October 2021 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

General Survey about DNSSEC, DMARC and RPKI <by November 5th>
by Akira Shibuya 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

Dear nanog members, We hope this message finds you safe and well. Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) is conducting a survey about the situation of the implementation of security technologies. The Internet is spreading in a coordinated manner thanks to its openness and autonomous, distributed and cooperative architecture, On the other hand, security technologies (DNSSEC, mail security such as DMARC, routing security such as RPKI), which need to be tackled in a coordinated manner, have been slow to spread in Japan. We would like to know the situation and efforts made in your country/economy. We will be grateful if you could respond to the questionnaire below by November 5th. https://forms.gle/7s6s2oWmpTtPNecLA If you have any questions, please let us know by sending an email to arch-info(a)nic.ad.jp. Sorry for bother you but thank you for your cooperation. ----- Akira Shibuya (on behalf of JPNIC secretariat)

1 0

re:
by Miles Fidelman 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

*Mel Beckman*mel at beckman.org <mailto:nanog%40nanog.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Network%20visibility&In-Reply-To=%3C3F9A10AF-090C-410A-96BC-CEF1B0371B3C%40beckman.org%3E> wrote: > Mark, > > Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific interface (the “IMP”) and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' email addresses, and routing had to be specified in advance within each NCP message. > This is just so completely wrong as to be ludicrous. First of all, the IMP was the box. Computers connected using the protocols specified in BBN Report 1822 (https://walden-family.com/impcode/BBN1822_Jan1976.pdf) NCP was alternately referred to as the Network Control PROGRAM and the Network Control Protocol. It essentially played the role of TCP, managing pairs of simplex connections. Routing was completely dynamic - that was the whole point of the IMP software. And routing did NOT require email addresses - those operated much further up the protocol stack. Perhaps you're confusing this with UUCP mail addressing ("bang" paths). Or possibly BITNET or FidoNet - which I believe also were source routed (but memory fails on that. re. > Even so, the Internet as a platform open to anyone didn’t start until 1992. I know you joined late, in 1999, so you probably missed out on this history. :) You know, there are people on this list who were back there in 1969, and actually wrote some of that code - so you might want to stop spouting nonsense. (Not me, I was a user, starting in 1971, didn't get to BBN until 1985 - when we were still dealing with stragglers who didn't quite manage to cutover to TCP/IP on the Flag Day.) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown

8 9

Guam Private Line
by Robert DeVita 26 Oct '21

26 Oct '21

Any recommendations for Private Line service into Guam from the US? 2 gigs? Thanks Rob [photo] [cid:image002.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] Robert DeVita CEO & Founder [cid:image003.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/mejeticks> [cid:image004.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20]<http://twitter.com/mejeticks> [cid:image005.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] 469-581-2160<tel:469-581-2160> [cid:image006.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] 469-441-8864<tel:469-441-8864> [cid:image007.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] radevita(a)mejeticks.com<mailto:radevita@mejeticks.com> [cid:image008.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] www.mejeticks.com<http://mejeticks.com/> [cid:image009.png@01D7CA4B.D0993B20] 3100 Carlisle St, 16-113, Dallas TX 75204

1 0

DNS/CDN Issue at Microsoft
by Brett Carr 25 Oct '21

25 Oct '21

Hi, is there anyone on list at Microsoft who can assist with with a DNS/CDN Issue with one of Nominet's recursive DNS service being incorrectly located in Japan The query in question is for hnd-efz.ms-acdc.office.com<http://hnd-efz.ms-acdc.office.com> If anyone who can help can drop me an email I would really appreciate it. Thanks Brett -- Brett Carr Manager DNS Engineering Nominet UK

1 0

ARIN POC RegDate...
by bzs＠theworld.com 25 Oct '21

25 Oct '21

Perhaps silly but am I the only one with an ARIN POC RegDate of 1970-01-01? I've been in that db a long time but not quite that long. Does it matter? I have no idea what the correct date might be so the instructions to correct don't help. If I needed that info I'd consult the ARIN DB but I guess not. I guess I'm wondering if it's just their temporary DB glitch so I should ignore it. The rest of the info is perfect beyond my wildest dreams. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

3 2

Smokeping - EchoPingHttps
by Mike Hammett 24 Oct '21

24 Oct '21

I used EchoPingHttps for the first time today. I pulled up the top 20 sites (well, removing duplicate sites from the same company) from Alexa and put them in to trend response times. I've had "this feels slow" over the years, but no way to really track that other than feels and pings. I noticed that a few (Facebook, Salesforce, ESPN, and Zillow) don't chart at all, with varying errors in a smokeping --debug. I've noticed that a couple more (Amazon and Etsy) are fickle in their responses. I assume if they're not responding, they're poo pooing on my fake client. Am I in the right ballpark? Next, is there a better way of doing this? I saw the curl plugin, but it was only after I had seen EchoPingHttps, so maybe curl is "better." ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

3 3

Re: Network visibility
by Mark Tinka 24 Oct '21

24 Oct '21

On 10/20/21 20:37, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote: > -48VDC power is still the best. I really envy folk that love DC for networking gear :-). Work in 2007 was an all-DC network. I rebuilt it into AC, considering the ISP also owned the data centre (most of whose customers bought AC). The space we freed up and the ease of deployment was night & day. Currently, we obviously need DC for the terrestrial Transport and wet plants (because that's just how classic telco rolls), but I also switched all IP/MPLS gear to AC soon as I arrived. Heck, even the Arbor (now Netscout) gear, as well as the HP server rack, was loaded with DC power supplies. Those things just had to go. There is an avenue of pleasure in not having to spend inordinate amounts of time adding major electrical planning to deploying/decommissioning a router, switch or server. But yeah, I know the AC vs. DC discussion can become a rat hole. I'm aware of data centre operators now providing DC as an option for their expansion projects, when they previously had it as the norm, FWIW. Mark.

5 5

Re: [routing-wg] Relative size of IRR registries
by Rubens Kuhl 23 Oct '21

23 Oct '21

You are right on all counts but (3). IRRd 4.2 has a feature called scope filter, and the results below had the following in effect: scopefilter: prefixes: - 10.0.0.0/8 - 172.16.0.0/12 - 192.168.0.0/16 asns: - 23456 - 64496-64511 So they already excluded those easy to detect unassigned blocks. It doesn't exclude blocks that are assigned by IANA but not yet by a RIR/NIR (like Team Cymru bogon feeds), but is good enough. Rubens On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 2:43 PM Aliaksei Sheshka <afpd(a)yandex.com> wrote: > > To understand the impact of the non-auth registries one need to > eliminate from their obj count 1) route/AS-SET objects which are also > present in the authoritative registries 2) prefixes which can be > derived from the RPKI ROA data 3) outright wrong data like private and > invalid ranges. > Additionally to eliminate 4) stale data, which is more challenging yet > possible to estimate. Remove 5) non-cooperative registries. > > After all that I found that for my cases non-authoritative registries > are more burden than help. > > Your mileage may vary. > > > > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:48:40 -0300 > Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Recent discussions about ARIN-NONAUTH made me wonder what would be the > > impact of discontinuing *-NONAUTH IRR registries. These are the > > current size of all IRR registries I was able to mirror, ordered by > > the number of aut-num objects. > > > > > > source | total obj | rt obj | aut-num obj > > RIPE 948401 368596 37284 > > APNIC 879374 572495 17737 > > RADB 1533619 1344618 8787 > > TC 21423 8531 3412 > > ARIN 134512 50543 2211 > > RIPE-NONAUTH 58436 54807 2163 > > AFRINIC 121639 94734 2057 > > IDNIC 8541 4574 1713 > > ALTDB 25598 18319 1395 > > LACNIC 8008 4742 1039 > > ARIN-NONAUTH 67715 62471 939 > > WCGDB 65135 62849 773 > > NTTCOM 453257 444518 548 > > JPIRR 13404 11398 425 > > LEVEL3 111770 91524 299 > > CANARIE 1869 1455 177 > > BELL 29827 29613 105 > > BBOI 1291 924 56 > > RGNET 74 40 6 > > NESTEGG 8 4 2 > > REACH 20310 18207 2 > > HOST 2 0 1 > > OPENFACE 25 17 1 > > PANIX 42 40 1 > > >

1 0

Relative size of IRR registries
by Rubens Kuhl 23 Oct '21

23 Oct '21

Recent discussions about ARIN-NONAUTH made me wonder what would be the impact of discontinuing *-NONAUTH IRR registries. These are the current size of all IRR registries I was able to mirror, ordered by the number of aut-num objects. source | total obj | rt obj | aut-num obj RIPE 948401 368596 37284 APNIC 879374 572495 17737 RADB 1533619 1344618 8787 TC 21423 8531 3412 ARIN 134512 50543 2211 RIPE-NONAUTH 58436 54807 2163 AFRINIC 121639 94734 2057 IDNIC 8541 4574 1713 ALTDB 25598 18319 1395 LACNIC 8008 4742 1039 ARIN-NONAUTH 67715 62471 939 WCGDB 65135 62849 773 NTTCOM 453257 444518 548 JPIRR 13404 11398 425 LEVEL3 111770 91524 299 CANARIE 1869 1455 177 BELL 29827 29613 105 BBOI 1291 924 56 RGNET 74 40 6 NESTEGG 8 4 2 REACH 20310 18207 2 HOST 2 0 1 OPENFACE 25 17 1 PANIX 42 40 1

1 0

more spaces in PTRs, this time totisp.net
by Steven Champeon 22 Oct '21

22 Oct '21

Anyone? 1.179.154.11:1-179-180.11.cisp.totisp.\\ net dig -x 1.179.154.11 11.154.179.1.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR 1-179-180.11.cisp.totisp.\032net. -- hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2553 w: http://hesketh.com/ Internet security and antispam hostname intelligence: http://enemieslist.com/

6 7