux in corporate structures, functions, and ownership, anyone with at least an ounce of forward vision will design, construct and operate every network using globally unique IP addressing. This makes the boundary condition changes less traumatic, reduces renumbering expenses, and frees the network operators (NANOG-on-topic!) to manage their ever changing network in an efficient and cost-effective manner. IPv6 is an obvious source of sufficient IP addresses to meet needs for the next decade or two. If there are certain problems with IPv6 allocations now, please offer constructive suggestions regarding corrections and improvements. NANOG may be a good forum for eventual input to ARIN, et alia. Regards. Cutler >From: Crist Clark <crist.clark(a)globalstar.com> >Subject: Re: IPv6 news >To: Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com ><snip/> >Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: ><snip/> >>IP addresses were established as part of the development >>of a networking protocol called the Internet Protocol, >>or IP for short. This protocol was designed to allow >>many independent networks to interconnect or internetwork >>and exchange traffic. In order for such internetworks >>to work they need to be allocated unique IP addresses. >>The prerequisite for receiving globally unique IP >>addresses is that you have to be using IP technology >>and have a need to internetwork with other networks. >>There are several such IP internetworks that are >>entirely separate from the public (big I) Internet. >>That's where the other addresses are used and their >>usage is growing at about the same rate as Internet >>usage is growing. > >While I do not necessarily disagree with this point of view (as I work >for a company who uses allocated space in such a manner), others may >argue that addresses that are assigned through the Internet Assigned >Numbers Authority (that's Internet with the "I") are meant for Internet, >with an "I," use. As it says at the top of their web page, "Dedicated >to preserving the central coordinating functions of the global Internet >for the public good." Note, "global Internet." > >ObOnSubject: Of course, getting PI space for non-global Internet use >is one of the big problems with current IPv6 allocation policy that >make it difficult to start building private IPv6 networks now. >-- >Crist J. Clark crist.clark(a)globalstar.com >Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387 - James R. Cutler james.cutler(a)consultant.com

1 0

RE: IPv6 news
by Church, Chuck 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

> If that is devising some sort of NAT for the large percentage of >customers that don't care, then that may be the direction we need to take. Doesn't NAT-PT do just this? If I'm an ISP with a million customers, if I can use NAT-PT along with a IPV4 block of say /13, that seems like a win. V4-mapped and V4-Compatible V6 addresses were created for this purpose, weren't they? Chuck

1 0

Re: IPv6 news
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Hi Geoff, Sorry, I think replied the wrong email, I was referring to the comment about the reclaim of unused space, I'm sure was in the last APNIC, but I'm starting to doubt if you said it or somebody else ... One more comment on this thread is regarding the usage of private addresses for managing networks, such as cable modems. I've understood that at least one big ISP in Japan and another in US run into troubles because net 10/8 become short for them. At least the Japanese one got a public /8 to renumber the network, and I guess this will start to happen more often. Regards, Jordi > De: Geoff Huston <cide-report(a)potaroo.net> > Responder a: <cide-report(a)potaroo.net> > Fecha: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:52:48 +1000 > Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, "nanog(a)merit.edu" <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Asunto: Re: IPv6 news > > Jordi, > > I don't think I've ever said how long a time IPv4 trading would continue > to undertake a viable form of distribution following the exhaustion of the > unallocated IP number pool. Yes I am guilty of some speculation about > what happens post unallocated exhaustion, and the latest set of > speculative questions was at this week's RIPE 51 meeting > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presentations/pdf/ripe51-ipv4-lif… > ime-rev.pdf) > > (Look at the end of the presentation for some speculative thoughts > on this topic.) > > regards, > > Geoff > > At 09:41 AM 13/10/2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> I don't think so ... I recall Geoff Huston in the last APNIC indicated that >> this kind of actions are only going to provide a few additional time. >> >> I think the BoF should be more in the direction of "why not doing already >> IPv6 (from the perspective of the ISPs) ?". >> >> Delaying the inevitable don't seems the best approach to me, instead, >> preparing everything ahead of time, reduce the cost, which in any case is >> not significant. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> >> >> >>> De: Daniel Golding <dgolding(a)burtongroup.com> >>> Responder a: <owner-nanog(a)merit.edu> >>> Fecha: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:20:31 -0400 >>> Para: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com>, "Steven M. Bellovin" >> <smb(a)cs.columbia.edu> >>> CC: <nanog(a)nanog.org> >>> Conversación: IPv6 news >>> Asunto: Re: IPv6 news >>> >>> >>> On 10/12/05 3:13 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will >>>> seriously come into play. >>> >>> Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes. >>> Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG? >>> >>> This could extend the lifetime of the IPv4 space significantly by promoting >>> efficient use through economic incentives, provide positive economic >>> incentives to move to v6 when needed, and eliminate the grey market. >>> >>> Proper controls could be put into place to prevent de-aggregation through >>> utilization of the RIRs as clearing houses. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> randy >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ************************************ >> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org >> >> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit >> Information available at: >> http://www.ipv6-es.com >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or >> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the >> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware >> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this >> information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > ************************************ The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

Fwd: The Root has got an A record
by Peter Dambier 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

See with your own eyes: ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @a.public-root.net ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18588 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 15, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 172800 IN SOA a.public-root.net. hostmaster.public-root.net.\ 2005101006 43200 3600 1209600 14400 . 172800 IN A 57.67.193.188 . 172800 IN NS k.public-root.net. . ... . 172800 IN NS j.public-root.net. ;; Query time: 81 msec ;; SERVER: 205.189.71.2#53(a.public-root.net) ;; WHEN: Mon Oct 10 16:01:11 2005 -------- Original Message -------- Return-Path: <pr-plan-bounces(a)LAIR.LIONPOST.NET> X-Flags: 0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to peter(a)peter-dambier.de Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2005 13:07:54 -0000 Received: from LAIR.LIONPOST.NET (EHLO LAIR.LIONPOST.NET) [199.5.157.32] by mx0.gmx.net (mx072) with SMTP; 10 Oct 2005 15:07:54 +0200 Received: from list.public-root.com ([199.5.157.32]) by LAIR.LIONPOST.NET with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EOx3o-0000ny-HQ for peter(a)peter-dambier.de; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:47:20 -0400 Received: from [206.254.45.93] (helo=ruby.cynikal.net ident=qmremote) by LAIR.LIONPOST.NET with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EOx3n-0000nt-5J for pr-plan(a)lair.lionpost.net; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:47:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 9881 invoked by uid 1018); 10 Oct 2005 13:10:36 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs(a)127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Oct 2005 13:10:36 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:10:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Baptista <baptista(a)cynikal.net> To: pr-plan(a)lair.lionpost.net Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0510100907100.9809(a)ruby.cynikal.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Pr-plan] BAD NEWS Re: IASON Root Domain Observatory (fwd) X-BeenThere: pr-plan(a)LAIR.LIONPOST.NET X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: <pr-plan.LAIR.LIONPOST.NET> List-Unsubscribe: <http://LAIR.LIONPOST.NET/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan>, <mailto:pr-plan-request@LAIR.LIONPOST.NET?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://LAIR.LIONPOST.NET/pipermail/pr-plan> List-Post: <mailto:pr-plan@LAIR.LIONPOST.NET> List-Help: <mailto:pr-plan-request@LAIR.LIONPOST.NET?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://LAIR.LIONPOST.NET/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan>, <mailto:pr-plan-request@LAIR.LIONPOST.NET?subject=subscribe> Sender: pr-plan-bounces(a)LAIR.LIONPOST.NET Errors-To: pr-plan-bounces(a)LAIR.LIONPOST.NET X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found) X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam) X-GMX-UID: /QI4Y8R1eSEkOtTJ43QhaXN1IGRvb4Di Folks - got some bad news. The Public-Root has aquired an A record - yup thats right - an A record. Which see below. Have tried to contact Paul Scheepers - our absent minded root operator - who now hovers very close to criminal conspiracy - to get him to fix this mistake. Noone is at home at the inn. Not good. See appened message to Peter Dambier and our public-root associates. I have no idea how a root will respond with an A record in it. Should be interesting - but have no doubt a few things out in the wild have been broken. regards joe ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:03:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Baptista <baptista(a)cynikal.net> To: Peter Dambier <peter(a)echnaton.serveftp.com> Cc: martijnburger(a)dataweb.nl, cytrax(a)cyberbunker.com, marty.vanveluw(a)nbaserv.com Subject: Re: IASON Root Domain Observatory Report this to NANOG and the IETF. Make sure you send them a copy of my response and the headers of this message. I am holding UNIDT personally responsible for this technical nightmare. regards joe On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: > Kewl, '.' has got an A record :) > > ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> @a.public-root.net . axfr > ;; global options: printcmd > . 172800 IN SOA a.public-root.net. hostmaster.public-root.net. 2005100906 43200 3600 1209600 14400 > . 172800 IN A 57.67.193.188 > . 172800 IN NS a.public-root.net. Joe Baptista, Official Public-Root Representative and Lobbyist to the United States Congress and Senate / Tel: +1 (202) 517-1593 Public-Root Disclosure Documents: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ Public-Root Discussion Forum: http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan _______________________________________________ Pr-plan mailing list Pr-plan(a)LAIR.LIONPOST.NET http://LAIR.LIONPOST.NET/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: peter(a)peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason

9 11