- Test - lists.nanog.org

ASN Domain for rDNS
by Keefe John 10 Dec '14

10 Dec '14

I've been seeing more and more carriers(and even small ISPs) using asXXXX.net as their domain for rDNS on IP space. What are the pros and cons for doing this versus using your primary business domain name? Keefe John

8 7

Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
by Yucong Sun 10 Dec '14

10 Dec '14

Hi, My recent inquiry to some network provider reveals that they are charging fee for per /24 announced. Obvious that would means they get to charge a lot with little to none efforts on their side. In a world we are charging total bytes transferred instead of bps on uplinks, i can't say I'm surprised that much. But does anyone else had same experience? Did you pay? Is this the new status quo now? Thanks.

4 4

Contact from Sharktech available?
by Duane Toler 10 Dec '14

10 Dec '14

Can someone from Sharktech contact me off list to discuss an NTP flood from your co-lo network? One of my customers has a site being hammered by a few subnets of yours. Thanks!! -- Duane Toler detoler(a)gmail.com

1 0

route misorigination of the day
by Randy Bush 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

http://www.bgpmon.net/bgp-hijack-incident-by-syrian-telecommunications-esta… thanks andre randy

1 0

Followup: Survey results for the ARIN RPA
by Andrew Gallo 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

There have been 28 response to the survey I put out last week. The key numbers are: We have read and will not sign the agreement 10 36% We are considering signing the agreement 1 4% We haven't yet read it 5 18% and Our legal staff has reviewed and rejected the agreement. 7 25% We have provided specific legal feedback to ARIN on the agreement. 2 7% I'll draw the obvious conclusion: While not scientific, these numbers, combined with the, well, lively, discussion the past few days show some serious dissatisfaction with the agreement required in order to access, and therefore validate, ROAs in the ARIN region. And there in lies my interest in all of this- there is little value in signing my org's routes if no one is going to validate them. It's a bit of an odd position in that I have a very high interest in what the rest of the community thinks of and how they act with respect to the RPA. In other words, your relationship with ARIN is now of concern to me. Maybe I'm being naively optimistic in thinking that these are solvable problems.

7 10

Re: 10Gb iPerf kit?
by Randy Carpenter 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

I have not tried doing that myself, but the only thing that would even be possible that I know of is thunderbolt. A new MacBook Pro and one of these maybe: http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresssel_10gbeadapter.html -Randy ----- On Nov 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Daniel Rohan drohan(a)gmail.com wrote: > We're looking for a semi-portable solution to validate 10Gb customer > circuits and hitting walls surrounding PCI lanes and the amount of data > laptops can push via their busses. We'd prefer to not have techs lugging > around server equipment for these tests. > > Anyone out there testing 10gbE with iPerf? If so, what are you using? > > Thanks, > > > Dan

10 11

What can I infer from "show ip route" and similar BGP commands?
by Reza Motamedi 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Hello NANOG, I’m a researcher and I was trying to understand the data I collected from some BGP Looking Glasses. Basically, I was hoping to see if BGP records can tell me where my university’s provider (AS3701) is peering with its providers. I issued two BGP queries to Level3’s LGs, one in Seattle and one in Amsterdam for my school’s prefix. My strong guess was that our provider (AS3701) peers with Level3 in Seattle. I was hoping to conclude something like this: if the peering occurs in Seattle, the Seattle LG should reveal it, but Amsterdam should not. AS3701 is Nero (Network for Education and Research in Oregon) which I assume is a small regional AS. I don't think Nero peers with Level3 in Amsterdam, however, I get this AS for my next hop even when I issue the command from Amsterdam. On the other hand “car1.Sacramento1” suggests that the peering happens in Sacramento. This result makes me think what I get is from a combination of iBGP and eBGP, which is also apparent from “Internal/External” keywords in the data. My main issue is that the keywords are not always available. In some other LG I just get a next hop IP and an AS path. How can I make sure that the peering information comes from an eBGP peering? I think the next hop IP might be the answer, right? I included the results of the command for both LGs here, hopefully somebody could explain to me ------------------------------------------------- Route results for 128.223.0.0/16 from Amsterdam, Netherlands BGP routing table entry for 128.223.0.0/16 Paths: (2 available, best #1) 3701 3582 AS-path translation: { OREGONUNIV UONET } car1.Sacramento1 (metric 58341) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Sacramento Originator: car1.Sacramento1 3701 3582 AS-path translation: { OREGONUNIV UONET } car1.Sacramento1 (metric 58341) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Sacramento Originator: car1.Sacramento1 ------------------------------------------------- Route results for 128.223.6.81/16 from Seattle, WA BGP routing table entry for 128.223.0.0/16 Paths: (4 available, best #3) 3701 3582 AS-path translation: { OREGONUNIV UONET } 4.53.150.46 from 4.53.150.46 (ptck-core1-gw.nero.net) Origin IGP, localpref 90, valid, external Community: North_America Lclprf_90 Level3_Customer United_States Seattle Level3:11847 3701 3582, (received-only) AS-path translation: { OREGONUNIV UONET } 4.53.150.46 from 4.53.150.46 (ptck-core1-gw.nero.net) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: Level3:90 3701 3582 AS-path translation: { OREGONUNIV UONET } car1.Sacramento1 (metric 34363) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Sacramento Originator: car1.Sacramento1 3701 3582 AS-path translation: { OREGONUNIV UONET } car1.Sacramento1 (metric 34363) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Sacramento Originator: car1.Sacramento1 Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Computer and Information Science University of Oregon

2 2

DWDM Documentation
by Theo Voss 08 Dec '14

08 Dec '14

Hi guys, we, a Berlin / Germany based carrier, are looking for a smart documentation (shelfs, connections, fibers) and visualization tool for our ADVA-based DWDM-enviroment. Do you have any suggestions or hints for me? We’re testing „cableScout“, the only one I found, next week but. Unfortunately it isn’t easy to get any information about such tools! :( Thanks in advance! Best regards, Theo Voss (AS25291)

4 4

looking for an OTDR
by Karsten Elfenbein 08 Dec '14

08 Dec '14

Hi, I'm looking for an OTDR. - single and multi mode fibers - good resolution as the the primary area of operation would be in the data center - a low learning curve and simple user interface What OTDRs / manufactures can you recommend? Thanks Karsten

2 1

Google public DNS - getting SERVFAIL for any domains delegated to GoDaddy NSs
by Erik Levinson 07 Dec '14

07 Dec '14

All, Could someone from Google public DNS and from GoDaddy contact me off-list? I'm getting SERVFAIL when trying to resolve any record in any domain whose NSs are pdns01.domaincontrol.com/pdns02.domaincontrol.com/pdns05.domaincontrol.com/… (GoDaddy premium DNS), only when using Google's 8.8.8.8 / 8.8.4.4 resolvers, from multiple locations/networks. Resolution is normal using various other public and non-public resolvers, as well as by querying the authoritative name servers directly. You can look at targetly.co as one example (should be just an A record to 184.168.221.38 but getting SERVFAIL when querying 8.8.8.8). Thanks -- Erik Levinson CTO, Uberflip 416-900-3830 1183 King Street West, Suite 100 Toronto ON M6K 3C5 www.uberflip.com

6 10