- Test - lists.nanog.org

BGP MVPN RFC6513, Section 10
by Jason Iannone 02 Mar '16

02 Mar '16

Hi all, I'm having trouble interpreting under what circumstance section 10 of BGP MVPN comes into play. The way I read this section, upon the receipt of PIM/IGMP Join to (*,G) the Receiver Site PE does not signal Type 6 or Type 7 Joins until a Type 5 Source Active route is received from a Sender Site PE. If Section 10 assumes the use of ASM groups in the VPN, why develop a Type 6 Shared Tree Join A-D route for unknown sources? What are the practical minimum Juniper configurations to support Section 10 for ASM and (*,G) PIM Join when the PE doesn't know a source? CE1---PE1,C-RP-----P-----PE2---CE2 Sender Site-------------------Receiver Site 1. CE1 has no active source 2. CE2 forwards PIM Join (*,G) to PE2 toward PE1,C-RP 3. PE2 eats PIM Join, maintains (*,G) state 4. CE1 generates Register messages to PE1 5. PE1 originates Type 5 (S,G) 6. PE2 receives Type 5 (S,G) 7. PE2 verifies existing (*,G) state 8. PE2 advertises Type 7 Join (S,G) 9. PE2 does PMSI and P-Tunnel attachment 10. PE1 receives (S,G) from PE2 11. PE1 adds PMSI to downstream interfaces 12. Multicast flow end to end 13. Achievement unlocked! I'm least sure about steps 2 & 3. Comprehension challenged, Jason

3 3

Any large IPv4 space brokers?
by Paras Jha 02 Mar '16

02 Mar '16

Does anyone know of any IP space brokers other than Hilco Streambank? I'm looking to get a feel for the market a little bit. Regards Paras

6 5

AWS Direct Connect - Peering VPCs to Tier 1's and MPLS
by Jay R. Ashworth 02 Mar '16

02 Mar '16

Just got this dropped on my desk an hour ago, and I'm not finding as much material online as I might have hoped for... It looks like the easiest solution is to just hang a router/firewall at Equinix Ashburn and AWS-DC to that, and then peer it to carriers both IP and MPLS; is there a "native" way to do that from an AWS VPC instead? Any public or private replies cheerfully accepted; will summarize what I can to the list. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274

8 9

Re: Thank you, Comcast. (aka patch your D-Link gear)
by Scott Weeks 01 Mar '16

01 Mar '16

--- Jason_Livingood(a)comcast.com wrote: As noted last week we're ... -------------------------------------------- Thank you for sharing this and all the other stuff over the years with the NANOG community. scott

1 0

Re: Thank you, Comcast. (aka patch your D-Link gear)
by Livingood, Jason 01 Mar '16

01 Mar '16

As a followup to this issue, and looking specifically at SSDP abuse (not the DNS amplification noted in the 1st email), one point of commonality we have identified in many customers is a D-Link device (range of different models). If you or someone you know uses a D-Link device, please see this page as you may need to upgrade your firmware: http://support.dlink.ca/FAQView.aspx?f=sY5vcvfAuAV6bXgi%2F8WoVw%3D%3D As noted last week we're continuing to examine whether / how / when to update our blocked port list. Jason / Comcast

1 0

New survey report published: The regulatory conditions of internet interconnection
by Uta Meier-Hahn 01 Mar '16

01 Mar '16

Hi, A couple of months ago, I asked you to share your experiences with regards to public regulation of internet interconnection in a survey. Many networkers from around the globe participated. Thank you! The report has now been published. I’m including the executive summary below. The full paper can be downloaded at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2740312>. Feel free to share this link wherever you see fit. Thanks again for providing your highly valuable input. I will be happy to hear what you think about the results. Best wishes, Uta # Exploring the regulatory conditions of internet interconnection ## Executive summary Network interconnection is a central feature of the internet that has been subject to only little formal regulation. However, local public regulation is starting to emerge – be it through disclosure regulations, mandatory peering or licensing terms. Due to the networked nature of the internet, local rules may acquire a global scope. This report explores internet interconnection professionals’ encounters with public regulation and it provides an initial overview about how this regulation affects internet connectivity. On the basis of a convenience sample of 163 survey submissions, the following has been found: * Nine out of ten kinds of regulation presented to the participants have been encountered by more than half of them. This result gives reason to revisit the widespread notion that internet interconnection is an unregulated space. 66% of the participants have encountered a regulatory authority that imposes its own technical or operational standards. Moreover, imposition of regulatory standards was regarded to be the most influential on internet interconnection practices, together with competition laws (both 67%). * Local regulation of internet interconnection creates a tension between the regulated and the unregulated space in the internet. In order to overcome the normative difference, network operators need to make an extra effort. The degree to which network operators are affected by local regulation depends on a networks’ structure rather than on its size. Local regulation raises more difficulties for the kinds of infrastructural innovations that depend on having many points of presence. * For networkers, public regulation of internet interconnection is relevant in three thematic domains: 1) in the economies of internet interconnection, 2) in engineering and operations, and 3) in the modes of governance. * Overarching observations note that public regulation of internet interconnection contributes to a formalisation of the otherwise very informal sector. It also shines a spotlight on how networks are categorised and are thereby “prepared” for the application of regulation. Further, various examples highlight how regulatory authorities co-opt internet infrastructure for new policy purposes that were previously not understood as central to internet operations, e.g., data retention. * Local networkers value the presence of international network operators not only as potential peering partners but also as mediators for know-how about best practices and advanced modes of internet interconnection. * Networkers are very critical about regulations that contradict engineering principles. The most accepted forms of regulation also apply in other societal spheres: basic rights for citizens, e.g., for broadband, and competition regulation. — Uta Meier-Hahn | Doctoral Researcher Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society Französische Straße 9 | 10117 Berlin Phone +49 30 200 760-82 | http://www.hiig.de/en

1 0

AT&T blocking our IPs - need assistance
by Blocked IPs 01 Mar '16

01 Mar '16

The ISP I work for has a large block of IPs (randomly distributed) being blocked by AT&T so that mutual customers cannot log into online portals like att.net and directv.com. The common nodes of failure are cprodmasx.att.net and cprodx.att.com. We have had no luck getting through to higher tiers from customer-facing phone representatives, nor have we had a response when leaving a voicemail at 314-235-8168 (generic WHOIS registrant phone number, but recording mentions "domain administrator"; please check your voicemail and response; we just left another). Please have an AT&T server administrator reply off-list in regards to fixing this. Thank you

1 0

MetroE and Telephone Taxes
by Sam Norris 01 Mar '16

01 Mar '16

Hey all, My provider here in SoCal is charging me 8% or so telephone taxes on our MetroE products. This seems fishy to me and I can't find any cut and dry rules about private Ethernet / MetroE being under these rules. The same provider selling internet / DIA has no taxes whatsoever. Anyone out there getting charged ULS and other telephone taxes on MetroE circuits? Or can anyone point me to somewhere that shows that it shouldn't be charged telephone taxes? Assume there are no voip calls traversing these circuits. I believe ULS is Federal, the other 3-5% is CA taxes on CLECs. Thx, Sam

2 1

google search threshold
by Philip Lavine 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Does anybody know what the threshold for google searches is before you get the captcha?I am trying to decide if I need to break up the overload NAT to a pool. -thx

6 6

Duplex negotiation over 100Base fibre
by Jason Lixfeld 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Hello, My understanding is that for 1G and 10G optical networks, there is no concept of half-duplex mode, but I’m unclear about half duplex in the 100M optical world. Specifically, if I connect two 100Base-LX (or BX) transceivers together, is there a requirement for the controller(s on either side) to select between full or half duplex, either by static configuration, or auto-negotiation? Thanks!

3 2