- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Cogent BGP Woes
by Justin Wilson - MTIN 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

Have the rest of you been having as hard a time I am having in turning up BgP sessions with Cogent? They have made it a sales order nowadays instead of support. I filled out the questionnaire on the support site over 3 weeks ago and was directed to sales. I am going on 3 weeks waiting on a session to be turned up. Just wondering if I am alone. Justin Wilson j2sw(a)mtin.net --- http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

8 9

IPv6 and Android auto conf
by Anurag Bhatia 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

Hello everyone I recently got IPv6 working at home LAN. My Android device (Google Nexus 5) is connected via wifi to LAN and LAN's core router is Map2N <http://routerboard.com/RBmAP2n>. I have a /64 on the LAN with "advertise" enabled to make ND to work and have autoconfig working on all devices. There are bunch of other layer 2 devices in LAN but all just acting as layer 2 transparently and core L3 remains on Map2N. All works well for most part but only trouble I am getting is on Nexus 5 where after around 24hrs IPv6 stops working. Only unusual thing I notice at that time is that phone 4 IPv6 as opposed to 2 (autoconf and temporary randomised address). Seems like some kind of issue in way NDP works either on Microtik or phone. The fix I am doing from few days is to restart wifi and phone interface gets fresh (two) IPv6 addresses and all works well again. Anyone facing similar issue? (Note: No issues on OS X or iOS which are in same LAN) I can try DHCPv6 but I guess most of devices do not support it yet. (I see support for that in routerboard though). Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2

5 5

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 93, Issue 16
by Dan Turner (danturne) 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

Android and DHCPv6 again Yes but Android refuses to do IPv6 if there is any DHCPv6 on the network. It is a bug. SLAAC by default provides the address and default gateway (RA) If SLAAC managed flag is set, then DHCPv6 is used get the address and other configs (DNS, etc..) If SLAAC other flag is set, then SLAAC provides the address, and uses DHCPv6 to get the other configs (DNS, etc..) With SLAAC and without DHCPv6 the device has no way of knowing the DNS server and other configs such as search domain, etc... RFC 6106 provides a new feature that allows devices to obtain DNS from RA, but not all devices and network equipment support it yet. For devices that don't support RFC 6106 or DHCPv6, then it has to use IPv4 (DHCPv4) to get the IPv4 DNS address. Many Thanks =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dan Turner System Engineer | danturne(a)cisco.com Cisco Systems, Inc. | 2375 E. Camelback Rd. | Phoenix, AZ 85016 O. 602.778.2069 | C. 480.262.6017 | P. 800.365.4578 | TAC 800.553.2447 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From: NANOG <nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> on behalf of "nanog-request(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org>" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org>> Reply-To: "nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>" <nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Date: Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:00 AM To: "nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>" <nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 93, Issue 16 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org> You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog-owner@nanog.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Android and DHCPv6 again (Ray Soucy) 2. Re: Microsoft / Outlook.com contact??? (Arnaud de Prelle) 3. Re: Microsoft blocking mail (Tei) 4. Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management (Baptiste Jonglez) 5. Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management (Patrick W. Gilmore) 6. Re: geek whois (Randy Bush) 7. Re: Android and DHCPv6 again (Dave Bell) 8. Re: Android and DHCPv6 again (A.L.M.Buxey(a)lboro.ac.uk<mailto:A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk>) 9. RE: Android and DHCPv6 again (Nicholas Warren) 10. Re: Packetfront/Waystream gear (Anders L?winger) 11. RE: Android and DHCPv6 again (Matthew Huff) 12. RE: Android and DHCPv6 again (Baldur Norddahl) 13. Re: Android and DHCPv6 again (Sander Steffann) 14. Re: Spamhaus contact needed (Larry Sheldon) 15. Re: Spamhaus contact needed (Jason Baugher) 16. Re: Spamhaus contact needed (Larry Sheldon) 17. Re: Spamhaus contact needed (Larry Sheldon) 18. Cogent BGP Woes (Justin Wilson - MTIN) 19. Re: Cogent BGP Woes (Josh Luthman) 20. AW: Cogent BGP Woes (J?rgen Jaritsch) 21. Re: Cogent BGP Woes (james machado) 22. RE: Cogent BGP Woes (Damien Burke) 23. Re: IPv6 Irony. (Owen DeLong) 24. Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management (Baldur Norddahl) 25. Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management (Patrick W. Gilmore) 26. ultradns / neustar outage? (Jim Mercer) 27. Re: ultradns / neustar outage? (N M) 28. Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management (Baldur Norddahl) 29. Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management (Patrick W. Gilmore) 30. Re: ultradns / neustar outage? (Curtis Generous) 31. Re: ultradns / neustar outage? (Hugo Slabbert) 32. Re: Android and DHCPv6 again (Lorenzo Colitti) 33. the fcc vs wifi lockdown issue (Dave Taht) 34. sfp "computer"? (Baldur Norddahl) 35. RE: sfp "computer"? (Jameson, Daniel) 36. Re: sfp "computer"? (Baldur Norddahl) 37. Re: Cogent BGP Woes (Justin Wilson - MTIN) 38. Re: Cogent BGP Woes (Justin Wilson - MTIN) 39. Re: Cogent BGP Woes (Carlos Alcantar) 40. Re: sfp "computer"? (joel jaeggli) 41. Re: the fcc vs wifi lockdown issue (Alejandro Acosta) 42. Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management (Mark Tinka) 43. Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management (Mark Tinka) 44. Re: sfp "computer"? (Ray Wong) 45. Re: Cogent BGP Woes (Mike Hammett) 46. inexpensive url-filtering db (MKS) 47. Re: IPv6 and Android auto conf (Anurag Bhatia) 48. Re: sfp "computer"? (Jerry Jones) 49. i hate october (Randy Bush) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:22:21 -0400 From: Ray Soucy <rps(a)maine.edu<mailto:rps@maine.edu>> To: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl(a)gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>" <nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: Android and DHCPv6 again Message-ID: <CALFTrnNT+jkXOBU4fwOWaCNkYxT3gN2ZqCHxJEcjrEyn2Q9Ddg(a)mail.gmail.com<mailto:CALFTrnNT+jkXOBU4fwOWaCNkYxT3gN2ZqCHxJEcjrEyn2Q9Ddg@mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Android does not have a complete IPv6 implementation and should not be IPv6 enabled. Please do your part and complain to Google that Android does not support DHCPv6 for address assignment. On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl(a)gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi I noticed that my Nexus 9 tablet did not have any IPv6 although everything else in my house is IPv6 enabled. Then I noticed that my Samsung S6 was also without IPv6. Hmm. A little work with tcpdump and I got this: 03:27:15.978826 IP6 (hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 120) fe80::222:7ff:fe49:ffad > ip6-allnodes: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, router advertisement, length 120 hop limit 0, Flags [*managed*, other stateful], pref medium, router lifetime 1800s, reachable time 0s, retrans time 0s source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 00:22:07:49:ff:ad mtu option (5), length 8 (1): 1500 prefix info option (3), length 32 (4): 2a00:7660:5c6::/64, Flags [onlink, *auto*], valid time 7040s, pref. time 1800s unknown option (24), length 16 (2): 0x0000: 3000 0000 1b80 2a00 7660 05c6 0000 So my CPE is actually doing DHCPv6 and some nice people at Google decided that it will be better for me to be without IPv6 in that case :-(. But it also has the auto flag, so Android should be able to do SLAAC yes? My Macbook Pro currently has the following set of addresses: en0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 3c:15:c2:ba:76:d4 inet6 fe80::3e15:c2ff:feba:76d4%en0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4 inet 192.168.1.214 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 2a00:7660:5c6::3e15:c2ff:feba:76d4 prefixlen 64 autoconf inet6 2a00:7660:5c6::b5a5:5839:ca0f:267e prefixlen 64 autoconf temporary inet6 2a00:7660:5c6::899 prefixlen 64 dynamic nd6 options=1<PERFORMNUD> media: autoselect status: active To me it seems that the Macbook has one SLAAC address, one privacy extension address and one DHCPv6 managed address. In fact the CPE manufacturer is a little clever here. They gave me an easy address that I can use to access my computer ("899") while still allowing SLAAC and privacy extensions. If I want to open ports in my firewall I could do that to the "899" address. But why is my Android devices without IPv6 in this setup? Regards, Baldur -- *Ray Patrick Soucy* Network Engineer I Networkmaine, University of Maine System US:IT 207-561-3526 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:05:40 +0200 From: Arnaud de Prelle <arnaud(a)pnzone.net<mailto:arnaud@pnzone.net>> To: Robert Glover <robertg(a)garlic.com<mailto:robertg@garlic.com>> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Microsoft / Outlook.com contact??? Message-ID: <81a7288bfe53fc51ba63b757179c6806(a)icecube.pnzone.net<mailto:81a7288bfe53fc51ba63b757179c6806@icecube.pnzone.net>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On 2015-10-15 01:58, Robert Glover wrote: On 10/13/2015 10:49 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: Unfortunately, that's not going to work if the refusal reason was FBLW15 (or TBLW15). You're not dealing with an issue on the Outlook/Hotmail side of the house. If you had provided the last two octets, I might have been able to give some advice earlier, but alas, everyone seems loathe to actually say which IP is having issues. IP in question: 65.111.224.51 Not trying to hide anything, but seeing the posts with obfuscated IPs has rubbed off on me I suppose (for better or for worse. I appreciate if you can help us out here. -Bobby Hi Robert, I just experienced the same problem. It took 10 days before I got delisted without explanation. My IP is clean, never blacklisted, SPF+DKIM+DMARC, present in DNSWL.org, etc. Note that I had no issues for sending emails to @outlook.com. I only had issues (#FBLW15) when sending emails to Office365/ExchangeOnline users (i.e. @dowcorning.com in this case). Best Regards, Arnaud. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:50:14 +0200 From: Tei <oscar.vives(a)gmail.com<mailto:oscar.vives@gmail.com>> Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: Microsoft blocking mail Message-ID: <CACg3zYFdEyQrwyr+OugnrcoPVHexob+r9S2np2wTF8yM_PpW5w(a)mail.gmail.com<mailto:CACg3zYFdEyQrwyr+OugnrcoPVHexob+r9S2np2wTF8yM_PpW5w@mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 18 September 2015 at 10:45, Marcin Cieslak <saper(a)saper.info<mailto:saper@saper.info>> wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Tei wrote: On 18 September 2015 at 04:48, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf(a)dessus.com<mailto:kmedcalf@dessus.com>> wrote: > > Being blocked is probably a good thing ... CGI forms that do the validation in the serverside are not up to modern expectations*. You want to do validation clientside. If you do client-side and no server-side, you have a huge security problem. ~Marcin By now is a industry standard. You have to do the validation serverside and clientside. This of course mean duplicated code. ( Excessively clever people have tried to solve the problem by using the same language/code in both the clientside and serverside. But this feels to me like a overreaction and you will be writing code unrelated to this in a new (?) language.... On top the... heurhg... creative pipelining.. to make the whole fa?ade works.) Collesterol High Clients + Collesterol High Servers. Unrelated: this is a funny article http://carlos.bueno.org/2014/11/cache.html -- -- ?in del ?ensaje. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:07:14 +0200 From: Baptiste Jonglez <baptiste(a)bitsofnetworks.org<mailto:baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org>> To: nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Message-ID: <20151014170714.GA16087(a)lud.polynome.dn42<mailto:20151014170714.GA16087@lud.polynome.dn42>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, In its peering documentation [https://peering.google.com/about/traffic_management.html] Google claims that it can drive peering links at 100% utilisation: Congestion management Peering ports with Google can be run at 100% capacity in the short term, with low (<1-2%) packet loss. Please note that an ICMP ping may display packet loss due to ICMP rate limiting on our platforms. Please contact us to arrange a peering upgrade. How do they achieve this? More generally, is there any published work on how Google serves content from its CDN, the Google Global Cache? I'm especially interested in two aspects: - for a given eyeball network, on which basis are the CDN nodes selected? - is Google able to spread traffic over distinct peering links for the same eyeball network, in case some of the peering links become congested? If so, how do they measure congestion? Thanks for your input, Baptiste

1 0

Telecom fraud survey
by Merve Sahin 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

Hello, As part of our academic work, we are trying to systematize knowledge on telecom fraud, focusing on voice telephony. For this purpose, we created a high level picture that summarize and organize the fraud ecosystem in different layers, ranging from the inherent flaws in the roots of the system to the final goals of the fraudster. We are now looking for feedback from the industry experts of the field through a survey (should take 5-10 minutes to complete): https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3CJ7HY9 The responses to this survey will be anonymous and only be used aggregated for research purposes. We will publish a research paper using the results of this study, making this work helpful for both academia and industry. Thank you for supporting our work with your valuable insights. Best regards, Merve

1 0

Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management
by Baptiste Jonglez 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

Hi, In its peering documentation [https://peering.google.com/about/traffic_management.html] Google claims that it can drive peering links at 100% utilisation: > Congestion management > > Peering ports with Google can be run at 100% capacity in the short term, > with low (<1-2%) packet loss. Please note that an ICMP ping may display > packet loss due to ICMP rate limiting on our platforms. Please contact > us to arrange a peering upgrade. How do they achieve this? More generally, is there any published work on how Google serves content from its CDN, the Google Global Cache? I'm especially interested in two aspects: - for a given eyeball network, on which basis are the CDN nodes selected? - is Google able to spread traffic over distinct peering links for the same eyeball network, in case some of the peering links become congested? If so, how do they measure congestion? Thanks for your input, Baptiste

4 7

the fcc vs wifi lockdown issue
by Dave Taht 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

I had hoped to have seen some discussion of what vint cerf, myself, linus torvalds, jim gettys, dave farber, and 260 others just cooked up as to solve the edge device, wifi, and iot security problems we face. Press release here: http://businesswire.com/news/home/20151014005564/en/Global-Internet-Experts… Document as submitted to the fcc here: http://fqcodel.bufferbloat.net/~d/fcc_saner_software_practices.pdf Dave Täht http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Daves_Media_Guidance

2 1

Android and DHCPv6 again
by Baldur Norddahl 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

Hi I noticed that my Nexus 9 tablet did not have any IPv6 although everything else in my house is IPv6 enabled. Then I noticed that my Samsung S6 was also without IPv6. Hmm. A little work with tcpdump and I got this: 03:27:15.978826 IP6 (hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 120) fe80::222:7ff:fe49:ffad > ip6-allnodes: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, router advertisement, length 120 hop limit 0, Flags [*managed*, other stateful], pref medium, router lifetime 1800s, reachable time 0s, retrans time 0s source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 00:22:07:49:ff:ad mtu option (5), length 8 (1): 1500 prefix info option (3), length 32 (4): 2a00:7660:5c6::/64, Flags [onlink, *auto*], valid time 7040s, pref. time 1800s unknown option (24), length 16 (2): 0x0000: 3000 0000 1b80 2a00 7660 05c6 0000 So my CPE is actually doing DHCPv6 and some nice people at Google decided that it will be better for me to be without IPv6 in that case :-(. But it also has the auto flag, so Android should be able to do SLAAC yes? My Macbook Pro currently has the following set of addresses: en0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 3c:15:c2:ba:76:d4 inet6 fe80::3e15:c2ff:feba:76d4%en0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4 inet 192.168.1.214 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 2a00:7660:5c6::3e15:c2ff:feba:76d4 prefixlen 64 autoconf inet6 2a00:7660:5c6::b5a5:5839:ca0f:267e prefixlen 64 autoconf temporary inet6 2a00:7660:5c6::899 prefixlen 64 dynamic nd6 options=1<PERFORMNUD> media: autoselect status: active To me it seems that the Macbook has one SLAAC address, one privacy extension address and one DHCPv6 managed address. In fact the CPE manufacturer is a little clever here. They gave me an easy address that I can use to access my computer ("899") while still allowing SLAAC and privacy extensions. If I want to open ports in my firewall I could do that to the "899" address. But why is my Android devices without IPv6 in this setup? Regards, Baldur

11 14

ultradns / neustar outage?
by Jim Mercer 15 Oct '15

15 Oct '15

hi, we are hosting some domains at ultradns, and they all seem to be dead. anyone else seeing issues? --jim -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" -- Hunter S. Thompson

4 3

Packetfront/Waystream gear
by rdrake 15 Oct '15

15 Oct '15

Does anyone have experience running Packetfront hardware in a production network? We've looked at a few and they seem to be pretty good but I want to know if they have downsides. We're looking at them for edge switches now and thinking about if they can be site routers or switches (either a q-in-q vlan handoff to a ring or a separate L3 with routing protocols depending on how the site is accessed) You can contact me offlist if you don't want to talk about it publicly. Thanks, Robert

3 2

geek whois
by Randy Bush 15 Oct '15

15 Oct '15

anyone else having problems wiht geek whois today? randy

1 1