IPv6 became operational around 10:50. Let us know if you continue to see problems. Thanks Bob Stovall MichNet Operations Merit Network, Inc. On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, TAKASHIMA Ryuichi wrote:

Hi, I can get a global address.

$ ping6 www.kame.net

Pinging kame220.kame.net [2001:200:0:4819:210:f3ff:fe03:4d0] from 2001:468:1000:1:4094:f5ea:dce8:bca0 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 2001:200:0:4819:210:f3ff:fe03:4d0: bytes=32 time=255ms Reply from 2001:200:0:4819:210:f3ff:fe03:4d0: bytes=32 time=198ms

Ping statistics for 2001:200:0:4819:210:f3ff:fe03:4d0: Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 198ms, Maximum = 255ms, Average = 226ms Control-C

In article <E17HP1O-0001Mw-00@roam.psg.com> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

...

so i have a local address

# ifconfig wi0 wi0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::260:1dff:fe23:c352%wi0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6 inet 192.35.167.202 netmask 0xfffffc00 broadcast 192.35.167.255 ether 00:60:1d:23:c3:52 media: IEEE 802.11 Wireless Ethernet autoselect (DS/11Mbps) status: associated ssid nanog 1:"" stationname roam.psg.com channel 11 authmode OPEN powersavemode OFF powersavesleep 100 wepmode OFF weptxkey 1

and can ping the local exit

# ping6 fe80::208:a3ff:fe8b:b5c2%wi0 PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) fe80::260:1dff:fe23:c352%wi0 --> fe80::208:a3ff:fe8b:b5c2%wi0 16 bytes from fe80::208:a3ff:fe8b:b5c2%wi0, icmp_seq=0 hlim=64 time=55.512 ms 16 bytes from fe80::208:a3ff:fe8b:b5c2%wi0, icmp_seq=1 hlim=64 time=3.012 ms

though the rtt is a bit scary

but i am not getting a global address

randy

Hey there I am writing a paper for slamming ICANN a little more - how many protocols are you folks actually routing today? 10, 20, and what are they? Is there a standard list of protocols that all carriers support? Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:33:09AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:

Is there a standard list of protocols that all carriers support?

IP. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 01:56:55PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, todd glassey wrote:

...

Hey there I am writing a paper for slamming ICANN a little more - how many protocols are you folks actually routing today? 10, 20, and what are they? Is there a standard list of protocols that all carriers support?

I'm all for slamming ICANN, so maybe you could elaborate on your approach a little more?

I'm not sure where you're going with this...and I don't think you're asking the question you intend to ask. By "protocols" do you mean to include services such as DNS, SMTP, etc?

Because, to answer your question directly, the list of protocols that all carries support includes IP, TCP, UDP, and ICMP. Some might do IPv6, but don't count on it. So how do you get to 10 or 20?

I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp. It should be all ip protocols. There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what the ipheader->protocol field is set to. Regards Magnus

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:33 AM To: Magnus Boden Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: How many protocols...

Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <mb@ozaba.cx>

...

I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp. It should be all ip protocols.

There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what the ipheader->protocol field is set to.

There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters protocol 50 (IPsec ESP). Does that mean they're really not an ISP?

S

They can still call themselves whatever they want, but I wouldn't consider them an ISP, as they're not provider a very key part of my "Internet experience". I'd feel the same way if they filtered google. Regards, Matt -- Matt Levine @Home: matt@deliver3.com @Work: matt@eldosales.com ICQ : 17080004 AIM : exile GPG : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF "The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -BIX

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen J. Wilcox Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:03 AM To: Matt Levine Cc: nanog@merit.edu; 'Stephen Sprunk' Subject: RE: How many protocols...

I dont provide multicast, am I not an ISP by your definition? I think so..

Steve

If *I* used multicast, and that was a significant part of my 'Internet Experience', and you didn't provide it, I'd very quickly stop considering you an ISP. Thankfully, the only person who really cares what I consider an ISP is me, so I wouldn't worry.

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Matt Levine wrote:

...

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:33 AM To: Magnus Boden Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: How many protocols...

Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <mb@ozaba.cx>

...

I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp

and icmp.

...

...

...

It should be all ip protocols.

There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what the ipheader->protocol field is set to.

There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters protocol 50 (IPsec ESP). Does that mean they're really not an ISP?

S

They can still call themselves whatever they want, but I wouldn't consider them an ISP, as they're not provider a very key part of my "Internet experience". I'd feel the same way if they filtered google.

Regards, Matt -- Matt Levine @Home: matt@deliver3.com @Work: matt@eldosales.com ICQ : 17080004 AIM : exile GPG : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF "The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -BIX

Regards, Matt -- Matt Levine @Home: matt@deliver3.com @Work: matt@eldosales.com ICQ : 17080004 AIM : exile GPG : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF "The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -BIX

igmp? On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Magnus Boden wrote:

Hello,

multicasting has nothing to do with ipheader->protocol as far as I know. So my definition doesn't consider multicasting.

//Magnus

On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:03:29AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

...

I dont provide multicast, am I not an ISP by your definition? I think so..

Steve

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Matt Levine wrote:

...

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:33 AM To: Magnus Boden Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: How many protocols...

Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <mb@ozaba.cx>

...

I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp. It should be all ip protocols.

There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what the ipheader->protocol field is set to.

There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters protocol 50 (IPsec ESP). Does that mean they're really not an ISP?

S

They can still call themselves whatever they want, but I wouldn't consider them an ISP, as they're not provider a very key part of my "Internet experience". I'd feel the same way if they filtered google.

Regards, Matt -- Matt Levine @Home: matt@deliver3.com @Work: matt@eldosales.com ICQ : 17080004 AIM : exile GPG : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF "The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -BIX

The argument is failing because the original comment was too simplistic - "I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp" If you want to receive a multicast stream sure the data is transmitted on udp or whatever but you need igmp to be running between yourself and the router to join the group and you also need the network itself to be running multicast routing (dvmrp/pim whatever) You are also assuming that the network is running standard ip routing such as bgp, ospf etc .. now before you say "obviously" .. its not obvious, you need to define what you want to use your internet connection for, i used the multicast example as if your intent is to use multicast then if its not running the multicast routing protocols you wont get multicast! The argument should have been more along the lines of does the particular provider support all the features -you- wish to use. I might provide only dialup, email and web access but providing thats what my customers want am I any less a provider than someone who supports IP, IPSec, IPv6, multicast, RSVP etc etc Steve On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Magnus Boden wrote:

I don't expect my isp to run stuff on their router any more than I expect my isp to block stuff.

I don't know everything about igmp since hardly anyone I know uses it (I don't work at an ISP though) but If i send packets with the ipheader->protocol field set to igmp (2 I think) destined for another computer on the internet I don't expect you to drop it (I know this is silly because IGMP doesn't work that way).

I don't see the point to this. What you are talking about is routing multicast not wheter you are filtering out certain protocols. There is a diffrence with not supporting something and filtering something out without a reason.

I can see that for an isp to route multicast it cost extra money for the customer since you have to configure a lot of shit on your side but what we are talking about is the opposite. If you/ISP is going to filter out protocols you need to configure access lists or something for no good reason except to piss the customer off.

//Magnus

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 09:15:14AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

...

igmp?

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Magnus Boden wrote:

...

Hello,

multicasting has nothing to do with ipheader->protocol as far as I know. So my definition doesn't consider multicasting.

//Magnus

On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:03:29AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

...

I dont provide multicast, am I not an ISP by your definition? I think so..

Steve

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Matt Levine wrote:

...

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:33 AM To: Magnus Boden Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: How many protocols...

Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <mb@ozaba.cx> > I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp. > It should be all ip protocols. > > There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what > the ipheader->protocol field is set to.

There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters protocol 50 (IPsec ESP). Does that mean they're really not an ISP?

S

They can still call themselves whatever they want, but I wouldn't consider them an ISP, as they're not provider a very key part of my "Internet experience". I'd feel the same way if they filtered google.

Regards, Matt -- Matt Levine @Home: matt@deliver3.com @Work: matt@eldosales.com ICQ : 17080004 AIM : exile GPG : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF "The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -BIX

Since it seems that Mr. Bush has publicly labeled me a troll on this list, let me be clear about what I was looking for an why when I posted this request. BTW - in my best 'trollese' - My apologies for not being clearer in my original post or in using the terms "Slamming ICANN" since what the real intent was to push ICANN to explain certain components of its new divestiture plan. So the real question was "From an ISP's perspective, I was looking for a general number as to how many user-level protocols you ISP folks route through your infrastructure and what the statistical distribution of total bytes per protocol out of the total bytes moved is/was." Since there is much unrest in the ICANN today and US Senators are now screaming about its reform, I would like to pose the question to the ISP members of this group, what will you do about the impending need at the ISP level for: 1) Supporting multiple DNS Roots for your clients 2) Installing and supporting the mechanical concept of eBorders 3) What if anything you folks are doing to produce network infrastructure worthy of being called "Evidentiary Grade"... As to why I would ask this of NANOG... well that's simple. You folks are where the rubber meets the road. You are the network operators and everything else is just window dressing if it doesn't get airplay for this crowd... Which is to say, even with the occasional abuse from people like Mr. Bush and his troll commentary, this is still ground zero as far as I am concerned, and I wanted to thank all who sent offline answers to this question. For the record so far it looks like about 20 separate client level protocols and of them about 80-82% is http as an average. Clearly within the expectations, but also a good set of numbers to have. Todd S. Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Levine" <matt@deliver3.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu>; "'Stephen Sprunk'" <ssprunk@cisco.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: RE: How many protocols...

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:33 AM To: Magnus Boden Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: How many protocols...

Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <mb@ozaba.cx>

...

I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp. It should be all ip protocols.

There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what the ipheader->protocol field is set to.

There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters protocol 50 (IPsec ESP). Does that mean they're really not an ISP?

S

They can still call themselves whatever they want, but I wouldn't consider them an ISP, as they're not provider a very key part of my "Internet experience". I'd feel the same way if they filtered google.

Regards, Matt -- Matt Levine @Home: matt@deliver3.com @Work: matt@eldosales.com ICQ : 17080004 AIM : exile GPG : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF "The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -BIX

Thus spake "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>

So the real question was "From an ISP's perspective, I was looking for a general number as to how many user-level protocols you ISP folks route through your infrastructure and what the statistical distribution of total bytes per protocol out of the total bytes moved is/was."

ISPs route IP packets, not user-level protocols. Some ISPs keep statistics on which user-level protocols are in use, and as you note HTTP is heavily dominant.

Since there is much unrest in the ICANN today and US Senators are now screaming about its reform, I would like to pose the question to the ISP members of this group, what will you do about the impending need at the ISP level for:

1) Supporting multiple DNS Roots for your clients

There is only one root, even if it is controlled by a bunch of idiots.

2) Installing and supporting the mechanical concept of eBorders 3) What if anything you folks are doing to produce network infrastructure worthy of being called "Evidentiary Grade"...

I think most folks are still worried about out how to profitably provide basic IP transport; eBorders (whatever that is) and "Evidentiary Grade" networking are stuff for academics. S

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:

I'd guess that many route:

IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP, TCP, IGMP, OSPF, RSVP, IPIP, ESP, AH, EIGRP, L2TP, ISIS.

That's 14 or so... of course, I may have missed some or put too much faith in another.

How can you forget the king of all protocols, RIP? :) But seriously, I still don't understand the semantics. If you're "routing" those protocols, you're also routing SMTP, DNS, POP, IMAP, HTTP, HTTPS...wacky multiplayer game protocols...anything that runs on IP, basically. So you're either routing IP, or you're routing `wc -l /etc/services` number of services plus possibly infinite more. Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:

AD> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:21:59 -0400 (EDT) AD> From: Andy Dills

AD> How can you forget the king of all protocols, RIP? :)

RIP isn't an IP protocol. :-)

No, but UDP is, and RIP runs on top of UDP. Oh, so you mean there IS some sort of solid definition of 'protocol' for this discussion? See below...

AD> But seriously, I still don't understand the semantics. If AD> you're "routing" those protocols, you're also routing SMTP, AD> DNS, POP, IMAP, HTTP, HTTPS...wacky multiplayer game AD> protocols...anything that runs on IP, basically.

They run on TCP or UDP, which represent _two_ IP protocols.

Note my quotes around the word routing. The only protocol that people route is IP. Therefore, if you "route" all of the other protocols you mentioned, you must inherently route all protocols L4 on up that run on IP. Routing is done at L3. Therefore, if you want to talk about things running L4 and up, the question should be about filtering and not routing. That's my point...that if we're talking about which protocols are being routed, it's either "IP and IPv6" or "everything from L4 up that runs on IP", depending on how you take the question. Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Grant A. Kirkwood wrote:

Now that you've cleared that up, can someone enlighten me as to what this has to do with "slamming ICANN?" I'm still not seeing the connection.

Yeah, no kidding! That has been bothering me all morning. (I've been sitting here waiting for 30+ DS1 customers to be cut-over from ATG after they shut down in our primary area...KMC, who we use for loops, is great when things are rolling along smoothly, but they have problems when dealing with bulk orders and deadlines...so I've been sitting on my hands for the most part, reading list mail) The best I can come up with is that the original poster really meant application level services, like SMTP, POP, etc., things that rely heavily on DNS, and was trying to make a statistic about how many services would be affected by ICANN mismanagement... Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of todd glassey Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 9:33 AM

Hey there I am writing a paper for slamming ICANN a little more - how many protocols are you folks actually routing today? 10, 20, and what are they? Is there a standard list of protocols that all carriers support?

Todd

What do you mean by protocols? Most people just route IPv4 (tcp/udp/icmp)a few folks route IPv6. Or do you mean the protocols for services that run over tcp/udp? I don't think anyone routes that, filter it possibly but not route it. Sameer

At 09:33 AM 12-06-02 -0700, todd glassey wrote:

Hey there I am writing a paper for slamming ICANN a little more - how many protocols are you folks actually routing today? 10, 20, and what are they? Is there a standard list of protocols that all carriers support?

Todd

Don't feed the trolls. Been done already: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg15816.html -Hank

I can get a global address.

i can now too! it was the merit router. randy