August 2016 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Stealth Broadband Updated Information

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:25:54AM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Stealth Broadband has received their ASN from ARIN, > > Please update ASN and IPv6 information in the route-servers and website: > > Name: Stealth Broadband > IPv4: 206.108.255.69/24 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:07BA::1/64 > ASN: 395194 > Port: NP MSP1 Remote ge-0/0/2 > Contact: james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.net Sure, the route servers are all set to go for them. Welcome aboard! -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Aug. 17, 2016

Stealth Broadband Updated Information

by Jason Hanke

Stealth Broadband has received their ASN from ARIN, Please update ASN and IPv6 information in the route-servers and website: Name: Stealth Broadband IPv4: 206.108.255.69/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:07BA::1/64 ASN: 395194 Port: NP MSP1 Remote ge-0/0/2 Contact: james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.net Thanks! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Aug. 17, 2016

Re: ipHouse Remote Switch

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:38:27PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Is there any update on the ipHouse remote switch? We're still interested, but there has been some snafu with equipment going on that we're trying to sort out first. Thanks. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Aug. 11, 2016

ipHouse Remote Switch

by Jason Hanke

Is there any update on the ipHouse remote switch? -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Aug. 11, 2016

Airstream Communications Maintenance 2016/08/11

by Charles Monson

Good Afternoon, Airstream Communications (AS11796) will be performing maintenance tonight 2016/08/11 between the hours of Midnight and 6am. We will be shutting down our BGP sessions for approximately 20 minutes to reroute traffic while work is done and turning them back up when complete. If your session to us has not returned by 6am please send an email to support(a)wins.net<mailto:support@wins.net> with your BGP AS number and we will address it as soon as possible. Charles Monson Associate Network Administrator, Airstream Communications (AS11796)

Aug. 10, 2016

Re: [Peering-lists] [MICE-DISCUSS] BGP sessions down...

by Frank Bulk

Owen, Thanks - the reason I saw it and fews other did was because I connect through Belle Plaine and some equipment ran into a hiccup there ... talk to Jay offline if you want more details. Frank From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of DeLong, Owen Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 7:59 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [Peering-lists] [MICE-DISCUSS] BGP sessions down... We were still doing active maintenance on COLOGIX-MSP3 (our clusters connected to MICE), so it may have been a brief outage on our part related to that. Owen On Aug 4, 2016, at 15:09 , Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com<mailto:fbulk@mypremieronline.com>> wrote: Looks like it was 4:52 to 5:02 pm. And it's back up to all but one, which I need to check. Aug 4 16:52:19 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.84 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:23 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.2 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:24 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::51cc:0:1 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:27 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:27 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:27 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::1b1b:0:1 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:54:56 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.1 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:54:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.52 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 17:02:11 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::1b1b:0:1 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:11 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.1 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:12 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.52 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:12 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::51cc:0:1 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:12 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:12 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:14 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.84 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:16 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.2 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:38 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.52: exceeds warning limit 90000 Aug 4 17:05:58 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.52: exceeds warning limit 90000 <image001.png> -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:05 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] BGP sessions down... Thanks -- looks like it's down just to Akamai and MICE MRS #2. Since they all share the same physical path, not clear to me how this can be, but I'll start digging. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:01 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] BGP sessions down... On 08/04/2016 04:58 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > Problem at MICE? Physical link is up. All of my MICE sessions (including both route servers) are up, and I can still ping across the exchange. -- Richard ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 9, 2016

Re: route servers - bogon ASN filtering

by Michael Hare

I posted the below on an academic list a week or two ago, figured I'd share it here. -Michael ==/== I'm supportive of Job's bogon ASN filtering in theory but make sure you understand the implications before typing commit. Unlike accepting RFC1918 space, I'd argue that rejecting private ASN is fundamentally a philosophically correct stance that can unfairly penalize those doing the correct thing. Specifically, we observed the deployment of this filter dropping a more specific peering route causing traffic to less preferred peering paths [or potentially, commodity]. Deploying this config could have financial implications for your organization. On 2016/06/08 I looked at this for AS3128 and came to these high level conclusions; * We saw over 400 upstream routes falling into this category, mostly with ASN in the 64512 - 65534 range. * Based on our flow bandwidth stats we chose to reach out to several origin ASN, two fairly well known [tw telecom, edgecast], as a courtesy. One of the Edgecast prefixes we were/are exchanging several hundred Mbps with. Both providers did address the issue once raised. Obviously without ongoing monitoring this or a similar problem could recur without us knowing. * Not present in Job's recommendation, none the less I added a community [3128:60003 for us] when I rejected a route so that I could do a poorman's audit/snapshot of rejected routes over time. A didn't execute a framework to review diffs of routes as they enter/leave this state, but I should [perhaps another use for openBMP]. > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2016 2:11 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] route servers - bogon ASN filtering > > Hi all, > > We recently implemented bogon ASN filtering on all transit/peering edges (see > http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-June/086078.html) > > There were a few participants we peer with via route servers that had bogon > ASN’s in path for various prefixes which we are now rejecting. > > I’d suggest that we look at adding similar filtering to the route-servers as well, > similar to RFC1918 filters already in place. > > Thoughts? > > — > Andrew Hoyos > Hoyos Consulting LLC > ofc: +1 608 616 9950 > andrew(a)hoyosconsulting.com > http://www.hoyosconsulting.com

Aug. 8, 2016

Re: route servers - bogon ASN filtering

by Anton Kapela

+1 to 'don't blow up the internet' by default at an IX route server. I'd also urge peers to use something like this on their input policy, to match & ignore any route w/ these in its path: permit _(701|1239|3356|1668|174|209|2914|3561|3549|3320|1299|7018|50384|11841)_ Best, -Tk On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > We recently implemented bogon ASN filtering on all transit/peering edges (see http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-June/086078.html) > > There were a few participants we peer with via route servers that had bogon ASN’s in path for various prefixes which we are now rejecting. > > I’d suggest that we look at adding similar filtering to the route-servers as well, similar to RFC1918 filters already in place. > > Thoughts? > > — > Andrew Hoyos > Hoyos Consulting LLC > ofc: +1 608 616 9950 > andrew(a)hoyosconsulting.com > http://www.hoyosconsulting.com

Aug. 8, 2016

route servers - bogon ASN filtering

by Andrew Hoyos

Hi all, We recently implemented bogon ASN filtering on all transit/peering edges (see http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-June/086078.html) There were a few participants we peer with via route servers that had bogon ASN’s in path for various prefixes which we are now rejecting. I’d suggest that we look at adding similar filtering to the route-servers as well, similar to RFC1918 filters already in place. Thoughts? — Andrew Hoyos Hoyos Consulting LLC ofc: +1 608 616 9950 andrew(a)hoyosconsulting.com http://www.hoyosconsulting.com

Aug. 7, 2016

Re: [Peering-lists] [MICE-DISCUSS] BGP sessions down...

by DeLong, Owen

We were still doing active maintenance on COLOGIX-MSP3 (our clusters connected to MICE), so it may have been a brief outage on our part related to that. Owen On Aug 4, 2016, at 15:09 , Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com<mailto:fbulk@mypremieronline.com>> wrote: Looks like it was 4:52 to 5:02 pm. And it's back up to all but one, which I need to check. Aug 4 16:52:19 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.84 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:23 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.2 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:24 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::51cc:0:1 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:27 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:27 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:52:27 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::1b1b:0:1 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:54:56 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.1 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 16:54:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.52 DOWN (Hold Timer Expired) Aug 4 17:02:11 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::1b1b:0:1 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:11 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.1 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:12 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.52 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:12 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::51cc:0:1 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:12 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:12 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:14 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.84 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:16 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.2 UP (ESTABLISHED) Aug 4 17:02:38 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.52: exceeds warning limit 90000 Aug 4 17:05:58 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.52: exceeds warning limit 90000 <image001.png> -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:05 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] BGP sessions down... Thanks -- looks like it's down just to Akamai and MICE MRS #2. Since they all share the same physical path, not clear to me how this can be, but I'll start digging. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:01 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] BGP sessions down... On 08/04/2016 04:58 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > Problem at MICE? Physical link is up. All of my MICE sessions (including both route servers) are up, and I can still ping across the exchange. -- Richard ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Aug. 6, 2016