- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Odd AWS transfer issue
by Danny Meister Sept. 7, 2024

Sept. 7, 2024

8 11

New QCIX Mailing Lists
by Jay Hanke Sept. 6, 2024

Sept. 6, 2024

For those that are interested, QCIX has just added mailing lists. https://qcix.mailman3.com/ -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 507-327-2398 https://southfront.io/ <https://southfront.io/path.html>

1 0

Fwd: [Idr] [job@fastly.com: RFC 9234 route leak prevention in the wild!]
by David Farmer Sept. 4, 2024

Sept. 4, 2024

I think this is something we should add to our list Thanks ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com(a)dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 8:36 AM Subject: [Idr] [job(a)fastly.com: RFC 9234 route leak prevention in the wild!] To: <idr(a)ietf.org> Hello IDR, You might enjoy a report back from the field on route leak blocking based on RFC 9234. Please see below. Kind regards, Job ----- Forwarded message from Job Snijders <job(a)fastly.com> ----- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 13:33:00 +0000 From: Job Snijders <job(a)fastly.com> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RFC 9234 route leak prevention in the wild! Dear all, I'd like to share an update on RFC 9234 deployment. RFC 9234 titled "BGP Open Policy" aka the "Only-To-Customer" (OTC) BGP Path Attribute is an anti-route-leak mechanism which is *NOT* based on RPKI! (yes ... routing security is more than just RPKI! :-) The basic idea of 9234 is that BGP routers (based on their role in the Gao-Rexford inter-domain routing model) attach a special BGP Path attribute, or take action based on the presence and contents of this BGP Path attribute - with the intention to constrain a route's propagation radius to just the downstream customer cone of the neighboring ASN. Most operators will intuitively understand that any route propagating through multiple IX route servers operated by different IXPs is a route leak: ``` IXP_1 IXP_2 / \ / \ / \ / \ ISP_A ISP_B ISP_C (receives) (leaker) (originates) ``` (figure 1. propagation from right to left; leak scenario) In the above example, ISP_A originates a route towards IXP_1's route servers, IXP_1 propagates the route to ISP_B (so far so good); but for one reason or another ISP_B subsequently continues propagation of the route towards IXP_2's route servers, who in turn propagate it to ISP_C. ISP_B is forwarding IP traffic between ISP_A and ISP_C for zero revenue. ISP_A and ISP_C are probably not expecting ISP_B to be in the middle. This situation can happen as a result of a misconfiguration in ISP_B's equipment, even when all participants use IRR & RPKI ROV to attempt to mitigate the worst routing incidents. What does it matter / impact ============================ Calgary-based YYCIX deployed RFC9234 support in late 2022/early 2023 using OpenBGPD; and FranceIX deployed support using BIRD in Q2 2024. Both IXPs configured their route servers to reject BGP routes that have an OTC attribute attached, and to attach an OTC attribute when propagating routes to the Route Server's peers. As it happens to be, currently (Mon Sep 2 12:26:50 UTC 2024) a small route leak is happening involving both YYCIX and FranceIX Route Servers via an ISP connected to both IXP's Route Servers; with the leak being stopped at YYCIX thanks to RFC 9234! Appendix A contains a table of leaked IPv4 routes. Let's zoom in on 1 entry: ``` $ bgpctl show rib 157.185.154.0/24 detail BGP routing table entry for 157.185.154.0/24 6939 38040 54994 Nexthop 206.126.225.20 (via 206.126.225.20) Neighbor 206.126.225.20 (216.218.252.194) Origin IGP, metric 1911, localpref 100, weight 0, ovs not-found, avs unknown, external, otc leak Last update: 11:58:08 ago Communities: 0:2906 0:16265 0:16276 0:18638 0:41690 0:48641 0:49029 Ext. Communities: ovs not-found Large Communities: 53339:11:1 53339:11:3 Aggregator: 54994 [163.171.131.254] OTC: 51706 ``` (figure 2. inspecting an leaked route using OpenBGPD's CLI) In figure 2. one can see the route is marked as 'otc leak', this was made possible because FranceIX's route server's attached the OTC attribute with the ASN value set to their Route Server's ASN (51706). ``` YYCIX FranceIX . x <adds OTC> \ . \ / \ ISP_A 6939_38040 54994 ``` (figure 3. right to left: real world example of blocked leak) In figure 3 AS 54994 originates 157.185.154.0/24 and propagates a route towards the FranceIX route servers. FranceIX accepts this route (probably because an IRR route object exists) and propagates it onward with the "Only-To-Customer" attribute set to 51706. The route is received by AS 38040, who appear to propagate the route to their upstream 6939. << An AS 38040 router is likely misconfigured! >> Then 6939 sends its customer's routes to the YYCIX route server, but the YYCIX route server recognizes that the route already passed through a 'valley' and thus considers this a leak; and blocks further propagation towards ISP_A. Impact with partial deployment ============================== RFC 9234 is an easy mechanism to configure and debug for both small & large network operators and IXP route server operators. In the above scenario YYCIX and FranceIX are likely the only 2 entities in the entire AS path which support RFC 9234; but we're already seeing leaks being blocked despite partial deployment! It's not hard to imagine that many IX-to-IX route leaks can be blocked with only the IXP operators themselves enabling RFC 9234 support. The world's most populair RS implementations (BIRD and OpenBGPD) already support RFC 9234! Tens of thousands of IX customers would enjoy the benefits of a few hundred IXPs taking action. RFC 9234 has no dependency on the RPKI, this means tha What can you do? ================ Just ask your vendors (your hardware routers and IXPs) to implement and deploy RFC 9234! :-) The more people ask, the more it'll bubble to the top of the priority list. The cost of implementing & deploying RFC 9234 is excellent bang for buck. Closing words ============= Shout out to our friends at FranceIX and MSK-IX for being amongst the first IXPs to deploy RFC 9234! Your effort helped reduce the potential impact of today's route leak! Kind regards, Job (YYCIX volunteer) Appendix A: ----------- Vantage point: YYCIX Route Server 1 (rs1.yycix.ca) Timestamp: Mon Sep 2 12:31:50 UTC 2024 Destination Prefix AS_PATH 102.164.129.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 102.164.139.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 37649 37649 37649 37649 i 102.164.140.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 102.164.141.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 102.164.182.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.33.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.34.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.35.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.36.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.37.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.38.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.39.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.72.35.0/24 6939 37613 37100 37027 37063 327721 i 157.185.151.0/24 6939 38040 54994 i 157.185.154.0/24 6939 38040 54994 i 163.171.164.0/24 6939 38040 54994 i 192.150.250.0/23 6939 4651 4618 4618 63529 4621 3836 i 196.50.8.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 196.50.9.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 196.50.11.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 37649 37649 37649 37649 i 196.50.13.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 37649 37649 37649 37649 i 196.50.14.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 2001:67c:15f4::/48 6939 41103 i 2401:c500:fd08::/48 6939 4637 38040 54994 i 2a01:53c0:ff03::/48 6939 4637 38040 54994 i 2a01:53c0:ff0f::/48 6939 4637 38040 54994 i 2a01:58c0::/32 6939 16347 42487 i 2a03:8920::/32 6939 41103 i 2a03:d602::/31 6939 16347 42487 i 2a03:d606::/31 6939 16347 42487 i 2a0d:ee00::/32 6939 16347 42487 i 2a0e:5b80::/29 6939 16347 42487 i 2a0e:e080::/32 6939 16347 42487 i 2a0f:c540::/29 6939 16347 42487 i ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list -- idr(a)ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to idr-leave(a)ietf.org -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

2 1

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX
by Jeremy Lumby Aug. 23, 2024

Aug. 23, 2024

I would be willing to bet if you looked just at the eyeball networks on MICE, 90% are getting the majority of their Google traffic across MICE, even if they have caches they are getting the fill across MICE in addition to the non cacheable traffic. Google's caches are not nearly as efficient as many of their competitors.I can confirm with over 10 years of experience dealing with Google that they are almost always very slow to upgrade.Jeremy LumbyMinnesota VoIP9217 17th Ave SSuite 216Bloomington MN 55425Main 612-355-7740Direct 612-392-6814EFax 952-873-7425jlumby(a)mnvoip.com -------- Original message --------From: Miles McCredie <Miles.McCredie(a)MIDCO.COM> Date: 8/23/24 6:34 AM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX Curious how many MICE members are in each of the following buckets. Receive limited portion of Google traffic via MICE Midco and, I assume, US Internet are in this bucket Receive a significant portion of Google traffic via MICE today I’ve only got a couple years of experience with Google for Midco but my experience has been that Google will not always provide the cache capacity that I think is appropriate. The last two augments were triggered 9-12 months later than I would have liked. Could be my fault for creating new GNLs but… Miles McCredie Principal Network Engineer II-Core IP Office: 6052755192 Miles.McCredie(a)midco.com Midco.com Let's go beyond. From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Justin Krejci Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 5:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX CAUTION: This email originated from outside of MIDCO. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am not sure what Google's stance is on deploying cache servers at an IX vs remote connection like the ones pending disconnection. If they were to deploy caching nodes at an IX, I assume they would still have a cache-fill requirement in terms of connectivity that has to come from somewhere... of which they appear to be disinterested in maintaining long distance connections going forward. So perhaps this is a donation opportunity for some to entice Google to deploy caching nodes at MICE? Donate local colo and transit bandwidth along with local MICE connectivity? We have numerous Google caching nodes in our network as well as multiple PNIs to Google, so their pending disconnect from MICE will likely have minimal direct impact on our eyeballs. -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Wendel <aaron(a)WHOLESALEINTERNET.NET> Reply-To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 22:03:01 +0000 Has MICE requested a cache box from Google? ------ Original Message ------ From "Anthony Anderberg" <AnthonyAnderberg(a)NUVERA.NET> To MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Date 8/22/2024 4:28:18 PM Subject Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX I've been surprised that folks haven't been talking about this more and am curious about everyone's thoughts - as MICE user-members but also in terms of MICE leadership and direction. As a user-member I feel somewhat conflicted: on one hand in an effort to maximize performance I could obtain transport to Chicago and connect to Google there, but I feel like doing so is making Google's problem into my problem and that doing so undercuts the goals of MICE. We've seen content providers move MICE's larger members toward local direct private peering, and I can understand rational behind that even if it shifts traffic away from MICE - but Google is proposing remote direct peering at member's cost which feels different. Of course nobody expects Google to subsidize our corner of the world, I am just curious if there are other aspects we should be thinking about. Thanks in advance, Anthony On 8/22/24, 7:24 AM, "Google Peering Operations No-reply" <peering-ops-noreply(a)google.com <mailto:peering-ops-noreply@google.com>> wrote: Dear Peer, This is a reminder that peering with Google will no longer be available at MICE Internet Exchange from 16th of September. As a result of unsustainable overheads associated with connecting to an IX using remote waves, we have made a decision to stop connecting to IXs that way. MICE IX falls under the category of IXs we remotely connect to. We will withdraw prefixes on 16th of September, and disconnect from the IX on 24th of September. We realize this may cause inconvenience for some peers. If there is another mutually present IX that we can peer in, we will be happy to help set up a bilateral session there - no multilaterals. If there is no mutual IX, traffic may have to be exchanged via indirect paths (transit links). We are not looking to connect to any additional IXs to replace the IX that we are leaving, but if you are considering connecting to another IX and not sure if Google will also be leaving that IX because of this measure, please reach out to us and we can share more. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Google Network Operations To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

4 4

Re: Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX
by Anthony Anderberg Aug. 23, 2024

Aug. 23, 2024

I've been surprised that folks haven't been talking about this more and am curious about everyone's thoughts - as MICE user-members but also in terms of MICE leadership and direction. As a user-member I feel somewhat conflicted: on one hand in an effort to maximize performance I could obtain transport to Chicago and connect to Google there, but I feel like doing so is making Google's problem into my problem and that doing so undercuts the goals of MICE. We've seen content providers move MICE's larger members toward local direct private peering, and I can understand rational behind that even if it shifts traffic away from MICE - but Google is proposing remote direct peering at member's cost which feels different. Of course nobody expects Google to subsidize our corner of the world, I am just curious if there are other aspects we should be thinking about. Thanks in advance, Anthony On 8/22/24, 7:24 AM, "Google Peering Operations No-reply" <peering-ops-noreply(a)google.com <mailto:peering-ops-noreply@google.com>> wrote: Dear Peer, This is a reminder that peering with Google will no longer be available at MICE Internet Exchange from 16th of September. As a result of unsustainable overheads associated with connecting to an IX using remote waves, we have made a decision to stop connecting to IXs that way. MICE IX falls under the category of IXs we remotely connect to. We will withdraw prefixes on 16th of September, and disconnect from the IX on 24th of September. We realize this may cause inconvenience for some peers. If there is another mutually present IX that we can peer in, we will be happy to help set up a bilateral session there - no multilaterals. If there is no mutual IX, traffic may have to be exchanged via indirect paths (transit links). We are not looking to connect to any additional IXs to replace the IX that we are leaving, but if you are considering connecting to another IX and not sure if Google will also be leaving that IX because of this measure, please reach out to us and we can share more. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Google Network Operations

8 9

RFP: 511 IP Transit
by Richard Laager Aug. 23, 2024

Aug. 23, 2024

MICE is in need of IP transit at 511. This is for our management connection. We are looking for IPv4 + IPv6 transit delivered over a 1G copper (if in the same suite), 1G optical, or 10G optical. MICE will take care of the cross-connect. No BGP necessary. We need a /29 of IPv4 space and a /60 of IPv6 space. The current IP space is routed to us over a separate point-to-point (e.g. the /29 is over a /31 point-to-point). Our actual bandwidth usage is very minimal; 100 Mbps is more than plenty. Please specify the speed you are offering. I don't know that we have a specific term length in mind. Month-to-month, 1 year, or 3 year is probably fine. Please specify the term length(s) you are offering. You can reply off-list to Anthony Anderberg <AnthonyAnderberg(a)nuvera.net>. He intends NOT to bid on this. Conflict of interest note: My employer will bid on this. I will recuse from the board vote on it. -- Richard

1 0

bgp down to 206.108.255.117 and 2001:504:27::80a6:0:2 for both as3128 and as2381.. others?
by Michael Hare July 9, 2024

July 9, 2024

As the subject says, at least two ASN seem to bgp down v4/v6 as of roughly 03:48:42 local [UTC-5]. Is this a bigger thing? Apologies if I missed something. -Michael

3 2

Global Net (AS395466) - Transport Outages
by Global Net NOC June 24, 2024

June 24, 2024

MICEMN Members – We have been experiencing ongoing outages with our carrier into Minneapolis (whom I will not name) which directly affects our connectivity with MICE. I want to apologize for the drops in our BGP sessions that seem to be happening more and more frequently as our carrier refuses to do anything to address the problem. We are actively seeking another transport option as a long term solution. Short term, all I can do is apologize for all the flaps and outages. GLOBAL NET AS 395466 IPV4 206.108.255.97 IPV6 2001:504:27:0:6:8ca:0:1 Thanks, Global Net NOC noc(a)theglobal.net<mailto:noc@theglobal.net> Global Net Peering peering(a)theglobal.net<mailto:peering@theglobal.net>

1 0

outage of some sort last night
by Jeff Wilde June 17, 2024

June 17, 2024

Did anyone experience some type of odd outage in the middle of the night? Like before 5am? I don't know if it was a dns issue or what, but it seems to have resolved itself. [A picture containing icon Description automatically generated] Jeff Wilde * Network Engineer * Park Region Office 218.826.6161 * Direct 218.826.8330 * Fax 218.826.6298

4 3

Link to Ridgeview down
by Jeremy Lumby June 10, 2024

June 10, 2024

An FYI that we are aware that the link between the MICE core switch @ 511, and the MICE core switch @ Ridgeview is down. There is a complete loss of light. I have contacted the dark fiber provider to begin troubleshooting the link. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington MN 55425 Main 612-355-7740 x211 Direct 612-392-6814 Fax 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

2 2