October 2022 - 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

Providing geofeed info to Google
by Hugo Slabbert 18 Sep '23

18 Sep '23

Google folks: I see historical reference to needing to use the Google Peering Portal ( http://peering.google.com) if you need to provide Google with geofeed info for GeoIP info on network blocks, ref https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-May/075229.html. Is that still the case? Are there any avenues to provide Google with geofeed info if you're *not* currently peering with 15169? Or to get access to just the geofeed update portion of the Peering Portal? -- Hugo Slabbert

6 8

SentryPeer: A distributed peer to peer list of bad IP addresses and phone numbers collected via a SIP Honeypot
by Gavin Henry 04 Jul '23

04 Jul '23

Hi all, I hope you don't mind the post, but thought this might be of use and in the spirit of release early, release often I've done an alpha release: https://github.com/SentryPeer/SentryPeer There's a presentation too if you'd like to watch/read where I hope to go with this: https://blog.tadsummit.com/2021/11/17/sentrypeer/ Working on the API and web UI next, then the p2p part of it. Feel free to submit any feature requests or have a play :-) Thanks for reading and any feedback is welcome! -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry.

3 7

Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
by Mel Beckman 27 Feb '23

27 Feb '23

Adam, Your point on asymmetrical technologies is excellent. But you may not be aware that residential optical fiber is also asymmetrical. For example, GPON, the latest ITU specified PON standard, and the most widely deployed, calls for a 2.4 Gbps downstream and a 1.25 Gbps upstream optical line rate. -mel > On Jun 9, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Adam Thompson <athompson(a)merlin.mb.ca> wrote: > However, if you're talking about fiber service, it's pretty much pure marketing-dept-driven BS, combined with some vague justification of not letting TOR nodes or copyright-ignoring seeders/Warez-providers/etc. overwhelm the network in unexpected ways.

18 25

202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock
by Abraham Y. Chen 16 Jan '23

16 Jan '23

Dear Colleagues: 0) I was made aware of a recent discussion on this Forum that cited our work on the 240/4 NetBlock, nicknamed EzIP (Phonetic for Easy IPv4). (Please see, at the end of this MSG, the URL to the discussion and the highlighted text where the citation was made.) 1) As the lead investigator of the EzIP Project, I would like to formally introduce our solution by bringing your attention to an overview whitepaper: https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf In a nutshell, EzIP proposes to disable the program codes in current routers that have been disabling the use of the 240/4 NetBlock. The cost of this software engineering should be minimal. The EzIP deployment architecture is the same as that of the existing CG-NAT (Carrier Grade Network Address Translation). Consequently, there is no need to modify any hardware equipment. There is an online setup description (Reference II), called RAN (Regional Area Network), that demonstrates the feasibility of this approach. 2) There are additional consequential benefits by deploying EzIP, such as those mentioned by our comment to Reference III in the above whitepaper. I look forward to addressing your thoughts. Regards, Abe (2022-03-07 17:14 EST) VP Engineering Avinta Communications, Inc. Milpitas, CA 95035 USA +1(408)942-1485 Skype: Abraham.Y.Chen eMail: AYChen(a)Avinta.com WebSite: www.Avinta.com *********************** https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-November/216766.html Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public *Greg Skinner* gregskinner0 at icloud.com <mailto:nanog%40nanog.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Class%20D%20addresses%3F%20was%3A%20Redploying%20most%20of%20127/8%20as%20unicast%20public&In-Reply-To=%3CFEDBF677-BC75-47F3-A92D-2611F43283BA%40icloud.com%3E> /Mon Nov 29 18:47:14 UTC 2021/ * Previous message (by thread): Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-November/216640.html> * Next message (by thread): Class E addresses? 240/4 history <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-November/216602.html> * *Messages sorted by:* [ date ] <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-November/date.html#216766> [ thread ] <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-November/thread.html#216766> [ subject ] <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-November/subject.html#216766> [ author ] <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-November/author.html#216766> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >/On Nov 24, 2021, at 5:08 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> wrote: />//>/On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> wrote: />>>/I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of the />>//>>/Lots of people said similar things when 1.0.0.0/8 was allocated to APNIC />>/and they said similar things when 1.1.1.0/24 was stood up as an />>/experiment by Cloudflare and APNIC, yet 1.1.1.1 seems to be pretty popular. />//>/Hi David, />//>/I don't recall there being any equipment or software compatibility />/concerns with 1.0.0.0/8. If you do, feel free to refresh my memory. As />/I recall it, there were concerns with prior local use and potential />/trash traffic. It seemed likely those concerns could be addressed with />/experiments, and the experiments in fact addressed them. />//>/The prior local use worry reared its head again with 240/4 but given />/the prior experience with 1.0.0.0/8 I don't personally believe we need />/to re-run that experiment just because the numbers are part of a />/different block. />//>//>>/Seems to me that a number of folks on this list and during this />>/discussion would disagree with a blanket assertion that 240/4 />>/is “dysfunctional on the 2021 Internet” - some of them even />>/wrote a draft discussing the possibility. />//>/Line them up. Show of hands. Who really thinks that if we assign />/240.0.0.1 to a customer tomorrow without waiting for anyone to clean />/up their software and hardware, you won't get enough complaints about />/things not working that you have to take it back and assign a />/different address instead? />//>//>>/1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" />>//>>/OK, but this seems like a quibble. The status for 240/4 is “ />>/RESERVED: designated by the IETF for specific non-global-unicast />>/purposes as noted.” The “as noted” part is “Future Use”. />//>/It's not a quibble. Some vendors take the current status to mean />/"treat it like unicast until we're told otherwise." Others take the />/status to mean, "packets with these addresses are bogons without a />/defined routing behavior until we're told otherwise." The result is />/incompatible behavior between vendors. Changing that direction to />/"treat it like unicast" without ambiguity is not a quibble. />//>/Regards, />/Bill Herrin />//>/-- />/William Herrin />/bill at herrin.us <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog> />/https://bill.herrin.us/ / For what it’s worth, I’ve been tracking this issue on other netops mailing lists. There is a recent post on the LACNOG list from Leandro Bertholdo <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/008895.html> referencing https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/>, a draft proposing another way to make additional IPv4 address space available I haven’t had time to read the draft closely, but I noticed that it involves the use of 240/4. Subsequent googling about the draft turned up a presentation <https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf> describing how the techniques described could be deployed. I noticed that the presentation made reference to OpenWRT, so perhaps the authors are aware of the work that the authors of the IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project have done in that area. The adaptive-ipv4 draft will expire sometime next month, so anyone interested in seeing it move forward should contact the authors. —gregbo ******************* -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

70 306

Geo-IP Sling.com and/or Dish Network Contact.
by Nicholas Warren 08 Nov '22

08 Nov '22

Does anyone know how to get ahold of Sling.com or Dish to update location information on IPv4 addresses? I don’t know if meta discussion is allowed on-list, but maybe geolocation contacts could be listed on the community site? 😊 - Nich Warren

3 4

jon postel
by Randy Bush 07 Nov '22

07 Nov '22

it's been 24 years, and we still live in his shadow and stand on his shoulders. we try not to stand on his toes. randy

24 36

Understanding impact of RPKI and ROA on existing advertisements
by Samuel Jackson 02 Nov '22

02 Nov '22

Hello, I am new to RPKI/ROA and still learning about RPKI. From all my reading on ARIN's documents I am not able to answer some of my questions. We have a public ARIN block and advertise smaller subnets from that to our ISP's. We do not have any RPKI configs. We need to setup ROA's to take another subnet from the ARIN block to AWS. Reading ARIN's docs, it seems I need to get setup on their Hosted RPKI service after which I can configure ROA's for the networks I am taking to AWS. My question is, will this impact my existing advertisements to my ISP's. The current advertisements do not have ROA's. Will having RPKI for my ARIN network, without ROA's for the existing advertisements impact me? Thanks for your help. Ref: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ec2-byoip.html https://www.arin.net/resources/manage/rpki/roa_request/ https://www.arin.net/resources/manage/rpki/hosted/

10 12

ARIN RPA updated (again) to address TAL distribution (Re: ARIN RPKI services terms/conditions - Change to Management of the Trust Anchor Locator for ARIN’s RPKI Service)
by Christopher S. Yoo 02 Nov '22

02 Nov '22

As the coauthors of the 2019 NSF-supported report that contributed to the current momentum toward overcoming the barriers RPKI adoption, a prior posting asked for our assessment of the changes. Our apologies that we won't be able to join you at this NANOG. We hope to put together some type of program in Atlanta in February. We would say that intent of ARIN's Sept. 26 and 29 updates ((link<https://www.arin.net/announcements/2022/documents/rpa_092622_redline.pdf> and link<https://www.arin.net/announcements/2022/documents/rpa_092922_redline.pdf>) to the RPA-to permit distribution of the TAL without signing the RPA-represent positive steps to address the most significant concern that we raised. In particular, the language in Section 5 added by the Sept. 29 update explicitly stating, "Notwithstanding the foregoing, You are specifically allowed to publicly distribute the ARIN TAL, including by embedding the ARIN TAL in relying party software," appears to authorize including ARIN's TAL in all distributions of validator software, and RPKI adopters would no longer need to download ARIN's TAL from its website. If effective, this is would remove the single most important legal obstacle to broader use of RPKI. The continuing wrinkle is that Section 5 authorizes distribution of ORCP services (including the ARIN TAL) only as permitted by the ORCP service terms. Section 9 requires third parties receiving this information either to have agreed to the RPA or to have entered into an agreement with the distributing party that includes the key terms of the RPA. That would suggest that anyone distributing validator software with ARIN's TAL must ensure that the recipient has agreed to the RPA in order to avoid violating the ORCP service terms. Although open source typically relies on licenses that are good against all users regardless of knowledge or assent (because they sound in property instead of contract), assent to the terms of the RPA could be incorporated into the distribution process, perhaps in the same manner used for other certificate authorities, which typically have terms of use. Another comment on this thread asked if ARIN has now addressed the other issues raised by our report. It is our assessment that ARIN has adequately addressed three of our other concerns, has announced its intention to address two others, and partially addressed one. The three issues that ARIN has adequately addressed include: * Dropping provision of the RSA requiring legacy address holders to acknowledge ARIN's property rights in IP addresses: dropped in update to LRSA dated Sept. 12, 2022 (link<https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/agreements/rsav13_changes.pdf>). * Drop provision of RPA prohibiting sharing of RPKI-derived data in a machine-readable format: authorized for informational purposes by update to RPA dated Oct. 21, 2019 (link<https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2019/20191021.html>); authorized for routing purposes by update to RPA dated Sept. 26, 2022 (link<https://www.arin.net/announcements/2022/documents/rpa_092622_redline.pdf>). * Better dissemination of best practices to the community: addressed by expansion of RPKI training at FISPA, WISPA, CaribNOG, and NANOG. ARIN has its intention to address two of our other concerns in the near future: * Better disclosure to government agencies of ARIN's willingness to waive insemination and choice of law clauses when barred by law: likely to be addressed by ARIN's announced plans to create webpage specifically for governments. * Better disclosure of operational practices, such as uptime, update frequency, and response expectations: likely to be addressed further by planned update to certificate practices statement. It partially addressed one concern that we raised. * Dropping blanket indemnification clause in favor of disclaimer of warranties and liability: revised RPA to exclude indemnification for ARIN's gross negligence by update to RPA dated Oct. 21, 2019 (link<https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2019/20191021.html>). We hope these comments are helpful and look forward to continuing to work with the community on removing the remaining legal barriers to RPKI adoption. Christopher Yoo (on behalf of myself and David Wishnick)

2 2