Anyone here from ihotelier.com or travelclcik.com or gramtel.net
Hello, I have 3 customers experiencing routing issues all day to admin.ihotelier.com When the problem occurs the trace stops and drops at a gramtel.net router or server. That traces through GTT then Zayo and halts at gramtel.net. When I put in a temp static around it via another transit it hops through PNAP.net and works fine. I would like to get rid of my temp route for the admin.ihotelier.com /24 range. Thanks Bob Evans CTO
outage
cf brian nisbet's talk this (cest) afternoon: a fair number of researchers are obsessed with outage detection. they have a problem; outages where one can know the 'ground truth' (operator confirmation of what actually happened down to the links and times) is very hard to get. so, it would be helpful if some core networks would either report the details of an outage every week or so, or create a nice variety of planned outages and descrive the details. randy
RE: IPv6 first hop security on a budget?
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-2960-x-series-switches/data_sheet_c78-728232.html Krunal Shah Network Analyst, IP & Transport Network Engineering O: 416-855-1805 ks...@primustel.ca -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joel Whitehouse Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 7:27 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IPv6 first hop security on a budget? What's a good budget option for switching a small lab or office ipv6 with RA Guard, DHCP6 snooping, and ICMP6 snooping? This electronic message contains information from Primus Management ULC ("PRIMUS") , which may be legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or e-mail (to the number or address above) immediately. Any views, opinions or advice expressed in this electronic message are not necessarily the views, opinions or advice of PRIMUS. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that any attachments are virus free and PRIMUS bears no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from the use thereof.The term "PRIMUS" includes its affiliates. Pour la version en français de ce message, veuillez voir http://www.primustel.ca/fr/legal/cs.htm
Re: Interconnection Track
John, The "Peering Coordination Forum" is a dedicated session for peering or interconnection discussions. It is a more formalized version of "peering personals" which were part of the old peering BoF and are also featured at GPF as well as other events. In other words if you are interested in soliciting new peers you provide some basic information such as ASN, Peering Policy, if caching is offered, and URL to peering policy or solicitation request. NANOG is providing tables to approximately 25 organizations, will project the information provided on slides and table locations, and you can conduct bi-lateral discussions. If you are interested in peering with those networks, you find them in that forum. There is also open meeting space with tables for the whole conference for bi-lateral discussions between networks and organizations, plus the NANOG board tasked the staff to evaluate tools for scheduling meetings for future meetings. The Peering Coordination Forum is open for registration: https://nanog.org/meetings/nanog70/pcf Mehmet has submitted a proposed agenda for the Interconnection track as, which the NANOG Program Committee has to evaluate through its peer review process. We received that submission today which is somewhat late in our review cycle, so there will probably be more information after the PC meets this Thursday, but it is not currently posted to the agenda. We will be posting approved submissions and their associated time-slots to the agenda this week. Please note that we are holding a hackathon at NANOG 70 Sunday and the "challenge" is o develop tools around Peering/Interconnection automation and there will be a short tutorial on the same theme. https://nanog.org/meetings/nanog70/hackathon Sean (on behalf of the NANOG PC) 2017-05-08 14:35 GMT-04:00 John Kemp : > > Scheduling question: I assume this is the slot on the agenda that say: > "NANOG 70 Peering Coordination Forum" > > I'm not seeing it on the schedule. Has a lot been assigned? > > John Kemp > > On 4/17/17 6:03 AM, Bevan Slattery wrote: > > Hi! Love the interconnection track. Great stuff. But I can't help but > think limiting interconnection to the peering/IXP view seems to be looking > at interconnection from the rear view mirror. > > > > I just think that changing the track name from peering/IXP to > "Interconnection" has the optionality to be a bit more looking forward. > Interconnection in the network world is becoming more sophisticated and > important than just old school peering (hearing the gasps of horror from > the Nanog peering cabal at that statement) ;) > > > > Cheers > > > > [b] > > > >> On 17 Apr 2017, at 9:52 pm, Mehmet Akcin wrote: > >> > >> Thank you very much for sending privately and publicly an overwhelming > >> number of suggestions. I do appreciate you taking time and writing > things > >> up in detail. I am doing my best with help of Greg H from PC to put > these > >> thoughts on paper. > >> > >> It looks like there is a great interest to make this track focusing on > >> tooling and automation as well as introductions of new game changing > ixps. > >> > >> I would like to invite all new IXPs to come and talk about what they > offer > >> (ie denver-ix) > >> > >> I also would like to invite any existing IXPs to announce price > discounts > >> to their services. This is the only update we will have time in this > >> interconnection track. Unfortunately no graphs, other updates. > >> > >> Few questions, Seattle is beautiful in summer and I hope to have many of > >> you in person in beautiful washington state, but for those who can't > >> travel, should we record / live stream this session? (Historically we > did > >> keep peering track off the grid... i believe) > >> > >> Would it be interesting to focus on peering challenges globally or > strictly > >> focus on north america? > >> > >> Last but not least, If you have a tool you want to talk about in > >> interconnection track that is directly involved with peering setup, etc. > >> please do contact me offlist. > >> > >> Cheers! Looking forward to it. > >> > >>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM Mehmet Akcin wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> As promised few months ago publically I have volunteered to bring > together > >>> content to have Peering Track back to agenda. Now called > "Interconnection > >>> Track" > >>> > >>> I would like to ask those who will attend, have attended in person in > the > >>> past or those who have organized similar events to chime in and help > >>> suggest topics to cover in this 90 min session. > >>> > >>> I must say, Interconnection Track has been a major part if NANOG for > many > >>> years. We have watched those who we consider as legends to discuss very > >>> important topics there. > >>> > >>> Please try to make your suggestion in order of importance for you as > well > >>> as from community. > >>> > >>> I can try to do my best with help of few folks to bring this track back > >>> but you can help make
Re: Interconnection Track
Scheduling question: I assume this is the slot on the agenda that say: "NANOG 70 Peering Coordination Forum" I'm not seeing it on the schedule. Has a lot been assigned? John Kemp On 4/17/17 6:03 AM, Bevan Slattery wrote: > Hi! Love the interconnection track. Great stuff. But I can't help but > think limiting interconnection to the peering/IXP view seems to be looking at > interconnection from the rear view mirror. > > I just think that changing the track name from peering/IXP to > "Interconnection" has the optionality to be a bit more looking forward. > Interconnection in the network world is becoming more sophisticated and > important than just old school peering (hearing the gasps of horror from the > Nanog peering cabal at that statement) ;) > > Cheers > > [b] > >> On 17 Apr 2017, at 9:52 pm, Mehmet Akcin wrote: >> >> Thank you very much for sending privately and publicly an overwhelming >> number of suggestions. I do appreciate you taking time and writing things >> up in detail. I am doing my best with help of Greg H from PC to put these >> thoughts on paper. >> >> It looks like there is a great interest to make this track focusing on >> tooling and automation as well as introductions of new game changing ixps. >> >> I would like to invite all new IXPs to come and talk about what they offer >> (ie denver-ix) >> >> I also would like to invite any existing IXPs to announce price discounts >> to their services. This is the only update we will have time in this >> interconnection track. Unfortunately no graphs, other updates. >> >> Few questions, Seattle is beautiful in summer and I hope to have many of >> you in person in beautiful washington state, but for those who can't >> travel, should we record / live stream this session? (Historically we did >> keep peering track off the grid... i believe) >> >> Would it be interesting to focus on peering challenges globally or strictly >> focus on north america? >> >> Last but not least, If you have a tool you want to talk about in >> interconnection track that is directly involved with peering setup, etc. >> please do contact me offlist. >> >> Cheers! Looking forward to it. >> >>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM Mehmet Akcin wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> As promised few months ago publically I have volunteered to bring together >>> content to have Peering Track back to agenda. Now called "Interconnection >>> Track" >>> >>> I would like to ask those who will attend, have attended in person in the >>> past or those who have organized similar events to chime in and help >>> suggest topics to cover in this 90 min session. >>> >>> I must say, Interconnection Track has been a major part if NANOG for many >>> years. We have watched those who we consider as legends to discuss very >>> important topics there. >>> >>> Please try to make your suggestion in order of importance for you as well >>> as from community. >>> >>> I can try to do my best with help of few folks to bring this track back >>> but you can help make it even better so please take a moment and send me >>> your suggestions. >>> >>> Thanks in advance! >>> >>> Mehmet >>>
Clueful contact at Microsoft needed
Apologies if this is off topic for NANOG. I need to contact someone at Microsoft who can correct problems with Microsoft accounts. I've been trying unsuccessfully to disavow a Microsoft account for some time. Note this an account someone has managed to associate with one of my email addresses. The Microsoft account does not belong to me. I've been unable to contact the account holder. I've been through their support site and system which has been singularly unhelpful (and also requires a Microsoft account just to contact anyone). It's clear the support people don't understand the problem. I mean, how does logging into the settings on my (non-microsoft) email account help solve a problem with the settings on a Microsoft account?