July 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Gmail down
by Josh Luthman 05 Jul '16

05 Jul '16

Web interface is broken, downdetector sure sees activity. This attempt is from mobile. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373

14 21

Recommendations for used satellite decoder resellers
by Jason Lixfeld 05 Jul '16

05 Jul '16

Hello, I’m wondering if anyone can refer me to a company they’ve used in the past who may have (access to) used satellite decoder equipment. I’m in the market for some used Sencore kit. Thanks in advance!

2 1

RE: IPv6 deployment excuses - IPv6 only resources
by Jacques Latour 04 Jul '16

04 Jul '16

Is there a list of IPv6 only ISP or services? I'd be curious to trend that somehow, by geography, service type, etc... if any. >-----Original Message----- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews >Sent: July-04-16 9:49 AM >To: Matt Hoppes >Cc: Tore Anderson; nanog(a)nanog.org >Subject: Re: IPv6 deployment excuses > > >In message <B9CDA0F3-AE6F-435D-9904- >C2AE05BCCCCB(a)rivervalleyinternet.net>, Matt Hoppes writes: >> I disagree. Any data center or hosting provider is going to continue >> to offer IPv4 lest they island themselves from subscribers who have >> IPv4 only - which no data center is going to do. >> >> One can not run IPv6 only because there are sites that are only IPv4. >> >> Thus, as an ISP you can safely continue to run IPv4. Ipv4 won't be >> going away for at least ten years or more - if ever. >> >> I'm not saying don't be ready for IPv6. I'm not saying don't >> understand how it works. But doomsday isn't here. > >There are ISP's that are essentially IPv6 only today as they do not have enough >IPv4 addresses to give all their customers a public >IPv4 address. > >Once you need to run a GGN you may as well run DS-Lite, MAP* or >(shudder) DNS64/NAT64 as NAT444. There is no need to talk IPv4 to your >customers today. You still need a small number of IPv4 address to talk to >legacy IPv4 servers on the internet. Just because there owners don't know they >are legacy servers doesn't mean they aren't. > >Mark >-- >Mark Andrews, ISC >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org

2 1

Looking for a Seabone / Telecom Italia Sparkle rep
by Paul S. 04 Jul '16

04 Jul '16

Hi guys, Does anyone have any good Seabone / Telecom Italia Sparkle representatives whose contacts they don't mind passing along? Looking for service in Asia, particularly Singapore and Hong Kong markets. Having absolutely no luck with the standard sales channels, no one has gotten back to us. We've been trying for a while. Thanks in advance!

1 0

Charter FYI - FW: [SANOG] Reliance Jio (AS55836) origating a /16 belonging to Charter (AS20115)
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 03 Jul '16

03 Jul '16

From: sanog <sanog-bounces(a)sanog.org> on behalf of Anurag Bhatia <me(a)anuragbhatia.com> Date: Sunday, 3 July 2016 at 8:46 PM To: SANOG <sanog(a)sanog.org> Subject: [SANOG] Reliance Jio (AS55836) origating a /16 belonging to Charter (AS20115) Hello everyone! Is anyone from Jio network engineering team on this list? I see AS55836 is originating 47.35.0.0/16 while the pool belongs to Charter. There's even /18 slices of the pool being announced by Charter. >From Oregon route-views: route-views>sh ip bgp 47.35.0.0/16 long | exclude 20115 BGP table version is 18764390, local router ID is 128.223.51.103 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 47.35.0.0/16 195.208.112.161 0 3277 3267 174 64049 55836 i * 217.192.89.50 0 3303 6762 64049 55836 i * 212.66.96.126 0 20912 1267 64049 55836 i * 162.243.188.2 0 393406 6453 6762 64049 55836 i * 192.241.164.4 0 62567 2914 174 64049 55836 i * 129.250.0.11 1007 0 2914 174 64049 55836 i * 104.192.216.1 0 46450 174 64049 55836 i * 202.93.8.242 0 24441 3491 3491 174 64049 55836 i * 66.59.190.221 0 6539 577 6762 64049 55836 i * 144.228.241.130 80 0 1239 174 64049 55836 i * 207.172.6.20 0 0 6079 3356 174 64049 55836 i Does not seem good! -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com _______________________________________________ sanog mailing list sanog(a)sanog.org https://lists.sanog.org/mailman/listinfo/sanog

3 3

Charter CMTS help requested
by Daniel Brisson 01 Jul '16

01 Jul '16

Hello, I’m hoping a Charter engineer with CMTS expertise would be willing to hit me off-list regarding a chronic connectivity issue. I’m getting nowhere with customer service or escalation and would love to talk to someone who could get to the root cause. Thanks in advance, -dan

1 0

yahoo mta admin help needed
by Lyndon Nerenberg 01 Jul '16

01 Jul '16

Is there a Yahoo MTA admin listening who can help diagnose what might be a network ACL block to one of our SMTP server subnets? Thanks, --lyndon

2 1

XO NOC
by Morgan A. Miskell 01 Jul '16

01 Jul '16

Anyone from the XO NOC online that can help with a routing issue? If so, contact me directly off-list please.....oh and due to the routing issue you would need to email me at mormis99(a)gmail.com. -- 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
by Matt Peterson 01 Jul '16

01 Jul '16

This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not reflect well for our community at large. Regardless of the content or accuracy of the data presented (not the intention of this thread), specific members of the community (some of which are sponsors) were clearly targeted in a hurtful manner. The delivery of the content did not seem within the spirit of NANOG, but instead a personal opinion piece. While no specific rules of the speaking guidelines <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/presentation/guidelines> were likely broken, this does bring up a point of where the acceptable threshold exists (if at all). To be abundantly clear - I have nothing against the content itself, the presenter, the PC's choice of allowing this talk, etc. - I only wish to clarify if our guidelines need modernization. As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to industry suppliers (that may also be fellow competitors, members, and/or suppliers)? For example, router vendors are routinely compared without specific names mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a service provider any different? --Matt

54 116

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