June 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

IPv4 Legacy assignment frustration
by Spurling, Shannon 01 Jul '16

01 Jul '16

I am not sure how many on the list are Legacy resource holders from before the RIR's were established, but there is an extremely short sighted security practice that is being used across the internet. Apparently, the RIR that has been given "authority" for an IP prefix range that was a legacy assignment is being used as a geographical locator for those prefixes. For instance, we provide access for several /16's that are in the 150/8 prefix that was set as APNIC. I am aware of quite a few organizations in the US that have prefixes in that range. We have registered our legacy resources with ARIN, but there are some people insist that somehow the state of Missouri must be part of China because... "APNIC!". They set firewalls and access rules based on that, and are hard pressed to not fix them. Is there any way to raise awareness to this inconsistency so that security people will stop doing this? Shannon Spurling shannon(a)more.net

9 9

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 68 Dallas, TX - Call for Presentations is Open!
by L Sean Kennedy 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

NANOG Community, The NANOG Program Committee is excited to announce that we are accepting proposals for all sessions at NANOG 68 in Dallas, TX on October 17-19. I have included key points from the Call for Presentations and the complete text is available on the NANOG website: https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog68/callforpresentations Early bird registration is open for NANOG 68 and hotel rooms in the NANOG block at the Fairmont Dallas can be reserved by those interested in making advance travel plans. We look forward to seeing all of you in Dallas! https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog68/home Sincerely, Sean NANOG Program Committee NANOG 68 Call for Presentations The North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) will hold its 68th conference in Dallas, TX on October 17-19, 2016. CyrusOne will be the Local Host at NANOG 68. The NANOG Program Committee seeks proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, and tracks sessions for the NANOG 68 program. We welcome suggestions of keynote speakers or topic ideas. Presentations may cover current technologies already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet. Vendors are welcome to submit talks which cover relevant technologies and capabilities, but presentations must not be promotional or discuss proprietary solutions. NANOG 68 submissions can be entered on the <https://pc.nanog.org/>NANOG Program Committee Tool <https://pc.nanog.org>. How To Submit The primary speaker, moderator, or author should submit a presentation proposal and an abstract on the Program Committee Tool <https://pc.nanog.org>. Please upload draft slides as soon as possible so the Program Committee can understand the intended structure and level of detail covered by the talk. Draft slides are not required for a proposal to be initiated, but they are usually expected before the Program Committee can definitively accept a submission. The following information should be included in the proposal: - Author's name(s) - Professional or Educational Affiliation - A preferred contact email address - A preferred phone number for contact - Submission category (General Session, Panel, Tutorial, or Track) - Presentation Title - Abstract - Slides (attachment), in PowerPoint (preferred), Keynote, or PDF format Timeline for submission and proposal review - Submitter enters Abstract (and draft slides if possible) in Program Committee Tool <https://pc.nanog.org>. - Any time following Call for Presentations and before deadline for Abstracts - PC performs initial review and assigns a “Shepherd”, who will contact you to help develop the submission. - Within 2 weeks - Submitter develops draft slides of talk - Please submit initial draft slides early - Panels and Track submissions should provide topic list and intended/confirmed participants - PC reviews slides and continues to work with Submitter as needed to develop topic - Draft presentation slides should be submitted prior to published deadline for slides - PC accepts or declines submission - Agenda assembled and posted - Submitters notified If you think you have an interesting topic but want feedback or suggestions for developing an idea into a presentation, please email the Program Committee <nanogpc(a)nanog.org>, and a representative of the Program Committee will respond. Otherwise, submit your talk, keynote, track, or panel proposal to the Program Committee Tool <https://pc.nanog.org> without delay! We look forward to reviewing your submission. Key Dates For NANOG 68 Event/Deadline Date Registration for NANOG 68 Opens Monday, 6/27/2016 Agenda Outline for NANOG 68 Posted Monday, 6/27/2016 CFP Deadline #1: Presentation Abstracts Due Monday, 7/25/2016 CFP Deadline #2: Draft Presentation Slides Due Monday, 8/15/2016 CFP Topic List and NANOG Meeting Highlights Page Friday, 8/19/2016 Speaker Final presentation Slides to PC Tool <https://pc.nanog.org/> Monday, 10/10/2016 On-site Registration Monday, 10/17/2016 Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) Sunday, 10/16/2016 Further Presentation Guidelines can be found under "Present at a NANOG" <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/presentation> and some general advice is available in Tips on Giving a Talk <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/presentation/tips>. The NANOG Program Committee seeks proposals for presentations, panels, tutorial sessions, and tracks in all areas of network operations, such as: - Network Connectivity, Interconnection, and Architecture - Network Management and Configuration including Automation - Network Performance, Measurement, and Telemetry - Data Center and Physical Plant including Cooling and Power Efficiency - Network Research - Internet Governance - Routing and Switching Protocols - Network Data and Control Plane Security - Optical and Transmission Technologies - Wireless Networks - DNS, Transport, and Applications - Network Operations and Engineering Professional Experiences Submissions are welcomed by and for network operators of all sizes. Presentations about difficult problems (and interesting solutions) that you encounter in the course of your job are encouraged. The NANOG registration fee is waived for: - General Session presentations: the conference registration fee will be waived for a maximum of one speaker. - General Session panels: conference registration fees will be waived for one panel moderator and all panelists. - Tracks: conference registration fees will be waived for one moderator. - Tutorials: conference registration fees will be waived for one instructor. _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Brocade Fabric Help
by Mike Hammett 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

I asked on the Brocade forum, but it's largely been crickets there. I hoped someone here would have an idea. One switch says: 23 Te 12/0/24 Up ISL segmented,(ESC mismatch, Distributed Config DB)(Trunk Primary) The other switch says: 23 Te 54/0/24 Up ISL segmented,(ESC mismatch, Distributed Config DB)(Trunk Primary) I saw that means, "The DCM Configuration DB is different on both the ends of ISL," but I have no idea how to resolve that. VDX-6720s running 4.1.3b. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

4 3

AT&T/Bellsouth Fiber Gear
by Morgan A. Miskell 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

Anyone on this list that can put me in touch with a contact in the division within AT&T that manages their fiber equipment deployed in the field? I need to speak with someone regarding some AT&T gear in our data center that is on old Bellsouth Sonet rings...... thanks! You can contact me off list via e-mail please! -- Morgan A. Miskell CaroNet Data Centers 704-643-8330 x206 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute, or take any action or reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. Any unauthorized disclosure of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

route-views.chicago.routeviews.org
by John Kemp 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

As mentioned at the peering personals... route-views.chicago.routeviews.org is now up and running. New peers are welcomed. We request full tables if possible. We send zero back in your direction. Peers should minimally filter default/null/rfc1918 from their view. Our side is: AS6447 206.223.119.187 2001:504:0:4::6447:1 telnet://route-views.chicago.routeviews.org {http/ftp/rsync}://archive.routeviews.org/route-views.chicago A huge thanks to our host, CTS Telecom. Those guys really made it happen. And as always, a huge thanks to Equinix. We could not make this all happen without the help of our hosts and the exchanges, so thanks to all. -- John Kemp RouteViews Network Engineer help(a)routeviews.org

1 0

automated site to site vpn recommendations
by c b 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

Situation: We have salespeople/engineers holding temporary seminars/training/demonstrations in hotel meeting rooms. Requirements: field people need a very plug-n-play, simple, reliable vpn back to corporate offices to present videos/slides/demonstrations. The materials are not accessible via the internet directly, they are in a contained environment at corporate HQ locations but not necessarily on the corp network.the solution should be able to provide wireless to attendees. In some cases, guest login will be fine but in some cases the attendees will have registered and provided login creds prior to the event, and these creds will need to be checked before providing accessthe solution should have the option to split tunnel internet traffic out, but in some cases they need all traffic tunneled and internet will be via our corporate offices (NDA/legal, don't ask, it's just a requirement provided) Nice-to-have: field person should be able to not only access the presentation materials (in their contained network) but also the corporate network. Some early attempts required a user-vpn connection by the field person over the S2S VPN, but it made it clunky to switch back and forth. This isn't mandatory, but it would be nice to provide one solution providing dual-level access: restricted to attendees, less-restricted to field people Tried this in the past with basic router/switch/wireless and captive portals because we had some inventory available... it was workable but not quick or easy. We really could use a simple solution that you just flip on, it calls home, and works... or as close to that as possible. Have been looking at Meraki and a couple other low-touch solutions and they may do the trick, but we are hoping there are lower cost options that people have used successfully? We don't mind dealing with some off brands and even some custom coding (within reason) as long as the end result is a low-touch, reliable solution. Thanks in advance.

14 16

Malware/ransomware current live distribution points
by Ronald F. Guilmette 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

The various domains and IP address listed in the following file are, as we speak, acting as distribution/infection points for some sort of Javascript malware which is almost certainly a flavor of ransomware. ** FAIR WARNING *** Please use exceptional caution when browsing to any of the domains listed within the following file. Doing so with a vlunerable browser and/or from a vulnerable platform is likely to cause encryption of your entire harddrive. Such encryption may perhaps be irreversable without paying a ransom. ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/pub/cases/295165/20160629-0.txt I am including below the same information as is present within the above referenced file, but without the associated domain names. I do this in order to avoid having this message improperly filtered, as it might be, by some of the spam filters being used by some of the people who really should see this message. (But the domain names are all readily available in the above file.) Note that the domain names involved in this particular set of malware distributors are all third-level .COM domains, and that in all cases, the actual text of the first (leftmost) of the three domain name labels is irrelevant and can be replaced by any other valid domain name label because the second level domains have all been wildcarded in the DNS. The following list has been sorted numerically, based on the AS number. RIR ASN IP address -------------------------- RIPE 16276 188.165.62.14 RIPE 16276 5.196.36.42 ARIN 19531 155.94.69.167 ARIN 19757 107.155.188.126 ARIN 33182 184.171.243.123 ARIN 33182 184.171.243.81 ARIN 33182 198.136.53.210 ARIN 46562 107.181.174.10 RIPE 47583 195.110.58.82 RIPE 50673 217.12.208.160 RIPE 50979 195.123.209.55 RIPE 51852 141.255.161.67 RIPE 52048 46.183.216.167 RIPE 56322 91.219.237.211 RIPE 56577 31.41.44.155 RIPE 59432 5.134.117.190 RIPE 59729 185.82.216.204 RIPE 62240 185.120.20.107 APNIC 63912 111.221.44.152 RIPE 201133 82.118.226.13 If you are an administrator of one of the above listed ASNs, or if you know someone who is, please spend a few minutes and help get this hostile trash off the Internet. Thank you. Regards, rfg P.S. Those who do elect to browse to the domains listed in the file cited above, and so do so without getting infected, will notice that the underyling actual web sites are all identical, and are all selling a completely bogus diet supplement called "CLA Safflower Oil". It is unclear at this time whether the criminals behind these IPs and domains are making more money from their ransomware extortion racket, or from selling this bogus diet supplement to naive idiots.

1 0

Fwd: [v6ops] RFC 7872 on Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World
by Fernando Gont 28 Jun '16

28 Jun '16

FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [v6ops] RFC 7872 on Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:57:35 -0700 (PDT) From: rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org To: ietf-announce(a)ietf.org, rfc-dist(a)rfc-editor.org CC: v6ops(a)ietf.org, rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7872 Title: Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World Author: F. Gont, J. Linkova, T. Chown, W. Liu Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: June 2016 Mailbox: fgont(a)si6networks.com, furry(a)google.com, tim.chown(a)jisc.ac.uk, liushucheng(a)huawei.com Pages: 15 Characters: 30924 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17487/RFC7872 This document presents real-world data regarding the extent to which packets with IPv6 Extension Headers (EHs) are dropped in the Internet (as originally measured in August 2014 and later in June 2015, with similar results) and where in the network such dropping occurs. The aforementioned results serve as a problem statement that is expected to trigger operational advice on the filtering of IPv6 packets carrying IPv6 EHs so that the situation improves over time. This document also explains how the results were obtained, such that the corresponding measurements can be reproduced by other members of the community and repeated over time to observe changes in the handling of packets with IPv6 EHs. This document is a product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando(a)gont.com.ar || fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

1 0

Level 3 Technical Contact
by David Nelson 28 Jun '16

28 Jun '16

Please contact me off list if you have a contact at Level 3 that can help. I have performance issues coming out of Las Vegas and ditching routes to Level 3 seems to fix the problem. Has anyone else seen/heard about problems in US Southwest?

1 0

Real world power consumption of a 7604-S or 7606-S
by Eric Kuhnke 28 Jun '16

28 Jun '16

I'm finding that the spec sheet for an RSP720-3CXL says 310W for the supervisor itself. Assuming a dual supervisor configuration in a 7604 or 7606, has anyone put one on a watt meter and measured its actual power consumption? Example: 7604S chassis with dual 2700W DC power - chassis and fans use how much power? 2 x RSP720-3CXL at 310W each WS-X6704 with DFC4 - ???W each

4 4