September 2009 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Block of AS Numbers allocated to APNIC
by Leo Vegoda 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, The IANA AS Numbers registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of a block of AS Numbers to APNIC. 55296-56319 Assigned by APNIC whois.apnic.net 2009-09-02 The registry can be found at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.txt Regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 9.10.0.500 wj4DBQFKpohJvBLymJnAzRwRAncHAJiRWENmmK+qwpvAZIaPrs/urIa/AJ9f1A05 PM9TJWxzbAxpSiXyIgzvfA== =MGZ2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 47 dates of interest
by David Meyer 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

Folks, Just a brief reminder of upcoming dates of interest - The NANOG PC will be posting an updated agenda for NANOG 47 after our 09/08/2009 call - The registration fee for NANOG 47 increases to US$525 on 09/14/2009 - Nominations for the NANOG PC open today, 09/08/2009 - Voting for the 2009/2010 NANOG SC closes at 13:00 EDT on 10-21-09. See http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2009elections/ for additional details - Last but not least, the hotel group rate expires in 09/30/2009. See http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/hotel.php See you all in Dearborn. Dave _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Need Help Getting IP Unblocked by AT&T
by Brian Raaen 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

I'm not sure where to take this issue. The Regular AT&T NOC contacts are refusing to talk to me since I do not have a circuit ID, and do not seem to have any understanding about transiting issues. I am unable to fully monitor and manage a router I control, as all traffic bound to its lan IP that transits through the AT&T network is blocked. The Router is connected to a Verizon circuit, but any connection that transits through AT&T is blocked. The ip in Question is from a direct ARIN allocation that I control. I have attached a ping demonstrating that I am receiving an ICMP deny from an AT&T core router. I have also attached a traceroute to both the offending IP and the WAN IP which appears to be working. braaen@brian-debian:~$ ping gw.bwtc.net PING gw.bwtc.net (72.14.76.1) 56(84) bytes of data. >From 12.89.27.105 icmp_seq=1 Packet filtered >From 12.89.27.105 icmp_seq=3 Packet filtered ^C --- gw.bwtc.net ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, +2 errors, 100% packet loss, time 3004ms braaen@brian-debian:~$ sudo traceroute-nanog -AO gw.bwtc.net [sudo] password for braaen: traceroute to gw.bwtc.net (72.14.76.1), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 gw-alpha.america.net (69.60.176.65) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 2 gw-alpha.america.net (69.60.176.65) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 3 ms 3 ms 4 ms 3 69.60.160.8 (69.60.160.8) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 13 ms rtrs00.america.net (69.60.176.21) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 13 ms 69.60.160.8 (69.60.160.8) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 13 ms 4 69.60.160.8 (69.60.160.8) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 12 ms 35 ms 17 ms 5 gig4-16.core2.suw1.qualitytech.com (64.88.172.145) [AS20141] dnsadmin(a)globix.net [MPLS: Label 673 Exp 0] 15 ms 14 ms 25 ms 6 gig4-16.core2.suw1.qualitytech.com (64.88.172.145) [AS20141] dnsadmin(a)globix.net 14 ms 14 ms 18 ms 7 ten8-3.peer1.suw1.qualitytech.com (64.88.172.197) [AS20141] dnsadmin(a)globix.net 14 ms 12 ms 14 ms 8 border11.tge3-3.qts-1.acs.pnap.net (64.94.3.113) [AS14745] hostmaster(a)pnap.net 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 9 core1.te2-2-bbnet2.acs002.pnap.net (64.94.0.79) [AS14745] hostmaster(a)pnap.net 14 ms core1.te2-1-bbnet1.acs002.pnap.net (64.94.0.15) [AS14745] hostmaster(a)pnap.net 14 ms 12.86.102.5 (12.86.102.5) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com 14 ms 10 12.86.102.5 (12.86.102.5) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com 13 ms 23 ms 13 ms 11 cr1.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.141.2) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com [MPLS: Label 16745 Exp 0] 40 ms cr2.ormfl.ip.att.net (12.122.5.141) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com [MPLS: Label 20348 Exp 0] More labels 40 ms More labels 40 ms 12 cr2.ormfl.ip.att.net (12.122.5.141) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com More labels 40 ms More labels 41 ms More labels 40 ms 13 cr2.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.122.30.77) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com [MPLS: Label 0 Exp 0] More labels 40 ms gar1.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.123.153.85) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com 38 ms 38 ms 14 gar1.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.123.153.85) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com 50 ms 38 ms 38 ms 15 12.89.27.106 (12.89.27.106) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com 43 ms 44 ms 44 ms 16 * * 12.89.27.105 (12.89.27.105) [<NONE>] rm-hostmaster(a)ems.att.com 44 ms !A braaen@brian-debian:~$ sudo traceroute-nanog -AO 157.130.26.166 traceroute to 157.130.26.166 (157.130.26.166), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 gw-alpha.america.net (69.60.176.65) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 4 ms 3 ms 6 ms 2 gw-alpha.america.net (69.60.176.65) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 3 rtrs00.america.net (69.60.176.21) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms 4 69.60.160.8 (69.60.160.8) [AS4452] dns(a)america.net 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms 5 66.0.192.194 (66.0.192.194) [AS20141] dns(a)deltacom.net 13 ms 13 ms 15 ms 6 gig4-16.core2.suw1.qualitytech.com (64.88.172.145) [AS20141] dnsadmin(a)globix.net [MPLS: Label 673 Exp 0] 30 ms ten8-3.peer1.suw1.qualitytech.com (64.88.172.197) [AS20141] dnsadmin(a)globix.net 14 ms gig4-16.core2.suw1.qualitytech.com (64.88.172.145) [AS20141] dnsadmin(a)globix.net 34 ms 7 ten8-3.peer1.suw1.qualitytech.com (64.88.172.197) [AS20141] dnsadmin(a)globix.net 19 ms 13 ms 13 ms 8 core3.tge4-1-bbnet1.acs.pnap.net (64.94.0.3) [AS14745] hostmaster(a)pnap.net 14 ms core3.tge4-1-bbnet2.acs.pnap.net (64.94.0.67) [AS14745] hostmaster(a)pnap.net 14 ms 15 ms 9 core3.tge4-1-bbnet2.acs.pnap.net (64.94.0.67) [AS14745] hostmaster(a)pnap.net 14 ms core3.tge4-1-bbnet1.acs.pnap.net (64.94.0.3) [AS14745] hostmaster(a)pnap.net 14 ms 15 ms 10 TenGigabitEthernet3-4.ar5.ATL1.gblx.net (207.218.80.217) [AS3549] dns(a)gblx.net.80.218.207.in-addr.arpa 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 11 ge4-3-1000M.ar3.PTY1.gblx.net (67.16.135.18) [AS22566] dns(a)gblx.net 18 ms 14 ms 14 ms 12 0.so-1-1-0.XT1.ATL4.ALTER.NET (152.63.86.170) [<NONE>] hostmaster(a)uu.net 14 ms 49 ms verizon-1.ar2.ATL2.gblx.net (64.208.110.170) [AS3549] dns(a)gblx.net 17 ms 13 0.so-1-1-0.XT1.ATL4.ALTER.NET (152.63.86.170) [<NONE>] hostmaster(a)uu.net 33 ms 14 ms 16 ms 14 0.so-7-1-0.XL3.BOS4.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.209) [<NONE>] hostmaster(a)uu.net 42 ms 48 ms 49 ms 15 POS6-0.GW10.BOS4.ALTER.NET (152.63.17.37) [<NONE>] hostmaster(a)uu.net 41 ms 42 ms 41 ms 16 * networkinnovations-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.26.166) [<NONE>] hostmaster(a)uu.net 53 ms * -- ----------------- Brian Raaen Network Engineer email: /braaen(a)zcorum.com/ <mailto:braaen@zcorum.com>

3 5

Comcast Abuse Contact
by Ken Gilmour 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

Hi There, I am trying to get through to Comcast Abuse dept in a hurry due to a DoS... I have called the normal number on the whois for the offending IP: RAbuseHandle: NAPO-ARIN RAbuseName: Network Abuse and Policy Observance RAbusePhone: +1-856-317-7272 RAbuseEmail: abuse(a)comcast.net Which tells me to call +1-877-477-5537, Which gives me a busy tone. Is there anyone on the list from Comcast watching right now? Thanks! Ken

1 0

ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?
by Gadi Evron 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

Jury Exacts $32M Penalty From ISPs For Supporting Criminal Websites http://darkreading.com/securityservices/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jht… 'Landmark case' indicates that ISPs may be held liable if they know about criminal activity on their customers' Websites and fail to act A federal jury in California this week levied a total of $32 million in damages from two Internet service providers that knowingly supported Websites that were running illegal operations. In a lawsuit brought by fashion company Louis Vuitton, a jury ruled that two ISPs -- Akanoc Solutions and Managed Solutions Group -- knew about counterfeit Vuitton goods that were being sold on their customers' sites, but didn't act quickly to pull the plug on those sites. The decision was first reported on Tuesday. The ruling has been called a landmark decision by some legal experts, who note that ISPs historically have been protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which limits service providers' liability for criminal actions that take place on their networks.

2 3

RE: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
by Frank Bulk 07 Sep '09

07 Sep '09

I don't think LECs to MSOs have first right of refusal..it's possible that with MSOs that the city has give the franchise exclusivity, but blame the city then, not the MSO. What happens more often is that the LEC or MSO uses legal, lobbying, or legislative means to put a stop to the competition, but it's not first right of refusal. In the cases where munis lost, it was in relationship to telephone service and a city's ability to obtain a certificate of service (see here for one muni's story: http://www.cityofhawarden.com/HiTec/History.html) Another route to opposition is if it fills up RoW, though I haven't personally read as much about that. Possibly because if the new company is a desperate enough, they'll come up with a way to address the RoW constraints or show how it's not a real issue. Remember, if it really *is* constrained, the new company won't be super eager to build in there, either. Frank From: James Downs [mailto:egon@egon.cc] Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 12:02 PM To: frnkblk(a)iname.com Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:55 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: I'm not following you here -- which party has the right of first refusal? The incumbent companies (generally, a LEC or cable company) are able to refuse projects and also effectively prevent buildouts and upgrades from being done by a 3rd party. However, I have seen reports that in a few areas, municipalities are starting to win lawsuits against them (in apparently the long appeals process). urban area receives no USF, and is not able to financially justify it even with a dense customer base. That might apply to fiber, but even speed upgrades (Newer DSL services) are apparently subject to the same refusal process, but the rules are different across the country, too. -j

1 0

Is 213.215.28.0/23 (AS 49463) announced through AS 12670 and AS 13193
by Laurent CARON 07 Sep '09

07 Sep '09

Hi, I did set-up this netblock behind two pipes. One on AS13193 (which is working flawlessy), and ahother on AS12670 (which I doubt of). Can please any of you tell me if from your location 213.215.28.0 is reachable through AS12670 ? Thanks Laurent

3 6

IPv6 "real world" testing plea...
by Ben Matthew 07 Sep '09

07 Sep '09

Hi guys, Could really use some feedback here as it's quite difficult to test IPv6 services given nobody really seems to give much of a toss about it in the "real world". I work for Absolute Radio in the UK (formally Virgin Radio) - a national commercial radio service - and we have always been quite keen to support as many platforms and technologies as we can for our online streaming listeners. As such I want to make sure our own network and infrastructure can be as IPv6 ready as we can. Our network has a couple of good transit links for IPv6 including, if I may name check for a second, Hurricane Electric who have been very supportive of IPv6 with us. Anyhoo; I'm relatively happy that our first native IPv6 streaming platform is working ok but I'd appreciate it if anyone out there who is IPv6 enabled would have a go and let me know if there are any issues. If you experience buffering or drop-outs it'd be great to receive (off-list) a traceroute so I might diagnose. Only Windows Media at the moment, but I hope to launch a icecast driven OGG stream soon as well along with some multicast variants.... Addresses are: http://wm-ipv6.as34763.net/vruk_vr_hi [Absolute Radio (Poprock)] http://wm-ipv6.as34763.net/vruk_vc_hi [Absolute Radio Classic Rock] http://wm-ipv6.as34763.net/vruk_vx_hi [Absolute Radio Xtreme (Mainstream alternative*)] If tests are successful hopefully we can launch publically and encourage a few other broadcasters (and indeed network providers) to take IPv6 more seriously. Cheers, Ben *yeah alright that's a complete oxymoron; but I don't know how else to describe it! ________________________________________________ DISCLAIMER This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential information. If it is not intended for you, please inform the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. Any review, retransmission, disclosure, copying or modification of it is strictly forbidden. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of TIML Radio Limited or any of its parent and subsidiary companies. Whilst we take reasonable precautions to ensure that our emails are free from viruses, we cannot be responsible for any viruses transmitted with this e-mail and recommend that you subject any incoming e-mail to your own virus checking procedures. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. ________________________________________________ TIML Radio Limited (trading as Absolute Radio) Registered office: One Golden Square, London. W1F 9DJ Registered in England No 02674136 VAT No 927 2572 11

1 0

Any RIM / blackberry folks around ?
by Mike Tancsa 06 Sep '09

06 Sep '09

Trying to open a ticket with Rogers but they say nothing is wrong. Seems to be some DNS issue at RIM? Their MX handlers are rejecting mail saying the sending domain does not exist... 0[marble]# host -tmx rogers.blackberry.net rogers.blackberry.net mail is handled by 10 mx01.bis.na.blackberry.com. rogers.blackberry.net mail is handled by 10 mx02.bis.na.blackberry.com. rogers.blackberry.net mail is handled by 10 mx03.bis.na.blackberry.com. rogers.blackberry.net mail is handled by 10 mx04.bis.na.blackberry.com. 0[marble]# telnet mx01.bis.na.blackberry.com 25 Trying 216.9.248.32... Connected to mx01.bis.na.blackberry.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 as64.bis.na.blackberry.com ESMTP HELO marble.sentex.ca 250 as64.bis.na.blackberry.com MAIL From: <postmaster(a)rim.com> 451 #4.1.8 Domain of sender address <postmaster(a)rim.com> does not resolve MAIL From: <postmaster(a)rogers.com> 451 #4.1.8 Domain of sender address <postmaster(a)rogers.com> does not resolve 421 Exceeded allowable connection time, disconnecting. Connection closed by foreign host. 1[marble]# 0[marble]# host -tmx telus.blackberry.net telus.blackberry.net mail is handled by 10 mx01.bis.na.blackberry.com. telus.blackberry.net mail is handled by 10 mx02.bis.na.blackberry.com. telus.blackberry.net mail is handled by 10 mx03.bis.na.blackberry.com. telus.blackberry.net mail is handled by 10 mx04.bis.na.blackberry.com. 0[marble]# telnet mx01.bis.na.blackberry.com 25 Trying 216.9.248.32... Connected to mx01.bis.na.blackberry.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 as18.bis.na.blackberry.com ESMTP HELO marble.sentex.ca 250 as18.bis.na.blackberry.com MAIL From: <postmaster(a)blackberry.net> 250 sender <postmaster(a)blackberry.net> ok QUIT 221 as18.bis.na.blackberry.com Connection closed by foreign host. 1[marble]# telnet mx01.bis.na.blackberry.com 25 Trying 216.9.248.32... Connected to mx01.bis.na.blackberry.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 as08.bis.na.blackberry.com ESMTP HELO marble.sentex.ca 250 as08.bis.na.blackberry.com MAIL From: <postmaster(a)telus.com> 451 #4.1.8 Domain of sender address <postmaster(a)telus.com> does not resolve -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike(a)sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike

3 2

Re: hi, a question related to AS 49463
by Laurent CARON 06 Sep '09

06 Sep '09

On 06/09/2009 15:56, Bin Dai wrote: > Hi: > I am interested in ur question to nanog about doubting whether AS 49463 > is reachable thourgh AS 12670. > in ur case, AS 49463 is multihomed. what you want to do,if i am right, > is that you wanna make the following things happen: > the 213.215.28.0/23 is reachable both through AS 12670 and AS 13193. And > like what u said, you are certain that > that prefix is announced to AS 12670. So all the customers of AS 12670 > should be ok to reach that prefix. > Am I right? I have a question: if the link between 13193 and 4943 fails, > what will happen? will the guy: Nicolas DEFFAYET lose the > reachability to AS 49463? Hi, Since i do have direct connectivity to 13193 and 12670, if my prefix is correctly announced through both ISP, the failure of 1 ISP should allow me to still be reachable and reach the outside world. Laurent

1 0