June 2021 - Test - lists.nanog.org

BGP38 egress filter on Ubuntu Server
by Stephen Satchell 02 Jun '21

02 Jun '21

Before I re-invent the wheel, has anyone come up with blackhole route specifications for netplan in Ubuntu servers? Such a capability would perform the egress blocking for an edge server. The table of blackhole routes I would set up: IPv4 Address block Scope Description 0.0.0.0/8 Software Current network (only valid as source address). 10.0.0.0/8 Private network Used for local communications within a private network. 100.64.0.0/10 Private network Shared address space[3] for communications between a service provider and its subscribers when using a carrier-grade NAT. 127.0.0.0/8 Host Used for loopback addresses to the local host. 169.254.0.0/16 Subnet Used for link-local addresses between two hosts on a single link when no IP address is otherwise specified, such as would have normally been retrieved from a DHCP server. 172.16.0.0/12 Private network Used for local communications within a private network. 192.0.0.0/24 Private network IETF Protocol Assignments. 192.0.2.0/24 Documentation Assigned as TEST-NET-1, documentation and examples. 192.88.99.0/24 Internet Reserved. Formerly used for IPv6 to IPv4 relay 192.168.0.0/16 Private network Used for local communications within a private network. 198.18.0.0/15 Private network Used for benchmark testing of inter-network communications between two separate subnets. 198.51.100.0/24 Documentation Assigned as TEST-NET-2, documentation and examples. 203.0.113.0/24 Documentation Assigned as TEST-NET-3, documentation and examples. 224.0.0.0/4 Internet In use for IP multicast. 240.0.0.0/4 Internet Reserved for future use. 255.255.255.255/32 Subnet Reserved for the "limited broadcast" destination address. IPv6 Address block Usage Purpose ::/0 Routing Default route. ::/128 Software Unspecified address. ::1/128 Host Loopback address to local host. ::ffff:0:0/96 Software IPv4 mapped addresses. ::ffff:0:0:0/96 Software IPv4 translated addresses. 64:ff9b::/96 Global Internet IPv4/IPv6 translation. 100::/64 Routing Discard prefix. 2001::/32 Global Internet Teredo tunneling. 2001:20::/28 Software ORCHIDv2. 2001:db8::/32 Documentation Addresses used in documentation and example source code. 2002::/16 Global Internet The 6to4 addressing scheme fc00::/7 Private network Unique local address. fe80::/10 Link Link-local address. ff00::/8 Global Internet Multicast address.

4 4

Office Depot contact?
by Bryan Holloway 02 Jun '21

02 Jun '21

Howdy folks, If anyone from Office Depot NetOps is lurking, could you please reach out to me off-list? Looks like our whole AS is getting blocked somewhere ... Thank you! - bryan

1 0

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
by Livingood, Jason 02 Jun '21

02 Jun '21

Does not need to be – just a suggestion based on the thinking that these locales may have more dense populations and thus perhaps higher FTTH penetration for a longer period of time. But the data from any network will certainly have some interest. From: Josh Luthman <josh(a)imaginenetworksllc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 11:36 To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood(a)cable.comcast.com> Cc: Abhi Devireddy <abhi(a)devireddy.com>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Why does it have to be non-US? Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:20 AM Livingood, Jason via NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: > I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage was more asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the profile of a typical home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks with all the collaboration that is happening remotely. I'm not sure ratio is the right thing to focus upon - especially as asymmetry has grown the last few years due to the rising using of streaming video services and greater availability of 4K-resolution content. Ratio seems like more a reflection of current applications and usage patterns. (It would be fascinating to see a non-US FTTH provider that was 1G/1G or greater share their actual usage ratio.) JL

3 4

FCC RFP issued for Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric with responses due July 1, 2021
by Sean Donelan 02 Jun '21

02 Jun '21

June 1, 2021 - Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric Contract Solicited Request for Proposal issued for Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric with responses due July 1, 2021 https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData

1 0

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
by Jared Brown 02 Jun '21

02 Jun '21

On Sunday, 30 May 2021 Mike Hammet wrote: > Why 100/100? Because subsidies should only be used for long term solutions. The definition of broadband is mainly relevant to determine who should receive subsidies. Commercial broadband has already far surpassed the minimums. - Jared

2 1

View NANOG 82 Agenda + Your Voice Heard + Expo
by Nanog Marketing 01 Jun '21

01 Jun '21

👀 View NANOG 82 Agenda Check out our new and improved digital-friendly agenda.📲 Click to see date and time of programming. Click on any talk title in the agenda to view the full abstract and speaker info! SEE AGENDA <https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-82/agenda/> 🗣️🗣️ VOICE HEARD: Join NANOG 82 Community MeetingMark your calendar 📆 for the upcoming NANOG 82 Community Meeting, which will take place *Wednesday, June 16 from 12 to 12:45 PM EDT.* We want your feedback on recent developments in the organization. *Community Meeting will cover: * - Current and future upgrades to NANOG's website - Education and Mentorship Committee progress - Community Forum update - NANOG 83: our first hybrid meeting *Speakers: * - Edward McNair, NANOG - Elizabeth Culley, Comcast 👉 Save this talk clicking on the ❤️ next to each agenda item. *Don't see the ❤️? *Make sure you are logged in. ⚡️Get Ready for the NANOG 82 Virtual Expo⚡️The latest technologies, scavenger hunt + raffle prizes!Virtually engage in this unique experience where you can meet + network with reps from a variety of North American companies and beyond. 👯💻 Visit booths throughout the conference to learn about the latest technologies + a chance to win a variety of fun swag + prizes. Doors open June 7 and will remain open until June 25. REGISTER FOR NANOG 82 <https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-82/>

1 0

QUIC, Connection IDs and NAT
by Robert Brockway 01 Jun '21

01 Jun '21

QUIC has Connection IDs independent from IP. This was done to make it easier to move from one IP network to another while keeping connections active, as most here will know. Does the existence of Connection IDs separate from IP mean that the host/IP contention ratio in CGNAT can be higher? IE, can a single CGNAT device provide Internet access for a greater number of end-users? And if so, does this reduce demand on IPv4 resources? It's ok, I'm wearing a fire-resistant suit with self-contained breathing apparatus as I type this. Rob

4 4