June 2012 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Automatic attack alert to ISPs
by Ganbold Tsagaankhuu 22 Jun '12

22 Jun '12

Hi, Is there any well known free services or scripts that sends automatic attack alerts based on some logs to corresponding ISPs (based on src address)? I have seen dshield.org and mynetwatchman, but I don't know yet how good they are. If somebody has recommendations in this regard please let me know. thanks in advance, Ganbold

5 4

Contact from Global Crossing Kindly contact me off list
by Righa Shake 22 Jun '12

22 Jun '12

Hi, Kindly would someone from Global Crossing contact me offlist. Regards, Righa Shake

1 0

Re: SIXSS not working?
by Hank Nussbacher 21 Jun '12

21 Jun '12

At 19:25 20/06/2012 -0400, Kyle Creyts wrote: Until such time that Sixxs responds as to what happened, it will all be conjecture. -Hank >http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2012-1820 possibly >related? > >On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> wrote: > > Good morning (at least on this side of the planet), > > > > On 2012-06-20 02:14, Hank Nussbacher wrote:> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Jeroen > > Massar wrote: > >> > >> Ill report it to them but: > > > > NANOG is afaik still not the "contact the people who run things" email > > address... > > > > Nevertheless, if issues, do not hesitate to report to info(a)sixxs.net > > > >> http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ > >> Shows every country as V=0 (prefixes visible per country). > > > > That would mean that every prefix was not updated in the last day, > > sounds odd to me. > > > > On 2012-06-20 04:00, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> > >> It would appear that whatever was broken is now fixed. > > > > The only thing I can think of is that you have noticed some weird glitch > > of the kind there. > > > > As mentioned above the "Visible" is basically the amount of prefixes > > visible in the last 24 hours. For that to become 0 it would have meant > > that no prefix would have been seen for the last 24 hours. > > > > According to http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/status/ which just telnets > > into grh.sixxs.net and asks for quagga's status, seems that even peering > > sessions are connected for longer than that, thus I am puzzled to what > > could have caused that then. > > > > Greets, > > Jeroen > > > > > > > >-- >Kyle Creyts > >Information Assurance Professional >BSidesDetroit Organizer

3 2

PIM survey for operators
by Mike McBride 21 Jun '12

21 Jun '12

The IETF pim working group is conducting a survey in order to advance the PIM Sparse Mode spec on the IETF Standards Track, and would like input from operators. The survey ends July 20th. Please see below for more information. thank you, pim chairs Mike & Stig Introduction: PIM-SM was first published as RFC 2117 in 1997 and then again as RFC 2362 in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as RFC 4601 in 2006. Considering the multiple independent implementations developed and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard. This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. (Due to RFC 6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard. Draft Standard is no longer used.) This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group. The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept strictly confidential; only the final combined results will be published. Marshall Eubanks has agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. Marshall has a long experience with Multicast but has no direct financial interest in this matter, nor ties to any of the vendors involved. He is also a member of the IAOC, Chair of the IETF Trust and co-chair of the IETF Layer 3 VPN Working Group. Please send Questionnaire responses to his email address, marshall.eubanks(a)gmail.com. He requests that such responses include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject field. Before answering the questions, please comple the following background information. Name of the Respondent: Affliation/Organization: Contact Email: Provide description of PIM deployment: Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential: Questions: 1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network? 2 How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network? Do you know if your deployment is based on the most recent RFC4601? 3 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network? 4 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM implementations for your deployment? 5 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward- compatibility issues amongst differing implementations? If yes, what are your concerns about these issues? 6 Have you deployed both dense mode and sparse mode in your network? If yes, do you route between these modes using features such as *,*,RP or PMBR? 7 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR, SSM, and Explicit Tracking? 8 Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR? 9 How many RPs have you deployed in your network? 10 If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446) or Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC 4610)? 11 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your network?

1 0

AAA design document pointers
by Jay Ashworth 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

My takeaway from the conversations we're having as the second and third-order resultants of the LinkedIn password break is that, if there *is* an accepted definition of the problem, in slices small enough for implementers to understand, a lot of people haven't read it. Including me. *Is* there a good defnition of the current shape of the authentication/ authorization problem as it presently exists in the Wide Area with the General Public as audience, which someone can point to? One that identifies, as it goes along, all the points we batted around today, like "person or PC", "multiple accounts", "non/repudiation", and whatever you call "multiple services not being able to tell you're the same person as an account holder, unless you *want* them to"? Not even the solutions, you understand, just the definition of the problem? Seems to me we're on different pages in the hymnal... Off-list, please; I'll summarize. 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

1 0

SIXSS not working?
by Hank Nussbacher 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

I am seeing all IPv6 prefixes that are monitored by Sixxs as being down and unavailable. Anyone know why? Thanks, Hank

3 5

Cisco Smartnet for 6509E Line Cards
by david peahi 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

Can anyone comment on Cisco 6509E Smartnet "chassis" coverage? In the past, "chassis" has always meant, not just the passive chassis itself, but all of the components including supervisor cards, line cards, power supplies, fan trays, etc. Now it appears that Cisco is requiring Smartnet coverage on line cards in addition to the chassis. My understanding is that Smartnet functioned much like insurance policies, where Cisco collected maintenance contract fees year after year, but the devices were generally so reliable that the collected Smartnet fees always far exceeded the dollar amount required to replace failed components. Regards, David

4 4

Saleslurkers - onnet check in greenville nc
by Chris McDonald 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

Anyone have it? 638 Chapman Rd., Greenville, NC 28590 Thanks Chris -- Sent from my mobile device

1 0

Re: TW in ohio
by Brian Henson 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

Thank you for the information. I just wish they would get it all working. At this point I would be happy with a GRE tunnel to a router that had IPv6. I use tunnel broker now but with the low lease time of the TW dhcp server i have to run the updater script just about every hour to keep the tunnel up. /beginrant When I called the tech support line trying to get information about their IPv6 plans it was like talking to a brick wall. Eventually I got a supervisor on the phone and he stated that there was no need for IPv6. Everytime I talk to their support I feel dumber and dumber. They don't even know the difference between a software issue and a network issue in most cases. I called about seeing extremly high latency at the border router as seen by traceroute at 2 seperate locations and they refused to do anything until I requested them to talk to their supervisor. They put a ticket in to the advanced tech support but I never heard a word from them. /endrant... So maybe they can't do IPv6 until they get the network issues taken care of. Somedays I miss having qwest, their tech support was great. My account was tagged in someway and they usually asked if I would like to be sent straight to level 2 support once they looked up my account. Maybe someone from TW tech support will eventually see our messages and give the official response. Brian Henson On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM, <garya(a)completeweb.net> wrote: > Brian, > When I called Roadrunner about a week before IPV6 day, they had trouble > finding > anyone even in the business tech people that knew if it was even partially > working > for residential or not. I also had signed up over a year ago for testing, > heard nothing. > Our datacenter in Columbus is fully IPV6, and I could route a /64 to me > over an > IPV6->IPV4 tunnel to my D-Link DIR-825 router and it worked great, > contacted any > IPV6 site no problems from within my residential RR network. > But as far as native, they have no idea when, if even by year end. > I couldn't even get a straight answer if they were doing IPV6 over their > business class, > so who knows. They don't even have the IPV6 testing signup page any more. > > Gary Anagnostis > CompleteWeb.Net > > > > Anyone here using timewarrner residential able to use IPv6 natively > during > > world IPv6 day? I have the equipment to support it but never saw any > ipv6 > > address being assigned to my firewall. > > > > Brian Henson > > > > >

1 0

solid v smart optics
by ryanL 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

anyone have any opinions on the two subject vendors, with general regard to 10GE transceivers? SR multi-mode data center stuff for my application. appreciate on/off list replies! ryanL

2 1