- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: [afnog] ARIN to allocate from 74/8 & 75/8
by Hannigan, Martin 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

> > > i.e. is there a pingable address in each, as has been > > discussed here just a few times? > > ping is ok, but routing table entry existence seems better. ping can > fail for lots of reasons and what we're really testing is routing, not > icmp end-to-end, right? There's a difference between reachability and routability. The lack of a routing table entry indicates a different problem which implicates routing and reachability problems. I don't agree that reachability is implied with routability. > if it's useful, i'd be happy to report what percentage of my peers > have/don't have routes to these prefixes. I'd be interested. Best, -M<

1 0

Re: [afnog] ARIN to allocate from 74/8 & 75/8
by Todd Underwood 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

> > > route-views and ris provide pretty good views of route propagation. > > > > > > but, as you seem to understand, that's only half the story. luckily, > > > the other, more useful, half is easily testable if arin/cymru would > > > just follow the long-discussed path. yep, that's clear. routing and firewalling may be orthogonal. obviously, without routing there is no forwarding and *many* people filtered announcements within 69/8. i acknowledge that many people also accepted the route and filtered traffic. my point was (as should have been clear) that the right place to *start* is routing. the other point i was making, about which i should have been clearer, is that willy-nilly pinging from random places won't really help much, as is probably obvious. it can identify gross unreachability problems but it cannot give a clear picture of unreachability across all of routed space (unless your willy-nilly sample happens to evenly cover all of routed address space--a neat trick!). an announcement to some mailing list asking whoever happens to be a member (and paying attention, with free time on her hands) to ping some addresses (or http or whtever) will also not give a complete picture. this has probably already been thought-out, but outbound reachability testing *from* the address block to a representative spread of addressing makes much more sense and would be much more indicative of forwarding (versus routing) problems, and would do so with some method and statistical reliability. presumably that is coming and just hasn't been discussed or carried out yet. for what it's worth, these three /20s appear to have no systematic unreachability problems across renesys's peerset. the first announcement we saw were quite some time ago: 22:37:43 UTC 22 Aug 2005 with paths ending 174 23028 36666 all three /20s showed up for *one* peer with a path that looked like that for almost 5 days while 23028 worked on allowing their upstreams to accept the announcement (reasonable speculation, not observed fact). 3561 starts accepting the announcements on 05:47 UTC 27 Aug 2005. a couple of other major networks on the 30th, and 31st August. lots of people follow suit the 2nd november, and then slow propagation throughout renesys's peerset. the most recent peer of renesys's peers to finally accept those /20s did so on at 00:08 UTC 21 Sep 2005 (today or tomorrow, depending on where and when you read this). i'm guessing that routeviews and ripe ris data have similar findings, although i have not checked them (left as an exercise to the reader? :-) i'd be happy to provide more detail if it seems useful. t. -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood director of operations & security renesys - interdomain intelligence todd(a)renesys.com www.renesys.com

6 9

ARIN to allocate from 74/8 & 75/8
by Leslie Nobile 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

Apologies for duplicate messages. ARIN will begin allocating IP address space from 74.0.0.0 /8 and 75.0.0.0 /8 within the next 2 weeks. ARIN was issued 74 /8, 75 /8, and 76 /8 by the IANA on June 17, 2005. Connectivity testing is currently being done by Team Cymru on the following three /20s (one from each /8). All of these test allocations originate with AS36666. 74.63.0.0/20 75.127.0.0/20 76.191.0.0/20 This is a reminder message that you may need to adjust any filters you have in place for these three blocks accordingly. For informational purposes, a list of ARIN's currently administered IP blocks can be found at: http://www.arin.net/reference/ip_blocks.html#ipv4 Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

7 7

Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

Cool. That kind of goes hand-in-hand with Vint's Galactic Internet theme. :-) - ferg -- ops.lists(a)gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: For once I'll do a Fergie http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/vintcerf.html Vint's now Chief Internet Evangelist at GOOG srs -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

38 70

Re: [afnog] ARIN to allocate from 74/8 & 75/8
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

May be? Is. Routing and forwarding _is_ a known policy issue in virtually all ASNs. - ferg -- Todd Underwood <todd(a)renesys.com> wrote: [...] routing and firewalling may be orthogonal. obviously, without routing there is no forwarding and *many* people filtered announcements within 69/8. i acknowledge that many people also accepted the route and filtered traffic. my point was (as should have been clear) that the right place to *start* is routing. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: router worms and International Infrastructure
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

If only there was a marked improvement in _this_ issue alone, it would be a vastly enormous step in the right direction... - ferg -- Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: [...] Keep in mind that the problem isn't the providers that already do altruistic things like BCP38, actually reading their abuse@ mailbox, and dealing with zombied users. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Checkpoint contact
by J. Oquendo 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

Anyone from Checkpoint on the list contact me offlist on a vulnerablity I found for your firewalls. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x97B43D89 "Just one more time for the sake of sanity tell me why explain the gravity that drove you to this..." Assemblage

1 0

Reminder: PC nomination deadline is this Friday
by Steve Feldman 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

A quick reminder that nominations for NANOG Program Committee memberships for the 2005-2007 terms are due in by this Friday, Setember 23. --------------------------- The NANOG Steering and Program Committees are soliciting nominations for eight positions on the Program Committee, with two-year terms starting after the October 2005 meeting. According to the charter[1]: "The Steering Committee will select the Program Committee with at least half of the members being chosen from among those current members willing to continue service, in order to provide continuity and preserve institutional memory of the programming process." Therefore, eight Program Committee slots will be filled by candidates from this pool of volunteers and current PC members. (The remaining eight slots have terms ending at the Fall, 2006 meeting.) ** Procedure ** To nominate yourself or someone else, please send mail to nominate(a)nanogpc.org with the following, no later than Friday, September 23: - Your name - Nominee's name (if not you) - Nominee's email address - Nominee's phone number - Reasons why you believe the nominee is qualified to serve on the Program Committee. A committee member will contact each of the nominees to verify interest and possibly request additional information. The list of confirmed nominees will be posted on September 26. Public comments will be invited and accepted for one week. The Steering Committee, in conjunction with the current Program Committee, will then select the eight people to fill these positions. The results will be announced on Monday, October 10. ** Eligibility ** The charter states: "To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Program Committee, an individual must have attended one NANOG meeting within the prior calendar year (12 months). " ** Duties ** Again quoting the charter: "The Program Committee is responsible for motivating/soliciting people to submit interesting talks, selecting the submissions which seem most appropriate (with some attention to presentation skills), and following up with speakers after acceptances to ensure that presentations are completed in time, with ample warning of potential problems with the presentation." "Each member of the Program Committee must review all presentations submitted for each meeting. The Chair may excuse a member from one meeting's review cycle due to extenuating circumstances, but if a member misses two meetings in a row, he or she may be removed from the committee." ** Length of term ** These positions are for two years, beginning after the Fall 2005 meeting, and ending with the Fall 2007 meeting. If you have any further questions, please post to the nanog-futures list, or contact the Steering Committee at steering(a)nanog.org. Randy Bush, SC Chair Steve Feldman, PC Chair [1] The full charter is available at http://www.nanog.org/charter.html

1 0

Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

It seems that the list doesn't like the attachments, anyway, the text show the results for the awstats. Hi, Sorry the late answer, traveling and overbooked ... My reply below, in-line. Regards, Jordi > De: Paul G <paul(a)rusko.us> > Responder a: <owner-nanog(a)merit.edu> > Fecha: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:54:25 -0400 > Para: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Asunto: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > To: <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:30 AM > Subject: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google > >> The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when >> the estimated number of hosts using 6to4 on Windows hosts was calculated > as >> 100.000.000 (extrapolated from measurements). This is not including hosts >> with have native support or use other transition mechanism such as >> configured tunnels, ISATAP, 6over4, or Teredo (behind NAT). > > this figure seems to be completely over the top. i would be interested in > seeing those 'measurements', an explanation of why they are statistically > representative and the method of extrapolation. perhaps it was a typo and, > instead of 'extrapolation', they really meant 'exaggeration'? that would > make more sense ;] The paper is here: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1052812.1052821 I also know the author, and I'm sure is not exaggerating. > >> We notice in our web servers (which are dual stack), incredible amounts of >> IPv6 traffic, increasing month by month. > > please define incredible using a non-subjective measurement system - > absolute counts and percentages of total traffic will do. as stated above, i > would likewise be interested in knowing how representative your traffic is > of general internet usage. as an example, i would expect web servers for an > incredibly popular site discussing v6 to have a disproportionate amount of > v6 traffic. Just look at the attached stats from this year in one of our web sites. Just one, and not the one which has the bigger ratio of IPv6 vs. IPv4 traffic. Is not an IPv6 site, just one of our customers. Can't say how much representative is vs. Internet traffic, but for me is enough. The file total.tiff includes ALL the traffic to the server (IPv4 and IPv6), while the other one (ipv6_only) is just IPv6 traffic. If you compare what is only IPv4 (total-IPv6) vs. IPv6, we have: IPv4 IPv6 % Users 118.41 GB 10.38 GB 8.77 Robots 253.65 GB 2.64 GB 1.04 Conclusion: The users traffic is rising. No robots support IPv6 today (probably this could change with people like Google and others doing IPv6). Different conclusions can be extracted looking at the number of visitors, visits, pages, hits, etc. Is clear, that this depends on the user profile, may be even the region ? In some regions the awareness has been much stronger (and probably successful) and more users turn on IPv6 in their clients. > >> Do you want to guess what will happen with Vista, which comes with IPv6 >> enabled by default ? > > i don't like guessing, but if i were pressed, drunk or otherwise > intoxicated, i'd say default support in client software is not the single > bottleneck - being able to purchase v6 transit and have your v6 work as well > as your v4 is another one that you can't really get around. i'm not up to > date on these things, has someone figured out how we're multihoming with v6 > yet and, more importantly, got vendors to agree on and implement it? > I disagree here. If the clients have IPv6 support, even if tunneled, which is enabled most of the time automatically (6to4, Teredo, others), the traffic is already increasing specially peer to peer. Of course, the quality is not so good as having native support, but some times it works much better that having to trouble with NAT boxes and so on. > -p > > --- > paul galynin > ************************************ 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.

2 2

Re: Google seeks GoogleNet bids?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

It may have something to do with the possibility that GoogleNet will need an infrastructure to tie together it's WiFi offering: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR200509200… - ferg -- Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: > I'm kind of surprised that I hadn't seem mention of it > here before now, but Om Malik points out in his blog that > Google is reviewing bids for it's natioal DWDM network: > > http://gigaom.com/2005/09/19/google-asks-for-googlenet-bids/ There seems to be a trend whereby anyone who can aggregate sufficient traffic to warrant their own IP network is doing so and offloading the so-called public Internet. In the case of Google it is reminiscent of the way the television networks aggregated broadcast content way back in the 60's. Ten years ago, the idea that there could be a public Internet which anyone could use for any purpose was rather new. Is this concept now on the decline? --Michael Dillon -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1