August 2015 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Verizon exiting California
by Matthew Black 04 Aug '15

04 Aug '15

Verizon sent me a letter the other day stating that they are selling their landline business to Frontier Communications. It was a very terse letter and as a customer I don't know if it affects me. While stating they aren't exiting the Wireless business, I want to know which parts are being sold off. Just the copper lines, POTS, DSL, FIOS (TV, Internet, phone)? Some clarity would be great. I am a FIOS only customer. Can anyone recall if GTE was blocked from doing the same thing a few decades ago? matthew black california state university, long beach

8 14

ISPs/Carriers in LATA 138
by kb3ien+nanog＠databit7.com 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

I'm looking for a solution to provide one-weekend per year access in a rural area 20 km outside Binghamton NY, LATA 138 Can anyone provide any recomendations? Robin kb3ien

3 2

Quakecon: Network Operations Center tour
by Sean Donelan 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

Non-work, work related information. Many NANOG geeks might be interested in this video tour of the Quakecon NOC tour. As any ISP operator knows, gamers complain faster about problems than any NMS, so you've got to admire the bravery of any NOC in the middle of a gaming convention floor. What Powers Quakecon | Network Operations Center Tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOv62lBdlXU

21 41

Re: GoDaddy : DoS :: Contact
by Jason LeBlanc 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

Thanks Mel. You are not being difficult, I meant DoS. The network I inherited doesn’t have BGP yet so I have asked our upstream to blackhole it and I emailed abuse neither have happened yet. I do block it but that’s after it hits our side. //Jason From: Mel Beckman <mel(a)beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> Date: Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM To: Jason LeBlanc <jason.leblanc(a)infusionsoft.com<mailto:jason.leblanc@infusionsoft.com>> Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: GoDaddy : DDoS :: Contact Not to be difficult, but how can it be a DDoS attack if it’s coming from a single IP? Normally you would just block this IP at your borders or ask your upstreams to do so before it consumes your bandwidth. You still want to get GoDaddy to address the problem, of course, but you should do that via their abuse(a)godaddy.com<mailto:abuse@godaddy.com> contact, or their abuse page at https://supportcenter.godaddy.com/AbuseReport/Index (submit via the “malware” button). -mel On Aug 2, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Jason LeBlanc <jason.leblanc(a)infusionsoft.com<mailto:jason.leblanc@infusionsoft.com>> wrote: My company is being DDoS'd by a single IP from a GoDaddy customer. I havent had success with the abuse(a)godaddy.com<mailto:abuse@godaddy.com> email. Was hoping someone that could help might be watching the list and could contact me off-list. //Jason

4 8

DE-CIX vs Equinix
by Colton Conor 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

What are the main difference between these two peering companies, exchanges, and overall operating model? The market in question would be Dallas Texas where Equinix already has the only established peering exchange with over 100 members, and DE-CIX just announced today that that would also be building one in Dallas. It will take time for DE-CIX to establish their exchange in Dallas and get members, but they better question is why would people switch? For a 10G port with a cross connect to the exchange included Equinix charges $1000 per month. According to DE-CIX it looks like they charge $1250 per month for a 10G port in NYC, so I asusme the same would be true in Dallas. https://nyc.de-cix.net/products-services/pricing/ Looks like DE-CIX will offer a promo to entice new members to join, and their exchange will be in the carrier neatural meet me room operated by the infomart that will have little to no cross connect fees. Why would people pay more to connect to an exchange with less members? What is the european exchange that is a non-profit and basically only covers the cost of operating the exchange?

6 10

GoDaddy : DDoS :: Contact
by Jason LeBlanc 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

My company is being DDoS'd by a single IP from a GoDaddy customer. I havent had success with the abuse(a)godaddy.com email. Was hoping someone that could help might be watching the list and could contact me off-list. //Jason

10 20

Windows 10 Release
by Nick Olsen 02 Aug '15

02 Aug '15

Anyone anxious to see what kind of traffic comes from Windows 10 releasing tomorrow? Being a 3-4GB download. Each device is moving more data than any Apple update ever did. Wonder if they'll stage the release as apple appeared to have learned after IOS7 hammered a bunch of networks. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106

27 38

best practice for number of RR
by marco da pieve 02 Aug '15

02 Aug '15

Hi all, this is my first time in asking for advices here and I hope not to bother you with this topic (if it has been already covered in the past, would you please please point me to that discussion?). Anyway, I need to decide whether to go for a BGP topology with a single cluster of 3 Route Reflectors (to overcome a dual point of failure issue) or maybe to two standalone clusters each with two RR (sacrificing half of the network in case two RR of the same cluster fail). To give you some input data: - 8000 actual VPNV4 prefixes - 180 BGP neighbors In case of the 3 RRs option, prefixes will become 24000 on the clients (24k received routes in total but 1/3 installed. No BGP multipath will be used). In this scenario considering network growth up to doubling the current number of VPNV4 prefixes, I would end up to have 16k actual vpnv4 prefixes and 48k vpnv4 prefixes received by the clients, which is almost the limit for the HW used. In the case of two standalone clusters each with two RRs, BGP neighborships will be halved among the two clusters and vpnv4 prefixes too. In case of network growth up to doubling the number of prefixes, the clients will receive up to 24k vpnv4 prefixes and this is still far below the HW limits. Of course this option will not prevent a dual failure in the single cluster and half of the network would end up in outage. My choice would be to go for the two clusters assuming that each RR has supervisor/controlling card protection capabilities. However I'd like to have a feedback on the pros and cons on the design itself if any. I know that design is planned on the resources available but just for discussing and abstracting from the HW, would there be any drawbacks in having an odd number of RR in the network? is one of the two option a no to go choice? what was your experience? thanks a lot for your time and patience to go through this email, M.

3 5

Re: best practice for number of era que
by Alejandro Acosta 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

A El ago 1, 2015 12:05, "marco da pieve" <mdapieve(a)gmail.com> escribió: > > Hi Shane, > for the boxes that are currently installed in the network, this is not a > valid option (politically/commercially speaking). > > thanks, > Marco > > On 1 August 2015 at 18:16, Shane Ronan <shane(a)ronan-online.com> wrote: > > > Have you considered a virtual route reflector rather than physical > > hardware? > > On Aug 1, 2015 11:39 AM, "marco da pieve" <mdapieve(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> this is my first time in asking for advices here and I hope not to bother > >> you with this topic (if it has been already covered in the past, would you > >> please please point me to that discussion?). > >> > >> Anyway, I need to decide whether to go for a BGP topology with a single > >> cluster of 3 Route Reflectors (to overcome a dual point of failure issue) > >> or maybe to two standalone clusters each with two RR (sacrificing half of > >> the network in case two RR of the same cluster fail). > >> > >> To give you some input data: > >> > >> - 8000 actual VPNV4 prefixes > >> - 180 BGP neighbors > >> > >> In case of the 3 RRs option, prefixes will become 24000 on the clients > >> (24k > >> received routes in total but 1/3 installed. No BGP multipath will be > >> used). > >> In this scenario considering network growth up to doubling the current > >> number of VPNV4 prefixes, I would end up to have 16k actual vpnv4 prefixes > >> and 48k vpnv4 prefixes received by the clients, which is almost the limit > >> for the HW used. > >> > >> In the case of two standalone clusters each with two RRs, BGP > >> neighborships > >> will be halved among the two clusters and vpnv4 prefixes too. In case of > >> network growth up to doubling the number of prefixes, the clients will > >> receive up to 24k vpnv4 prefixes and this is still far below the HW > >> limits. > >> Of course this option will not prevent a dual failure in the single > >> cluster > >> and half of the network would end up in outage. > >> > >> My choice would be to go for the two clusters assuming that each RR has > >> supervisor/controlling card protection capabilities. > >> > >> However I'd like to have a feedback on the pros and cons on the design > >> itself if any. I know that design is planned on the resources available > >> but > >> just for discussing and abstracting from the HW, would there be any > >> drawbacks in having an odd number of RR in the network? is one of the two > >> option a no to go choice? what was your experience? > >> > >> thanks a lot for your time and patience to go through this email, > >> > >> M. > >> > > > > > -- > Marco Da Pieve

1 0

Comcast IPv6 issues
by Tom Paseka 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

Can someone from Comcast please reach out? Looks like you're black holing some prefixes. -Tom

2 1