February 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

mfn
by Scott Granados 19 Feb '03

19 Feb '03

Oh and by the way, just to be super clear it wasn't more than ten minutes after I posted that when I received some really superior help. So I'm hoping my thred doesn't turn in to an mfn bashing session, its not deserved. I'll just end this hear and say thank you. Scott

1 0

AOL Spam/Abuse contact
by Stephen Milton 19 Feb '03

19 Feb '03

I need a contact within AOL that handles their spam/abuse reporting system. Please contact me off-list. Thanks. -- Stephen Milton - Vice President (425) 881-8769 x102 ISOMEDIA.COM - Premium Internet Services (425) 869-9437 Fax milton(a)isomedia.com http://www.isomedia.com

1 0

VoIP over IPsec
by Charles Youse 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

Hello again, I've heard a lot of encouraging things on this list in response to my previous inquiries about VoIP - hoping you can help me out again. In order to cut costs in our telecom budget I'm toying with the idea of replacing a lot of our inter-office leased lines with VPN connections over the public Internet. (I've got a lot of experience doing this in major production environments so I'm aware of the gotchas in this scenario.) My general method is to create IPsec-encrypted GRE tunnels between sites and then treat them as true virtual circuits; i.e., I run OSPF over the tunnel and exchange dynamic routing information, blah-de-blah. Assume for the moment that latency and bandwidth are not an issue; e.g., any two points that will be exchanging voice data will both have transit from the same provider with an aggressive SLA. Does anyone have any experience running VoIP over such tunnels? Is there a technical reason why this solution is not feasible? Are Cisco routers not happy doing VoIP/IPsec/GRE in concert? Thanks as always, C.

11 16

225 Broadway
by Steve Rude 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

We are interested in colocating/peering with people at 225 Broadway in San Diego. Please contact me off-list. Thanks. Steve Rude

1 0

RE: OC3 to DS3 mux ?
by Temkin, David 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

This may help you, though I'm not sure what interface you're in need of: http://catalog.radusa.com/radinc/datasheets/amc-101.pdf > -----Original Message----- > From: joe mcguckin [mailto:joe@via.net] > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:10 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: OC3 to DS3 mux ? > > > > Can someone recommend a vendor for an OC3 to DS3 DACS or mux? > I need a small one with capacity for a single OC3. > > Thanks, > > Joe > IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.

1 0

RE: VoIP over IPsec
by Kuhtz, Christian 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Petri Helenius wrote: > > Maybe a stupid question... why would you need GRE tunneling while IPsec > > has a tunnel mode of its own? > Probably because a major router vendor, despite of repeated customer requests, > declined to implement routing across such tunnel mode. > So if the router uses tunnel mode (as per the RFC) despite the GRE > tunnel the packet has three IP headers... So that's 160 bits ethernet > layer 1 + 18 bytes ethernet layer 2 overhead, 24 bytes for the GRE > tunnel, 20 bytes for the IPsec tunnel mode IP header, 10 - 12 bytes for > the ESP header, 16 bytes for the initialization vector, 20 bytes for the > original IP header and finally 20 bytes for the RTP header. With a 40 > byte payload that adds up to 188 bytes on the wire of which 78% is > overhead... --- On Crisco, if memory serves, default payload is 160 for G.711, not 40. The sizing goes in multiples of 80s. Thanks, Christian ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers."

2 1

RE: VoIP over IPsec
by Bender, Andrew 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: tedawson(a)attbi.com [mailto:tedawson@attbi.com] > > Comments inline: > At 01:34 PM 2/17/2003 -0500, Charles Youse wrote: > > >So do you suppose that in my scenario, I'd be better off > leaving the VoIP out > >of the encrypted tunnels and use a separate [cleartext] path > for them? > > Oh goodness no. VoIP (SIP specifically) has no real security > in it. Call > hijacking for example is a matter of sending a pair of > spoofed UDP packets to > each phone and having the voice streams arrive at the > attackers machine. Not > pretty, and I do this trick (and worse) daily. (in a lab as > part of work of > course) What about sips:/TLS, S/MIME, and digest auth? These are all integral to the 'standard', and many popular implementations support these facilities currently. IPSec may be less painful within a single domain, but in other cases, I'd think that these facilities (or their derivatives) are the only practical option for 'real' security. Granted it is all pretty worthless if you dont enable/use any of it... Am I missing something? Regards, Andrew Bender taqua.com

1 0

RE: IPv6 Peering Request
by Jeffrey Wheat 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

Thank you for the offer! I have checked the path to your site and while it is a decent path, it is over the pacific which is too far net-wise for us. All the same, I appreciate the offer! Regards, Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Ethern Lin [mailto:ethern@ascc.net] > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 9:26 PM > To: Jeffrey Wheat; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: IPv6 Peering Request > > > Dear Jeffery, > > We would like to provide a BGP tunnel for your site, and > here is the IPv4 address of tunnel end: 140.109.1.6. > I suggest that you can test the route quality, and if the > result fit your needs, you can send me a mail and I can create a > tunnel for you. > > We are the pTLA: > ASNET/TW 3FFE:4001::/32 > > best regards, > > Ethern > ASCC/TW > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeffrey Wheat" <jeff(a)cetlink.net> > To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 2:17 AM > Subject: IPv6 Peering Request > > > > > > Is there anyone that would be interested in providing a > tunnel to the > > 6bone for us? We are in Charlotte, NC and would prefer to > establish a > > tunnel with someone close by. We'd be doing this via a > cisco router so > > brokers are no an option for us. We are AS8175. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Jeff > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) > > Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003 > > > > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) > Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/2003 > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/2003

1 0

Network/Server integration in Manhattan
by Arie Vayner 18 Feb '03

18 Feb '03

Hi We are operating some POPs in Manhattan, but we are actually based in Israel, with nobody onsite. We are looking for a company that would be able to provide installation and other "remote-hands" support at this area. Any recomendations? Arie

1 0

RE: VoIP over IPsec
by tedawson＠attbi.com 17 Feb '03

17 Feb '03

Comments inline: At 01:34 PM 2/17/2003 -0500, Charles Youse wrote: >So do you suppose that in my scenario, I'd be better off leaving the VoIP out >of the encrypted tunnels and use a separate [cleartext] path for them? Oh goodness no. VoIP (SIP specifically) has no real security in it. Call hijacking for example is a matter of sending a pair of spoofed UDP packets to each phone and having the voice streams arrive at the attackers machine. Not pretty, and I do this trick (and worse) daily. (in a lab as part of work of course) >I'm worried about the security implications, not because I feel there is a >huge security risk but because I'm sure the topic will be brought up. >(Communicating over one provider's >backbone provides little opportunity for third parties to snoop packets >between points, of course.) See above, SIP security sucks and H323 isn't much better. >Has the issue of VoIP security ever been addressed? Not really. There are two parts to VoIP, the signalling and the bearer channel (actual RTP streams with the voice). The signalling channel is by far the easiest to abuse so if you are worried about security, go after this first. Encrypting the itty bitty RTP packets is a challenge that has yet to be entirely overcome, but encrypting the signalling is about 90% of the battle (according to me YMMV). So if you want this done without buying any new toys, and just using the Cisco's you have in place. Simply place a GRE tunnel between the two sites and just IPSec UDP port 5060 (SIP), and leave all other traffic alone (your phones are on separate subnets right???????). This will encrypt the signalling (SIP is the assumption here) but leave the RTP alone so that you dont have the jitter issues (as much at least). If you are really serious about doing VoIP then look into the products from InGate and NetRake, and others. The InGate supports NAT/PAT (which is useful since some phones basically require a public IP address UGH), but more importantly it supports TLS. This encrypts the packets, but doesn't suffer from the keying issues of IPSec nor the overhead, so tiny little SIP packets can be encrypted without wait, but I am not clear on the RTP packets (they aren't encrypted as far as I know). Plus you get a registrar, proxy, etc, etc etc server along with it. They are relatively cheap. Netrake is for carriers, but is kinda cool to look at. As far as QoS, don't worry about it unless you are short on bandwidth, and even then it doesn't seem to make much difference (in my experience YMMV). Hope this helps I speak for me and me alone. Do not hold my employer liable for my rantings.

1 0