March 2018 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: How are you configuring BFD timers?
by Scott Weeks 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

:: For those running BFD on your land-based point-to-point links, :: I’m interested in hearing about what factors you consider when :: deciding how to configure your timers and multiplier. It has been a while since I used BFD, but I remember trying to get it as close to what I wanted and then fine tuning it over time. For example, sometimes it would take down the session when I didn't want it to and I had to turn the knobs a bit. So another thing to consider is your initial design choice is likely to change over time. scott --- jason+nanog(a)lixfeld.ca wrote: From: Jason Lixfeld <jason+nanog(a)lixfeld.ca> For those running BFD on your land-based point-to-point links, I’m interested in hearing about what factors you consider when deciding how to configure your timers and multiplier. On paper, BFD between two devices over a local or metro dark fibre or wave seems pretty trivial: Assuming your gear can a) support echo mode b) hardware offloads echo processing c) automatically treats echos as vital and puts them into the appropriate high priority queue, then setting the timers down to their lowest possible values (3ms on some of the gear that I’ve seen) and some low multiplier seems more than reasonable. But? From another angle, your link isn’t dark fibre or a wave but, for example, ethernet over some sort of IP based L2 Transport, and is still a low (sub 1ms) one-way latency local or metro link. How do you set your timers, and what do you base that on? From yet another angle, what if your link is a long-haul wave, or for that matter a wave of any distance that imposes a one-way latency that is higher than the minimum tx and rx timers that are supported by your gear? We’ll assume an unprotected wave, because I’m sure if it’s protected, you have no choice but to consider the one-way latency of the longest of the two segments. I made some assumptions above about support for echo mode and hardware offload, but what if (some of) your gear doesn’t support some or all of that stuff? How do you factor your configuration decisions? Thanks!

1 0

COX BGP contact
by Deepak Jain 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

I know there should be a more reasonable way to do this. If someone has responsibility for COX BGP (AS 22773) would love to hear from you. Multiple days of getting the run around in various NOCs has lead to nowhere. Thanks in advance, Deepak

1 0

hijacking of 128.255.192.0/22
by Jay Ford 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

Something apparently in Brazil is hijacking 128.255.192.0/22, part of 128.255.0.0/16 which is held by the University of Iowa. AS 263971 is announcing 128.255.192.0/22 which Hurricane Electric is accepting & propagating. None of that has any authorization. I can't find any decent contact information for the originating entity, so I have reported it to abuse(a)he.net, but it'd be fabulous if some HE folks listening here could whack the hijacking faster than the abuse channels will get to it. Also useful would be some functional contact for AS263971. Any help will be appreciated. ________________________________________________________________________ Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 email: jay-ford(a)uiowa.edu, phone: 319-335-5555

8 8

problems sending to prodigy.net hosted email
by Trey Nolen 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

We are having issues with domains hosted on prodigy.net email servers including att.net, bellsouth.net, and scbglobal.net. We are being rejected for bad reverse DNS, but DNS is setup correctly. The error we are receiving is: Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Connections not accepted from servers without a valid sender domain.flph829 Fix reverse DNS for 74.252.14.252 I leave it up to the reader to test the validity of 74.252.14.252, but every test we've done looks good. The MX records for these domains indicate this (identical on the three domains mentioned above): ;; ANSWER SECTION: att.net. 175 IN MX 5 al-ip4-mx-vip1.prodigy.net. att.net. 175 IN MX 5 ff-ip4-mx-vip2.prodigy.net. att.net. 175 IN MX 5 ff-ip4-mx-vip1.prodigy.net. att.net. 175 IN MX 5 al-ip4-mx-vip2.prodigy.net. Everything we can find on the postmaster pages, forums, etc. point to emailing abuse_rbl(a)abuse-att.net. We have done this and received their autoresponder. We've waited the requisite 48 hours and emailed again for an escalation only to receive another autoresponder with another ticket number attached (even though we emailed with a ticket number in the message). This has now been ongoing since at least March 4, when we received our first complaint and we have yet to hear anything from AT&T. We don't currently have any direct contacts for Prodigy.net. I will say that the 75.252.14.0/24 netblock is owned by AT&T and I'm wondering if that might be causing the issue. For instance, they are trying to do a local lookup of the PTR record instead of contacting the delegated servers. I'm hoping someone here has a point of contact which I might reach out to in order to correct this issue. Any help would be appreciated. Trey Nolen

7 10

Looking for someone from Intuit to contact me.
by Anthony Leto 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

I have a few users on my cloud that are not able to reach intuit.com<http://intuit.com> or quickbooks.intuit.com<http://quickbooks.intuit.com>. In addition my users are not able to eFile taxes from their terminal server with Quickbooks on it. We have checked and our firewalls are not blocking. From the trace route and other testing it looks like my IP ranges are being blocked. Thanks, Anthony Leto Founder Flying Man Studio, LLC.

1 0

Telx Internet Exchange Atlanta
by Joe Carroll 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

Is there anyone on the list from TelX with visibility into the Atlanta TIE ?

1 0

RIPE NCC Global IPv6 Deployment Survey
by Massimiliano Stucchi 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC would like to invite you to participate in its Global IPv6 Survey 2018. The goal of the survey is to get an overview IPv6 deployment across the world, and to assess how this is seen from the perspective of ISPs and Enterprise users. The 2018 survey is a follow up to similar surveys run between 2008 and 2013, and will serve as a comparison with the data acquired back then. You can find the survey at the following address: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GlobalIPv6survey2018 Responses can be submitted until 31 March 2018. We will then collect the data with the aim of presenting the preliminary results during the upcoming RIPE 76 meeting in Marseille. If you have any question about the survey, please feel free to email us at: ipv6survey2018(a)ripe.net. Thank you very much in advance for your participation! -- Massimiliano Stucchi IPv6 Programme Manager RIPE NCC mstucchi(a)ripe.net Follow us on Twitter for the fastest and latest RIPE NCC Training news! @TrainingRIPENCC

2 1

Contacts at AS42624 Simple Carrier LLC ?
by Sascha Pollok 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Hi people! Did anyone have any encounter with AS42624 Simple Carrier LLC? They send some abusive and spoofed traffic. Looking at the usual databases it seems a bit unclear to me where the actually come from and how to reach them. Thanks & buh bye Sascha

1 0

Last call for presentations and Draft programme for RIPE 76
by Benno Overeinder 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Colleagues, A list of currently accepted RIPE 76 presentations is now published at: https://ripe76.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary/ There are still plenary, BoF, tutorial and workshop slots remaining for the final RIPE 76 programme and RIPE Programme Committee will accept new proposals until *8 April 2018*. This is our last call for you to submit your proposals. You can find the CFP for RIPE 76 below, or at https://ripe76.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/, for your proposals for plenary session presentations, tutorials, workshops, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions) and lightning talks. Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings, see the "Speakers" paragraph in CFP for more information. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder RIPE PC Chair https://ripe76.ripe.net/ripe-pc -------------------->>><<<-------------------- Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 76 will take place from 14-18 May in Marseille, France. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary sessions, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 76. See the full descriptions of the different presentation formats, https://ripe76.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. Proposals for plenary sessions, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than *8 April 2018*. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered depending on the remaining available space in the programme. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity - Data centre technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange - Connected Things (aka. Internet of Things - IoT) Speakers Presenters, RIPE Working Group Chairs and the RIPE Programme Committee are required to cover their own costs to attend a RIPE Meeting (meeting ticket, travel and accommodation). We have various ticket options available depending on your needs. In extraordinary circumstances, the RIPE Chair can waive the meeting fee for presenters. These requests are dealt with on a case-by-case basis via pc(a)ripe.net. Also note that, on an individual basis, participants can apply for a RIPE Fellowship to develop their professional or academic career. For more information, please visit: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/ripe-fellowship Submissions Presenters should be clear on whether they wish to submit a presentation for a plenary or working group (WG) session. At present, most working groups will solicit policy proposals, discussion points or other content directly via their mailing lists. If you’re not sure what kind of session you should be presenting at, please visit: https://ripe76.ripe.net/plenary-or-wg/ RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general, the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows: - Plenary presentations: 20-25 minutes presentation with 5-10 minutes discussion - Tutorials: up to two hours (Monday morning) - Workshops: one hour (during evening sessions) to two hours (Monday morning) - BoFs: approximately one hour (during evening sessions) - Lightning talks: 10 minutes total for both presentation and any discussion The following general requirements apply: - Proposals must be submitted using the meeting submission system, https://ripe76.ripe.net/submit-topic/ - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe76.ripe.net/submit-topic/) and can be submitted any time up to and including the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talks will be announced on short notice, in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the time slot allocated. - Presenters who propose a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. - All presentation proposals will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc(a)ripe.net. -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

1 0

IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?
by Filip Hruska 18 Mar '18

18 Mar '18

Hi, I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 leasing. They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any network in any location." I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally is /24? So how does this work? [1] http://www.forked.net/ip-address-leasing/ Thanks -- Filip Hruska Linux System Administrator

16 42