June 2019 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Issue with Geolocation in Virginia US
by Raja Sekhar Gullapalli 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Team, We are having issues in our Virginia US office & it shows geolocation in all browsers as Canada instead of US region when we access news.google.com in our PC. Our public ip is 129.46.232.65. This issue is being observed for more than 2 month. Can you help to whom we can contact to resolve the issue. Regards, Raja

8 13

FW: softlayer.com
by Travis Garrison 23 Sep '23

23 Sep '23

Traceroute from here if it helps Tracing route to 138-43-128-1.reserved.highland.net [138.43.128.1] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms [REDACTED] 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms [REDACTED] 3 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms [REDACTED] 4 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms [REDACTED] 5 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms v313.core1.mci3.he.net [216.218.213.141] 6 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 100ge10-2.core1.dal1.he.net [184.105.81.206] 7 26 ms 26 ms 26 ms xo-as15-as2828.10gigabitethernet6-7.core1.dal1.he.net [184.105.255.78] 8 40 ms 39 ms 40 ms 207.88.14.198.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.14.198] 9 40 ms 39 ms 40 ms 207.88.12.178.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.178] 10 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms 216.156.16.239.ptr.us.xo.net [216.156.16.239] 11 48 ms 48 ms 48 ms ip65-46-198-198.z198-46-65.customer.algx.net [65.46.198.198] 12 41 ms 41 ms 41 ms occm-6.dhcp.grp1-rng1.tncsvl.blomand.net.57.131.192.in-addr.arpa [192.131.57.6] 13 * * * Request timed out. Thanks Travis From: NANOG <nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Siyuan Miao Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 9:22 AM To: Nikolas Geyer <nik(a)neko.id.au<mailto:nik@neko.id.au>> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: softlayer.com Perhaps it won't work because their customer support will ask you for bi-directional traceroute and refused to forward to backbone team. Then they'll say it's not their fault and you can see the packet is dropped outside our network. Here's a sample traceroute from SoftLayer Washington, San Jose and Seattle in case someone needs it: aveline@iad02-sl01:~$ mtr 138.43.128.1 --report-wide Start: Fri Mar 22 17:20:42 2019 HOST: iad02-sl01 Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- [REDACTED] 0.0% 10 1.4 1.5 0.8 3.7 1.0 2.|-- ae13.dar02.wdc01.networklayer.com<http://ae13.dar02.wdc01.networklayer.com> 0.0% 10 0.5 3.3 0.4 28.6 8.8 3.|-- ae9.bbr01.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com<http://ae9.bbr01.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com> 0.0% 10 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.0 4.|-- eqix-dc5.intellifiber.com<http://eqix-dc5.intellifiber.com> 0.0% 10 0.8 1.2 0.8 2.2 0.3 5.|-- ae13-0.cr02.asbn01-va.us.windstream.net<http://ae13-0.cr02.asbn01-va.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.0 6.|-- ae11-0.cr01.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net<http://ae11-0.cr01.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 15.6 16.1 15.6 17.4 0.5 7.|-- ae0-0.pe06.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net<http://ae0-0.pe06.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 17.4 16.1 15.9 17.4 0.3 8.|-- h43.88.198.64.static.ip.windstream.net<http://h43.88.198.64.static.ip.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 24.7 24.8 24.6 24.9 0.0 9.|-- east.tndodge-21.static.tncsvl.blomand.net<http://east.tndodge-21.static.tncsvl.blomand.net> 0.0% 10 22.6 22.8 22.5 23.8 0.0 10.|-- ??? 100.0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 aveline@sjc03-sl01:~$ mtr 138.43.128.1 --report-wide Start: Fri Mar 22 16:21:04 2019 HOST: sjc03-sl01 Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- [REDACTED] 0.0% 10 2.4 2.0 0.3 14.3 4.3 2.|-- ae0.dar02.sjc01.networklayer.com<http://ae0.dar02.sjc01.networklayer.com> 0.0% 10 1.0 0.5 0.3 1.3 0.0 3.|-- ae9.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com<http://ae9.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com> 0.0% 10 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.0 4.|-- eqix-sv1.windstream.com<http://eqix-sv1.windstream.com> 0.0% 10 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.0 5.|-- ae6-0.cr02.lsaj01-ca.us.windstream.net<http://ae6-0.cr02.lsaj01-ca.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 11.6 11.5 11.5 11.6 0.0 6.|-- ae-11-0.cr01.dlls01-tx.us.windstream.net<http://ae-11-0.cr01.dlls01-tx.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 42.6 42.7 42.5 43.4 0.0 7.|-- ae7-0.cr02.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net<http://ae7-0.cr02.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 64.0 65.6 63.9 74.2 3.4 8.|-- ae1-0.pe06.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net<http://ae1-0.pe06.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 62.3 62.7 62.2 66.9 1.5 9.|-- h43.88.198.64.static.ip.windstream.net<http://h43.88.198.64.static.ip.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 71.9 72.0 71.9 72.2 0.0 10.|-- east.tndodge-21.static.tncsvl.blomand.net<http://east.tndodge-21.static.tncsvl.blomand.net> 0.0% 10 69.9 68.8 68.6 69.9 0.3 11.|-- ??? 100.0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 aveline@sea04-sl01:~$ mtr 138.43.128.1 --report-wide Start: Fri Mar 22 08:19:09 2019 HOST: sea04-sl01 Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- [REDACTED] 0.0% 10 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.8 0.0 2.|-- ae12.dar02.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com<http://ae12.dar02.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com> 0.0% 10 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.0 3.|-- ae9.bbr01.wb01.sea02.networklayer.com<http://ae9.bbr01.wb01.sea02.networklayer.com> 0.0% 10 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.0 4.|-- six.seattle-wa.us.windstream.net<http://six.seattle-wa.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 1.5 1.0 0.7 1.7 0.0 5.|-- ae12-0.cr01.chcg01-il.us.windstream.net<http://ae12-0.cr01.chcg01-il.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 41.1 41.2 41.0 41.6 0.0 6.|-- ae17-0.cr02.chcg01-il.us.windstream.net<http://ae17-0.cr02.chcg01-il.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 41.1 41.4 41.1 42.0 0.0 7.|-- ae10-0.cr01.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net<http://ae10-0.cr01.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 63.8 64.4 63.5 71.1 2.3 8.|-- ae0-0.pe06.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net<http://ae0-0.pe06.atln02-ga.us.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 63.7 63.7 63.5 64.0 0.0 9.|-- h43.88.198.64.static.ip.windstream.net<http://h43.88.198.64.static.ip.windstream.net> 0.0% 10 71.6 71.8 71.5 72.8 0.0 10.|-- east.tndodge-21.static.tncsvl.blomand.net<http://east.tndodge-21.static.tncsvl.blomand.net> 0.0% 10 71.8 70.8 70.2 71.8 0.3 11.|-- ??? 100.0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Regards, Siyuan Miao On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:10 PM Nikolas Geyer <nik(a)neko.id.au<mailto:nik@neko.id.au>> wrote: This is the best approach. Have run into this problem a few times and had zero success getting the filters removed without having SL customers log tickets with support. Verbiage needs to be “this prefix is blocked, please escalate to your backbone team”. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <lists(a)packetflux.com<mailto:lists@packetflux.com>> wrote: Another idea... Have you tried reaching out to some of the blocked sites? They likely have better contact information than is available publicly, especially a larger one like indeed. On Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 3:41 PM John Alcock <john(a)alcock.org<mailto:john@alcock.org>> wrote: Still looking for anyone from softlayer.com<http://softlayer.com> It has been a challenge. Anything hosted by softlayer.com<http://softlayer.com> is being blocked. Here is a small list so far windowbook.tpondemand.com<http://windowbook.tpondemand.com> ahainstructornetwork.americanheart.org<http://ahainstructornetwork.americanheart.org> clover.com<http://clover.com> Cebroker.com<http://Cebroker.com> Softlayer.com<http://Softlayer.com> indeed.com<http://indeed.com> & Enforce Staffing It is growing every day. John On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:35 PM John Alcock <john(a)alcock.org<mailto:john@alcock.org>> wrote: Afternoon, Thought I would start a new thread. After researching, traceroutes, etc, I think I found my problem. 9 out of the 10 sites that subscribers on my new block is being hosted by softlayer. Anyone on the list have contacts with softlayer. Right now I have an email to abuse. The support line will not help me out. John

3 2

Spectrum technical contact
by Josh Luthman 23 Jan '20

23 Jan '20

We have had a DOS attack for over 12 hours. I simply want them to null route or black hole an address. The traffic is filling one of our circus with them. The farthest I got was them telling me they can't do route changes because we're not public safety. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373

9 19

provider email maintenance standard
by Andrew Dampf 14 Aug '19

14 Aug '19

Hello nanog, I've heard second-hand there is an existing standard for provider maintenance emails that should be followed in the form of a calendar attachment, but I can't seem to find any information on it. Can anyone help me with the following: 1. Does this standard exist? If so, is there somewhere I can read more about it? 2. How many providers follow this standard? Thanks!

7 7

CenturyLink/Level3 feedback
by Mehmet Akcin 24 Jul '19

24 Jul '19

hi there, Just a general high-level question about Centurylink/Level3 post-merger, how is your overall experience with CenturyLink? if you could be sitting with the CEO of the company what is one thing you would ask him to fix? please keep it high level and general. i intend to pass these to him and his team in an upcoming meeting. Mehmet

20 27

Bgpmon alternatives?
by TJ Trout 20 Jul '19

20 Jul '19

Any simple and easy bgpmon alternatives you guys could recommend?

11 18

[FYI] Call for Presentations European Peering Forum 14 (EPF14) // NANOG
by Arnold Nipper 10 Jul '19

10 Jul '19

Dear Community This is the Call for Presentations European Peering Forum 14 (EPF14) AMS-IX, DE-CIX, LINX and Netnod are happy to host the 14th European Peering Forum (EPF) in Tallinn, Estonia from the 16th - 18th September 2019. The event will welcome up to 300 peering managers and coordinators from networks connected to the host Internet exchanges. Besides an interesting topical agenda, the three-day event accommodates room for attendees to meet on a one-to-one basis to discuss bilateral peering business opportunities. The programme committee will be looking for presentations and lightning talks related to peering and technical topics of interconnection. Your presentation should address * Interconnection Automation * Regional Peering * Interconnection / Peering Internet Governance and Regulatory Topics * Economic and Product Trends * Peering / Interconnection strategies * Interesting findings about Peering / Interconnection * 400GE and beyond Submissions =========== Presentations must be of a non-commercial nature. Product or marketing heavy talks are strongly discouraged. Submissions of presentations should be made to the programme committee <epf-pc(a)peering-forum.eu>. Please include: * Author's name and e-mail address * Presentation title * Abstract * Slides (if available) * Time requested (max. 30 minutes incl. Q&A) Deadlines ========= Presentation Abstract Deadline 15/07/2019 12:00 UTC Final Selection of Speakers 26/07/2019 Presentation Slides Submission Deadline 02/09/2019 12:00 UTC More information about the event and other activities around EPF14 may be found at * https://peering-forum.eu/ * https://www.facebook.com/groups/1486607564933665/ Best regards Arnold -- Arnold Nipper email: arnold(a)nipper.de mobile: +49 172 2650958

1 1

CloudFlare issues?
by Dmitry Sherman 07 Jul '19

07 Jul '19

Hello are there any issues with CloudFlare services now? Dmitry Sherman dmitry(a)interhost.net Interhost Networks Ltd Web: http://www.interhost.co.il fb: https://www.facebook.com/InterhostIL Office: (+972)-(0)74-7029881 Fax: (+972)-(0)53-7976157

36 59

Re: few big monolithic PEs vs many small PEs
by James Bensley 03 Jul '19

03 Jul '19

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 21:23, <adamv0025(a)netconsultings.com> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Recently I ran into a peculiar situation where we had to cap couple of PE > even though merely a half of the rather big chassis was populated with > cards, reason being that the central RE/RP was not able to cope with the > combined number of routes/vrfs/bgp sessions/etc.. > > So this made me think about the best strategy in building out SP-Edge > nowadays (yes I'm aware of the centralize/decentralize pendulum swinging > every couple of years). > The conclusion I came to was that *currently the best approach would be to > use several medium to small(fixed) PEs to replace a big monolithic chasses > based system. > So what I was thinking is, > Yes it will cost a bit more (router is more expensive than a LC) > Will end up with more prefixes in IGP, more BGP sessions etc.. -don't care. > But the benefits are less eggs in one basket, simplified and hence faster > testing in case of specialized PEs and obviously better RP CPU/MEM to port > ratio. > Am I missing anything please? > > *currently, > Yes some old chassis systems or even multi-chassis systems used to support > additional RPs and offloading some of the processes (e.g. BGP onto those) > -problem is these are custom hacks and still a single OS which needs > rebooting LC/ASICs when being upgraded -so the problem of too many eggs in > one basket still exists (yes cisco NCS6k and recent ASR9k lightspeed LCs are > an exception) > And yes there is the "node-slicing" approach from Juniper where one can > offload CP onto multiple x86 servers and assign LCs to each server (virtual > node) - which would solve my chassis full problem -but honestly how many of > you are running such setup? Exactly. And that's why I'd be hesitant to > deploy this solution in production just yet. I don't know of any other > vendor solution like this one, but who knows maybe in 5 years this is going > to be the new standard. Anyways I need a solution/strategy for the next 3-5 > years. > > > Would like to hear what are your thoughts on this conundrum. > > adam > > netconsultings.com > ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry:: Hi Adam, Over the years I have been bitten multiple times by having fewer big routers with either far too many services/customers connected to them or too much traffic going through them. These days I always go for more smaller/more routers than fewer/larger routers. One experience I have made is that when there is an outage on a large PE, even when it still has spare capacity, is that the business impact can be too much to handle (the support desk is overwhelmed, customers become irate if you can't quickly tell them what all the impacted services are, when service will be restored, the NMS has so many alarms it’s not clear what the problem is or where it's coming from etc.). I’ve seen networks place change freeze on devices, with the exception of changes that migrate customers or services off of the PE, because any outage would create too great an impact to the business, or risk the customers terminating their contract. I’ve also seen changes freeze be placed upon large PEs because the complexity was too great, trying to work out the impact of a change on one of the original PEs from when the network was first built, which is somehow linked to virtually every service on the network in some obscure and unforeseeable way. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for large routers. For example, in a typical network, by the time we get to the P nodes layer in the core we tend to have high levels of redundancy, i.e. any PE is dual-homed to two or more P nodes and will have 100% redundant capacity. Down at the access layer customers may be connected to a single access layer device or the access layer device might have a single backhaul link. So technically we have lots of customers, services and traffic passing through larger P node devices, but these devices have a low rate of changes / low touch, perform a low number of functions, they are operationally simple, and are highly redundant. Adversely at the service edge, which I guess is your main concern here, I’m all about more smaller devices with single service dedicated devices. I’ve tried to write some of my experiences here (https://null.53bits.co.uk/index.php?page=few-larger-routers-vs.-many-smalle…) The tl;dr version though is that there’s rarely a technical restriction to having fewer large routers and it’s an operational/business impact problem. I'd like to hear from anyone who has had great success with fewer larger PEs. Cheers, James.

2 3

Re: Ideas to products (Shark Tank(-ish) @ Austin)
by Mehmet Akcin 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

Great point ;-) thanks Tom On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:29 Tom Daly <tjd(a)fastly.com> wrote: > Mehmet, > > Good idea, the opportunity for innovation and supporting ideas of others > in our operator groups is important, but NANOG is probably the wrong venue. > > Have you considered NANOG's 501c3 not-for-profit status in your analysis > of bringing this idea to the community? As a presenter, how would one > protect his/her intellectual property being shown to the proposed "sharks" > and/or the audience? (would an audience be permitted in the room?) > > I can't speak for the NANOG Board nor the Program Committee, but as an > interested party in NANOG's 501(c)3 not-for-profit status, I am pretty > certain this activity would jeopardize our recognized exemption with the > IRS. I think this is an important detail you explore before proceeding. > > HTH, > Tom > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 11:11 AM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet(a)akcin.net> wrote: > >> Hey there, >> >> I am trying to put together an event at NANOG Austin (will submit pc when >> CFP is open). So many of us had very interesting ideas over the years. Some >> of these ideas became products or companies making life easy for engineers >> and operators. Could there be other ideas waiting to be supported? Perhaps. >> I am sure you all watched shark tank! In simplest words i am trying to >> organize an event very similar to Shark Tank!( we will call it some other >> name tho) >> >> There will be some known investors on the stage and you will 5 mins for >> your pitch and 10 mins to answer questions, and hopefully make a deal. >> >> I will help those who want to pitch their idea with their p&l , >> presentation and other things as they needed. >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions offlist and want to pitch >> your idea. We need a single paragraph to get you started. >> >> Mehmet >> -- >> Mehmet >> +1-424-298-1903 >> > > > -- > Tom Daly - SVP, Infrastructure > tjd(a)fastly.com > -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903

3 2