Vodafone Global Carrier Services: Contact to Abuse/Fraud Department?

2017-09-22 Thread Benoit Panizzon
Hello I'm trying to reach somebody from Vodafone Global Carrier Services, regarding abusive calls originating from their network (probably transit from some other TSP). Their IC team do not consider them self in charge of abuse cases. The Vodafone UK fraud teams declares itself only responsible

DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread Steve Teusch
I am running into venders that do not support injection of a delegated route when operating as a DHCPv6 relay (or server for that matter). Brocade supports this, but I am not finding this as part of any of the RFC's. This is to deliver home ISP service, so it is very important or return packet

Re: Hurricane Maria: Summary of communication status - and lack of

2017-09-22 Thread Sean Donelan
Following up - there are three cable landing stations and 9 submarine cable systems connecting Puerto Rico. One of the cable landing stations experienced flooding, and shutdown its power system affecting some circuits. I haven't been able to determine how many submarine cable systems are af

Re: Hurricane Maria: Summary of communication status - and lack of

2017-09-22 Thread Rubens Kuhl
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: > > Following up - there are three cable landing stations and 9 submarine > cable systems connecting Puerto Rico. > > One of the cable landing stations experienced flooding, and shutdown its > power system affecting some circuits. I haven't b

Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread Nick Hilliard
Steve Teusch wrote: > I am running into venders that do not support injection of a > delegated route when operating as a DHCPv6 relay (or server for that > matter). Brocade supports this, but I am not finding this as part of > any of the RFC's. This is to deliver home ISP service, so it is very >

Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread Lee Howard
On 9/22/17, 3:12 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Steve Teusch" wrote: >I am running into venders that do not support injection of a delegated >route when operating as a DHCPv6 relay (or server for that matter). >Brocade supports this, but I am not finding this as part of any of the >RFC's. This is to

Re: pd table vs 6296

2017-09-22 Thread joel jaeggli
On 9/21/17 18:59, Randy Bush wrote: > say i want to use pd to a fairly large aggregation. the router has to > hold the pd table. it sees some routers have limited table size, e.g. > 1k. so what's a poor boy to do? the classic ipv4 solution would be > 6296 . are folk doing pd scaling? how? > >

Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread Baldur Norddahl
This method is lacking because you might have several routers eg. using VRRP and the backup router will not learn anything from a relay on the primary. Den 22. sep. 2017 14.02 skrev "Steve Teusch" : I am running into venders that do not support injection of a delegated route when operating as a

RE: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread Nicholas Warren
Which method would you recommend as an alternative? -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:52 AM This method is lacking because you might have several routers eg. using VRRP and the backup router wi

Weekly Routing Table Report

2017-09-22 Thread Routing Analysis Role Account
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG, IRNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@li

Re: AS PATH limits

2017-09-22 Thread craig washington
Thank you all very much for the feedback. As always it is much appreciated. From: Tom Beecher Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:01 PM To: craig washington Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: AS PATH limits Too many prepends = any more than you really need for

RE: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread Steve Teusch
VRRP failover and not having the route injected is a good point, although I could mitigate that with a lower lease time a little. I prefer to get V6 working. Plus, its dual stack we are talking about, V4 access is still available. Maybe a VRRP-DHCPv6 relay state table share would be nice to

RE: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread Baldur Norddahl
I know of several methods all flawed in some ways. There seems to be no progress in this obvious lack of a solid easy way to inject routes to match DHCP-PD. We use ExaBGP to inject routes via BGP that matches the configuration that our DHCP server has. But this is non standard and clumsy to implem

Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread Mark Andrews
You know CPE devices are routers. They can tell you what routes DHCP has given them. That annoucement could be cryptographically authenticated. Send a CPE generated public key with the PD request. Generate a CERT for the prefix delegation using those two pieces of information and return it wit

Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-22 Thread valdis . kletnieks
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:47:32 +1000, Mark Andrews said: > You know CPE devices are routers. They can tell you what routes > DHCP has given them. That annoucement could be cryptographically > authenticated. This is, of course, a lot easier if the CPE already has onboard the needed software to do t