March 2018 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Websurfing trouble to .gov and .il.us
by Sam Kretchmer 13 Mar '18

13 Mar '18

Nanog, I am part of a small ISP based in Chicago. We have several clients complaining of an inability to hit a couple specific government websites, specifically http://tierii.iema.state.il.us/TIER2MANAGER/Account/Login.aspx and https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/. It does seem to be related to the IP's they use, specifically parts of 213.159.132/22. They can surf any other site we can think of, do email, IPSec tunnels, anything apparently but surf these sites. The listed sites show "loading" then "connecting" then back to "loading" and so on. I have checked all the blacklist sites I can get out of google. and they all show all green. I am at a loss as to what else might be contributing to the issue. Is there anyone on list here from either of those sites who might be able to help who can hit me off list, or anyone at all who might have some advice? It would be appreciated. All I need to do is to assign different IP's to the client and it works fine (hopefully eliminating Layer 1 and Layer 2, i.e. routers, circuits, etc..) My apologies if this is not the correct forum for this kind of question. Thanks Sam

5 4

Centurylink SOC contact?
by Brian Rak 13 Mar '18

13 Mar '18

Does anyone have a contact for the SOC at centurylink? I've tried soc@centurylink and noc@centurylink, with no answer. For whatever reason, they're mangling IP address in abuse reports, which requires us to manually review every report. We'd really like them to stop, and just include the IP address in the body of the report. They seem to be the only ones that do this, pretty much all the other reports we get list a normal IP address.

1 0

contact for www.upack.com (http 403)
by Matthew Dittmer 13 Mar '18

13 Mar '18

Is there a contact at upack.com that can help us? All of our subscribers receive an error 403 access denied. Thank you, Matt Dittmer AS20298

1 0

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 73 Call for Presentations is open
by Ryan Woolley via NANOG-announce 13 Mar '18

13 Mar '18

This message has been wrapped due to the DMARC policy setting to prevent NANOG subscribers from being unsubscribed due to bounces. _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Re: Proof of ownership; when someone demands you remove a prefix
by Scott Weeks 12 Mar '18

12 Mar '18

>> On Mar 12, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: >> >> it's a real shame there is no authorative cryptographically verifyable >> attestation of address ownership. > On Mar 12, 2018, at 21:20, George William Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Ownership?... > > (Duck) --- jhellenthal(a)dataix.net wrote: From: Jason Hellenthal <jhellenthal(a)dataix.net> : shouldn’t that be proof enough of ownership of the ASN ? ------------------------------------------------- You don't own the ASN. And that was a special, friendly poke at randy... :-) scott

2 1

LCD KVM console pullout that supports display port ???
by Matthew Huff 12 Mar '18

12 Mar '18

Anyone have any recommendations for a 16-17" LCD keyboard/mouse combo pull-out tray that supports DisplayPort/USB as an input? ---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039

1 0

Re: BCP 38 addendum
by Fabien VINCENT (NaNOG) 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

Le 2018-03-06 19:39, Barry Greene a écrit : >> On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:53 PM, Fabien VINCENT (NaNOG) <list-nanog(a)beufa.net> wrote: >> Hope one day the 3rd mode of uRPF will be something else than a plan ... >> uRPF is not very usefull when multi homed. And as far as I know, multi >> homed networks are increasing as fast as PNI development ;) > > This was working microcode code when I left in 2008. Several operators tested, but none deployed (no pushing or pulling). Yep, but saw only reference of it, but no real CLI implementation (especially on Cisco), so I guess it's not a killer feature to sell routers ;) In 2005 : https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/security/intelligence/urpf.pdf "A third phase is currently under way that will create a way to have strict enforcement of the uRPF check on individual ISP-ISP edges. Here, external BGP (eBGP) peer sessions will send specific prefixes to a dedicated Virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) table. This will allow uRPF to query the VRF table that contains all the routes for that specific eBGP peering session over the interface, thus verifying (authorizing) the source addresses of packets matching the advertised routes from the peered ISP" That's obviously not so sexy, but I guess the problem is on hardware performance, as the prefer method should to have a look on BGP tables, and uRPF is done on FIB / ASIC level. Sadly, seems not possible right ? -- FABIEN VINCENT _@beufanet_

3 4

Amazon peering peeps on the list?
by Mike Lyon 09 Mar '18

09 Mar '18

Anyone on the list from Amazon peering? Have sent multiple emails to peering(a)amazon.com over the past couple of weeks with no reply. Any help would be appreciated. Thank You, Mike -- Mike Lyon mike.lyon(a)gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

6 5

MANRS IXP Webinar: Tuesday, 13 March
by Chris Grundemann 09 Mar '18

09 Mar '18

Hail NANOGers! If you operate an IX in North America, this message is for you. (I'm passing it along on behalf of my former colleagues at the Internet Society.) Hope to "see" you on the webinar this Tuesday! ——— Hi, The MANRS IXP Partnership program is designed to invite and encourage participation of IXPs in MANRS (Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security). In accordance with the principles of the initiative, the membership depends on the visible commitment to improve the routing security of the peering fabric and Internet infrastructure in general and demonstrated by the implementation of defined Actions. The Internet Society is looking for leading IXPs around the world that have a track record in contributing to routing security, already implement the majority of Actions and are willing to participate in the launch of this program, planned in early 2018. The set of Actions was developed by the development team consisting of IXP representatives around the world. It has been reviewed in by various IXP communities, such as EURO-IX, LAC-IX, Af-IX. I’d like to invite you to participate in a webinar on March 13 at 14:00 EDT (18:00 UTC) where we present the IXP Partnership Program and the Actions to the North-American IXP community and invite your feedback. Call details are below. We would also ask you to disseminate the information about the webinar to the NA IX community. MANRS (https://www.manrs.org) is a collaborative initiative, coordinated by the Internet Society. It was launched in November 2014 and has received much encouragement from all sections of the Internet industry. The key objective of MANRS is to gain industry-wide agreement on a minimum set of practices for secure routing across the Internet, through coordinated action by many parties. MANRS was designed for network operators, but other parties can play an important role in facilitating improvements in routing security such as Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). Many of them represent active communities with common operational objectives and already contribute to a more resilient and secure Internet infrastructure. Thanks! Mark Buell Regional Bureau Director, North America Internet Society Details: Topic: MANRS and IXPs Time: Mar 13, 2018 7:00 PM Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/288357813 Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,288357813# or +16465588656,,288357813# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 646 558 8656 Meeting ID: 288 357 813 International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom. us/zoomconference?m=WXysPTqEpKm5ELZq6evhxxHUX43prdSf -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com

1 0

Zayo zColo Xcon Pricing
by James Laszko 09 Mar '18

09 Mar '18

One of our colo’s in San Diego was purchased by Zayo recently and I requested a new copper Ethernet xcon to be placed. After a few days I received a quote from my new rep quoting a MRC 3x what I’m currently paying for existing xcon’s as well as a hefty NRC as well. Anyone have any experience with this kind of thing? Anyone care to share what an average copper xcon, single floor, meet-me-room to cage, Ethernet from carrier circuit costs? (This xcon is approx 30 feet..) Thanks! James Sent from my iPad

15 21