Microsoft peering contact
Hi, We have sent emails to Microsoft AS8075 peeringdb contacts but we have not received any answer yet. Can someone share a contact, in unicast, who can answer some issues with the Azure API? Thanks, Tomas Lynch
Re: Centurylink having a bad morning?
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:37 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 31/Aug/20 17:57, Bryan Holloway wrote: > > > Not everyone will peer with you, notably, AS3356 (unless you're big > > enough, which few can say.) > > I think Tomas meant more diverse peering, not peering with CL. > Oh, yes! Let's not start another "what's a tier one" war! > > Mark. > >
Re: Centurylink having a bad morning?
Maybe we are idealizing these so-called tier-1 carriers and we, tier-ns, should treat them as what they really are: another AS. Accept that they are going to fail and do our best to mitigate the impact on our own networks, i.e. more peering. On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:54 AM Martijn Schmidt via NANOG wrote: > At this point you don't even know whether it's a human error (example: > generating a flowspec rule for port TCP/179), a filtering issue (example: > accepting a flowspec rule for port TCP/179), or a software issue (example: > certain flowspec update crashes the BGP daemon). And in the third scenario > I think that at least some portion of the blame shifts from the carrier to > its vendors, assuming the thing that crashed was not a home-grown BGP > implementation. > > With the route optimizer incidents - because let's face it, Honest > Networker is on the money as usual > https://honestnetworker.net/2020/08/06/as10990-routing/ - there is really > no excuse for any tier-1 carrier, they should at the very least have strict > prefix-list based filtering in place for customer-facing EBGP sessions. In > those cases it's much easier to state who's not taking care of their > proverbial lawn. > > Best regards, > Martijn > > On 8/31/20 3:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > > https://blog.cloudflare.com/analysis-of-todays-centurylink-level-3-outage/ > > > I definitely found Mr. Prince's writing about yesterday's events > fascinating. > > Verizon makes a mistake with BGP filters that allows a secondary mistake > from leaked "optimizer" routes to propagate, and Mr. Prince takes every > opportunity to lob large chunks of granite about how terrible they are. > > L3 allows an erroneous flowspec announcement to cause massive global > connectivity issues, and Mr. Prince shrugs and says "Incidents happen." > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:15 AM Hank Nussbacher > wrote: > >> On 30/08/2020 20:08, Baldur Norddahl wrote: >> >> https://blog.cloudflare.com/analysis-of-todays-centurylink-level-3-outage/ >> >> Sounds like Flowspec possibly blocking tcp/179 might be the cause. >> >> But that is Cloudflare speculation. >> >> Regards, >> Hank >> Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express >> the views or opinions of my employer >> >> An outage is what it is. I am not worried about outages. We have multiple >> transits to deal with that. >> >> It is the keep announcing prefixes after withdrawal from peers and >> customers that is the huge problem here. That is killing all the effort and >> money I put into having redundancy. It is sabotage of my network after I >> cut the ties. I do not want to be a customer at an outlet who has a system >> that will do that. Luckily we do not currently have a contract and now they >> will have to convince me it is safe for me to make a contract with them. If >> that is impossible I guess I won't be getting a contract with them. >> >> But I disagree in that it would be impossible. They need to make a good >> report telling exactly what went wrong and how they changed the design, so >> something like this can not happen again. The basic design of BGP is such >> that this should not happen easily if at all. They did something unwise. >> Did they make a route reflector based on a database or something? >> >> Regards, >> >> Baldur >> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 5:13 PM Mike Bolitho >> wrote: >> >>> Exactly. And asking that they somehow prove this won't happen again is >>> impossible. >>> >>> - Mike Bolitho >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 8:10 AM Drew Weaver >>> wrote: >>> I’m not defending them but I am sure it isn’t intentional. *From:* NANOG *On Behalf Of *Baldur Norddahl *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2020 9:28 AM *To:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* Re: Centurylink having a bad morning? How is that acceptable behaviour? I shall remember never to make a contract with these guys until they can prove that they won't advertise my prefixes after I pull them. Under any circumstances. søn. 30. aug. 2020 15.14 skrev Joseph Jenkins < j...@breathe-underwater.com>: Finally got through on their support line and spoke to level1. The only thing the tech could say was it was an issue with BGP route reflectors and it started about 3am(pacific). They were still trying to isolate the issue. I've tried failing over my circuits and no go, the traffic just dies as L3 won't stop advertising my routes. On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 5:21 AM Drew Weaver via NANOG wrote: Hello, Woke up this morning to a bunch of reports of issues with connectivity had to shut down some Level3/CTL connections to get it to return to normal. As of right now their support portal won’t load: https://www.centurylink.com/business/login/ Just wondering what others are seeing. >> >
Re: Centurylink having a bad morning?
Flapping in Miami, Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Jose. It is also affecting some data centers in Europe too. but haven't seen flaps there, just suboptimal routing. On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:53 AM Drew Weaver wrote: > Saw the flapping in Cleveland but not in Cincinnatti or Ashburn… > > > > *From:* Tomas Lynch > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2020 8:45 AM > *To:* Mel Beckman > *Cc:* Drew Weaver ; nanog@nanog.org > *Subject:* Re: Centurylink having a bad morning? > > > > BGP sessions randomly flapping or having routing issues in different > cities since ~5AM EST > > > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:42 AM Mel Beckman wrote: > > The CL portal loads for me, and I can log in, but it is slower than usual. > Not seeing traffic issues on our CL circuits. > > -mel via cell > > > > On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:23 AM, Drew Weaver via NANOG > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Woke up this morning to a bunch of reports of issues with connectivity had > to shut down some Level3/CTL connections to get it to return to normal. > > > > As of right now their support portal won’t load: > https://www.centurylink.com/business/login/ > > > > Just wondering what others are seeing. > > > >
Re: Centurylink having a bad morning?
BGP sessions randomly flapping or having routing issues in different cities since ~5AM EST On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:42 AM Mel Beckman wrote: > The CL portal loads for me, and I can log in, but it is slower than usual. > Not seeing traffic issues on our CL circuits. > > -mel via cell > > On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:23 AM, Drew Weaver via NANOG > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Woke up this morning to a bunch of reports of issues with connectivity had > to shut down some Level3/CTL connections to get it to return to normal. > > > > As of right now their support portal won’t load: > https://www.centurylink.com/business/login/ > > > > Just wondering what others are seeing. > > > >
Re: Internap (AS 12178) Contact
Alex, I need a contact at Internap. Can you share yours in private? Thanks, Tomas Lynch On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:21 PM Alex Lembesis wrote: > Was able to get in touch with someone. Thank you guys! > > > > > > *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] *On Behalf Of *Alex > Lembesis (External) > *Sent:* Monday, July 01, 2019 4:52 PM > *To:* nanog@nanog.org > *Subject:* Internap (AS 12178) Contact > > > > Wondering if anyone knows of a contact @ Internap that can reach out to me > off-list. We’re only receiving a default route from them now, when we > should be receiving the full table. Any help is much appreciated. Thanks! > > > > > This message is intended solely for the designated recipient(s). It may > contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to > attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are > not a designated recipient you may not review, copy or distribute this > message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply > e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. > > > This message is intended solely for the designated recipient(s). It may > contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to > attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are > not a designated recipient you may not review, copy or distribute this > message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply > e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. >
KDDI BGP communities
I'm looking for KDDI BGP communities without any luck googling for them. Can somebody point me into the right direction please?
Re: BRAS sugestion
You can try Ericsson SSR or SE. On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Ahad Aboss a...@telcoinabox.com wrote: Julian If you have budget constraints, try getting 2 x ASR1004, else ASR1006 with dual RP would take care of your needs. Cheers Ahad Sent from my iPhone On 15 Aug 2015, at 1:06 am, Julian Eble juliane...@yahoo.com.br wrote: Hello Nanog, Our company are constantly growing and we're looking for a 30k+ subscribers BRAS, does the community have a sugestion? Thank you!
Re: LTE
Ericsson SSR or SE. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Bryan Ignatow br...@ignatow.org wrote: Nathan, I know someone. Contact me off list and I will get you and he connected. Bryan On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:33 PM Nathan Anderson nath...@fsr.com wrote: Is there anybody here who is fluent in LTE/3GPP networks and the standards that govern them? I'm not sure where else to look. I have a very specific question about UEs, UICCs, and the security negotiation (integrity ciphers) that occurs during attachment both on the AS and NAS layers, and so far I have not found our vendor to be very helpful. If there is somebody out there that knows something about this area, and is willing to chat with me about it, feel free to drop me a line off-list. Thanks much, -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com
Re: LTE
Sorry, wrong thread! On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Tomas Lynch tomas.ly...@gmail.com wrote: Ericsson SSR or SE. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Bryan Ignatow br...@ignatow.org wrote: Nathan, I know someone. Contact me off list and I will get you and he connected. Bryan On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:33 PM Nathan Anderson nath...@fsr.com wrote: Is there anybody here who is fluent in LTE/3GPP networks and the standards that govern them? I'm not sure where else to look. I have a very specific question about UEs, UICCs, and the security negotiation (integrity ciphers) that occurs during attachment both on the AS and NAS layers, and so far I have not found our vendor to be very helpful. If there is somebody out there that knows something about this area, and is willing to chat with me about it, feel free to drop me a line off-list. Thanks much, -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Spanish speaking countries .gob.$2lettercodecountry. No problem so far.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
CAH_OBie1Xzzc_9Xo7wPwgQBgeT=f+0bbegow4c5dnjbfzte...@mail.gmail.com
, shawn wilson writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the
future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Well there wasn't a target date set for the change to IPv6 and it
is starting to happen pretty fast now.
These are nameserver by IP type (IPv4 then IPv6). For Alexa top
1000, Alexa AU zones, Alexa bottom 1000 of top 1M, Alexa GOV zones
and TLD/Root zone.
% foreach f ( tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* )
foreach? echo $f
foreach? awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc
foreach? awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc
foreach? end
tld-report/reports/alexa.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z
21782178 33180
513 513 11131
tld-report/reports/au.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
63436343 97529
726 726 16441
tld-report/reports/bottom.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
17881788 26945
416 4169660
tld-report/reports/gov.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
12631263 18821
301 3016765
tld-report/reports/tld.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z
16021602 23035
10651065 20276
%
Or over all the servers
% awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc
11805 11805 178630
% awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc
25542554 53979
%
Now who says IPv6 hasn't taken off?
Setting target dates helps. Having a administator willing to pull
the plug on the set date helps even more. .ARPA was cleared of
hosts because there was a date set and the last entries were removed
even if the operators of the hosts weren't ready. There was never
any intention to remove in-addr.arpa.
Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move,
but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is
off-topic for this list.
In this case, it's all about the application-layer stuff - that'd be
the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems,
Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would
(should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov.
Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you
might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have take
n
longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*.
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the
usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows
DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap
parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public,
contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
Government departments get re-named all the time. Many departments
have already gone through name changes since coming onto the net.
This would just be another one.
Size really isn't a issue, there are more than enough staff to do this.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, jim deleskie wrote: Having run both on some good sized networks, I can tell you to run what your ops folks know best. We can debate all day the technical merits of one v another, but end of day, it always comes down to your most jr ops eng having to make a change at 2 am, you need to design for this case, if your using OSPF today and they know OSPF I'd say stick with it to reduce the chance of things blowing up at 2am when someone tries to 'fix' something else. Agreed. I did an OSPFv3 vs. IS-IS bake-off in my lab several months ago as part of an IPv6 rollout, and one of the key deciding factors in going with OSPFv3 over IS-IS was that our ops folks are much more familiar with OSPFv2. While there are difference between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 in how they work, the learning curve is a lot less steep than going from OSPFv2 to IS-IS. jms Do not underestimate the power of ops engineers. Really is not that difficult to learn ISIS and they can add it to their resume. On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, William Cooper wcoope...@gmail.com wrote: I'm totally in concurrence with Stephan's point. Couple of things to consider: a) deciding to migrate to either ISIS or OSPFv3 from another protocol is still migrating to a new protocol and b) even in the case of migrating to OSPFv3, there are fairly significant changes in behavior from OSPFv2 to be aware of (most notably authentication, but that's fodder for another conversation). -Tony On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Stefan Fouant sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net** wrote: Well up until not too long ago, to support IPv6 you would run OSPFv3 and for IPv4 you would run OSPFv2, making IS-IS more attractive, but that is no longer the case with support for IPv4 NLRI in OSPFv3. The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is due to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less vulnerable to attacks. Stefan Fouant JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks http://www.shortestpathfirst.**net http://www.shortestpathfirst.net http://www.twitter.com/sfouant Sent from my iPad On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:57 AM, CJ cjinfant...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, Is there any reason to run IS-IS over OSPF in the SP core? Currently, we are running IS-IS but we are redesigning our core and now would be a good time to switch. I would like to switch to OSPF, mostly because of familiarity with OSPF over IS-IS. What does everyone think? -- CJ http://convergingontheedge.com http://www.**convergingontheedge.comhttp://www.convergingontheedge.com
