April 2019 - Test - lists.nanog.org

request for help: 192.139.135.0/24
by Jay Borkenhagen 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

[No attempts at 01-April humor will be attempted in this message.] Seeking help from routing engineers around the 'net: ARIN documents that 192.139.135.0/24 has been allocated to Metro Wireless International: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-192-139-135-0-1 Further, the party to whom 192.139.135.0/24 has been allocated has published a ROA in ARIN's hosted RPKI asserting that bgp announcements for that prefix are valid only when originating in AS63251. To view this, go to your favorite RPKI vantage point that uses ARIN's TAL. If you don't yet have a favorite, feel free to telnet to route-server.ip.att.net and run: show validation database record 192.139.135.0/24 Unfortunately, as may be seen at route-views, etc, most of the Internet now prefers an invalid path that's mis-originated in as4808: Network Next Hop Path * 192.139.135.0 208.51.134.254 3549 3356 4837 4808 i * 194.85.40.15 3267 3356 4837 4808 i * 193.0.0.56 3333 1273 4837 4808 i * 37.139.139.0 57866 6762 4837 4808 i * 12.0.1.63 7018 1299 53292 63251 ? * 140.192.8.16 54728 20130 6939 4837 4808 i * 91.218.184.60 49788 1299 53292 63251 ? * 203.181.248.168 7660 2516 4837 4808 i * 154.11.12.212 852 4837 4808 i * 134.222.87.1 286 1299 53292 63251 ? * 209.124.176.223 101 101 3356 4837 4808 i * 137.39.3.55 701 4837 4808 i * 94.142.247.3 8283 1239 4837 4808 i * 162.251.163.2 53767 3257 1299 53292 63251 ? * 212.66.96.126 20912 1267 3356 4837 4808 i * 198.58.198.255 1403 6461 4837 4808 i * 198.58.198.254 1403 6461 4837 4808 i *> 202.232.0.2 2497 4837 4808 i * 203.62.252.83 1221 4637 4837 4808 i * 132.198.255.253 1351 6939 4837 4808 i * 206.24.210.80 3561 209 4837 4808 i * 195.208.112.161 3277 39710 9002 3356 4837 4808 i * 217.192.89.50 3303 4837 4808 i * 173.205.57.234 53364 3257 1299 53292 63251 ? * 207.172.6.20 6079 3356 4837 4808 i * 207.172.6.1 6079 3356 4837 4808 i * 208.74.64.40 19214 174 4837 4837 4808 i * 144.228.241.130 1239 4837 4808 i * 162.250.137.254 4901 6079 3356 4837 4808 i * 114.31.199.1 4826 1299 53292 63251 i * 64.71.137.241 6939 4837 4808 i Please help the Metro Wireless International folks get this cleared up so their 192.139.135.0/24 can once again be usable. In particular, help is sought from 4837 and their transit providers: 1239 701 3356 (Yes, I am trying to reach folks at those networks in other ways, too.) Thanks. Jay B.

4 5

Deutsche Telecom AS3320 contact
by Andrey Kostin 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

Hi NANOG, Looking for a contact from AS3320 Deutsche Telekom to ask a question about their routing policy/filtering causing that some globally routed prefixes aren't seen in AS3320. Kind regards, Andrey Kostin

1 0

Contact Request: Gannett
by Ed Whitesell 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

Greetings - If there is anyone from Gannett on the list, I'd appreciate it if you would reach out. You've got some Route53 monitoring traffic directed at one of our AWS ELBs. Thanks, Ed

1 0

Google AS15169 trace route request
by thomas.connolly＠verizon.com 02 Apr '19

02 Apr '19

Hello all, If there’s someone on the Google (AS15169) network, preferably in San Jose or Denver area, could you please send me a trace route to the following IP: 2600:1010:b062:616f:f0da:421c:c752:2780 Off-list would be great, we are trying to identify the return path for traffic being sourced through AS2828 (former XO). Thanks, Tom [Verizon]<http://www.verizon.com/> Tom Connolly Principal Member of Technical Staff - National Operations 4800 Concentric Blvd, Saginaw, MI 48604 T: 989-758-6563 C: 989-493-9356 E: thomas.connolly(a)verizon.com<mailto:thomas.connolly@verizon.com>

1 0

Re: modeling residential subscriber bandwidth demand
by Scott Weeks 02 Apr '19

02 Apr '19

:: How do people model and try to project residential :: subscriber bandwidth demands into the future? Do :: you base it primarily on historical data? ------------------------------------------------------ Yes, if you have a lot of quality data that goes far back in the past you can make pretty good judgements on future needs. Less data and/or not very far back lessens the accuracy of a prediction about the future. scott --- thomasammon(a)gmail.com wrote: From: Tom Ammon <thomasammon(a)gmail.com> To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: modeling residential subscriber bandwidth demand Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:54:47 -0400 How do people model and try to project residential subscriber bandwidth demands into the future? Do you base it primarily on historical data? Are there more sophisticated approaches that you use to figure out how much backbone bandwidth you need to build to keep your eyeballs happy? Netflow for historical data is great, but I guess what I am really asking is - how do you anticipate the load that your eyeballs are going to bring to your network, especially in the face of transport tweaks such as QUIC and TCP BBR? Tom -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Ammon M: (801) 784-2628 thomasammon(a)gmail.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

FCC seeks comment on improving the wireless resiliency cooperative framework
by Sean Donelan 01 Apr '19

01 Apr '19

FCC Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on Improving the Wireless Resiiency Cooperative Framework Comment Date: April 29, 2019 Reply Date: May 20, 2019 https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-242A1.pdf The Bureau particularly welcomes comments from cross-sector stakeholders with on-the-ground experience during a disaster in which wireless providers utilized the Framework. The Bureau intends to use these experiences to help inform recommendations it may make to the Commission on measures to expedite service restoration efforts in the face of a storm or other disastrous event and to also inform the FCC’s ongoing review of the efficacy of the Framework. In addition to stakeholders in the communications and emergency response sectors, we are interested in hearing from industry and government bodies at all levels, and particularly from consumers, including people with disabilities and those who may be disproportionately affected by communications outages, as well as from any other interested stakeholders. [...] The Framework enumerates five prongs of commitment: providing for reasonable roaming arrangements during disasters when technically feasible; fostering mutual aid during emergencies; enhancing municipal preparedness and restoration; increasing consumer readiness and preparation; and improving public awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status. [...]

1 0

Contact information requested - Sony/Playstation
by John Alcock 01 Apr '19

01 Apr '19

Ahh... More problems with my new IP Block. Any contacts on the list for Sony/PlayStation Network. My new IP Block 138.43.128.0/18 can not access. John

2 2

Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
by David Hubbard 01 Apr '19

01 Apr '19

Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a deal there. Thanks

11 13