NANOG held its 95th meeting in Arlington, Texas in October of 2025. Here's my take on a few presentations that caught my attention through this three-day meeting.
Civil unrest can often cloud measurement data. Some measurement systems, including the one we use at APNIC Labs, make relatively sweeping assumptions about the stability of both end user behaviour and network service behaviours, and assume that the changes that occur from day-to-day are minor. During times of civil unrest those assumptions are pretty dubious, and this applies to our measurements of ISP market share in Yeman and Myanmar.
Civil unrest can often cloud measurement data. Some measurement systems, including the one we use at APNIC Labs, make relatively sweeping assumptions about the stability of both end user behaviour and network service behaviours, and assume that the changes that occur from day-to-day are minor. During times of civil unrest those assumptions are pretty dubious, and this applies to our measurements of ISP market share in Yeman and Myanmar.
At APNIC Labs we publish a number of measurements of the deployment of various technologies that are being adopted on the Internet. Here I will look at how we measure the adoption of IPv6.
At APNIC Labs we publish a number of measurements of the deployment of various technologies that are being adopted on the Internet. Here I will look at how we measure the adoption of IPv6.
This article is based on a presentation I made to the ARIN 56 meeting in October 2025. Here I'd like to elevate the typical Regional Internet Registry policy conversations above the day-to-day mundanities of address allocation policies with its vocabulary of address block sizes and needs-based justifications, fairness and efficiency and look more broadly at the context of the industry we operate in, and try to gain an understanding of where we are right now, and speculate on where it's all going.
This article is based on a presentation I made to the ARIN 56 meeting in October 2025. Here I'd like to elevate the typical Regional Internet Registry policy conversations above the day-to-day mundanities of address allocation policies with its vocabulary of address block sizes and needs-based justifications, fairness and efficiency and look more broadly at the context of the industry we operate in, and try to gain an understanding of where we are right now, and speculate on where it's all going.
The 91st meeting of the RIPE community was held in Bucharest in October this year. It was a busy week and, as usual, there were presentations on a wide variety of topics, including routing, the DNS, network operations, security, measurement and address policies. The following are some notes on presentations that I found to be of interest to me.
The 91st meeting of the RIPE community was held in Bucharest in October this year. It was a busy week and, as usual, there were presentations on a wide variety of topics, including routing, the DNS, network operations, security, measurement and address policies. The following are some notes on presentations that I found to be of interest to me.
"Where are you?" is not an easy question to answer on the Internet. The Internet did not adopt a geographic address plan which means that you are going to need a lot of additional information if you want to map an IP address into a location at the level of a country or a city. But what can you do about a satellite service that Provides Internet access for ships at sea aircraft flying international routes?
"Where are you?" is not an easy question to answer on the Internet. The Internet did not adopt a geographic address plan which means that you are going to need a lot of additional information if you want to map an IP address into a location at the level of a country or a city. But what can you do about a satellite service that Provides Internet access for ships at sea aircraft flying international routes?
The Australian Network Operators' Group, AUSNOG, held its 19th meeting at the start of September. Rather than simply relate the content of the presentations I'd like to take a few presentations and place them into a broader context to show how such topics fit today's networked environment.
The Australian Network Operators' Group, AUSNOG, held its 19th meeting at the start of September. Rather than simply relate the content of the presentations I'd like to take a few presentations and place them into a broader context to show how such topics fit today's networked environment.
I've always thought that the TCP protocol was the heart of the ingenuity that is the Internet. TCP is a flow control protocol that strives to produce both fair efficient outcomes, both for each TCP session, but for the networ4k as well. The essential feedback signal used by TCP is congestion-based packet loss, but this isn't the only approach. Another approach lies in enrolling the aassistance of the network's routers, and use packet marking instead of loss to signal to the TCP end hosts that network congestion is taking place. This form of signalling, Explicit Congestion Notification is explored in this article, as well as the outcomes of a measurement exercise to establish just how widely we used this alternativer form of congestion signalling.
I've always thought that the TCP protocol was the heart of the ingenuity that is the Internet. TCP is a flow control protocol that strives to produce both fair efficient outcomes, both for each TCP session, but for the networ4k as well. The essential feedback signal used by TCP is congestion-based packet loss, but this isn't the only approach. Another approach lies in enrolling the aassistance of the network's routers, and use packet marking instead of loss to signal to the TCP end hosts that network congestion is taking place. This form of signalling, Explicit Congestion Notification is explored in this article, as well as the outcomes of a measurement exercise to establish just how widely we used this alternativer form of congestion signalling.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meets three times a year to develop Internet Standards and related best practices. At its July 2025 meeting in Madrid, several sessions explored the evolving role of congestion control in transport protocols and sparked the observations in this post.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meets three times a year to develop Internet Standards and related best practices. At its July 2025 meeting in Madrid, several sessions explored the evolving role of congestion control in transport protocols and sparked the observations in this post.
As usual, IETF 123 was a busy week for DNS folk. I'll cover the material presented at the DELEG and DNSOP working groups. There is more to the DNS at IETF meetings than just these two working groups, and I'll skip over Adaptive DNS Discovery (ADD), Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (DNSSD), and DANE Authentication for Network Clients Everywhere (DANCE) in the interests of trying to keep this report (relatively) brief!