May 2015 - Test - lists.nanog.org

looking glass software
by Bogdan 28 May '15

28 May '15

hello what software do you use for looking glass. for cisco ios and ios-xr? i use the old cougar/version6.net for ios, but ios-xr is not supported. i came across https://github.com/tmshlvck/ulg/ but did't installed yet. are there any other interesting lg's out there? thanks. -- Bogdan

6 5

Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture
by Christopher Morrow 28 May '15

28 May '15

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Luan Nguyen (CBU) <luan.nguyen(a)dimensiondata.com> wrote: > What I am trying to get at is yeah, you still need the l2 extension > encapsulation, but on top you need something for disaster recovery, machines > mobility between data centers, sort of like Vshield Edge using NAT – you can probably what the vm mobilty looks like is a change in the L2 path, right? why make it anymore complicated than that? inside a single availability domain I would expect the L2 domain a vm sees doesn't change, even if the VM itself is moved from physical machine to physical machine. making it more complex at the vm level is probably a bunch of work that doesn't have to happen. > change the NAT pool and update the DNS record, but the internal would remain that sounds like a bunch of work though, which I don't think is really necessary. I'm just a plumber, though so I don't actually know what anyone does with this stuff. > the same no matter where you move it to. LISP seems like a simple > solution…so as specific host route injection, which for enterprise shouldn’t lisp wasn't really finalized (still sort of isn't) when aws/ec2 started going like gang busters. They might have changed technology under the hood, but it doesn't seem like they would have had to (not in a drastic 'change encap type' sort of way at least). > be much of a problem, but DRaaS cloud provider, this could ballooning the > routing table pretty quickly. how so? does the external and internal view from the vm have to be the same? do the public /32's have to be individually routed ? inside what scope at the datacenter? > What does Google use? :) no idea, probably rabbits with different colored carrots?

2 1

Extra rooms
by Brandon Ross 28 May '15

28 May '15

I have 2 extra rooms up for grabs at the St. Francis, checking in on Saturday and out on Thursday under the NANOG rate/room block. First come, first served if you want them, send me the full name of the person(s) that the room should go under and contact info. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross

1 0

Predicting TCP throughput
by Glen Kent 28 May '15

28 May '15

Hi, I am looking at deterministic ways (perhaps employing data science) to predict TCP throughput that i can expect between two end points. I am using the latency (RTT) and the packet loss as the parameters. Is there anything else that i can use to predict the throughput? A related question to this is; If i see an RTT of 150ms and packet loss of 0.01% between points A and B and the maximum throughput then between these as, say 250Mbps. Then can i say that i will *always* get the same (or in a close ballpark) throughput not matter what time of the day i run these tests. My points A and B can be virtual machines spawned on two different data centers, say Amazon Virgina and Amazon Tokyo? So we're talking about long distances here. What else besides the RTT and packet loss can affect my TCP throughput between two end points. I am assuming that the effects of a virtual machine overload would have direct bearing on the RTT and packet loss, and hence should cancel out. What i mean by this is that even if a VM is busy, then that might induce larger losses and increased RTT, and that would affect my TCP throughput. But then i already know what TCP throughput i get when i have a given RTT and loss, and hence should be able to predict it. Is there something that i am missing here? Thanks, Glen

3 2

Atlanta Remote Hands needed for Server Move.
by Don Gould 27 May '15

27 May '15

I have half a dozen servers in the Netstream DC that I need moved to the Cyberwurx DC in Atlanta. I'm looking for some remote hands to assist with moving these machines. Cheers Don http://www.netstreamcom.net/ 200 Sandy Springs Place Atlanta, GA 30328 Cyberwurxhttps://cyberwurx.com/datacenter/ 55 Marietta Street -- Don Gould 31 Acheson Ave Mairehau Christchurch, New Zealand Ph: + 64 3 348 7235 Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699 Ph: +61 3 9111 1821 (Melb)

1 0

SAS Drive Enclosure
by Graham Johnston 27 May '15

27 May '15

I am looking for information about SAS drive enclosures, is there a list like NANOG that covers that area of IT? I am specifically looking for an enclosure that can handle 12 or more drives, I am looking to create a clustered file system between multiple servers and would like to avoid a drive enclosure that only works with a very small number of approved drives. I am looking to support traditional HDDs as well as SSDs. Thanks, Graham Johnston Network Planner Westman Communications Group 204.717.2829 johnstong(a)westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com> P think green; don't print this email.

3 4

Indy Telcom Center
by Mike Hammett 27 May '15

27 May '15

Can anyone here tell a bit of a history on the Indy Telcom Center? What operators (network and datacenter) have occupied what properties over the years? There's about a dozen buildings that were all railroad related in the past. You can see abandoned tracks running through the property at different places. http://www.indytelcom.com/IndyTelcom%20Property%20Map.pdf For instance, At one point Avaya's name was attached to 740 W. Henry. I think it was through an acquisition that they did. The last name attached to that property appears to have been Zenality, but they appear dead. There didn't appear to be any activity (air conditioners, etc.) from the building the last time I was there. 730 W. Henry shows up in Google as SP Telcom. I think I saw a Verizon logo on the door when I was last there, but I didn't document it to be sure. 701 W. Henry is now 365 Datacenters, but was Equinix. Being Equinix and not in a major market, I assume it was a Switch and Data property. Not sure what else has or does operate out of there. 733 W. Henry is LifeLine DataCenter and seems to have been for quite some time. We've got a presence there. 731 W. Henry is Lightbound datacenter. I think they have another one as well on the NE side of the campus. Are 650 W. Henry and 550 S. Kentucky the same building? 710 S. Kentucky seems to now be an AT&T MSC, but not sure whose it was originally. 720 S. Kentucky, WilTel POP? 800 Oliver seems to be under a few hats including Paragon and GAP. Not sure what's going on there. Some of the remaining buildings are other datacenters or carrier POPs, but I have less on them. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

1 0

Re: gmail security is a joke
by Larry Sheldon 27 May '15

27 May '15

On 5/27/2015 03:17, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2015 09:13:47 +0530, Anil Kumar said: >> that link, since I have two-step verification set up, I was presented >> with a demand for a number provided by the Google Authenticator >> app on my phone. I provided that number and only then was I allowed >> to reset the password. > > And you have to pre-register the phone number. > > Sounds about as secure as you're going to get when trying to scale to 10 > digits of users.... > > And as I said earlier - if your threat model involves needing more security > than that, you have bigger problems.. :) As they say, I no longer have a dog in this fight beyond myself and to an extent (advisory capacity) my wife, but I have been having trouble understanding the concept of organizations ("network operators") with large and legitimate concerns for security issues, using gmail. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

1 0

Prefix hijack by INDOSAT AS4795 / AS4761
by Randy 26 May '15

26 May '15

On Thursday March 26th 2015 at 12:18 UTC (and on-going) we are seeing more specifics on one of our prefixes. Anyone else seeing similar or is it just us? 198.98.180.0/23 4795 4795 4761 9304 40633 18978 4436 29889 198.98.182.0/23 4795 4795 4761 9304 40633 18978 4436 29889 -- Randy

12 20

Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks
by Steve 26 May '15

26 May '15

Application layer DDoS attacks , in most (all?) cases require a valid TCP/IP connection, therefore are not spoofed and BCP38 is irrelevant Sent from Steve's iPhone > On May 25, 2015, at 8:00 AM, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks > (Christopher Morrow) > 2. Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks > (Ramy Hashish) > 3. Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks (Randy Bush) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 23:01:50 -0400 > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> > To: jim deleskie <deleskie(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Ramy Hashish <ramy.ihashish(a)gmail.com>, NANOG list > <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks > Message-ID: > <CAL9jLaYf7v-NG_1qGEHtHhASOD6Vea5VJCSJcWhS29GPcRuzPg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:12 PM, jim deleskie <deleskie(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> However, the trusted network initiative might be a good approach to start >>> influencing operators to apply anti-spoofing mechanisms. > > explain how you think the 'trusted network initiative' matters in the slightest? > > -chris > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 06:48:41 +0200 > From: Ramy Hashish <ramy.ihashish(a)gmail.com> > To: morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com, nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks > Message-ID: > <CAOLsBOt_SOwHLZVRgb31nMMX5isiS8rkXojUpP9NyNVU05Dw9w(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > The idea of restricting access to a certain content during an attack on the > "trusted networks" only will make all interested ISPs be more "trusted" > > Ramy > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com >> wrote: > >> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:12 PM, jim deleskie <deleskie(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> However, the trusted network initiative might be a good approach to >> start >>>> influencing operators to apply anti-spoofing mechanisms. >> >> explain how you think the 'trusted network initiative' matters in the >> slightest? >> >> -chris > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 15:18:43 +0900 > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > To: Ramy Hashish <ramy.ihashish(a)gmail.com> > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks > Message-ID: <m2r3q5b2nw.wl%randy(a)psg.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >> The idea of restricting access to a certain content during an attack >> on the "trusted networks" only will make all interested ISPs be more >> "trusted" > > don't the lawyers already have enough money? > > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 88, Issue 25 > *************************************

3 3