- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: akamai yesterday - what in the world was that
by Scott Weeks 12 Feb '20

12 Feb '20

-------------------------------------- On 2/11/20 6:41 PM, Tom Deligiannis wrote: > There is a major update that has released today, how's everything > looking for everyone? --------------------------------------- Did anyone else notice a big traffic dip from noon to 8pm local time? Strange look on the graphs. scott

1 0

Flow based architecture in data centers(more specifically Telco Clouds)
by Glen Kent 12 Feb '20

12 Feb '20

Hi, Are most of the Telco Cloud deployments envisioned to be modeled on a flow based or a non flow based architecture? I am presuming that for deeper insights into the traffic one would need a flow based architecture, but that can have scale issues (# of flows, flow setup rates, etc) and was hence checking. Thanks, Glen

5 7

Telia and Level3 in Toronto
by Drew Weaver 12 Feb '20

12 Feb '20

Has anyone else noticed a bit of a capacity or packet loss issue between Telia and Level3 in Toronto? In my specific case I was able to avoid it because I had a better route but it appears that they are trying to push more traffic through that link than it can handle. Thanks, -Drew

1 0

Customer sending blackhole route with another provider's AS
by Chris Adams 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

One of our multihomed customers is set up with some type of security system from another upstream that can announce blackhole routes for targeted IPs. They have a BGP policy to take those blackhole routes and add our blackhole community string so that we can drop the traffic (and we in turn translate to our transit providers). All good. However, it doesn't work, because the route the customer sends to us has the other upstream's AS as the source, and we have AS path filtering on our customer links. Is this a typical setup? Should we just accept the route(s) with another provider's AS in the path? That seems... unusual. Our internal blackhole system uses a private AS (so it can be stripped off before sending to anyone else). Just curious what others do... I always assumed AS path filtering to customer (and their downstream customers) AS was a standard best practice. -- Chris Adams <cma(a)cmadams.net>

3 2

CISCO 0-day exploits
by Jean | ddostest.me 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

CDPwn: 5 new zero-day Cisco exploits https://www.armis.com/cdpwn/ What's the impact on your network? Everything is under control? Jean

7 12

SD-NAP (San Diego) Internet Exchange?
by Matt Peterson 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

Wondering if SD-NAP is still functional? PeeringDB entry <https://peeringdb.com/ix/81> looks pretty stale, haven't been able to reach any contact aware of the current status. Appreciate any help or direction on the status, thanks. --Matt

2 1

Charter contact
by Mehmet Akcin 10 Feb '20

10 Feb '20

Hey there I am looking for a contact in Charter for a 10G wave. Reno > SF or Reno to > LA. Please let me know if you know people who may help. Thanks -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903

3 2

AS7843 at NANOG78
by aaron＠digitalcrossroad.org 10 Feb '20

10 Feb '20

Hi, Would an operator from AS7843 at NANOG78 reach out to me off-list? Thanks, Aaron

1 0

Re: CISCO 0-day exploits
by Scott Weeks 10 Feb '20

10 Feb '20

--- nanog(a)nanog.org wrote: From: "Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > https://www.armis.com/cdpwn/ > > What's the impact on your network? Everything is under control? --------------------------------------- I really thought that more Cisco devices were deployed among NANOG. I guess that these devices are not used anymore or maybe that I understood wrong the severity of this CVE. --------------------------------------- Just because you use cisco devices doesn't mean you have to use their proprietary protocols, such as EIGRP or CDP. OSPF or LLDP work just fine and interoperate with other vendors... :) scott

3 2

SLAAC renumbering problems (Fwd: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum **Call for adoption**)
by Fernando Gont 10 Feb '20

10 Feb '20

Folks, A while ago some of us started working on an IETF draft to document and mitigate some issues experienced by SLAAC in the face of some renumbering events. Such work has resulted in three small documents. * draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum (problem statement) * draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum (CPE recommendations) * draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum (proposed protocol updates) Two of such documents are being discussed at the v6ops wg of the IETF, where there are ongoing calls for adoption for two of them. * The "problem statement" document (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum) is being discussed at the v6ops wg of the IETF in this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/HmcZYGY4Lu2h7NUND3o2UiOsKXA * The "CPE recommendations" document (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum) is being discussed in the same group/list, in this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yW_YdRogwMNCRvK1PKpXWgcBkmQ Feedback will be highly appreciated, particularly if on the v6ops wg mailing-list. Thanks! Cheers, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum **Call for adoption** Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 22:56:44 +0000 From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net(a)dmarc.ietf.org> To: v6ops(a)ietf.org <v6ops(a)ietf.org> Folks, Each week between now and IETF 107, we will review and discuss one draft with an eye towards progressing it. This week, please review and comment on draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum. When reviewing this draft, please indicate whether you think that V6OPS should adopt it a s a work item. Fred and Ron Juniper Business Use Only

1 0