December 2012 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Rack space at 1102 Grand St in Kansas City
by Josh V. Hoppes 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

Looking to see if anyone has 2U of space available at 1102 Grand in Kansas City. We are looking to rack up a router and get a couple single mode cross connects, nothing huge but will be long term and we would expect a contract to be worked out. Joshua Hoppes Network Engineer Cedar Falls Utilities

1 0

Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
by Constantine A. Murenin 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

Hello, I personally don't understand this policy. I've signed up with hetzner.de, and I'm trying to get IPv6; however, on the supplementary page where the complementary IPv6 /64 subnet can be requested (notice that it's not even a /48, and not even the second, routed, /64), after I change the selection from requesting one additional IPv4 address to requesting the IPv6 /64 subnet (they offer no other IPv6 options in that menu), they use DOM to remove the IP address justification field ("Purpose of use"), and instead statically show my name, physical street address (including the apartment number), email address and phone number, and ask to confirm that all of this information can be submitted to RIPE. They offer no option of modifying any of this; they also offer no option of hiding the street address and showing it as "Private Address" instead; they also offer no option of providing contact information different from the contact details for the main profile or keeping a separate set of contact details in the main profile specifically for RIPE; they also offer no option of providing a RIPE handle instead (dunno if one can be registered with a "Private Address" address, showing only city/state/country and postal code; I do know that with ARIN and PA IPv4 subnets you can do "Private Address" in the Address field); they also don't let you submit the form unless you agree for the information shown to be passed along to RIPE for getting IPv6 connectivity (again, no IPv6 is provided by default or otherwise). Is this what we're going towards? No probable cause and no court orders for obtaining individually identifying information about internet customers with IPv6 addresses? In the future, will the copyright trolls be getting this information directly from public whois, bypassing the internet provider abuse teams and even the most minimal court supervision? Is this really the disadvantage of IPv4 that IPv6 proudly fixes? I certainly have never heard of whois entries for /32 IPv4 address allocations! Anyhow, just one more provider where it's easier to use HE's tunnelbroker.net instead of obtaining IPv6 natively; due to the data-mining and privacy concerns now. What's the point of native IPv6 connectivity again? In hetzner.de terms, tunnelbroker.net even provides you with the failover IPv6 address(es), something that they themselves only offer for IPv4! Is it just me, or are there a lot of other folks who use tunnelbroker.net even when their ISP offers native IPv6 support? Might be interesting for HE.net to make some kind of a study. :-) Cheers, Constantine.

16 34

Re: Lovely release spam...
by Jay Ashworth 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean-Pierre A. Radley" <appl(a)jpr.com> > If you weren't offended by the clumsy constructions and poor usage, > then my apologies, I'll go sulk on my own. It did seem sorta ESOL to me, but I figured piling on was mean. :-) 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 #natog +1 727 647 1274

1 0

Re:
by Scott Weeks 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

--- samba_55(a)hotmail.com wrote: From: flower tailor <samba_55(a)hotmail.com> Delete me -------------------------------------- cisco-router> conf t cisco-router(config)# banner ^c look at the email header to get off mailing lists like NANOG ^c cisco-router(config)# ^Z cisco-router# wr mem cisco-router# exit >;-) scott

3 2

Re: RADB entry
by Courtney Smith 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

Chuck, If you look at the communities on 68.115.27.0/24 you will see 7018:5000. That community means AS209 is a AT&T peering partner. > route-server>sh ip bgp 68.115.217.201 > BGP routing table entry for 68.115.217.0/24, version 13683280 > Paths: (18 available, best #7, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) > Not advertised to any peer > ... > 7018 209 20115, (aggregated by 20115 96.34.212.29), (received & used) > 12.123.1.236 from 12.123.1.236 (12.123.1.236) > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, atomic-aggregate, best > Community: 7018:5000 7018:37232 Now if you look at results for 75.77.38.0/23 you will see 7018:2000. That would mean AS7029 is an AT&T customer. > route-server>sh ip bgp 75.77.38.0 > BGP routing table entry for 75.77.38.0/23, version 26960376 > Paths: (19 available, best #7, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) > Not advertised to any peer > 7018 7029 26296 26296 26296, (received & used) > 12.123.1.236 from 12.123.1.236 (12.123.1.236) > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best > Community: 7018:2000 7018:34011 In AT&T's network, I believe they apply local pref 80 for peer routes and local pref 100 for customer routes. Ignore the local pref values you see on the route server. Let's look at what appears to be going on. Per your earlier post, you verified Charter(AS20115) has the prefix. Charter does not appear to have a interconnect with AT&T(7018) so they send to Centurlink/Qwest(AS209). We see Centurylink(AS209) accepts per their looking glass at https://kai04.centurylink.com/PtapRpts/Public/BackboneReport.aspx. BGP routing table entry for 75.77.38.0/23 20115 26296 Nexthop 205.171.0.93 (via 207.109.19.150) from chi-core-01 (205.171.0.144) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, internal, valid Last update: 13:30:09 ago Communities: 209:209 209:14520 20115:3200 20115:63004 Originator Id: 205.171.0.93 Cluster ID List: 207.109.19.145 205.171.0.149 Now Centurylink(AS209), sends the /23 to their peer AT&T(AS7018). AT&T accepts the /23 from Centurylink. Since Centurylink is their peer, AT&T assigns local pref 80. That's lower than the 100 assigned to the Windstream. Highest local pref wins. Your prepends are never part of the decision. So AT&T continues to pref the path via their customer Windstream(AS7029). I suspect this is really your problem instead of route registry data. Hopefully, Windstream offers their customers some BGP communities to allow traffic engineering. Finally, the WISP has a AS number from ARIN, they should be able to create their own maintainer on rr.arin.net. The RADB fee might be a little much for your WISP. https://www.arin.net/resources/routing/ Make sense? On Dec 11, 2012, at 7:07 PM, Chuck Church wrote: > Courtney, > > This is from the AT&T 7018 route server. The first one is our WAN > IP address, part of our ISP's ASN. The second one is our own /23. The > first one goes through Century Link, then Charter. The second one I would > think would take same path, with one additional AS (our own). But that one > isn't present at AT&T. Level 3 shows the same thing. Century Link > themselves see our /23 through Charter... > > route-server>sh ip bgp 68.115.217.201 > BGP routing table entry for 68.115.217.0/24, version 13683280 > Paths: (18 available, best #7, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) > Not advertised to any peer > ... > 7018 209 20115, (aggregated by 20115 96.34.212.29), (received & used) > 12.123.1.236 from 12.123.1.236 (12.123.1.236) > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, atomic-aggregate, best > Community: 7018:5000 7018:37232 > > route-server>sh ip bgp 75.77.38.0 > BGP routing table entry for 75.77.38.0/23, version 26960376 > Paths: (19 available, best #7, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) > Not advertised to any peer > 7018 7029 26296 26296 26296, (received & used) > 12.123.1.236 from 12.123.1.236 (12.123.1.236) > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best > Community: 7018:2000 7018:34011 > > > Thanks, > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Courtney Smith [mailto:courtneysmith@comcast.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:38 PM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: RADB entry > > >> >> Anyone, >> >> >> >> Hopefully this is a simple question about RADB. I'm >> supporting a small wireless ISP, they just recently added a second >> upstream connection - Charter (AS 20115). The IP space was originally >> issued by the other upstream Windstream (AS 7029). Looking at a few >> resources such as the bgp.he.net to see who peers with who and looking >> glasses, it seems that not all of AS 20115 peers are accepting our >> prefix. AT&T is an example - AS7018. In one case, it's an upstream 2 >> levels up - Century Link accepts from Charter, but Level 3 doesn't >> accept it from Century Link. Charter uses RADB. The entry for the prefix > looks like this: >> >> >> > > What makes you think Level3 is not accepting from CenturyLink? I suspect > Century Link may be a peer of Level3 instead of a customer. Windstream > appears to be a customer of Level3. Level3 will put a higher local pref on > customer routes. > > > > Courtney Smith > courtneysmith(a)comcast.net > > () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail > /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments > > > Courtney Smith courtneysmith(a)comcast.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

1 0

(no subject)
by flower tailor 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

Delete me

13 12

RADB entry
by Chuck Church 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

Anyone, Hopefully this is a simple question about RADB. I'm supporting a small wireless ISP, they just recently added a second upstream connection - Charter (AS 20115). The IP space was originally issued by the other upstream Windstream (AS 7029). Looking at a few resources such as the bgp.he.net to see who peers with who and looking glasses, it seems that not all of AS 20115 peers are accepting our prefix. AT&T is an example - AS7018. In one case, it's an upstream 2 levels up - Century Link accepts from Charter, but Level 3 doesn't accept it from Century Link. Charter uses RADB. The entry for the prefix looks like this: route: 75.77.38.0/23 descr: Vybrent_Communications AS26296 origin: AS20115 mnt-by: MAINT-CHTR-WD changed: x(a)chartercom.com 20121207 #18:55:23Z source: RADB route: 75.77.38.0/23 descr: Community Connect LLC remarks: Proxy Registered Customer Route remarks: SWIP from NUVOX origin: AS26296 member-of: RS-NUVOX-CUSTOMERS-NONRIR mnt-by: MAINT-AS11456 changed: x(a)nuvox.com 20080519 source: RADB 75.77.38.0/23 is our prefix. Our AS is 26296. Does that entry look right? I'm wondering if the 'origin' AS in the Charter entry is correct, since that is Charter's AS, not ours. To avoid confusion, Nuvox is the ISP that Windstream bought out, hence the name change. Vybrent and Community Connect are the same company by the way as well. Other than RADB, are there any other database registries that should be checked to make sure the info is right? Thanks, Chuck

4 7

Re: RADB entry
by Courtney Smith 11 Dec '12

11 Dec '12

> > Anyone, > > > > Hopefully this is a simple question about RADB. I'm > supporting a small wireless ISP, they just recently added a second upstream > connection - Charter (AS 20115). The IP space was originally issued by the > other upstream Windstream (AS 7029). Looking at a few resources such as the > bgp.he.net to see who peers with who and looking glasses, it seems that not > all of AS 20115 peers are accepting our prefix. AT&T is an example - > AS7018. In one case, it's an upstream 2 levels up - Century Link accepts > from Charter, but Level 3 doesn't accept it from Century Link. Charter uses > RADB. The entry for the prefix looks like this: > > > What makes you think Level3 is not accepting from CenturyLink? I suspect Century Link may be a peer of Level3 instead of a customer. Windstream appears to be a customer of Level3. Level3 will put a higher local pref on customer routes. Courtney Smith courtneysmith(a)comcast.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

1 0

Cogent-Comast packet loss in the SF Bay Area
by Andrew Stern 11 Dec '12

11 Dec '12

Hello. We are seeing approx. 3% - 10% packet loss between a fixed address on the Cogent network and services on the Comcast network in the SF Bay Area. Are we alone in this? Andrew Stern, CBNT | Broadcast IT Engineer Cumulus Media San Francisco KFOG | KNBR | KSAN | KTCT | KGO | KSFO ________________________________ Cumulus Media Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

1 0

facebook down
by Joly MacFie 10 Dec '12

10 Dec '12

I know there's an outages list, but seriously! It seems like a DNS prob? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

3 2