February 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

algorithm used by (RIPE region) ISPs to generate automatic BGP prefix filters
by Martin T 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

Hi, am I correct that ISPs (in RIPE region), who update their BGP prefix filters automatically, ask their IP transit customer or peering partner to provide their "route"/"route6" object(s) or "as-set" object in order to find all the prefixes which they should accept? If the IP transit customer or peering partner provides an "as-set", then ISP needs to ensure that this "as-set" belongs to this IP transit customer or peering partner because there is no automatic authentication for this, i.e. anybody can create an "as-set" object to database with random "members" attributes? This is opposite to "route"/"route6" objects which follow a strict authentication scheme. In addition, in case of "as-set", an ISP needs to recursively find all the AS numbers from "members" attributes because "as-set" can include other "as-sets"? Quite a lot of question, but I would simply like to be sure that I understand this correctly. thanks, Martin

8 9

Re: PCH Peering Paper
by Livingood, Jason 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like 50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up - could be any percentage.) Jason >On 2/10/16, 6:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Patrick W. Gilmore" ><nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org on behalf of patrick(a)ianai.net> wrote: > >>I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules, >>talking about myself.) >> >>The paper is: >> https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2 >>0 >>11.pdf >> >>I said ³99.97%² of all peering sessions have nothing behind them more >>than a ³handshake² or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Culpa. >> >>The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%. >> >>Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better >>data. >> >>-- >>TTFN, >>patrick >> >> >

1 0

[NANOG-announce] NANOG PC Appointments for 2016-2017
by Daniel Golding 11 Feb '16

11 Feb '16

Greetings NANOG Colleagues, The NANOG Board of Directors has completed the Program Committee selection process. This year, 18 members submitted their candidacies for 7 available positions. We want to thank each and every candidate for considering this important service to our community. We are pleased to announce the two-year term appointment of Kevin Blumberg, Anna Claiborne, Steve Plote, Steve Schecter, Benson Schliesser, Jesse Sowell, and Chris Woodfield to the Program Committee. We also want to thank and recognize the contribution of Greg Hankins, Manish Karir, Michael Sinatra, and Tony Tauber for their service on the Program Committee, which concluded at the San Diego NANOG meeting. In the coming weeks, the new Program Committee will hold its first meeting and select a Chair and a Vice-Chair. Sincerely, Daniel Golding Chairman, NANOG Board of Directors _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Looking for GTT contact
by Paras Jha 11 Feb '16

11 Feb '16

Hello, Can a rep for GTT contact me off-list? I tried twice using their website, but nobody has gotten back to me for a few days now. Thanks in advance!

1 0

[NANOG-announce] Communications Committee
by Daniel Golding 11 Feb '16

11 Feb '16

Greetings NANOG Colleagues, The Board has completed the Communications Committee selection process for 2016. We are pleased to announce the two-year term appointment of Judy de Dios and Michelle Pierce to the Communications Committee. We also want to thank and recognize Randy Epstein for his service on the CC. In the coming weeks, the new Communications Committee will hold its first meeting and select a Chair and a Vice-Chair. Sincerely, Daniel Golding Chairman, NANOG Board of Directors _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

PCH Peering Paper
by Patrick W. Gilmore 10 Feb '16

10 Feb '16

I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules, talking about myself.) The paper is: https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011… I said “99.97%” of all peering sessions have nothing behind them more than a “handshake” or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Culpa. The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%. Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better data. -- TTFN, patrick

2 1

Cable Operator List
by Colton Conor 10 Feb '16

10 Feb '16

Are there any mailing lists out there dedicated for cable/MSO type operators?

14 36

Re: Cable Operator List
by Colton Conor 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

Yes, I looked at CASA, but their small unit is the C1G, which is an 8x8 max DOCSIS 3.0 unit. Plus they want a high price point, almost quadruple what a 16X4 Pico Digital or Harmonic's unit cost. Not seeing the value or specs there to justify it. On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Steven Shalita <sshalita(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Have you looked at Casa Systems? They some smaller density MDU stuff. > > -Steve > > Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any errors. > > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Scott, > > > > Have any idea which exact vendors and model numbers are within this price > > range? So far I have just found mini CMTS systems like the Pico and > > Harmonic's. Both of these are a 16x4 configuration, but no mention of > > remote MAC+PHY nor DOSIS 3.1. Then their is Huawei's solution, but still > I > > think that's more based on C-DOCSIS. Searching the vendors websites you > > recommended show no results for remote MAC+PHY in a small format. > > > >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Scott Helms <khelms(a)zcorum.com> wrote: > >> > >> Colton, > >> > >> D3.1 gear is just coming online right now. If you're going to go with > the > >> smaller PHY+MAC approach I'd just make sure the company has plans to > update > >> their boxes to 3.1 in a decent (your judgement) amount of time. Don't > >> expect any 3.0 box to be software upgradeable to 3.1, the hardware is > quite > >> different. The PHY+MAC boxes are _generally_ < $10k and some are > talking > >> about ~6k. > >> > >> All the vendors we've listed so far have plans for 3.1, but I don't > have a > >> timeline for any of them. Right now the market is still trying to > decide > >> how modular CMTS will be rolled out, remote PHY, remote MAC+PHY, or a > >> combination. For example, Cisco is (for the moment) betting that remote > >> PHY economics will be compelling for the larger operators, while Arris > is > >> doing both approaches. > >> > >> > >> Scott Helms > >> Chief Technology Officer > >> ZCorum > >> (678) 507-5000 > >> -------------------------------- > >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > >> -------------------------------- > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Is a remote MAC+PHY the same thing as a Distributed Converged Cable > >>> Access Platform (D-CCAP) solution like Huawei is pushing? Is DOCSIS 3.1 > >>> even out, or am I looking for something that does not exist yet? > >>> > >>> Are these remote MAC+PHY devices in the under 10K price range that > these > >>> smaller all in one CMTS platforms are? > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Scott Helms <khelms(a)zcorum.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor(a)gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Yes, we are in the USA. So based on everyones recommendations, I am > >>>>> going to stay far away from EURODOCSIS. I was told be a vendor that > >>>>> Arris and other USA FCC certified cable modems could easily be > flashed to > >>>>> EURODOCIS mode, so I did not think the CPE side was that big of a > deal (is > >>>>> that even true). I was not aware that there were so many differences > >>>>> besides just the channel width. > >>>> > >>>> I wish this were the case, it would make my life easier. The problem > is > >>>> that there is a diplex filter that prevents the upstream burst from > being > >>>> heard by the downstream receiver and for cost purposes all the D3 and > >>>> earlier modems have fixed filters. What that means is that a > EuroDOCSIS > >>>> modem can (sometimes) be flashed to use 6MHz channels, but the > reverse is > >>>> NOT true. In any case we don't recommend using Euro modems that are > >>>> flashed to US standards in production (nor do the vendors) because > you'll > >>>> see much more upstream leakage. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So, assuming we are talking about DOCSIS only (and not EURODOCSIS), > >>>>> what do you recommend? I like the idea of being able to upgrade to > 3.1, but > >>>>> not sure if there are any small systems capable of this? By small I > mean > >>>>> something that could feed less than 100 units, and be economical to > do. > >>>>> Cable has the advantage of cheap modems, so it's really the CMTS > side. > >>>> > >>>> In that case I'd definitely go with a remote MAC+PHY. That's the only > >>>> way you're going to get a good price point and decent performance > unless > >>>> you want to use the secondary market, which actually isn't a bad idea > right > >>>> now. A used 7225 with 8x8 blades is pretty cheap, but it's > centralized > >>>> CMTS that would cover ~3k subs. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Please remember I am only interested in data internet services over > >>>>> this plant. Something that works for garden style layouts where I > can bring > >>>>> fiber or coaxial to the side of a garden townhome that has between 4 > to 16 > >>>>> units inside of it. The reason I requested a harden outdoor unit is > that > >>>>> most all of the garden style properties have both the phone > >>>>> and coaxial drops on the outside of the building. There is no central > >>>>> closet or room. Plus we are in the south, so hardened for the > >>>>> heat exposure makes sense. > >>>>> > >>>>> A remote MAC-PHY (or pre remote MAC-PHY, ala mini CMTS) sounds like > >>>>> what I want. I will check into Huawei and Gainspeed. Who else makes > these? > >>>> > >>>> In no particular order, Arris is or will be, Teleste (Euro vendor > trying > >>>> to break into the US), Sumavision, Altera, and ton more I can't > remember. > >>>> Come to one of the SCTE shows (it's in Philadelphia this year) if you > want > >>>> to be deluged with them :) > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Scott Helms <khelms(a)zcorum.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nick, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Absolutely, if your plant is in Europe or one of the other areas > (lots > >>>>>> of Africa and the middle East is like that) that adopted EuroDOCSIS > I'd > >>>>>> agree wholeheartedly. I didn't see Colton say where they're > located, but > >>>>>> all North America is the US flavor so that's what I assume on NANOG. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That being said, the best thing that seldom gets mentioned about > D3.1 > >>>>>> is getting us to unified channelization. > >>>>>> Scott Helms wrote: > >>>>>>> That very small upside for an extreme downside.Trying to hire > someone > >>>>>>> to work on your system with Euro channelization, not to mention > >>>>>> buying > >>>>>>> amplifiers and passives is a huge PITA. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ... if your plant is in the US. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have customers in Europe who > >>>>>>> decided to do US DOCSIS and they universally wish they had used the > >>>>>>> local "flavor". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> as you say, eurodocsis works well in europe. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3.1 will be a major improvement when it materialises. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nick > >> >

1 0

UDP Amplification DDoS - Help!
by Mitch Dyer 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

Hello, Hoping someone can point me in the right direction here, even just confirming my suspicions would be incredibly helpful. A little bit of background: I have a customer I'm working with that is downstream of a 1Gb link that is experiencing multiple DDoS attacks on a daily basis. Through several captures I've seen what appear to be a mixture of SSDP and DNS amplification attacks (though not at the same time). The attack itself seems to target the PAT address associated with a specific site, if we change the PAT address for the site, the attack targets the new address at the next occurance. We've tried setting up captures and logging inside the network to determine if the SSDP/DNS request originate within the network but that does not appear to be the case. We've reached out for some assistance from the upstream carrier but they've only been able to enforce a 24-hour block. I'm hoping someone with some experience on this topic would be able to shed some light on a better way to attack this or would be willing to confirm that we are simply SOL without prolonged assistance from the upstream carrier. Thanks in advance for any insight. Mitch

9 9

[NANOG-announce] Nominations for 2016 NANOG Committees
by Valerie Wittkop 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

Sent on behalf of the Executive Director Greetings NANOG Colleagues, If you missed the nominations deadline for the Program Committee or Communications Committee, this is your chance to still submit. If you, or someone you know, would make a great candidate for a NANOG Committee, please send the name and email address to elections(a)nanog.org no later than 1pm Pacific, Tuesday, February 9. We will make sure the nominee receives the candidate form and is included in the 2016 Committee Appointment Process. Should there be any questions, please send a message to elections(a)nanog.org. Sincerely, Betty Burke NANOG Executive Director 2864 Carpenter Rd. Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Tel: +1 866 902 1336 -- Valerie Wittkop NANOG Program Director +1.866.902.1336, Ext. 103 _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0