- Test - lists.nanog.org

OVH data center fire (2021) report
by Sean Donelan 24 Mar '22

24 Mar '22

French media covered this earlier in March, but I didn't see the english language reporting until now. https://www.journaldunet.com/web-tech/cloud/1509749-enquete-sur-l-incendie-… OVH has not released its own report about the fire at its SBG2 datacenter on March 10, 2021. The Bas-Rhin fire service, the local responding fire service, issued its report this month. - absence of an automatic fire extinguishing system on the site - a wooden ceiling with a "fireproof" capacity of only one hour with non-insulated technical ducts. - the two interior courtyards acted as fire chimneys - absence of a general electrical cut-off device - Electricité de Strasbourg, the site's electricity supplier, arrived on the scene at 1:20 a.m., but its teams "encountered difficulties in cutting off the electricity." - The site's power supply will be effectively disconnected at 03:28. "At this time, current is still present in the inverters (designed to take over in the event of a cut, editor's note)", specify the firefighters in their report. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/ovhcloud-fire-report-sbg2-data-c… Update: In response to a request from DCD, OVHcloud said that it could not respond in detail to the fire report, as it is still working with its insurers and government agencies on a formal report. The company did point out that the fire report is not from a data center expert, but was not able to give a date for when its own report would be released.

1 0

Re: V6 still not supported
by james.cutler＠consultant.com 24 Mar '22

24 Mar '22

> On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)jmaimon.com <mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com>> wrote: > ... > Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative effects, the fact that it did not and that globally v4 address shortage is still a problem is a tally of multiple years of failure. I noticed that no one on NANOG in the nineties predicted the foot-dragging and whining regarding transition from IPv4 toIPv6. We probably should have done so. I, for one, was busy trying to manage interconnects between divisions with their autonomous ref1918 worlds. I applauded the prospect of global unique addressing. So far the technical process has had rocky moments, but it ongoing failure has not happened. Any failure experienced is largely a failure of management/accounts to invest in the future for something that the media can not turn into sound bites and flashy images. This displays a clear lack of enlightened self interest. Even in my home office, over the last nine years I have observed continually increasing IPv6 access for myself and my clients. Comcast has demonstrated that IPv6 has no deleterious effect on typical user experience. Apple and Microsoft have provided admirable support for IPv6 coexisting with IPv4 on end systems. I suggest that it may be more important to deploy solutions to BufferBloat, to the benefit of both IPv4 and IPv6 since it will improve the user experience, than to try to extend IPv4 lifetime, an effort with diminishing returns.

5 5

Historic/Retired Routing Registry
by Dan Mahoney 24 Mar '22

24 Mar '22

Hey there all, I have vague memories of some group running a routing registry that was shut down in the late 90s/early 2000s and I could’ve sworn it was ARIN. It might’ve been Internic or something like that as well. Does anyone have any recollection of this? My Google searching for “retired routing registries” or “ historic routing registries“ seems to fail, But the list of which were in existence at one point or another seems like the kind of thing I’d expect somebody to keep on a webpage somewhere. Ideas? -Dance

3 2

Reason for delayed tornado warnings in Iowa
by Sean Donelan 23 Mar '22

23 Mar '22

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/03/06/nws-tornado-warning-disse… In a follow-up statement Monday, Buchanan said the communications delay resulted from a damaged fiber optic cable at the Weather Service’s Dallas-Fort Worth office. “The cable outage caused that office to switch from its primary, land-based communication network to a backup satellite-based network that serves every NWS field office,” she wrote. “The uptick in messages flowing to the central message handler from NWS Central Region offices due to the severe weather, combined with the performance characteristics of the satellite network in use at a co-located site, slowed down the queue of message transmissions and created a brief backlog across multiple offices.”

1 0

BCP 235
by John Kristoff 23 Mar '22

23 Mar '22

Pardon the netop relevant interjection... Most of you probably don't need this, but in my experience many did. DNS over TCP transport is a thing, please don't block it. kthxbye. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9210> John

1 0

V6 still not supported
by Daniel Karrenberg 23 Mar '22

23 Mar '22

Full match with my recollection about the cause for this sub optimal outcome. Happens to the best of us. One has to remember that at the time we did not consider it a forgone conclusion that the products of the IETF woukd be the foundation of the Net. Daniel (age 63, memory not totally unreliable yet) --- Sent from a handheld device. > On 22. Mar 2022, at 13:46, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: > > john, > > fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance > >> That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but >> rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make >> a decision” > > my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate technical > pressure for the short term; but there was a deep fear that the industry > press was stirring a major poolpah about the end of the internet due to > ipv4 exhaustion. i.e. a seriously flawed technical compromise was > pushed on us in reaction to a perception of bad press. > > i have learned that, when i am under great pressure to DO SOMETHING, > it's time to step back, go make a cup of tea, and think. the ietf did > not. and here we are, a quarter of a century later, still trying to > clean up the mess. > > randy

5 7

Telus contact re: VPN services (ESP, SSL) impacted, Vancouver -> Las Vegas
by Hugo Slabbert 23 Mar '22

23 Mar '22

Hi folks, Could someone from Telus (852) reach out, please? We're seeing a chunk of users on Telus home connections around the Vancouver, BC, area (Lower Mainland) struggling with RTT and some chunks of loss on VPN connections endpoints through gateways in Las Vegas as of ~2022-03-17. Outer path to the tunnel gateway is fine at <60 ms with low jitter and without loss. Tunneled traffic (predominantly ESP, but some users on SSL wrapped at times) shoots up to 130+ ms or above 200, with high variability and chunks of loss. Traceroutes from the users show outer traffic handing off to Zayo in Vancouver and across Akamai in Seattle before coming to us in Vegas. Users on other providers are unaffected. I'm reaching in case there are some shenanigans with ESP or SSL-wrapped traffic being futzed with somehow before being handed to us. Gateway endpoint is v4 only at 185.34.107.131, and is advertised out from 60229 to Akamai/Prolexic (32787). Hugo Slabbert Network Engineer Demonware

1 1

Re: Any engineers from HE on the list?
by Shawn L 22 Mar '22

22 Mar '22

Thanks for all who've responded. I was able to reach a very helpful engineer @ HE. Shawn -----Original Message----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen(a)delong.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:15pm To: "Shawn L" <shawnl(a)up.net> Subject: Re: Any engineers from HE on the list? FWIW, [ support(a)he.net ]( mailto:support@he.net ) is usually fairly responsive. Owen On Mar 22, 2022, at 05:54, Shawn L via NANOG <[ nanog(a)nanog.org ]( mailto:nanog@nanog.org )> wrote: Wondering if there are any engineers from HE (Hurricane Electric) on the list that could help with a strange traffic issue through your network If so, please contact me off-list Thanks Shawn

1 0

Any engineers from HE on the list?
by Shawn L 22 Mar '22

22 Mar '22

Wondering if there are any engineers from HE (Hurricane Electric) on the list that could help with a strange traffic issue through your network If so, please contact me off-list Thanks Shawn

1 0

Standards Compliant Mail Client Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203211201.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi, Blake: 1) " so it's not a chore to tell what thread you're even replying to? ": I am lost by your statement. I start each of my reply by quoting a phrase or sentence of the message that I am responding to. To be sure the original message in included, I copy the last message following what I am writing. I also prefix it with the forum message tag such as in this case "NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 20 Message: 33 ". This should be enough for anyone to follow in the latest exchange, as well as tracing it back in history from the NANOG Digest, if interested. Anything more could I do to ease your efforts without beginning to create a long tail to a thread? 2) " ... a standards compliant mail client ... ": Please name the "standards" and list a couple software that comply with it. This is a topic that I am actually very interested in studying because eMails these days come in too many formats / styles. Please teach me. Thanks, Abe (2022-03-21 12:20) On 2022-03-20 19:01, Blake Dunlap wrote: > Can you get a standards compliant mail client so it's not a chore to > tell what thread you're even replying to? > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 11:44 Abraham Y. Chen <aychen(a)avinta.com> wrote: > > Dear Borg: > > 1) " ... I dont see a way of extending IPv4 without making it a > new protocol. ... new IP protocol that is much more similar to > IPv4, just extends address space. ... ": I believe that you > will be pleasantly surprised at the proposal summarized by the the > below whitepaper. It proposes an overlay architecture over the > current Internet. As such, assignable IPv4 addresses are extended > without the baggage of the current Internet and no new protocol. > To begin the deployment, all need be done is "*/disabling/* the > program code that has been */disabling/* the use of the 240/4 > netblock" in routers. > > https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf > > 2) The "transition" will be mostly transparent from ordinary > users' point of view, because IoTs do not need be reprogrammed. > Please feel free to ask me to describe specific issues that you > may come across. > > Regards, > > > Abe (2022-03-18 12:43) > > > > ------------------------------ > NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 20 > > Message: 33 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:36:40 +0100 (CET) > From:borg@uu3.net > To:nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.2203180928500.16585@cube> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > While Im dont like IPv6, I see it as a bad idea. > >From my knowledge I dont see a way of extending IPv4 without making it > a new protocol. It was not designed that way. > > What I would LOVE to see that someone will pop in with new IP protocol > that is much more similar to IPv4, just extends address space and fixes > some well know issues. (for example remove netmask and use prefixlen/CIDR). > > Other importand aspect is some kind of IPvX -> IPv4 interop, so you can > quickly put clients into new protocol and they have access to entire IPv4 > internet out of the box. > > Also, we need to please enterprises so we need largish RFC1918 space too. > > Just my 2 cents again > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > > From: Matt Hoppes<mattlists(a)rivervalleyinternet.net> <mailto:mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> > To: Joe Maimon<jmaimon(a)jmaimon.com> <mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com>,bzs(a)theworld.com, > Tom Beecher<beecher(a)beecher.cc> <mailto:beecher@beecher.cc> > Cc: NANOG<nanog(a)nanog.org> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 23:34:19 -0500 > > At this point I would**love** to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch applied > to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death. > >> Its not impossible to envision that IPv4 does not ever go away but actually >> gets extended in such a way that it obsoletes IPv6. The longer this drags out >> the less implausible it seems. >> >> Joe >> >> > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> > Virus-free. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> > > > <#m_-5998402233395781358_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

4 3