- Test - lists.nanog.org

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Analysis Role Account 01 Aug '14

01 Aug '14

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 02 Aug, 2014 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 505153 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 196190 Deaggregation factor: 2.57 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 248397 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 47367 Prefixes per ASN: 10.66 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 36014 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 16383 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6123 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 172 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.6 Max AS path length visible: 53 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 50404) 51 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 2030 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 452 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 7109 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5230 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 18854 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 470 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 395 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2710217476 Equivalent to 161 /8s, 138 /16s and 163 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 73.2 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 73.2 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 96.7 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 173657 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 121721 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 35794 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.40 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 125436 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 51941 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4963 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 25.27 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1228 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 875 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.8 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 24 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1025 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 734317184 Equivalent to 43 /8s, 196 /16s and 202 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 85.8 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-63999, 131072-133631 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 169960 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 84347 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.02 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 171799 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 80066 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16335 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 10.52 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6120 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1688 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 22 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 154 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1090570752 Equivalent to 65 /8s, 0 /16s and 202 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 57.7 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 124402 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 62985 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.98 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 129274 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 81810 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17723 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 7.29 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8256 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2873 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 53 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2727 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 659039108 Equivalent to 39 /8s, 72 /16s and 35 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 95.8 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-202239 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 58761 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 10289 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.71 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 66487 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 29734 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2191 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.35 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 566 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 454 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1276 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 167649792 Equivalent to 9 /8s, 254 /16s and 34 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 99.9 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 262144-263679 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 11040 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 2738 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.03 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 11762 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 4506 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 728 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 16.16 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 213 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 159 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 48 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 58252288 Equivalent to 3 /8s, 120 /16s and 220 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 57.9 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 2948 11590 919 Korea Telecom 17974 2801 899 72 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 7545 2331 320 118 TPG Telecom Limited 4755 1866 392 200 TATA Communications formerly 9829 1649 1306 31 National Internet Backbone 9583 1313 103 535 Sify Limited 9498 1298 317 93 BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 7552 1235 1098 14 Viettel Corporation 4808 1207 2155 372 CNCGROUP IP network China169 24560 1153 399 191 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 2943 3688 51 BellSouth.net Inc. 7029 2771 1905 301 Windstream Communications Inc 22773 2729 2940 141 Cox Communications Inc. 18566 2047 379 178 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1745 1731 546 Charter Communications 4323 1631 1072 411 tw telecom holdings, inc. 30036 1497 322 576 Mediacom Communications Corp 701 1438 11203 726 MCI Communications Services, 6983 1390 817 313 ITC^Deltacom 22561 1305 406 233 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 34984 1720 265 277 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 20940 1447 563 1062 Akamai International B.V. 8402 1249 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 13188 1062 100 30 TOV "Bank-Inform" 31148 1041 45 19 Freenet Ltd. 8551 994 371 42 Bezeq International-Ltd 6849 819 356 27 JSC "Ukrtelecom" 6830 776 2335 432 Liberty Global Operations B.V 12479 767 796 59 France Telecom Espana SA 9198 598 346 28 JSC Kazakhtelecom Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 28573 3778 2030 111 NET Serviços de Comunicação S 10620 2939 476 214 Telmex Colombia S.A. 18881 2062 1036 22 Global Village Telecom 7303 1770 1179 237 Telecom Argentina S.A. 8151 1437 2982 418 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 6503 1090 434 62 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 6147 1043 373 28 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 7738 977 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 27947 892 130 53 Telconet S.A 26615 860 2325 35 Tim Celular S.A. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 913 280 26 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 6713 673 744 37 Office National des Postes et 8452 594 958 13 TE-AS 36992 310 784 26 ETISALAT MISR 24835 306 144 9 Vodafone Data 3741 249 920 212 Internet Solutions 29571 236 22 17 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 37054 232 19 6 Data Telecom Service 15706 187 32 6 Sudatel (Sudan Telecom Co. Lt 12258 177 27 68 MWEB CONNECT (PROPRIETARY) LI Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 28573 3778 2030 111 NET Serviços de Comunicação S 4766 2948 11590 919 Korea Telecom 6389 2943 3688 51 BellSouth.net Inc. 10620 2939 476 214 Telmex Colombia S.A. 17974 2801 899 72 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 7029 2771 1905 301 Windstream Communications Inc 22773 2729 2940 141 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 2331 320 118 TPG Telecom Limited 18881 2062 1036 22 Global Village Telecom 18566 2047 379 178 MegaPath Corporation Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 6389 2943 2892 BellSouth.net Inc. 17974 2801 2729 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 10620 2939 2725 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 2729 2588 Cox Communications Inc. 7029 2771 2470 Windstream Communications Inc 7545 2331 2213 TPG Telecom Limited 18881 2062 2040 Global Village Telecom 4766 2948 2029 Korea Telecom 18566 2047 1869 MegaPath Corporation 4755 1866 1666 TATA Communications formerly Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65456 PRIVATE 5.109.32.0/19 23456 32bit Transition AS 65456 PRIVATE 5.109.96.0/19 23456 32bit Transition AS 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 2828 XO Communications 20260 UNALLOCATED 8.25.160.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 20260 UNALLOCATED 8.25.161.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 12180 Internap Network Ser 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 12180 Internap Network Ser 55020 UNALLOCATED 8.30.123.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 6461 Abovenet Communicati Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.240.0/20 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.226.240.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.226.248.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 24.231.96.0/24 21548 MTO Telecom Inc. 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.1.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.2.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.10.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.11.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.12.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:16 /9:13 /10:30 /11:91 /12:259 /13:498 /14:982 /15:1704 /16:13037 /17:7026 /18:11700 /19:24678 /20:35148 /21:37559 /22:54349 /23:47682 /24:268329 /25:798 /26:808 /27:389 /28:13 /29:18 /30:10 /31:1 /32:15 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 2002 2047 MegaPath Corporation 22773 1972 2729 Cox Communications Inc. 6389 1691 2943 BellSouth.net Inc. 7029 1481 2771 Windstream Communications Inc 30036 1338 1497 Mediacom Communications Corp 11492 1185 1237 CABLE ONE, INC. 6983 1096 1390 ITC^Deltacom 34984 1048 1720 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 10620 1029 2939 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22561 1003 1305 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1315 2:657 3:3 4:15 5:1049 6:21 8:713 12:1854 13:4 14:1106 15:15 16:2 17:40 18:21 20:36 23:878 24:1748 27:1756 31:1470 32:41 33:2 34:5 36:140 37:1826 38:960 39:7 40:210 41:2663 42:259 43:156 44:15 45:45 46:2092 47:24 49:728 50:830 52:12 54:47 55:6 56:3 57:30 58:1218 59:614 60:424 61:1591 62:1251 63:1852 64:4363 65:2325 66:4229 67:2062 68:1054 69:3338 70:890 71:462 72:2020 74:2624 75:337 76:415 77:1654 78:804 79:704 80:1313 81:1217 82:769 83:771 84:768 85:1320 86:414 87:1146 88:467 89:1786 90:139 91:5713 92:771 93:1763 94:2028 95:1615 96:509 97:361 98:1109 99:49 100:65 101:700 103:5323 104:151 105:36 106:174 107:577 108:582 109:2009 110:1022 111:1333 112:666 113:857 114:772 115:1109 116:1116 117:1016 118:1503 119:1421 120:411 121:853 122:2157 123:1471 124:1427 125:1561 128:573 129:343 130:362 131:680 132:391 133:162 134:322 135:76 136:299 137:289 138:370 139:170 140:210 141:387 142:559 143:412 144:502 145:107 146:652 147:501 148:903 149:404 150:393 151:607 152:448 153:220 154:321 155:521 156:354 157:344 158:271 159:936 160:326 161:572 162:1671 163:332 164:694 165:630 166:344 167:674 168:1115 169:122 170:1380 171:183 172:62 173:1534 174:711 175:618 176:1415 177:3375 178:2073 179:789 180:1783 181:1323 182:1615 183:538 184:702 185:1909 186:2913 187:1652 188:2162 189:1471 190:7647 191:665 192:7444 193:5506 194:4045 195:3566 196:1430 197:668 198:5112 199:5545 200:6322 201:2735 202:9169 203:8997 204:4551 205:2636 206:2966 207:2950 208:3969 209:3745 210:3167 211:1750 212:2316 213:2115 214:878 215:86 216:5705 217:1683 218:615 219:331 220:1282 221:626 222:358 223:597 End of report

1 0

Greenfield Access Network
by Colton Conor 01 Aug '14

01 Aug '14

If a new operator or city is building a greenfield access network from the ground up, what software and hardware is needed in the core network to provide and manage residential and business internet services similar to the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Google Fiber? Television and Telephone services are not to be considered only internet. Assume hypothetically the operator already has the following in place: 10 GPON OLTs Chassis from an access vendor in 10 POPs around town (each POP has 1 Chassis). Each OLT Chassis has 4 10G Uplinks back to the core. Dark fiber going from the POP locations back to the core location Assume a 32:1 way split, and each OLT chassis has enough ports populated to serve the area. 10,000 GPON ONTs. The ONTs can be put in routed gateway or bridged mode. Assume you are building a network designed to serve 10,000 subs All the fiber splitters, ducts, fiber, etc connecting the OLTs to the ONTs is already in place ASN from ARIN /20 of IPv4 space and /32 of IPv6 space from ARIN 4 burstable 10G internet connections from 4 tier 1 internet providers Questions are: What is the ideal way to aggregate the 40 10G connections from the uplinks of the chassis? I would guess a 10G switch since 10G ports on a router would be much more expensive? Which router is recommended to handle 4 10G internet connections with full tables, and then at least 4 10G ports going back to the 10G aggregation switch? How do you handle IP address management? a /20 is only 4096 IP addresses, but the network would have potentially 10,000 customers. Assume that getting more space from ARIN is not an option. Is CGN an option? Dynamic IP addresses? DHCP? How do you separate users and traffic? VLANs, Service VLANs, Per Customer VLANs, Usernames? Passwords? PPPoE? MAC Separation? Is a BRAS or BGN functionally really needed or are these older concepts? If CGNAT or DHCP is needed, what will host the CGNAT or DHCP service? The core router, a linux box, or something else? What about DNS? Is a firewall needed in the core? What else is needed? Is there a guide out there somewhere? I know many cities are looking at building their own network, and have similar questions. Access vendors are willing to sell gear all day long, but then they leave it up to the operator/city to answer these harder questions. How would you build a access network from the ground up if you had the resources and time to do so? Would you even use GPON? Even if GPON was not used and another access technology like AE, VDSL2, or wireless was used I think many of these questions would be the same.

5 10

Netflix To Cogent To World
by Jay Ashworth 01 Aug '14

01 Aug '14

While thinking about this double play over the weekend, a very interesting chain of thoughts occurred to me. If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? Presumably because they're offering me a helluva deal on the bandwidth. So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? Perhaps because they were smart enough to see how popular NF would become... and thought it would make an excellent stalking horse in their own peering fights? Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*? Cheers, -- jra [1] This is my understanding, though of course I'm not privy. -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274

15 22

EBAY reachability issues
by Drew Weaver 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

We've been seeing some issues with getting to Ebay this morning, only a very select few of their GSLB sites in DNS seem to be responding (to us at least)... Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.135.210.181|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.161|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out Connecting to www.ebay.com|66.211.181.181|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response...timed out Tried reaching out to them but can't contact anyone if anyone has a contact there please forward. Thanks, -Drew

3 3

Owning a name
by Larry Sheldon 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terror… Have not seen much discussion about this. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

15 21

Call for Nominations to ARIN AC and ARIN Board – Reminder
by John Curran 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

NANOGers - Anyone can become a member of the ARIN Board or ARIN AC - if you are interested, please have an ARIN Member nominate you today for the upcoming ARIN Elections. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> Subject: [arin-announce] Call for Nominations – Reminder Date: July 30, 2014 at 11:00:16 AM EDT To: <arin-announce(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-announce@arin.net>> Nominations close on 20 August 2014 for candidates for the upcoming ARIN election to fill two seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees and seven seats on the Advisory Council (AC). We are also seeking nominations for one seat on the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) which will be appointed by the Board of Trustees. Elections will be held in October, and the winning candidates will be seated on 31 December 2014. Who can submit a nomination? You must be a Trustee or an ARIN General Member in Good Standing to make nominations for the Board and Advisory Council. However, those nominated do not need to be ARIN members. Self-nominations from General Members in Good Standing are permitted. Any individual, regardless of ARIN membership status, may self-nominate or nominate one or more candidates for any open NRO NC position. For complete details on the nomination process, visit the ARIN Election System Instructions page at: https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/instructions.html#nominate Ready to submit a nomination? Go to: https://www.arin.net/public/election/ All nominations for the Board and AC elections will be reviewed by the Nomination Committee (NomCom). For more NomCom information, see the NomCom Charter at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/committeecharters.html#nomcom Please direct any questions to info(a)arin.net. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Announce You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce(a)arin.net) Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce Please contact info(a)arin.net if you experience any issues.

2 1

Re: Owning a name
by Larry Sheldon 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

I keep thinking (in this "you can not own a name" thing) about the early occupants of North America who to a man, I believe, argued that fences were just wrong, because you can't own the land. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

1 0

On a future of open settlement free peering
by Daniel Golding 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

I hesitate to respond to Mr. Bennett. But since he has asserted my opinion on this matter... There is no reasonable reading of the early FCC Open Internet proposed rulemaking that would lead to a ban on paid peering. It takes a number of logical leaps and a great deal of inference to even get close to that: the text of the proposed rule-making is crystal clear. I can turn any transit link into a "paid peering" link in about 25 seconds (and only that long because my IOS and JUNOS are rusty) The law professor whose contribution you cite either misrepresented or failed to understand the paper he (in turn) cited regarding MPEG-DASH and congested networks. His inference was that maybe networks really aren't congested and that the problem is the underlying video transmission protocol. The idea is absurd - we've all seen the Backdoor Santa graphs. Whether MPEG-DASH gracefully degrades under significant congestion is another matter entirely, and is orthogonal to this discussion. You seem to paint everyone who disagrees with you as being some sort of cabal. Yet, my agreement with Patrick Gilmore on this issue is far more the result of the extremism of the opposite position. The guiding principle of the internet engineering community has always been to avoid breaking the Internet because it has the effect of hurting everyone - a tragedy of the commons. And yet, some broadband providers are playing a long game of intentional congestion to attempt to reverse the existing content-broadband power paradigm. No one deserves settlement free interconnection and I don't believe it should be universally mandated. However, the ability for carriers and content providers to avoid onerous regulation has long depended on acting responsibly, as is the case in any industry. Causing prolonged pain to your own customers, as some monopolistic broadband providers are doing, is inviting regulation. This is where I do part company with some folks in this community - I think regulation is bad and will hurt us. People say "well it can't get worse" - oh yes, it can. But, Mr. Bennett, your paymasters are driving us to a more comprehensive regulatory regime, whether we like it or not. Mr. Bennett - the reason that everyone believes you are a lobbyist rather than a sincere activist is that a sincere activist (who just happened to be getting paid by the broadband providers) would realize that he is going down a path of greater regulation. If you were sincere, you would find that to be abhorrent. AEI once stood for competition and lower regulatory burdens. Now, you take money to support monopoly providers who are destroying established industry self-regulatory regimes. Shameful. Daniel Golding (speaking for myself, not my employer)

1 0

FW: Public Notice: FCC asks for comments on network security
by Livingood, Jason 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

FYI. The U.S. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a Public Notice on Friday (copied below), seeking comment on the “implementation and effectiveness of the CSRIC III recommendations”. Comments are due by September 26. Some folks here may wish to send the FCC comments on this, especially areas pertaining to preventing IP address spoofing. - Jason DA 14-1066 Released: July 25, 2014 FCC’S PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU REQUESTS COMMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CSRIC III CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES In March 2012, the FCC’s third Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC III)1 unanimously adopted voluntary recommendations for Internet service providers (ISPs) to combat three major cybersecurity threats: (1) botnet attacks; (2) domain name fraud; and (3) Internet route hijacking.2 Among other stakeholders, leading ISPs participated in the development of these recommendations and publicly committed to implementing them.3 The recommendations included voluntary measures in three areas: an Anti-Bot Code of Conduct to mitigate the proliferation of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks,4 steps to better secure the Domain Name System (DNS) through incremental implementation of DNSSEC, and steps to strengthen the security of the Internet’s inter-domain routing infrastructure.5 CSRIC III also recommended that the FCC encourage ISPs to implement source-address filtering topreventattackersfromspoofingIPaddressestolaunchDDoSattacks. Specifically,CSRIC recommended that the FCC encourage implementation of the following best current practices (BCPs) to mitigate this risk:6 1. 1) BCP 38/RFC 2827 – Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing;7 and 2. 2) BCP 84/RFC 3704 – Ingress Filtering for Multi-homed Networks.8 All CSRIC best practices are available on the Commission’s website in a searchable database.9 Since CSRIC III adopted these important recommendations, stakeholders have not yet provided the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) information regarding their implementation that is sufficient for a meaningful understanding of either their effectiveness or lessons learned from implementation. Meanwhile, the vulnerabilities these recommendations were intended to address continue to be exploited.10 For example, recent DDoS attacks of unprecedented scale11 add to the urgency of ISPs’ implementation of CSRIC recommendations or of alternative approaches that ISPs believe are superior to the CSRIC recommendations. Request for Comment By this Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment from ISPs, the Internet community, consumer organizations, and the broader public on the implementation and effectiveness of the CSRIC III recommendations and/or alternatives that stakeholders have developed since the time of the CSRIC’s original work to address these challenges. The purpose of this Public Notice is to promote a robust, stakeholder-driven discourse drawing on broad perspectives from throughout the cyber ecosystem to provide the communications sector and the Commission new information, insights and situational awareness regarding innovative solutions to these [page1image21240] [page1image21408] Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 [page1image22856] News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 particular cyber risks. To the extent that companies or stakeholders may prefer that their submissions remain confidential, we intend to protect the confidentiality of submissions according to the requests and consistent with FCC rules, as described below. This inquiry is part of the Commission’s effort to develop effective and proactive private sector-driven cyber risk management;12 in particular, it complements and supports ongoing work in CSRIC IV to create measurable, accountable cyber assurances across a wide variety of IP-based communications technologies and services.13 The Bureau seeks public comment on the implementation status and effectiveness of these voluntary recommendations, or alternatives, by ISPs and other members of the Internet community. We are particularly interested in comment on the following questions as they relate to the four broad areas of CSRIC’s previous best practices and recommendations cited above: 1. What progress have stakeholders made in implementing the recommendations? 2. What barriers have stakeholders encountered in implementing the recommendations? 3. What significant success stories or breakthroughs have been achieved in implementing the recommendations? 4. What are stakeholders’ views and/or plans for full implementation of the recommendations? 5. How effective are the recommendations at mitigating cyber risk when they have been implemented? Given the experiences gained in the past two years, are there alternatives to full implementation that could be more effective than full implementation at mitigating cyber risk risks posed by botnets, DNS vulnerabilities, routing infrastructure vulnerabilities, and source address spoofing? On what basis do stakeholders believe that these alternatives are more effective than the CSRIC III recommendations? Do stakeholders undertake qualitative or quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of these various approaches, or both? Comment Submission Interested parties are invited to comment by September 26, 2014. Please submit comments or meeting requests by email directly to the Associate Bureau Chief for Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability, Jeffery Goldthorp, at jeffery.goldthorp(a)fcc.gov, with a copy to the Deputy Chief of the Bureau’s Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Lauren Kravetz, at lauren.kravetz(a)fcc.gov. Requests for confidential treatment of information submitted should follow the procedures set forth in section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules, under which all submissions with an appropriate request for confidential treatment will be treated as presumptively confidential pending a ruling on the request. Additionally, upon request and on a case-by-case basis, the Bureau may accommodate classified comment submissions or discussions. Alternatively, those who desire to submit comments in hard copy only should submit an original and one copy of each set of comments. Hard copy comments can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All such submissions should be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission and reference DA 14-1066. *  All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper submissions for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Delivery hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. *  Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 2  U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504(a)fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). For further information, contact Jeffery Goldthorp, at jeffery.goldthorp(a)fcc.gov or (202) 418- 1096 or Lauren Kravetz, at lauren.kravetz(a)fcc.gov or (202) 418-7944. – FCC – 1 CSRIC is a federal advisory committee composed of leaders from the private sector, academia, engineering, consumer/community/non-profit organizations, and government partners from tribal, state, local and federal agencies. See FCC Encyclopedia, Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council III, http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/communications-security-reliability-and-int…. 2 See CSRIC III FINAL REPORTS, WORKING GROUPS 5, 6, 7, available at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/communications-security-reliability-and-int…. 3 See AT&T Public Policy Blog: Cybersecurity and the FCC’s CSRIC Recommendations (March 22, 2012), available at http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-and-the-fccs-csr…; CenturyLink Public Policy Blog: CenturyLink Takes Cybersecurity Seriously (April 2, 2012), available at http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/2012/04/centurylink-takes-c…; and Comcast Voices: Comcast Applauds Work of the FCC’s CSRIC on Online Security and Safety (March 22, 2012), available at http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-applauds-work-of-the-fc… safety. 4 In a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, an attacker uses multiple computers to prevent legitimate users from accessing information or services by sending large amounts of data to a website or spam to particular e-mail addresses. See Security Tip (ST04-015), Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks, US-CERT, (Feb. 06, 2013), http://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/tips/ST04-015. Source-address spoofing may lead to “attacks where the unreachability of the source can be exploited” by attackers who transmit packets that appear to come from a victim’s IP address. See CSRIC III WORKING GROUP 4 FINAL REPORT at 18 (March 2013), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric3/CSRIC_III_WG4_Report… (CSRIC III WG4 REPORT). 5 See News Release: FCC Advisory Committee Adopts Recommendations to Minimize Three Major Cyber Threats, Including an Anti-Bot Code of Conduct, IP Route Hijacking Industry Framework and Secure DNS Best Practices, (March 22, 2012), available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/csric-adopts-recs-minimize-three-major-cyber-th…. 6 CSRIC III WG4 REPORT at 20. 7 See P. FERGUSON & D. SENIE, BEST CURRENT PRACTICE 38, NETWORK INGRESS FILTERING: DEFEATING DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS WHICH EMPLOY IP SOURCE ADDRESS SPOOFING (2000), available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38. 8 See F. BAKER AND P. SAVOLA, BEST CURRENT PRACTICE 84, INGRESS FILTERING FOR MULTIHOMED NETWORKS, (2004), available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp84. 9 See CSRIC Best Practices, FCC Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, https://www.fcc.gov/nors/outage/bestpractice/BestPractice.cfm. 10 See Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection, RENESYS BLOG, Nov. 19, 2013, available at http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/. According to an Internet security firm that investigated the attack, victims included financial institutions, governments, and network service providers in the United States, South Korea, Germany, and several other countries. Id. See also Nicole Perlroth, In Cyberattacks on Banks, Evidence of a New Weapon, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Oct. 5, 2012, available at http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/in-cyberattacks-on-banks-evidence-…. See also Mathew 3 J. Schwartz, Bank DDoS Attacks Resume: Wells Fargo Confirms Disruptions, INFORMATION WEEK, March 27, 2013, available at http://www.informationweek.com/attacks/bank-ddos-attacks-resume-wells-fargo… disruptions/d/d-id/1109271?. 11 In a Reflective DNS Amplification DDoS attack, an attacker sends multiple requests to multiple open DNS resolvers pretending that they are coming from a victim’s IP address. The open DNS resolvers then reply to the victim’s IP address with larger packets thus amplifying the attack size. See David Piscitello, Anatomy of a DNS DDoS Amplification Attack, WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., http://www.watchguard.com/infocenter/editorial/41649.asp. See also John Leyden, Biggest DDoS Attack in History Hammers Spamhaus, THE REGISTER (March 27, 2013), http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/27/spamhaus_ddos_megaflood/; John Markoff and Nicole Perlroth, Firm Is Accused of Sending Spam, and Fight Jams Internet, N.Y. TIMES, (March 26, 2013), See also Mathew J. Schwartz, DDoS Attack Hits 400 Gbit/s, Breaks Record, INFORMATION WEEK (Feb. 11, 2014), available at http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks-and-breaches/ddos-attack-hi… id/1113787. 12 See remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to the American Enterprise Institute, June 12, 2014 available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-american-enterprise-institute-…. Chairman Wheeler stated that “the pace of innovation on the Internet is much, much faster than the pace of a notice-and-comment rulemaking” and challenged communications providers to create a “new paradigm” of proactive, measurable, accountable, business-driven cyber risk management. He cited the “important foundational work” in cybersecurity from CSRIC III that is the subject of this Public Notice and announced that “in the coming weeks, we will be seeking information to measure the implementation and impact of these industry-defined best practices.” 13 See Remarks of Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Chief, Rear Admiral (Ret.) David Simpson to CSRIC IV Public Meeting, June 18, 2014, available at http://www.fcc.gov/events/communications-security- reliability-and-interoperability-council-iv-meeting-1. Admiral Simpson’s remarks reiterated Chairman Wheeler’s call for a “‘new paradigm’ of proactive, measurable, accountable, business-driven risk management for communications security and reliability” and further described the “new paradigm” as “a substitute for traditional regulation that is more dynamic than complying with rules and more effective than blindly trusting the market. Under this new approach, businesses would step up and take responsibility for determining how to manage their risk in a more transparent and measurable way that promotes market accountability for cyber risk reduction. The traditional regulatory approach was that the FCC would propose a rule, and, after taking in your comments, tell you what you have to do – and, then, we would measure whether or not you are doing what we told you to do. The ‘new paradigm’ approach is different, and it is more challenging, because if it is going to succeed, it will rely primarily on your action. This is the case both in developing best practices and risk management processes in the first place, and then in following through with meaningful, measurable, demonstrable implementation.”

3 2

Upgrade Path Options from 6500 SUP720-3BXL for Edge Routing
by Corey Touchet 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

I’m curious what other providers have gone with when moving away from SUP720-3BXL 6500 platforms. I’m platform agnostic and just as comfortable with Juniper as with Cisco. It’s a conversation were having since the 3BXL’s are running into limits with the large number of prefixes, long eBGP convergence times, and 10G port density. Basically were looking to carry multiple full routing tables from several 4+ carriers plus internet exchange traffic so the ability to handle 1-2M IPV4 and 500K+ IPv6 and decent 10G port density and/or 40G options as well. Also should have decent CPU capabilities so it can crunch routes in a reasonable amount of time. Right now my thinking are MX480 or ASR9k platforms. Opinions on those are equally welcome as alternatives, but I’d love to hear from those with personal experiences today vs sales people trying to tell me it would route the world :) Thanks, Corey T

7 8