- Test - lists.nanog.org

I'm back...
by Charles N Wyble 12 Aug '11

12 Aug '11

Hey folks, Been months since I've graced the NANOG list. Been a busy year so far. I see the same exact v6 threads going on as when I left. LOL. Like a forest fire that won't die. :) Go Owen and your band of merry men! And OSPF vs ISIS. Glad to see nothing has changed. I have a few threads queued up 1) My experiences with ipv6 on the content provider side using a FLOSS stack 2) An experiment: Redundant array of inexpensive hosting providers (or do you/when do you really need bgp/expensive data centers?) 3) Current state of FLOSS data center suite 4) NANOG Home Networks - What's in your closet? Hopefully this stuff is on topic for NANOG. Charles (shaking things up) :)

1 0

trouble with .gov dns?
by William Herrin 12 Aug '11

12 Aug '11

Hi Folks, Anyone else having trouble with .gov DNS failing with edns-udp-size set to 512? Here's what I'm seeing: No edns-udp-size setting. tcpdump -n -s 0 -vv -i eth1 host 209.112.123.30 or host 69.36.157.30 nslookup www.nsf.gov 127.0.0.1 11:42:36.574916 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 21833, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 68) 71.246.241.146.10399 > 69.36.157.30.53: [udp sum ok] 56983 [1au] A? www.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=4096 OK (40) 11:42:36.659636 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 249, id 54334, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 598) 69.36.157.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.10399: [udp sum ok] 56983- q: A? www.nsf.gov. 0/7/5 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: swirl.nsf.gov. A 198.181.231.15, whirl.nsf.gov. A 198.181.231.16, cyclone.nsf.gov. A 204.14.134.227, twister.nsf.gov. A 198.181.231.17, . OPT UDPsize=1472 (570) edns-udp-size 512 tcpdump -n -s 0 -vv -i eth1 host 209.112.123.30 or host 69.36.157.30 nslookup www.nsf.gov 127.0.0.1 11:53:01.604105 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 21834, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 68) 71.246.241.146.58103 > 69.36.157.30.53: [udp sum ok] 10320 [1au] A? www.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (40) 11:53:01.690414 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 249, id 28744, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 534) 69.36.157.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.58103: [udp sum ok] 10320- q: A? www.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (506) 11:53:01.695000 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 20662, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 70) 71.246.241.146.23911 > 209.112.123.30.53: [udp sum ok] 18982% [1au] A? whirl.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (42) 11:53:01.695489 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 20663, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 70) 71.246.241.146.63892 > 209.112.123.30.53: [udp sum ok] 3675% [1au] AAAA? whirl.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (42) 11:53:01.695931 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 20664, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 70) 71.246.241.146.37019 > 209.112.123.30.53: [udp sum ok] 36777% [1au] A? swirl.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (42) 11:53:01.696274 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 20665, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 70) 71.246.241.146.15021 > 209.112.123.30.53: [udp sum ok] 13755% [1au] AAAA? swirl.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (42) 11:53:01.696653 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 20666, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 72) 71.246.241.146.38082 > 209.112.123.30.53: [udp sum ok] 14449% [1au] A? cyclone.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (44) 11:53:01.697045 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 20667, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 72) 71.246.241.146.28219 > 209.112.123.30.53: [udp sum ok] 38858% [1au] AAAA? cyclone.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (44) 11:53:01.699294 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 20668, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 72) 71.246.241.146.50745 > 209.112.123.30.53: [udp sum ok] 53248% [1au] A? twister.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (44) 11:53:01.700257 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 20669, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 72) 71.246.241.146.21482 > 209.112.123.30.53: [udp sum ok] 56185% [1au] AAAA? twister.nsf.gov. ar: . OPT UDPsize=512 OK (44) 11:53:01.780833 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 9453, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 536) 209.112.123.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.23911: [udp sum ok] 18982- q: A? whirl.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (508) 11:53:01.781284 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 24142, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 536) 209.112.123.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.63892: [udp sum ok] 3675- q: AAAA? whirl.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (508) 11:53:01.781999 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 9454, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 536) 209.112.123.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.37019: [udp sum ok] 36777- q: A? swirl.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (508) 11:53:01.782136 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 24143, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 536) 209.112.123.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.15021: [udp sum ok] 13755- q: AAAA? swirl.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (508) 11:53:01.782552 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 9455, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 538) 209.112.123.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.38082: [udp sum ok] 14449- q: A? cyclone.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (510) 11:53:01.782937 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 24144, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 538) 209.112.123.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.28219: [udp sum ok] 38858- q: AAAA? cyclone.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (510) 11:53:01.785168 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 9456, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 538) 209.112.123.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.50745: [udp sum ok] 53248- q: A? twister.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (510) 11:53:01.786251 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 24145, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 538) 209.112.123.30.53 > 71.246.241.146.21482: [udp sum ok] 56185- q: AAAA? twister.nsf.gov. 0/7/1 ns: nsf.gov. NS swirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS whirl.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS cyclone.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. NS twister.nsf.gov., nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. DS, nsf.gov. RRSIG ar: . OPT UDPsize=1472 (510) So with edns-udp-size set to 512 it looks like the .gov servers (a.gov-servers.net, b.gov-servers.net) refuse to ever return the necessary glue for the nsf.gov DNS servers. Am I reading this right? Thanks, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin(a)dirtside.com bill(a)herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

7 13

Experience with Juniper MX-80s
by Babak Pasdar 12 Aug '11

12 Aug '11

Hello NANOG Group, I am curious if anyone has any experiences positive or negative with Juniper MX-80s. Our recent experience with Juniper has not been great both in terms of new product offerings (SRX) and software bugs in the recent revs of Junos for the MX platform. I want to know if the MX-80 functions as advertised and in specific can properly handle two full IPv4 and IPv6 BGP feeds Thanks in advance, Babak -- Babak Pasdar President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker Bat Blue Corporation | Integrity . Privacy . Availability . Performance (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (f) 212.584.9999 | (w) www.BatBlue.com Bat Blue is proud to be the Official WiFi Provider for ESPN's X Games Bat Blue's AS: 25885 | BGP Policy | Peering Policy Receive Bat Blue's Daily Security Intelligence Report Bat Blue's Legal Notice

6 5

Re: IPv6 end user addressing
by Scott Helms 12 Aug '11

12 Aug '11

Owen, The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity (silicon & software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but they are still very nascent. On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite certain that it doesn't > cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have much of a > cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for ISPs that have lots of > residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48 will not make > for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible additional costs of > the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough. > > > Owen > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote: > >> Tim, >> >> Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete. >> http://goo.gl/exwqu >> >> >> >> On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >>> On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote: >>> >>>> Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. >>> Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF. >>> >>> For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>>> On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>>> Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing. >>>>> >>>>> This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real >>>>> routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to >>>>> actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be >>>>> applicable to Joe 6-Mac. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Scott Helms >>>> Vice President of Technology >>>> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum >>>> (678) 507-5000 >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >> -- >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> -------------------------------- >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> -------------------------------- >> -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------

3 5

Re: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact
by Brian R. Watters 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Sender: brwatters(a)absfoc.com Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact Message-Id: <1d95a7a9-8340-45e7-b803-03f1827326e1@brw-abs-office> Recipient: gerno(a)trinity.edu.test-google-a.com, Forwarded: Gerno.Reinard(a)Trinity.edu

2 1

network issue help
by Deric Kwok 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Hi There is problem in our network. The connection is disappearing. ls it about lop ing? How can I check it in switch? ls spammingtree disable by default? Thank you so much

18 23

Re: SORBS contact
by Brian R. Watters 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Sender: brwatters(a)absfoc.com Subject: Re: SORBS contact Message-Id: <8beae4f1-acd0-4408-9f75-264aff04d788@brw-abs-office> Recipient: gerno(a)trinity.edu.test-google-a.com, Forwarded: Gerno.Reinard(a)Trinity.edu

1 0

RE: IPv6 end user addressing
by Frank Bulk 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

This same Vendor C wants us to upgrade our 7206VXR's to ASR1K's just so we have the (hopefully working) IPv6 features in IOS-XE that are broken in 12.x. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Mark Newton [mailto:newton@internode.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:12 PM To: Cameron Byrne Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing On 11/08/2011, at 12:30 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > Finally a useful post in this thread. Good work on the deployment of real ipv6! > Thanks. And thanks to Vendor-C for helping us through it. The IPv6 Broadband featureset on the ASR platform starting from IOS-XR 3.1 is a vast improvement on its predecessors. Biggest hassle with IPv6 in production right now: DNS support is woefully undercooked. I don't think anyone has put anywhere near as much effort into making it fluid, user-friendly, and automated. Simple questions like, "How are reverse mappings supposed to work when you can't predict an end-user's address?" have no good answer. If any systems folks want a nice meaty problem domain to focus their efforts on, DNS would be da shiznit. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: newton(a)internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton(a)atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223

1 0

v4/v6 dns thoughts?
by Joe Pruett 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

as i'm rolling v6 into my world, i'm not sure which way to go with reverse dns conventions. for forward i'm doing things like: foo.example.com a 1.1.1.1 foo.example.com aaaa 1000::1.1.1.1 foo.v4.example.com a 1.1.1.1 foo.v6.example.com aaaa 1000::1.1.1.1 so i can use a foo.v4/v6 hostname if i need to specify transit behavior. but for reverse i'm not sure if i want to map it like: 1.1.1.1.in-addr.arpa ptr foo.example.com. 1.0.1.0.1.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.ip6.arpa ptr foo.example.com or: 1.1.1.1.in-addr.arpa ptr foo.v4.example.com. 1.0.1.0.1.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.ip6.arpa ptr foo.v6.example.com being able to just use foo.example.com for authentication purposes (sendmail, nfs, etc) is nice. but also knowing when incoming is v4 or v6 by just looking at the dns lookup (for tools that do reverse lookup for you) is also nice. what are you doing? which way makes more sense to you?

7 7

Communications networks "will be closed down"
by Alexander Harrowell 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2011/08/uk-riots-david-cameron- announces-his-prescription/ I feel this is operational or at least potentially so. -- The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail to lists complaining about them

1 0