- Test - lists.nanog.org

FCC proposes Internet Routing Security Reporting Requirements
by Job Snijders 16 May '24

16 May '24

Dear all, FYI: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-402579A1.pdf Kind regards, Job

1 1

Meet NANOG's New Executive Director! N91 Agenda is LIVE! + More
by Nanog News 16 May '24

16 May '24

*Meet NANOG's New Executive Director!* *VIDEO - Interview with Jonathan Black * *Jonathan Black has been appointed NANOG Executive Director* In his new role, Jonathan will be responsible for the organization's operational management and will collaborate with the NANOG Board to refine, articulate, and implement NANOG's mission and strategic plan. Find out more about Jonathan's background + vision in a video interview with NANOG's content producer Elizabeth Drolet. *VIEW NOW * <https://nanog.org/stories/nanog-tv/meet-nanogs-new-executive-director/> *NANOG 91 Agenda is LIVE! * *Sync Your Calendars Now! * *All NANOG 91 programming is now available on the NANOG website. * 💚 Download saved talks to your calendar. All saved talks will also show on your appointment calendar. *VIEW NOW <https://nanog.org/events/nanog-91/agenda/>* *New NANOG 91 Conference Kit Available* *Share on your Social, Newsletter, Website, + More! * Help us spread the word about NANOG 91! All N91 materials, including messaging, logos, and graphics, needed to promote our next meeting are accessible on our website. Download and share with your community today! <https://nanog.org/events/nanog-91/conference-kit/> *VIEW NOW <https://nanog.org/events/nanog-91/conference-kit/>*

2 1

Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?
by Adam Thompson 16 May '24

16 May '24

Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren't doing it "at scale" and some of you are, so... For a very small & dense (on 128-bit scales, anyway) network, is RFC3531 still the last word in IPv6 allocation strategies? Right now, we're just approaching it as "pick the next /64 in the range", as it all gets aggregated at the BGP border anyway, and internally if I really try hard, I might get to 200 subnets someday. Is there any justification for the labour in doing something more complex like center-allocation in my situation? Worrying about allocation strategies seems appropriate to me if you have 100,000 subnets, not 100. Opinions wanted, please. -Adam Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) https://www.merlin.mb.ca<https://www.merlin.mb.ca/> Chat with me on Teams<https://teams.microsoft.com/l/chat/0/0?users=athompson@merlin.mb.ca>

7 12

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?
by Willy Manga 15 May '24

15 May '24

. On 15/05/2024 16:00, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > Message: 11 > Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 20:12:31 +0000 > From: Mel Beckman<mel(a)beckman.org> > To: Adam Thompson<athompson(a)merlin.mb.ca> > Cc: nanog<nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? > Message-ID:<813ADB68-4F73-49CC-AB3F-9BE18707497D(a)beckman.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I never could understand the motivation behind RFC3531. Just assign > /64s. A single /64 subnet has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 host > addresses. It is enough. Period. With IPv6 when you think of assignment to end-user, it's better to think in terms of 'use case' rather than number of hosts within a single network. As a residential user I might have wifi, voip, TV, CCTV,,... each of them can use its own prefix. As a bare metal user in a datacenter , I might have different needs when I build any internal networks. As a corporate user, I think this one is the more obvious. The only end-user who might stick with a single /64 is - 1 smartphone - 1 VM -- Willy Manga

1 0

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?
by Willy Manga 15 May '24

15 May '24

Hi, On 15/05/2024 16:00, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 19:52:43 +0000 > From: Adam Thompson<athompson(a)merlin.mb.ca> > To: nanog<nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? > Message-ID: > <YT3PR01MB10768B5A9FEFE157A78096F509BE32(a)YT3PR01MB10768.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren't doing it "at > scale" and some of you are, so... > > For a very small & dense (on 128-bit scales, anyway) network, is > RFC3531 still the last word in IPv6 allocation strategies? You can read this article [1] . It's a more 'contemporary' approach. 1. https://www.daryllswer.com/ipv6-architecture-and-subnetting-guide-for-netwo… -- Willy Manga

1 0

Small Internet border router options?
by Tom Samplonius 15 May '24

15 May '24

What are using for small campus border routers? So four to eight 10G ports with a FIB for full scale L3? Tom

11 10

NANOG 91: Keynote & Conference Kit Announcement 📢 + More
by Nanog News 14 May '24

14 May '24

*Announcing NANOG 91 Keynote! * *Juniper Networks' Kireeti Kompella Will Present "Network Digital Twin"* *SVP and Chief Engineer for the AWAN BU in Juniper Networks, Kompella, will discuss "digital twins" and how they are used in many contexts.* As networks ramp up on automation, this is a logical next step. This talk will describe what a network digital twin is, what form it could take, how it can be instantiated, what one can do with an NDT, and in what use cases an NDT becomes vital. *VIEW MORE * <https://nanog.org/events/nanog-91/> *Guest Blog: RPKI ROV Deployment Reaches Major Milestone!* *BGP Experts Kentik's Doug Madory + Fastly's Job Snijders Review the Latest RPKI ROV Deployment Metrics * *Why it's Worth Your Time:* For the first time in the history of RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure), the majority of IPv4 routes in the global routing table, are covered by ROAs (Route Origin Authorizations) according to the NIST RPKI Monitor. IPv6 crossed this milestone late last year. *R <https://nanog.org/stories/articles/rpki-rov-deployment-reaches-major-milest…>EAD MORE <https://nanog.org/stories/articles/rpki-rov-deployment-reaches-major-milest…>* *NANOG 91 Conference Kit Available! * *Share on your Social, Newsletter, Website, + More! * *Help us spread the word about NANOG 91! *Our new NANOG 91 Conference Kit is available. Our website contains all N91 materials, including messaging, logos, and graphics, needed to promote our next meeting. Download and share with your community today! *VIEW NOW * <https://nanog.org/events/nanog-91/conference-kit/> *Don't Miss out on Hackathon! * *Sponsored by [Your Company Here - Email Us for Info]* Your opportunity to build relationships with global industry peers in a casual setting, boost your resume, + have fun at our upcoming meeting, NANOG 91! *GAME ON! * <https://nanog.org/events/nanog-91-hackathon/>

1 0

Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
by Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 14 May '24

14 May '24

RFC 5736 was obsoleted by RFC 6890. It says in part: 2.2.1. Information Requirements The IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries maintain the following information regarding each entry: … o Forwardable - A boolean value indicating whether a router may forward an IP datagram whose destination address is drawn from the allocated special-purpose address block between external interfaces. … That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be routable. So, I would not make this a bogon. A better way to filter IP routes is by policy, for example based upon IRR and RPKI records. Kind Regards, Jakob ---------- Original message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:00:15 +0200 (CEST) From: borg(a)uu3.net [10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry [RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in [IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry]. Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon. Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I personaly use it as my Internal VM Net on my desktop for example. ---------- Original message ---------- From: John Kristoff <jtk(a)dataplane.org> To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:18:47 -0500 As one to never let a good academic question go unasked... what is it about 192.0.0.0/24 that is or isn't a bogon. This doesn't seem so straightforward an answer to me, at least in theory. Although in practice it may already be decided whether one likes the answer or not. 192.0.0.0/24 was originally assigned to IANA for "protocol assignments" in IETF RFC 5736, and later added to the list of reserved / special use addresses in IETF RFC 6890 (aka BCP 153). There is a corresponding IPv6 block (2001::/23), but it has a significantly different history. Team Cymru's bogon list includes the v4 prefix. NLNOG's bogon filtering guide does not. When I asked Job about NLNOG's position he said: "I was unsure what this prefix??s future plans would be and erred on the side of caution and didn??t include this prefix in the NLNOG bogon list recommendations." The /24 as specified is not for "global" use, but some of the more specific assignments are or can be. See: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-speci…>. >From my cursory examination I can't find cases where the v4 prefix or more specifics have been publicly announced to any significant degree. This however is not the case for the IPv6 prefix (e.g., the AS112 project, Teredo). Maybe you'd say the /24 should be filtered, but not the more specifics that are deemed available for global use. That might be reasonable, except many reasonable people will filter small prefixes. IANA's language may have put any "do not filter" camp in a relatively weak position: "Address prefixes listed in the Special-Purpose Address Registry are not guaranteed routability in any particular local or global context." I can't remember hearing anyone complaining about bogon-related reachability problems with the aggregate IANA prefixes generally. Is there a strong case to make that ops should not bogon filter any addresses in these prefixes? At least with IPv4? What about for IPv6? John

4 3

On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
by John Kristoff 14 May '24

14 May '24

As one to never let a good academic question go unasked... what is it about 192.0.0.0/24 that is or isn't a bogon. This doesn't seem so straightforward an answer to me, at least in theory. Although in practice it may already be decided whether one likes the answer or not. 192.0.0.0/24 was originally assigned to IANA for "protocol assignments" in IETF RFC 5736, and later added to the list of reserved / special use addresses in IETF RFC 6890 (aka BCP 153). There is a corresponding IPv6 block (2001::/23), but it has a significantly different history. Team Cymru's bogon list includes the v4 prefix. NLNOG's bogon filtering guide does not. When I asked Job about NLNOG's position he said: "I was unsure what this prefix’s future plans would be and erred on the side of caution and didn’t include this prefix in the NLNOG bogon list recommendations." The /24 as specified is not for "global" use, but some of the more specific assignments are or can be. See: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-speci…>. From my cursory examination I can't find cases where the v4 prefix or more specifics have been publicly announced to any significant degree. This however is not the case for the IPv6 prefix (e.g., the AS112 project, Teredo). Maybe you'd say the /24 should be filtered, but not the more specifics that are deemed available for global use. That might be reasonable, except many reasonable people will filter small prefixes. IANA's language may have put any "do not filter" camp in a relatively weak position: "Address prefixes listed in the Special-Purpose Address Registry are not guaranteed routability in any particular local or global context." I can't remember hearing anyone complaining about bogon-related reachability problems with the aggregate IANA prefixes generally. Is there a strong case to make that ops should not bogon filter any addresses in these prefixes? At least with IPv4? What about for IPv6? John

2 4

Alien Waves
by Mike Hammett 13 May '24

13 May '24

What are your experiences with alien waves, managed spectrum, spectrum as a service, etc? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

4 6