Hoping someone can help. I am in the middle of a project to build 4
PoP's in Chicago, London, Sydney and Mumbai. As part of this I have been
given the role of creating all the necessary Route objects etc. Our
address space is from ARIN, but our ASN's are from RIPE, APNIC & ARIN. I
have created as-set, aut-num and route objects in RADb to enable us to
manage them from a single point. However I would like to setup ROA
records for these route objects. I have setup RPKI with ARIN and created
our first ROA object.
Onto my question, am I likely to have operational issues if the route
objects are in RADb and the ROA with ARIN?
On Sunday 23rd March 2014 between 18:00 and 21:00 the CityLink APE route
server rs2.ape.nzix.net will be taken offline for building maintenance.
Please make sure you also have a session configured with
rs1.ape.nzix.netto ensure there is no loss of service.
And a reminder that all NZIX customers should be configured with both route
servers at each exchange for maximum resiliency.
Customers who experience any problems with the service after the
maintenance work should contact the CityLink 24 hour support number:
Free call: 0800 4 CITYLINK (0800 424 895)
Select: Option 3
Advise you have a fault with your CityLink service and include the relevant
service reference number.
It seems 188.8.131.52/32 was hijacked yesterday for 22 minutes yesterday, affecting networks in Brazil and Venezuela.
So about that RPKI thing…having a quick look (via whois.bgpmon.net) it seems Google does not have an ROA for 184.108.40.206/24. Yet another reason friends should not let friends use Google’s recursive resolvers.
Perhaps their RIR doesn’t make it as easy as APNIC does to create ROA objects.
Neil Fenemor | +64 21 978 078 | Facetime | Skype
A very important announcement by NTIA/DoC/ICANN regarding the control of
This is an article from todays Commsday that very well explains the current
*Commsday* - 17th March 2014 - www.commsday.com
*US to give up control of Internet administration*
The United States government says it will cede the Department of Commerce's
legal authority over global Internet governance, but on condition that it
approves of the system which replaces it.
Late Friday afternoon, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, under the DoC, said it wanted Internet domain governance to
be subject to "multi-stakeholder" oversight and would oppose transition to
an inter-governmental administration such as the International
Currently the DoC delegates oversight functions to the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers which in turn works with various private and
sector bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet
Architecture Board, the Internet Society, the Regional Internet Registries,
top level domain name operators and VeriSign to administrate the Internet.
"The timing is right to start the transition process," said Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E.
Strickling. "We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the
global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan."
NTIA has communicated to ICANN that the transition proposal must have broad
community support and address the following four principles:
- Support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model;
- Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
- Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
ICANN's domain administration services; and,
- Maintain the openness of the Internet.
"Consistent with the clear policy expressed in bipartisan resolutions of
the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives (S.Con.Res.50 and
H.Con.Res.127), which affirmed the United States support for the
multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, NTIA will not accept a
proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an
inter-governmental organisation solution," it said.
AUSTRALIA BACKS US: The decision won the instant backing of Australian
communications minister Malcolm Turnbull, who said he had discussed the
plans with Strickling last week. Australia has been a steadfast ally of the
US's opposition to a role for the ITU in Internet administration.
Turnbull said "the Australian Government is absolutely committed to
supporting an open Internet which is administered by multi stakeholder
organisations like ICANN and NOT by governments whether in the form of
consortia or multilateral organisations like the ITU or the UN."
"The Internet is the most remarkable invention of our times and while it
had its origins in research contracts with the US Government its growth,
its dynamism, its resilience have all been the result of collaborative
efforts by the wide Internet community not government regulation or fiat."
"While it is all too common to complain about the US Government role in the
Internet the truth is that the world owes the United States an
extraordinary debt not just for giving birth to the Internet, but above all
for giving it the freedom to develop into the extraordinary global platform
it has become today."
"The (ICANN subsidiary) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority contract with
the US Department of Commerce expires in September 2015 and today I assured
the President of ICANN, Mr Fadi Chehade, that the Australian Government
will provide all the support it can to ICANN's efforts to develop a
structure of governance that will meet the US Department of Commerce's
vitally important conditions of removing itself from the IANA arrangements
at the heart of the Internet.
DOMESTIC OPPOSITION TO CHANGE: However, the decision did not receive
bipartisan support in the United States with Republican politicians and
advisers defending the status quo and warning of the consequences of global
control of Internet administration.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said "Every American should worry about
Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is
very, very dangerous. What is the global internet community that Obama
wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships
defining the internet."
A former State Department adviser under the Bush administration, Christian
Whiton, said "US management of the internet has been exemplary and there is
no reason to give this away -- especially in return for nothing. This is the
Obama equivalent of Carter's decision to give away the Panama Canal -- only
with possibly much worse consequences."
GROWING PUSH AGAINST US: However, the US move has been interpreted by
others as an early strike against what are likely to be persistent efforts
to globalise the Internet's administration on terms which may prove
unacceptable to the United States and its allies.
Following unsuccessful attempts by China, Russia and the Arab bloc to have
the ITU assume Internet governance functions in late 2012, there has been
renewed pressure to change the status quo following the so-called Snowden
revelations last year regarding pervasive US surveillance of foreign powers
and individuals using Internet and telecom platforms. Brazil, one of the
leading critics of the US, plans its own global Internet multi-stakeholder
forum in late April in order to seize the initiative on how a post-US
Internet might be shaped. Anti-US governmental members of the ITU are
expected to revive their efforts in support of that organisation assuming
Internet control when it convenes in South Korea for its plenipotentiary in
The last ITU vote on these matters saw around 90 countries, led by China,
Russia and the Arab world, support new regulations to "nationalise" the
Internet and around 55, led by the US and its allies, support the status
quo or a "multi-stakeholder" approach akin to the status quo, where
specialist private and technical organisations such as ICANN perform
Paul Rosenzweig, who served as a senior homeland security official under
former President George W. Bush, opined "the move by the United States to
start this transition now is either very canny or panicked. The optimist in
me wants to think that the transition to ICANN management is an effort to
forestall an even worse result from takeover of network administration by
the ITU. It may be that
allowing ICANN a controlling role will placate our European allies and
prevent the ITU meeting in Busan, South Korea from becoming a debacle."
"The pessimist, however, sees this as a reaction to the Snowden
disclosures. All of a sudden American stewardship of the network is
suspect. Some, hoping to defuse the anger, may have chosen to rush to give
up that stewardship, without thinking through the consequences."
Malcolm Turnbull also agreed that the US decision opened up a Pandora's box
of challenges for those who think the existing system is generally
successful. "There is a lot of work to do to support ICANN in transitioning
to a new model and the Australian Government, committed as it is to a
multi-stakeholder system of governance, will work with the Australian and
global Internet community
including other governments to ensure that the Internet remains free,
stable and resilient and continues to be a powerful platform for freedom
around the world," he said
To get access to great articles like this, often before the mainstream
media, please subscribe to Commsday - www.commsday.com
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve(a)eintellegonetworks.co.nz ; www.eintellegonetworks.co.nz
Phone: +612 8014 7398; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeevetwitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
I know the answer to my question here is likely hidden deep in a PDF
somewhere but someone on this list may know the answer off hand.
I see that Bitstream 3a has a 64 MAC limit.
What doesn't seem clear to me is if this MAC limit is a customer ONT port
MAC limit, or a MAC limit for the entire customer S-VID. I had always
assumed it was a limit on MACs that can be sourced from the customer ONT
port but am I wrong? Is it a MAC limit on the total number of MACs that can
be learnt over the entire customer S-VID (src'ed from either the provider
or customer end of the link)?
I'm extracting the 64 MAC limit from this document here -
Any feedback, especially this afternoon, would be very useful. Provider is
I am not really wanting to debate why someone would want that number of
MACs over a BS3 connection and why some layer 3 should probably be involved
wondering if anyone from TVNZ On Demand is on this list and wouldn't
mind contacting me offlist regarding problems streaming if a user has an
IPv6 address. The helpdesk doesn't appear to know what ipv6 is so
thought I'd try an alternative.
I started a thread on the IPv6 group on LinkedIn in regards to this
What is the best way to provide redundant connectivity to SMBs with IPv6?
Using v4 with NAT is easy with most routers but v6 is harder. Shim6 seems
to be a good idea but looks to be a dead duck. People in that thread were
advocating full AS and BGP but I don't think that is easy for most SMBs
unless their IT support is top notch and trained (which lets face it, most
don't even know how to screw in a lightbulb). It also may mess up global
routing tables causing them to get much bigger.
Chief Executive Officer
Fixed: +64 9 9510448