- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

10G tester recommendations?
by Bryan Holloway 05 Oct '16

05 Oct '16

We're in the market for a hand-held 10G ethernet tester, and I was curious if the NANOG community had any recommendations or experiences they would be willing to share, negative or positive. Currently we're looking at the EXFO MAX-800 and NetScout's AT 10G, but we're open to other suggestions. Thank you! - bryan

5 6

Re: Level 3 voice outage
by Mel Beckman 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

Just so. We are just speculating, but in light of recent GRE attack developments, the ddos possibility is worth considering. -mel beckman On Oct 4, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Shawn Ritchie <shawnritchie(a)gmail.com<mailto:shawnritchie@gmail.com>> wrote: Well, Level3 has by no means said that this was the result of a DDoS, that's just speculation on behalf of folks who do not work at Level3 so far. On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM Marco Teixeira <admin(a)marcoteixeira.com<mailto:admin@marcoteixeira.com>> wrote: I won't believe a company like Level3 would not deploy backplane protection/policing on routers. Also, 1Tb/s aggregated DDoS towards OVH network didn't pause or rebooted routers. And i guess both companies have had their share of (D)DoS in the past, so they had the time to get up to the challenge. Now... there where times where one malformed IP packet would cause a memory leak leading to a router reboot... :)? On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Mel Beckman <mel(a)beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> wrote: > 765 Gbps per second directed at a router's interface IP might give the > router pause, so to speak :) > > -mel > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Marco Teixeira <admin(a)marcoteixeira.com<mailto:admin@marcoteixeira.com>> > wrote: > > Multiple reboots across several markets... Does not seem something that > full pipes would trigger. Had it been an approved chance it would have been > rolled back i guess... On the other hand, a zero day could apply... > > Em 04/10/2016 19:54, "Mel Beckman" <mel(a)beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> escreveu: > >> Sure. The recent release of the IoT DDoS attack code in the wild. >> >> -mel >> >> > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu<mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:14:54 -0000, Mel Beckman said: >> > >> >> This could be DoS attack. >> > >> > Or a missing comma in a code update. >> > >> > Or a fumble-fingered NOC monkey. >> > >> > Or.... >> > >> > You have any reason to suspect a DoS attack rather than all the other >> > possibilities? >> >> > -- -- Shawn

1 0

Level 3 voice outage
by Mark Stevens 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

Is anyone noticing issue with Level 3 voice? I can't even call their 800 number using one of my other carriers. Mark

17 22

Legislative proposal sent to my Congressman
by Stephen Satchell 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

In thinking over the last DDos involving IoT devices, I think we don't have a good technical solution to the problem. Cutting off people with defective devices they they don't understand, and have little control over, is an action that makes sense, but hurts the innocent. "Hey, Grandma, did you know your TV set is hurting the Internet?" It's the people who foist bad stuff on the people who need to take the responsibility. Indeed, with enough moxie, we could avoid the net saturation problem in the first place. My proposal, as I sent it to my US House Representative: > Fixing the security of the Internet of Things: Now we have had > several distributed denial of service attacks — generating > eye-popping amounts of network traffic to bury a web site or gamer — > arguably traced to botnets-for-sale of "hacked" common devices with > Internet connectivity. It's time to look at the problem bad product > design can cause. Not being "computers", many of those devices — > cameras, televisions, light bulbs, to name a few — don't have > tough-enough security moxie baked in. And it's not enough to solve > today's attacks, they have to survive new attacks down the road. > > Some of these household items didn't conform to today's Best > Practices, taught in Security 101, with the rules learned (painfully) > over the last 30 years. And then there is the question of installing > security fixes: "Hey, Joe, you have to install an update to your > thermostat and washing machine." Right. > > This is nothing new. What is new is the tsunami of Internet-capable > devices hitting the market and the Internet...and doing it badly. By > sheer numbers, the situation rises to a whole new level of risk to the > nation's communications infrastructure. The magnitude of the problem? > Think how many light bulbs are in the typical house or apartment, and > you get the idea. > > This note comes a little late to the game, but I thought that one > wayto stem the flood of garbage from compromised household stuff is to > treat vulnerabilities that cause spew as design defects, defects as > serious as the exploding batteries in the Samsung Galaxy Note 7. So, > looking at the procedures already in place for dealing with merchandise > that can cause harm, this suggestion. > > Proposed: GIVEN > > * any Internet-connected device, > * "pwned" by cybercriminals, > * that cause significant harm, > * the manufacturer received notice of the defect, and > * did not, or cannot, provide a timely, zero-cost update > > THEREFORE the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall require that > the manufacturer provide a security update to the device within 30 day > of first notice; or failing that, to issue a complete recall of the > defective devices. > > I don't care if it's a television, camera, refrigerator, light bulb, > thermostat, washing machine, wireless access router, smart phone, > desktop computer, server, you-name-it...if it's broke, and can't (or > won't) be fixed, it gets recalled. > > That's the only way manufacturers will take Internet security > seriously. If they have to upgrade the stuff they sell, without > exception, the manufacturers will find a method that will keep their > expense for upgrades down. Upgrades should not be charged to the > customer — the manufacturer screwed up, they should fix the problem, at > their expense. I further suggest that security testing should be > specifically permitted under law, not be considered part of "reverse > engineering", or other shrink-wrap or copyright restriction. > > The CSPC should develop guidelines for product with embedded computers > that connect to the Internet at large, either directly or indirectly. > > There are a number of things to consider, when building such a > regulation, that come into play that complicated things > > * orphaned devices, > * devices made by companies that have gone out of business, > * imported stuff, > * methods of notification, and > * enforcement > > This is an off-the-top-of-my-head idea. I think it's worth > consideringover other "solutions" I've seen proposed. There is precedent for this with radio and the FCC. According to current law, the owner/operator of the radio equipment is ultimately responsible for non-interference by any transmitter used in the United States. This includes so-called unlicensed transmitters. To help the people who are not radio gurus, the FCC also has a type acceptance program, in which radios have to meet certain requirements as built by the manufacturer. There is another possible wrinkle: if there were legal consequences with selling IoT equipment, businesses making the stuff would take out insurance against claims against them. The underwriters would then take notice, and require that policyholders meet some minimum standards. Remember, we are talking about the "underwriters" who form the first part of the name "Underwriters Laboratories". From UL's web page: > UL is a global independent safety science company with more than a > century of expertise innovating safety solutions from the public > adoption of electricity to new breakthroughs in sustainability, > renewable energy and nanotechnology. Dedicated to promoting safe > living and working environments, UL helps safeguard people, products > and places in important ways, facilitating trade and providing peace > of mind. We could build on these existing frameworks to the advantage of the Internet by mandating certain minimum requirements for equipment sold to the general public. I would suspect that the IETF would need to become involved in this effort, because the standards would have to come from SOMEWHERE. Which is why they are included in the header. There are other people on the Cc: list that might be interested...or might not. Why not nip the IoT problem in the bud?

11 17

ARIN legacy block transfer process
by Bryan Fields 03 Oct '16

03 Oct '16

I'm trying to find a place on ARIN's website where this is addressed, but coming up short. I'm not the seller or buyer in this, but basically someone has a legacy block allocated by Postel and wants to sell the block as it's an owned asset. What's the process to get ARIN to move the admin/ownership of this? Do they only need to see a valid asset purchase agreement? There is no legacy RSA for this. I'm thinking of referring both parties to an experienced broker as well. Does anyone have current process experience with this? -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

12 23

ATT contact?
by Ken Breeman 03 Oct '16

03 Oct '16

Could someone from AT&T please contact me off list? Your residential Internet DNS servers are redirecting all traffic destined for Akamai hosted sites to your homepage... Thanks, Ken

1 0

Sling Media on list?
by Shon Elliott 03 Oct '16

03 Oct '16

Anyone from Sling Media on NANOG? If so, can you please contact me off-list? We have a net block that you guys have incorrect information for which is causing grief for our mutual customers. Kind Regards, Shon Elliott, KK6TOO selliott(a)getunwired.com<mailto:selliott@getunwired.com>

1 0

Root Zone DNSSEC Operational Update -- ZSK length change
by Wessels, Duane 03 Oct '16

03 Oct '16

As you may know, Verisign, in its role as the Root Zone Maintainer is also the operator of the root zone Zone Signing Key (ZSK). Later this year, we will increase the size of the ZSK from 1024-bits to 2048-bits. The root zone ZSK is normally rolled every calendar quarter, as per our “DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone ZSK operator.”[1] The ZSK public keys are signed at quarterly key signing ceremonies by ICANN in its role as the IANA Functions Operator. On September 20, 2016 the 2048-bit ZSK will be pre-published in the root zone, following the standard ZSK rollover procedure. We intend to begin publishing root zones signed with the first 2048-bit ZSK on October 1, 2016. Some details of the ZSK size transition have recently been presented at the DNS-OARC, NANOG, RIPE, ICANN, and IETF meetings.[2] If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at zms(a)verisign.com. Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might not have seen it here. [1] https://www.verisign.com/assets/dps-zsk-operator-1532.pdf [2] https://ripe72.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/168-verisign-zsk-c…

2 4

Any ISPs using AS852 for IP Transit?
by Jason Lixfeld 03 Oct '16

03 Oct '16

If there are any ISPs who use TELUS/AS852 for IP Transit over BGP, I’d be interested in hearing from you. I’d like to compare notes to see if you are also paying $250 for each BGP prefix filter updated request, or if we’re the only ones… Thanks in advance!

8 10

nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos
by Pedro 03 Oct '16

03 Oct '16

Hello, I have some idea to put switch before bgp router in order to terminate isp 10G uplinks on switch, not router. Main reason is that could be some kind of 1st level of defence against ddos, second reason, less important, save cost of router ports, do many port mirrors. I think about N3K-C3064PQ or Juniper ex4500 because there are quite cheap and a lot of on Ebay. I would like on nexus or juniper try use some feature: - limit udp, icmp, bum packets (bandwith,pps) at ingress tagged port or vlan - create counters: passed and dropped packets, best way to get this counters via snmp oid, sent snmp traps, syslog etc in order to monitor or even as a action shut down port - port mirror from many ports/vlans to multiple port (other anty ddos solutions) - limited bgp but with flowspec to comunicate with another anty ddos devices I'm also wondering how this feature above impact on cpu/whole switch. It can be some performance degradation ot all of this feature are done in hardware, with wirespeeed ? Which model will better to do this ? Thanks for any advice, Pedro --- Ta wiadomość została sprawdzona na obecność wirusów przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

7 11