October 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Blocking private AS
by Thomas Magill 27 Nov '13

27 Nov '13

I am thinking about implementing a filter to block all traffic with private AS numbers in the path. I see quite a few in my table though so I am concerned I might block some legitimate traffic. In some cases, these are just prefixes with the private appended to the end but a few have the private as a transit. Is this a good idea or would I likely be blocking too much legitimate traffic? The filter I am using currently shows the following: BGP table version is 5462394, local router ID is 209.112.253.4 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * i58.68.109.0/24 x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 9498 10201 65534 i *> y.y.y.y 0 6130 9498 10201 65534 i * i68.115.224.0/24 x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 19151 20115 65011 i *> y.y.y.y 0 6130 19151 20115 65011 i * 85.112.22.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 6939 23148 64532 64532 64532 64532 64532 64532 64532 64532 64532 i *> 93.189.194.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 3549 39386 39386 39386 25233 65000 47146 i * i x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 3549 39386 39386 39386 25233 65000 47146 i *> 96.60.243.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 4181 65528 i * i x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 4181 65528 i * i96.61.232.0/24 x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 4181 65527 i *> y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 4181 65527 i * i96.61.233.0/24 x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 4181 65527 i *> y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 4181 65527 i * i96.61.234.0/24 x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 4181 65527 i *> y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 4181 65527 i *> 148.207.2.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 3257 16531 13579 65090 i * i x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 3257 16531 13579 65090 i *> 148.207.40.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 3257 16531 13579 65090 i * i x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 3257 16531 13579 65090 i *> 148.207.97.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 3257 16531 13579 65090 i * i x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 3257 16531 13579 65090 i * 170.34.100.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 19151 20115 65011 ? * 170.34.104.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 19151 20115 65011 ? * 170.34.113.0/24 y.y.y.y 0 6130 19151 20115 65011 ? * i174.35.1.0/24 x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 16467 64565 i * i174.47.199.0/24 x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 4323 15065 65123 i *> y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 4323 15065 65123 i * i192.109.61.0 x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 19151 20115 65011 i *> y.y.y.y 0 6130 19151 20115 65011 i *> 196.216.249.0 y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 3257 8513 8513 8513 36881 65000 36896 37062 i * i x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 3257 8513 8513 8513 36881 65000 36896 37062 i Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 209.172.69.128/30 y.y.y.y 0 6130 16467 64565 i * i x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 16467 64565 i *> 213.146.161.0 y.y.y.y 0 6130 2828 174 64679 48493 i * i x.x.x.x 0 100 0 6130 2828 174 64679 48493 i Thomas Magill Network Engineer Office: (858) 909-3777 Cell: (858) 869-9685 mailto:tmagill@providecommerce.com <mailto:tmagill@providecommerce.com> provide-commerce 4840 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 ProFlowers <http://www.proflowers.com/> | redENVELOPE <http://www.redenvelope.com/> | Cherry Moon Farms <http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/> | Shari's Berries <http://www.berries.com/>

3 2

Network topology
by Colin Alston 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

Hi all I'm considering trying to come up with some means to automatically detect a networks topology and draw pretty pictures. This is somewhat boring though if a network isn't well arranged with VLANs and q-tag trunk routers and so on (It will just look like a big cloud of junk connected off an assumed switch). Is there any kind of cunning trick to detect standard layer2 switches along a path without stuff like STP?

9 12

Inventory and workflow management systems
by vijay gill 26 May '13

26 May '13

What software solution do people use for inventory management for things like riser/conduit drawdown, fiber inventory, physical topology store, CLR/DLR, x-connect, contracts, port inventory, etc. Any experiences in integrating workflow into those packages for work orders, modeling, drawdown levels, etc. /vijay

10 13

OSPFv3 Authentication
by Manav Bhatia 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

Hi, I am doing a survey and was interested in knowing if network operators are using OSPFv3 with authentication [RFC 4552] turned on? I know that most providers turn on authentication with OSPFv2, but given that OSPFv3 needs IPsec integration and can thus get little cumbersome to configure, wanted to understand if a similar % of folks also turn on authentication for OSPFv3? You can unicast me your responses (if you dont wish to share it on the list) and i will collate all data and post a summary on the list. Cheers, Manav

3 4

IPv6 consumer perception
by Zed Usser 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

With marketing campaigns like these, no consumer will want to use IPv6, if it becomes associated with privacy problems. http://torrentfreak.com/huge-security-flaw-makes-vpns-useless-for-bittorren… It is, of course, totally irrelevant whether the reporting is factually correct or even based on real IPv6 issues or not, this is how public opinion is formed. The only takeaway from this to a non-technical user is that IPv6 is bad and the correct solution is to turn it off. - Zed

19 45

Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
by Franck Martin 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> To: "Michael Ulitskiy" <mulitskiy(a)acedsl.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Thursday, 13 May, 2010 6:39:28 PM Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Michael Ulitskiy <mulitskiy(a)acedsl.com> wrote: > Hello, > > We're in the early stage of planning ipv6 deployment - > learning/labbing/experimenting/etc. We've got to the point when we're > also planning to request initial ipv6 allocation from ARIN. > So I wonder what ipv6 transit options I have if my upstreams do not > support native ipv6 connectivity? > I see Hurricane Electric tunnel broker BGP tunnel. Is there anything > else? Either free or commercial? 1) see gblx/ntt/sprint/twt/vzb for transit-v6 2) tunnel inside your domain (your control, your MTU issues, your alternate pathing of tunnels vs pipe) 3) don't tunnel beyond your borders, really just don't tunnels are bad, always. -chris I see so many times, that tunnels are bad for IPv6, but this is the way IPv6 has been designed to work when you cannot get direct IPv6. So I would not say tunnels are bad, but direct IPv6 is better (OECD document on IPv6 states the use of tunnels). If the issue with tunnel is MTU, then a non-negligible part of IPv4 does not work well with MTU different of 1500. With IPv6 we bring the concept of jumbo packets, with large MTU. If we cannot work with non standard MTUs in IPv6 tunnels, how will we work with jumbo packets?

11 13

BGP (in)security makes the AP wire
by Steven Bellovin 18 Feb '11

18 Feb '11

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/08/business/AP-US-TEC-Fragile-Inter… It's a pretty reasonable article, too, though I don't know that I agree about the "simplicity of the routing system".... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

12 19

ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of 45/8 address block
by John Curran 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

FYI, /John ---- https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 ARIN today recognizes Interop, an organization with a long-standing presence in the Internet industry, for returning its unneeded Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space. Interop was originally allocated a /8 before ARIN's existence and the availability of smaller-sized address blocks. The organization recently realized it was only using a small portion of its address block and that returning the remainder to ARIN would be for the greater good of the Internet community. ARIN will accept the returned space and not reissue it for a short period, per existing operational procedure. After the hold period, ARIN will follow global policy at that time and return it to the global free pool or distribute the space to those organizations in the ARIN region with documented need, as appropriate. With less than 5% of the IPv4 address space left in the global free pool, ARIN warns that Interop's return will not significantly extend the life of IPv4. ARIN continues to emphasize the need for all Internet stakeholders to adopt the next generation of Internet Protocol, IPv6. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers

23 40

Netflow Tool
by Mike Gatti 07 Nov '10

07 Nov '10

Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data to export to CSV? Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome. Thanks, =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Michael Gatti cell.703.347.4412 ekim.ittag(a)gmail.com =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

11 10

BGP support on ASA5585-X
by srg 07 Nov '10

07 Nov '10

Hi: At this moment we know that ASA5585-X does not support BGP. Does anybody know if BGP support in the ASA5585-X is in roadmap? More precisely... MP-BGP support in the ASA5585-X? Any "oficial" link in the Cisco website about this? (I did't find it) Thanks a lot and best regards

10 14