- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

BCP 235
by John Kristoff 23 Mar '22

23 Mar '22

Pardon the netop relevant interjection... Most of you probably don't need this, but in my experience many did. DNS over TCP transport is a thing, please don't block it. kthxbye. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9210> John

1 0

V6 still not supported
by Daniel Karrenberg 23 Mar '22

23 Mar '22

Full match with my recollection about the cause for this sub optimal outcome. Happens to the best of us. One has to remember that at the time we did not consider it a forgone conclusion that the products of the IETF woukd be the foundation of the Net. Daniel (age 63, memory not totally unreliable yet) --- Sent from a handheld device. > On 22. Mar 2022, at 13:46, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: > > john, > > fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance > >> That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but >> rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make >> a decision” > > my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate technical > pressure for the short term; but there was a deep fear that the industry > press was stirring a major poolpah about the end of the internet due to > ipv4 exhaustion. i.e. a seriously flawed technical compromise was > pushed on us in reaction to a perception of bad press. > > i have learned that, when i am under great pressure to DO SOMETHING, > it's time to step back, go make a cup of tea, and think. the ietf did > not. and here we are, a quarter of a century later, still trying to > clean up the mess. > > randy

5 7

Telus contact re: VPN services (ESP, SSL) impacted, Vancouver -> Las Vegas
by Hugo Slabbert 23 Mar '22

23 Mar '22

Hi folks, Could someone from Telus (852) reach out, please? We're seeing a chunk of users on Telus home connections around the Vancouver, BC, area (Lower Mainland) struggling with RTT and some chunks of loss on VPN connections endpoints through gateways in Las Vegas as of ~2022-03-17. Outer path to the tunnel gateway is fine at <60 ms with low jitter and without loss. Tunneled traffic (predominantly ESP, but some users on SSL wrapped at times) shoots up to 130+ ms or above 200, with high variability and chunks of loss. Traceroutes from the users show outer traffic handing off to Zayo in Vancouver and across Akamai in Seattle before coming to us in Vegas. Users on other providers are unaffected. I'm reaching in case there are some shenanigans with ESP or SSL-wrapped traffic being futzed with somehow before being handed to us. Gateway endpoint is v4 only at 185.34.107.131, and is advertised out from 60229 to Akamai/Prolexic (32787). Hugo Slabbert Network Engineer Demonware

1 1

Re: Any engineers from HE on the list?
by Shawn L 22 Mar '22

22 Mar '22

Thanks for all who've responded. I was able to reach a very helpful engineer @ HE. Shawn -----Original Message----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen(a)delong.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:15pm To: "Shawn L" <shawnl(a)up.net> Subject: Re: Any engineers from HE on the list? FWIW, [ support(a)he.net ]( mailto:support@he.net ) is usually fairly responsive. Owen On Mar 22, 2022, at 05:54, Shawn L via NANOG <[ nanog(a)nanog.org ]( mailto:nanog@nanog.org )> wrote: Wondering if there are any engineers from HE (Hurricane Electric) on the list that could help with a strange traffic issue through your network If so, please contact me off-list Thanks Shawn

1 0

Any engineers from HE on the list?
by Shawn L 22 Mar '22

22 Mar '22

Wondering if there are any engineers from HE (Hurricane Electric) on the list that could help with a strange traffic issue through your network If so, please contact me off-list Thanks Shawn

1 0

Standards Compliant Mail Client Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203211201.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi, Blake: 1) " so it's not a chore to tell what thread you're even replying to? ": I am lost by your statement. I start each of my reply by quoting a phrase or sentence of the message that I am responding to. To be sure the original message in included, I copy the last message following what I am writing. I also prefix it with the forum message tag such as in this case "NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 20 Message: 33 ". This should be enough for anyone to follow in the latest exchange, as well as tracing it back in history from the NANOG Digest, if interested. Anything more could I do to ease your efforts without beginning to create a long tail to a thread? 2) " ... a standards compliant mail client ... ": Please name the "standards" and list a couple software that comply with it. This is a topic that I am actually very interested in studying because eMails these days come in too many formats / styles. Please teach me. Thanks, Abe (2022-03-21 12:20) On 2022-03-20 19:01, Blake Dunlap wrote: > Can you get a standards compliant mail client so it's not a chore to > tell what thread you're even replying to? > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 11:44 Abraham Y. Chen <aychen(a)avinta.com> wrote: > > Dear Borg: > > 1) " ... I dont see a way of extending IPv4 without making it a > new protocol. ... new IP protocol that is much more similar to > IPv4, just extends address space. ... ": I believe that you > will be pleasantly surprised at the proposal summarized by the the > below whitepaper. It proposes an overlay architecture over the > current Internet. As such, assignable IPv4 addresses are extended > without the baggage of the current Internet and no new protocol. > To begin the deployment, all need be done is "*/disabling/* the > program code that has been */disabling/* the use of the 240/4 > netblock" in routers. > > https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf > > 2) The "transition" will be mostly transparent from ordinary > users' point of view, because IoTs do not need be reprogrammed. > Please feel free to ask me to describe specific issues that you > may come across. > > Regards, > > > Abe (2022-03-18 12:43) > > > > ------------------------------ > NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 20 > > Message: 33 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:36:40 +0100 (CET) > From:borg@uu3.net > To:nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.2203180928500.16585@cube> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > While Im dont like IPv6, I see it as a bad idea. > >From my knowledge I dont see a way of extending IPv4 without making it > a new protocol. It was not designed that way. > > What I would LOVE to see that someone will pop in with new IP protocol > that is much more similar to IPv4, just extends address space and fixes > some well know issues. (for example remove netmask and use prefixlen/CIDR). > > Other importand aspect is some kind of IPvX -> IPv4 interop, so you can > quickly put clients into new protocol and they have access to entire IPv4 > internet out of the box. > > Also, we need to please enterprises so we need largish RFC1918 space too. > > Just my 2 cents again > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > > From: Matt Hoppes<mattlists(a)rivervalleyinternet.net> <mailto:mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> > To: Joe Maimon<jmaimon(a)jmaimon.com> <mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com>,bzs(a)theworld.com, > Tom Beecher<beecher(a)beecher.cc> <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc> > Cc: NANOG<nanog(a)nanog.org> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 23:34:19 -0500 > > At this point I would**love** to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch applied > to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death. > >> Its not impossible to envision that IPv4 does not ever go away but actually >> gets extended in such a way that it obsoletes IPv6. The longer this drags out >> the less implausible it seems. >> >> Joe >> >> > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> > Virus-free. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> > > > <#m_-5998402233395781358_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

4 3

VPN-enabled advance fee fraud
by Andrew G. Watters 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Nutshell version: a group of criminals who appear to be in Mexico have created an entire fake law firm and deal flow in the U.S., with Photoshopped notary seals and wire instructions. They reportedly use ExpressVPN-- the owner of the IP block used by the suspects states that it leased the IP block to ExpressVPN under a Letter of Authorization. The suspects make money by causing victims to wire advance fees to Mexico as part of selling their timeshares, and possibly other transactions. My client has lost $70k or so thus far. He has received legit-looking documents, but upon even a cursory electronic inspection they are obvious forgeries. So this gang is savvy enough to steal money, but really reckless as well, which may explain why they are risking clicking on my links as well. I spoke with the lawyer who they are impersonating, and it was news to him that he is in New York City running a law firm considering that he retired in another state many years ago. So the suspects are offshore and I'm not sure what I can do. But I would still rather have their IP addresses than nothing. Can I have a recommendation on the best way to pursue user data from VPN providers such as ExpressVPN? I already sent in a notice to preserve logs for the involved ASN, and I'm headed to Federal court in the next few days to see if I have a chance to get even some of the victim's money back-- or at least an injunction shutting down the suspects' online presence. Any tips on getting VPN user data (or best practices in this type of situation) would be greatly appreciated. Best, Andrew Watters -- Andrew G. Watters Rællic Systems andrew(a)raellic.com +1 (415) 261-8527 https://www.raellic.com

7 8

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210957.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Dear John: 1) " ... everyone, said it's a foolish idea ... ": Oh, "everyone", really? Are you sure? Please name a couple who expressed their judgments based on */facts/*. Otherwise, you may be fooling everyone with rumors to perpetuate a myth. 2) By the way, through constructive criticism, we learned to characterize our EzIP as an */overlay/* network. With this very concise definition, EzIP is now ready to face real bullets. You may want to follow discussions about our work more closely. Regards, Abe (2022-03-21 15:36) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 Message: 5 Date: 20 Mar 2022 13:58:18 -0400 From: "John Levine"<johnl(a)iecc.com> To:nanog@nanog.org Cc:aychen@avinta.com Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID:<20220320175819.7C27C3976150(a)ary.qy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It appears that Abraham Y. Chen<aychen(a)avinta.com> said: > ??? C.??? Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. > Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses. > > ??? D.??? I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 > requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support. For people who don't follow the IETF lists, here's a summary of the responses. Mr. Chen thought it was a good idea, everyone else, and I mean everyone, said it's a foolish idea and not worth pursuing. R's, John ------------------------------ -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210955.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi, Randy: Great analogy. Regards, Abe (2022-03-21 15:30) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 Message: 12 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 03:08:55 -0700 From: Randy Bush<randy(a)psg.com> To: Joe Maimon<jmaimon(a)jmaimon.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group<nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID:<m2ils7ehxk.wl-randy(a)psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Is this is how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and > suppress debate the ietf is an echo chamber; and if you are not in it, you do not count. https://archive.psg.com/051000.sigcomm-ivtf.pdf randy End of NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 ************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210953.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi, Joe: 1) "... how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and suppress debate, ... ": Interesting metaphor. Along this line, I wonder whether those bouncers on the draw bridge realize that technology has advanced to the point that there are other ways to get around the road block, such as taking over the country side to leave the ivory tower in isolation, or parachuting to bypass the draw bridge? Regards, Abe (2022-03-21 12:34) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 Message: 11 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 05:31:50 -0400 From: Joe Maimon<jmaimon(a)jmaimon.com> To: John Levine<johnl(a)iecc.com>,nanog(a)nanog.org Cc:aychen@avinta.com Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID:<62384606.2030300(a)jmaimon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed John Levine wrote: > It appears that Abraham Y. Chen<aychen(a)avinta.com> said: >> C. Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. >> Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses. >> >> D. I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 >> requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support. > For people who don't follow the IETF lists, here's a summary of > the responses. Mr. Chen thought it was a good idea, everyone > else, and I mean everyone, said it's a foolish idea and not > worth pursuing. > > R's, > John > *ahem* Is this is how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and suppress debate, by relegating all group think dissenters as white noise nobodies? And if they have succeeded in doing such on their own forums, its more telling about their own process problems than anything else. I sincerely hope I am mistaken in your characterization of the many fine individuals who have repeatedly gone on record in support of maintaining IPv4 responsibly until such time as it is properly obsoleted. While I can understand being considered a nobody, other more notable definitely not nobodies have even on this tired topics' nth thread made themselves heard and some fairly clearly. History will continue to show that the IETF pursued the path of pain for the internet. Joe ------------------------------ -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0