- Test - lists.nanog.org

Level3 DNS Issues
by Ryan O’Shea 10 Sep '20

10 Sep '20

Is anyone experiencing timeouts when querying 209.244.0.3? Thanks, Ryan O’Shea

3 3

AT&T TV ISP Support
by Brian Pierce 09 Sep '20

09 Sep '20

Hello All, Does anyone have reliable contact info for AT&T TV's ISP support? We are an ISP experiencing issues providing internet connectivity to AT&T TV boxes and we aren't having any luck reaching the correct support for this issue within AT&T TV's support structure. Has anyone worked with AT&T TV's support at the carrier level? Standard residential tech support has no idea how to assist us and is getting the run-around when they try to escalate the issue. We have tried reaching out to noc(a)att.net<mailto:noc@att.net> but they will not respond to our requests. Thanks in advance, Brian Pierce Network Technician bpierce(a)consolidated.coop<mailto:bpierce@consolidated.coop> Consolidated Cooperative consolidated.coop<http://consolidated.coop/> Electric | Fiber | Gas A Touchstone Energy* Cooperative Light up your life.

1 0

antispamcloud.com (SpamExperts) forensics reports format
by Sébastien Riccio 09 Sep '20

09 Sep '20

Hello, We are parsing dmarc reports using parsedmarc and the forensics reports coming from antispamcloud.com seems not to follow the recommended reporting format (AFRF) and therefore are considered invalid. Maybe is there anyone from SpamExperts in this list that could enlighten me about how we could request to receive the reports in a common format? If I understand correctly that should be the case by default: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-7.3 When a Domain Owner requests failure reports for the purpose of forensic analysis, and the Mail Receiver is willing to provide such reports, the Mail Receiver generates and sends a message using the format described in [AFRF]; this document updates that reporting format, as described in Section 7.3.1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-6.3 rf: Format to be used for message-specific failure reports (colon- separated plain-text list of values; OPTIONAL; default is "afrf"). The value of this tag is a list of one or more report formats as requested by the Domain Owner to be used when a message fails both [SPF] and [DKIM] tests to report details of the individual failure. The values MUST be present in the registry of reporting formats defined in Section 11; a Mail Receiver observing a different value SHOULD ignore it or MAY ignore the entire DMARC record. For this version, only "afrf" (the auth-failure report type defined in [AFRF]) is presently supported. See Section 7.3 for details. For interoperability, the Authentication Failure Reporting Format (AFRF) MUST be supported. Instead we receive it with this format: A message claiming to be from you has failed the published DMARC policy for your domain. Sender Domain: xyz.ch Sender IP Address: x.x.x.x Received Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:37:40 +0200 SPF Alignment: no DKIM Alignment: no DMARC Results: None, Accept ------ This is a copy of the headers that were received before the error was detected. [then all headers of the offending message here that I removed for this post] Thanks a lot for your infos and help. Kind regards, Sébastien RICCIO SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR P +41 840 888 888 F +41 840 888 000 M sriccio(a)swisscenter.com<mailto:sriccio@swisscenter.com>

2 1

Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
by Mark Tinka 09 Sep '20

09 Sep '20

On 9/Sep/20 14:29, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote: > Why not? As a service offering, it makes total sense. Yes, makes total sense. So why aren't jumping all over it? > > Thou, generally I agree with you. Trust, but verify any received > announcement conforms to a base-set of expectations. Discard > non-conforming. This. But as always, the plan is what happens. Mark.

1 0

PTP/Syncronized Ethernet maturity
by Macho Pellegrini 09 Sep '20

09 Sep '20

Hello everybody, We have deployed PTP in our mobile NW since late 2019 as a part of the 4G/5G, however we are seeing a lots of instabilities and interop issues, a lot of the issues have ended up with SW bugs in the OS, I have no specific question, however I got the impression that the technology/protocol is not yet mature, anybody here got his hands dirty with PTP? Thanks, MP

3 5

Any Wave Business clue on the list?
by Mike Lyon 08 Sep '20

08 Sep '20

If so, can you shoot me an email offlist? Thank You, Mike

1 0

Spoofer Report for NANOG for Aug 2020
by CAIDA Spoofer Project 08 Sep '20

08 Sep '20

In response to feedback from operational security communities, CAIDA's source address validation measurement project (https://spoofer.caida.org) is automatically generating monthly reports of ASes originating prefixes in BGP for systems from which we received packets with a spoofed source address. We are publishing these reports to network and security operations lists in order to ensure this information reaches operational contacts in these ASes. This report summarises tests conducted within usa, can. Inferred improvements during Aug 2020: ASN Name Fixed-By 10965 MRNET 2020-08-15 60068 CDN77 2020-08-27 Further information for the inferred remediation is available at: https://spoofer.caida.org/remedy.php Source Address Validation issues inferred during Aug 2020: ASN Name First-Spoofed Last-Spoofed 209 CENTURYLINK-US-LEGACY-QWEST 2016-08-16 2020-08-28 6128 CABLE-NET-1 2016-09-03 2020-08-30 20412 CLARITY-TELECOM 2016-09-30 2020-08-28 6181 FUSE-NET 2016-10-10 2020-08-31 174 COGENT-174 2016-10-21 2020-08-18 32440 LONI 2016-11-03 2020-08-30 12083 WOW-INTERNET 2016-11-09 2020-08-31 20473 AS-CHOOPA 2017-01-08 2020-08-25 63296 AWBROADBAND 2017-09-01 2020-08-24 546 PARSONS-PGS-1 2017-11-20 2020-08-05 8100 ASN-QUADRANET-GLOBAL 2018-04-06 2020-08-18 16837 VABB 2018-06-22 2020-08-07 20448 VPNTRANET-LLC 2018-09-20 2020-08-31 63275 RADIOWIRE 2019-02-07 2020-08-10 8047 GCI 2019-04-11 2020-08-27 11650 PLDI 2020-05-25 2020-08-28 393397 LREC-LRT 2020-08-02 2020-08-02 40156 THEOPT-HOU 2020-08-13 2020-08-13 36666 GTCOMM 2020-08-24 2020-08-24 46816 DSNETWORKS-001 2020-08-24 2020-08-24 4986 INTERSTAR 2020-08-24 2020-08-24 32489 AMANAHA-NEW 2020-08-24 2020-08-24 11051 CYBERVERSE 2020-08-25 2020-08-25 398019 DYNU 2020-08-25 2020-08-25 61317 ASDETUK 2020-08-31 2020-08-31 27257 WEBAIR-INTERNET 2020-08-31 2020-08-31 7040 NETMINDERS 2020-08-31 2020-08-31 Further information for these tests where we received spoofed packets is available at: https://spoofer.caida.org/recent_tests.php?country_include=usa,can&no_block… Please send any feedback or suggestions to spoofer-info(a)caida.org

1 0

AS2828 XO / Verizon Route Flapping?
by Stephen Frost 07 Sep '20

07 Sep '20

Greetings, We're seeing a pretty consistent drop of traffic every 60s for about 5s inside of AS2828 (formerly xo.net, now Verizon). Started seeing alerts due to this at Sun, 06 Sep 2020 06:04:04 +0000. During the 5s we're getting 'No route to host' bounces, eg: connect to address 2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::31 and port 80: No route to host MTR: Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit Last 181 pings 1. 2604:a580:2::2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2. 2604:a580::1:0:0:12 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3. 2604:a580::1:0:0:d ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4. 2610:18:18c:4000::5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5. 2610:18::2046 .......................................?????..........................>......................?????......................................................................?????........ 6. 2001:7f8:4:1::847:1 .......................................?????.................................................?????......................................................................?????.......? 7. 2001:4600:0:100::29 .......................>...............?????.................................................?????......................................................................?????....... 8. 2001:4600:0:100::3 .......................................?????.................................................?????......................................................................?????....... 9. 2001:4600:0:100::2a .........>.....>.....>...............>?????.........................>.......................?????......................................>.............................>.?????........ 10. 2001:4600:0:200::62 ...>..................................?????........>..........>..................>>.........?????.....>.......>............................>>...>......................?????........ 11. 2001:4600:9:100::2e ..............>.......................?????............................................>....?????.............................>...................>....................?????........ 12. 2a02:c0:1:1::6 ......................................?????.................................................?????......................................................................?????........ 13. 2a02:c0:1::4:1 ......................................?????.....?????????????????????????????????????????????????.....??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????.....??? 14. 2a02:c0:1:401::25 ......................................?????.................................................?????......................................................................?????........ 15. 2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::34 ......................................?????.................................................?????......................................................................?????........ Scale: .:3 ms 1:8 ms 2:14 ms 3:26 ms a:56 ms b:85 ms c:137 ms Traceroute: traceroute to wrigleys (2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::34), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets 1 2604:a580:2::2 (2604:a580:2::2) 0.357 ms 0.320 ms 0.243 ms 2 2604:a580::1:0:0:12 (2604:a580::1:0:0:12) 0.641 ms 0.302 ms 0.271 ms 3 2604:a580::1:0:0:d (2604:a580::1:0:0:d) 0.472 ms 0.427 ms 0.313 ms 4 2610:18:18c:4000::5 (2610:18:18c:4000::5) 0.873 ms 0.906 ms 0.855 ms 5 cir1.london2-eng.us.xo.net (2610:18::2046) 91.539 ms 91.471 ms 91.413 ms 6 2001:7f8:4:1::847:1 (2001:7f8:4:1::847:1) 92.361 ms 92.570 ms 92.513 ms 7 ti3004c400-lo0-0.ti.telenor.net (2001:4600:0:100::5) 123.541 ms 123.460 ms 123.388 ms 8 ti0001c360-lo0-0.ti.telenor.net (2001:4600:0:100::23) 123.516 ms 123.474 ms 123.419 ms 9 ti0275c360-lo0-0.ti.telenor.net (2001:4600:0:100::2) 123.305 ms 123.332 ms 123.264 ms 10 ti0169a400-lo0-0.ti.telenor.net (2001:4600:0:200::62) 129.801 ms 129.767 ms 129.717 ms 11 2001:4600:9:100::2e (2001:4600:9:100::2e) 128.751 ms 128.703 ms cir1.london2-eng.us.xo.net (2610:18::2046) 91.658 ms !H MTR going the other way: regula (2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::38) 2020-09-07T13:24:34+0000 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit Last 181 pings 1. 2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::1 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2. 2a02:c0:1:401::22 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3. 2a02:c0:1::1 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4. 2a02:c0:1:1::7 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5. 2001:4600:9:100::2d ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6. 2001:4600:0:100::2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 7. 2001:4600:0:100::23 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8. 2001:4600:0:100::5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9. 2001:4600::4 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 10. 2001:7f8:4:1::b0c:1 ...............................?????................................................?????......................................................................?????................. 11. 2610:18::30c4 ...............................?????................>...............................?????......................................................................?????................. 12. 2610:18:18c:4000::6 ...............................?????................................................?????......................................................................?????................. 13. 2604:a580::1:0:0:e ..........>....................?????.>.........................>....................?????........................>............................>................?????...........>>..?? 14. 2604:a580:2:0:5254:ff:fe ...............................?????................................................?????......................................................................?????................ Anyone from Verizon watching who could look into this? Anyone else seeing similar issues? Feel free to contact me off-list if that'd help. We're also trying to reach out to our provider to see if they can help. Thanks! Stephen

1 0

Comcast/Xfinity blocking my domain
by Octolus Development 07 Sep '20

07 Sep '20

Anyone here have some contact emails where I can reach out to them and appeal it? They're falsely blocking my website. I've done a lot of research and it proves that it is almost impossible to get in touch with them, many companies have been heavily affected by the false-positive blocks. Really appreciate any responses! :-)

2 1

Centurylink having a bad morning?
by Drew Weaver 06 Sep '20

06 Sep '20

Hello, Woke up this morning to a bunch of reports of issues with connectivity had to shut down some Level3/CTL connections to get it to return to normal. As of right now their support portal won't load: https://www.centurylink.com/business/login/ Just wondering what others are seeing.

44 85