- Test - lists.nanog.org

Anyone from Home Town Communications in Florida that can contact me off list?
by Joseph Jenkins 17 Apr '19

17 Apr '19

Need some help tracking down a device. Thank you, Joe

1 0

Sflow billing or usage calculation software
by Tony C 17 Apr '19

17 Apr '19

Hi All I am looking for Sflow analytical software that can tell me automatically over say a period of 24 hours (or any time period I select) the average mbit of data consumed for any IP address within our entire AS. (Without configuring a rule or billing group for each IP address or customer within our network) The purpose is to help quickly work out IP addressees which are using more bandwidth (in or out) than what we consider to be acceptable usage. For example, I would like to review a report or be automatically alerted to any IP address using more than an average of 50mbit within the past 24 hour plus have the capability to review data say over a month. Any names of software of suggestions would be great which I can investigate, happy to look at both commercial software and open source or if you have a Sflow billing solution for data consumption which is simple and easy to use please let me know Thanks Tony

7 10

Ownership of Routers on Both Ends of Transnational Links
by Pengxiong Zhu 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

Howdy folks, We are a group of researchers at UC Riverside conducting some measurement about transnational networks. In particular, we are interested in studying the ownership of routers on the two sides of transnational links. We have some concrete questions which we hope someone can shed some light on. Basically when we send packets from US/Canada to China, through traceroute and the RTT of each hop, we can locate the last hop in the US before the packets enter China (*there is a large jump of RTT of 100+ms from this hop onwards*). Oftentimes the ownership of such routers is ambiguous. These hops whose IPs seem to belong to US or European ISPs (*according to BGP info*) but their reverse DNS names have *chinaunicom* in it, which is a Chinese ISP. AS1299 Telia Company AB 62.115.170.57 name = chinaunicom-ic-341501-sjo-b21.c.telia.net. 62.115.33.230 name = chinaunicom-ic-302366-las-bb1.c.telia.net. 213.248.73.190 name = chinaunicom-ic-127288-sjo-b21.c.telia.net. AS701 Verizon Business 152.179.103.254 name = chinaunicom-gw.customer.alter.net. While the following routers, they don't have a reverse DNS name at all, which seem to be uncommon if they were managed by US or European ISPs but quite common for Chinese ISPs. AS6453 TATA COMMUNICATIONS (AMERICA) INC 63.243.205.90 66.110.59.118 Can anyone confirm that these are indeed managed by the Chinese ISPs (even though they are physically located in the US according to the traceroute and RTT analysis)? Best, Pengxiong Zhu Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of California, Riverside

5 6

Re: Ownership of Routers on Both Ends of Transnational Links
by Christopher Morrow 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 5:19 PM Nimrod Levy <nimrod(a)nimrod.is-a-geek.net> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 16:52 Ross Tajvar <ross(a)tajvar.io> wrote: >> >> I think it's clear that the IPs belong to Telia, but I understood James's point to be that the router using the IP in question may belong to China Unicom. (I agree with that, I was not thinking clearly this morning.) As this is an interconnect link, one side must belong to Telia and the other to China Unicom. The question, then, is which side are we looking at? Well, first I want to know how big the subnet is. I assume either /30 or /31. So, I do a reverse DNS lookup on all the IPs in the surrounding /30 block: >> 62.115.170.56 - sjo-b21-link.telia.net >> 62.115.170.57 - chinaunicom-ic-341501-sjo-b21.c.telia.net >> 62.115.170.58 - las-b24-link.telia.net >> 62.115.170.59 - chinaunicom-ic-341499-las-b24.c.telia.net >> That looks like two /31s. Only one IP in each has the name of China Unicom in it, so that one is probably in use by China Unicom, and the other is probably in use by Telia. > that was my point yes. > I think we're making a lot of assumptions about how well PTR records are maintained. All of this could be totally accurate. Or...not... this is totally true :) but... if the next hop after chinaunicom-ic-341501-sjo-b21.c.telia.net is a CU ip... it's better than average chance that the chinaunicom-ic-341501-sjo-b21.c.telia.net address is a telia /30 (or /31) on the ptp link between CU/Telia. That Telia owns the ip space and that PROBABLY the customer identification is correct. (cu) -chris

2 1

SAFNOG-5 & iWeek 2019
by Mark Tinka 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

Hello all. We are proud to announce that for the 5th installment of SAFNOG, we will be returning to Johannesburg, South Africa where it all began. SAFNOG and iWeek will be teaming up again this year to bring you SAFNOG-5 and the 2019 edition of iWeek in Johannesburg, South Africa. The meeting will be held on 26-28 August 2019 at the Indaba Hotel, in Fourways, Johannesburg, South Africa. More details about the meeting will be posted to our web site in the coming weeks: http://www.safnog.org/ We look forward to seeing you in Johannesburg. Thanks. Mark.

1 0

Fwd: [safnog] SAFNOG-5 and iWeek 2019
by Mark Tinka 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

1 0

Facebook outage
by Siyuan Miao 14 Apr '19

14 Apr '19

Dear community, It seems that Facebook network is partially down. Here's a traceroute from some locations to fbcdn Hong Kong (157.240.15.37): Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. ??? 2. fra-in8-01sw.voxility.net 0.6% 181 0.5 0.6 0.4 4.9 0.5 3. fra-in8-01c.voxility.net 0.0% 181 14.7 3.7 0.3 44.1 8.5 4. fra-in3-02gw.voxility.net 0.0% 181 0.9 3.5 0.7 195.2 14.5 5. fra-eq5-02gw.voxility.net 0.0% 181 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.0 6. fra-eq5-03gw.voxility.net 0.0% 181 0.6 0.7 0.4 6.6 0.7 7. ae10.pr02.fra5.tfbnw.net 0.0% 181 1.2 3.5 0.8 35.0 5.2 8. ??? 9. ae121.ar03.fra2.tfbnw.net 0.0% 181 4.4 2.1 1.0 21.1 2.2 10. ae32.bb02.fra2.tfbnw.net 0.0% 181 5.1 4.6 1.4 14.0 2.7 11. ae15.bb03.odn2.tfbnw.net 0.0% 181 19.2 19.8 18.5 26.3 1.2 12. ae12.dr03.odn2.tfbnw.net 92.8% 181 27.8 24.4 18.3 43.4 8.4 13. ??? Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. lax-cs1-02sw.voxility.net 0.0% 194 0.3 2.5 0.2 36.9 5.1 2. lax-cs1-01c.voxility.net 0.0% 194 6.1 2.8 0.2 47.3 6.4 3. lax-cs1-02gw.voxility.net 0.0% 194 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 4. ce-0-13-0-1.r00.lsanca07.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 194 0.9 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.0 5. ae-3.r01.lsanca07.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 194 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.0 6. ae-0.tata-communications.lsanca07.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 194 0.7 1.0 0.4 28.8 2.8 7. if-et-20-2.hcore2.kv8-chiba.as6453.net 0.0% 194 158.6 158.8 158.4 175.5 1.8 8. if-et-1-2.hcore1.kv8-chiba.as6453.net 0.0% 194 152.7 152.8 152.5 155.8 0.2 9. if-ae-16-2.tcore1.hk2-hong-kong.as6453.net 0.0% 194 162.1 163.0 162.0 213.5 4.9 10. ??? What do you think ?

3 3

SNMP via proxy
by Dovid Bender 14 Apr '19

14 Apr '19

Hi, A bit off topic. One of my early mistakes in my 9-5 was hard coding the IP's of our SNMP box in all of our gear (networking equipment, Servers etc,). The box is at its limit and increasing its capacity will be nearly impossible. We mainly use Nagios and Cacti to monitor our network. Going forward I was thinking of setting up a few hosts whose job would be to simply relay SNMP traffic. This way moving forward we could hard code several IP's and bounce all traffic through one of these IP's. TIA for your advice. Regards, Dovid

7 6

Re: Disney+ CDN
by Jose Luis Rodriguez 13 Apr '19

13 Apr '19

AFAIK, HBO now/go is running on the newer Broadpeak gear+umbrella (Paseo)... at least for LatAm. > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:01:33 -0700 > From: Jared Geiger <jared(a)compuwizz.net> > To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Disney+ CDN > Message-ID: > <CAHuchRBwmnUBYCk=1fObSvM-Vhbgi8WAXPUqhdbWxBcKQcOmDA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > An article mentioned BAMTech's platform which is what NHL, MLB, and HBO GO > are built on. The bits from the first two come from Akamai and Level3 CDNs. > I haven't looked into where HBO Go comes from. > >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 9:58 PM Aaron Gould <aaron1(a)gvtc.com> wrote: >> >> Have we found out yet if Disney+ will have a CDN? Like Netflix oca, >> Akamai aanp, google ggc, facebook fna … a Disney isp-located cdn presence ? >> >> >> >> disneyplus.com >> >> >> >> -Aaron >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Graves >> *Sent:* Saturday, December 29, 2018 7:22 PM >> *To:* nanog(a)nanog.org >> *Subject:* Disney+ CDN >> >> >> >> Anyone know what Disney is planning on doing for streaming content >> distribution once they leave Netflix? Would be nice if they'd provide an >> on-prem cache server. >> >> >> >> AG >> >

1 0

Gi Firewall for mobile subscribers
by Amos Rosenboim 13 Apr '19

13 Apr '19

Hello NANOG, We are discussing internally and wanted to get more opinions and especially more data on what are people actually doing. We are running an ISP network with about 150K fixed broadband users, running dual stack (IPv4 behind CGNAT). On the ISP network IPv6 is simply routed, and is firewalled on the CPE. This network added mobile services about a year ago, also dual stack (we have no control on the mobile devices so we were too concerned to choose IPv6 only access). We have an ongoing discussion about Gi firewall (adding a firewall between the subscribers and the internet, allowing only subscriber initiated connections), for the IPv6 traffic. The firewall is doing very little security, the ruleset is very basic, allowing anything from subscribers to the internet and blocking all traffic from the internet towards the subscribers. We have a few rules to limit the number of connections per subscriber (to a relatively high number) and that is it. One of the arguments in favor of having the firewall is that unsolicited traffic from the internet can “wake” idle mobile devices, and create signaling (paging) storms as well as drain user batteries. On the other hand, allowing only subscriber initiated traffic is mostly achievable using ACLs on the mobile core facing routers, or is it with the growing percentage of UDP traffic ? BTW – I don’t mention IPv4 traffic on the mobile network as it’s all behind CGNAT which don’t allow internet initiated connections. Anyway, we are very interested to know hear more opinions, and especially to hear what are other mobile operators do. Regards Amos

10 16