August 2011 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

livebgp.routeviews.org
by John Kemp 16 Aug '11

16 Aug '11

We enabled an additional client BGPMON node. The sources are local collectors and the collectors peering at the Colorado State BGPMON site. Output is XML formatted UPDATE and RIB messages. ex. telnet livebgp.routeviews.org 50001 ex. telnet lievbgp.routeviews.org 50002 See also: http://bgpmon.netsec.colostate.edu/index.php/documentation --- John Kemp (kemp(a)routeviews.org) RouteViews Engineer NOC: help(a)routeviews.org http://www.routeviews.org

1 0

Bluehost/Hostmonster IPv6 SMTP black hole?
by Christopher Pilkington 16 Aug '11

16 Aug '11

Can someone from Bluehost/Hostmonster contact me off list. One of your customers has complained to me that they cannot send mail to us. We've done some testing, and it seems it works to mailservers with only A records, but breaks with mailservers with both A and AAAA. (As in, we never even see a delivery attempt.) Thanks, -cjp

1 0

TDM voice DOS
by harbor235 16 Aug '11

16 Aug '11

Anyone been involved with TDM voice DOS attacks? My thoughts are that if the phone call originates as an IP call somewhere in the wild, then typical abuse security incident notifications may help in the interim. At least potentially identify through customer records or make them move on where they eventually slip up. If the abuse originates as IP what obligations do foreign service providers (friendly?) have to identify and mitigate? How can the community respond to service providers who fail to clean up their customer base? Mike

2 2

All address block holders - Please Verify Your Abuse POCs
by John Curran 16 Aug '11

16 Aug '11

Folks - If you or your organization hold address blocks, please take the time to set the Abuse point-of-contact (POC) for your organization as soon as possible. Information from the Tech contact will be used for your organization's Abuse contact if an Abuse contact is not added to the record. Any address holder can update their contact information (including legacy IPv4 resources); no fee or contract is necessary to update your contact information. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> Subject: [arin-announce] Please Verify Your Abuse POCs Date: August 16, 2011 12:02:52 PM GMT-03:00 To: <arin-announce(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-announce@arin.net>> ARIN is preparing to implement Policy 2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements in late August. When this policy is implemented, all existing Organization records will be modified to enforce this new policy requirement, and all new Organization registration records (Org IDs) will need to include an Abuse POC (in addition to the already required Admin and Tech). ARIN Online, REST, and templates If an existing Org ID does not have an Abuse POC already listed, the existing Tech POC (s) will also become the Abuse POC(s) by default. We strongly urge all customers to review and update their organization information data, and to add an Abuse POC if one is not currently listed. Again, if a new Abuse POC is not added to the record, the existing Tech POC (s) will also become the Abuse POC(s) by default. If there are any questions, please contact the Registration Services department at hostmaster(a)arin.net<mailto:hostmaster@arin.net>. Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers

1 0

seeking pointers on the topic of 'name server registration'
by Brian Reichert 16 Aug '11

16 Aug '11

I posted this request in another forum, but didn't get as much info as I'd hoped: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.internet-access/5568/match=nam… To reprise in _this_ forum: I apologize for the noise; I hope this is an appropriate forum. I've been hosting DNS for years for several domains. Recently, I have had to rename/renumber my primary servers, and need to update various registrars of these changes. Most registrars seem fine with me just supplying the names of the new nameservers; they chase the A records, and generate the glue records, and off I go. One of these registrars (NetSol) introduces a topic I've never been aware of before, this concept of 'name server registration'. Web searching shows me several hits along the lines of 'how to register namesevers with registrar X', but I can't find a treatment of: - Is this anything more than generating glue records? - Why is this explicit step neccessary for some registrars, but not others? I'd appreciate any advice... -- Brian Reichert <reichert(a)numachi.com> BSD admin/developer at large

3 2

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 53 Update
by Betty Burke 16 Aug '11

16 Aug '11

Everyone, A registration fee reminder: - Early Bird Registration through August 15, 2011 (non-member $450, member $425, student $100) - Standard Registration starting August 16, 2011 (non-member $525, member $500, student $100) Also, please get those presentation submissions in! NANOG 53 is just a few months away, you will not want to miss an opportunity to participate! Betty -- Betty Burke NewNOG/NANOG Executive Director Office (810) 214-1218 _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Re: How long is your rack?
by Scott Weeks 16 Aug '11

16 Aug '11

--- randy(a)psg.com wrote: From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered > via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe > I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that. : more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me. ------------------------------------------------ Sometimes they're fun to 'wget' and run through 'strings'. Look for nanog.exe... ;-) scott

1 0

Re: What is @SK
by Jay Ashworth 15 Aug '11

15 Aug '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody(a)spamcop.net> > Okay, so I guess I have to concede to George that it might not be so obvious > that it doesn't need explaining. (Unless, of course, the original silence > was due to the fact that everyone thought it was so obvious that it didn't > need explaining.) :-) > > @SK is, was, and always will be, no more, and no less, than the "special > key" name of the last keystroke read by filePro. > > Note that, because of this, it is true that @WLF processing will start with > @SK set to the keystroke that caused the field to be left. However, @SK is > more than just that. Then you don't need to concede anything to George. What you need to do is run off and *fix the documentation*. Back in 96, when I reimplemented Multifile to use indexes instead of doubly linked lists (so it wouldn't, y'know, break every 5 minutes), I knew this, because I (now) remember having to do "sk=@sk" on the first line of my @wlf routine (and I think this might have even predated "wlf*"; when did that happen?)... but I didn't remember it now, and the documentation didn't say so at either time. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

1 0

Re: NANOGers home data centers - What's in your closet?
by Spamming Tree 15 Aug '11

15 Aug '11

All your dads are in the closet.

1 0

IPv6 end user addressing
by Brian Mengel 15 Aug '11

15 Aug '11

In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being slightly preferred. I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying to address this problem. It provides 16 /64 subnetworks, which seems like an adequate amount for an end user. Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6?

46 118