- Test - lists.nanog.org

End of Mariupol's Internet
by Sean Donelan 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

The Last Days Of Mariupol’s Internet https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2022/03/31/the-last-days-of-mar… "Engineers who kept Ukraine’s port city online have gone missing or died in the carnage inflicted by Russia’s siege. Hope remains that Ukrainian cities knocked off the internet map will come back online fast once the shelling ends."

1 0

IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
by Jacques Latour 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going to be dual stack IPv4/IPv6? When are we going to give up on IPv4? People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years. What will it take to be IPv6 only? 😊 From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira.ca(a)nanog.org> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM To: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen(a)avinta.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets introduced. What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015. Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea. Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas. Owen On Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen(a)avinta.com<mailto:aychen@avinta.com>> wrote: Hi, Justin: 1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ": After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks. Regards, Abe (2022-03-26 18:42) On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote: While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information, the means of getting that information from place to place is and has to be defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP, among many other examples). It's important to separate the ideas from the plumbing. That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what personal freedoms are being impacted by working toward deploying IPv6, with an eye toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future? Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way into wider use. It's a classic case of a test deployment that suddenly mutated into a production service. Why should we continue to expend effort to perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into wider use? Is IPv6 a perfect protocol? Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion. Thank you jms On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen(a)avinta.com<mailto:aychen@avinta.com>> wrote: 3) Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6): I believe that there is a philosophic / logic baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "personal freedom". Assuming that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a principle. A project attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system engineering discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.

5 5

NANOG 85 Registration is now OPEN! + VIDEO | Internet Innovators
by Nanog News 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

VIDEO | New Episode of "Internet Innovators" *Kleinrock Tells His Story + History of the Internet * Kleinrock's story begins on the streets of Harlem, where he credits his ability to see the world "without pretense" and how this ideology has influenced his research. *Watch the full episode to learn more about:* • Leonard's childhood • The day an engineer was born • The historic day where the first message was transmitted • What the first message was, and why • What Leonard would have done differently • Internet 50 Bash • Future predictions for the Internet • What he thinks the Internet still hasn't gotten right • His most recent project: the UCLA Connection Lab • + More *WATCH NOW <https://www.nanog.org/news-stories/nanog-tv/internet-innovators/internet-in…>* NANOG 85 Registration is Now OPEN! *Our 85th Community-Wide gathering is June 6 - 8* *Join us for the next meeting, NANOG 85. * Registration is open for our upcoming meeting, June 6 - 8 in Montréal, Québec. Attendees are welcome to attend in-person + virtually. *REGISTER NOW * <https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-85/registration/> Safety + Travel for NANOG 85 Your health and safety are very important to us and NANOG is ready to host everyone safely in Montreal. We will require that everyone attending NANOG 85 be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 no later than May 23, 2022. *GUIDELINES <https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-85/safety-travel/>*

1 0

A few questions regarding about RPKI/invalids
by Drew Weaver 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

Hello, We've noticed that there are a number of routes being passed along from 3356 with invalid origin AS. Of those, almost all of them are being passed to 3356 from 3549 (legacy Global Crossing) and there is no valid path available for any of these prefixes (at least according to the ROA). Ex 45.176.191.0/24 3356 3549 11172 270150 RPKI ROA entry for 45.176.191.0/24-24 Origin-AS: 265621 Two questions: First, are you also seeing this on this specific route? Second, is there a certain number of "expected" invalid routes? (not including unknowns) Third, how are you handling specifically the large number of routes from 3356 3549 which invalid origin AS? Are you just "letting the bodies hit the floor"? or are you carving those out somehow? I'm mostly just curious what other members of the community are seeing/doing in regards to this. Thanks, -Drew

5 5

PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages
by Aaron de Bruyn 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

I just got off the phone with a Comcast tech, and wanted to double-check my sanity. Somehow in the last 6 months I've managed to reach the exact same rep twice when dealing with an outage or a degraded service event. I asked him to remotely reboot the modem because there was high packet loss. Both times I've talked with him, he noted the high packet loss, started to reboot the modem, and then asked me point-blank if we had any PoE switches on our network. When I said "yes", he said I needed to disable PoE because it messes with the Comcast modems and he can see "buildups" in his graphs that show power is "leaking" to the Comcast modem every 24 hours. For reference, our setup is: Internal Network ←→ PoE Switch ←→ My Router (FreeBSD Box) ←→ Comcast Modem I told him the Comcast modem isn't plugged into the PoE Switch, it's plugged into My Router (FreeBSD box) and My Router does not negotiate PoE+ and the switch shows PoE isn't being send to My Router's LAN port. While the switch is capable of outputting old-school 24v PoE, it must be specifically turned on for a port, and it's not enabled or used anywhere on the networks I manage. When provided with that information, the Comcast tech still insisted that the switch was sending PoE to My Router and it was "leaking through" to the Comcast modem and that's why every 4-6 weeks the Comcast modem needs to be reset. The tech insisted that switches that *are* PoE-capable *always* send PoE even if the device doesn't request it or negotiate it. Attempts to explain the difference between the old 24-volt PoE and PoE+/++ were met with arguing that he's been in the industry for decades and I don't know what I'm talking about...and that all my problems would go away if I just disabled PoE everywhere on the switch. Again, I double-checked the port and said "It's not sending PoE to my router, but even if I were, I highly doubt PoE would leak through a PCI card to the opposite side of the chassis to the on-board NIC and out to your modem". He insisted it happened "all the time" and he had previously fried equipment by plugging it into a PoE switch. He insisted that he's also handled quite a few calls relating to this magic PoE problem over the years and Comcast has internal tools that show graphs of how much PoE power "builds up" inside their modems and he "can see a buildup in my router that resets every 24 hours". I didn't have the heart to tell him that I manage about 40 networks that have Comcast connections...and they *all* have identical FreeBSD boxes acting as their router, and they are *all* using the exact same PoE switches at every location with all ports set to PoE+...and we only have degraded service or outages after ~30 days at ~3 locations. Slightly off-topic, but if I call Comcast about outages or degraded service and any *other* tech but this guy answers, they all say "you need to unplug your Comcast modem and plug it back in once every 3-4 weeks" and they act like it's normal to reboot the modems every few weeks. In fact, last week I wanted Comcast to check on a modem setting at one location and they said the modem had been up for over 127 days and it should be rebooted. I said "it's up and working fine, why would I reboot it?". Anyways, am I insane for thinking the tech was flat-out wrong? I mean...occasionally some really bizarre stuff happens in IT...but this seems extremely far-fetched and contrary to everything I know about the PoE standard. -A

15 28

MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
by Jared Brown 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After watching a NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have a question regarding this. Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the provider side? Is it CPE support, the headache of moving state to the CPE, vendor support, or something else? NANOG 2017 Mapping of Address and Port using Translation MAP T: Deployment at Charter Communications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w - Jared

9 10

CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)
by Jared Brown 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

An oft-cited driver of IPv6 adoption is the cost of scaling CGNAT or equivalent infrastructure for IPv4. Those of you facing costs for scaling CGNAT, are your per unit costs rising or declining faster or slower than your IPv4 traffic growth? I ask because I realize I am not fit to evaluate the issue on a general level, as, most probably due to our insignificant scale, our CGNAT marginal costs are zero. This is mainly because our CGNAT solution is oversized to our needs. Even though scaling up our currently oversized system further would lower per unit costs, I understand this may not be the case outside our bubble. - Jared

3 5

Sling.com and/or Dish Network Contact.
by Anthony Leto 30 Mar '22

30 Mar '22

Sorry for the spam, is there anyone that has a contact for Sling.com or Dish? If so, can you contact me off-list. Thanks Anthony Leto

1 0

ATT DNS contact
by nanog＠fleish.org 30 Mar '22

30 Mar '22

Hi all, Apologies for the spam, but if anyone has a contact for AT&T that can help with DNS on the list could you please reach out to me off list? I’m seeing failures to send messages to @txt.att.net addresses due to a bogus DNS failure on your end: host mx3b.txt.att.net <http://mx3b.txt.att.net/>[166.216.152.132] said: 554 5.1.0 <REDACTED> has no MX or A record (in reply to MAIL FROM command) However, the <REDACTED> domain does have a valid, published MX record. Adding a root A record for the domain allowed me to work around the issue, but shouldn’t be necessary. Thanks, Todd

1 0

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages
by Livingood, Jason 30 Mar '22

30 Mar '22

> I asked him to remotely reboot the modem because there was high packet loss. FWIW, as a customer (assuming residential), you can login to the website and check for area outages/impairments at https://www.xfinity.com/support/status-map. You can also use the Xfinity app to remotely reboot your cable modem, run diagnostics/check for outages, etc. See https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/check-service-outage > Both times I've talked with him, he noted the high packet loss, started to reboot the modem, and then asked me point-blank if we had any PoE switches on our network. High packet loss typically suggests an RF impairment of some type. I don’t know how to explain the PoE comment but am happy to look at your connection if you want to email me off-list. > I said "it's up and working fine, why would I reboot it?". In some cases a reboot will trigger a pull of the latest firmware, which might include security fixes, performance improvements, and other changes. Jason

2 1