Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56
From: oliver rothschild <orothschild () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:34:56 -0500

This is my first e-mail to the list and I hope it is not entirely
inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX
variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always
for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there
know how much distance we are likely to get? Thanks for your help in
advance.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM,  <nanog-request () nanog org> wrote:
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
       nanog () nanog org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
       https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
       nanog-request () nanog org

You can reach the person managing the list at
       nanog-owner () nanog org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against
     censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
  2. RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against
     censorship (O'Reirdan, Michael)
  3. Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas
     Bonus Has Arrived) (John Curran)
  4. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your
     Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Leigh Porter)
  5. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against
     censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
  6. Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived
     (bmanning () vacation karoshi com)
  7. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your
     Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Justin M. Streiner)
  8. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your
     Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Mark Tinka)
  9. Multiple ISP Load Balancing (Holmes,David A)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:42:51 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
To: Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against
       censorship
Message-ID:
       <CAArzuouqU2SivNgcE-3ipe-AwSq7v7N1H4wWqOxzxsP8hxYCOA () mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal
departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others.

If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with
something, other operators could sign on to that as well.

The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than
would be entirely productive in a policy discussion.

--srs


On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> wrote:

?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the
? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill
?Authors:
? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc.
? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech
? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH
? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc.
? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium



--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:36:59 +0000
From: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan () Cable Comcast com>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>, Hal Murray
       <hmurray () megapathdsl net>
Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against
       censorship
Message-ID:
       <B13238AB0CB1514B9509DEEE5F98F2E00DE39363 () PACDCEXMB13 cable comcast com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA.

http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_Comments_2011-12.pdf

Mike
________________________________________
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists () gmail com]
Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12
To: Hal Murray
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship

I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal
departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others.

If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with
something, other operators could sign on to that as well.

The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than
would be entirely productive in a policy discussion.

--srs


On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> wrote:

 Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the
   DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill
 Authors:
   Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc.
   David Dagon, Georgia Tech
   Dan Kaminsky, DKH
   Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc.
   Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium



--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:18:56 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas
       Bonus Has Arrived)
Message-ID: <131B2DA4-7C99-4DB8-924A-EBCB27EF9BF0 () arin net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in 
this context).

I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note
that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer
facilitators to the ARIN web site:

<https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html>

Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to
comply with same.  Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in
compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of
these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer.  Facilitators may
make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service
(which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient)
but not required to do so.  Similarly, parties which may have space available
for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via
transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS).
More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under
"IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section.

FYI (and Happy Holidays :-)
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:30:06 +0000
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter () ukbroadband com>
To: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your
       Christmas Bonus Has Arrived)
Message-ID: <8C3137B6-7690-4CF5-85B2-594E450CDB7B () ukbroadband com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites!

http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm


--
Leigh


On 14 Dec 2011, at 12:21, "John Curran" <jcurran () arin net> wrote:

On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in 
this context).

I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note
that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer
facilitators to the ARIN web site:

<https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html>

Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to
comply with same.  Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in
compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of
these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer.  Facilitators may
make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service
(which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient)
but not required to do so.  Similarly, parties which may have space available
for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via
transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS).
More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under
"IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section.

FYI (and Happy Holidays :-)
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:01:06 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
To: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan () cable comcast com>
Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>, Hal Murray
       <hmurray () megapathdsl net>
Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against
       censorship
Message-ID:
       <CAArzuotafMx+1mRFT9dLqYyRvhyFBsPg=Cir48-Ez=QZxLLEPw () mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Wonderful.  I would urge SPs based stateside to strongly consider
endorsing the MAAWG comments.

thanks
suresh

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, O'Reirdan, Michael
<Michael_OReirdan () cable comcast com> wrote:
MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA.

http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_Comments_2011-12.pdf

Mike
________________________________________
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists () gmail com]
Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12
To: Hal Murray
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship

I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal
departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others.

If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with
something, other operators could sign on to that as well.

The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than
would be entirely productive in a policy discussion.

--srs


On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net> wrote:

?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the
? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill
?Authors:
? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc.
? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech
? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH
? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc.
? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium



--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)




--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:10:52 +0000
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
To: Chaim Rieger <chaim.rieger () gmail com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived
Message-ID: <20111214141052.GA7933 () vacation karoshi com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Chaim Rieger wrote:
What do you have for those that don't do the whole Jesus thing ?

babalyonian fertility icons?  (you -did- bring an evergreen tree into your
home, yes?)

/bill



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:16:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
To: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your
       Christmas Bonus Has Arrived)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1112140906460.30735 () whammy cluebyfour org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Leigh Porter wrote:

I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites!

http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm

Some of which seems to float between fear-mongering, possibly
mis-appropriated quotes, half-truths and information that is flat-out
wrong.  I would not trust the judgment and opinions of someone who even
admitted in one of their blog posts that they had "no hands-on Service
Provider IPv6 experience."

While I can understand why IPv4 address brokers would take a decidedly
anti-IPv6 stance (deploying IPv6 cuts into their potential business), that
doesn't make it any less underhanded.

jms



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:18:41 +0800
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net>
To: nanog () nanog org
Cc: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your
       Christmas Bonus Has Arrived)
Message-ID: <201112142218.42329.mtinka () globaltransit net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 08:30:06 PM Leigh Porter
wrote:

I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites!

http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm

I'd have been more impressed if they actually came up with
the stories by themselves, as opposed to linking to existing
stories that their link titles take out of context.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111214/2168d8c3/attachment-0001.bin>

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:07:04 -0800
From: "Holmes,David A" <dholmes () mwdh2o com>
To: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Multiple ISP Load Balancing
Message-ID:
       <922ACC42D498884AA02B3565688AF9953402D4EF13 () USEXMBS01 mwd h2o>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

From time to time some have posted questions asking if BGP load balancers such as the old Routescience Pathcontrol 
device are still around, and if not what have others found to replace that function. I have used the Routescience 
device with much success 10 years ago when it first came on the market, but since then a full BGP feed has become 
much larger, Routescience has been bought by Avaya, then discontinued, and other competitors such as Sockeye, Netvmg 
have been acquired by other companies.

Doing some research on how load balancing can be accomplished in 2011, I have come across Cisco's performance routing 
feature, and features from load balancing companies such as F5's Link Controller. I have always found BGP to be easy 
to work with, and an elegant, simple solution to load balancing using a route-reflector configuration in which one 
BGP client (Routescience Pathcontrol in my background) learns the best route to destination networks, and then 
announces that best route to BGP border routers using common and widely understood BGP concepts such as communities 
and local pref, and found this to lead to a deterministic Internet routing architecture. This required a knowledge 
only of IETF standards (common BGP concepts and configurations), required no specialized scripting, or any other 
knowledge lying outside IETF boundaries, and it seemed reasonable to expect that network engineers should eagerly and 
enthusiastically want to master this technology, just as any other technology must be mastered to run high 
availability networks.

So I am wondering if anyone has experience with implementing load balancing across multiple ISP links in 2011, and if 
there have been any comparisons between IETF standards-based methods using BGP, and other proprietary methods which 
may use a particular vendor's approach to solving the same problem, but involves some complexity with more variables 
to be plugged in to the architecture.

David



 ________________________________
This communication, together with any attachments or embedded links, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of this communication is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return 
e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments or embedded 
links, from your system.


End of NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56
*************************************


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
  • Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56 oliver rothschild (Dec 14)
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]