- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: AS112 Project

by Richard Laager

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:18 -0600, David Farmer wrote: > It would be better for everyone connected to MICE > to implement the recommendations of RFC 6761 If I'm reading that correctly, the requirements for a network operator boil down to: 1. The following zones MUST be configured on our recursive and authoritative DNS servers. They MUST either be empty of records or contain records matching our uses of *routable* private space. 10.in-addr.arpa. 16.172.in-addr.arpa. 17.172.in-addr.arpa. 18.172.in-addr.arpa. 19.172.in-addr.arpa. 20.172.in-addr.arpa. 21.172.in-addr.arpa. 22.172.in-addr.arpa. 23.172.in-addr.arpa. 24.172.in-addr.arpa. 25.172.in-addr.arpa. 26.172.in-addr.arpa. 27.172.in-addr.arpa. 28.172.in-addr.arpa. 29.172.in-addr.arpa. 30.172.in-addr.arpa. 31.172.in-addr.arpa. 168.192.in-addr.arpa. 2. The "test." zone MUST be configured on our recursive and authoritative DNS servers. It MUST be empty of records. 3. The "localhost." zone MUST be configured on our recursive and authoritative DNS servers. It MUST contain wildcard A and AAAA records pointing to 127.0.0.1 and ::1, respectively. I'm not sure it's possible to implement the "invalid." zone behavior without writing a patch. Suggestions are welcome. In my network, we have #1 implemented already. I believe it's setup by default in BIND, at least in Debian. -- Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

March 7, 2013

Re: AS112 Project

by David Farmer

I'm aware of it, its discussed in RFC 6304, it wouldn't hurt anything. However, as RFC 6761 becomes in more common use the need for this should reduce significantly. It would be better for everyone connected to MICE to implement the recommendations of RFC 6761 with regards to their recursive name servers, than to build a AS112 node for MICE. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6304 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761 On 3/7/13 10:55 , Jay Hanke wrote: > Is anyone familiar with the AS112 project? > > http://public.as112.net/ > > Would this be worthwhile on MICE? > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO, CCIE #19093 > Mankato Networks LLC > PO Box 54 > 619 S Front St > Mankato, MN 56001-3838 > Google 530-618-2398 > jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net > http://www.mankatonetworks.com > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

March 7, 2013

AS112 Project

by Jay Hanke

Is anyone familiar with the AS112 project? http://public.as112.net/ Would this be worthwhile on MICE? -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

March 7, 2013

Re: Winnipeg IX

by Frank Bulk

I was told by a Canadian contact that he doesn't think MB-IX is actually moving traffic, yet, which seems to be confirmed by their stats page (http://www.mbix.ca/statistics.html) If you're looking for connectivity, looks like Shaw goes between Winnipeg and Minneapolis: http://www.shawbusinesssolutions.ca/sbs/about/our_network_map.jsp And it's possible that Allstream goes through Minneapolis, too: http://www.allstream.com/about-us/ipnetwork/ Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:53 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Winnipeg IX Anyone have a connection up there? http://www.mbix.ca/index.html -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## 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

Feb. 25, 2013

Re: MICE IPv6 problem - receiving HE routes from MICE route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:35:22AM -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: > We only peer with the route servers in v6, not v4. Ah, this probably hasn't been working in sometime, even with a bigger limit of 5000 on your entry, it would have failed some ways back. Although I don't remember the IPv6 RR's ever having more routes than the 35 or so prefixes the other members have announced. I've upped the route limiter for HE IPv6 multi-lateral peering with MICE, and we are now getting 6422 HE IPv6 routes into the tables. If members have smaller limits for their IPv6 route imports, they'll have to up them now. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 23, 2013

Re: MICE IPv6 problem - receiving HE routes from MICE route servers

by Reid Fishler

We only peer with the route servers in v6, not v4. Reid On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:32:52AM -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: > > That's us...but max prefixes have been exceeded...I'm waiting for a fix. > > Is HE going to multilateral peer with MICE then? > > I know ipHouse has the Unilateral peer with you across MICE, but thought > that > is what HE preferred to do with MICE members. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 23, 2013

Re: MICE IPv6 problem - receiving HE routes from MICE route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:32:52AM -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: > That's us...but max prefixes have been exceeded...I'm waiting for a fix. Is HE going to multilateral peer with MICE then? I know ipHouse has the Unilateral peer with you across MICE, but thought that is what HE preferred to do with MICE members. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 23, 2013

Re: MICE IPv6 problem - receiving HE routes from MICE route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 04:45:33AM -0600, James Stahr wrote: > Has HE.net has become an IPv6 MPLA member or is someone else is > silently forwarding their IPv6 BGP tables to the route servers as > the paths are showing up as if HE sent them: The route-servers keep getting a connection from HE's IPv6 address and then shut down that connection when they hit the route-limit in place. 09:11:33.677703 IP6 AS6939.micemn.net.8212 > AS53679-RR-2.micemn.net.bgp: Flags [S], seq 1309818254, win 65000, options [mss 1440], length 0 The HE configs must be old info before we knew what HE was going to do, so I'll go remove it. Now we're just getting continued failed connects from them. It looks like CNS is trying to do IPv6 BGP with the RR's too, but things looked misconfigured there. Fixed that too. Oooh bird6 core dumped. Such a strange morning for it. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 23, 2013

Re: MICE IPv6 problem - receiving HE routes from MICE route servers

by Reid Fishler

That's us...but max prefixes have been exceeded...I'm waiting for a fix. Reid On Feb 23, 2013 5:45 AM, "James Stahr" <stahr(a)mailbag.com> wrote: > Has HE.net has become an IPv6 MPLA member or is someone else is silently > forwarding their IPv6 BGP tables to the route servers as the paths are > showing up as if HE sent them: > > > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, merged path 6939 50530, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2A00:1CE0::/32 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, merged path 6939 4323 19893 40931, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd > 2620:10C:2000::/48 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: %BGP-4-MAXPFX: Number of prefixes received from > 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1) reaches 143, max 150 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, merged path 6939 6830 29113 48417, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2A02:DB8::/32 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, merged path 6939 4323 7545 7545 7545 7545 7545 24130 24130 24130 > 18404, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2403:4200::/32 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, merged path 6939 11758, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2607:F920::/32 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, merged path 6939 4773, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2401:7401::/32 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2401:7400::/32 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, merged path 6939 8657 15525, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2A02:818::/32 > Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, merged path 6939 4826 9503 9733, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.922 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2405:B400::/34 > Feb 23 03:59:06.922 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ > attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, > metric 1, aggregated by 17707 203.174.64.48, merged path 6939 4725 17676 > 17707, AS_PATH > Feb 23 03:59:06.922 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2407:3000::/32 > Feb 23 03:59:06.922 CST: %BGP-3-MAXPFXEXCEED: Number of prefixes received > from 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1): 151 exceeds limit 150 > > > > -James > > ##############################**##############################** > ############ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-**bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<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

Feb. 23, 2013

MICE IPv6 problem - receiving HE routes from MICE route servers

by James Stahr

Has HE.net has become an IPv6 MPLA member or is someone else is silently forwarding their IPv6 BGP tables to the route servers as the paths are showing up as if HE sent them: Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, merged path 6939 50530, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2A00:1CE0::/32 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, merged path 6939 4323 19893 40931, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2620:10C:2000::/48 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: %BGP-4-MAXPFX: Number of prefixes received from 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1) reaches 143, max 150 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, merged path 6939 6830 29113 48417, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2A02:DB8::/32 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, merged path 6939 4323 7545 7545 7545 7545 7545 24130 24130 24130 18404, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2403:4200::/32 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, merged path 6939 11758, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2607:F920::/32 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, merged path 6939 4773, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2401:7401::/32 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2401:7400::/32 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, merged path 6939 8657 15525, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2A02:818::/32 Feb 23 03:59:06.921 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, merged path 6939 4826 9503 9733, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.922 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2405:B400::/34 Feb 23 03:59:06.922 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 2001:504:27::1B1B:0:1 (FE80::20C:DBFF:FEFE:EB03), origin i, metric 1, aggregated by 17707 203.174.64.48, merged path 6939 4725 17676 17707, AS_PATH Feb 23 03:59:06.922 CST: BGP(1): 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 rcvd 2407:3000::/32 Feb 23 03:59:06.922 CST: %BGP-3-MAXPFXEXCEED: Number of prefixes received from 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1): 151 exceeds limit 150 -James ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 23, 2013