November 2017 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Anyone from Earthlink here?
by Anne P. Mitchell Esq. 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

If anybody is here from Earthlink - or knows anyone at Earthlink, could you pretty please connect with me? Thank you! Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop

1 0

ATT AVPN BGP Communities
by Ryan, Spencer 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

Hey All, Does anyone know if AVPN lets end users set/add their own communities to routes? I see that they stamp several on the routes we originate (Community: 13979:2741 13979:2943 13979:5000 13979:6551) and curious if anyone had luck adding their own before I go start mucking around. Thanks! Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | sryan(a)arbor.net<mailto:sryan@arbor.net> Arbor Networks | The security division of NETSCOUT +1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m) www.arbornetworks.com<http://www.arbornetworks.com/>

2 1

Any one from Akamai here ? Got a problem.
by Bob Evans 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

We do not know why we are being blocked....at www.costco.com Name: e6025.a.akamaiedge.net Address: 104.96.118.20 Appears only via Los Angeles. Other paths , via San Jose , Palo Alto - via other transits all work fine....to this IP address. Here is the error reported to several sites all on Akamai. Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.costco.com/" on this server. Reference #18.c60ad717.1511897450.524468b7 Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.costco.com/services.html" on this server. Reference #18.c60ad717.1511898193.52508dce Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.loopnet.com/index.html" on this server. Reference #18.940ad717.1511898022.2f14cff8 Thank You Bob Evans CTO

3 2

Packet Loss through Level 3 in Southern California?
by Gregorio Focaccio 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

Hi All, We are an MSP in San Diego that also offers multi-datacenter Colo and Cloud hosting. We are multi-homed with Level 3 and Cogent. A physical server client reported newly slow FTP transfers, so we started a network investigation. Our data (see below) seem to show packet loss through Level 3 with associated slow TCP based data transfers. Is anyone else seeing packet loss and consequent slow TCP based transfers when going through Level 3 in (LosAngeles1) Southern California? Thanks, Greg Focaccio CARI.net<https://cari.net/> Testing Data: ********** Internal tests - OK ********** FTP transfers from client server to another server 3 hops away in our adjacent datacenter was normal ********** Level 3 data - packet loss ********** External tests via Level 3 - 12% Packet Loss - see data below UDP IPERF testing from our data center (through Level 3 and Microsoft - trace below) to an Azure server showed repeatable packet loss TCP based testing - such as FTP or SCP transfers - the rate was very slow about 4Mbps [root@raynor ~]# iperf3 -c 40.80.156.2 -b 10000m Connecting to host 40.80.156.2, port 5201 [ 4] local 71.6.220.101 port 55684 connected to 40.80.156.2 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 1001 KBytes 8.20 Mbits/sec 34 9.76 KBytes [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 503 KBytes 4.12 Mbits/sec 12 11.2 KBytes [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 502 KBytes 4.11 Mbits/sec 3 25.1 KBytes [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 502 KBytes 4.11 Mbits/sec 12 11.2 KBytes [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 377 KBytes 3.08 Mbits/sec 9 15.3 KBytes [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 502 KBytes 4.11 Mbits/sec 10 19.5 KBytes [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 377 KBytes 3.09 Mbits/sec 13 6.97 KBytes [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 251 KBytes 2.06 Mbits/sec 9 5.58 KBytes [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 251 KBytes 2.06 Mbits/sec 6 9.76 KBytes [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 251 KBytes 2.06 Mbits/sec 10 12.6 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 4.41 MBytes 3.70 Mbits/sec 118 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 4.24 MBytes 3.56 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done. [root@raynor ~]# iperf3 -u -c 40.80.156.2 -b 10000m Connecting to host 40.80.156.2, port 5201 [ 4] local 71.6.220.101 port 39221 connected to 40.80.156.2 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Total Datagrams [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 85.0 MBytes 712 Mbits/sec 62402 [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 94.0 MBytes 789 Mbits/sec 69043 [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 92.6 MBytes 777 Mbits/sec 68030 [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 76.5 MBytes 641 Mbits/sec 56153 [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 94.9 MBytes 796 Mbits/sec 69662 [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 97.7 MBytes 819 Mbits/sec 71713 [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 98.5 MBytes 826 Mbits/sec 72347 [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 92.7 MBytes 778 Mbits/sec 68085 [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 91.3 MBytes 765 Mbits/sec 67045 [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 59.3 MBytes 498 Mbits/sec 43551 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 883 MBytes 740 Mbits/sec 0.014 ms 75647/647955 (12%) [ 4] Sent 647955 datagrams iperf Done. [root@raynor ~]# traceroute 40.80.156.2 traceroute to 40.80.156.2 (40.80.156.2), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gateway (71.6.220.97) 6.170 ms 7.827 ms 10.718 ms 2 209.126.134.65 (209.126.134.65) 0.426 ms 0.420 ms 0.543 ms 3 216.98.153.21 (216.98.153.21) 159.936 ms 160.215 ms 160.209 ms 4 gi1-2.gw65-50.c5.sdcix.net (216.98.153.89) 170.977 ms 170.972 ms 170.964 ms 5 xe-8-3-3.bar1.SanDiego1.Level3.net (4.16.105.93) 0.547 ms 0.586 ms 0.533 ms 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 Microsoft-level3-20G.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.111.122) 17.296 ms 18.026 ms 20.200 ms 9 be-61-0.ibr01.lax03.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.8.104) 30.108 ms 32.300 ms 32.283 ms 10 be-4-0.ibr01.by2.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.4.3) 30.364 ms 30.961 ms 28.960 ms 11 104.44.7.198 (104.44.7.198) 31.870 ms 30.120 ms 29.636 ms 12 ae100-0.icr01.by21.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.11.194) 27.828 ms ae101-0.icr01.by4.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.11.193) 29.611 ms ae100-0.icr01.by21.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.11.194) 27.710 ms 13 * * * [root@raynor ~]# scp ubuntu-14.04.5-desktop-amd64.iso carinet@40.80.156.2:/home/carinet/ubuntunew11.iso<mailto:carinet@40.80.156.2:/home/carinet/ubuntunew11.iso> ubuntu-14.04.5-desktop-amd64.iso 100% 1053MB 730.8KB/s 24:35 LEVEL3 - summary CARIcloud to Azure 2 Mbits/s TCP iperf 800 Mbits/s UDP iperf 24m and 35s 1053 MB upload to Azure through SCP ********** Cogent data - OK ********** External tests via Cogent - OK - No significant loss - see IPERF and trace data below [root@raynor ~]# iperf3 -c 40.80.156.2 -b 10000m Connecting to host 40.80.156.2, port 5201 [ 4] local 71.6.220.101 port 45076 connected to 40.80.156.2 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 149 MBytes 1.25 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 180 MBytes 1.51 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 178 MBytes 1.50 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 180 MBytes 1.51 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 180 MBytes 1.51 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 180 MBytes 1.51 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 179 MBytes 1.50 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 180 MBytes 1.51 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 181 MBytes 1.52 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 180 MBytes 1.51 Gbits/sec 0 4.58 MBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.73 GBytes 1.48 Gbits/sec 0 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.73 GBytes 1.48 Gbits/sec receiver iperf Done. [root@raynor ~]# iperf3 -u -c 40.80.156.2 -b 10000m Connecting to host 40.80.156.2, port 5201 [ 4] local 71.6.220.101 port 39130 connected to 40.80.156.2 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Total Datagrams [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 101 MBytes 844 Mbits/sec 73869 [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 103 MBytes 861 Mbits/sec 75344 [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 99.0 MBytes 830 Mbits/sec 72700 [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 97.9 MBytes 821 Mbits/sec 71885 [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 98.0 MBytes 822 Mbits/sec 71979 [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 100 MBytes 841 Mbits/sec 73640 [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 69.8 MBytes 585 Mbits/sec 51237 [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 94.9 MBytes 796 Mbits/sec 69650 [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 102 MBytes 855 Mbits/sec 74804 [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 100 MBytes 839 Mbits/sec 73407 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 965 MBytes 809 Mbits/sec 0.004 ms 3194/708505 (0.45%) [ 4] Sent 708505 datagrams iperf Done. [root@raynor ~]# traceroute 40.80.156.2 traceroute to 40.80.156.2 (40.80.156.2), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gateway (71.6.220.97) 9.892 ms 10.883 ms 15.574 ms 2 209.126.134.65 (209.126.134.65) 1.541 ms 1.966 ms 1.959 ms 3 216.98.153.21 (216.98.153.21) 0.523 ms 0.517 ms 0.511 ms 4 216.98.153.114 (216.98.153.114) 0.589 ms 0.480 ms 0.687 ms 5 te0-0-1-0.nr11.b005949-0.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.122.61) 1.045 ms 1.039 ms 1.072 ms 6 te0-0-0-3.agr11.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.24.32.53) 1.023 ms 0.823 ms te0-0-0-3.agr12.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.24.32.65) 1.359 ms 7 te0-0-1-3.rcr11.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.24.31.21) 0.919 ms te0-0-1-3.rcr12.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.24.31.37) 0.834 ms 0.874 ms 8 be2936.rcr11.sna02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.45.166) 3.947 ms 3.726 ms be2937.rcr12.sna02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.45.173) 3.221 ms 9 be2463.agr22.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.80.61) 4.095 ms 3.960 ms 4.087 ms 10 be2584.ccr41.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.33) 4.364 ms 3.961 ms be2586.ccr41.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.245) 4.290 ms 11 be3360.ccr41.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.25.150) 4.283 ms be3271.ccr41.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.102) 4.020 ms 4.003 ms 12 38.142.33.250 (38.142.33.250) 3.828 ms 3.818 ms 3.481 ms 13 be-61-0.ibr01.lax03.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.8.104) 15.565 ms 15.291 ms 15.173 ms 14 be-4-0.ibr01.by2.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.4.3) 14.290 ms 13.903 ms 16.168 ms 15 104.44.7.198 (104.44.7.198) 15.445 ms 14.098 ms 13.866 ms 16 ae102-0.icr02.by21.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.11.198) 13.752 ms ae100-0.icr01.by21.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.11.194) 14.378 ms ae101-0.icr01.by4.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.11.193) 13.813 ms [root@raynor ~]# scp ubuntu-14.04.5-desktop-amd64.iso carinet@40.80.156.2:/home/carinet/ubuntunew10.iso<mailto:carinet@40.80.156.2:/home/carinet/ubuntunew10.iso> ubuntu-14.04.5-desktop-amd64.iso 100% 1053MB 111.5MB/s 00:09 COGENT - summary CARIcloud to Azure 1.5 Gbits/s TCP iperf 850 Mbits/s UDP iperf 9s 1053 MB upload to Azure through SCP

1 0

Contact at AT&T? -- Never mind
by Stephen Satchell 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

> I'm trying to resolve an issue with their network blocking Secure IMAP, port 993/TCP. Is there any contact available? Problem resolved. If anyone wants the gruesome details, ask off-list.

1 0

Contact at AT&T?
by Stephen Satchell 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

I'm trying to resolve an issue with their network blocking Secure IMAP, port 993/TCP. Is there any contact available?

1 0

ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have
by Aaron Gould 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

This is a *single area* ospf environment, that has been stable for years.. But now suddenly is having issues with new ospf neightbor adjacencies , which are riding a 3rd party transport network Anyone ever experienced anything strange with underlying transport network mtu possibly causing ospf neighbor adjacency to be broken ? I'm asking if the underlying 3rd party transport layer 2 network has a smaller mtu than the endpoint ospf ip interface have, could this cause those ospf neighbors to not fully establish ? .and I'm also asking this if the single ospf area has grown large enough to cause some sort of initial database packet to be larger than that underlying 3rd party mtu is providing -Aaron

4 3

RE: ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have
by Scott Weeks 27 Nov '17

27 Nov '17

--- nanog(a)nanog.org wrote: From: Richard Vander Reyden via NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > This is a *single area* ospf environment, that has been > stable for years. But now suddenly is having issues with > new ospf neightbor adjacencies , which are riding a 3rd > party transport network >> I have seen this in the lab before, was related to the >> size of the LSA. --------------------------------------------------- Wouldn't this show in some SNMP OID that can be monitored? If nothing else, fragmentation (see below). Also, how big was the LSA? It should be able to be pretty big. According to: https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/service-providers-documents/ospf-and-mtu… "RFC 2328 (OSPF version 2 specification) says...If necessary, the length of OSPF packets can be up to 65,535 bytes (including the IP header). The OSPF packet types that are likely to be large (Database Description Packets, Link State Request, Link State Update, and Link State Acknowledgment packets) can usually be split into several separate protocol packets, without loss of functionality. This is recommended; IP fragmentation should be avoided whenever possible." scott

1 0

Wireless ISPs during disasters (hurricane harvey, irma and maria)
by Sean Donelan 27 Nov '17

27 Nov '17

While some of the big companies like Facebook, Google and Microsoft got some press about their wireless experiments during the post-hurricane recovery, the FCC hasn't heard about the experience of wireless ISPs during the recovery. Were there any wireless ISPs in south-Texas, south-Florida, Puerto Rico or U.S. Virigin Islands? How did they survive, or able to speed recovery efforts? Were there resources they needed? WISPs don't normally report in the FCC DIRS or NORS disaster reporting systems, so WISPs are a blank spot.

3 3

Definition of ISP vs Transit provider
by Jean-Francois Mezei 27 Nov '17

27 Nov '17

The FCC is about to reclassify "Broadband Internet Access Service" as an information service instead of Telecommunications Service. This prombpted the following question which isn't about the FCC action per say. This is about how does one define Transit provider vs ISP ? Cogent for instance acts as a transit provider to other networks but also sells connectivity to companies. Peer1 in Canada used to sell "transit" to a then small emerging ISP, but as its sole transit provider, provided the BGP management as well as peering at Torix. Is the service to the ISP still called "transit" ? Or would ISP be defined as the organsation which assigns IPs to end users via PPPoE of DHCP ? One could argue that a network which assigns 4 or less IPs per customer would be an ISP. But what about IPv6 where the ISP could give each end user a /64 ? Just curious to see if there are agreed upon definitions from the network operators's point of view. I note that large companies tend to do everything from transit, to residential ISP, business ISP, libraries, airports etc. For Bell Canada, it is almost all under AS577. So separating what is telecom and what is information becomes more "interesting". As a point of reference this is what I *think* the FCC defines as an ISP: ## 23. Broadband Internet access service also does not include virtual private network (VPN) services, content delivery networks (CDNs), hosting or data storage services, or Internet backbone services (if those services are separate from broadband Internet access service), consistent with past Commission precedent.69 The Commission has historically distinguished these services from “mass market” services, as they do not provide the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints.70 We do not disturb that finding here. 24. Finally, we observe that to the extent that coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, private end- user networks such as libraries and universities, and other businesses acquire broadband Internet access service from a broadband provider to enable patrons to access the Internet from their respective establishments, provision of such service by the premise operator would not itself be considered a broadband Internet access service unless it was offered to patrons as a retail mass market service, as we define it here.71 Likewise, when a user employs, for example, a wireless router or a Wi-Fi hotspot to create a personal Wi-Fi network that is not intentionally offered for the benefit of others, he or she is not offering a broadband Internet access service, under our definition, because the user is not marketing and selling such service to residential customers, small business, and other end-user customers such as schools and libraries. ## The full 210 proposed FCC decision is at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

8 8