December 2014 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Is there a Lexis Nexis contact (AS14182) hanging out on this list?
by Justin Harris 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

If so please contact me off list. Having connectivity issues from AS36694 to AS14182. Thanks! Justin Harris Network Engineer t 407.949.0081 c 407.718.3919 Viewpost.com <http://viewpost.com/> Viewpost(tm) See business better.(tm) 2600 Lucien Way, Suite 100 Maitland, FL 32751 Electronic Privacy Notice: Use of email is inherently insecure. Confidential information, including account information, and personally identifiable information, should not be transmitted via email, or email attachment. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). The information contained in this message is private and confidential, may contain legally protected information and may be subject to one or more non-disclosure agreements, or federal and state regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately destroy all copies and the original message. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

1 0

IXes and AS length
by Mike Hammett 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

So I just found out that the IX we're looking to hook up with (Equinix) doesn't allow downstream ASes. How does that functionally work? Stepping outside my ISP for a moment, I know a building owner with several buildings that provides Internet to his tenants. He's getting an AS so he can have upstream diversity. Unless carrier A or ISP B have direct private peering with whomever (Amazon, NetFlix, Google, FaceBook, etc., etc.), that building owner doesn't have a route to those services? They can't utilize carrier A or ISP B's public peering connection? How can that possibly bee with with every ISP being required to have their own physical presence on the exchange? That's just not practical. I understand not having parallel ASNs (advertising both ASN A and ASN B separately) from a sales perspective, but I don't understand ASN A advertising directly on the IX, but not allowing ASN A's downstream customers of ASNs B, C, D and E. Am I wrong or is this just an Equinix thing? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

4 3

Netscaler Help
by james jones 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

Are there any netscaler experts out there? Please contact me off list.

1 0

Level3 to Savvis/CenturyLink problems?
by Leah Reveliotty 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

We have an MPLS backbone from Level3 and are experiencing issues between two of our San Francisco Bay Area locations – namely our HQ in Burlingame, CA and our Savvis/CenturyLink Data Center in Santa Clara, CA. Ping response times between these 2 sites are within the normal range, but our Applications are timing out. We’ve obviously done a ton of troubleshooting on the Application side of things, but everything points back to a circuit issue and after a lot of testing we are scratching our heads trying to narrow down this issue. So I wanted to post to this list to see if anyone else has noticed issues with their Level3 circuits in the Bay Area over the last 2 days as well? Thanks for your feedback! Regards, Leah

2 1

Looking for a contact at Magix as9506 or someone at singtel who has insight into the operation of 9506
by joel jaeggli 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

We're have a little bit of trouble reaching your customers with a prefix advertised in SIN and there's little or no visibility from the 9506 vantage point. Thanks in Advance. Joel (as54113)

1 0

Anyone from Nike.com
by Di Li 17 Dec '14

17 Dec '14

Anyone from Nike.com willing to contact me off list to troubleshooting some IP space blocking issues -- Thanks, Di

1 0

automatic / intelligent fiber optic patch panel (iow SDN @ layer 0)
by Arnold Nipper 17 Dec '14

17 Dec '14

I'm looking for a modular, cost-effective automatic / intelligent fibre optic patch panel. I'm not looking at these photonic x-connects, but really for something which does the patching instead of a technician. TIA Arnold -- Arnold Nipper / nIPper consulting, Sandhausen, Germany email: arnold(a)nipper.de phone: +49 6224 5593407 2 mobile: +49 172 2650958 fax: +49 6224 5593407 9

8 13

Fwd: malware.watch rdns
by shawn wilson 17 Dec '14

17 Dec '14

I asked on this on another list I'm on and didn't get any reply, so I figured I might have better luck here Anyone know what malware.watch. is doing? Below is basically everything I could find: http://www.robtex.net/en/advisory/dns/watch/malware/ssl-scanning-015/ They've got a web page, but nothing there: % curl -I malware.watch HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:17:29 GMT Content-Type: text/html Connection: keep-alive Set-Cookie: __cfduid= da37b063f68032dfe5adc07ae35fe27031415906249; expires=Fri, 13-Nov-15 19:17:29 GMT; path=/; domain=.malware.watch; HttpOnly X-Frame-Options: sameorigin Server: cloudflare-nginx CF-RAY: 188d4f4cd3cb0eeb-EWR What I saw was ssl-scanning-###.malware.watch, so after that curl I figured I'd start by blowing up their dns :) % printf '%03d\n' {0..999} | while read f; do dig=$(dig "ssl-scanning-${f}.malware.watch" +short); if [ -n "$dig" ]; then echo "$f: $dig"; fi; done ~ swlap1 015: 85.17.239.155 016: 104.200.21.140 017: 195.154.114.206 (It was pointed out to me this could be more easily written as: dig +noall +ans ssl-scanning-{000..999}.malware.watch) So they only have three in that block, on is in the Netherlands, the other is Linode (US), and the last is French: 8 21.28 ms as4436-1-c.111eighthave.ny.ibone.comcast.net (173.167.57.162) 9 17.01 ms vlan-75.ar2.ewr1.us.as4436.gtt.net (69.31.34.129) 10 15.73 ms as13335.xe-7-0-3.ar2.ewr1.us.as4436.gtt.net (69.31.95.70) 11 15.85 ms 104.28.19.47 7 10.07 ms he-1-15-0-0-cr01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.70) 8 9.58 ms ae15.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (75.149.228.94) 9 10.98 ms ae7.bbr01.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (173.192.18.194) 10 23.08 ms ae0.bbr01.tl01.atl01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.153) 11 43.01 ms ae13.bbr02.eq01.dal03.networklayer.com (173.192.18.134) 12 43.02 ms po32.dsr02.dllstx3.networklayer.com (173.192.18.231) 13 44.33 ms po32.dsr02.dllstx2.networklayer.com (70.87.255.70) 14 50.71 ms po2.car01.dllstx2.networklayer.com (70.87.254.78) 15 41.94 ms router1-dal.linode.com (67.18.7.90) 16 42.63 ms li799-140.members.linode.com (104.200.21.140) 7 11.36 ms he-0-13-0-1-pe04.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.87.142) 8 10.95 ms xe-7-0-2.was10.ip4.gtt.net (77.67.71.193) 9 87.79 ms xe-4-2-0.par22.ip4.gtt.net (89.149.182.98) 10 87.80 ms online-gw.ip4.gtt.net (46.33.93.90) 11 91.82 ms 49e-s46-1-a9k1.dc3.poneytelecom.eu (195.154.1.77) 12 88.27 ms ssl-scanning-017.malware.watch (195.154.114.206)

1 0

ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement
by Andrew Gallo 16 Dec '14

16 Dec '14

Greetings: In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying Agreement. Acceptance of this agreement is required in order to gain access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL). Given the size and number of these organizations that can't or wont accept the agreement makes me wonder if this is a show stopper that will prevent the adoption of this technology. I've created a quick survey to get an idea of the community's take on this agreement with the idea that if enough organizations indicate it is unacceptable, maybe we can get this agreement changed, or as with other regions, not explicitly required to use the TAL. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10RLBBpL05n1c_H4unHitlsVqNM3rZI5aXAX8iSBc_K… Thank you.

18 53

How do I handle a supplier that delivered a faulty product?
by Baldur Norddahl 16 Dec '14

16 Dec '14

Hello, We are a small FTTH provider and our main business is selling 1000/1000 internet. Our network is GPON based. We recently made the mistake of buying a large shipment of Zhone 2301 modems (ONU). We did test this device before purchase, but unfortunately we failed to notice a severe fault with the product. Soon after putting it into production we got many complaints from customers that the modem would crash daily. Turns out that the device can not handle download streams at or near 1000 Mbps. Especially if the download originates with a server that is 10G connected. GPON downstream is actually 2.4 Gbps. The modem has to deliver on an ordinary 1 Gbps ethernet port. This means the packets can arrive faster than the modem can hand it off on the ethernet side. And when that happens, it will simply crash. The vendor then told us to limit download speed to 750 Mbps with a small buffer of 50 KB. Any faster and the modem can crash amongst other issues. When I told them I do not think I can sell 1000/1000 Mbps internet if I limit the modems to 750 Mbps, as that would be false advertising, I was simply told that the 2301 is a low cost solution, so deal with it. They are not going to work more on fixing the issue. The website and the datasheet does not say anything that would warn you that this product can only handle 750 Mbps: http://www.zhone.com/products/ZNID-GPON-2301/ZNID-GPON-2301.pdf So what do I do now? I am thinking Zhone needs to resolve this in a satisfactory way, which is to either return my money or switch the product to something, that actually delivers what was promised. We have some of their 24xx series and that works perfectly well. So we know it is just the 2301 that is bad. Unfortunately we are apparently to small a customer to them. As this is an USA supplier, will suing them help me any? Yes I know, don't ask for legal advice on a mailing list, and I am not - I just want to know some opinions if that is even worth considering. Or if I will just have to eat it and drive the whole shipment into the harbor. Regards, Baldur

9 12