- Test - lists.nanog.org

APNIC New IPv6 address block(s)
by John Tran 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Dear colleagues APNIC received the following IPv6 address blocks from IANA today and will be making allocations from this range in the near future. 2001:8000::/19 2001:A000::/20 This announcement is being made for the information of the Internet community, and so that network configurations such as routing filters may be updated as appropriate. For more information on the resources administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html For information on the minimum allocation sizes within address ranges administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html Kind regards Son ____________________________________________________________________ Resources Services Manager <Son(a)apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100 http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199 Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188 email: helpdesk(a)apnic.net Please send Internet Resource Requests to <hostmaster(a)apnic.net> _____________________________________________________________________ -- This is the SANOG (http://www.sanog.org/) mailing list.

1 0

RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6
by Joe Johnson 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

I'm sorry, North Korea is in the UN. My mistake. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Joe Johnson Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:25 PM To: Tony Li; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 <Snip> My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides for national providers and folks that care about optimal routing, but it's the only way that I can see that will allow the Internet to continue to operate over the long term. Tony </snip> What happens to non-member states? What happens to Taiwan, who has not been a part of the UN for decades? Does the island nation of Togo get a prefix, but not Taiwan. Also, what about North Korea? Only South Korea is a member state in the UN. Next thing you know, they'll be trading prefixes for kick-backs . . .

1 0

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Paul Vixie 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

> > It would have been nice to make sctp be the standard stream protocol > > for ipv6. yup. or at any rate, SOME kind of improvement in this area. > > For most nanog customers, there's still time. nope. > > Those places that have already seen significant ipv6 adoption may > > need to upgrade again. If we wait much longer, of course, the > > opportunity will be lost. that opportunity was lost when the preponderance of the iab and iesg was refilled by folks who didn't know or care why TUBA hadn't been selected. > > To argue that it's already too late, when ipv6 is a small fraction > > of all traffic and an infinitesmal fraction of future traffic is, > > imho, foolish. and yet it is. to declare that ipv6 will can have more than one flag day is to declare that there could be more flag days which would have what the law people call a "chilling effect". that can't be allowed to happen. this is why the decision to kill a6/dname was so evil. not that it was wrong, or made in a star chamber without consensus or transparency, but that it was so perfectly timed to be irreversable. it's "review-proof."

1 0

RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6
by Joe Johnson 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

<Snip> My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides for national providers and folks that care about optimal routing, but it's the only way that I can see that will allow the Internet to continue to operate over the long term. Tony </snip> What happens to non-member states? What happens to Taiwan, who has not been a part of the UN for decades? Does the island nation of Togo get a prefix, but not Taiwan. Also, what about North Korea? Only South Korea is a member state in the UN. Next thing you know, they'll be trading prefixes for kick-backs . . .

1 0

New IANA IPv6 allocation for APNIC (2001:8000::/23 - 2001:AE00::/23)
by Doug Barton 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated the following twenty-four (24) IPv6 /23s blocks to APNIC: 2001:8000::/23 APNIC 2001:8200::/23 APNIC 2001:8400::/23 APNIC 2001:8600::/23 APNIC 2001:8800::/23 APNIC 2001:8A00::/23 APNIC 2001:8C00::/23 APNIC 2001:8E00::/23 APNIC 2001:9000::/23 APNIC 2001:9200::/23 APNIC 2001:9400::/23 APNIC 2001:9600::/23 APNIC 2001:9800::/23 APNIC 2001:9A00::/23 APNIC 2001:9C00::/23 APNIC 2001:9E00::/23 APNIC 2001:A000::/23 APNIC 2001:A200::/23 APNIC 2001:A400::/23 APNIC 2001:A600::/23 APNIC 2001:A800::/23 APNIC 2001:AA00::/23 APNIC 2001:AC00::/23 APNIC 2001:AE00::/23 APNIC For a full list of IANA IPv6 allocations please see: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments> - -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBq7nryIakK9Wy8PsRAkXKAKDt5e51TRqDOP04sSgvN76NyrIlWACg5hcV e+9tLEhXv99J5t9l9eY2kMg= =SODE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: "Make love, not spam"....
by Hannigan, Martin 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:28 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: "Make love, not spam".... > > > > > The BBC also has an article this morning about this: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4051553.stm > > - ferg > > -- "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg(a)netzero.net> wrote: > > Techdirt has an article this morning that discusses how > Lycos Europe is encouraging their users to run a screensaver > that constantly "pings servers suspected to be used by > spammers" and also suggests that "In other words, it's a > distributed denial of service attack against spammers by > Lycos." > > The Techdirt article referenced is on Heise Online: > > http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/53697 > > I'd be curious to hear what NANOG readers thoughts are on > this. > > Techdirt is located at http://www.techdirt.com/ > > - ferg It's a DDOS. The risk of collateral damage is high. I won't discuss the RBL aspect of it because it can't be legitimized past the first sentence. -M<

5 4

RE: "Make love, not spam"....
by Miller, Mark 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

Your argument seems to assume a T1 garage operation co-lo that is perpetually out to lunch. Provided Lycos delivers the restrictions on bandwidth they are stating, why would it exceed capacity? Come on, kids. If you can't deliver to begin with, don't sell it. I am not saying that the proposal is intrinsically right or wrong, I am saying it could have merit if just in waking up a brain-dead co-lo facility operator to deal with spamming clients. -mm -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Paul G Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:11 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: "Make love, not spam".... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Haagsman" <erik(a)we-dare.net> To: "Paul G" <paul(a)rusko.us> Cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: Re: "Make love, not spam".... > > I agree and I'm surprised you even mentioned the wordt justice...since > when is retaliating bad practices with more bad practises that are > hardly likely to take out the real target considered a good idea..? 'justice' was mentioned in the message i quoted. it appears i was not remiss - i got an email from a guy running a small town isp telling me, essentially, that: 1. if i get hit with cc fraud, it is my own darn fault for not asking every single $9.99/mo customer to fax me their retina scan. 2. incurring a humongous bandwidth bill instead of being out said $9.99 is adequate punishment for my 'stupidity' 3. he likes the kind of justice where a provider gets harmed instead of the abusive customer, because Good ISPs Recognize Bad Guys On Sight. i've got news for you: ... *Abbreviated*

2 1

Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
by Paul Vixie 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

i was waiting and watching and looking and hoping for this. now i have it. > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch(a)muada.com> > ... We have 128 bits, so we should make good use of them. One way to > do this is to make all subnets and 99% of end-user assignements the > same size. Yes, this wastes bits, but the bits are there anyway so not > wasting them really doesn't buy you anything at this point. this demonstrates the same unifying/universal error that fred was on about, which is that some people doing resource planning making assumptions about what the other people affected by those plans actually want or need. and it is the clearest statement i have yet seen of the part of Iljitsch's thinking that i flatly disagree with. the short version of my rebuttal is: "those are not your bits to waste." the longer version is what padlipsky said about "maps" and "territories" (or about "descriptive" and "prescriptive" design.) > > i life fred's reasoning. companies with size and qualifications > > like cisco's should qualify for an ASN and for PI space. all the > > world's not a home-DSL or home-cable or isp-colo network. routing > > shouldn't always follow addressing. we'll need to discover a > > workable equilibrium unless we want to encourage NAT in IPv6 the > > same way we (passively) encouraged it in IPv4. > > All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for > PI space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the > routing tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just > about anyone "should qualify", but ONLY if there is some form of > aggregation possible. PI in IPv6 without aggregation would be a > bigger mistake than all other IPv6 mistakes so far. first let me include owen delong's reply to this bit, in case he's in anybody's KILL file -- he really hit it on the head this time and deserves to be heard: | And v6 without PI for will not get widespread adoption. | | Further, ULA will become de facto PI without aggregation. Hence my | believe that ULA is a bad idea, and, my recommendation that we face | the reality that PI is an important thing (unless we want to replicate | the v4 NAT mess). As such, I'd much rather see us develop sane PI | policy than continue down the present road. second, let me add, "and it's not your routing table, either." to make ipv6 take off we'll either have to grind down the folks who don't want to be locked in (and have their downstreams locked in) to a single upstream; or we'll have to insert rapid renumbering into a design that makes no allowance for it; or we'll have to let PI happen in ipv6 as it has in ipv4 -- through careful equilibrium; or we'll have to let NAT happen in ipv4 as it has in ipv6. the delicious thing about those prescriptions is that there is no "we" and it's not up to "us". what will actually happen is something we can predict before, and describe after, but not actually control. i predict that a bunch of ivory tower propeller heads will block everything they think is impure and that the market will have to decide on "dual-stack forever with NAT on both stacks."

3 4

RE: "Make love, not spam"....
by Miller, Mark 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

Ah, but I said "poetic justice". Like for like. I am hearing DDoS over and over. As I understand it, the application will throttle to prevent Denial of access. It just causes additional GB to be used and paid for. Fraudulent CC use is an entirely different issue... -m -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Erik Haagsman Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:30 PM To: Paul G Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: "Make love, not spam".... I agree and I'm surprised you even mentioned the wordt justice...since when is retaliating bad practices with more bad practises that are hardly likely to take out the real target considered a good idea..? Erik Paul G wrote: > spammer buys hosting account, pays with fraudulent credit card, > spams,provider gets ddos'ed and ends up paying for all the bandwidth > because youcan't well charge some unsuspecting grandma in alabama for > it. i don't likethis kind of justice. > >--- >paul galynin > > > >

2 1

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Paul Vixie 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

> Instead of hacking the nice and working TCP we have now you should > move on to greener grass and use $xyzzy instead. It does what you > want, at least in the specification. I don't know how many > implementors have managed to code it properly. i remember hearing folks tell vj and mk that when they wanted to speed up tcp. only the value of $xyzzy changes with time; the flat-earth mentality of the enclosing community seems to be a constant. > You see? no, i think we're shouting past each other at this point, so let's stop.

1 0