- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Mastercard problems
by andrew.wallace 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

It was a quick arrest wasn't it? ----- Original Message ----- From:Michael Smith <msmith(a)internap.com> To:andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace(a)rocketmail.com> Cc: Sent:Thursday, 9 December 2010, 21:49:16 Subject:RE: Mastercard problems 1 down, 3896 to go... :) -----Original Message----- From: andrew.wallace [mailto:andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:44 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Mastercard problems Dutch authorities have arrested a 16-year old "hacker" in connection with Mastercard. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025215-281.html Andrew

2 1

non operational question related to IP
by Greg Whynott 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

i was pinging a host from a windows machine and made a typo which seemed harmless. the end result was it interpreted my input differently than what I had intended. thinking this was a m$ issue I quickly took the opportunity to poke fun at windows as the senior m$ admin was near by. "look at how brain dead this os is, it can't even do simple math!" He is now looking at my screen scratching his head….. "watch, i'll open a shell on os x and show you how it can add 0 +10" I open a shell on os x, same behavior as windows. " ok so apple is brain dead too, watch, it'll work on linux!" same deal… long story short, it does work as expected on all our hardware routing gear. still not sure what is happening here… osx-gwhynott:~ gwhynott$ ping 10.010.10.1 PING 10.010.10.1 (10.8.10.1): 56 data bytes gwhynott@ops:~$ ping 10.010.10.1 PING 10.010.10.1 (10.8.10.1) 56(84) bytes of data. CORE1>ping 10.010.10.1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.10.10.1, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! anyone happen to know how the OS's are interpreting the 010? doesn't appear work out in base[2-10] (1010,101,22,20,14,13,12,11,10,A) thanks! greg -- This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization.

12 12

Re: Mastercard problems
by Michael Smith 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Exactly... Rounding up script kiddies one at a time is a pretty serious deterrent ;). I'm sure the bot-masters are quaking in their boots... :) ----- Original Message ----- From: andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace(a)rocketmail.com> To: Michael Smith Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Thu Dec 09 18:14:16 2010 Subject: Re: Mastercard problems It was a quick arrest wasn't it? ----- Original Message ----- From:Michael Smith <msmith(a)internap.com> To:andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace(a)rocketmail.com> Cc: Sent:Thursday, 9 December 2010, 21:49:16 Subject:RE: Mastercard problems 1 down, 3896 to go... :) -----Original Message----- From: andrew.wallace [mailto:andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:44 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Mastercard problems Dutch authorities have arrested a 16-year old "hacker" in connection with Mastercard. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025215-281.html Andrew

1 0

Re: Mastercard problems
by andrew.wallace 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Dutch authorities have arrested a 16-year old "hacker" in connection with Mastercard. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025215-281.html Andrew

1 0

Level3/Comcast routing question (not related to the peering dispute)
by David Hubbard 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Customers of ours on Comcast are experiencing poor throughput to us when whatever location they're at takes a route to us via Level 3; Level 3 being one of our upstreams. I've set a community of 65004:7922 which is supposed to tell Level 3 to prepend four times to Comcast for our AS but the only route server I know of in comcast land (route-server.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net) is not showing the prepend. Is there another way for me to determine if Level 3 is really doing the prepend other than opening a ticket and asking them? I did try http://www.level3.com/LookingGlass/ and plugged in one of our IP's and see "Prepend_4_to_AS7922" so could they be prepending and comcast overriding or ignoring it? We have peering with another provider that's directly connected with comcast so I'd like to have traffic from them use that one instead. Thanks, David

1 0

Re: [Operational] Internet Police
by Michael Smith 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Was it the original IANA? ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Thu Dec 09 14:12:41 2010 Subject: Re: [Operational] Internet Police > And if I ever find the genius who came up with the "we are not the > internet police" meme ... he died over a decade ago

1 0

Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

(My apologies if this has been discussed before, I haven't been keeping up with NANOG as well as I should lately.) As the IPv4 address space depletes, various types of use that requires IPv4 addresses will get harder. In some cases, this is unavoidable: if you want to connect a million broadband users you need a million addresses. But for hosting activities you don't need that much space. In fact, often people have to be very creative to qualify for a /24 (/20 even in ARIN-land?) just so they have a large enough assignment that they can announce it in BGP and expect it to be reachable. But you really don't need a /20 or even a /24 to host websites or the like. Why not move away from that /24 requirement and start allowing /28s or a prefix length like that in the global routing table? This will allow content people to stay on IPv4 longer with fewer compromises, so we don't have to start thinking about NAT46 solutions in the near future. (NAT46 is really best avoided.) There are two issues: 1. Growth of the routing table. My answer to this is: although a smaller table would be good, we've been living with 16% or so growth for a decade before the IPv4 crunch, if going to < /28 instead of < /24 allows this growth to continue some more years there is no additional harm. And there is no evidence that /28s will create more growth than unconstrained /24s like we had before the IPv4 crunch. 2. People who think it's neat to deaggregate their /16 into 256 /24 will now go for 4096 /28s. To avoid this, the new /28s should come from separate ranges to be identified by the RIRs. So /28 would only be allowed for this new space that is given out as /28, not for anything that already exists and was thus given out as much bigger blocks. Thoughts? I'm hoping to get some modest support here before jumping into the RIR policy shark tanks.

17 32

West coast collos - ones that are VoIP friendly
by Graham Wooden 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Hi there, I am not familiar with the west coast collocation facilities that are VoIP friendly (either by QoS or good upstreams/peering). Something in the Los Angeles area; been looking at IX2 on Wilshire. Right now looking to collocate a few boxes, switch and a router... Any recommendations? Quality over cost, at this moment. Thanks, -graham

1 0

Re: Are you ready for RPKI in your BGP?
by Arturo Servin 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

There are some pieces in the RPKI puzzle. One is the definitions of protocols, that one is very advanced in the SIDR WG in the IETF. Not RFCs yet but I am sure we will se some soon. Another piece are repositories of CA's and ROAs and Trust Anchors. RIRs have they implementations or you could create your own if you want to keep your private keys. IMHO one piece missing (not the only one, but one important in this stage) is RTR (RPKI/Router Protocol) working in routers. May be is too soon to see it in production routers but I am only aware of one big vendor with testing code. Also open-source implementations (Quagga, Xorp, Bird, etc.) are not actively (or at all) working in RPKI, I would imagine that one first step for many operators is to test RPKI with these implementations. Regards, -as On 9 Dec 2010, at 06:37, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 22:56:08 -0500 > From: Jared Mauch <jared(a)puck.nether.net> > Subject: Are you ready for RPKI in your BGP? > To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <15FF52BA-388A-48E8-BDDE-A151E694E9AC(a)puck.nether.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Are you ready for RPKI in your network? > > While there's some dubious hyperbole in the article, the work that has been undertaken in SIDR wg re: RPKI is moving along. > > http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2010/1207… > > For those of you preparing to assign 2011 goals to your employees, or something to self-assign, this should be in the top-5 or top-10 if you configure routers for BGP. > > - Jared

2 1

Are you ready for RPKI in your BGP?
by Jared Mauch 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Are you ready for RPKI in your network? While there's some dubious hyperbole in the article, the work that has been undertaken in SIDR wg re: RPKI is moving along. http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2010/1207… For those of you preparing to assign 2011 goals to your employees, or something to self-assign, this should be in the top-5 or top-10 if you configure routers for BGP. - Jared

4 3