- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Fwd: RE: Potential Prefix Hijack
by Scott Weeks 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

Using bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay for my prefixes (also hijacked) it looks like the damage is only to ASs downstream of either (or both) ASN 3130 and/or ASN 2914. Given the large number of respondents to the thread, it looks like a possible case of no filtering by upstreams and full table announcements/withdrawals over a period of about 40 minutes beginning 23:22 11/10/2008 GMT. There was also a problem at 17:09:30 2008 GMT for our prefixes. scott ps. subthread on what's working and how with these prefix hijack alert systems: BGPmon alerted on this and PHAS did not. They're the only two I am on at this time. The 3.5 hour period has not happened for PHAS's damping technique to work. I have 10 separate emails from BGPmon

2 1

RE: Potential Prefix Hijack
by Kyle Duren 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

I too have noticed the slip-up from Brazil, here at AS26935, all of our prefixes appear from them also, PHAS also did nothing for me, but RIPE tools and BGPmon both show issues. If anyone from RIPE reads this, awesome job on the tools guys! If anyone from GLBX reads this, have you had any contact with the offenders? -Kyle

1 0

as 7018 leaks?
by jamie rishaw 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

Anyone noticing issues with as 7018? Seems to be leaking a lot of random stuff. Including every prefix of mine, tho that may be partially coincidental as they're one of my transits.. Check out dampened paths for 7018. A few views outside of jamies-world seem to confirm this.. -jamie

1 0

Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
by Lamar Owen 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

Charles Wyble charles(a)thewybles.com wrote: > Lamar Owen wrote: > > There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this list) to limit the events: > > 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a government run and regulated backbone); > Right. But what do we want this to look like? Well, since I've already stepped out on a limb, here goes my try at a rough outline of what such a regulation might look like (with the caveat that this is likely too simple to actually make it as a regulation): 1.) Define the regulation's scope, that it is, who is being regulated and why. In this case, I would say 'transit-free Internet carriers' are the who, and to maintain a 'complete Internet' is the why. 2.) Allocate regulatory responsibility and enforcement authority to an entity. I would suggest the FCC would be appropriate. (This outline might then be the start of a 47 CFR 221 or similar). 3.) Define 'transit-free Internet carrier.' This has been done already by Patrick Gilmore and others, and done quite well. 4.) Define 'complete Internet.' I'm staying away from that one. ;-) 5.) Define 'peering arrangement.' This has also been done quite well by others, so I'll not repeat that here. 6.) Mandate that all transit-free Internet carriers shall maintain peering arrangements with all other transit-free Internet carriers to maintain a complete Internet (citing some law that makes a 'complete Internet' a national security matter, or somesuch, and belongs in 47 CFR 221 as a result). 7.) Mandate that only carriers who voluntarily accept this regulation may use the term 'Tier 1 Internet Provider' and provide penalties for Internet providers who wish to 'opt-out' of the regulation but who do not obtain transit from another provider. IOW, become a Tier 2, no need for regulation. 8.) Authorize the issuance of a 'Tier 1 Internet Provider' license (that must be renewed periodically, with documentation supporting the Tier 1 status) to participating transit-free Internet carriers (for a fee to cover the opex). 9.) Authorize the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to enforce. This is, IMHO, the best case regulatory scenario. But I reserve the right to be wrong. Not that it is a desired scenario, but as far as regulation goes I think it would be the scenario that does the least harm. > Hmmmm. I need to read that over. Thank you for the reference. You're very welcome. My previous career was as a broadcast chief operator. Knowing 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 101 was part of that job (and a part I do not miss). Radio (both amateur and professional) used to be, prior to the late 1920's, an unregulated free-for-all similar to the current state of the Internet; but that proved to be unworkable, eventually producing the Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission with real authority to regulate radio. If you want to see just how technically ridiculous such regulation can get, research the term 'CONELRAD' for a horrifying example. Now, on the flipside, current providers who also happen to be LEC's covered by 47 CFR 51 might actually not mind the addition of IP carriage to Part 51's scope. Makes everything consistent for them and their legal departments. But Part 51 is quite a bit more cumbersome than the simple 'Regulate the Tier 1's only' outline above, and carriers who are not already covered by Part 51 would likely raise a holy tantrum about it. But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's too simple to be real regulation. :-)

7 7

MPLS for IPv6
by devang patel 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

Hi, Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network? I was working on one testing scenario where I have Cisco 7200 routers and whole network is running only IPv6 and I wanted to run MPLS on the top of that but I found MPLS is not supported on IPv6 networks? is that true? regards Devang Patel

8 12

Comcast Abuse Contact
by Stasiniewicz, Adam 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

Hello, I have a case open with the abuse department that is stalled. Could someone, who can help me escalate this case, contact me off list? Thank you! Adam Stasiniewicz Direct: 575-233-7672

1 0

Dmain names for the interfaces of a router
by Kai Chen 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

Hi everyone, my question is that, in practice, if there are different interfaces (different IP addresses) on the same border router having different domain names? thanks.

2 1

ECN
by Mikael Abrahamsson 08 Nov '08

08 Nov '08

Hi, On LKML (Linux Kernel Mailing List) there is talk <http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/4/151> about shipping the Linux kernel with ECN turned on by default (it was on by default a few years back but that change was reverted due to too many sites dropping ECN enabled SYNs). Recent investigations <http://www.imperialviolet.org/binary/ecntest.pdf> shows that 0.5% of end hosts will drop SYN packets with ECN turned on. This is approximately the same rate I have seen for A/AAAA adoption in this tread <http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01585.html>. Do we in the operational ISP community have an opinion on ECN adoption that we want to voice? As far as I can discern from <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t8/feature/guide/ftwrdecn.html> for ECN to actually be useful, we (the ISPs) have to turn this option on in the routers as well. Is anyone doing this today? What vendors support it? When I thought about it, the IP core (10G links etc) first came to mind, and there it's fairly easy to roll out (since I guess a lot of us do WRED already), but what about on slower links? Would it make sense to have our DSLAMs do this? What about DSL/cable modems (well, vendors should first realise that FIFO is not great to begin with :P) ? <http://www.icir.org/tbit/> is a summary page I found on ECN that looks like a good resource for further reading. Is anyone looking into including ECN configuration into some BCP document? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

5 6

Frank Ervin is out of the office.
by Franklin.A.Ervin＠frb.gov 08 Nov '08

08 Nov '08

I will be out of the office starting 11/08/2008 and will not return until 11/12/2008. Please direct all requests for assistance to the 'IT Web Support' mailbox. Thank you.

1 0

Advice/resources for setting up TACACS server
by Leslie 07 Nov '08

07 Nov '08

Hi -- We are currently trying to set up a TACACS server for authentication to our network gear and have it run on suse linux hosts. Does anyone have any advice/good webpages or guides regarding this? Thank you very much in advance! Leslie

9 10