January 2024 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: ECN
by Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 25 Mar '25

25 Mar '25

On 13 November 2019 17:20:18 CET, Matt Corallo <netadmin(a)as397444.net> wrote: >This sounds like a bug on Cloudflare’s end (cause trying to do anycast >TCP is... out of spec to say the least), not a bug in ECN/ECMP. Even without anycast, an ECMP shouldn't hash on the ECN bits. Doing so will split the flow over multiple paths; avoiding that is the whole point of doing the flow-based hashing in the first place. Anycast "only" turns a potential degradation of TCP performance into a hard failure... :) -Toke

6 8

Re: Coherent 100G in QSFP28
by Jared Brown 17 Jul '24

17 Jul '24

On 2/28/23, Pascal Masha wrote: > How much will these cost? ADVA said 4ish grand each. Probably less than five. - Jared

2 1

AWS WAF list
by Justin H. 21 Feb '24

21 Feb '24

Hello, We found out recently that we are on the HostingProviderIPList (found here https://docs.aws.amazon.com/waf/latest/developerguide/aws-managed-rule-grou…) at AWS and it's affecting our customers' access to various websites. We are a datacenter, and a hosting provider, but we have plenty of enterprise customers with eyeballs. We're finding it difficult to find a technical contact that we can reach since we're not an AWS customer. Does anyone have a contact or advice on a solution? Thank you, Justin H.

6 9

route: 0.0.0.0/32 in LEVEL3 IRR
by Frank Habicht 14 Feb '24

14 Feb '24

Hi, I got 2 bounces for the email addresses seen below for an email similar to the below... Anyone want to remove this IRR entry before anyone notices...??? ;-) Frank I believe that the entry of route: 0.0.0.0/32 does not serve any good purpose? I was surprised to see it in a list of prefixes from bgpq4 and the very good https://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/prefix/0.0.0.0 guided me that it's in "Level3". I'm wondering how many auto-generated filters contain this unnecessary prefix.... PS: Oh, just seen - it's from TODAY. Maybe remove before anyone sees it...? Thanks for looking into this, Frank [frank@fisi ~]$ whois -h rr.level3.com 0.0.0.0/32 [Querying rr.level3.com] [rr.level3.com] route: 0.0.0.0/32 origin: AS10753 mnt-by: TCCGlobalNV-MNT changed: ankita.grewal(a)lumen.com source: LEVEL3 last-modified: 2024-01-30T11:04:49Z [frank@fisi ~]$ whois -h rr.level3.com TCCGlobalNV-MNT [Querying rr.level3.com] [rr.level3.com] mntner: TCCGlobalNV-MNT descr: TCC Global N.V. auth: CRYPT-PW DummyValue # Filtered for security upd-to: ripehostmaster(a)eu.centurylink.net tech-c: LTHM admin-c: LTHM mnt-by: TCCGlobalNV-MNT changed: ankita.grewal(a)lumen.com source: LEVEL3 last-modified: 2024-01-30T11:01:52Z

10 15

ru tld down?
by Dmitry Sherman 09 Feb '24

09 Feb '24

ru tld down?

12 16

If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…)
by Warren Kumari 02 Feb '24

02 Feb '24

Hey all, This falls into the "Somebody is wrong on the Internet …" category. So, let's say I'm announcing some address space (e.g 192.0.2.0/24), but I'm only using part of it internally (e.g 192.0.2.0/25). I've always understood that it's best practice[0] to have a discard route (eg static to null0/discard or similar[1]) for what I'm announcing. There are a bunch of reasons for this, but the standard (or easiest to explain one!) is what happens if this comes from some provider space, and they announce a supernet/covering route. If I *don't* have a discard/hold-down route, and a packet is sent to part of the space I'm not using (e.g 192.0.2.200), I would send it to the covering route, they would just send it back to the more specific, I'd return it to them, etc… Many, but not all mechanisms that people use for advertising a route in BGP automagically create this sort of discard route (e.g Juniper's 'aggregate'), but I wasn't really able to find any useful documentation suggesting that if you announce a route, you should make sure that you have some route covering all of the space… Perhaps there isn't really anything saying this (because it's obvious), but I'd really like to find something so that I can point at it…. Can anyone help me win this somewhat pointless argument? W [0]: Best practice as in "you should do this, unless you've got some weird corner case and have thought about it for more than a few seconds...." [1]: Yes, in some cases I'll have e.g an interface that match the announcement, and that accomplishes the same thing. [3]: E.g. 192.0.2.0/24 comes from a provider, and they are announcing something shorter.

5 10

SOVC - BGp RPKI
by Mohammad Khalil 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

Greetings Am have tried to find out what is the abbreviation for SOVC with no luck. #sh bgp ipv4 unicast rpki servers BGP SOVC neighbor is X.X.X.47/323 connected to port 323 Anyone have encountered this? Thanks!

7 9

NFPA 70 National Electrical Code 2026 first draft changes
by Sean Donelan 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

The Code Making Panels for the NFPA 70 National Electrical Code meet for the last couple of weeks (Jan 15-26, 2024). One proposed change for 2026 is "Keeping the NEC Relevant - Is Now the Time to Modernize?" https://peg.atis.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NEC-Correlating-Committee-W… It mostly just renumbers/reorganizes the NEC. Old time electricians will grumble because almost every code number changes. However,the proposed change also takes data systems out of Chapter 7 - Special Conditions and seperate Chapter 8 - Communication Systems. Chapter 8 is currently a stand-alone section traditionally maintained by communication utilities. In the U.S., for the last 40 years code enforcement officials mostly ignored Chapter 8 and communication wiring installation practices. POE is changing that. Power of Ethernet has morphed data networks into integrated power, lighting, emergency, life-safety and communication systems. It will be interesting to see how code enforcement officials reacts to moving the stand-alone communication wiring installation practices into the general enforcement part of the NEC.

4 3

TWNOG 5 @ Taipei - Call for Presentations
by TWNOG Program Committee 30 Jan '24

30 Jan '24

Dear all, I'm writing this email behalf of the TWNOG5 Program Committee Chairs to invite paper submissions (Call For Presentations) for the TWNOG (Taiwan Network Operators' Group) 5 Conference on April 26 in Taipei, Taiwan. Event Details ------------------------------------------ April 26, 2024 (Fri.) in Taipei, Taiwan NTUH International Convention Center 臺大醫院國際會議中心 https://twnog.net/twnog5/ Call For Presentations ------------------------------------------ The TWNOG5 Program Committee is now seeking contributions for presentations for the TWNOG5 Conference. Please submit via the APNIC Paper Submission System at: https://submission.apnic.net/user/login.php?event=189 Conference Milestones ------------------------------------------ Call for Papers Opens: Now First Draft Program Published: Feb 28, 2024 Final Deadline for Submissions: Feb 29, 2024 Submission Review/ Approval: Mar 4-10, 2024 Final Program Published: March 11, 2024 Final Slides Received: April 12, 2024 Conference Starts: April 26, 2024 SLOTS ARE FILLED ON A FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS, REGARDLESS OF PUBLISHED DEADLINES. Program Content ------------------------------------------ Presentation Topics: Internet Operations & Technologies The following are recommended topics, but not limited to: *Network Security and Attack Protection* Network security/attack/defense topics: NSP-SEC, DDoS trend, Anti-Spam, Botnet detection DNS / DNSSEC Network Infrastructure and Software-Defined Networking *IXPs and Peering* IPv4 / IPv6 Routing and Operations IPv6 used in different industries, v6 deployment & transition Internet backbone operations Access and Transport Technologies, including Cable/DSL, 3G/LTE/5G, FTTH, Wireless, Metro Ethernet, Fiber Optics, MPLS SDN & NFV RPKI & ROA Satellite Networks Affordable Network Data Center *Energy Utilization* Operations Management Data Center Certification Wireless and Mobile Communications *5G/6G related topics* Network Operations and Management *ISP and Carrier services* AI used in Network Operations Best Practice in Network Operations Network Performance Measurement Cloud and Content Delivery Networks (CDN) Cloud Computing and CDN: Multicast, Voice, Video, Telepresence, Gaming Emerging Technologies and Others Big Data, AI, IoT and Industry 4.0 Other Network-Related Topics CFP Submission ------------------------------------------ Draft slides MUST be provided with CFP submissions otherwise the submission will be rejected immediately. For work in progress, the most current information available at the time of submission is acceptable. All draft and complete slides must be submitted in PDF format only. Slides must be of original work, with all company confidential marks removed. Presentations with commercial/sales content will NOT be accepted. Final slides are to be provided by the specified deadline for publication on the TWNOG website. Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the Program Committee Chairs by e-mail at: paper(a)twnog.net Sponsor opportunities are still available for this event, please email sponsorship(a)twnog.net for more details. We look forward to receiving your presentation proposals. TWNOG 5 Program Committee Chairs

1 0

RIP Dave Mills
by Jay Ashworth 28 Jan '24

28 Jan '24

The inventor of NTP, in the late 1970s, and recipient of the 2013 IEEE Internet Award “for significant leadership and sustained contributions in the research, development, standardization, and deployment of quality time synchronization capabilities for the Internet”, Dr. David Lennox Mills died in Delaware on January 17, at 85. Rarely have I more wanted to say "perhaps we'll see him again later". Cheerss, -- jra -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

3 2