May 2012 - Test - lists.nanog.org

pbx recco
by Randy Bush 18 May '12

18 May '12

have a friend who is a penguinista and wants to run a simple soft pbx. support of soft phones, 7960s, connect to a commercial sip gate, ... reccos for a packaged solution. i run a raw asterisk and would not wish it on my worst enemy. randy

16 16

Cogent for ISP bandwidth
by Jason Baugher 17 May '12

17 May '12

The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question... I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business. Thanks, Jason

30 37

RPKI performance metrics; your help requested
by Alex Band 17 May '12

17 May '12

As the global RPKI data set and system load grows, we want to ensure that the system is performing well. This is why we have added measurement functionality to the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator toolset: https://www.ripe.net/certification/rpki-validator-metrics When enabled, it will gather the following data and send it to the RIPE NCC for analysis: - Connection success rate to the configured repositories - Whether IPv4 or IPv6 is used to connect - Repository inconsistencies - Time taken to validate all retrieved objects There is a detailed post on the sidr mailing list with more information: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04595.html We would really appreciate it if as many people from across the globe send us performance data. If you would like to participate, please install the latest RPKI Validator and leave it running as a service permanently: https://www.ripe.net/certification/tools-and-resources All you need is a system with Java 1.6, rsync and 1GB of available memory. Simply unzip the file, run ./bin/rpki-validator from the base directory and browse to http://localhost:8080. Then enable the performance metrics by clicking "Yes" to the prompt. If you have any questions or feedback, please let me know. Many thanks, Alex Band RIPE NCC

5 7

ASN source when using "-A with traceroute"
by Anurag Bhatia 16 May '12

16 May '12

Hello everyone! I have a funny case - one of our upstream provider announced our address space for very short time which was well due to confusion since we requested them to announce one of other blocks while they by mistake announced both blocks. Anyways, now funny thing here is - whenever I run a traceroute from any of Linux server from any location, I see upsteam provider as well as our ASN in output of traceroute -A. This is not really a problem at all but I am just curious to know the source of IP-ASN mapping in traceroute output. Also any ideas on update frequency of that source? Thanks! -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>| Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>

2 1

mxlogic.net list admin
by Mario Eirea 16 May '12

16 May '12

Hello, If there is an mxlogic.net admin available, please contact me off list regarding an IP block. I have tried traditional channels and they are not getting me anywhere. Thanks, Mario Eirea

1 0

Cross connecting two routers with channelized interfaces
by Diogo Montagner 16 May '12

16 May '12

Hello, sorry for this dumb question. Is it possible to connect two routers like below ? RouterA/cstm1 ---- dark fiber ---- cstm1/RouterB The interfaces used in this case are channelized STM1 in both sides. Between RouterA and RouterB I would like to create many low-speed interfaces ranging from 64Kbps up to 2Mbps. Between these two routers there is no MUX. The framing mode has to be SDH. Thanks in advance! Diogo

2 2

Protocols for Testing Intrusion Detection?
by Bill Stewart 15 May '12

15 May '12

I'm looking for recommended protocols to use for testing intrusion detection and maybe also firewall logging. Basically I need some kind of protocol that it's ok to discard traffic for in a production network, so I can be sure that the various systems that should be detecting it and generating alarms are up and running. Is there already a standard I should be using? (This doesn't seem to quite match RFC2544.) I'm thinking about things like - TCP and UDP echo protocol - is this sufficiently deprecated that it won't be missed, or are there applications still using it? - Higher-numbered TCP protocol, such as 31337, which appears to have no official current use, and unofficially is for Back Orifice. - http:80 from a well-known test address, such as evil.example.com (probably need both RFC1918 and public IP addresses, so it's somewhat site-dependent. Should I be using 192.0.2.0/24 or 198.18.0.0/15 as long as I'm careful not to leak them out to the real internet?) - Is there any application that can actually set the RFC3514 Evil Bit? -- ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.

4 3

Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
by A. Pishdadi 15 May '12

15 May '12

dam, i think this got more replies then the original thread in 10 minutes. lol On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi(a)mail.r-bonomi.com>wrote: > > From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com(a)nanog.org Tue May 15 > 16:53:50 2012 > > From: "A. Pishdadi" <apishdadi(a)gmail.com> > > Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:51:20 -0500 > > Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth > > To: Nicolai <nicolai-nanog(a)chocolatine.org> > > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > > > > last time i checked .75 x 1000 = 750 > > 0.75 CENTS (as previously claimed) per meg is 750 CENTS per gig, or > $7.50/gig. > > I suspect you 'meant '75 cents' (or '$0.75') per meg, but that is -not- > what > you said. :) > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nicolai <nicolai-nanog(a)chocolatine.org > >wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:38:34PM -0500, Ameen Pishdadi wrote: > > > > No way they stack up against level3 or any of the other 4 big tier 1s > > > > but if you throw them in a blend with level3 there shouldn't be any > > > > issue and I wouldn't pay more the .75 cents a meg for a gig > > > > > > That's $7.50 per 1000mbps. Sign me up! > > > > > > Nicolai > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Earthlink/RIR1.ORG admin with a clue?
by Chris Conn 15 May '12

15 May '12

Hello, If a Earthlink/rir1.org hosting admin would care to contact me off-list since it appears the abuse department at earthlink does not understand what hosting a phishing site means. I am being asked for logs to "prove" something, yet the URL I supply which clearly brings someone to a phishing site is apparently not "proof". Thanks, Chris Conn B2B2C.ca

2 1

Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth
by Justin Krejci 15 May '12

15 May '12

+1 for cogent, problem free and good responsive support. Not sure why "don't use only 1 upstream if you care about accessibility" has anything to do with cogent specifically. Are peering/de-peering disputes more likely to occur than all other network/routing issues combined? its just another possible cause for an outage. ------Original Message------ From: Mark Stevens To: nanog(a)nanog.org ReplyTo: manager(a)monmouth.com Subject: Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth Sent: May 15, 2012 7:21 AM We use Cogent as one our upstreams and have had nothing but stability and excellent support over the years. But as other said, you really need multiple upstreams and cannot rely just on one whether it is Cogent or any other provider. Mark On 5/14/2012 6:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > The emails on the Outages list reminded me to ask this question... > > I've done some searching and haven't been able to find much in the > last 3 years as to their reliability and suitability as an upstream > provider. For a regional ISP looking for GigE ports in the Chicago/St. > Louis area, is Cogent a reasonable solution? Our gut feeling is that > they don't stack up against a Level3 or Sprint, but they are being > very aggressive with pricing to try and get our business. > > Thanks, > Jason > > > >

2 1