March 2014 - Test - lists.nanog.org

59.229.189.0/24
by greg whynott 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

Hello, Up until today we have been able to reach hosts in the 59.229.189.0/24network via AS174, Cogent, in Toronto. Now we can not, our packets stop at 38.112.36.101. The support team at Cogent informed me that network isn't in the internet routing table. I attempted to do an AS lookup on it and sure enough it is not. Using looking glass routers in Korea indicate the same. Yet it is still reachable from other networks, I can use 'Team Viewer' and webx to connect to hosts at the remote office which sits within that /24. When on the remote site, i can do traceroutes back to our office in Toronto. This part is a bit confusing to me, from Toronto I get a 'no route to host'. So packets arriving from Korea to our network shouldn't be able to find a route back, even if its taking a different path. any guess why this network may not be advertising its routes or what is going on here? thanks in advance, greg This is the network route from Toronto to Korea: Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 10.101.2.1 0.0% 6 1.5 15.1 1.5 83.3 33.4 2. 10.101.111.11 0.0% 6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 3. 10.101.101.101 0.0% 6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.0 4. 38.122.184.161 0.0% 6 <-- ISP ROUTER 5. 38.20.50.130 0.0% 6 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 0.0 6. 38.112.36.101 89.0% 5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 0.0 This is the route from Korea to Toronto, done at the same time as the above. 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 58.229.189.1 3 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.254.241.205 4 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 58.229.66.9 5 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 58.229.66.105 6 7 ms 5 ms 3 ms 58.229.119.149 7 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 118.221.7.34 8 144 ms 144 ms 144 ms 58.229.92.254 9 276 ms 208 ms 192 ms te-8-2.car1.SanJose2.Level3.net [4.59.0.161] 10 204 ms 162 ms 162 ms ae-2-70.edge1.SanJose3.Level3.net[4.69.152.80] 11 165 ms 165 ms 165 ms Cogent-level3-4x10G.SanJose.Level3.net[4.68.110.138] 12 156 ms 156 ms 156 ms be2000.ccr21.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.6.105] 13 166 ms 165 ms 165 ms be2164.ccr21.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.28.33] 14 187 ms 187 ms 187 ms be2256.mpd21.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.6.90] 15 206 ms 206 ms 206 ms be2158.mpd21.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.7.130] 16 216 ms 216 ms 216 ms be2081.ccr21.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.42.10] 17 221 ms 221 ms 221 ms te3-8.ccr02.yyz01.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.5.85] 18 231 ms 230 ms 230 ms te4-1.mag03.yyz01.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.86.82] 19 214 ms 215 ms 214 ms 38.122.184.162 <-- OUR ROUTER

4 5

RE: misunderstanding scale
by Naslund, Steve 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

I don't buy that one at all. Grandma does not care or know about ipv4 or ipv6. When the ipv4 CPE gets installed it blocks inbound connections by default, why would ipv6 be any different? Windows firewall if she is relying on that should not have any problems with v6 than it does with v4. I am also pretty sure that grandma does not care that NAT is present or not. In fact, grandma's cell phone might already using v6. If the equipment does not work right out of the box, that is the equipment supplier or service provider problem. Do you really believe that most people deploying home gateways understand ipv4, NAT, or stateful firewalls? No, they plug it in and the defaults should work for them. It might require an engineering degree (or reading) to understand how IPv6 works however grandma does not need to know how IPv6 works or even how a network works. She plugs in the CPE, plugs in her PC and off you go. The smart people on this list are to ones that need to know how is works. If we can't make the customer experience transparent to them, then bad on us. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Maurand [mailto:cmaurand@xyonet.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:34 PM To: Naslund, Steve Subject: Re: misunderstanding scale On 3/24/2014 12:53 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > If they have a stateful IPv6 firewall (which they should and which most firewall vendors support), they already have what they need to prevent their internal systems from being accessible from the outside. If you are an enterprise and you don't have a stateful firewall, you are in trouble from a security standpoint whether you run v4 or v6. If you cannot configure a stateful firewall to block connections being initiated from outside, you are not qualified to be working with the firewall, v4 or v6 does not matter. If someone is relying on NAT in case their firewall is misconfigured, they have major issues with security. > > In the home, I am not sure what the major issue is there either. How many CPE devices have you seen that do not implement basic firewall functionality? People may not use them correctly but that is no more an issue with v6 than it is with v4. Most CPE even comes out of the box blocking inbound connections by default. > But grandma doesn't have the ability to deploy a statefull firewall at her house. She doesn't even understand what statefull means putting up a NAT firewall on an IPv4 network is simple and it's easy. It provides adequate protection of one's internal network from the outside. You plug them in and they work. IPv6 just about requires an engineering degree to understand it. Nobody thought about simplicity with it.

1 0

Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
by Bryan Fields 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: > The solution seems to be competition or regulation. I'd prefer competition to regulation. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

7 6

Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
by Jay Ashworth 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

L3 escalates on Peering/CDN/Neutrality. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/level-3-blames-intern… -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

17 26

Survey on Internet Disputes.
by Kshitiz Verma 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

Hi, I am Kshitiz Verma, a Ph.D. student in Madrid, Spain, working in the area of studies on the Internet ecosystem. We are conducting a survey on the Internet disputes, not limited to, but mainly focusing on de-peering. We will appreciate responses from the community that help us build our data on such incidences. We did an initial search ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajn7QWBNzSlLdGo3UzFDVkNvdGVwYn…) but unfortunately the results we obtained were mostly limited to well known disputes in North America. We believe there should be more of them but are hard to find, 1. if they occur outside the Tier 1 regime. 2. if outside USA. 3. because the local news may not always be in English. 4. they may not last long or may not have as big an impact and find place in news. We are posting We are also looking for instances like Youtube hijacking by Pakistan Telecom is not a dispute between any two ASes but still for repairing purposes, connectivity between Pakistan Telecom and PCCW (AS 3491), Hong Kong was disrupted. At the same time, we are not looking for disruption of the Internet connectivity due to an accident like Taiwan earthquake in December 2006. As claimed in http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~misra/news/CD070113.pdf , 500 to 1000 de-peering happens on a daily basis today. We are curious to know how this number has evolved since its inception (starting from post commercialization of NSFNET is already very good but before that is excellent :-) ). Please fill in the following form if you have some information that you may want to share with us. Also, as there are so many de-peerings happening, there is a high possibility that most of these don't become International News, so to get information on these disputes we expanded our search to local and regional News but unfortunately this has not added significant information. Once the results are processed and filtered, we intend to share them publicly. Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1X6msZeK0_3SIaIK8IxZaO2-Vrl1MPh_8dTSpbG0oGz… Many thanks in advance :-) Kshitiz Verma

3 3

tools similar to stat.ripe.net?
by Damien Burke 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

Hello, Are there any tools similar to the routing tab at stat.ripe.net ? To be more specific, I'm looking for the "BGP route visibility" feature. -Damien

3 2

TIMELY - Request for expedited input on development process for IANA oversight transition plan
by John Curran 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

NANOGers - On Friday 14 March, the United States Government announced that it intends to transition oversight of key Internet functions (including the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA) to the global multi-stakeholder community. NTIA has asked ICANN to facilitate, in consultation with the global multi-stakeholder community, the development of a proposal for the transition of IANA oversight. NTIA announcement - <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…> I believe that this is a topic which some in the NANOG community may want to participate in, given the importance of the Internet identifier system to proper operation of the Internet. It clearly has potential for impacting ARIN's performance of its mission, as such we will be discussing this topic at our upcoming ARIN 33 meeting in Chicago next month. This may also be a topic that warrants discussion at NANOG 61 in June. However, on a very expedited basis prior to these events, ICANN is seeking input on the timeline and process to be used for development of the IANA transition plan, and so I am forwarding some information to the extent that any in the NANOG community have views on the plan development process. Note that the deadline for this initial input is 3 days hence (27 March 2014), and a draft process and timeline incorporating input received will be put out by ICANN for community consultation and comment on 7 April 2014. Please find attached the ARIN announcement covering this consultation process; my apologies for disturbing your inbox on a topic that may not be of interest to the entire community, but we'd prefer to be overly informative in matters such as these. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net<mailto:jcurran@arin.net>> Subject: [arin-ppml] TIMELY - Request for expedited input to IANA plan development process (was: ARIN and the Evolution of the IANA Functions) Date: March 24, 2014 at 3:47:06 PM GMT+8 To: ARIN <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> Cc: "arin-ppml(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>" <arin-ppml(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 11:20 PM, ARIN <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> wrote: Separately, ICANN released a timeline that details its expectations of the multi-stakeholder consultation process. More information on these plans will undoubtedly come out of the upcoming ICANN Meeting in Singapore from 23-27 March. The timeline document is available here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14… Today at ICANN 49 in Singapore, there was a session which discussed the need to develop an IANA Accountability plan, as it will be necessary to provide NTIA with a community-wide plan for transition of the oversight duties which they presently perform. ICANN is coordinating the effort to develop this plan for IANA transition, and the first step is establishing a formal timeline and process for plan development. ICANN has provided a mail list for expedited input on the _process_ to be used for IANA transition plan development. This includes items such as feedback on the timeline document noted above, engagement processes, etc. The list is here: <ianatransition(a)icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>> (An public archive is also available here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/>) The goal is to gather the input by 27 March 2014, and then combine the mail list discussion and the discussions happening at ICANN 49, with the resulting timeline and next steps to be released for public comment and community feedback on 7 April 2014. If you have specific views on the process for development of the IANA transition plan, please contribute promptly. Thank you! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML(a)arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info(a)arin.net if you experience any issues.

1 0

Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
by David Miller 23 Mar '14

23 Mar '14

Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong "competition" will require "regulation". -------- Original message -------- From: "Mike." <the.lists(a)mgm51.com> Date: 03/20/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00) To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote: |On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: |> The solution seems to be competition or regulation. |I'd prefer competition to regulation. ============= If real and true competition exists, yes.

6 6

[ARIN-20140323.54] arin representation
by Randy Bush 23 Mar '14

23 Mar '14

two questions: o of the /24s in the arin region, what percentage are owned by arin members? o of the address holders in the arin region, what percentage are arin members? i understand that the latter will be slightly jittered because of the database mess with multiple org ids for one entity. but i suspect you can get close enough for government work. randy

1 0

Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
by Larry Sheldon 22 Mar '14

22 Mar '14

On 3/22/2014 12:24 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > It's my understanding and experience that most gov't jurisdictions will give > CLECs and other telecommunication providers access to the RoW -- generally > speaking it's not exclusive to ILECs or MSOs. Now the challenge may be > finding room in the existing RoW for another provider, but the challenges > are not typically politically or "regulatorily" motivated. IANAL I agree that the nasty gubbermint (much as I would rather be wrong here) has little to do with any of the RoW (Rights of Way) I know anything at all (precious little, it is) about. There are RoW and there are RoW. And the rules for each are different and codified (so far as I know) in the deed. There are railroad RoW granted in most case as a freebie from the gubbermint and over which the owning railroad has absolute control. There is the RoW around the perimeter of my property which is open it appears to me to any "utility". I don't know what all is in it here, but at a minimum it is the power company, the "telephone" company, and the "cable" company. I know of people whose property has no access to a public street and the owners thereof have a RoW across other people's property which right grants authority to build and maintain a roadway. There are power line and pipeline RoW where the owner has full rights to the surface as long as access to the facility involved is involved. Of course there are RoW owned and maintained by a variety of agencies for roadways and canals and I suppose they can be a little stuff about sharing. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

1 0