- Test - lists.nanog.org

NANOG 68 Peering Track Call for Participation
by L Sean Kennedy 08 Sep '16

08 Sep '16

The NANOG Program Committee is looking for interested presenters for the NANOG 68 Peering Track (10/19/2017). If you are interested in presenting or can suggestion a presenter, please contact the NANOG Program Committee ( nanogpc(a)nanog.org) or myself. Possible topic areas are listed below, but the PC welcomes other subject related to peering and interconnection. Please note that Peering Personals will continue to be a separate activity at NANOG 68 to be held Monday 10/17 following the program. - Peering Economics and Interconnection models - Measurement and Analysis specific to peering - Alternatives to hot-potato routing - Operations including Peering Databases - Transit as an alternative to peering - 100GbE Interconnection - Validation of routing information - Peering-specific lightning talks (10 minutes or less) Thanks, Sean NANOG Program Committee

1 0

Pandora Contact
by Shon Elliott 08 Sep '16

08 Sep '16

Can someone from Pandora please contact me off-list? Thanks! Kind Regards, Shon Elliott, KK6TOO selliott(a)getunwired.com<mailto:selliott@getunwired.com>

1 0

Google Apps Contact
by Alex Wacker 08 Sep '16

08 Sep '16

Would appreciate if someone who manages or provides support for google apps could contact me off list. -- Alex Wacker

1 0

Chinese root CA issues rogue/fake certificates
by Eric Kuhnke 08 Sep '16

08 Sep '16

http://www.percya.com/2016/08/chinese-ca-wosign-faces-revocation.html One of the largest Chinese root certificate authority WoSign issued many fake certificates due to an vulnerability. WoSign's free certificate service allowed its users to get a certificate for the base domain if they were able to prove control of a subdomain. This means that if you can control a subdomain of a major website, say percy.github.io, you're able to obtain a certificate by WoSign for github.io, taking control over the entire domain.

8 16

Security Track @ NANOG 68 Call for Participation
by John Kristoff 07 Sep '16

07 Sep '16

[ Apologies if you saw this elsewhere already - jtk ] Friends, colleagues, fellow operators, The network security track, formerly known as the ISP security BoF, may be on the agenda at NANOG 68 in Dallas October 17-19 and if we can put together a reasonable agenda I may be your track facilitator. We not only seek your participation, but we are also interested you contributing to the track content. If you have an idea or if you know someone who might like to present, discuss or conduct a demonstration of something, we want to hear from you. Here is an incomplete list of relevant topics to stir your thoughts: * 802.11 authentication, authorization and accounting * abuse@ management and war stories * BGPSEC and RPKI * DDoS attacks and mitigation * Government regulatory and compliance issues * Internet of Things and security * IPv6 considerations * New security software projects and tools (non-commercial) * Privacy-related issues and topics * The latest in protocol abuse * <insert your new cool tool or idea here> John

1 0

Outdoor ADSL2+/VDSL/G.Fast NIU
by Jeremy Malli 07 Sep '16

07 Sep '16

I'm hoping somebody on the list has a recommendation for an outdoor ADSL2+/VDSL/G.Fast NIU. Been doing so some research into this and have come up empty so far. My thinking is that by housing the DSL CPE outside the residence in an enclosure we can reduce the issues with IW (since we would only need a small jumper from the LEC handoff to the NIU) and also gain access to the DSL CPE remotely for management and troubleshooting. We would then hand off ethernet to the customer using existing wiring or running cat5. Interested in how this problem may have already been addressed in the provider community. Thanks, --------------------- Jeremy Malli jeremy(a)vcn.com

6 5

Root and ARPA DNSSEC operational message -- signature validity period
by Wessels, Duane 06 Sep '16

06 Sep '16

DNSSEC signatures in the Root and ARPA zones are currently given a validity period of 10 days. The validity period is being increased to 13 days, per the recommendations of RSSAC's Report on Root Zone TTLs [1] (aka RSSAC003). Note that we are not aware of any cases where the 10-day signature validity period has caused problems for DNSSEC validators. This is a precautionary measure designed to accommodate a worst-case scenario. This change will be implemented on September 6, 2016. Please feel free to contact us at RZM(a)verisign.com with concerns or questions, and to forward this notice to others who may not have already received it. [1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-003-root-zone-ttls-21aug1… DW

1 1

HUAWEI S6700 - VLANIF MAC ADDRESS
by Josivan Barbosa 06 Sep '16

06 Sep '16

Hi all I have a Huawei S6700 and each vlanif has a different mac. Is there any way so that all vlanifs have the same mac address? In brocades switches, for example, all ports have the same mac. Thanks. Josivan Barbosa

1 0

Last call for presentations and Draft programme for RIPE 73
by Benno Overeinder 06 Sep '16

06 Sep '16

Colleagues, A list of currently accepted RIPE 73 presentations is now published at: https://ripe73.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/draft-programme/ There are still few slots remaining for a final RIPE 73 programme and RIPE Programme Committee will accept new proposals until 25 September 2016. This is our last call for you to submit your proposals. You can find the CFP for RIPE 73 below, or at https://ripe73.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/, for your proposals for plenary session presentations, tutorials, workshops, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions) and lightning talks. Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder RIPE PC Chair https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/pc -------------------->>><<<-------------------- Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 73 will take place from 24-28 October 2016 in Madrid, Spain. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary sessions, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 73. See the full descriptions of the different presentation formats, https://ripe73.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. Proposals for plenary sessions, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than 25 September 2016. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered depending on the remaining available space in the programme. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations - Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses - Data centre technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange - Internet of Things (IoT) Submissions RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general, the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows: - Plenary presentations: 20-25 minutes presentation with 5-10 minutes discussion - Tutorials: up to two hours (Monday morning) - Workshops: one hour (during evening sessions) to two hours (Monday morning) - BoFs: approximately one hour - Lightning talks: 10 minutes The following general requirements apply: - Proposals must be submitted using the meeting submission system, https://ripe73.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/. - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe73.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) and can be submitted any time up to and including the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talks will be announced on short notice---in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the time slot allocated. - Presenters who propose a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. - All presentation proposals will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators. - Due to potential technical issues, presenters/panellists should be physically present at the RIPE Meeting. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net. -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

1 0

measuring web similarity from dual-stacked hosts
by Bajpai, Vaibhav 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

Dear NANOG, Measuring Web Similarity from Dual-stacked Hosts ------------------------------------------------ How similar are the webpages accessed over IPv6 to their IPv4 counterparts? – In situations where the content is dissimilar over IPv4 and IPv6, what factors contribute to the dissimilarity? To answer ^ we developed a tool (simweb) and deployed it on 80 geographically distributed dual-stacked SamKnows probes. A paper presenting results from the collected dataset got accepted recently. We just released the tool and the paper [a]. Thought to share it along. [a] http://goo.gl/sAsDcG Feedback most welcome! You may recall a presentation of this work at RIPE 72 [b]. [b] https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/126 Abstract -------- We compare the similarity of webpages delivered over IPv4 and IPv6. Using the SamKnows web performance (webget) test, we implemented an extension (simweb) that allows us to measure the similarity of webpages. The simweb test measures against ALEXA top 100 dual-stacked websites from 80 SamKnows probes connected to dual-stacked networks representing 58 different ASes. Using a two months-long dataset we show that 14% of these dual-stacked websites exhibit a dissimilarity in the number of fetched webpage elements, with 94% of them exhibiting a dissimilarity in their size. We show that 6% of these websites announce AAAA entries in the DNS but no content is delivered over IPv6 when an HTTP request is made. We also noticed several cases where not all webpage elements (such as images, javascript and CSS) of a dual-stacked website are available over IPv6. We show that 27% of the dual-stacked websites have some fraction of webpage elements that fail over IPv6, with 9% of the websites having more than 50% webpage elements that fail over IPv6. We perform a causality analysis and also identify sources for these failing elements. We show that 12% of these websites have more than 50% webpage elements that belong to the same origin source and fail over IPv6. Failure rates are largely affected by DNS resolution error on images, javascript and CSS content delivered from both same-origin and cross-origin sources. These failures tend to cripple experience for users behind an IPv6-only network and a quantification of failure cases may help improve IPv6 adoption on the Internet. -- Vaibhav =================================== Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com Postdoctoral Researcher Jacobs University Bremen, Germany ===================================

1 0