- Test - lists.nanog.org

Feedback - SBC Vendors.
by Ryan Finnesey 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

I am going to have to install a series of SBCs for a voice offering connected to Microsoft Teams. We are going to pass the SIP traffic off to a larger number of SIP providers. I would like to get some feedback from the group on SBC vendors. I have two options for vendors Ribbon or AudioCodes. I am leaning towards a software based SBC over an appliance. Would be helpful to get the other members feedback on Ribbon or AudioCodes deployments within their networks. Cheers Ryan

7 8

Yahoo Groups contact
by Andy Ringsmuth 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

Any chance someone here has admin/troubleshooting involvement with Yahoo Groups, or knows someone who does? Much appreciated. ---- Andy Ringsmuth andy(a)newslink.com 5609 Harding Dr. Lincoln, NE 68521 (402) 304-0083 cellular

1 0

Akamai Contact
by Jawaid Bazyar 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

Hi, having trouble engaging with an Akamai contact in relation to the server stack we have here. Feel free to contact me. -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar(a)foreThought.net <email:Jawaid.Bazyar@foreThought.net> <http://www.foreThought.net>

3 2

Re: Multicast traffic % in enterprise network ?
by Scott Weeks 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

--- jtk(a)depaul.edu wrote: From: John Kristoff <jtk(a)depaul.edu> :: In my experience, real world IP multicast experience :: and expertise is almost non-existent. :: but it tends to just work once setup and rarely :: changes. :: the setup was done a long time ago and people rarely :: touch it now. :: If I want to simplify and secure things a little :: more, I'd probably look at better limiting IGMP and :: PIM joins. Limiting as much of the possibility for :: anyone or anything to instantiate state in the :: network Major snippage, but these're my experiences, too. However, not in the .edu world. scott

2 1

Nokia SP Business Group Account Contact
by Brant Ian Stevens 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

Sorry to bother the list, but could someone help me get in touch with a Nokia account rep from their SP team for the NYC area? Specifically looking for information on the managed sp wireless solution. I've tried going through the website, but have made no progress reaching the right people to move my request forward. -- Regards, -- Brant I. Stevens

1 1

Re: [c-nsp] Leaked Video or Not (Linux and Cisco for internal Sales folks)
by Marcus Leske 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

What do you mean ? Examples of Telemetry use cases are infinite? Are you asking for popular use cases that were not possible with snmp and netflow? Cheers On Sunday, August 5, 2018, Sami Joseph <sami.joseph(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On the topic of marketing hypes vs real requirements, does anyone see real > use cases for telemetry ? Can anyone pls give me examples? > > Thanks > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, <adamv0025(a)netconsultings.com> wrote: > >> > From: Marcus Leske [mailto:marcusleskex@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 3:58 PM >> > >> > open APIs tops that funny abuse list IMHO : >> > https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/issues/568 >> > >> > can we change the topic of the thread to an informative one, instead of >> a >> > leaked video or not, to why exactly do network engineers are often >> > confused by the abusive marketing all over the place of what is open and >> > what is not and other computing terms. >> > >> > I guess this is happening in networking more often than other domains >> > because networking people didnt get a chance in their career to learn >> about >> > the world of computing, their heads were somewhere else, learning about >> > complex networking protocols and not the common computing interfaces, >> > the open source world, existing frameworks and paradigms, this video >> helps >> > a bit on how did this happen: >> > https://vimeo.com/262190505https://vimeo.com/262190505 >> > >> > has anyone here seen list of topics that network engineers usually miss >> on >> > their journey ? i know they never get exposed to software development >> > and engineering in general, databases, web technologies, operating >> system >> > fundamentals. >> > >> Well I guess if you stick around in networking for long time you kind of >> get exposed to some of these to a certain level on a day job, some of it >> was covered in school in various levels of detail, and to some of these >> concepts we (networkers) get a specific very narrow filed exposure I'd say, >> like in your example of databases -well various protocol tables are good >> examples of decentralized distributed databases, then some Network OS-es >> are good examples of distributed operating systems. So I guess it then just >> boils down to the willingness of and individual to understand these >> concepts on an ever more fundamental level -with every next interaction >> with these. Maybe it draws one more towards the software development side >> or perhaps more towards the somewhat holistic understanding of the >> networking discipline through graph theory and complex adaptive systems. >> >> >> adam >> >> netconsultings.com >> ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry:: >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> >

1 0

Re: possible hawaii weather issue next week
by Scott Weeks 08 Aug '18

08 Aug '18

--- surfer(a)mauigateway.com wrote: From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer(a)mauigateway.com> If you have stuff in Hawaii, you might want to start thinking about your DR plan. ---------------------------------------- Whew, that was close! http://weather.hawaii.edu/satellite/jsanim.cgi?res=4km&chnl=ir&domain=nep&p… I don't know if anyone's interested in the discussion, (and perhaps it should go into another thread, if so) but I have been noticing a tendency among managers here to ignore getting ready for stuff like this. Is that normal for what you see or do managers where you are start dusting off and following your DR plan? "We don't have time to moved all that data off site to the mainland and all the other stuff in the plan. We need you to focus on XXX first". scott

1 0

Re: Multicast traffic % in enterprise network ?
by John Kristoff 08 Aug '18

08 Aug '18

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 18:49:52 +0000 "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) via NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> wrote: > * If there is any data which can provide what % of traffic is > multicast traffic. And if multicast is removed, how much unicast > traffic it would add up? Good question about the volume (and frequency). I will see if I can measure here, but all I can say if it helps any, is that is still fairly widely used in the enterprise for "imaging" systems. That is, updating a set of systems and apps simultaneously from a single source. > * Since this forum has people from deployment area, I would love > to know if there is real deployment problems or its pain to deploy > multicast. In my experience, real world IP multicast experience and expertise is almost non-existent. This is the big problem potentially, because it is fairly popular on some campuses for niche applications, but it tends to just work once setup and rarely changes. For many R&E institutions, the setup was done a long time ago and people rarely touch it now. However, I rarely see IP multicast-related problems anymore. It helps that interdomain multicast is dying. Traditional PIM-SM with one or more anycast RPs isn't too complicated, and I can't remember the last time anything out of the ordinary came up. A decade or more ago at another institution that did IP/TV over IP multicast to dorms, we'd run into head-banging-against-the-wall problems about once a year. Very painful experiences usually due to buggy router code or interesting switch/router behavior with IGMP-snooping and/or joins/leaves. Those days seem to be behind us. > These questions is to work / discussion in IETF to see what is pain > points for multicast, and how can we simplify it. I can't think of too much that should change now. If I want to simplify and secure things a little more, I'd probably look at better limiting IGMP and PIM joins. Limiting as much of the possibility for anyone or anything to instantiate state in the network devices. SSM without the all the potential source-specific state would be nice. John

1 0

Spoofer Report for NANOG for Jul 2018
by CAIDA Spoofer Project 08 Aug '18

08 Aug '18

In response to feedback from operational security communities, CAIDA's source address validation measurement project (https://spoofer.caida.org) is automatically generating monthly reports of ASes originating prefixes in BGP for systems from which we received packets with a spoofed source address. We are publishing these reports to network and security operations lists in order to ensure this information reaches operational contacts in these ASes. This report summarises tests conducted within usa, can. Inferred improvements during Jul 2018: ASN Name Fixed-By 7922 COMCAST-7922 2018-07-02 33651 CMCS 2018-07-21 29384 Qatar-Foundation 2018-07-25 Further information for the inferred remediation is available at: https://spoofer.caida.org/remedy.php Source Address Validation issues inferred during Jul 2018: ASN Name First-Spoofed Last-Spoofed 3356 LEVEL3 2016-03-06 2018-07-25 577 BACOM 2016-03-09 2018-07-31 7922 COMCAST-7922 2016-06-04 2018-07-27 20115 CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC 2016-06-09 2018-07-03 7029 WINDSTREAM 2016-06-21 2018-07-16 209 CENTURYLINK-US-LEGACY-QWEST 2016-08-16 2018-07-25 6128 CABLE-NET-1 2016-09-03 2018-07-05 20412 CLARITY-TELECOM 2016-09-30 2018-07-30 6181 FUSE-NET 2016-10-10 2018-07-31 25787 ROWE-NETWORKS 2016-10-21 2018-07-25 174 COGENT-174 2016-10-21 2018-07-18 271 BCNET 2016-10-24 2018-07-16 2828 XO-AS15 2016-10-25 2018-07-27 32440 LONI 2016-11-03 2018-07-28 33182 DimeNOC 2016-11-08 2018-07-26 12083 WOW-INTERNET 2016-11-09 2018-07-29 1403 EBOX 2016-11-12 2018-07-25 2152 CSUNET-NW 2017-02-02 2018-07-30 21832 KELLINCOM-1 2017-02-03 2018-07-28 7276 UNIVERSITY-OF-HOUSTON 2017-03-09 2018-07-04 6461 ZAYO-6461 2017-06-21 2018-07-27 63296 AMARILLO-WIRELESS 2017-09-01 2018-07-26 7233 YAHOO-US 2017-09-07 2018-07-31 546 PARSONS-PGS-1 2017-11-20 2018-07-19 54540 INCERO 2018-01-15 2018-07-25 12222 AKAMAI 2018-02-14 2018-07-31 55236 CBC 2018-03-03 2018-07-02 3257 GTT-BACKBONE 2018-03-06 2018-07-25 29384 Qatar-Foundation 2018-03-08 2018-07-29 23148 TERRENAP 2018-03-15 2018-07-26 20009 WADSNET 2018-04-13 2018-07-04 4201 ORST 2018-04-19 2018-07-31 11827 WSU 2018-04-19 2018-07-27 393564 SPOKANE 2018-06-05 2018-07-25 35911 BNQ-1 2018-06-06 2018-07-29 225 VIRGINIA 2018-06-18 2018-07-26 4150 SUPRANET-WIS 2018-07-06 2018-07-06 16628 DEDICATED-FIBER-COMMUNICATIONS 2018-07-13 2018-07-13 Further information for these tests where we received spoofed packets is available at: https://spoofer.caida.org/recent_tests.php?country_include=usa,can&no_block… Please send any feedback or suggestions to spoofer-info(a)caida.org

1 0

Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes
by Eric Kuhnke 07 Aug '18

07 Aug '18

If you were setting up something new from a clean sheet of paper design - do you consider it appropriate to have an abuse role inbox that's dedicated to actual network abuse issues (security problems, DDoS, IP hijacks, misbehavior of downstream customers, etc), and keep that separate from DMCA notifications? Automated sorting tools *can* pull things which match regexes for automatically-generated DMCA notifications out of an inbox and route them to the appropriate place. However, I'm pondering whether it's better to have an ISP's ARIN IP space whois entries state clearly that copyright violation type notices should go to a dedicated-purpose dmca@ispname inbox.

12 19