August 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Seeking MSN/Hotmail & Yahoo MailOps contacts.
by Drew Weaver 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

Off-list please, I have attempted to contact them through traditional means to no avail several times prior to posting this. thanks, -Drew

1 0

Looking for an opinion on Colo Solutions/Orlando colocation
by Graham Wooden 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

Hi there, Our next POP deployment is going to be in Orlando (mainly supporting that CLEC client that I mentioned earlier last week). Can any one share their "good/bad/ugly" experiences with "Colo Solutions" there? We had a brief conf call with their sales engineer but looking for real-world experiences/comments from folks that have had or currently is colocating hear there. Thanks, -graham

4 5

DNSSEC support in registrars
by Vasil Kolev 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

Hi all, According to the deployment schedule, a lot of the TLDs support DNSSEC, but there's no online resource that shows which registrars support adding such records. Is there any such list? (also, is there a list of registrars who support ipv6 glue records?) -- Regards, Vasil Kolev

4 3

Cogent --> Google Public DNS routing issue
by Robert Glover 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

Hello, We have noticed that from our Cogent link (as well as from ALL U.S. based points we tested via the Cogent Looking Glass: http://www.cogentco.com/en/network/looking-glass) traceroutes to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.5.5 all seem to go over to Europe: TRACE from Los Angeles to 8.8.4.4 1 gi2-6.99.mpd03.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.3.81) 0.514 ms 0.332 ms 2 te0-0-0-6.ccr22.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.145) 0.401 ms 0.518 ms 3 te0-3-0-6.ccr22.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.185) 36.538 ms te0-2-0-5.ccr22.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.27.18) 36.449 ms 4 te0-0-0-2.ccr22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.93) 63.200 ms te0-2-0-7.ccr22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.89) 62.909 ms 5 te0-1-0-2.ccr22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.230) 62.985 ms te0-0-0-7.ccr22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.221) 62.894 ms 6 te0-5-0-6.ccr22.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.30) 69.434 ms te0-5-0-2.ccr22.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.26) 69.229 ms 7 te0-3-0-2.ccr22.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.30.22) 144.224 ms te0-2-0-2.ccr22.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.30.133) 146.474 ms 8 te8-1.mpd02.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.57.182) 143.890 ms te7-1.mpd02.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.57.178) 146.320 ms 9 ldn-b4-link.telia.net (213.248.70.237) 145.967 ms 145.872 ms 10 80.91.247.93 (80.91.247.93) 155.170 ms ldn-bb1-link.telia.net (213.155.130.46) 145.971 ms 11 ldn-b3-link.telia.net (213.155.133.33) 143.909 ms 80.91.249.170 (80.91.249.170) 146.213 ms 12 google-ic-126258-ldn-b3.c.telia.net (213.248.67.66) 146.158 ms 146.291 ms 13 64.233.175.25 (64.233.175.25) 146.166 ms 64.233.175.27 (64.233.175.27) 144.256 ms 14 209.85.253.92 (209.85.253.92) 146.435 ms 146.401 ms 15 72.14.232.134 (72.14.232.134) 150.128 ms 66.249.95.173 (66.249.95.173) 152.591 ms 16 209.85.252.83 (209.85.252.83) 149.993 ms 209.85.251.231 (209.85.251.231) 152.270 ms 17 209.85.243.85 (209.85.243.85) 152.514 ms 152.332 ms 18 google-public-dns-b.google.com (8.8.4.4) 152.436 ms 152.299 ms The routes from our backup carrier stay state-side and result in ~30ms ping times. Through Cogent, the ping times are around ~164ms What is going on here? Can someone from Cogent chime in on this? -Robert

7 6

STRIKE: VZN
by Jay Ashworth 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

As of midnight, 45,000 IBEW and CWA members are striking Verizon, as their contract has expired. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/07/us-verizon-labor-idUSTRE7760C3201… It's not clear how this might affect what we do, but it might, and I figured the heads up would probably be useful. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

4 3

Fwd: Prefix hijacking by Michael Lindsay via Internap
by Denis Spirin 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

Where do you see the permission of Internap to transit our AS31733? aut-num: AS31733 as-name: LINKTEL-AS descr: Link Telecom PJSC org: ORG-LTP1-RIPE import: from AS8342 accept ANY import: from AS12695 accept ANY import: from AS44109 accept ANY export: to AS8342 announce AS31733 export: to AS12695 announce AS31733 export: to AS44109 announce AS31733 admin-c: LN1688-RIPE tech-c: LN1688-RIPE mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-END-MNT mnt-by: MNT-LINKTEL mnt-routes: MNT-LINKTEL changed: noc(a)link-telecom.biz 20080917 changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net 20110414 source: RIPE AS8342, AS12695, AS44109 can. AS12182 - can't. We already in touch with RIPE NCC and Internap. But networks are continue to be hijacked. That is the reason I wrote to this list. 2011/8/21 Arturo Servin <arturo.servin(a)gmail.com> > > On 21 Aug 2011, at 00:28, Denis Spirin wrote: > > > Yes, they are using our ASN 31733 to originate networks. All the visible > > paths are through AS12182. Internap was contacted about a week ago, but > did > > nothing. > > Which seems to be the right decision because the whois data backed > it on. > > > > No, I'm not a venture capitalist, but IT specialist. > > > > I am too sleepy, so replied to Adrian directly while wanted to post in > the > > list. > > If you are claiming right over these prefixes I suggest you to > contact RIPE NCC. > > /as > > > > > 2011/8/21 Arturo Servin <aservin(a)lacnic.net> > > > >> > >> These prefix are originated by AS31733 which seems to be assigned to the > >> same organisation than the ASN, which in turn seems to be you. > >> > >> I can see AS12182 in the path but not originating the route. So I do not > >> understand what are your claiming. > >> > >> .as > >> > >> > >> On 20 Aug 2011, at 23:05, Denis Spirin wrote: > >> > >> Right now there are: > >> 46.96.0.0/16 > >> 83.223.224.0/19 > >> 94.250.128.0/19 > >> 94.250.160.0/19 > >> 188.164.0.0/24 > >> > >> > >> > >

3 2

Fwd: Prefix hijacking by Michael Lindsay via Internap
by Denis Spirin 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

Of course, we have less customers than we have a year ago. Not a zero in any case. Some parts of network was rented to other ISPs and will be returned. Some was NATed after upstream shut down the BGP. How much IP we need now we will discuss with RIPE NCC, if they will. First, we should have to shut down the hijackers, isn't it? 2011/8/21 Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> > Hi Denis, > > Convenient as it may be to use a LIR and their historic provided prefixes, > have you thought about starting with a clean slate ? > > If the company was close to bankrupt and one can only assume that it didn't > require a couple /16's and a couple /19's ... > Didn't you get ANY questions from RIPE in that regard when you discussed > the > topic with them ? The reason why those prefixes where provided isn't valid > anymore and if you are restarting the business even a /21 should be enough > ... > > Even in Russia a will take some time to get the customers back, especially > if they have been offline for some time. (If they where not offline, the > prefixes wouldn't have been hijacked correct ? ... ) > > Next to this all, none of the prefixes that I currently see under the > stated > AS have a route-object in the RIPE db and the AS object AS31733 isn't > updated since 2008, as none of the listed AS's there are current / active > upstreams / peers. > > From where I stand it doesn't surprise me that your upstreams don't want to > advertize it and if they would, don't be surprised if some networks filter > your prefixes regardless if you are listed on a shady list on Spamhaus. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > > > >

1 0

LISP/ILNP/RFC6296 - what do you want?
by Randy Bush 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

i am told that the following session has been accepted for the nanog agenda. A Comparison of Approaches to Loc/ID, Routing Scaling, and the Universe Abstract: This session looks at and contrasts: LISP (Dino Farinacci) ILNP (Saleem Bhatti) RFC 6296 (Fred Baker) Where each is explained at an architectural level in some detail with a predetermined list of questions such as "how does this address loc/id separation, routing table scaling, incremental deployment, state of implementation/testing, ..." And then a half hour where we all sum up the similarities and differences. Maybe it will be worth writing up. The goal is education and understanding, not a contest. These are all good and interesting approaches. Weapons are not allowed, we all work for the Internet. as you can see, i am interested in o loc/id separation o rounting table scaling o deployability on the internet o current state of development what did i miss? what major attributes interest you? randy

3 3

(no subject)
by Payam Poursaied 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

1 0

Verizon Business - LTE?
by Ryan Finnesey 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

Does anyone know if Verizon Business is using the Verizon Wireless LTE network to deliver service? Cheers Ryan

19 47