Thanks, already got confirmation there is an issue.
For all others chasing this, there is a routing issue between Arelion
and Claro. Claro is aware and working on the issue.
On Friday, 15/03/2024 at 17:02 Alessandro Martins wrote:
Hey there,
It seems like Claro's NOC phone number is all good
Hey there,
It seems like Claro's NOC phone number is all good in PeeringDB -
https://www.peeringdb.com/net/2680
Simply dial +552121212900, and a member of the NOC team will promptly
assist you.
Thanks,
--
Alessandro Martins
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 5:17 PM Scott Q. wrote:
> Thanks, indeed D
> On 15 Mar 2024, at 20:15, Scott Q. wrote:
>
> Thanks, indeed Dany just got back to us via e-mail.
>
Glad to know!
> Are you sure the phone number is correct ? +55 is Brazil , 21 is Rio but it's
> written 3 times in a row ( +5521212129004230100 ). In any case, I tried
> calling the number
Thanks, indeed Dany just got back to us via e-mail.
Are you sure the phone number is correct ? +55 is Brazil , 21 is Rio
but it's written 3 times in a row ( +5521212129004230100 ). In any
case, I tried calling the number and it gave an error.
On Friday, 15/03/2024 at 14:11 Pedro Prado wrote:
Yep. Look for an upgrade then file a bug report if not fixed by the upgrade.
It should be < 10 minutes work to fix + tests etc.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 16 Mar 2024, at 05:18, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Dennis Burgess writes:
>
>> Looks like Bjorn was correct, one two many signatures ☹ Removed one
>
Thanks to all who have already responded ... probably should've
mentioned the AS number, since they appear to have many:
AS25660
On 3/15/24 19:59, Bryan Holloway wrote:
If anyone from Consolidated Communications is lurking, could you please
contact me off-list?
We have a mutual cust
If anyone from Consolidated Communications is lurking, could you please
contact me off-list?
We have a mutual customer with a strange routing issue between our two
networks.
Thanks!
- bryan
Dennis Burgess writes:
> Looks like Bjorn was correct, one two many signatures ☹ Removed one
> and its all fixed! Thanks too all that replied!!
Glad to hear that. But do note that Mark is right, of course. The real
problem is a bug in your name server. What you have now is a workaround
as so
Looks like Bjorn was correct, one two many signatures ☹ Removed one and its
all fixed! Thanks too all that replied!!
-Original Message-
From: Bjørn Mork
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:59 PM
To: Dennis Burgess via NANOG
Cc: Dennis Burgess
Subject: Re: DNSSEC & WIldcards
Looks lik
Hey Scott, I validated those to be correct. They said Dany is the right
contact. Did you try e-mailing him?
Pedro
> On 15 Mar 2024, at 15:45, Scott Q. wrote:
>
> Anyone knows a direct contact for Claro Brazil ?
>
> The phone number for their NOC on PeeringDB doesn't work or make sense and
>
Wildcards and DNSSEC work fine as long as the nameserver vendor has not stuffed
up. Too many vendors play fast and loose with the DNS protocol. Getting this
correct is not hard but you do need to test before shipping. Additionally OS
vendors tend to be way behind current releases from the name
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
UKNOF, TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bg
Looks like your DNS server correctly queues up the RRs, but erronously
believes it can drop data from the Authority section without setting the
TC bit.
Reducing the bufsize so the answer doesn't fit makes trucation work:
bjorn@miraculix:~$ dig a www.app.linktechs.net. +dnssec +multiline +norecur
The authority section is the correct section for the NSEC.
Ask the question using TCP. I suspect that the server isn’t truncating the UDP
response correctly. If I’m right you will get RRSIGs for the NSEC added to the
additional section. If not the zone needs to be resigned as they are missing
Matthew Pounsett writes:
> But, right off the top I can see that your name server is returning the
> NSEC record in the wrong section of the response.
No, the Authority section is correct here. See:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4035#section-3.1.3.3
But the RRSIG is missing.
Bjørn
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:26 AM Dennis Burgess via NANOG
wrote:
> So have *.app.linktechs.net that I have been trying to get to work, we
> have DNSSEC on this, and its failing, but cannot for the life of me
> understand why. I think it may have something to do with proving it exists
> as a wild
Dennis Burgess via NANOG writes:
> So have *.app.linktechs.net that I have been trying to get to work, we
> have DNSSEC on this, and its failing, but cannot for the life of me
> understand why. I think it may have something to do with proving it
> exists as a wildcard, but any DNSSEC experts wan
It appears that Niels Bakker said:
>* nanog@nanog.org (Dennis Burgess via NANOG) [Fri 15 Mar 2024, 16:26 CET]:
>>So have *.app.linktechs.net that I have been trying to get to work,
>>we have DNSSEC on this, and its failing, but cannot for the life of
>>me understand why. I think it may have som
* nanog@nanog.org (Dennis Burgess via NANOG) [Fri 15 Mar 2024, 16:26 CET]:
So have *.app.linktechs.net that I have been trying to get to work,
we have DNSSEC on this, and its failing, but cannot for the life of
me understand why. I think it may have something to do with proving
it exists as a
Anyone knows a direct contact for Claro Brazil ?
The phone number for their NOC on PeeringDB doesn't work or make sense
and e-mails are ignored.
Thank you
So have *.app.linktechs.net that I have been trying to get to work, we have
DNSSEC on this, and its failing, but cannot for the life of me understand why.
I think it may have something to do with proving it exists as a wildcard, but
any DNSSEC experts want to take a stab at it ?
Dennis Burges
21 matches
Mail list logo
