February 2011 - 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

Re: Over a decade of DDOS--any progress yet?
by alvaro.sanchez＠adinet.com.uy 04 Oct '11

04 Oct '11

A very common action is to blackhole ddos traffic upstream by sending a bgp route to the next AS with a preestablished community indicating the traffic must be sent to Null0. The route may be very specific, in order to impact as less as possible. This needs previous coordination between providers. Regards. >----Mensaje original---- >De: rdobbins(a)arbor.net >Fecha: 08/12/2010 10:53 >Para: "North American Operators' Group"<nanog(a)nanog.org> >Asunto: Re: Over a decade of DDOS--any progress yet? > > >On Dec 8, 2010, at 7:28 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > >> One big problem (IMHO) of DDoS is that sources (the host of botnets) may be completely unaware that they are part of a DDoS. I do not mean the bot machine, I mean the ISP connecting those. > >The technology exists to detect and classify this attack traffic, and is deployed in production networks today. > >And of course, the legitimate owners of the botted hosts are generally unaware that their machine is being used for nefarious purposes. > >> In the other hand the target of a DDoS cannot do anything to stop to attack besides adding more BW or contacting one by one the whole path of providers to try to minimize the effect. > >Actually, there're lots of things they can do. > >> I know that this has many security concerns, but would it be good a signalling protocol between ISPs to inform the sources of a DDoS attack in order to take semiautomatic actions to rate-limit the traffic as close as the source? Of course that this is more complex that these three or two lines, but I wonder if this has been considerer in the past. > >It already exists. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> > > Sell your computer and buy a guitar. > > > > > >

18 46

IPv6 - a noobs prespective
by Robert Lusby 14 Jun '11

14 Jun '11

As part of my role, I'm responsible, for a small (20 - 25 machine) network in the UK. When it comes to IPv6 I'm a complete noob. So ok - this is how I stand for IPv6: I "get" IPv4, I get NAT, I get why it's needed, and I get why it's evil. I know my IPv4 network inside and out, how DHCP runs and assigns addresses, how that ties in with our VPN, how everything gets channeled via the NAT to our ISP etc ... I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surprise surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it. I am however *terrified* of making that move. There is so many new phrases, words, things to think about etc I want to, I'm keen to, and I know we have to, move to IPv6 - but at the moment it just seems so complicated - not least without affecting any IPv4 stuff. Just my own two pence from a noobie point of view. * On a side note - what's the best guide for upgrading a simple Windows network to run on IPv6? I'll take a read.

18 24

Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
by Stephens, Josh 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

Not something I'd typically use this list for but I have an opportunity to host a debate of sorts on IPv6 where I'm taking a very pro IPv6 stance and I need someone who wants to argue the other side - effectively that most people don't need to worry about it for a long time still or until someone makes them. Any takers feel free to ping me directly... Thanks, Josh

72 270

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

OT: What vexes VoIP users?
by Eric Brunner-Williams 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

OT, but NANOG is almost always good for quick clue ... For those who have residential VoIP, what provider {features | bugs} are most vexing? For those who provision residential VoIP, what subscriber {expectations | behaviors} are most vexing? Thanks in advance, Eric

27 82

Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
by Ray Soucy 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

With copies out to developers we now have confirmation that Apple still hasn't included DHCPv6 in the next release of OS X. -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/

42 128

quietly....
by bill manning 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

039/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED 106/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED ... whimper ...

87 383