- Test - lists.nanog.org

Quantifying the customer support and impact of cgnat for residential ipv4
by Eric Kuhnke 22 Nov '21

22 Nov '21

Looking for anecdotal examples of the following: If you put N number of individual DHCP client residential broadband customers behind cgnat for ipv4, what percent of customers contact support and become a support/troubleshooting case later. And what percent of customers have a significant problem with it, to the extent that they either need to be offered a $5-10/mo extra /32 dedicated real address, or possibly cancel? Hopefully on sample sizes of 5000 or more. All else assuming that the customers are also dual stack v4/v6 and can reach v6 things normally without any of that traffic going through the cgnat.

4 3

RPKI-Based Policy Without Route Refresh
by Mark Tinka 22 Nov '21

22 Nov '21

Randy will be presenting draft-ymbk-sidrops-rov-no-rr during RIPE-83, at around 1530hrs UTC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-sidrops-rov-no-rr-02 Most grateful if you can join, and provide some initial feedback. Thanks. Mark.

1 0

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
by Mark Andrews 22 Nov '21

22 Nov '21

> On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon <jmaimon(a)chl.com> wrote: > > > > Mark Andrews wrote: >> It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It isn’t free. > > There are so many things wrong with this statement that I am not even going to try to enumerate them. > > However suffice it to say that drafts like these are concrete documentation of non-groupthink and essentially you are advocating for self-censorship and loss of historical perspective. I’m advocating for not taking address away that have been allocated for a purpose. No one knows what the impact of doing that will be. Perhaps we should just take back 216.222.144.0/20? You obviously think taking back address that are in use to be a good thing. This is similar to taking back other address that are allocated but not advertised. > Which given the state of IPv6 transition, perhaps more of that in the past would have been nice. > > For example https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 from 2008 which fell prey to the "by the time this is usable IPv6 will have taken over" groupthink. Again an oranges vs apples comparison. Class E is not 127/8. This is “Reserved" vs "Reserved for use on the host”. Totally different histories. Totally different expectations. > Objectively wrong. > > Predictive self-fulfilling circular arguments of this sort should no longer be given any weight, and along your lines, should never even be brought up. > >> >> Lots of bad attempts to justify a bad idea. >> >> "The IPv4 network 127/8 was first reserved by Jon Postel in 1981 [RFC0776]. Postel's policy was to reserve the first and last network of each class, and it does not appear that he had a specific plan for how to use 127/8.” >> >> Having a space for permission-less innovation and testing is a good thing. Jon understood that. > > Yes its a good idea to have space that is guaranteed to be available to every system regardless of its networking condition and that the host has deterministic control over the addressing used in that space. > > However, it turns out that /8 was much too large. The extreme few instances of its usefulness at that size pale in comparison with even the possibility of its usefulness to the public. > > So any attempt to adjust that should be given proper attention and serious thought. > >> >> "By contrast, IPv6, despite its vastly larger pool of available address space, allocates only a single local loopback address (::1) [RFC4291]. This appears to be an architectural vote of confidence in the idea that Internet protocols ultimately do not require millions of distinct loopback addresses.” >> >> This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. IPv6 has both link and site local addresses and an architecture to deliver packets to specific instances of each. This does not exist in the IPv4 world. > > SO an IPv6 only system without any network interfaces can run multiple discrete instances of the same daemon accepting connections on the same TCP port? Yes. I’ve been doing testing over the IPv6 loopback for 20+ years now. > Can I script that, can I template that with hardcoded addresses, same as I can now for 127/8? > > Good thing I can just use ::FFFF:127.0.0.1/104 You can script is to the same extent that you can hard code 127/8 addresses. I’ve used ULA addresses but conceptually they are the same. The lo0 interface also has more that 127.0.0.1 IPv4 addresses on it. % ifconfig lo0 inet6 lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384 options=1203<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,TXSTATUS,SW_TIMESTAMP> inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::1 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::2 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::3 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::4 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::5 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::6 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::7 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::8 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::9 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::10 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ff::1 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ff::2 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:99ff::1 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:99ff::2 prefixlen 64 inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:fffe::a35:4 prefixlen 64 nd6 options=201<PERFORMNUD,DAD> % >> "In theory, having multiple local loopback addresses might be useful for increasing the number of distinct IPv4 sockets that can be used for inter-process communication within a host. The local loopback /16 network retained by this document will still permit billions of distinct concurrent loopback TCP connections within a single host, even if both the IP address and port number of one endpoint of each connection are fixed.” >> >> But it doesn’t deliver millions of end points. Sorry you simulation will not work because we don’t have more that 65000 end points anymore. Sorry RFC 1918 addresses are not always suitable. >> >> "Reserved for <use>" is not the same as “Reserved”. >> >> Mark > > Let them use IPv6 link local for their simulations. Which doesn’t work when you are simulating dual stack. >>> On 18 Nov 2021, at 10:45, scott <surfer(a)mauigateway.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/2021 1:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >>>> This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed? >>>> >>>> > > Its only a relevant idea if you still care about IPv4. In which case, it might be a good idea. > > Joe -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org

6 17

Unicast etc meta-observation
by bzs＠theworld.com 21 Nov '21

21 Nov '21

Reading over many of these notes my observation is that many here are good at understanding the technical points of the proposals and throwing around 224/4 this and 127/8 that. Then the discussion mostly disintegrates into anecdotes with hands waving furiously, "my anecdote is VERY important!" What would be useful would be some attempt to quantify what those anecdotes are trying to express such as the costs and disruptions they imply. Something more like engineering or economics or engineering economics. Let's use a measure, "Cost And Disruption to the Internet's Infrastructure", call it the CDII. For example: 1. Proposing these address re-uses: CDII zero, other than the cost of endless discussion. 2. Writing them down into revised standards: CDII zero, other than the effort to agree and write them down. 3. Deploying an experiment: CDII about zero one hopes, again other than keeping "lab notebooks" and reporting back results. 4. Deploying wider, voluntary usage: CDII larger as this begins to require changes in, for example, actual routing, firewalls, etc in the wild and may begin to affect those not intentionally involved. 5. Full implementation: Still voluntary of course because everything is. But this might be the point where someone requesting IPv4 address space is assigned a block in these re-purposed spaces. CDII grows. There are sub-threads implied for the various repurposed blocks with different CDIIs. Many seem to feel, for example, that re-use of 224/4 would have relatively low CDII, 127/8 perhaps a somewhat higher CDII, etc. What's the detailed list? What are the relative CDIIs? And there are devils in the details of quantifying CDII per se. For example CDII for infrastructure operators vs end users for a given deployment. But it's not totally open-ended or unknowable or, perhaps put better, not impossible to enumerate and make intelligent estimates. It's not a very deep or bushy tree. Just a few choices at each decision point with CDIIs assigned. Plus some attempt to aggregate those CDIIs and decide what is acceptable and what is not, thresholds. Plus time horizons and quantifiable measures of success and failure along the way. Something like this could be more productive than describing one's connected lightbulb or networking in Armenia one more time even if such anecdotes would form the basis for that quantification. Since this and similar discussions have been going on literally for decades maybe the time is past due to try to quantify something like this proposed CDII model. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

1 0

FERC releases final report on Texas power outages (2021)
by Sean Donelan 20 Nov '21

20 Nov '21

"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It." Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has published its final report on the Texas 2021 power outages. According to FERC during the last 10 years, there have been four extreme cold weather events which have threatened the Texas power grid. That includes the 2011 Texas power outage during which hundreds of people died. https://www.ferc.gov/media/february-2021-cold-weather-outages-texas-and-sou… As found after past weather events, investigators determined that most of the power outages could have been avoided if power plants and wind turbines had been better protected against the cold and ice. Eighty-one percent of freeze-related generating unit outages occurred at temperatures above the units' stated ambient design temperature. Eighty-seven percent of unplanned generation outages were due to fuel issues related to natural gas. Natural gas fuel supply issues were caused by natural gas production declines. Some recommendations by FERC include: Generator owners should retrofit existing generating units, and when building new units account for weather events including extreme temperatures. Generator owners and operators should perform annual training on winterization plans. Develop corrective action plans should freeze-related outages occur. However, Texas maintains its electric grid as an isolated island, and hasn't followed past recommendations to avoid electric grid outages. https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Federal-report-warns-Texas-…

5 5

Weekly Global IPv4 Routing Table Report
by Routing Table Analysis Role Account 19 Nov '21

19 Nov '21

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Gobal IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see https://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. Global IPv4 Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 20 Nov, 2021 BGP Table as seen in Japan. Report Website: https://thyme.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: https://thyme.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 872856 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 330492 Deaggregation factor: 2.64 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 421731 Number of IPv4 prefixes with ROAs (including AS0): 246471 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 72340 Prefixes per ASN: 12.07 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 62111 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 25668 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10229 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 352 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 53 Max AS path prepend of ASN (265020) 50 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 878 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 882 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 37870 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 31435 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 145259 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 24 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 1 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 465 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 3072198144 Equivalent to 183 /8s, 30 /16s and 6 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 83.0 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 83.0 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.5 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 291082 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 232212 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 65445 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.55 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 227157 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 92991 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 12127 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 18.73 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3474 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1708 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 37 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 7303 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 773359744 Equivalent to 46 /8s, 24 /16s and 136 /24s APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-151865 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: 255961 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 118338 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.16 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 256057 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 122695 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18942 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 13.52 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6861 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1958 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 35 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4218 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1301555200 Equivalent to 77 /8s, 148 /16s and 40 /24s 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, 64198-64296, 393216-401308 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, 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: 243315 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 113789 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.14 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 239527 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 146747 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 28151 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.51 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 12149 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3930 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 33 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 10536 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 712340352 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 117 /16s and 115 /24s 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, 64396-64495 196608-213403 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: 113589 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 26963 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.21 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 114475 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 47550 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10803 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 10.60 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2630 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2138 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 53 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 8474 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 176342528 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 130 /16s and 198 /24s LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-272796 + 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: 26901 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 5279 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.10 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 35175 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 11337 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1578 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.29 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 554 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 312 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.1 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 904 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 108325632 Equivalent to 6 /8s, 116 /16s and 235 /24s AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-329727 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 45/8, 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 9808 8716 9000 57 CHINAMOBILE-CN China Mobile Communicati 7545 5861 787 684 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4538 4665 4192 74 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese 7552 3593 1330 20 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 7713 3500 1023 57 TELKOMNET-AS-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indon 45899 3219 1896 54 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN 4766 2506 11119 578 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR 9498 2174 475 235 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd., IN 45090 2135 1198 75 TENCENT-NET-AP Shenzhen Tencent Compute 4755 2120 429 202 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerl Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 16509 5961 10006 2562 AMAZON-02, US 11492 4605 305 827 CABLEONE, US 22773 4047 3049 381 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US 7155 3950 264 30 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US 16625 3685 1899 2560 AKAMAI-AS, US 6327 3389 1318 65 SHAW, CA 749 2890 50784 2146 DNIC-AS-00749, US 30036 2596 373 162 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS, US 209 2523 5027 439 CENTURYLINK-US-LEGACY-QWEST, US 7018 2247 24164 1436 ATT-INTERNET4, US Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 12479 6875 1711 149 UNI2-AS, ES 20940 3918 3348 218 AKAMAI-ASN1, NL 8551 3369 378 39 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 39891 3271 187 23 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 12389 2932 2279 898 ROSTELECOM-AS, RU 9009 2513 258 1322 M247, GB 34984 2201 354 600 TELLCOM-AS, TR 58224 1751 915 592 TCI, IR 61317 1645 215 927 ASDETUK www.heficed.com, GB 13188 1610 100 27 TRIOLAN, UA Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 10625 3450 577 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 10620 3248 490 830 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 11830 2465 369 62 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad 13999 1643 287 456 Mega Cable, S.A. de C.V., MX 6503 1514 358 470 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V., MX 28573 1378 2312 256 CLARO S.A., BR 3816 1240 651 153 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP, C 26615 1136 2351 138 TIM SA, BR 6147 1098 369 21 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., PE 11664 971 188 444 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactiva Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 1637 393 21 LINKdotNET-AS, EG 24835 1553 507 33 RAYA-AS, EG 36992 1285 1430 270 ETISALAT-MISR, EG 36903 1183 537 110 MT-MPLS, MA 36935 703 523 44 Vodafone-, EG 29571 667 68 11 ORANGE-COTE-IVOIRE, CI 6713 612 1863 34 IAM-AS, MA 15399 517 50 31 WANANCHI-, KE 37342 470 32 1 MOVITEL, MZ 23889 429 232 16 MauritiusTelecom, MU Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 10625 3450 577 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 9808 8716 9000 57 CHINAMOBILE-CN China Mobile Communicati 12479 6875 1711 149 UNI2-AS, ES 16509 5961 10006 2562 AMAZON-02, US 7545 5861 787 684 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4538 4665 4192 74 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese 11492 4605 305 827 CABLEONE, US 22773 4047 3049 381 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US 7155 3950 264 30 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US 20940 3918 3348 218 AKAMAI-ASN1, NL Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggregation summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 9808 8716 8659 CHINAMOBILE-CN China Mobile Communications Grou 12479 6875 6726 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 5861 5177 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4538 4665 4591 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Net 7155 3950 3920 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US 11492 4605 3778 CABLEONE, US 20940 3918 3700 AKAMAI-ASN1, NL 22773 4047 3666 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US 7552 3593 3573 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 7713 3500 3443 TELKOMNET-AS-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia, ID Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Net Originated Transit AS Transit AS Name 46990 UNALLOCATED 8.5.242.0/23 3356 LEVEL3, US 62828 UNALLOCATED 8.21.130.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US 393266 UNALLOCATED 8.23.52.0/24 46887 LIGHTOWER, US 18604 UNALLOCATED 8.25.204.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US 394936 UNALLOCATED 8.33.224.0/24 174 COGENT-174, US 54338 UNALLOCATED 8.33.241.0/24 6461 ZAYO-6461, US 23061 UNALLOCATED 8.39.119.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US 1782 UNALLOCATED 8.42.19.0/24 46887 LIGHTOWER, US 395438 UNALLOCATED 8.42.206.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US 395056 UNALLOCATED 8.45.133.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Prefixes from private and non-routed address space (Global) ----------------------------------------------------------- Prefix Origin AS Description 192.88.99.0/24 6939 HURRICANE, US Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-dsua Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Unassigned Network ASN Information AS Name 23.141.0.0/24 Origin: 395350 UNASSIGNED 23.141.0.0/24 Transit: 11426 TWC-11426-CAROLINAS, US 23.252.160.0/24 Origin: 398968 GROUP-IID-01, US 23.252.160.0/24 Transit: 1299 TWELVE99 Twelve99, Telia Carrier, SE 23.252.161.0/24 Origin: 398968 GROUP-IID-01, US 23.252.161.0/24 Transit: 1299 TWELVE99 Twelve99, Telia Carrier, SE 23.252.162.0/24 Origin: 398968 GROUP-IID-01, US 23.252.162.0/24 Transit: 1299 TWELVE99 Twelve99, Telia Carrier, SE 23.252.163.0/24 Origin: 398968 GROUP-IID-01, US 23.252.163.0/24 Transit: 1299 TWELVE99 Twelve99, Telia Carrier, SE Complete listing at https://thyme.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 /10:41 /11:101 /12:304 /13:597 /14:1214 /15:2045 /16:13563 /17:8266 /18:13913 /19:25301 /20:43165 /21:51015 /22:107589 /23:94089 /24:510337 /25:1287 /26:0 /27:0 /28:0 /29:0 /30:0 /31:0 /32:0 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 12479 5829 6875 UNI2-AS, ES 8151 4426 10625 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 11492 3558 4605 CABLEONE, US 6327 3197 3389 SHAW, CA 7155 3040 3950 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US 22773 3009 4047 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US 8551 2834 3369 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 39891 2807 3271 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 30036 2252 2596 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS, US 11830 1917 2465 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad y Telec Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1916 2:1033 3:144 4:18 5:3694 6:100 7:5 8:1548 9:1 11:172 12:1712 13:407 14:2290 15:125 16:32 17:374 18:129 20:143 21:4 22:188 23:5306 24:2368 25:4 27:2552 29:19 31:2377 32:106 34:1 35:48 36:1723 37:3916 38:2361 39:656 40:149 41:3868 42:1045 43:2091 44:295 45:15701 46:3784 47:323 49:1679 50:1876 51:103 52:1346 54:288 55:653 56:4 57:55 58:1741 59:1151 60:939 61:2276 62:2404 63:1946 64:5404 65:2347 66:4952 67:2896 68:1176 69:4126 70:1348 71:679 72:3091 74:2614 75:1502 76:710 77:2208 78:1744 79:2694 80:1870 81:1523 82:1413 83:1172 84:1303 85:2830 86:700 87:1883 88:975 89:3172 90:493 91:7482 92:1902 93:2570 94:3219 95:3585 96:1299 97:347 98:980 99:911 100:76 101:1047 102:1770 103:27489 104:4101 105:436 106:844 107:2391 108:750 109:3916 110:2062 111:3150 112:1956 113:1548 114:1540 115:1933 116:1894 117:2436 118:2314 119:1867 120:1619 121:1071 122:2536 123:2136 124:1601 125:2065 128:1392 129:1112 130:915 131:2061 132:751 133:366 134:1913 135:284 136:775 137:861 138:2441 139:1217 140:838 141:1318 142:1224 143:1358 144:1265 145:330 146:1641 147:1462 148:2236 149:1588 150:850 151:1080 152:1651 153:440 154:3353 155:1363 156:1834 157:1192 158:987 159:2010 160:2233 161:1274 162:3403 163:1165 164:1654 165:1498 166:602 167:1667 168:3641 169:675 170:4279 171:802 172:2834 173:3042 174:1004 175:1114 176:3432 177:4464 178:3014 179:1950 180:2263 181:2623 182:3163 183:1981 184:2411 185:19016 186:4229 187:3518 188:3623 189:3085 190:8745 191:1329 192:10990 193:8425 194:6873 195:4911 196:2884 197:2237 198:6021 199:6006 200:7416 201:5671 202:10520 203:10046 204:4489 205:3400 206:3832 207:3391 208:4013 209:4613 210:4234 211:2442 212:3827 213:3378 214:1166 215:64 216:6377 217:2625 218:1223 219:639 220:1955 221:987 222:852 223:2132 End of report

1 0

OpenDNS contact
by Mark Costlow 19 Nov '21

19 Nov '21

Does anyone have a contact within OpenDNS? A friend's business is in extreme pain because a false-positive blacklisting and he hasn't been able to find a human to appeal to. The source of the bad initial report has retracted it and the usual "remove me from this blacklist" form has been filled out, but they're still hurting. Thanks, Mark -- Mark Costlow | Southwest Cyberport | Fax: +1-505-232-7975 cheeks(a)swcp.com | Web: www.swcp.com | Voice: +1-505-232-7992

3 2

VIDEO | WATCH NANOG 83 Keynotes + More
by Nanog News 18 Nov '21

18 Nov '21

*VIDEO | NANOG 83 KEYNOTE* *Bert Hubert Asks Who Controls the Internet? And Should They?* *Keynote: *Who really controls the Internet? And should they? *Speaker:* Bert Hubert This talk is not for the faint of heart. Bert shares the more disconcerting details of government control within each country. He additionally discusses how control of the internet experience is moving more and more into the hands of browser and phone vendors. The advent of end-to-end encryption, also on control planes and metadata like DNS, means that no one else is able to influence the internet - except in extremely heavy handed and binary fashion. *WATCH BERT * <https://www.nanog.org/news-stories/nanog-tv/keynotes/keynote-who-really-con…> *VIDEO | NANOG 83 KEYNOTE * John Jason Brzozowski discusses the Near Future of IPv6 *Keynote:* IPv6 - The next 10 years *Speaker: *John Jason Brzozowski World IPv6 Day was in 2011, World IPv6 Launch in 2012. John will briefly reflect on the status of IPv6 deployment across eyeball and content networks ~10 years later. He takes a look at statistics across a wide range of public and private (cited) sources. In 2021 the cost of IPv4 address acquisition is increasing, dramatically. He will take a close look at what has worked and what has not, across the board, focusing on what the next 10 years of IPv6 needs to look like to not just increase adoption, but to increase bonafide end to end usage. *WATCH JOHN* <https://www.nanog.org/news-stories/nanog-tv/keynotes/keynote-ipv6-the-next-…> *WANTED: Experts to Train + Inspire our Next-Gen * The NANOG Education Committee is seeking proposals from experienced consulting firms or individuals to develop a NANOG proprietary technology-based program that will be offered to the NANOG community in continuing education. To learn more about how your expertise can inspire + educate our next generation of networking professionals click below. *LEARN MORE <https://www.nanog.org/outreach/curriculum-development-rfp/>* *VIDEO | Empowering "Courageous Women of NANOG" * Chief commercial officer + co-founder of PacketFabric, Jezzibell Gilmore shared a powerful talk at our NANOG 83 meeting, acknowledging the powerful impact our female leaders have had (and continue to have) on the industry. *WATCH JEZZIBELL * <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTQzjUPGZvE> *Get Your NANOG 83 Swag On* Share the love + show off your NANOG pride with a t-shirt, sweatshirt, polo, cap, or laptop stickers. And don’t forget to tag us in your NANOG pics on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn so we can follow along! #WeAreNANOG *SHOP NOW <https://nanog.itemorder.com/sale>*

1 0

FERC: 2021 Lessons Learned from Commission-Led CIP Reliability Audits (October 2021)
by Sean Donelan 18 Nov '21

18 Nov '21

I missed the October publication of FERC's annual staff report on lessons learned. https://ferc.gov/media/2021-report-commission-led-cip-audits Some are the usual boilerplate FERC staff "found that while most of the cybersecurity protection processes and procedures adopted by the registered entities met the mandatory requirements of the CIP Reliability Standards, there were also potential compliance infractions." The report also includes previous Lessons Learned from four prior annual reports.

1 0

Reminder to Submit Presentations for NANOG 84
by Cat Gurinsky 17 Nov '21

17 Nov '21

NANOG Community, The NANOG Program Committee (PC) would like to remind you they are accepting proposals for in-person or remote presentations at all sessions of NANOG 84, a hybrid meeting, taking place in Austin, TX on February 14th-16th, 2022. Below is a summary of key details and dates from the Call For Presentations on the NANOG website, which can be found at https://www.nanog.org/program/call-presentations/. Don’t wait! Presentation abstracts and draft slides should be submitted no later than Monday, January 10, 2022. Given by many of the industry’s top minds, presentations at NANOG meetings are meant to spark the imagination, encourage dialog, and drive new solutions to our greatest networking challenges. Presentations may cover current technologies, soon-to-be deployed technologies, and industry innovation. Vendors are welcome to submit talks which cover relevant technologies and capabilities, but presentations should not be promotional, or discuss proprietary solutions. The primary speaker, moderator, or author should submit a presentation proposal and abstract via the Program Committee Tool at: https://www.nanog.org/meetings/submit-presentation/ - Sign in with your Profile Account - Select the type of talk you propose to present, and complete the form Timeline for submission and proposal review: - Submitter enters abstract (and draft slides if possible) in the Program Committee Tool prior to the deadline for slide submission. - PC performs initial review and assigns a “shepherd” to help develop the submission — typically within 2 weeks. - Submitter develops draft slides of talk if not already submitted with the initial proposal. Please submit initial draft slides early — the PC does not evaluate submissions until draft slides are available for review. NANOG Staff is available to assist with slide templates upon request from the submitter. - Panel and Track submissions should provide a topic list and intended/confirmed participants in the abstract. - PC reviews the slides and continues to work with Submitter as needed to develop the topic. - FINAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE Draft presentation slides should be submitted prior to the published deadline for slides (January 10, 2022). - PC evaluates submissions to determine presentations for the agenda (posted on January 24, 2022). - Agenda assembled and posted. - Submitters notified. - Final presentation slides must be submitted prior to the published deadline for slides (January 28, 2022 for Remote/Pre-recordings and February 4, 2022 for in-person presentations). If you think you have an interesting topic but want feedback or suggestions for developing an idea into a presentation, please email the PC ( nanogpc(a)nanog.org) and a representative will respond to you in a timely manner. Otherwise, submit your talk, keynote, track, or panel proposal to the Program Committee Tool at your earliest convenience. We look forward to reviewing your submission! NANOG 84 Calendar of Events Date Event/Deadline November 17, 2021 CFP Announced January 10, 2022 Submission Deadline: Abstracts WITH Draft Presentation Slides Due January 17, 2022 Topics List + Highlights Posted January 24, 2022 NANOG 84 Agenda Published January 28, 2022 Pre-Record Presentation FINAL Slides Due January 28, 2022 Speaker Presentation Recordings Finalized February 4, 2022 In-Person Presentation FINAL Slides Due February 14-16, 2022 NANOG 84 Conference Final slides for pre-recorded presentations must be submitted by Friday, January 28, 2022. NO changes will be accepted between the recording date and the conference. Final slides for in-person presentations must be submitted by Friday, February 4, 2022. Materials received after that date may be updated on the website after the completion of the conference. We look forward to seeing you in February! Sincerely, Cat Gurinsky Program Committee Chair Sent on behalf of the NANOG PC

1 0