- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)
by Kuhtz, Christian 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

> From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@isc.org] > On 2005-07-07, at 10:10, Kuhtz, Christian wrote: > > > Anyone here care to share operator perspectives shim6 and the > > like? Do > > we actually have anything that anyone considers workable (not whether > > somebody can make it happen, but viable in a commercial > > environment) for > > mh? > > There is no operational or implementation experience with shim6 at > this time, that I know of (the technical specifications for shim6 are > currently incomplete). The shim6 working group has its first meeting > in August in Paris, after which the goal is to progress quickly to a > set of specifications which can be implemented. > > As an easy-to-read overview of the shim6 approach, the following > rough draft may be useful: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-arch-00.txt > Thanks, I'm fully aware of where shim6 is right now. I'm asking if anyone feels this is headed anywhere useful or if we got anything else we can use to facilitate mh. To me, this is still a glaring hole as it has been for years now and nobody seems to be making any fundamental progress here. Partially probably because the deck seems to be fundamentally stacked against mh, which doesn't appear to have been a design criteria in the first place. Thanks, Christian The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163

4 3

RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Kuhtz, Christian 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

> > Compare with SSL (works out-of-the-box in 99.999% cases, > > and allows both, full and hard security with root certificates etc, or > > simple security based on _ok, I trust you first time, then we can > > work_. > > If I'm on the same shared medium as you I can kill your SSL session > with one packet. Only if shared medium = vanilla CSMA/CD Ethernet or the like. Just because 'transport' is shared, doesn't mean you as the consumer of information carried by the network have visibility. ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." 118

2 1

RE: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)
by Kuhtz, Christian 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

> I've been poking around with end-host / end-network multihoming at the > transport and application layers. See, e.g., MONET, a multi-homed Web > proxy designed to achieve high availability: > > http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/ron/ronweb/ > > In general, this kind of end-host informed multihoming has a lot of > potential for improving availability and performance (because the > end-points actually see what they're getting), but at the cost of some > extra implementation complexity. The shim6 mechanism (in the general > sense, not speaking to the specifics of shim6 negotiation, etc.), when > augmented with some end-host smarts, could be a nice way to do end-host > based multihoming in the ipv6 context. But, isn't that just a host based approach in the end and not a solution for entire networks? And if it isn't for entire networks, why do I need any to any connectivity anyway? I know, there's nothing that prevents it (or any schema like it, including shim6) from being network to network, but, good grief, what a huge amount of overhead to design around a requirements flaw. This sort of Moebius strip logic that's used to explain/solve the problem which has been created is fun to watch, but really just sucks in the end. One could argue, however, that we don't need multihoming, we all need to pour money into CDNs for things we really care about and lets somebody else do the worrying. . And it all seems like such a hack. Hurray, network based services are back. The PSTN is dead, long live the PSTN. Argh. Thanks, Christian The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163

1 0

RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
by Kuhtz, Christian 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

> we're off on the usual strange tangents. next will be whether > it is ethical to walk in your neighbor's open house if they're > running ipv6:-). Why of course it is. Afterall, anyone should be able to engage in any (group hug|rape) at any time of their chosing with anyone else. And if you don't lock your door, barricade it, build a moat, with automatic machine gun fire etc, well, then it's your fault that it happened to you.. isn't it. Afterall, you dressed for the part by showing up with your own 128-bit ball and chain. Except for the odd case where hugs are actually being passed out. Oh, sorry, was that too cynical? > ipv4 has some problems. the world has hacked around the major > ones with things such as [holding nose] nat. the ivtf came up > with a technically weak second system syndrome patch which has > yet to show enough sizzle to sell against the hacks to ipv4. > so the ivtf, a decade out, is trying to hack to make it work. > a shim on top of second system syndrome. i am not holding my > my breath. Ditto. > market physics will say whether scaling issues with nat et al. > are sufficiently obnoxious to cause ipv6 to become sufficiently > attractive; no amount of conjecturbation <tm> here will change > that. if it becomes enabling and profitable, then folk will > deploy and move. if not, they won't. life is simple. It is possible that outside NA deployment volume may change NA deployment habits. We're already not in the driver seat with several networking technologies as we previously were. Plain old economics. A 'maybe'. The real question is if and how operators should prepare for their deployments. Some of us run a bit more than a mom and pop shop and when massive infrastructures are being revamp where it would be nice if there was a clear direction where to place bets. Short of saying "hey, it's all layer 2, why do I care." I guess I could always go pay a consultant for a "non answer". ;-) Thanks, Christian The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163

1 0

ICANN Posts New gTLD Questions Paper
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

..and I've hit my post limit for the day. :-) http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-06jul05.htm - ferg -- "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

Cisco hires FCC's Pepper
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Not related to operational issues (or is it?), but there;s a story in this morning's Advanced Ip Pipeline about Cisco hiring ormer FCC staffer Robert Pepper: [snip] With a title of senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, Pepper will be working under Laura Ipsen, Cisco's vice president of worldwide government affairs. Pepper said his role will be similar to the one he performed at the FCC -- mainly, educating policymakers about new technologies and their potential impact on economic growth. "It'll be the same kind of education I helped bring to the chairmen [of the FCC]," Pepper said. "I'll help people look at the cool new things, and try to understand what are the [policy] implications." [snip] http://www.advancedippipeline.com/165700366 I just thought that bit if news was very interesting. - ferg -- "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

mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)
by Kuhtz, Christian 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Anyone here care to share operator perspectives shim6 and the like? Do we actually have anything that anyone considers workable (not whether somebody can make it happen, but viable in a commercial environment) for mh? The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163

2 1

DNS .US outage
by Church, Chuck 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Anyone else having issues with .US right now (~12AM EST)? NSlookup, etc show various .us destinations as unknown domains... Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation Team 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Home office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 703-819-3495 cchurch(a)netcogov.com PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D

4 3

RE: DNS .US outage
by Church, Chuck 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Thanks for your help, guys. Didn't know dig existed for windows. Several ISPs (charter.net, alter.net) are choking on .us queries right now, but AT&T's name server is working ok for me. Here's one failing on .us, but .com works fine: C:\temp\dnstools>dig @24.197.96.16 com NS ; <<>> DiG 9.3.1 <<>> @24.197.96.16 com NS ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 1940 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;com. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: com. 172800 IN NS d.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS e.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS f.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS h.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS j.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS l.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS m.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS a.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS b.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS c.gtld-servers.net. ;; Query time: 4046 msec ;; SERVER: 24.197.96.16#53(24.197.96.16) ;; WHEN: Thu Jul 07 08:20:35 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 245 C:\temp\dnstools>dig @24.197.96.16 us NS ; <<>> DiG 9.3.1 <<>> @24.197.96.16 us NS ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 1682 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;us. IN NS ;; Query time: 31 msec ;; SERVER: 24.197.96.16#53(24.197.96.16) ;; WHEN: Thu Jul 07 08:20:50 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 20 Is it possible that one of the authoritative servers for .us is unreachable/down at the moment, at least from name server 24.197.96.16's point of view? 198.6.1.2 gives similar results. Thanks again, Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Home office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 703-819-3495 cchurch(a)netcogov.com PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@unfix.org] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 4:10 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: Church, Chuck; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: DNS .US outage On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 19:19 -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > > Thanks. Didn't have any *NIX boxes laying around to 'dig' any deeper. > > i believe even windoze has dig at the command line, though i don't > know in what directory it lies. The web directory: http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/bind/bind9.php or the ftp directory: ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind/contrib/ntbind-9.3.1/BIND9.3.1.zip What is also very useful are the following two websites, so people can click around a bit and get nice pictures making everything crystalclear for them: DNSDoctor (which even supports IPv6 :) http://demo.dnsdoctor.org/ And of course DNS report: http://www.dnsreport.com/ Greets, Jeroen

3 2

Users don't fix their computers
by Sean Donelan 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Although many users have changed their online habits, they haven't necessarily fixed their machines, even as infected computers slow, often to a crawl. Twenty percent of users who had computer problems did not attempt a fix. Among those who did, 29 percent waited a month or longer. Two in five who tried to fix their machines did so on their own while others needed help from a friend, family member or a professional repair shop. In 20 percent of cases, the problem couldn't be fixed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR200507060…

1 0