- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Paul Vixie 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

> How much would it add to the pain of the v4-v6 transition, to just bite > the bullet and do tcp-sctp at the same time? I'd sure rather be a > network troubleshooter going through that than living with NAT forever. it's the delta between the finite and the infinite. sctp requires a flag day whereas nat can be deployed incrementally. sctp isn't going to happen, at least not on the scale that nat has happened or that ipv6 will happen.

1 0

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Brandon Butterworth 20 Nov '04

20 Nov '04

> > I've run into very few enterprises that know they'd even be allowed to > > join an IX, much less actually interested in doing so. Subject: Exchange Update - New Participant Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:49:59 -0800 Equinix would like to introduce the following peers to the GigE Exchange peering fabrics: - ASH: Walmart.com connected to the Ashburn GigE Exchange You may not have met them but they're out there > > They'd rather pay > > one or two companies to drop big, fat pipes into their datacenter and > > collect on SLAs when something goes wrong. We used to do that, we learned. > Very few, even in the Fortune > 100, have the staff to handle their own BGP configs and keep things > running smoothly. Humans cost more money than they'd probably save on > transit, and the money often comes out of different pockets anyways. Many CCIE(paper) end up in enterprises as they still have money and networks large enough to need engineers. I'm sure plenty of them are looking to keep the ISP section of their CV up to date by running the enterprises BGP. We also have enterprises doing BGP between each other on internal, non internet, networks Assumptions about what people should/will want to do are clouding engineering judgment and making things like IPV6 unworkable brandon

1 0

RE: Goofle/Sprint having problems?
by Vandy Hamidi 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

Yeah, a visual route just showed my trace going to AUS and then Singapore. Hmm... You think Google is going to be pissed when they find out their site was being routed to Asia? Heads will roll... (lawsuit?) -=Vandy=- -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of alex(a)pilosoft.com Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:01 PM Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Goofle/Sprint having problems? On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 alex(a)pilosoft.com wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Vandy Hamidi wrote: > > > My offices that use Sprint are having timeouts and major slowdowns to > > www.google.com > Looks like Akamai thinks you are in Singapore and points you to > singapore-located google instance..;) Correction...Seems that Singtel has leaked Google IPs to Reach and then to CWHKT. -alex

3 2

Goofle/Sprint having problems?
by Vandy Hamidi 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

My offices that use Sprint are having timeouts and major slowdowns to www.google.com Traceroute shows it going through reach.com and that is where the slowdown is occurring. See hop 11 below. Tracing route to www.google.akadns.net [216.239.57.103] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms XXXXX 2 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms XXXXX 3 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms sl-gw27-stk-4-4-TS5.sprintlink.net [144.228.107.81 4 5 ms 10 ms 16 ms sl-bb21-stk-9-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.4.245] 5 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms sl-bb24-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.181] 6 40 ms 12 ms 8 ms sl-bb21-sj-12-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.3.201] 7 9 ms 8 ms 9 ms sl-st21-sj-13-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.59] 8 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms sl-reach1-5-0.sprintlink.net [144.223.242.2] 9 9 ms 8 ms 9 ms 202.84.251.89 10 13 ms 23 ms 16 ms i-13-0.paix-core01.net.reach.com [202.84.143.249] 11 183 ms 185 ms 183 ms i-10-3.hhtstcbr01.net.reach.com [202.84.144.74] 12 163 ms 163 ms 164 ms i-1-2.iadv01.net.reach.com [202.84.144.102] 13 202 ms 182 ms * 134.159.126.178 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * 219 ms 202.83.192.49

3 3

Name resolution in the .MIL domain
by Scott McGrath 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

Several of our researchers have pointed out that sites in the .MIL TLD are unreachable. Did a nslookup and got a interesting result > server ns.mit.edu Default Server: NOC-CUBE.mit.edu Address: 18.18.2.25 Aliases: ns.mit.edu > www.army.mil Server: NOC-CUBE.mit.edu Address: 18.18.2.25 Aliases: ns.mit.edu *** NOC-CUBE.mit.edu can't find www.army.mil: No response from server > www.navy.mil Server: NOC-CUBE.mit.edu Address: 18.18.2.25 Aliases: ns.mit.edu *** NOC-CUBE.mit.edu can't find www.navy.mil: No response from server I know it's MIT's nameserver just wanted to be sure the problem was not on our end. Send Harvard/MIT jokes to me offlist Back to the subject at hand is anyone else seeing the same issue with the .MIL domain Thanks in advance - Scott

2 1

Heathrow scanner experiences?
by Paul Wouters 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

[ It is a bit off topic, but I am looking for people who have travelled through Heathrow lately with the new x-ray scanner, and nanog people are generally engaged in a lot of traveling ] I was just pointed out to this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/18/blunkett_xray_blank/ It says: "To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what air kerma rate has been used to assess radiation doses associated with the use of the Rapiscan Secure 1000 apparatus." David Blunkett's (yes, him again, sorry about that) response was: "The information sought is not in the public domain." "This would mean that a security scanner would have to deliver 2,500 scans of an individual annually at 0.1 ÂµSv per scan in order to reach the US administrative control level of 0.25 mSv. For an airport security scanner, even operating at a rather higher level, you'd probably have to be living in it to achieve that kind of level." I went through Heathrow a few weeks ago, and was luckilly selected as a winner and destined to test these new Rapiscan boxes. I was informed it was an X-ray scanner, but with a very low dosage, the equivalent of being in an airplane for 11 minutes. Ofcourse only later did I realise that if these shots take 0.5 seconds, I was getting a dose 2*11*60= 1330 times the dose of the backgorund radiation of being in a plane. I wouldn't be suprised if those 11 minutes were per shot either. But at the time, I was more curious then worried. The machine looked like a big wall. I needed to stand in front of it, without jacket, arms and legs spread, torso turned. Two shots were made with me turned in both positions. A third shot was made when I was standing straight, exactly like a criminal. Legs slightly spread, arms up. I then asked to the officer if they were storing these scans, and what they actualy showed. He then offered me a look behind the scene (and screen). A second officer was there, looking at a monitor that still showed my third shot. I saw myself from behind, 'naked'. I was quite suprised that this technology could actually render me naked. I could see where I have body hair and where not. From a technological point of view quite an achievement. (There was a second scanner, but I am not sure if those were run by women, and whether they only picked women or not) The officer further told me this was meant to scan for objects on the body, and that the images were not stored. They did not ask me for my passport, so I don't think this information is cross checked or stored. I also read on an earlier news article that the person seeing the monitor cannot see the person in real life, which is meant to 'reduce' the privacy invasion. The person seeing you 'naked' never sees the real you. I forgot about the scanner and walked into the secure shopping mall, and checked for books. About five minutes after the scan, while I was not even thinking about the scanner anymore, I suddenly felt very nauseous all over. I then felt a sharp pain in my lower right abdomen which dissipated in the next minute. The nausea passed as well. I am a bit worried, and I did Google around, but found no other people reporting the same. I did not go back to the scanner, since I couldn't reach the insecure area anymore. I wondered about the pain. AFAIK there are no vital organs on the right side. The liver, spleen and 'alvleesklier' (?) should be more to the left or lower. The only thing on the right side is the end of your intestines. That made me think that in fact they might have used a higher dose or a more targeted scan to check deeper into my body for hidden drugs or explosives or whatever. I'd love to hear from anyone else who has gone through this scanner and what their experience was. Paul

5 4

RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Hannigan, Martin 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Hannigan, Martin > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:34 PM > To: NANOG list > Subject: RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 12:41 PM > > To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Jeroen Massar > > Cc: NANOG list > > Subject: Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] > > > > > > > > > Now I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but having unaggregatable > > > globally routable address space just doesn't scale and > there are no > > > routing tricks that can make it scale, whatever you put in > > the IP version > > > bits, so learn to love renumbering. > > > > > This is patently false. If it were true, then I would have > > to renumber > > every time I changed telephone companies. I don't, so, > > obviously, there > > is some solution to this problem. Now I'm not saying that I > > necessarily > > want to accept the overhead and risks of SS7 to solve this, > but, there > > are, obviously, routing tricks that can be used. > > Tricks reduce reliability and create unecessary dependancies. > > LNP was a regulatory issue post implementation of V4 so a trick > was required. Correction: LNP was a regulatory issue post implementation of the Numbering Plan and was required. [ Sorry for the typo, second in as many days. Doh! ] > >

1 0

RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Hannigan, Martin 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 12:41 PM > To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Jeroen Massar > Cc: NANOG list > Subject: Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] > > > > > Now I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but having unaggregatable > > globally routable address space just doesn't scale and there are no > > routing tricks that can make it scale, whatever you put in > the IP version > > bits, so learn to love renumbering. > > > This is patently false. If it were true, then I would have > to renumber > every time I changed telephone companies. I don't, so, > obviously, there > is some solution to this problem. Now I'm not saying that I > necessarily > want to accept the overhead and risks of SS7 to solve this, but, there > are, obviously, routing tricks that can be used. Tricks reduce reliability and create unecessary dependancies. LNP was a regulatory issue post implementation of V4 so a trick was required.

1 0

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Table Analysis 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 20 Nov, 2004 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 150962 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 88984 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 72150 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18468 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16016 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7528 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2452 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 73 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.5 Max AS path length visible: 19 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 10 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 15 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1354415480 Equivalent to 80 /8s, 186 /16s and 189 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 36.5 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 59.1 Percentage of available address space allocated: 61.9 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 69617 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 29301 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 14416 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 27365 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 14199 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2165 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 651 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 330 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 166929152 Equivalent to 9 /8s, 243 /16s and 35 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 76.2 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 23552-24575 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 202/7, 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 85692 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 51967 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 65583 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 23556 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9725 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3516 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 951 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 235514384 Equivalent to 14 /8s, 9 /16s and 170 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 70.2 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647,29695-30719, 31744-33791 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/6, 68/7, 70/7, 72/8, 198/7, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 28147 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 19552 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 24897 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 16379 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6013 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3222 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1044 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.1 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 180277504 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 190 /16s and 209 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 63.2 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-34815 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 80/5, 88/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 6567 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 2352 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 6446 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 3973 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 403 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 118 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 80 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.9 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 14 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 16622080 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 253 /16s and 162 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 49.5 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671 LACNIC Address Blocks 200/7 Emerging AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 1246 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 697 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 857 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 667 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 93 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 21 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 12 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 12 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 2067200 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 31 /16s and 139 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 12.3 AfriNIC AS Blocks <none> AfriNIC Address Blocks 196/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4134 860 4403 163 Data Communications Bureau 1221 795 1182 570 Telstra Pty Ltd 9583 559 47 40 Satyam Infoway Ltd., 4766 545 3408 266 Korea Internet Exchange for " 4755 382 133 64 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 17676 376 5628 53 XTAGE CORPORATION 9443 356 69 80 Primus Telecommunications 2907 354 1857 328 SINET Japan 9929 344 161 33 China Netcom Corp. 703 318 346 246 UUNET 17557 315 23 156 Pakistan Telecom 2764 287 273 233 connect.com.au pty ltd 7474 266 268 198 Optus Communications Pty Ltd 4802 234 28 142 Wantree Development 7563 230 48 167 Korea Internet Infrastructure 9800 230 380 70 CHINA UNICOM 9942 229 72 123 COMindico Australia 9498 219 81 53 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 10036 217 20 198 C&M Communication Co. Ltd. 4814 210 232 6 China Telecom (Group) ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7018 1424 6633 984 AT&T WorldNet Services 701 1239 8399 885 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 721 1023 21016 298 DLA Systems Automation Center 1239 923 2880 611 Sprint 2386 850 530 611 AT&T Data Communications Serv 6197 820 522 313 BellSouth Network Solutions, 4323 805 672 221 Time Warner Telecom 18566 754 208 6 Covad Communications 209 668 3429 513 Qwest 3356 635 10959 458 Level 3 Communications, LLC 20115 603 462 322 Charter Communications 3561 547 2374 418 Cable & Wireless USA 852 522 1141 399 Telus Advanced Communications 7843 479 720 75 Adelphia Corp. 27364 450 36 19 Armstrong Cable Services 7132 447 8288 379 SBC Internet Services 6198 437 349 210 BellSouth Network Solutions, 6478 434 775 96 AT&T Worldnet Services 5668 417 87 18 Century Telephone 22909 414 880 63 Comcast Cable Corporation RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 702 634 2027 524 UUNET - Commercial IP service 3320 302 2997 237 Deutsche Telekom AG 8220 281 463 266 COLT Internet - International 3301 278 1100 269 TeliaNet Sweden 3300 257 167 82 AUCS Communications Services 680 251 2025 239 DFN-IP service G-WiN 21502 246 40 3 NUMERICABLE is a cabled netwo 3246 219 477 215 Song Networks 13083 217 51 8 Mannesmann Datenverarbeitung 1257 204 722 175 SWIPnet Swedish IP Network 8708 204 116 185 Romania Data Systems S.A. 5515 192 842 140 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 786 176 1794 176 The JANET IP Service 3215 161 956 78 France Telecom Transpac 8866 160 20 7 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 719 157 322 105 LANLINK autonomous system 6746 157 30 127 Dynamic Network Technologies, 3269 151 1289 68 TELECOM ITALIA 25186 148 154 104 France Telecom Transpac's Tra 5400 142 206 115 BT Ignite European Backbone LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6140 338 139 75 ImpSat 8151 308 471 134 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 16814 212 13 7 NSS, S.A. 11172 208 99 55 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 6147 192 94 20 Telefonica Del Peru 11664 152 12 34 Keytech SA 6505 141 90 95 Global One Communicaoes Ltda 7303 138 65 20 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 6503 123 148 82 AVANTEL, S.A. 11992 103 9 31 Integrated Systems 14117 98 6 4 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 11556 97 48 3 Cable-Wireless Panama 11311 86 8 23 Sinectis S.A. 6535 85 7 18 Chilesat Servicios Empresari 10481 82 32 7 Prima S.A. 14420 81 5 33 ANDINATEL S.A. 4270 80 18 9 Red de Interconexion Universi 15311 77 23 37 Telefonica Empresas 5639 75 8 8 Telecommunications Services o 13999 74 52 9 Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3741 268 636 225 The Internet Solution 5536 111 16 4 Internet Egypt Network 2018 102 297 98 Tertiary Education Network 2905 99 276 72 The Internetworking Company o 20928 52 16 1 Noor Advanced Technologies AS 24835 40 34 7 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 9129 35 3 4 UUNET Kenya 6713 30 38 9 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 5713 26 125 24 Telkom SA Ltd 8524 24 1 4 AUCEGYPT Autonomous System 16637 22 10 19 Johnnic e-Ventures 8452 18 20 5 TEDATA 10798 18 1 12 Standard Bank of South Africa 12258 18 3 12 Vodacom Internet Company 12455 16 4 2 Jambonet Autonomous system 21280 16 2 3 Swift Global Kenya Ltd.Is an 8346 15 7 14 SONATEL-AS Autonomous System 15706 15 4 2 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 15808 13 1 2 Communication Solutions Ltd i 17148 13 1 7 First National Bank Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 18566 754 748 Covad Communications 721 1023 725 DLA Systems Automation Center 4134 860 697 Data Communications Bureau 4323 805 584 Time Warner Telecom 9583 559 519 Satyam Infoway Ltd., 6197 820 507 BellSouth Network Solutions, 27364 450 431 Armstrong Cable Services 7843 479 404 Adelphia Corp. 5668 417 399 Century Telephone 22773 402 385 Cox Communications, Inc. Atla 701 1239 354 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 22909 414 351 Comcast Cable Corporation 6467 380 349 E.Spire Communications, Inc. 6478 434 338 AT&T Worldnet Services 17676 376 323 XTAGE CORPORATION 4755 382 318 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 1239 923 312 Sprint 9929 344 311 China Netcom Corp. 13609 333 298 Choice One Communications Inc 4355 392 293 EarthLink, Inc. List of Unregistered ASNs (Global) ---------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65006 PRIVATE 84.18.32.0/19 33831 Royal Hashemite Cour 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.199.0/24 1876 Southern Methodist U 64512 PRIVATE 199.213.17.0/25 15296 Netera Alliance Inc. 64512 PRIVATE 199.213.17.128/25 15296 Netera Alliance Inc. 65002 PRIVATE 212.115.225.0/24 8690 Comint Ltd 65002 PRIVATE 212.115.226.0/24 8690 Comint Ltd 65529 PRIVATE 216.21.199.0/24 14697 VDot.Net 33507 UNALLOCATED 216.94.118.0/24 701 UUNET Technologies, 65529 PRIVATE 216.152.237.0/24 14697 VDot.Net 65000 PRIVATE 217.68.56.0/22 29263 HAAGnet, municipalit Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 132.0.0.0/10 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 137.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 158.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 192.44.0.0/19 702 UUNET - Commercial IP service 192.70.164.0/24 25689 National Research Council of 192.83.16.0/20 5515 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 192.83.32.0/19 5515 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 192.83.96.0/22 5515 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 192.83.100.0/24 5515 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 192.84.205.0/24 719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.119.135.0/24 270 NASA 192.135.50.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 192.136.79.0/24 719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.172.0.0/19 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 192.172.11.0/24 721 DLA Systems Automation Center Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:19 /9:3 /10:7 /11:15 /12:61 /13:140 /14:314 /15:556 /16:8137 /17:2280 /18:3957 /19:9861 /20:10430 /21:8021 /22:11074 /23:12685 /24:82548 /25:247 /26:224 /27:114 /28:70 /29:40 /30:117 /31:0 /32:42 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 739 754 Covad Communications 6197 657 820 BellSouth Network Solutions, 2386 614 850 AT&T Data Communications Serv 7018 580 1424 AT&T WorldNet Services 27364 435 450 Armstrong Cable Services 9583 390 559 Satyam Infoway Ltd., 702 388 634 UUNET - Commercial IP service 1239 368 923 Sprint 4766 366 545 Korea Internet Exchange for " 5668 360 417 Century Telephone 701 357 1239 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 6198 320 437 BellSouth Network Solutions, 13609 290 333 Choice One Communications Inc 6467 289 380 E.Spire Communications, Inc. 6517 286 309 Yipes Communications, Inc. 20115 283 603 Charter Communications 9929 275 344 China Netcom Corp. 4323 258 805 Time Warner Telecom 11456 258 303 Carolina Online, Inc. 3320 247 302 Deutsche Telekom AG Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:4 8:11 12:1434 13:1 15:5 16:2 17:3 20:5 24:773 32:71 33:2 38:84 40:55 44:3 47:2 52:3 55:1 56:3 57:22 60:3 61:629 62:499 63:1862 64:2483 65:2072 66:2460 67:458 68:535 69:793 70:40 72:10 80:525 81:556 82:318 83:207 84:49 128:115 129:165 130:85 131:190 132:26 134:182 135:30 136:186 137:81 138:189 139:36 140:225 141:108 142:127 143:119 144:158 145:42 146:293 147:97 148:328 149:111 150:93 151:62 152:130 153:68 154:2 155:131 156:58 157:69 158:135 159:164 160:61 161:73 162:379 163:84 164:219 165:162 166:118 167:219 168:355 169:123 170:312 171:9 192:5663 193:2942 194:2169 195:1537 196:584 198:3879 199:3306 200:3835 201:25 202:4931 203:5791 204:3560 205:2060 206:2326 207:2624 208:2109 209:3108 210:1519 211:655 212:1156 213:1223 214:224 215:31 216:3700 217:1056 218:177 219:83 220:286 221:66 222:21 End of report

1 0

Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
by Leo Bicknell 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

I would like to bring to the attention of Nanog an IPv6 policy issue that I think is slipping under the radar right now. The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now for IPv6 "private networks". Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined for the IPv6 world. Those two drafts can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt These drafts came up in the ARIN meeting, and I posted my analysis of the problems with both at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/2849.html I will post a very brief summary of my objections, for the first (unique-local): - I believe the math is wrong on the rate of collisions, primarily because it assumes in a large organization there is a central coordination function to pick and distribute these addresses. However, since the whole point of "unique local" addresses is that there need be no coordination, I can easily see a case where a large conglomerate (Ford, GE, whatever) coming together with another will have both sides bringing hundreds, if not thoundsands of prefixes to the table as each division or other subgroup picks their own. - I think the likelyhood people will use the suggested hash methods to pick addresses is extremely low. People will either pick "human friendly" (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) or treat the space more like CIDR (where there is central delegation), both of which move the likelyhood of collision to near 1. In the end I think we need 1918 style space, and that it should simply be set aside as a large block and expected to never be useful in the context of other organizations, just like 1918 space is today. The second proposal (ula-central) is much more dangerous. - It is not good engineering to give something away for free with no method of recovery, even if that resource is plentiful. - The IETF should not be creating a new worldwide RIR. - The IETF should not be dictating fees (free). (more to the point, a worldwide RIR, with the language and other issues will be expensive, yet it has no method of income) - Since this is a free method of globally unique space it has a high likelyhood of being routed on portions of the public internet. Indeed, this problem was quickly dismissed by the authors (see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg03848.html) who completely missed the boat. It's not the rich who would demand their prefix be routed, but the poor. We already have situations where parts of Africa and Asia claim the fees for IP space are too high. If they had access to "free" "global" space they would jump on it, and later if the rest of the world wanted to contact that region they would almost certainly have to route it as well. - The "ownership should be private", yet the reason for a registry is to verify ownership and prevent hoarding. I'm not sure how those are combatable. - I think the IPv6 groups continue in their fantasy that people will manage multiple, complete overlay networks to fix numbering issues. More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what they (think) they want with little concern for how it impacts the global Internet. Since this is a list of providers, I encourage you to read the drafts, and submit your comments to the working group. The information for the working group is at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html, and includes their mailing list archives and information on how to subscribe and/or post. Even if you disagree with me, much like voting the important thing is that you voice your opinion. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

49 153