Sent from my Windows® phone.
-----Original Message----- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org <nanog-requ...@nanog.org> Sent: 30 March 2010 13:00 To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 142 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-requ...@nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-ow...@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: DNSSEC deployment testing and awareness (Was: Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup) (Robert Kisteleki) 2. Re: DNSSEC deployment testing and awareness (Was: Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup) (Phil Regnauld) 3. Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup (Jens Link) 4. Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup (bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com) 5. Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup (Tony Finch) 6. Re: Useful URL for network operators (valdis.kletni...@vt.edu) 7. RE: Auto MDI/MDI-X + conference rooms + bored == loop (William Mullaney) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:37:49 +0200 From: Robert Kisteleki <rob...@ripe.net> Subject: Re: DNSSEC deployment testing and awareness (Was: Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup) To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4bb1c66d.7000...@ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I must observe that these are not really the links you'd want to give your end users to check out. Their audience is very different. While the article on RIPE Labs comes close, they don't really answer the "does it work or does it not?" question with a green/red light, and they don't provide a good explanation to the audience Randy is referring to. Robert On 2010.03.30. 11:29, Phil Regnauld wrote: > Randy Bush (randy) writes: >> >> i.e. what can we do to maximize the odds that the victim will quickly >> find the perp, as opposed to calling our our tech support lines? > > Ah yes, there was the second good reason for actually helping netops > and security officers :) > > Tools: > > https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/replysizetest > > https://www.dnssec-deployment.org/wiki/index.php/Tools_and_Resources, > under troubleshooting: > > http://labs.ripe.net/content/testing-your-resolver-dns-reply-size-issues > http://secspider.cs.ucla.edu/ > > Info sheets: > > > http://www.afnic.fr/actu/nouvelles/240/l-afnic-invite-les-responsables-techniques-reseaux-a-se-preparer-a-la-signature-de-la-racine-dns-en-mai-2010 > (click English, top right) > > ... plenty of links there too. > > Cheers, > Phil > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:52:27 +0200 From: Phil Regnauld <regna...@nsrc.org> Subject: Re: DNSSEC deployment testing and awareness (Was: Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup) To: Robert Kisteleki <rob...@ripe.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20100330095226.ge24...@macbook.catpipe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Robert Kisteleki (robert) writes: > I must observe that these are not really the links you'd want to > give your end users to check out. Their audience is very different. > While the article on RIPE Labs comes close, they don't really answer > the "does it work or does it not?" question with a green/red light, > and they don't provide a good explanation to the audience Randy is > referring to. Fair enough. Some simple "check your DNS reply size test [what is this ?]" page ought to be set up, with a simple explanagtion. "checkmydns.org" is available. If I get 5 minutes... :) ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:58:16 +0200 From: Jens Link <li...@quux.de> Subject: Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <87mxxqb07b....@bowmore.quux.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Kevin Oberman" <ober...@es.net> writes: > He said that if the protocols would not handle blocked 53/tcp, the > protocols would have to be changed. Opening the port was simply not > open to discussion. Let me guess: They also completely blocked ICMP. I always tell these customers to switch to IPv6 real fast and to turn of ICMPv6 to make their networks really secure. ;-) > I will say that these were at federal government facilities. I hope the > commercial world is a bit more in touch with reality. You can find clueless people everywhere. Jens -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://www.quux.de | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@guug.de | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:05:27 +0000 From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com Subject: Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup To: Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <20100330100527.gc30...@vacation.karoshi.com.> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 05:43:25PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> I have talked to multiple security officers (who are generally not > >>> really knowledgeable on networks) who had 53/tcp blocked and none > >>> have yet agreed to change it. > >> patience. when things really start to break, and the finger of fate > >> points at them, clue may arise. > > 36 days until all root servers have DNSSEC data, at which point large > > replies become normal. > > are end user tools, i.e. a web click a button, available so they can > test if they are behind a clueless security id10t? no - in part because using a browser to debug DNS involves a third app (and likly a third/forth) platform. the nifty OARC testpoint is nearly worthless for real operations, since its not located at/near a DNS authoritative source. the K testpoint is good, I should prolly put back the one off B. > is there good simple end user docco they are somewhat likely to find > when things break for them? not yet. in part because out of the few simple parts, many, many combinations of failure can occur. ) MTU strictures: v6/v4 tunneling v6/v4 MTU clamping ) Fragmenation UDP ) Port blocking ) Resolver Behaviour EDNS awareness > i.e. what can we do to maximize the odds that the victim will quickly > find the perp, as opposed to calling our our tech support lines? thats a tough call. as tech support staff, we are almost always an outside observer on the path btwn the victim and the perp. troubleshooting is going to be problematic. > > randy ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:53:12 +0100 From: Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> Subject: Re: IPv4 ANYCAST setup To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <alpine.lsu.2.00.1003301152280.1...@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII "Kevin Oberman" <ober...@es.net> writes: > He said that if the protocols would not handle blocked 53/tcp, the > protocols would have to be changed. Opening the port was simply not > open to discussion. Do they also believe that all DNS replies are less than 512 bytes? :-) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:33:39 -0400 From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Subject: Re: Useful URL for network operators To: Jim Mercer <j...@reptiles.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <1191.1269948...@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:34:06 EDT, Jim Mercer said: > Once again, please ignore Jim Mercer. > He should do more homeworks too. He's said similar about a number of people who have more operations clue than he does. I'd comment, except Woody Allen already did it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE > a) I have never heard of Randy Bush That's OK, I encoura.. oh nevermind, it's shooting fish in a barrel. ;) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/nanog/attachments/20100330/dfea2bda/attachment-0001.pgp ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:36:04 -0400 From: "William Mullaney" <wmulla...@annese.com> Subject: RE: Auto MDI/MDI-X + conference rooms + bored == loop To: "Chuck Anderson" <c...@wpi.edu>, <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <cb659fef50324640b503095da13fa9f4f65...@comm02.annese.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We had a school district that had a large number of "dumb" switches in each class room hanging off real ones. These would get looped when a student or staff member plugged a patch cable into two ports on the end switch, taking down large portions of the network. It seems Cisco 3500's ignore a BPDU that comes in the same port it comes out. We switched them to 3750's as part of other upgrades, which eliminated the BPDU problem (3560's and 3550's also work correctly), RSTP, enabled port fast, root guard, loop back detection, and storm control. Then set the switches to automatically come back in service from err-disable after 60 seconds or so. In every single test we did (looping off a dumb switch, looping two ports on the 3750, looping between two 3750 in different stacks), there was immediate blocking occurring that prevented any non-sense from effecting the network. Of course the little switches get taken out along with anything connected, but that's really just an indicator of the need for more drops from real switches. Additionally, turning on only one of the features at a time still shut down the port within a second or so. I don't really like BPDUGuard when rootguard is available, as I think other devices should be able to participate in STP so long as they aren't trying to reconverge the network by grabbing root or becoming a transit between two building switches. As for RSTP, it's on for every switch we deploy unless there is some compelling reason not to do so. I have yet to find another switch that will not work even if it only supports "old" STP. -WT -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Anderson [mailto:c...@wpi.edu] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:09 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Auto MDI/MDI-X + conference rooms + bored == loop Anyone have suggestions on Ethernet LAN loop-prevention? With the advent of Auto MDI/MDI-X ports on switches, it seems way too easy to accidentally or maliciously create loops between network jacks. We have bored or inattentive people plugging in patch cords between adjacent network jacks. STP for loop-prevention isn't working so well for us. STP "edge" or "portfast" or "faststart" modes are required for end-station ports (with normal STP, DHCP often times out after 30+ seconds it takes to go into Forwarding state). Since the "edge" STP mode goes into Forwarding state immediately, there is a period when loops will form, causing havok with upstream gear until STP blocks the port (if it ever does see below). "Desktop" switches. You know, those 4 or 5 port Gigabit Ethernet switches. Apparently, many of them don't do any kind of STP at all. Recommendations on ones that do STP? RSTP: is it any better than traditional STP in regards to "edge" ports and blocking before a loop gets out of hand? Or perhaps blocking for 5-10 seconds before going into Forwarding state, hopefully preventing loops before they happen but also allowing DHCP clients to get an address without timeouts? Recommendations on "Desktop" switches that do RSTP? Thanks for your suggestions/discussion. -- - Chuck (354 Days until IPv4 depletion: http://ipv4depletion.com/) ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 142 **************************************