- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

[NANOG] Re: DKIM and list policies (was Re: Scheduled Maintenance Finished)
by Joel Esler 04 Mar '25

04 Mar '25

Mailman deals with DKIM fine. It’s all in the setup. — Sent from my iPad > On Mar 3, 2025, at 18:39, Don Gould <don(a)bowenvale.co.nz> wrote: > > > Lol... all I can say is "Welcome back NANOG!" :) > > I see nothing has changed. > > 99.9% edited their rule. 0.1% complained about the interruption to normal programming.... and my inbox is full of noise. > > As for DKIM etc. It's a bit like the endless whois debate in my region that results in the tool becoming less useful. > > *sigh* > > D - 55 this year... /etc/init.d/grumpy restart > > > > > > > -- > Don Gould > 5 Cargill Place > Richmond 8013 > Christchurch, New Zealand > Mobile/Telegram: + 64 21 114 0699 > www.bowenvale.co.nz > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Joel Esler via NANOG <nanog(a)lists.nanog.org> > Date: 4/03/25 12:13 pm (GMT+12:00) > To: nanog(a)lists.nanog.org > Cc: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog(a)bakker.net>, nanog(a)lists.nanog.org, Joel Esler <joel(a)joelesler.net> > Subject: [NANOG] Re: DKIM and list policies (was Re: Scheduled Maintenance Finished) > > I know! I had to update my rules too! Was wondering why all the list traffic was finding its way into my inbox. > > — > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 3, 2025, at 15:50, Vinny Abello via NANOG <nanog(a)lists.nanog.org> wrote: > > > > On 3/3/2025 2:28 PM, Sam Thomas via NANOG wrote: > >> Surprised I'm the first (I know of) to complain that List-id: changed. (insert > >> whining about how I had to adjust email filter here) > > > > <whining> I just had to update my procmail config to match the new list-id. </whining> > > > > I've been complaining (in my head) since it changed when each message came in from the list, if that counts. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/LRXQ2Z3… > > <OpenPGP_signature.asc> > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/O3FE77O…

1 0

[NANOG] Multi-ipv6 support (multi-router, multi-interface, multi-prefix) IETF draft
by Fernando Gont 04 Mar '25

04 Mar '25

Hi, I have posted a revision of draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6. This document contains the problem statement regarding the support of multiple routers, multiple interfaces, and multiple prefixes by IPv6 hosts. This revision polishes the text quite a bit, and incorporates two "failure" scenarios that should be supported, such that if you have a working set {source address, next-hop, RDNSS), you can survive network outages. URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-02.txt HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6 Your comments will be very appreciated! Thanks, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-02.txt Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 15:57:16 -0800 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6 Revision: 02 Title: Problem Statement about IPv6 Support for Multiple Routers, Multiple Interfaces, and Multiple Prefixes Date: 2025-03-03 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 15 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6/ HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6 Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-02 Abstract: This document discusses current limitations in IPv6 Stateless Address Auto-configuration (SLAAC) that prevent support for common multi- router, multi-interface, and multi-prefix scenarios. It provides discussion on the challenges that these scenarios represent, and why a solution in this space is warranted. Finally, it specifies a number of common scenarios that any solution in this space should be able to address. The IETF Secretariat

1 0

Scheduled Maintenance Starting
by Valerie Wittkop 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

NANOG Community, Maintenance is starting in accordance with the prior maintenance notice. The lists will be unavailable until the maintenance is concluded before or about 0600 UTC. Thank you, Sincerely, NANOG Staff ----------------------------------------- *Valerie Wittkop* Program Directorvwittkop(a)nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 <+17347300225> (mobile) | www.nanog.org NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA ASN 19230

11 14

[NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Hardware for MPLS/SR network
by Jason Iannone 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

If "smart" means both good and cheap then I'll answer your question with another question: is anyone doing merchant with comparable feature depth and lower pricing to broadcom? I think the most affordable good, read smart, choices are sprayed across Jericho and trident. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025, 1:51 AM john doe via NANOG <nanog(a)lists.nanog.org> wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: john doe <johan.borch(a)gmail.com> > To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog(a)lists.nanog.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 07:50:36 +0100 > Subject: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Hardware for MPLS/SR network > Full tables are not needed, this will mainly be used for L3VPNs and > L2-transport. Mikrotik was only one of the options, we have looked at > Juniper for example and this was more to check if there are other smart > solutions out there, other than the traditional vendors :) > > Johan > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 10:42 PM Tony Wicks <tony(a)wicks.co.nz> wrote: > > > Do you need full tables? Will merchant silicon (switch/routers) be > > sufficient (if you are only transporting L2 for example) or do you need > > full capability of a custom silicon (Nokia/Juniper) router. You mention > > Mikrotik, you would not get a single vendor silicon box (like a Nokia > SR-1) > > for the cost of Mikrotik and there is a good reason for that. It really > > comes down to what the budget/use case is. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: john doe <johan.borch(a)gmail.com> > > Sent: Monday, 3 March 2025 10:17 am > > To: nanog(a)lists.nanog.org > > Subject: [NANOG]Hardware for MPLS/SR network > > > > Hi! > > > > I’m looking for equipment to build a 100G MPLS/SR network. This won’t be > a > > large setup—likely around six PE routers connected in a 100G ring, with > > distances ranging from 100 km to 400 km. These routers will also need to > > aggregate local links from 10G up to 100G. They don't need to carry a > full > > table. > > > > Given that I’m aiming to keep costs down (an impossible equation? 😊), > > what manufacturers would be worth considering today? > > > > Is refurbished hardware still a viable option, considering licensing and > > other factors? > > > > Mikrotik’s CCR line is quite affordable, but would it be capable of > > handling a PE role while aggregating multiple link speeds? Buffering? > > > > Other options? > > > > Br > > Johan > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/B7LKQ2E… > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/Y22HT4R… > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: john doe via NANOG <nanog(a)lists.nanog.org> > To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog(a)lists.nanog.org> > Cc: john doe <johan.borch(a)gmail.com> > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 07:50:36 +0100 > Subject: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Hardware for MPLS/SR network > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/TMVDNTN…

2 1

Inquiry About Publicly Available RPKI-Invalid Route Information
by 石佳一 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

Greetings! I am a researcher working on BGP security in Tsinghua University, specifically focusing on ROV deployment and its effectiveness against prefix hijacking attacks. Now I am seeking information about ASes that have received or observed RPKI-Invalid routes in the wild. I'm wondering if anyone or any organization has shared or is willing to share such information? I understand that such data might be sensitive, so all these data will be used carefully and kept private. Thanks! Best regards, Jiayi

2 1

[NANOG]Hardware for MPLS/SR network
by john doe 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

Hi! I’m looking for equipment to build a 100G MPLS/SR network. This won’t be a large setup—likely around six PE routers connected in a 100G ring, with distances ranging from 100 km to 400 km. These routers will also need to aggregate local links from 10G up to 100G. They don't need to carry a full table. Given that I’m aiming to keep costs down (an impossible equation? 😊), what manufacturers would be worth considering today? Is refurbished hardware still a viable option, considering licensing and other factors? Mikrotik’s CCR line is quite affordable, but would it be capable of handling a PE role while aggregating multiple link speeds? Buffering? Other options? Br Johan

6 7

[NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
by Volkan SALiH 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

he owns content-heavy (mostly outbound) network , as6939 is not eyeball. so he has to do peering for their own good... they gained tier 1.5 position thanks to their peering links. they are not in position to change peering policy to selective or restrictive until they convince cogentCO to peer them feeless (hopefully never! thanks to god!) think big, think wide-open. dont be a fanatic of freeloaders of IXPs/ISPs... most datacenters peer for free, as they are/would be happy with ratios. sincerely.

1 0

DNS and subdomains
by Harry Hoffman 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

Hi Folks, Feel free to tell me this isn't the proper place for my question but given that networking and DNS are hand in hand I thought it might be reasonable to ask here. In working with several OSINT sources for domain processing it seems like the way domains and subdomains are processed essentially equates subdomains with FQDNs. For example, several APIs (and even ChatGPT) classify the following: access.api.bbc.com account-api.api.bbc.com account-api.int.api.bbc.com account-api.stage.api.bbc.com account-api.test.api.bbc.com account-cdn.test.api.bbc.com with subdomains as either: all subdomains as api.bbc.com or as subdomains of access.api, account-api.api, account-api.int.api, etc. instead of classifying as: api.bbc.com int.api.bbc.com stage.api.bbc.com test.api.bbc.com Has this become common practice? Is there a definitive way to determine subdomains? I seem to recall that "older" dns server software wouldn't allow this but it could be that my memory is faulty. Thanks! Cheers, Harry

11 18

[NANOG] Re: DKIM and list policies
by Bryan Fields 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

On 3/3/25 04:38, Niels Bakker via NANOG wrote: > Agreed on both counts. Look at this monstrosity: > > Subject: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Hardware for MPLS/SR network That happened since the "[NANOG]" was changed to "[NANOG] " and mailman will only catch the current prefix. Mailman will find any instance of "[NANOG] " in the header, remove it and a "Re: " if at the start of the subject. Currently the list is configured to rewrite the from as being from the list, ex: "From: Bryan Fields via NANOG <nanog(a)lists.nanog.org>". It is possible to see if the signature on the inbound message was valid by looking at the "Authentication-Results: lists.nanog.org" header, as DKIM-Filter is running on the mailserver. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

3 2

[NANOG]testing 25
by Bryan Fields 01 Mar '25

01 Mar '25

-- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

1 0