- Test - lists.nanog.org

Implementing Decentralized RPKI with Blockchain Technology
by Brandon Z. 29 Nov '24

29 Nov '24

Hi there, Currently, due to political factors, some countries are not particularly proactive in deploying RPKI. Imagine if the RIR of a region were forced to revoke all IP resources of a particular country from RPKI, effectively isolating that country from the global internet. To address this, one approach is for autonomous networks within a region to establish two trusted RPKI CA servers: one from the major RIRs and another locally managed. The locally managed CA would take precedence, allowing autonomous networks to submit their IP resources to the RPKI server of their peers (and potentially backed by a national mandate to trust this CA). This setup could prevent a scenario where an entire country’s IP resources are revoked, leading to all IPs being marked as invalid. Another concept is to use blockchain technology. While cryptocurrencies use computational power to verify ownership, BGP could use peer count. If an IP resource is marked as valid by a majority of high-influence networks (with many peers), it could be trusted by the entire internet. Could this approach work? Perhaps there’s existing research on similar methods? *Brandon Z.* HUIZE LTD www.huize.asia <https://huize.asia/>| www.ixp.su | Twitter This e-mail and any attachments or any reproduction of this e-mail in whatever manner are confidential and for the use of the addressee(s) only. HUIZE LTD can’t take any liability and guarantee of the text of the email message and virus.

17 41

DNS-OARC Cfp - Closing Soon
by Merike Kaeo 28 Nov '24

28 Nov '24

Hello all. The Programme Committee is seeking contributions from the community. This workshop will be a hybrid event. Date - 6-7 February 2025 Location - Atlanta Marriott Marquis - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Time zone - EST (UTC -5) Co-located with NANOG 93 Deadline for Submissions - 2024-12-02 23:59 UTC All DNS-related subjects and discussion topics are welcome although we're particularly keen to hear about operational and security related experiences, best practices and practical advice; both for newcomers to the DNS arena and those who have been around for longer who want to learn more about new features and opportunities to improve resilience, security and privacy. If you have something interesting to share with the community that lies outside of the focus above, please don't be put off - if it's good, we'll be happy to include it. If you'd like to offer a talk, but are not quite sure what to pick, here's a non-exhaustive list of ideas: - Operations: Any operational gotchas, lessons learned from an outage, details/reasons for a recent outage (how to improve time to recovery, tooling), interoperability concerns and experience. - Deployment: DNS config management and release process. - Monitoring: Log ingestion pipeline, analytics infrastructure, anomaly detection. - Scaling: DNS performance management and metrics. Increasing DNS server efficiency. - Security: DoS experience, attacks on the DNS, DNSSEC signing and validation. - Privacy: Encrypted transports, qname minimization, data anonymization. - Resilience: Provisioning planning, load-balancing services, features (e.g. serve-stale) For further details please see https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc44 Merike Kaeo, for the DNS-OARC Programme Committee Merike Kaeo Founder/vCISO, Double Shot Security Email: merike(a)doubleshotsecurity.com <mailto:merike@doubleshotsecurity.com> Mobile: +1 206-669-6394

1 0

Problem Statement about IPv6 Support for Multiple Routers and Multiple Interfaces (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-00.txt)
by Fernando Gont 28 Nov '24

28 Nov '24

Hi, We've decided to bite the bullet, and have posted this IETF I-D: "Problem Statement about IPv6 Support for Multiple Routers and Multiple Interfaces" HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6 TXT: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6/ Feedback/discussion will be very appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-00.txt Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:00:07 -0800 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com>, Guillermo Gont <ggont(a)si6networks.com> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6 Revision: 00 Title: Problem Statement about IPv6 Support for Multiple Routers and Multiple Interfaces Date: 2024-11-27 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 10 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6/ HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-v6ops-multi-ipv6 Abstract: This document discusses current limitations in IPv6 Stateless Address Auto-cofiguration (SLAAC) that prevent support for common multi- router and multi-interface scenarios. It provides discussion on the challenges that these scenarios represent, and why a solution in this space is warranted. Finally, it specifies a number of common scenarios that any solution in this space should be able to address. The IETF Secretariat

1 0

Can an IXP sell IP transit?
by Douglas Fischer 27 Nov '24

27 Nov '24

Can an IXP sell traffic? This is a rhetorical question. I know that it can... In fact, it is obvious that it can. It is quite common to see several companies buying and selling traffic through IXPs. But whenever I have been involved with more serious companies, it was common for this type of traffic to be over a Bilateral VLAN between the Downstream and Upstream, and the ASs involved were from the operations themselves (different from the ASN used by Route-Servers). But I have seen a reasonably large scenario in which the IXP operator, maintaining the MLPA LAN with the pair of Route-Servers, adds another participant with the SAME ASN as the route-servers, and through this participant starts to sell traffic. This seemed very strange to me! And that is why I came to ask if this is correct or not. I would appreciate any guidance on the subject. In fact, there were other aggravating factors that worried me: - The IXP activation information itself (VLAN, IPv4/IPv6, Route-Servers, etc.) was indistinguishable from the information in the transit BGP session. And the extra Billing information for anything sent by the transit was not explicit. - The routes reported exchanged by this transit had the ASN transparency function in the AS-Path. Thanks in advance! -- Douglas Fernando Fischer Engº de Controle e Automação

17 26

We Are So Grateful for Our Community! + More
by Nanog News 27 Nov '24

27 Nov '24

*** Happy Thanksgiving!* ------------------------------------------------------------ *We Are So Grateful for Our Community* Your dedication, collaboration, and innovation keep the Internet running smoothly and our world more connected. 💡🌍 Wishing you and your loved ones a joyful and restful holiday. Happy Thanksgiving! 🧡 ***Deadline for N93 Talk Proposals is Just Around the Corner... * ------------------------------------------------------------ *Share Your Expertise + Bring your Ideas to Life!* *NANOG 93 Talks will focus on Automation.* We also welcome submissions highlighting: * Network Automation: Practical implementations and getting started guides. * Kubernetes: Implementation strategies and best practices. * Future of Networking: Forecasts on technological advancements and design changes. * + More *MORE INFO <https://nanog.org/program/call-presentations/> * ( https://nanog.org/program/call-presentations/) *** Talk of the Week — "Whatever Happened To IPv6?"* ------------------------------------------------------------ *Ft. Geoff Huston - APNIC* *Check out one of our most viewed talks from our last meeting, NANOG 92 in Toronto.* *WATCH NOW * ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mSukwT19-U&list=PLO8DR5ZGla8jZuNZqoXorIMAC… ) https://nanog.org/events/nanog-93/) *** Stay Connected* ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.facebook.com http://www.instagram.com/nanog_org/ http://www.linkedin.com/company/nanog/ https://www.twitter.com/nanog/ http://nanog.org

1 0

ATT Voice Call Routing Issues
by John Stitt 27 Nov '24

27 Nov '24

Anyone on the ATT voice side of things able to reach out off list? We’re seeing inbound call issues from AT&T and firstnet phone numbers across multiple providers. Outbound calls have no issue. So far we’ve had no success with normal channels of support. The calls are dropping after five seconds, but they do initially make it through and you can have a few seconds of audio if you answer quick enough. If you don’t answer, you’re get a recorded message that says your call could not be completed as dialed and then gives an error code of “message six US01LV” Thanks John Stitt Sr. Network Engineer HES energynet Sent from my pocket CRAY-1

3 2

2 undersea cables cut
by Hank Nussbacher 27 Nov '24

27 Nov '24

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/18/europe/undersea-cable-disrupted-germany-… -Hank

15 23

Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee calls salt typhoon "worst telecom hack in our nation's history"
by Eric Kuhnke 26 Nov '24

26 Nov '24

Re: compromise of lawful intercept / CALEA related features: https://archive.is/jZt59 Original URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/21/salt-typhoon-ch… *The hackers, part of a group dubbed Salt Typhoon, have been able to listen in on audio calls in real time and have in some cases moved from one telecom network to another, exploiting relationships of “trust,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Virginia), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a former telecom venture capitalist. Warner added that intruders are still in the networks.*

3 2

Re: Carrier Ethernet Demarc
by Fredy Kuenzler 25 Nov '24

25 Nov '24

We are using for our Switzerland-wide FTTH (Point-to-Point topology) the Cisco 9500 series. Our product is called «Ethernet7» and delivers the services you describe using EVPN-VXLAN, providing 1/10/25 Gbps and 100 Gbps NNI. https://www.init7.net/en/offer/ethernet7-carrier-ethernet-service-ces/ -- Fredy Künzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur https://www.init7.net/ > Am 25.11.2024 um 19:24 schrieb John Stitt <jstitt(a)hop-electric.com>: > > > I’m currently searching out options for providing carrier ethernet demarc at 10Gbps and 25Gbps port speeds to evaluate for some upcoming projects. 10Gbps options abound, but it seems like the next step up with most vendors is 100Gb handoff. I’m not having much luck finding 25Gbps options other than ADVA/Adtran FSP 150-XJ128 and FSP 150-XG404 variants. > > Currently the majority of our customers are PON based (Calix), and we have non-PON handoffs with smaller Juniper switches as the demarc, so we’re looking to step up to something actually designed for this purpose. We’d like to be able to perform y.1564 testing and use MEF compliant devices. > > I’m reaching out to some vendors/resellers to see what options they can provide, but I’m interested in hearing real-world experiences with different vendors in this space and especially any recommendations on the 25Gb demarc, as we have had some specific requests for that port speed recently. > > Feel free to reach out off list if that’s your preference. > > John Stitt

1 0

Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
by John Curran 23 Nov '24

23 Nov '24

NANOGers - In October 2023, the Number Resource Organization initiated a process to undertake a significant update to Internet Coordination Policy 2 (ICP-2); the policy which specifies the criteria for establishing new Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has been tasked with managing the revision process, emphasizing community engagement and transparency. The ASO AC has drafted a document which outlines the principles for the proposed ICP-2 Version 2 policy, and this document is available online for review here - https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/proposed-icp-2-ve… The ASO AC is actively seeking feedback from the Internet number resource community and the broader internet community on these proposed principles. At this stage, comments are being solicited on the principles themselves, rather than specific amendments to the text of the document. This collaborative approach aims to refine the principles before drafting a revised version of ICP-2 for further stakeholder input. To facilitate community engagement, there is a questionnaire seeking feedback that available in multiple languages, including English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. The questionnaire is designed to gather diverse perspectives and can be completed in approximately 7–10 minutes. Recognizing the importance of comprehensive community input, the deadline for input has via the questionnaire has been extended to 6 December 2024. If you have an interest in the governance principles that should be applicable to RIRs, and a moment available to provide input, please consider doing so. More details about the principles and questionnaire are available on the NRO website - https://www.nro.net/nro-announces-that-the-deadline-for-the-icp-2-questionn… Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers

13 62