March 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

IPv6 SEO implecations?
by Wil Schultz 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

I'm attempting to find out information on the SEO implications of testing ipv6 out. A couple of concerns that come to mind are: 1) www.domain.com and ipv6.domain.com are serving the exact same content. Typical SEO standards are to only serve good content from a single domain so information isn't watered down and so that the larger search engines won't penalize. So a big concern is having search results take a hit because content is duplicated through two different domains, even though one domain is ipv4 only and the other is ipv6 only. 2) Not running ipv6 natively, or using 6to4. This (potentially) increases hop count and will put content on a slower GRE tunnel and add some additional time for page load times. 3) ??? Any others that I haven't thought of ??? So basically I'd love to set up some sites for ipv6.domain.com via 6to4 as a phase one, and at some point in the near future implement ipv6 natively inside the datacenter, but I'm somewhat concerned about damaging SEO reputation in the process. Thoughts? -wil

14 23

NAP Capital Region Culpeper
by Mehmet Akcin 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Hello I am looking for people who has space and / or network in Terremark culpeper , please contact me off-list ( or people who is planning to get there sometime soon..) mehmet

1 0

PCH survey on peering
by Bill Woodcock 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Howdy. We're conducting a statistical overview of peering sessions for a research paper. The paper we produce will be input into OECD guidelines on national communications regulatory frameworks, so we'd very much like it to accurately reflect the diversity of peering agreements out there in the world. At the same time, if we ask for too much data, people will be reluctant to answer our questions, so we've tried to keep the data we're collecting as simple as possible. Specifically, for each other Autonomous System you peer with, we'd be interested in knowing the following five pieces of information: Your ASN Your peer's ASN Whether a written and signed peering agreement exists (the alternative being that it's less formal, like a "handshake agreement") Whether the terms are roughly symmetric (the alternative being that it describes an agreement with different terms for each of the two parties, like one paying the other, or one receiving more or fewer than full customer routes) If a jurisdiction of governing law is defined The easiest way for us to take the information is as a tab-text file or spreadsheet, consisting of rows as follows: Your ASN: Integer Peer ASN: Integer Written agreement: Boolean Symmetric: Boolean Governing Law: ISO 3166 two-digit country-code, or empty For instance: 42 <tab> 715 <tab> false <tab> true <tab> us <cr> 42 <tab> 3856 <tab> true <tab> true <tab> us <cr> The ASNs are just there so we can avoid double-counting a single pair of peers, when we hear from both of them. As soon as we've collated the data, we'll strip the ASNs to protect privacy, and only the final aggregate statistics will be published in any case. We've currently got about 10,000 sessions documented, and would love to have as many more as possible. We'd like to finish collecting data by the end of the second week of April, two weeks from now. If you're able to help us, please email me the data in whatever form you can. If you need a non-disclosure, we're happy to sign one. Thanks for considering this, -Bill Woodcock Research Director Packet Clearing House -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk2UNaUACgkQGvQy4xTRsBG9lwCfbLFFFx0VKm7SesIkc2YPIr2s nAQAoNEusliD6nzZGoJpOKVFPGXqRt/h =RbBg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

AS1273 contact
by Jared Mauch 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Is there from AS1273 out there that would be willing to talk to me about a bgp problem we are observing? (Or 1239, since your routes are being sent as a customer route by 1273) Thanks, - Jared

1 1

Livejournal DDoS
by vovan＠fakmoymozg.ru 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Hello all, > http://livejournal.com/ is there any technical data about the attack? e.g. average traffic in Gb/s, amount of bots, etc. Cheers, Vladimir

1 0

fiber in Philadephia metro
by Alex Yuriev 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

If anyone has contacts inside the companies that have fiber available in Philadelphia metro (especially Philadelphia itself), I'd greatly appreciate hearing about it off list. Sales pitches from sales people are welcome, provided the said sales people understand the difference between "available fiber" vs. "if you pay us a million dollars we will lay the fiber to where you want it to go so you get available fiber" Alex

1 0

Re: What is this Cisco process?
by Joe Renwick 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Ingen, How did you know this? And I quote "Well, I have no direct experience with the 3560, but SFF-8472 is a spec that includes diagnosting monitoring of SFPs...". Really am I missing some secret search engine? Is google not the answer? Please do let me know because if it was from an online resource I want to know what it is. Thanks again for the response... you solved my problem. Cheers, Joe On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Ingen Schenau, Jeroen van (ICTS) < j.vaningenschenau(a)utwente.nl> wrote: > Hi, > > > Have a Cisco 3560 running "flash:/c3560-ipbasek9-mz.122-55.SE1.bin". > Been > > running at 20% CPU since we started it: > > > > [image: plf-access - CPU Usage] > > > > The switch is completely layer-2... basic configuration. CPU utilization > is > > soley based on a single process: > > > > plf-access#sh proc cpu sorted > > CPU utilization for five seconds: 27%/0%; one minute: 25%; five minutes: > 24% > > PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process > > 41 232891470 1072247 217210 20.12% 18.99% 18.01% 0 SFF8472 > > Well, I have no direct experience with the 3560, but SFF-8472 is a spec > that includes diagnosting monitoring of SFPs... > > Not sure why this would take up so many cpu cycles... are you by any > chance continuously polling the switch for SFP readouts, ie optical > receive power, laser bias, SFP temperature etc? > > > Regards, > > Jeroen van Ingen > ICT Service Centre > University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands > > > -- Joe Renwick IP Network Consultant, CCIE #16465 GO NETFORWARD! Direct: 619-800-2055, Emergency Support: 800-719-0504 Is your network moving you forward?

2 1

Re: What is this Cisco process?
by Joe Renwick 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

So thanks to all for the help. It was an SFP. Here is CPU with bad SFP: plf-access# plf-access#sh proc cpu sorted CPU utilization for five seconds: 11%/0%; one minute: 18%; five minutes: 21% PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process 41 237737055 1095169 217078 5.11% 11.74% 14.87% 0 SFF8472 Here is CPU with SFP taken out: plf-access#sh proc cpu sorted CPU utilization for five seconds: 5%/0%; one minute: 17%; five minutes: 21% PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process 106 322 437 736 0.79% 0.07% 0.03% 0 Exec Confirmed it was the SFP by pulling it in and out a couple times. Processor flapped right along. Thanks again to all, Joe "Well, I have no direct experience with the 3560, but SFF-8472 is a spec that includes diagnosting monitoring of SFPs..." On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Joe Renwick <joe(a)gonetforward.com> wrote: > It was consistent... Since I started managing the device with Cacti on > Sunday it was dead red at that level. Was an SFP... going to post a > response now. > > Joe > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen < > hayden(a)nextlevelinternet.com> wrote: > >> Hey Joe, >> >> Is the CPU usage consistent or fluctuating? >> >> -H >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Renwick [mailto:joe@gonetforward.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:52 AM >> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: What is this Cisco process? >> >> Hello, >> >> Have a Cisco 3560 running "flash:/c3560-ipbasek9-mz.122-55.SE1.bin". >> Been >> running at 20% CPU since we started it: >> >> [image: plf-access - CPU Usage] >> >> The switch is completely layer-2... basic configuration. CPU >> utilization is >> soley based on a single process: >> >> plf-access#sh proc cpu sorted >> CPU utilization for five seconds: 27%/0%; one minute: 25%; five minutes: >> 24% >> PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process >> 41 232891470 1072247 217210 20.12% 18.99% 18.01% 0 SFF8472 >> >> 78 2376721 123621 19225 0.95% 0.22% 0.17% 0 HULC Tcam >> Memory >> 303 299 163 1834 0.47% 0.23% 0.07% 2 SSH >> Process >> >> 55 106535 11303527 9 0.15% 0.02% 0.00% 0 RedEarth >> Tx >> Mana >> >> Anybody have a clue what this process is? >> >> Thanks for the time. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Joe Renwick >> IP Network Consultant, CCIE #16465 >> GO NETFORWARD! >> Direct: 619-800-2055, Emergency Support: 800-719-0504 >> Is your network moving you forward? >> > > > > -- > Joe Renwick > IP Network Consultant, CCIE #16465 > GO NETFORWARD! > Direct: 619-800-2055, Emergency Support: 800-719-0504 > Is your network moving you forward? > > > -- Joe Renwick IP Network Consultant, CCIE #16465 GO NETFORWARD! Direct: 619-800-2055, Emergency Support: 800-719-0504 Is your network moving you forward?

2 1

ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet
by Stefan Fouant 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

Surprised this was actually approved, but more so that this story seems to have gone unnoticed on the list... I would have expected a lot more chatter here - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/icann-approves-xxx-red-light -district-for-the-internet.ars So the days of pointless TLDs are amongst us as we've now given would-be registrars the right to print money and companies are forced to purchase useless domain names in order to protect their trademarks, prevent squatting, etc. When will sanity prevail? Stefan Fouant

15 38

The state-level attack on the SSL CA security model
by Martin Millnert 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

To my surprise, I did not see a mention in this community of the latest proof of the complete failure of the SSL CA model to actually do what it is supposed to: provide security, rather than a false sense of security. Essentially a state somewhere between Iraq and Pakistan snatched valid certs for: - mail.google.com - www.google.com - login.yahoo.com - login.skype.com - addons.mozilla.org - login.live.com - "global trustee" https://blog.torproject.org/blog/detecting-certificate-authority-compromise… http://www.comodo.com/Comodo-Fraud-Incident-2011-03-23.html http://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/03/18/revocation.html (on epic failure of cert revocation lists implementations in browsers, failing open (!)) http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2011/03/22/firefox-blocking-fraudulent-cer… http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2524375.mspx For over a week users of browsers, and the internet at large, were/was not informed by COMODO that their security was compromised. "Why not" is beyond many of us. Announcing this high and loud even before fixes were available would not have exposed more users to threats, but less. Conclusion: protecting people must not be a priority in the SSL CA model. In some places, failure of internet security means people die, and it is high time to start serious work to replace this time-and-time again proven flawed model with something that, at the very least, does not fail this tragically. DNSSEC is a good but insufficient start in this particular case. Regards, Martin

23 34