From wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca  Mon Jun  4 11:49:56 2007
From: wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:49:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] AS112 IETF draft review in dnsops
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040748230.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>


Hello all,

 	People that are interested in the two drafts about AS112 that have 
been presented to the IETF are requested to comment on the documents. 
Please comment on these at the working group mailing list so that proper 
discourse can take place.

Thanks,

wfms

From wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca  Mon Jun  4 12:40:30 2007
From: wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:40:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>


Hi all,

 	I was reading through RFC 4193 (Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 
Addresses) which has this item in section 4.4:

"The recommended way to avoid sending such queries to nameservers for
    the global DNS is for recursive name server implementations to act as
    if they were authoritative for an empty d.f.ip6.arpa zone and return
    RCODE 3 for any such query. ... "

RFC 4472 further mentions the subject in Appendix A.

I am also aware of Marc Andrew's internet draft on serving local zones
(draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt) which could also deal with 
this issue.

However, the ultimate question I have for the AS112 operators is the 
following:  Should the AS112 project be delegated the d.f.ip6.arpa in 
anticipation of ULA addressing ending up in people's DNS servers?  Should 
this be included as part of the AS112 drafts?

Thanks for your time,

wfms

From wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca  Mon Jun  4 13:11:59 2007
From: wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:11:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Daniele Arena wrote:

> What about the other IPv6 zones mentioned in Mark's draft that might
> need a "sacrificial server" (see section 4)? Should AS112 cover them as
> well?

I'd like to see those as well.  I focused on the ULA stuff largely due to 
the sudden increase in message traffic on the NANOG mailing list in 
response to ARIN's statement about IPv6 and questions sent to me privately 
about ULA space.

There's also the issue of whether or not AS112 servers should get an IPv6 
address for anycast purposes, i.e. getting AS112 onto IPv6 infrastructure 
where available and answering on IPv6 sockets.

Of course, if Marc's draft moves to RFC and DNS implementors follow it, 
maybe the day will come that AS112 becomes obsolete...but I think it would 
be a long time before we see AS112 traffic drop in proportion to people 
moving to newer versions of DNS server software.

wfms

From daniele at namex.it  Mon Jun  4 13:04:08 2007
From: daniele at namex.it (Daniele Arena)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:04:08 +0200
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
Message-ID: <46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>


> I am also aware of Marc Andrew's internet draft on serving local zones
> (draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt) which could also deal with 
> this issue.
> 
> However, the ultimate question I have for the AS112 operators is the 
> following:  Should the AS112 project be delegated the d.f.ip6.arpa in 
> anticipation of ULA addressing ending up in people's DNS servers?  Should 
> this be included as part of the AS112 drafts?

Looks sensible to me...

What about the other IPv6 zones mentioned in Mark's draft that might
need a "sacrificial server" (see section 4)? Should AS112 cover them as
well?

Regards,

Daniele.

-- 
Daniele Arena - NaMeX
Via dei Tizi 6/b - I-00185 Roma
Tel.: +39 06 44486313 - Fax: +39 06 4957083
http://www.namex.it/

From paul at vix.com  Mon Jun  4 16:04:37 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:04:37 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:11:59 -0400."
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> 
Message-ID: <91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>

> > What about the other IPv6 zones mentioned in Mark's draft that might
> > need a "sacrificial server" (see section 4)? Should AS112 cover them as
> > well?
> 
> I'd like to see those as well.  I focused on the ULA stuff largely due to 
> the sudden increase in message traffic on the NANOG mailing list in 
> response to ARIN's statement about IPv6 and questions sent to me privately 
> about ULA space.

i think ULA is a stupid idea, as those of you on ppml@ know.  but if it
passes through the ietf then AS112 definitely ought to serve it up.  i'd
be happier to see the old site-local prefix used, so that private networks
can be ambiguous like they are in IPv4.  so perhaps AS112 ought to serve
up the site-local in-addr prefix also, just in case somebody uses it.

> There's also the issue of whether or not AS112 servers should get an IPv6 
> address for anycast purposes, i.e. getting AS112 onto IPv6 infrastructure 
> where available and answering on IPv6 sockets.

i think this is a very good idea.  any objection to me requesting a block
from ARIN for this, using their /48 "critical infrastructure" policy?

> Of course, if Marc's draft moves to RFC and DNS implementors follow it, 

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaa ha ha HA!

> maybe the day will come that AS112 becomes obsolete...but I think it would 
> be a long time before we see AS112 traffic drop in proportion to people 
> moving to newer versions of DNS server software.

i think AS112 will still see a minimum of 10K PPS in the year 2100.

From wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca  Mon Jun  4 16:11:32 2007
From: wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 12:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:

> i think ULA is a stupid idea, as those of you on ppml@ know.  but if it
> passes through the ietf then AS112 definitely ought to serve it up.  i'd
> be happier to see the old site-local prefix used, so that private networks
> can be ambiguous like they are in IPv4.  so perhaps AS112 ought to serve
> up the site-local in-addr prefix also, just in case somebody uses it.

That's just it.  In case it should come to pass that someone uses it.

How does AS112 get the delegations?

>> There's also the issue of whether or not AS112 servers should get an IPv6
>> address for anycast purposes, i.e. getting AS112 onto IPv6 infrastructure
>> where available and answering on IPv6 sockets.
>
> i think this is a very good idea.  any objection to me requesting a block
> from ARIN for this, using their /48 "critical infrastructure" policy?

None whatsoever.  It would be great.  Please and thanks.

>> Of course, if Marc's draft moves to RFC and DNS implementors follow it,
>
> haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaa ha ha HA!

Like I said. :-)

>
>> maybe the day will come that AS112 becomes obsolete...but I think it would
>> be a long time before we see AS112 traffic drop in proportion to people
>> moving to newer versions of DNS server software.
>
> i think AS112 will still see a minimum of 10K PPS in the year 2100.

I thought so...

wfms

From paul at vix.com  Mon Jun  4 16:27:23 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:27:23 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:11:32 -0400."
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> 
Message-ID: <93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>

> How does AS112 get the delegations?

we ask john crain and/or david conrad. there's no officialdom in place for it.
(previously, bmanning and jbrown had done the same, before AS112 existed.)

it's possible that AS112 needs its own nonprofit corporate framework, or that
ICANN ought to sign paperwork with each of us, or something.  that could take
a long time to settle.  we'll see.

From wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca  Mon Jun  4 17:40:07 2007
From: wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:40:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:

>> How does AS112 get the delegations?
>
> we ask john crain and/or david conrad. there's no officialdom in place for it.
> (previously, bmanning and jbrown had done the same, before AS112 existed.)

Can you make that approach on the AS112 operator's behalf?

Thanks,

wfms

From jabley at ca.afilias.info  Mon Jun  4 18:04:12 2007
From: jabley at ca.afilias.info (Joe Abley)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:04:12 -0400
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
Message-ID: <C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info>


On 4-Jun-2007, at 13:40, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>>> How does AS112 get the delegations?
>>
>> we ask john crain and/or david conrad. there's no officialdom in  
>> place for it.
>> (previously, bmanning and jbrown had done the same, before AS112  
>> existed.)
>
> Can you make that approach on the AS112 operator's behalf?

The other avenue (which was discussed at the dnsop meeting in Prague)  
is for the IETF to instruct the IANA to perform the delegation. This  
seems a preferable approach to me, since it leaves a paper trail, and  
the interaction with the IANA would then take place within a  
recognised channel.


Joe


From paul at vix.com  Mon Jun  4 18:13:46 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:13:46 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:04:12 -0400."
	<C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info> 
Message-ID: <8504.1180980826@sa.vix.com>

> > Can you make that approach on the AS112 operator's behalf?
> 
> The other avenue (which was discussed at the dnsop meeting in Prague) is for
> the IETF to instruct the IANA to perform the delegation. This seems a
> preferable approach to me, since it leaves a paper trail, and the
> interaction with the IANA would then take place within a recognised channel.

i agree, but, i don't know how to do that.  ideally we could ask ietf to do
this retroactively, to cover the current AS112 delegations.  if we knew how.

From jabley at ca.afilias.info  Mon Jun  4 18:18:19 2007
From: jabley at ca.afilias.info (Joe Abley)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:18:19 -0400
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <8504.1180980826@sa.vix.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info>
	<8504.1180980826@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <748B250C-E5CB-4692-AA79-476000D79B9C@ca.afilias.info>


On 4-Jun-2007, at 14:13, Paul Vixie wrote:

>>> Can you make that approach on the AS112 operator's behalf?
>>
>> The other avenue (which was discussed at the dnsop meeting in  
>> Prague) is for
>> the IETF to instruct the IANA to perform the delegation. This seems a
>> preferable approach to me, since it leaves a paper trail, and the
>> interaction with the IANA would then take place within a  
>> recognised channel.
>
> i agree, but, i don't know how to do that.  ideally we could ask  
> ietf to do
> this retroactively, to cover the current AS112 delegations.  if we  
> knew how.

We have two active documents which have been adopted by dnsop which  
concern as112, and part of the motivation for adopting them was so  
that the various registry aspects of the AS112 service could be  
documented (the current AS112 delegations are covered in draft-dnsop- 
as112-ops).

SRA and Peter Koch asked the room for a hum in Prague to find out  
whether there was consensus for adding IPv6 transport and sensible  
ip6.arpa zones into the mix, and the hum said yes. When I asked what  
that meant procedurally, I was told by the two chairs that a working  
group document which made requests of the IANA and which updated the  
as112-ops draft to include the v6 aspects would probably be the best  
way.

We might have to wait until the Chicago meeting to get traction on  
this, but my feeling is that there is support for it.


Joe


From paul at vix.com  Mon Jun  4 18:32:49 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:32:49 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:18:19 -0400."
	<748B250C-E5CB-4692-AA79-476000D79B9C@ca.afilias.info> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info>
	<8504.1180980826@sa.vix.com>
	<748B250C-E5CB-4692-AA79-476000D79B9C@ca.afilias.info> 
Message-ID: <9492.1180981969@sa.vix.com>

> SRA and Peter Koch asked the room for a hum in Prague to find out whether
> there was consensus for adding IPv6 transport and sensible ip6.arpa zones
> into the mix, and the hum said yes. When I asked what that meant
> procedurally, I was told by the two chairs that a working group document
> which made requests of the IANA and which updated the as112-ops draft to
> include the v6 aspects would probably be the best way.
> 
> We might have to wait until the Chicago meeting to get traction on this,
> but my feeling is that there is support for it.

i can think of at least one person on dnsop@ who will scream bloody murder
("why this set of operators? who controls the IRR for that netblock?" etc).
a number of other folks will likely say, "why is this like the rootops where
IANA has no contracts with the operators?" and "should there be an MoU?"

so, support i know there is, but traction i cannot confidently predict.

From wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca  Mon Jun  4 20:14:57 2007
From: wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <9492.1180981969@sa.vix.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info>
	<8504.1180980826@sa.vix.com>
	<748B250C-E5CB-4692-AA79-476000D79B9C@ca.afilias.info>
	<9492.1180981969@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041614060.4484@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:

>> We might have to wait until the Chicago meeting to get traction on this,
>> but my feeling is that there is support for it.
>
> i can think of at least one person on dnsop@ who will scream bloody murder
> ("why this set of operators? who controls the IRR for that netblock?" etc).
> a number of other folks will likely say, "why is this like the rootops where
> IANA has no contracts with the operators?" and "should there be an MoU?"

If that's the case, perhaps we should go direct to IANA for the 
delegations, seeing if their response is to follow a process established 
through the IETF?

wfms

From jabley at ca.afilias.info  Mon Jun  4 20:20:55 2007
From: jabley at ca.afilias.info (Joe Abley)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:20:55 -0400
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041614060.4484@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info>
	<8504.1180980826@sa.vix.com>
	<748B250C-E5CB-4692-AA79-476000D79B9C@ca.afilias.info>
	<9492.1180981969@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041614060.4484@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
Message-ID: <BBCCB643-45C3-4ACB-8018-D07F66EA9A8E@ca.afilias.info>


On 4-Jun-2007, at 16:14, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>>> We might have to wait until the Chicago meeting to get traction  
>>> on this,
>>> but my feeling is that there is support for it.
>>
>> i can think of at least one person on dnsop@ who will scream  
>> bloody murder
>> ("why this set of operators? who controls the IRR for that  
>> netblock?" etc).
>> a number of other folks will likely say, "why is this like the  
>> rootops where
>> IANA has no contracts with the operators?" and "should there be an  
>> MoU?"
>
> If that's the case, perhaps we should go direct to IANA for the
> delegations, seeing if their response is to follow a process  
> established
> through the IETF?

I am enthusiastic about the idea of waiting for the IETF process  
approach to fail before trying alternatives, rather than simply  
assuming it will fail and not even trying :-)


Joe


From paul at vix.com  Mon Jun  4 20:47:31 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:47:31 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:14:57 -0400."
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041614060.4484@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040750310.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46640DC8.2090204@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706040907100.3343@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info>
	<8504.1180980826@sa.vix.com>
	<748B250C-E5CB-4692-AA79-476000D79B9C@ca.afilias.info>
	<9492.1180981969@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041614060.4484@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> 
Message-ID: <24411.1180990051@sa.vix.com>

> > i can think of at least one person on dnsop@ who will scream bloody murder
> > ("why this set of operators? who controls the IRR for that netblock?"
> > etc).  a number of other folks will likely say, "why is this like the
> > rootops where IANA has no contracts with the operators?" and "should there
> > be an MoU?"
> 
> If that's the case, perhaps we should go direct to IANA for the delegations,
> seeing if their response is to follow a process established through the
> IETF?

by all means, you and joe should do that.

From wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca  Wed Jun  6 15:01:06 2007
From: wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] Statistical analysis tools for AS112
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>


Hi all,
 	What are the operators here using to gather stats on your AS112 
nodes, and what kind of stats are you gathering?  I have Marco d'Itri's 
BINDgraph plus the usual MRTG stuff watching the router/switch interfaces. 
But what are other people doing?

Thanks,

wfms

From md at Linux.IT  Wed Jun  6 15:50:38 2007
From: md at Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:50:38 +0200
Subject: [as112-ops] Statistical analysis tools for AS112
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
Message-ID: <20070606155038.GB32571@bongo.bofh.it>

On Jun 06, "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> wrote:

>  	What are the operators here using to gather stats on your AS112 
> nodes, and what kind of stats are you gathering?  I have Marco d'Itri's 
> BINDgraph plus the usual MRTG stuff watching the router/switch interfaces. 
> But what are other people doing?
dnstop is nice for real time investigations.

(Please do not consider my bindgraph program anything else than a quick
hack, it should not be used unless you have low traffic or CPU to waste.)

-- 
ciao,
Marco

From paul at vix.com  Wed Jun  6 17:46:08 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:46:08 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] Statistical analysis tools for AS112
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:50:38 +0200."
	<20070606155038.GB32571@bongo.bofh.it> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<20070606155038.GB32571@bongo.bofh.it> 
Message-ID: <11328.1181151968@sa.vix.com>

ideally everyone would run DSC and upload their data to an OARC
server that would then have a public display of AS112.

From daniele at namex.it  Wed Jun  6 18:52:56 2007
From: daniele at namex.it (Daniele Arena)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:52:56 +0200
Subject: [as112-ops] Statistical analysis tools for AS112
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
Message-ID: <46670288.70209@namex.it>

Hi William,

We are using DSC. It hasn't been excessively easy to set up, but it
seems to work nicely.

http://as112.namex.it/

Bindgraph didn't scale when we opened our transit and passed from 100 to
700qps; DSC dumps the DNS queries from the interface and collects the
stats directly from there, so it's lighter on the box.

Regards,

Daniele.

--
Daniele Arena - NaMeX
Via dei Tizi 6 - I-00185 Roma
Tel.: +39 06 44486313 - Fax: +39 06 4957083
http://www.namex.it/


William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
> Hi all,
>  	What are the operators here using to gather stats on your AS112 
> nodes, and what kind of stats are you gathering?  I have Marco d'Itri's 
> BINDgraph plus the usual MRTG stuff watching the router/switch interfaces. 
> But what are other people doing?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> wfms
> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.as112.net
> http://lists.oarci.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops


From daniele at namex.it  Wed Jun  6 18:59:21 2007
From: daniele at namex.it (Daniele Arena)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:59:21 +0200
Subject: [as112-ops] Statistical analysis tools for AS112
In-Reply-To: <11328.1181151968@sa.vix.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>	<20070606155038.GB32571@bongo.bofh.it>
	<11328.1181151968@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <46670409.6040108@namex.it>

Hi Paul,

> ideally everyone would run DSC and upload their data to an OARC
> server that would then have a public display of AS112.

I think there would be no problem for us to upload the data on an OARC
server. Just let us know how you want the data (I guess you'll want the
DSC XML files) to be transferred.

Regards,

Daniele.

-- 
Daniele Arena - NaMeX
Via dei Tizi 6/b - I-00185 Roma
Tel.: +39 06 44486313 - Fax: +39 06 4957083
http://www.namex.it/

From wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca  Thu Jun  7 20:25:09 2007
From: wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:25:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] Statistical analysis tools for AS112
In-Reply-To: <46670288.70209@namex.it>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46670288.70209@namex.it>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706071622580.18595@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Daniele Arena wrote:

> We are using DSC. It hasn't been excessively easy to set up, but it
> seems to work nicely.

I've seen that, tried to compile it and it bombs-out.  I think it probably 
has one too many BSD-isms inside it.

> Bindgraph didn't scale when we opened our transit and passed from 100 to
> 700qps; DSC dumps the DNS queries from the interface and collects the
> stats directly from there, so it's lighter on the box.

I experienced the same thing as well, but my machine (dual XEON 2.8GHz) 
seemed to be good enough until it went above 1500 qps.

wfms

From paul at vix.com  Thu Jun  7 20:34:23 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:34:23 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] Statistical analysis tools for AS112
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:25:09 -0400."
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706071622580.18595@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46670288.70209@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706071622580.18595@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> 
Message-ID: <88319.1181248463@sa.vix.com>

> > We are using DSC. It hasn't been excessively easy to set up, but it
> > seems to work nicely.
> 
> I've seen that, tried to compile it and it bombs-out.  I think it probably 
> has one too many BSD-isms inside it.

duane wessels, the author, is cc'd here, and will almost certainly want to
help you get DSC to build on your not-BSD-enough platform.

From wessels at packet-pushers.com  Thu Jun  7 22:55:18 2007
From: wessels at packet-pushers.com (Duane Wessels)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] Statistical analysis tools for AS112
In-Reply-To: <88319.1181248463@sa.vix.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706061059080.23462@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<46670288.70209@namex.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706071622580.18595@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<88319.1181248463@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <20070607155440.U45626@life-gone-hazy.com>



On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie said:

> duane wessels, the author, is cc'd here, and will almost certainly want to
> help you get DSC to build on your not-BSD-enough platform.

Absolutely.  Please send any errors or problems my way.

Duane W.

From pk at DENIC.DE  Mon Jun 11 08:57:50 2007
From: pk at DENIC.DE (Peter Koch)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:57:50 +0200
Subject: [as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112
In-Reply-To: <24411.1180990051@sa.vix.com>
References: <91873.1180973077@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041210200.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<93636.1180974443@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041339430.12378@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<C9CF9D0D-C1A7-4121-912F-67C33C5A264D@ca.afilias.info>
	<8504.1180980826@sa.vix.com>
	<748B250C-E5CB-4692-AA79-476000D79B9C@ca.afilias.info>
	<9492.1180981969@sa.vix.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041614060.4484@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
	<24411.1180990051@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <20070611085750.GC3987@denics7.denic.de>

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:47:31PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:

> > If that's the case, perhaps we should go direct to IANA for the delegations,
> > seeing if their response is to follow a process established through the
> > IETF?
> 
> by all means, you and joe should do that.

maybe I have to biased at least slightly, but I think asking for the delegation
is a bit premature. As we discussed in Prague, the AS112 anycast cloud and
the "AS112 in a box" (Mark's draft) are different in that the first makes
removals easy where the latter prefers additions.  Before the delegation
goes to "blackhole-?", shouldn't we first agree on a default behavior for
unrecognized delegations?

-Peter

From paul at vix.com  Sat Jun 30 15:57:27 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:57:27 +0000
Subject: [as112-ops] fyi-- Stephane Bortzmeyer: [DNSOP] Review of
	draft-jabley-as112-ops-00
Message-ID: <29681.1183219047@sa.vix.com>

An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Subject: [DNSOP] Review of draft-jabley-as112-ops-00
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:27:07 +0200
Size: 5018
Url: http://lists.oarci.net/pipermail/as112-ops/attachments/20070630/2e5a11b0/attachment.mht 

