Re: Acquiring unused IP range. Some questions

> My question is, what do they and we need to do to accomplish that in > the proper way, so that the internet at large would accept the advertisement > from a different ASN, The internet in terms of IP Prefix advertisements is a 'Trust' based system. > and not view as some sort of hijacking,

Re: Acquiring unused IP range. Some questions

Arin about a week. Just need a LOA for the block I think. On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:43 PM, William McLendon wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we are about to acquire a block of IP’s from another organization that has > unused space, and being fairly new to these procedures, I was

Acquiring unused IP range. Some questions

Hi everyone, we are about to acquire a block of IP’s from another organization that has unused space, and being fairly new to these procedures, I was hoping for some guidance. We have already been pre-approved by ARIN for the block size we are acquiring, and finalizing the deal with the

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

> I just want to come back on behalf of Cisco on this. We just > investigated this issue and the issue is not an ASIC bug, but a flag > set wrong by SW. damn! you just took all the fun out of lynching ieee. sheesh! randy

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

On 2 December 2016 at 18:16, Alia Atlas wrote: > This sounds related to the well-known (at least 10+ years) issues around > guessing the > type of IP packet by looking at the first nibble of the encapsulated packet. > Take a quick look at RFC 7325, section 2.4.5.1 bullet 6. >

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

On Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 09:23:24PM +, Sukumar Subburayan (sukumars) wrote: > I just want to come back on behalf of Cisco on this. We just investigated > this issue and the issue is not an ASIC bug, but a flag set wrong by SW. We > will reach out to the original customer through TAC who posted

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

All, I just want to come back on behalf of Cisco on this. We just investigated this issue and the issue is not an ASIC bug, but a flag set wrong by SW. We will reach out to the original customer through TAC who posted this in NSP to resolve this issue. sukumar On 12/2/16, 11:50 AM, "NANOG on

Anyone have contact info for NOC of PlayStation Network?

Hello, I'm getting a lot of auto abuse notices stemming from 'account takeover attempts' via 443 and would like to resolve it with someone directly there. All I have is snei-noc-ab...@am.sony.com and not getting any response. Thanks in advance

Extreme Networks Technical Contact

Sorry to bother the whole list, but I am looking for help with a mail issue from someone at Extreme Networks, if you work there would you mind reaching out to me off-list? Thanks! allan

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Simon Lockhart wrote: > > > On Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 10:29:56AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > you'd think standard testing of traffic through the asic

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

Sukumar Subburayan (sukumars) wrote: > I just want to come back on behalf of Cisco on this. We just > investigated this issue and the issue is not an ASIC bug, but a flag > set wrong by SW. We will reach out to the original customer through > TAC who posted this in NSP to resolve this issue. oh

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

Job Snijders wrote: > I consider this a cascading failure. Clearly IEEE's change had a ripple > effect, and suprised a number of implementers, and ended up hurting us. this would be credible if this were a previously unknown problem, but it isn't. It's been known for years that you need to be

Avalanche / domains / registrars & registries

FWIW one of the people involved in the takedown has reported that most of the 800K domain names were DGA. Here was my nutshell overview summary synopsis posted elsewhere: DGA = Domain Generation Algorithm (term in wikipedia.) So an infected bot and a C (command and control computer) have an

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 09:32:37AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: > I also do not think this is an IEEE/MAC assignement problem. This is a > vendor's box can't forward a particular payload problem. On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 04:59:37PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders wrote: > > Dear IEEE,

Re: [nanog] Avalanche botnet takedown

If I could have it my way, I would say no gTLD’s should be allowed to transmit any email messages whatsoever. And force them to either use something like sendgrid.com or to purchase a primary .com, .org, .net .co.uk whatever etc.. But thats just me. It’s not a nice world but it is just the

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

In a message written on Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:32:13PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear Vendors, take this issue more serious. Realise that for operators > these issues are _extremely_ hard to debug, this is an expensive time > sink. Some of these issues are only visible under very specific,

Re: Looking for some Quagga experience to discuss 32 bit ASN + community issue with

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 09:13:25AM -0800, Eric Germann wrote: > So from reading the draft, if I’m understanding it correctly, I should > be able (with the patch) to encode the 32 bit ASN + a community in to > this as > > as32:x:y > > Is that correct? yes. I recommend you take a look at

Re: Looking for some Quagga experience to discuss 32 bit ASN + community issue with

So from reading the draft, if I’m understanding it correctly, I should be able (with the patch) to encode the 32 bit ASN + a community in to this as as32:x:y Is that correct? EKG > On Dec 2, 2016, at 2:27 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 09:00:57AM

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

Job Snijders wrote: > Dear IEEE, please pause assigning MAC addresses that start with a 4 or a > 6 for the next 6 years. Disagree that this is an IEEE problem. This is problem that vendors need to work around. There is limited MAC space, and deprecating 1/8 of it due to the inability of vendors

Re:

On 2 Dec 2016, at 22:31, Christopher Morrow wrote: > that statement seems ... hard to prove. Paging Geoff Huston to the white courtesy phone . . . ;> --- Roland Dobbins

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Simon Lockhart wrote: > >> On Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 10:29:56AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> >> 2^(8*9216) is quite a lot of different packets to

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Simon Lockhart wrote: > On Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 10:29:56AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > you'd think standard testing of traffic through the asic path somewhere > > between 'let's design an asic!' and 'here's your board ms customer!' >

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

On Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 10:29:56AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: > you'd think standard testing of traffic through the asic path somewhere > between 'let's design an asic!' and 'here's your board ms customer!' would > have found this sort of thing, no? or does testing only use 1 mac address >

Re:

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > We are busy trying to support a domain name system that is two to > three orders of magnitude larger (as measured by domains) than it > should be or needs to be. > > that statement seems ... hard to prove. also, what does it

Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > Dear Vendors, take this issue more serious. Realise that for operators > these issues are _extremely_ hard to debug, this is an expensive time > sink. Some of these issues are only visible under very specific, rare >

OT - Looking for a EU based equipment vendor

Sorry for the noise, but I need to find a company similar to ServerMonkey.com or Teksavers.com that’s based in France or Switzerland. My google-fu seems to be weak on this. Thanks! —Chris

ATT Wireless

Good Morning, If anyone from ATT wireless that is on this list, it would be appreciated if you could contact me offline concerning OCN routing problems with your network. Thanks Mark Stevens

Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue)

Hi all, Ever since the IEEE started allocating OUIs (MAC address ranges) in a randomly distributed fashion rather then sequentially, the operator community has suffered enormously. Time after time issues pop up related to MAC addresses that start with a 4 or a 6. I believe IEEE changed their

RE: BRAS/BNG Suggestion

Ericsson SSR 8010 is good platform. We have been using it since last 3 years with no major issues. Havn't tested IPv6 though. Krunal Shah Network Analyst, IP & Transport Network Engineering ks...@primustel.ca -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On

Re: Avalanche botnet takedown

[ Reposted with proper Subject line. My apologies. Insufficient coffee. ] On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:01:50PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > As you probably know Rich, that's not exactly a novel observation. Vixie > was already saying it a full six years ago, and things have only gotten >

Re: Spitballing IoT Security

On 30 Oct 2016, at 7:32, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: you don't need to be either an omnious "state actor" or even SPECTER to assemble a truly massive packet weapon. I agree: ;> Two kids

Re: [nanog] Re: Avalanche botnet takedown

According to a 2015 paper, 85% of new gTLDs domains was some form of parking, defensive redirect, unused, etc: Hugo On 15:02 01/12, J. Hellenthal wrote: > 99% ? That's a pretty high figure there. > > -- > Onward!, > Jason

Re: BRAS/BNG Suggestion

On 2/Dec/16 12:37, t...@pelican.org wrote: > > I'd steer clear at a small scale like 20k subscribers. In my experience, > Ericsson as an organisation just aren't set up to deal with a company that > want to buy a couple of boxes, install and run them themselves, and call > support when

[no subject]

Cc Bcc: Subject: Re: Avalanche botnet takedown Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <32993.1480633...@segfault.tristatelogic.com> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:01:50PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > As you probably know Rich, that's not exactly a novel observation. Vixie > was already saying it a full six

Re: BRAS/BNG Suggestion

Our current deployment uses several Alcatel SR 7750 boxes - we pair these with MX960 and MX2020 for CGNAT for several hundred thousand customers. Alcatel and Juniper have been a rock solid combination so far. Regards Dragan On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:53 AM, James Bensley

Re: BRAS/BNG Suggestion

On 2 December 2016 at 10:37, t...@pelican.org wrote: > On Friday, 2 December, 2016 05:55, "Mark Tinka" > said: > > > Redback used to be popular - I believe they got picked up by Ericsson. > > I'd steer clear at a small scale like 20k subscribers. In my

Re: Avalanche botnet takedown

Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > P.P.S. I love this part of the press release, because it is so telling: > > "The successful takedown of this server infrastructure was supported > by ... Registrar of Last Resort, ICANN..." Note that these are the names of two

Re: BRAS/BNG Suggestion

On Friday, 2 December, 2016 05:55, "Mark Tinka" said: > Redback used to be popular - I believe they got picked up by Ericsson. I'd steer clear at a small scale like 20k subscribers. In my experience, Ericsson as an organisation just aren't set up to deal with a company

Re: Looking for some Quagga experience to discuss 32 bit ASN + community issue with

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 09:00:57AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Eric Germann wrote: > > Basically trying to advertise 4 byte ASN’s + communities, and then > > pick them off elsewhere in a private network. Can’t get the config > > right for the route map to import them on the “receiving” side. >

Re: Looking for some Quagga experience to discuss 32 bit ASN + community issue with

Eric Germann wrote: > Basically trying to advertise 4 byte ASN’s + communities, and then > pick them off elsewhere in a private network. Can’t get the config > right for the route map to import them on the “receiving” side. yes, sounds about right. There is a massive feature deficit regarding