RFC: BOGONs over BGP, adding some ranges
Dear NANOG! As many of you know, Team Cymru runs a free service delivering updated BOGONS to networks around the world. We've been doing this for decades at this point. For more information about this service, please see https://www.team-cymru.com/bogon. Recently, we've discussed internally a discrepancy between our BGP based feed and the other formats we deliver for our Traditional BOGONS feed. For historic reasons, we previously omitted delivery of some ranges that are BOGONS from our BGP advertisements. We are considering adding the below ranges back in, but want to hear feedback from the community on these ranges prior to advertising them, out of an abundance of caution. The below ranges are what we are currently considering advertising: 0/8 (this one we already have concluded is safe as it is already advertised in our "FULL BOGONS" set.) 127/8 224/4 240/4 Note that 224/4 and 240/4 may be aggregated differently in our advertisement, but are broken out here to facilitate discussion. So, fellow NANOGers, what say ye? I would love to hear your feedback, pro or con, well-reasoned with data points or general "argh! there be dragons!" sentiments. Looking forward to seeing folks in Hollywood for N86! Cheers! James -- *James Shank* Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist e: jshank@cymru.com o: +1 847 378-3365
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:15:40 -0400 James Shank <jshank@cymru.com> wrote:
224/4
If any were to cause a problem, I'd think this is the one that would be most likely. While inter-domain IP multicast is practically dead and so the impact might not be so great (sorry multicast-wg and mboned friends), there may be pockets of RP and link-local and site-local GLOP-like things (e.g., for system imaging) things that I could imagine might break. Then again, break it, break it in a million little pieces, ip.idr-multicast.die.die.die! :-) John
Hi John! Thanks for the comments! If you're in Hollywood for N86, perhaps we can pour one our for multicast together... ;) Cheers! James On 8/30/22 4:21 PM, John Kristoff wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:15:40 -0400 James Shank <jshank@cymru.com> wrote:
224/4 If any were to cause a problem, I'd think this is the one that would be most likely. While inter-domain IP multicast is practically dead and so the impact might not be so great (sorry multicast-wg and mboned friends), there may be pockets of RP and link-local and site-local GLOP-like things (e.g., for system imaging) things that I could imagine might break. Then again, break it, break it in a million little pieces, ip.idr-multicast.die.die.die! :-)
John
-- *James Shank* Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist e: jshank@cymru.com o: +1 847 378-3365
Anyone else having issues getting to service now? We use it for ticketing: montana.servicenowservices.com [149.96.184.230]. Im not seeing it in our internet routers nor on a couple of looking glass servers.
I guess now's a good time to recommend this handy site for when you'd like a view from the outside: https://ping.pe No issues at this time reaching that address from pretty much anywhere. - Chris From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.wright=commnetbroadband.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mann, Jason via NANOG Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 1:59 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: ServiceNow Anyone else having issues getting to service now? We use it for ticketing: montana.servicenowservices.com [149.96.184.230]. Im not seeing it in our internet routers nor on a couple of looking glass servers.
I would love to see this via BGP personally Not sure of anything that it could cause - and folks could filter out something if needed/required *Glenn S. Kelley, *I am a Connectivity.Engineer Text and Voice Direct: 740-206-9624 a Division of CreatingNet.Works <https://creatingnet.works/> IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify Glenn Kelley, the sender, immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:15 PM James Shank <jshank@cymru.com> wrote:
Dear NANOG!
As many of you know, Team Cymru runs a free service delivering updated BOGONS to networks around the world. We've been doing this for decades at this point. For more information about this service, please see https://www.team-cymru.com/bogon.
Recently, we've discussed internally a discrepancy between our BGP based feed and the other formats we deliver for our Traditional BOGONS feed. For historic reasons, we previously omitted delivery of some ranges that are BOGONS from our BGP advertisements. We are considering adding the below ranges back in, but want to hear feedback from the community on these ranges prior to advertising them, out of an abundance of caution.
The below ranges are what we are currently considering advertising: 0/8 (this one we already have concluded is safe as it is already advertised in our "FULL BOGONS" set.) 127/8 224/4 240/4
Note that 224/4 and 240/4 may be aggregated differently in our advertisement, but are broken out here to facilitate discussion.
So, fellow NANOGers, what say ye? I would love to hear your feedback, pro or con, well-reasoned with data points or general "argh! there be dragons!" sentiments.
Looking forward to seeing folks in Hollywood for N86!
Cheers!
James
-- *James Shank* Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist e: jshank@cymru.com o: +1 847 378-3365
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:17 AM James Shank <jshank@cymru.com> wrote:
Dear NANOG!
As many of you know, Team Cymru runs a free service delivering updated BOGONS to networks around the world. We've been doing this for decades at this point. For more information about this service, please see https://www.team-cymru.com/bogon.
Recently, we've discussed internally a discrepancy between our BGP based feed and the other formats we deliver for our Traditional BOGONS feed. For historic reasons, we previously omitted delivery of some ranges that are BOGONS from our BGP advertisements. We are considering adding the below ranges back in, but want to hear feedback from the community on these ranges prior to advertising them, out of an abundance of caution.
The below ranges are what we are currently considering advertising: 0/8 (this one we already have concluded is safe as it is already advertised in our "FULL BOGONS" set.) 127/8 224/4 240/4
Note that 224/4 and 240/4 may be aggregated differently in our advertisement, but are broken out here to facilitate discussion.
I would like to make an effort to debogon 240/4 at least, or have an authorized experiment to at least determine how fully bogon'd it is. Some recent data about amazon and verizon: https://labs.ripe.net/author/qasim-lone/2404-as-seen-by-ripe-atlas/ One question for me is how many folks rely on regular bogon updates such as yours. There are others.
So, fellow NANOGers, what say ye? I would love to hear your feedback, pro or con, well-reasoned with data points or general "argh! there be dragons!" sentiments.
Looking forward to seeing folks in Hollywood for N86!
Cheers!
James
-- *James Shank* Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist e: jshank@cymru.com o: +1 847 378-3365
-- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
I would like to make an effort to debogon 240/4 at least, or have an authorized experiment to at least determine how fully bogon'd it is.
It would not be appropriate to 'debogon' 240/4 based on the currently accepted definition, because it is space not allocated to an RIR. I know that you are part of the groups who wish to have the status of 240/4 changed, but until that happens, the reference to it in bogon tools should not change. On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:57 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:17 AM James Shank <jshank@cymru.com> wrote:
Dear NANOG!
As many of you know, Team Cymru runs a free service delivering updated BOGONS to networks around the world. We've been doing this for decades at this point. For more information about this service, please see https://www.team-cymru.com/bogon.
Recently, we've discussed internally a discrepancy between our BGP based feed and the other formats we deliver for our Traditional BOGONS feed. For historic reasons, we previously omitted delivery of some ranges that are BOGONS from our BGP advertisements. We are considering adding the below ranges back in, but want to hear feedback from the community on these ranges prior to advertising them, out of an abundance of caution.
The below ranges are what we are currently considering advertising: 0/8 (this one we already have concluded is safe as it is already advertised in our "FULL BOGONS" set.) 127/8 224/4 240/4
Note that 224/4 and 240/4 may be aggregated differently in our advertisement, but are broken out here to facilitate discussion.
I would like to make an effort to debogon 240/4 at least, or have an authorized experiment to at least determine how fully bogon'd it is.
Some recent data about amazon and verizon:
https://labs.ripe.net/author/qasim-lone/2404-as-seen-by-ripe-atlas/
One question for me is how many folks rely on regular bogon updates such as yours. There are others.
So, fellow NANOGers, what say ye? I would love to hear your feedback, pro or con, well-reasoned with data points or general "argh! there be dragons!" sentiments.
Looking forward to seeing folks in Hollywood for N86!
Cheers!
James
-- *James Shank* Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist e: jshank@cymru.com o: +1 847 378-3365
-- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
participants (7)
-
Chris Wright -
Dave Taht -
Glenn Kelley -
James Shank -
John Kristoff -
Mann, Jason -
Tom Beecher