Re: non-rate limited, automatable Looking Glasses?

Hey Lars, We're already doing something similar to this on our collectors, in collaboration with CAIDA.  Feel free to contact me off list if you're interested.  - David From: Jared Mauch Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 4:33 PM To: Brendan Halley Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: non-rate limited, au

Re: CloudFlare Issues?

All three resolver of the big German hoster Hetzner went offline with 1.1.1.1 and were down another hour after Cloudflare was up again. I hope it was a coincidence and they are not forwarding their requests to 1.1.1.1. https://www.hetzner-status.de/ - vidister > On 18. Jul 2020, at 02:46, John

Re: CloudFlare Issues?

Noticed high latency from some smokeping instances from about 16:10 until 16:35 (central time). One of the worst variances was from ~20ms to upwards of 100ms RTT.

Re: CloudFlare Issues?

We're peered with them and are having issues resolving some domains via Cloudflare right now. On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:44 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG wrote: > More digging shows high latency to CloudFlare DNS servers from Comcast in > Washington and Oregon as well as a few other providers (C

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Wifi Calling Firewall Holes to Punch

Jason/Josh: Thanks for the input. The issue isn't NAT (we're not NATing). The issue is without NAT, the Wifi Calling feature apparently chooses to initiate inbound from the carrier to the client. When NAT'd, the client recognizes the NAT and initiates on its own. Or at least that what it appea

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Wifi Calling Firewall Holes to Punch

> It's been a minute since I've set this up in a corp/campus wifi scenario, but > my notes for Verizon > VoWiFi from the last time I did say that you need outbound udp/500 and > udp/4500 IPSec protocol > (IKE and ESP) permitted out the firewall. Tunnel endpoints live in > 141.207.0.0/16

Re: Wifi Calling Firewall Holes to Punch

Also do wifi calls from Android phone on VZW behind NAT, with no issues. I do have a "network extender" which has GPS link and ethernet (also behind NAT) and it does give me 5 bars around the house (up to 70mbps ish of download over LTE). Now, your NAT setup could possibly interefere? In my ca

Re: non-rate limited, automatable Looking Glasses?

Hi Baldur, Yes, you are right. While, in general, Looking Glasses would be optimal, those LGs that I know have rules in place that prohibit automated requests and also limit the number of queries one can enter manually. Best regards, Lars On 19.07.20 11:05, Baldur Norddahl wrote: Just tryin

Re: non-rate limited, automatable Looking Glasses?

Just trying to clarify the question. If you observe a BGP route to 1.2.3.0/24 with AS path 1 2 3, you want to do a traceroute to confirm that the packets indeed travel through ASNs 1, 2 and 3? I would think that traceroute will have to be run directly on the same router that provides the BGP feed.

Re: non-rate limited, automatable Looking Glasses?

Hi Jared, As I hinted at in the initial mail: The Atlas probes of an AS are often far apart from the BGP-feeding routers of the same AS; thus, it's unlikely that both devices share the same control plane information which makes it pointless to measure differences. Best regards, Lars On 19