- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

L3 over OTN vs pure IP/MPLS
by Manuel Marín 09 Jul '16

09 Jul '16

Dear Nanog community We are currently experimenting TCP degradation issues in some metro markets where there are multiple POPs and the IP packets have to pass multiple L3 access devices (routers) before reaching the core router. The more L3 hops that it goes through the more degradation we see in the Internet service. L3 routers have the capacity in terms of pps and BW and we are using just a small percentage of that capacity but anyway the service is degraded (No CRC/Input errors in the links). A couple of vendors are recommending using OTN or MPLS-TP to backhaul the connections from the access to the core but obviously deploying OTN means a considerable amount of capex. The flexibility and simplicity of the L3 based access network is great but given the performance issues we are experimenting I would appreciate if you can share your experience/recommendation with either OTN or MPLS-TP. Does it really make sense to use a OTN/Photonic layer to backhaul the L3 connections in a metro network? Your input is greatly appreciated Thanks and have a great day

2 1

DNS resolving issues with AT&T Customer Resolvers
by Mark Keymer 09 Jul '16

09 Jul '16

Hi all, I have a client bridgecatalog.com and it seems like customers with AT&T are unable to resolve his Domain. Maybe I am just overlooking something here but it seems like all should be working. Looking at outside tool things look ok too. http://dnscheck.pingdom.com/?domain=bridgecatalog.com (except the SOA hostmaster(a)solarek.com e-mailing issues I see now) Other domains seem to work fine. So it isn't just everything is down. One of the end-users I was working with currently has an ip of 99.7.225.25. Power cycling the modem did not change thing. I also flushed DNS. If I change to google's open resolvers things work fine. But not with default resolvers to client. Anyone at AT&T that could check that the resolver's your clients are using are able to resolve. (Home / SMB connections, etc) I am not sure the best way to go about trying to look into this issue if other have suggestion I would also appreciate it. Sincerely, -- Mark Keymer

3 4

An open letter to security researchers and practitioners
by Jeremy Gillula 08 Jul '16

08 Jul '16

An open letter to security researchers and practitioners: We need you to take a stand to protect security researchers who report defects in browsers, before it's too late. Earlier this month, the World Wide Web Consortium's Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) spec progressed to Draft Recommendation phase. This is a controversial standard for transmitting DRM-encumbered videos, and it marks the very first time that the W3C has attempted to standardize a DRM system. This means that for the first time, W3C standards for browsers will fall under laws like the DMCA (and its international equivalents, which the US Trade Representative has spread all over the world). These laws allow companies to threaten security researchers who disclose vulnerabilities in DRM systems, on the grounds that these disclosures make it easier to figure out how to bypass the DRM. Last summer, the Copyright Office heard from security researchers about the effect that DRM has on their work; those filings detail showstopper bugs in consumer devices, cars, agricultural equipment, medical implants, and voting machines that researchers felt they couldn't readily publish about, lest they face punitive lawsuits from the companies they embarrassed. EFF has asked the W3C to take a minimal step to insulate their stakeholders from the legal fallout from the inclusion of DRM in their standards. Our proposal asks the W3C to bind its members to legal promises not to use the DMCA or laws like it against security researchers or implementers. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/w3c-eme-and-eff-frequently-asked-ques… So far, the W3C executive has failed to act on this proposal, despite diverse support from a number of W3C members. We are hosting an open letter from security, privacy and technology experts to the W3C's director, Tim Berners-Lee; and its CEO, Jeff Jaffe, asking them to make any further work on EME contingent on adopting rules to protect the open web from these bad laws. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/security-researchers-tell-w3c-protect… Will you sign this letter? Some of security's leading lights have already put their names to it. We can't afford to make widely used tools like browsers off-limits to security research and disclosure, especially not as HTML5 is being positioned as a UI environment to replace apps as the primary way of interacting with sensors, actuators, embedded systems and the whole Internet of Things. If you're willing to sign on, please send an email to cory(a)eff.org with your country of residence and your institutional affiliation (if any). Thank you, Cory Doctorow Apollo 1201 Project Electronic Frontier Foundation

1 0

Re: L3 over OTN vs pure IP/MPLS
by McDonald Richards 08 Jul '16

08 Jul '16

This sounds like somebody is trying to sell you equipment. Can you elaborate on the degradation you're experiencing? Are you sure you're utilizing all your link bandwidth effectively and packets are not being stuck in large buffers or crammed into a starving forwarding class? On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Manuel Marín <mmg(a)transtelco.net> wrote: > Dear Nanog community > > We are currently experimenting TCP degradation issues in some metro markets > where there are multiple POPs and the IP packets have to pass multiple L3 > access devices (routers) before reaching the core router. The more L3 hops > that it goes through the more degradation we see in the Internet service. > L3 routers have the capacity in terms of pps and BW and we are using just a > small percentage of that capacity but anyway the service is degraded (No > CRC/Input errors in the links). A couple of vendors are recommending using > OTN or MPLS-TP to backhaul the connections from the access to the core but > obviously deploying OTN means a considerable amount of capex. The > flexibility and simplicity of the L3 based access network is great but > given the performance issues we are experimenting I would appreciate if you > can share your experience/recommendation with either OTN or MPLS-TP. Does > it really make sense to use a OTN/Photonic layer to backhaul the L3 > connections in a metro network? > > Your input is greatly appreciated > > Thanks and have a great day >

1 0

www.RT.com bad dns record
by Ca By 08 Jul '16

08 Jul '16

Anyone have a contact at www.rt.com that can encourage them to to delete their bad aaaa ? Some users on some devices fail to reach www.rt.com due to this dns failure. I know about various work arounds, looking for RT.com to fix this by deleting the bad aaaa record. Shared from ISC Dig for iOS ; <<>> DiG 9.10.4 <<>> @fe80::4c60:deff:fee6:b019 @192.168.1.1 www.rt.com aaaa +sit +dnssec +noqr +multiline ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 4367 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 512 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.rt.com. IN AAAA ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.rt.com. 10 IN AAAA ::ffff:37.48.108.112 ;; Query time: 298 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.1.1#53(192.168.1.1) ;; WHEN: Wed Jul 06 20:19:34 PDT 2016 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 67

7 10

NAT firewall for IPv6?
by Edgar Carver 08 Jul '16

08 Jul '16

Hello NANOG community. I was directed here by our network administrator since she is on vacation. Luckily, I minored in Computer Science so I have some familiarity. We have a small satellite campus of around 170 devices that share one external IPv4 and IPv6 address via NAT for internet traffic. Internal traffic is over an MPLS. We're having problems where viruses are getting through Firefox, and we think it's because our Palo Alto firewall is set to bypass filtering for IPv6. Unfortunately, the network admin couldn't give me the password since a local consultant set it up, and it seems they went out of business. I need to think outside the box. Is there some kind of NAT-based IPv6 firewall I can setup on the router that can help block viruses? I figure that's the right place to start since all the traffic gets funneled there. We have a Cisco Catalyst as a router. Or, ideally, is there an easy way to turn off IPv6 completely? I really don't see a need for it, any legitimate service should have an IPv4 address. I'd really appreciate your advice. I plan to drive out there tomorrow, where I can get the exact model numbers and stuff. Regards, Dr. Edgar Carver

19 31

Weekly Routing Table Report
by cscora＠apnic.net 08 Jul '16

08 Jul '16

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 09 Jul, 2016 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 603480 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 218627 Deaggregation factor: 2.76 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 294607 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 54248 Prefixes per ASN: 11.12 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 36531 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15524 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6436 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 167 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 54 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 55644) 51 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 55 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 13 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 14555 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 11281 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 44495 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 12 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 395 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2816498660 Equivalent to 167 /8s, 224 /16s and 91 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 76.1 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 76.1 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 98.2 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 196469 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 155921 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 42694 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.65 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 167897 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 67994 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5186 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 32.38 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1172 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 931 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 54 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2202 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 759303492 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 66 /16s and 13 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 88.7 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-137529 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 182610 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 89230 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.05 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 188256 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 88127 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16309 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 11.54 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5786 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1693 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1304 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1101096160 Equivalent to 65 /8s, 161 /16s and 100 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 58.2 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 64198-64296, 393216-397212 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 144707 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 71243 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.03 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 154203 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 95406 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18084 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.53 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7824 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3003 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 27 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4912 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 705483904 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 12 /16s and 212 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 102.6 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-204287 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 61574 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 12251 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.03 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 76632 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 36567 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2480 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.90 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 566 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 572 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.8 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 21 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2628 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 169973568 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 33 /16s and 151 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 101.3 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-265628 + ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 14117 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3199 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.41 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 16097 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 6156 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 734 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.93 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 176 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 172 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 235 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 80272640 Equivalent to 4 /8s, 200 /16s and 221 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 79.7 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5558 4191 75 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese 7545 3391 383 246 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4766 3151 11143 1116 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR 17974 2944 907 82 TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indo 9829 2557 1484 514 BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone, IN 1659 2483 1466 38 ERX-TANET-ASN1 Taiwan Academic Network 9808 2143 8761 40 CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication 4755 2078 431 239 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerl 4808 1714 2317 556 CHINA169-BJ China Unicom Beijing Provin 38197 1494 93 274 SUNHK-DATA-AS-AP Sun Network (Hong Kong Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 22773 3474 2965 144 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 6389 2248 3671 41 BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc., 18566 2197 405 110 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US 20115 1928 1950 413 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communicat 209 1712 5103 655 CENTURYLINK-US-LEGACY-QWEST - Qwest Com 6983 1688 849 228 ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc., US 30036 1675 336 459 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom 16509 1332 2474 423 AMAZON-02 - Amazon.com, Inc., US 7018 1325 20045 993 ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T Services, Inc., US 11492 1314 235 569 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 39891 3329 169 15 ALJAWWALSTC-AS , SA 20940 2710 1052 1924 AKAMAI-ASN1 , US 34984 1973 327 357 TELLCOM-AS , TR 8551 1279 377 46 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 12479 1270 1002 46 UNI2-AS , ES 6849 1148 355 21 UKRTELNET , UA 13188 1091 98 65 BANKINFORM-AS , UA 8402 1053 544 15 CORBINA-AS Russia, RU 9198 949 352 26 KAZTELECOM-AS , KZ 6830 889 2752 463 LGI-UPC formerly known as UPC Broadband Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 3471 542 129 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 8151 2264 3346 550 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 7303 1525 949 240 Telecom Argentina S.A., AR 11830 1465 368 50 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad 6503 1455 437 55 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V., MX 6147 1109 377 27 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., PE 3816 999 479 178 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP, C 7738 994 1882 40 Telemar Norte Leste S.A., BR 11172 907 125 76 Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V., MX 28573 875 2175 168 CLARO S.A., BR Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 1164 402 48 LINKdotNET-AS, EG 37611 645 48 2 Afrihost, ZA 36903 628 316 103 MT-MPLS, MA 36992 525 1235 47 ETISALAT-MISR, EG 8452 505 1472 15 TE-AS TE-AS, EG 37492 395 234 68 ORANGE-TN, TN 24835 329 594 15 RAYA-AS, EG 29571 299 37 12 CITelecom-AS, CI 2018 256 327 74 TENET-1, ZA 36947 232 855 15 ALGTEL-AS, DZ Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5558 4191 75 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese 22773 3474 2965 144 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 10620 3471 542 129 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 7545 3391 383 246 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 39891 3329 169 15 ALJAWWALSTC-AS , SA 4766 3151 11143 1116 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR 17974 2944 907 82 TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indo 20940 2710 1052 1924 AKAMAI-ASN1 , US 9829 2557 1484 514 BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone, IN 1659 2483 1466 38 ERX-TANET-ASN1 Taiwan Academic Network Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 10620 3471 3342 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 22773 3474 3330 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 39891 3329 3314 ALJAWWALSTC-AS , SA 7545 3391 3145 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 17974 2944 2862 TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indo 1659 2483 2445 ERX-TANET-ASN1 Taiwan Academic Network 6389 2248 2207 BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc., 9808 2143 2103 CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication 18566 2197 2087 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US 9829 2557 2043 BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone, IN Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65001 PRIVATE 5.143.176.0/20 15468 KLGELECS-AS 38, Teatralnaya st 65001 PRIVATE 31.172.192.0/20 15468 KLGELECS-AS 38, Teatralnaya st 65001 PRIVATE 31.172.192.0/21 15468 KLGELECS-AS 38, Teatralnaya st 65001 PRIVATE 31.172.200.0/21 15468 KLGELECS-AS 38, Teatralnaya st 65001 PRIVATE 31.172.208.0/21 15468 KLGELECS-AS 38, Teatralnaya st 65001 PRIVATE 31.172.216.0/21 15468 KLGELECS-AS 38, Teatralnaya st 65000 PRIVATE 31.219.177.0/25 8966 ETISALAT-AS P.O. Box 1150, Dub 65000 PRIVATE 31.219.177.128/25 8966 ETISALAT-AS P.O. Box 1150, Dub 65001 PRIVATE 46.237.32.0/20 13118 ASN-YARTELECOM Verhnevolzhsky 64502 RESERVED 92.38.215.0/24 12695 DINET-AS , RU Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.112.0/20 62788 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 23.249.144.0/20 40430 COLO4JAX-AS - colo4jax, LLC, US 27.100.7.0/24 56096 UNKNOWN 41.73.1.0/24 37004 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.73.2.0/24 37004 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.73.3.0/24 37004 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.73.4.0/24 37004 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.73.5.0/24 37004 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.73.6.0/24 37004 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.73.7.0/24 37004 -Reserved AS-, ZZ Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:16 /9:13 /10:36 /11:100 /12:266 /13:515 /14:1036 /15:1767 /16:13161 /17:7789 /18:12745 /19:25299 /20:38225 /21:40061 /22:66775 /23:58267 /24:335755 /25:565 /26:585 /27:375 /28:49 /29:32 /30:16 /31:1 /32:31 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 39891 2896 3329 ALJAWWALSTC-AS , SA 22773 2712 3474 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 18566 2089 2197 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US 30036 1489 1675 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom 6389 1453 2248 BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc., 10620 1382 3471 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 6983 1339 1688 ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc., US 34984 1256 1973 TELLCOM-AS , TR 11492 1212 1314 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 6849 968 1148 UKRTELNET , UA Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1568 2:733 4:21 5:2134 6:31 8:975 12:1786 13:39 14:1723 15:45 16:2 17:85 18:108 20:49 22:1 23:1657 24:1774 27:2282 31:1735 32:67 33:3 34:2 35:5 36:308 37:2282 38:1230 39:34 40:94 41:2732 42:446 43:1802 44:43 45:2087 46:2516 47:89 49:1163 50:884 51:20 52:513 54:338 55:10 56:7 57:42 58:1604 59:942 60:350 61:1832 62:1490 63:1933 64:4505 65:2176 66:4273 67:2228 68:1115 69:3284 70:1252 71:482 72:2023 74:2533 75:344 76:375 77:1432 78:1279 79:875 80:1303 81:1375 82:965 83:711 84:857 85:1601 86:482 87:1093 88:552 89:2041 90:180 91:6066 92:953 93:2401 94:2390 95:2491 96:518 97:375 98:948 99:41 100:75 101:1073 103:11467 104:2488 105:127 106:427 107:1298 108:674 109:2223 110:1273 111:1632 112:1027 113:1109 114:1083 115:1643 116:1612 117:1527 118:1979 119:1624 120:1267 121:1178 122:2188 123:2027 124:1587 125:1744 128:700 129:427 130:414 131:1331 132:620 133:176 134:459 135:134 136:379 137:400 138:1738 139:296 140:711 141:452 142:646 143:900 144:715 145:168 146:887 147:645 148:1363 149:527 150:656 151:1020 152:635 153:302 154:632 155:946 156:514 157:473 158:406 159:1132 160:501 161:790 162:2331 163:912 164:889 165:1051 166:314 167:1162 168:1946 169:673 170:1746 171:262 172:594 173:1639 174:757 175:734 176:1729 177:4069 178:2257 179:1142 180:2084 181:1823 182:1952 183:979 184:832 185:6877 186:2999 187:2099 188:2194 189:1732 190:7818 191:1243 192:9058 193:5730 194:4443 195:3837 196:1707 197:1049 198:5556 199:5751 200:7061 201:3772 202:10077 203:10013 204:4506 205:2708 206:2990 207:3105 208:4094 209:3906 210:4260 211:2053 212:2745 213:2269 214:870 215:72 216:5843 217:1986 218:799 219:629 220:1630 221:862 222:679 223:1274 End of report

1 0

Re: packet loss question
by Ken Chase 07 Jul '16

07 Jul '16

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 08:32:19PM +0000, Mel Beckman said: >Yes. It indicates that there was never a time when you did not know everything :) > > -mel beckman The issue isnt knowing everything, it's making accusations of issues while you still dont know how much you dont know. (~D. Rumsfeld) -- My customers in a nutshell (they pay to be able to yell about random stuff I guess, and I provide that service!). The OP didnt make any accusations however, and just asked what was going on (sorry if I sounded harsh in reply). Once, Google having a 8.8.8.8 failure locally on its (anycast?) dns servers resulted in dozens of calls to us "your server hosting our site must be down!! Our website isnt working! People are calling us!". Most of my work is with these situations is spent proving it's not our fault. Mtr makes it very hard because it's a very subtle tool, and only gives partial information. (I still think mtr is a killer app though!) consider this (fake, example) trace: 6. 100ge13-1.core1.chi1.he.net 0.0% 10 7. 100ge14-1.core2.chi1.he.net 0.0% 10 8. 100ge3-1.core1.sjc2.he.net 30.0% 10 9. ??? 10. UNKNOWN-216-115-101-X.yahoo.com 10.0% 10 11. routerer-ext.ysv.freebsd.org 20.0% 10 12. wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org 30.0% 10 First off, the OP may have asked "who's fault is hop 9, yahoo or HE?" and seen it as an issue. Ignoring that for now, the rest of the packetloss is an issue -- where is the problem though? This is very tricky - it looks like hop 8 is at fault of course - or is it just dropping ICMP as it's allowed to? How did hop 10 get only 10% loss then if 8 has 30? Is 8 then dropping ~20% (not statistically correct..) of ICMP just cuz it can, and then having a 'real' 10% loss on top of that? Or it's hop 11? But hop 12 has more PL, perhaps hop 12 is the issue all along and 8 10 and 11 are just dropping ICMP? Or it's 8, 11 and 12 doing ~10% each? (not statistically correct.) Can't say for sure - it's a probabilities game - and being completely correct about it, hop 6 isn't blameless either (just very unlikely to be at fault statistically, though not impossible with only 10 pings per hop - a statistician can calculate it for us). This is why more pings are required to be sure of the situation - I like to do -i 0.1 -c 100 so it's completed quickly before conditions change. Then you can make a statistically valid pronouncement of where the problem MIGHT BE within a useful confidence interval - however, without the return route we're still largely in the dark as to the actual location of the issue. You cant be '100% sure' with this stuff - technically speaking, it's all 'luck of the draw'. (Beware: this one time, at band camp, some etherchannel or equiv at HE was showing PL only for specific ips in any target subnet -- because they were xor'ing the source & target IP to load balance and one channel was wonky. Fun times debugging that one: "WFM from here, what's your issue?") /kc -- Ken Chase - ken(a)heavycomputing.ca skype:kenchase23 +1 416 897 6284 Toronto Canada Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.

3 2

google routing noc/looking glass/contact
by Joe Maimon 07 Jul '16

07 Jul '16

I would appreciate it if anyone could put me in touch or send me any tips to deal with packet loss and problems routing to google, but only along certain paths from certain points in the network (like as in ecmp problems) from as21719 I would like to rule out local issues if possible and that would certainly help. Joe

1 0

New ICANN registrant change process
by Jay R. Ashworth 07 Jul '16

07 Jul '16

I'll go ahead and assume I wasn't the last person to get this memo (courtesy Lauren Weinstein's PRIVACY Digest): https://opensrs.com/blog/2016/06/icanns-new-transfer-policy-will-impact-bus… It does seem that this is going to make life difficult for a bunch of pretty normal business processes. If you didn't know about it either... ask yourself why not. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274

9 16