- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

netstat -s
by Randy Bush 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

do folk use `netstat -s` to help diagnose on routers/switches? randy

15 18

Network controller
by lobna gouda 06 Aug '19

06 Aug '19

Hello Networker, Wanted to get a general feedback, if you are considering having a controller on your network. Let's say it will be on your core network to handle your mpls network or core network or to provide Traffic Engineering (TE) feedback/decisions What would you need from a controller and its software What we would like to have in a controller and its software what we can live without it ( The answer isnot the controller here) Cdt LG

2 2

[nanog] Cisco GLBP/HSRP question -- Has it ever been discussed to publish fully/in-part the specifications
by Chriztoffer Hansen 06 Aug '19

06 Aug '19

Cisco has their FHR protocol specifications protected as proprietary IP. * Gateway Load Balancing Protocol (GLBP) * Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP) * https://packetlife.net/media/library/3/First_Hop_Redundancy.pdf Apart from the EIGRP specifications. Which has become publicly available in-part. Q: Anyone know about if the same has ever been discussed with regards to their HSRP and GLBP protocol specifications? -- Best regards, Chriztoffer

8 12

Apple AS714 - peering down on the East Coast?
by John Von Essen 06 Aug '19

06 Aug '19

Starting around July 28th, I noticed a latency spike (70ms) on some of our traffic to Apple (mainly api.apple-mapkit.com) coming out of Virginia. This traffic usually always takes some local peering, and never is higher then 10-15ms. I checked from AWS backbone, Cogent, Zayo, Level3, all show 70+ ms from east coast. I also noticed on bgp.he.net, Apple’s IPv4 peer list dropped from 307 to 275 also on July 28-29th. Anyone else who peers with Apple on the east coast seeing this? Is it an outage or planned maintenance? Thanks John

1 0

mitel hx5000
by Samual Carman 05 Aug '19

05 Aug '19

does anyone have any contacts at mitel that they can share or forward me onto of our sister company's took over a small customer who has a mitel hx5000 and we are having a devil of a time trying to get support from mitel as they want us to sign a long term maintenance contract which normally we would have no problem with however come end of september we will be migrating them to are in house platform and unfortunately none of the local vendors offer short term contracts and the sister company in quiston will not budge on the timeline so i am hoping the world of NANOG has the ability to connect me to someone in mitel who would be able to help us out mods if this breaks the rules please let me know i was unsure Thanks Sam Lead System Admin Yakima Networking

2 1

Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs
by Ross Tajvar 05 Aug '19

05 Aug '19

Hi all, A friend of mine is trying to set up a network in a location where there is no fiber (or copper) for many miles. As bandwidth requirements are low (<1M for the foreseeable future) but uptime is important, he was looking at using multiple cell modems from separate carriers as redundant uplinks. I am concerned that different cell carriers might be using the same transport providers to a given tower, so that wouldn't be truly redundant. Another option would be using a satellite provider as a backup for cellular. (The high latency that comes with satellite is not an issue.) A fixed-radio solution would likely be too expensive upfront as it would require building towers. Am I missing any other options or considerations? Thanks, Ross

10 15

RFC 5771 - Global Multicast Addresses
by Brandon James 05 Aug '19

05 Aug '19

Good Evening, I'm looking for some insight into the usage of a few of the blocks defined in RFC 5771 (and IPv6 Multicast Addressing as described in RFC 4291 and 7346) , specifically regarding their use on the public internet. I know multicast isn't routed on the public internet. However, it appears that this may be due to operational issues and concerns or that it was simply never implemented. The specific blocks I'm looking at are (as defined in RFC 5771 Section 3-10: Internetwork Control Block - 224.0.1.0/24 > Addresses in the Internetwork Control Block are used for protocol control traffic that MAY be forwarded through the Internet AD-HOC Blocks (I, II, and III) - 224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.255, 224.3.0.0 - 224.4.255.255, and 233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255 > These addresses MAY be globally routed GLOP Block (233/8) - Global routing is never mentioned in RFC 5771, but given the context and the use of ASNs, I'm not sure if the intention was for these to be publicly routable or to simply to guarantee that the address would be unique within your AS (are large telcos and webscale companies exhausting 239.0.0.0/8?) IPv6 Multicast Addresses with scope 0xE - The RFC doesn't really go into detail on how these would be used. As a young network engineer (no historic perspective) and only SMB and enterprise experience. It seems like the intention was to allow these to be publicly routed, but it would be a nightmare to implement so it never was. You'd probably require PIM Sparse Mode (we can't flood traffic to the entire internet), RPs would need to be advertised somehow (maybe BSR could be implemented with RP advertisements coming from the providers edge?). RPF would be a constant process and shortest path trees would change constantly. That's all without mentioning 224.0.1.0/24 is tiny and the AD-HOC and GLOP blocks aren't exactly huge given the size of the internet. I'd love to hear what others have to say about this, maybe get some historic perspective and thoughts on whether or not any of this will change as IPv6 adoption increases. I'd also love to see any guidance on actually implementing multicast on the internet from IANA or the IETF (or guidance that says that it should not or can not be done) as I wasn't able to find any. Regards, Brandon

2 1

Xfinity with IPv6 clue?
by Janet Sullivan 05 Aug '19

05 Aug '19

I hate resorting to NANOG, but I've spent over 5 hours on the phone with Xfinity the past two days, and I can't seem to get someone who understands my problem. I do not have working IPv6 - I do not get an address or PD. I have working IPv4. Xfinity wanted to blame this on my modem, so I went and picked up a Xfinity modem. From the 10.0.0.1 web site on the xfinity modem, I can ping IPv4 addresses fine. I can not ping IPv6 addresses from the modem itself, thus taking my equipment out of the picture. This is a new activation. Xfinity keeps asking questions like "well, can you surf the internet", which shows that they seem to totally lack understanding. I've talked to at least 7 people, and have reached my breaking point. I know, I know, its residential and I should have low expectations. I'm sorry for the noise, but I can't seem to find anyone with clue.

3 3

Puerto Rico Internet Exchange
by Mehmet Akcin 04 Aug '19

04 Aug '19

Hey there, just a very brief update We are in the process of RE-launching Internet Exchange in San Juan, Puerto Rico in a few weeks. We've got multiple networks in San Juan agreed to join the IX in a common neutral point. If you are able to help with the project or interested in learning more about it, please contact me offlist. (especially if you are in Puerto rico) Once everything is operational and the website is set up, I hope to contact back and update once we've got mrtg, etc is operational. thank you

4 4

The future of transport in the metro area
by Etienne-Victor Depasquale 04 Aug '19

04 Aug '19

Hello, I'm new to this mailing list. I hope I've understood the scope correctly! I've posted this question to ResearchGate but I haven't had any response. I'm hoping for some guidance from here. The question is: "I'm trying to identify trends in adoption of transport technology in the metro-area. If legacy is SDH/SONET and its successor in circuit transport is OTN, what are network providers implementing and planning to implement as transport technology in the metro area? For example, are packet transport technologies being considered as a replacement? As a complementary technology? By packet transport technologies, I am thinking of PBB-TE and MPLS-TP but ultimately, the problem regards how network providers are balancing circuit-transport and packet-transport technologies in current and planned deployments." -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

4 14