Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Gabriel Somlo wrote:
> If you're interested in looking at it from a campus/enterprise point
> of view, we recently reworked our DNS/Anycast setup, and here are the
> deployment notes:
>
>http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.
If you're interested in looking at it from a campus/enterprise point
of view, we recently reworked our DNS/Anycast setup, and here are the
deployment notes:
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/DNS.html
(you can stop reading at section 4, where it gets into the specifics
of our homebr
On Jun 2, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Jimmy Changa wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had recommendations on IPv4 Anycast resources
> (whitepapers, RFCs) as it relates to DNS?
http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/anycast/
http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/dns-service-architecture/
http://www.pch.net/res
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Jimmy Changa wrote:
I was wondering if anyone had recommendations on IPv4 Anycast resources
(whitepapers, RFCs) as it relates to DNS?
I found the following useful:
http://www.net.cmu.edu/pres/anycast
http://ftp.isc.org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2004-1.html
http://www.linux
On 2010-06-02, at 09:08, Jimmy Changa wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had recommendations on IPv4 Anycast resources
> (whitepapers, RFCs) as it relates to DNS?
>
> Thanks in advance.
http://www.google.com/search?q=nanog+anycast+sarcastic
top hit:
http://seclists.org/nanog/2010/Mar/1027
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Fix your security officers!
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. The last one told me that blocking 53/tcp is
"standard industry
> "Kevin Oberman" 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? :-)
Sure, why not.
The phrase "
"Kevin Oberman" 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.finchhttp://d
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
"Kevin Oberman" 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
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 gree
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 g
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:
Randy Bush (randy) writes:
> patience. when things really start to break, and the finger of fate
> points at them, clue may arise.
>
When this issue was brought up on the OARC dns-operations list,
and it was suggested to make some simply factsheets (a bit like
ICANN's IPv
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:59:08 +0900, Randy Bush said:
> > 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 fa
>>> 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 u
On 30 Mar 2010, at 07:59, 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 th
> 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.
randy
> From: Joe Abley
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:06:02 -0700
>
> On 2010-03-26, at 06:40, Max Larson Henry wrote:
>
> >>> has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
> >>
> >> "Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
> >
> > - Yes but as for DNS, anycas
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:24:21 +0100
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> InterNetX - Lutz Muehlig wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
>
> "Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
>
> I assume quite a number of people know how to do
On 2010-03-26, at 10:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It doesn't require an unstable routing table. There is a small set of
> locations that could hit routers with multipath that may "balance"
> the anycast packets down divergent paths.
>
> Essentially, these are the topological midpoints between any t
On Mar 26, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Max Larson Henry wrote:
has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
"Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
- Yes but as for DNS, anycast is essentially used for user requests
(UDP) not to p
On 2010-03-26, at 06:40, Max Larson Henry wrote:
>>> has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
>>
>> "Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
>
> - Yes but as for DNS, anycast is essentially used for user requests (UDP)
> not to perform zone transfe
On Mar 26, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Max Larson Henry wrote:
has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
"Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
- Yes but as for DNS, anycast is essentially used for user requests
(UDP)
not to perform zone transfer(TC
On 2010-03-26, at 06:21, InterNetX - Lutz Muehlig wrote:
> has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
This is a general reference that tries hard not to be DNS-specific:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt
These are two papers written whilst at ISC describing many aspe
In message <4828.1269611...@localhost>, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
> --==_Exmh_1269611568_4209P
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:40:39 EDT, Max Larson Henry said:
>
> > - Yes but as for DNS, anycast is essentially used for user requests (UDP)
> > not t
* Jeroen Massar:
> Simple recipe:
> - Box with:
>- Your favourite OS
>- Quagga or OpenBGPd
>- Your favourite DNS server
> - Announce the IP of the anycast node in BGP
> - Monitor the DNS server, when it does not work kill your local BGPd
>and notify the admins that it broke
Thi
Max Larson Henry wrote:
>
> > has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
>
> "Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
>
>
> - Yes but as for DNS, anycast is essentially used for user requests
> (UDP) not to perform zone transfer(TCP).
Also t
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:40:39 EDT, Max Larson Henry said:
> - Yes but as for DNS, anycast is essentially used for user requests (UDP)
> not to perform zone transfer(TCP).
DNS uses TCP for more than just XFR. For instance, if you're running a
resolver that doesn't do EDNS0, and you hit an (increas
> > > has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
> >
> > "Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
>
> - Yes but as for DNS, anycast is essentially used for user requests (UDP)
> not to perform zone transfer(TCP).
How-to with working configurations for
On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> InterNetX - Lutz Muehlig wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
>
> "Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
Can't really tell if you're being serious here due to caffein
> > has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
>
> "Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
>
- Yes but as for DNS, anycast is essentially used for user requests (UDP)
not to perform zone transfer(TCP).
-M
InterNetX - Lutz Muehlig wrote:
> Hello,
>
> has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
"Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
I assume quite a number of people know how to do it, especially as
several root DNS servers abuse it.
Simple recipe:
- B
> > 192.88.99.0/24, 2002::/16, and 2001::/32 are some
> > notable examples of heterogeneous origin AS.
>
> And those prefixes (6to4 & Teredo) all come with annoying problems as
> one never knows which relay is really being used and it is hard to debug
> how the packets really flow.
I agree entir
On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Joe Provo wrote:
And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating
ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intended or not. Sadly, this is not
a useful metric for a third-party to use to determine prefix
annoucnement legitimacy. Perha
Joe Provo wrote:
And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating
ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intended or not. Sadly, this is not a
useful metric for a third-party to use to determine prefix annoucnement
legitimacy. Perhaps an update to RPSL to allow for intentional multi
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:13:38PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
[snip]
> The original question provides a good statistic, I think. Only 8
> prefixes that were announced by more than 3 origin AS.
And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating
ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intende
On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that
the anycasted address space can be announced in different places
yet with the same ori
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I was under the impression anycast services with homogeneous origin AS
was far more common than the heterogeneous. Almost all the instances I
know of use homogeneous origin AS.
I'd be interested in statistics either way.
The original question provides a good stati
Kevin Loch wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>>> Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that
the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet
with the same origin AS?
>>>
>
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the
anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with
the same origin AS?
Yes, and it is commonly done.
I was un
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that
the anycasted address space can be announced in different places
yet with the same origin AS?
Yes, and it is commonly done.
I was under the impression anycas
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the
anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with
the same origin AS?
Yes, and it is commonly done.
Jack
Jack Bates wrote:
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast
prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are
announced by more than 3 ASes..
I presume you are using route-views or some such to get a larger
picture of the BGP geogra
Rob Evans wrote:
Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for
DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by more
than 3 ASes..
...but inter-domain anycast is often achieved by using a single origin
AS, which is then transited through the
> Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for
> DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by more
> than 3 ASes..
...but inter-domain anycast is often achieved by using a single origin
AS, which is then transited through the 'provider' autonom
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
>
> Given that the networks are duplicates, there's no requirement that
> one part of the AS needs to receive routes from the other part of the
> AS. For management and such of the devices, I presume there are
> separat
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix
for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by
more than 3 ASes..
I presume you are using route-views or some such to get a larger picture
of the BGP geography? I believe that
On 22/04/2009, at 7:12 PM, Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
Ah, that's very possible. So I suppose the 90 prefixes with 3 origin
ASes are due to the same reason..
Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast
prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are
announced
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
Ah, that's very possible. So I suppose the 90 prefixes with 3 origin
ASes are due to the same reason..
Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast
prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are
annou
Ah, that's very possible. So I suppose the 90 prefixes with 3 origin
ASes are due to the same reason..
Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix
for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by
more than 3 ASes..
--Zhenkai
Nathan Wa
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:53:02PM -0700, Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
> Hello NANOG,
>
> I noticed that more than 3K prefixes are with 2 Origin ASes.
> Are they the simplest cases of anycast? Or they are mainly due to
> misconfiguration?
>
> ---
> --Zhenkai
i honestly don't remember the req
On 22/04/2009, at 6:53 PM, Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
Hello NANOG,
I noticed that more than 3K prefixes are with 2 Origin ASes.
Are they the simplest cases of anycast? Or they are mainly due to
misconfiguration?
The third (and probably more likely) option is that the prefixes are
advertised
53 matches
Mail list logo
