- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Alternatives to GSLB ?
by Jeff Blaum 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Greetings, my company has application servers in several strategic locations throughout the globe. We're currently doing GSLB with a handful of BIND DNS servers, that return the A records of the closest server(s), based off of the IP address of the resolver doing the lookup for the client. GSLB obviously has caveats in this regard, and we are looking for ideas on how to 1) ensure clients are routed to the closest geographical server 2) ensure the client hits the server(s) with the shortest path. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Jeff

5 5

Dark Fiber or Wavelength providers whom serve central Ohio
by Drew Weaver 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Has anyone had any luck finding carriers who provide Dark Fiber and/or Wavelength services (10G+) around Columbus, OH? Currently I am looking for a 10G wave from Columbus to Ashburn, VA and I am having some trouble getting it done. If anyone has any suggestions please hit me off-list. Thanks, -Drew

1 0

Re: HIJACKED: 148.163.0.0/16 -- WTF? Level3 is now doing IP hijacking??
by Jason Pope 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

All, WRT the below route object, DataBank does announce IP space for Hoechst Celanese Corporation as they are a direct customer of ours: > $ whois -h whois.radb.net 148.163.0.0 > route: 148.163.0.0/16 > descr: /16 for Celanese > origin: AS13767 > mnt-by: DBANK-MNT > changed: jpope(a)databank.com 20090818 > source: LEVEL3 > Currently, we only announce/originate the following prefixes via BGP: 148.163.178.0/24 148.163.179.0/24 via our providers, Level3 and Sprint. We asked our providers to relax their filters for the whole /16, since Celanese owns that IP space. That may or may not be a good idea, depending on your view of network management. We did this in case our customer needed to announce new networks which would save us the time/work of placing more/new route objects in the registry. We have the appropriate LOA for this network which is validated through face-to-face meetings with their network engineers and representatives. DataBank is very sensitive to network abuse; we have an AUP in place with all of our customers and will always work hard to enforce it to prevent network abuse. I apologize that I didn't respond sooner, but I have gotten behind on my NANOG reading. Thank you, Jason Pope DataBank Holdings 214.720.2266 office

1 0

State of QoS peering in Nanog
by Francois Menard 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

Folks, The Canadian telecommunications regulator, the CRTC, has just launched a public notice with possible worldwide implications IMHO, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-206: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-206.htm I think this is the very first regulatory inquiry into IP to IP interconnection for PSTN local interconnection. One of the postulates that I intend to defend, is that in the PSTN today, in addition to interconnecting for the purpose of exchanging voice calls, it is possible to LOCALLY (at the Local Interconnection Region, roughly a US LATA) interconnect with guaranteed QoS for ISDN video conferencing. In other words, there is more to PSTN interconnection than the support of the G.711 CODEC. Other CODECs are supported, such as H.320. This brings me to a point. Why should we loose this important feature of the PSTN, support for multiple CODECs, as we carelessly bottom level IP-IP interconnection to G.711 only. Video conferencing on the Internet, particularly at high resolution, is not a reality today to say the least, foregoing of guessing what the future will hold. Why not consider HD audio ? Therefore: A) I want to capture all instances where this issue has been addressed worldwide. B) I also want to understand what is going on, insofar as enabling guaranteed QoS peering across BGP-4 interconnections in the Nanog community. C) I also want to understand whether there is inter-service-provider RSVP or other per-session QoS establishment protocols. I call upon the Nanog community to consider this proceeding as very important and contribute to this thread. And I will try to provide a forum for discussing this outside of Nanog when required. Regards, -=Francois=-

5 6

HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?
by Atticus 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

This OT, and for those of you with virgin ears, don't read more. This is specifically to Ronald: Maybe, if you didn't act like a flaming douchebag, and were polite to people, they would be more interested in helping you out. Learn to use some fucking manners. Every single message I've seen from you has been condescending. I agree, this entire situation and situations like it are fucked up. That doesn't give you the right to start demanding answers from people, and in general treating everyone else like we are your personal servants, and are responsible for making sure your every whim is carried out. That being said, I'm probably going to get banned for that, but I feel it needed to be said. Grobe

6 9

Re: 0day Windows Network Interception Configuration Vulnerability
by Johnny Eriksson 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> wrote: > The fix right now is for Microsoft to disable IPv4 by default. Yes, please. That would put a serious dent in most botnets... > Nick --Johnny

1 0

recommendation on vendor for 8 Cisco 7201 routers?
by Michael Ruiz 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

<Anyone have any recommendations for a US Cisco shop that can sell me 8 <new Cisco 7201 routers? <If so, please email me the best person to contact. <Thanks I recommend PICS Telecom. I have dealt with them for the last 5 years. They sell Telecom and Cisco equipment. It is grey market and sometimes brand new stuff. They all give a 1 year warranty on all their stuff and it is all tested. In case something does fail, their RMA process is fast and get you brand new stuff the next day. MAR

2 4

IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth
by Michael Ruiz 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com<https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 04:18:00 +0200 >> From: Alexander Maassen <outsider at scarynet.org<https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> >> Subject: Re: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth >> >> wil, >> maybe after all this time you got the router, it gained 7lbs of all the >> dust in it ? > > Consider what happens if the carrier encounters a route reflector -- > flipping the bird?? >Also how port mirrors will cause a collision and the bird will die. Speaking of birds and electromagnetic field, I wonder if birds are going to crashing into things like they did in the core. Now that would be pretty interesting. MAR.

1 0

0day Windows Network Interception Configuration Vulnerability
by andrew.wallace 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

Someone has recently post to a mailing list: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2011-April/080096.html Andrew

7 7

Re: recommendation on vendor for 8 Cisco 7201 routers?
by Theo Sison 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

what city will you be deploying your routers? ----- Reply message ----- From: "Rogelio" <scubacuda(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Apr 4, 2011 9:07 am Subject: recommendation on vendor for 8 Cisco 7201 routers? To: <nanog(a)nanog.org> Anyone have any recommendations for a US Cisco shop that can sell me 8 new Cisco 7201 routers? If so, please email me the best person to contact. Thanks -- Also on LinkedIn? Feel free to connect if you too are an open networker: scubacuda(a)gmail.com

1 0