Re: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks

2016-01-13 Thread Reza Motamedi
Thanks Joel. I like examples. :)

So say I issue the command on a router that is not the gateway. Would I get
the following?

   Network Next Hop Metric  LocPref Weight  Path
 * >   8.8.8.0/24   96  56  0   
15169 i

With respect to "show bgp summary", if I know the location of the router
and the router shows the BGP neighbor in the output, can I just rely on
this info and say the point of exchange is where the router is located? For
example the following show output from a router in city say "X"

  BGP4 Summary
  Router ID: 192.65.184.1   Local AS Number: 513
  Confederation Identifier: not configured
  Confederation Peers:
  Cluster ID: 513
  Maximum Number of IP ECMP Paths Supported for Load Sharing: 4
  Number of Neighbors Configured: 18, UP: 18
  Number of Routes Installed: 997637, Uses 85796782 bytes
  Number of Routes Advertising to All Neighbors: 2196009 (569816
entries), Uses 27351168 bytes
  Number of Attribute Entries Installed: 305962, Uses 27536580 bytes
  Neighbor Address  AS# State   Time  Rt:Accepted
Filtered Sent ToSend
  62.40.124.157 20965   ESTAB   76d23h58m 140497  0
28   0
  83.97.88.33   21320   ESTAB   49d 5h11m 0   0
28   0
  192.65.184.2  513 ESTAB   365d12h24m243346  0
493626   0
  192.65.184.3  513 ESTAB   405d12h31m70100
562695   0
  192.65.184.4  513 ESTAB   317d 9h 1m0   0
569704   0
  192.65.184.24 513 ESTAB   54d16h26m 0   0
569704   0

  tells me that 513 is peering with 20965 that city, right?

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:02 AM, joel jaeggli  wrote:

> On 1/13/16 9:36 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote:
> > Hi NANOG,
> >
> > I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather
> > primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet
> > measurement so I know how things work in theory.
> >
> > My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of
> > different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two
> > networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on
> > Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer.
> >
> > Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange
> between
> > AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary"
>
> show bgp summary just tells you about your bgp neighbors.
>
> > and "show
> > ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering
> > between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands.
>
> You see AS path, and the nexthop the route was learned from (which is
> probably (nexthop self) the router on which the prefix is learned) in
> san francisco. that route is probably resolved by your igp.
>
> so in an extremely simple example
>
>Network Next Hop Metric  LocPref Weight Path
>  * >   8.8.8.0/24  72.14.202.50 96  56  0   15169
> i
>
> the nexthop happens to be an attached google peer
>
> the as path is
> 15169 i
>
> > If
> > yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged
> > locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records
> > showing iBGP vs eBGP.
>
> If the router in LA sees the path as being through a router in san
> francisco that is the direction it will forward it in.
>
> > On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the
> > border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show
> > commands?
> >
> > Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that
> > gateway router in SF?
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> > Graduate Research Fellow
> > Oregon Network Research Group
> > Computer and Information Science
> > University of Oregon
> >
>
>
>


Re: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks

2016-01-13 Thread joel jaeggli
On 1/13/16 10:15 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote:
> Thanks Joel. I like examples. :)
> 
> So say I issue the command on a router that is not the gateway. Would I
> get the following?
> 
>Network Next Hop Metric  LocPref Weight  Path
>  * >   8.8.8.0/24    96
>  56  015169 i

It should be the nexthop self (loopback ip) of the originating router,
unless you don't do it that way and your provider numbered interfaces
are passively included in your igp.

> With respect to "show bgp summary", if I know the location of the router
> and the router shows the BGP neighbor in the output, can I just rely on
> this info and say the point of exchange is where the router is located?
> For example the following show output from a router in city say "X"

if you elide the existence of long-haul-paths, distributed exchange
fabrics, ebgp multihop sessions, l2 vpn and so on.  it is certainly not
the case with ibgp sessions which could include things like route
reflectors. topological adjacency might imply proximity but it's not an
assurance.

>   BGP4 Summary 
>   Router ID: 192.65.184.1   Local AS Number: 513
>   Confederation Identifier: not configured
>   Confederation Peers: 
>   Cluster ID: 513
>   Maximum Number of IP ECMP Paths Supported for Load Sharing: 4
>   Number of Neighbors Configured: 18, UP: 18
>   Number of Routes Installed: 997637, Uses 85796782 bytes
>   Number of Routes Advertising to All Neighbors: 2196009 (569816 entries), 
> Uses 27351168 bytes
>   Number of Attribute Entries Installed: 305962, Uses 27536580 bytes
>   Neighbor Address  AS# State   Time  Rt:Accepted Filtered 
> Sent ToSend
>   62.40.124.157 20965   ESTAB   76d23h58m 140497  028 
>   0
>   83.97.88.33   21320   ESTAB   49d 5h11m 0   028 
>   0
>   192.65.184.2  513 ESTAB   365d12h24m243346  0
> 493626   0
>   192.65.184.3  513 ESTAB   405d12h31m70100
> 562695   0
>   192.65.184.4  513 ESTAB   317d 9h 1m0   0
> 569704   0
>   192.65.184.24 513 ESTAB   54d16h26m 0   0
> 569704   0
> 
>   tells me that 513 is peering with 20965 that city, right?
> 
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
> 
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:02 AM, joel jaeggli  > wrote:
> 
> On 1/13/16 9:36 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote:
> > Hi NANOG,
> >
> > I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather
> > primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet
> > measurement so I know how things work in theory.
> >
> > My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of
> > different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of 
> two
> > networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on
> > Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer.
> >
> > Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange 
> between
> > AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary"
> 
> show bgp summary just tells you about your bgp neighbors.
> 
> > and "show
> > ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering
> > between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands.
> 
> You see AS path, and the nexthop the route was learned from (which is
> probably (nexthop self) the router on which the prefix is learned) in
> san francisco. that route is probably resolved by your igp.
> 
> so in an extremely simple example
> 
>Network Next Hop Metric  LocPref Weight Path
>  * >   8.8.8.0/24   72.14.202.50 96 
> 56  0   15169 i
> 
> the nexthop happens to be an attached google peer
> 
> the as path is
> 15169 i
> 
> > If
> > yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged
> > locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records
> > showing iBGP vs eBGP.
> 
> If the router in LA sees the path as being through a router in san
> francisco that is the direction it will forward it in.
> 
> > On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the
> > border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output
> of show
> > commands?
> >
> > Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that
> > gateway router in SF?
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> > Graduate Research Fellow
> > Oregon Network Research Group
> > Computer and Information Science
>  

verizon fios bounced a legit private email of mine telling me it was spam and they would not allow it

2016-01-13 Thread Gordon Cook
dear Nanog

Sorry to bother you,   I am sitting here in shock,   I have been a Verizon to  
FiOS customer for about the past six years at least I think maybe eight.
every now and then the Verizon server will bounce an email back and tell me 
that it’s busy or not functioning but just now it bounced one back and I’m 
sorry I don’t have a screenshot of what it said but it clearly said that it 
considered me to be a spammer.   I may be a lot of things but a spammer I am 
not.  ;-)   when I get an email bounced back Apple OS X  always volunteers to 
use the pair networks server and I always automatically take that choice giving 
it never a second thought.

 it also reminded me that there was a limit on the amount of private emails a 
customer could send.

 And it said I needed to take the alleged spam and send it to 

spamdetector.upd...@verizon.net  and if I remember correctly wait at least an 
hour and then try to send the message again.

 Stating very clearly that no human being would talk to me.

 what in God’s name is going on?   Please a year and a half or two years ago 
when a route  to Ecuador was being filtered a couple of NANOG folk  knew whom 
to contact and the problem was fixed in record time.   I am hoping   that I 
will experience the same thing.   I should not be a stranger to any old time 
Nanog-ers.   but right now I’m feeling really paranoid!

Re: SMS gateways

2016-01-13 Thread Adam Kennedy
It was some special offer on our AT small business site. Maybe they were
$40 each. I wasn't the one that ordered them but I know they were pretty
cheap and so far working fine!


Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer

Broadband Networks

A Watch Communications Company

PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173

Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897

adamkenn...@broadbandnetworks.com

www.broadbandnetworks.com

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ray Orsini  wrote:

> We use those a lot with mobile hotspots. Where did you find them for $20?
> We
> usually pay about 2x that much for used untis.
>
> Regards,
> Ray Orsini – CEO
> Orsini IT, LLC – Technology Consultants
> VOICE DATA  BANDWIDTH  SECURITY  SUPPORT
> P: 305.967.6756 x1009   E: r...@orsiniit.com   TF: 844.OIT.VOIP
> 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016
> http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View
> Your Tickets
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:56 AM
> To: frnk...@iname.com
> Cc: John Levine ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: SMS gateways
>
> I picked up two of the AT "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network.
> Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that
> makes
> them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a Debian box and
> I'm able to use smstools open source software to send SMS from the unit
> directly to cell network. The AT Beam's were $20 I think and cost us
> about
> $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan.
>
>
> Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer
>
> Broadband Networks
>
> A Watch Communications Company
>
> PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173
>
> Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897
>
> adamkenn...@broadbandnetworks.com
>
> www.broadbandnetworks.com
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Adam Kennedy 
> wrote:
>
> > I picked up two of the AT "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network.
> > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that
> > makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a
> > Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to send
> > SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT Beam's were $20 I
> > think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan.
> >
> >
> > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer
> >
> > Broadband Networks
> >
> > A Watch Communications Company
> >
> > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173
> >
> > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897
> >
> > adamkenn...@broadbandnetworks.com
> >
> > www.broadbandnetworks.com
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> I plan to continue living in a rural area with a GSM provider that
> >> will support 2G. =)
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 5:24 PM
> >> To: nanog@nanog.org
> >> Cc: frnk...@iname.com
> >> Subject: Re: SMS gateways
> >>
> >> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write:
> >> >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS:
> >> http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms
> >> >
> >> >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't
> >> >stable,
> >> needing a reboot every few months,
> >> >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years.
> >>
> >> It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a
> >> 2G GSM modem.  AT has said quite firmly that they will turn off
> >> their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is
> >> already turning off 2G in favor of LTE.
> >>
> >> What do you plan to do instead next year?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>


Re: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact

2016-01-13 Thread Dave Pooser
On 1/12/16, 7:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Larry Sheldon"
 wrote:

>I told her it meant "All Fouled Up", where upon she picked up another
>stack, also mine, marked "NFG".

At $DAYJOB we often ship audio/video equipment via air counter to counter
for same-day delivery.

On Southwest those deliveries are coded "Next Flight Guaranteed" and
stickered NFG.

Occasionally a client will see a highly expensive piece of gear arrive
with an NFG sticker on the case and come unglued asking why he paid tens
of thousands of dollars if we're sending him gear that is "No F*ing Good."
Hilarity ensues
-- 
Dave Pooser
Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com




Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks

2016-01-13 Thread Reza Motamedi
Hi NANOG,

I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather
primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet
measurement so I know how things work in theory.

My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of
different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two
networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on
Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer.

Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange between
AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" and "show
ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering
between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands. If
yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged
locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records
showing iBGP vs eBGP.

On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the
border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show
commands?

Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that
gateway router in SF?

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon


RE: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks

2016-01-13 Thread Ray Orsini
The fastest way to get this information first-hand would be to set up a
network in an emulator (GNS3, VIRL, PacketTracer, etc). There are hundreds
of guides online to do this. Then you could do the same show commands and
record the output.

Regards,
Ray Orsini – CEO
Orsini IT, LLC – Technology Consultants
VOICE DATA  BANDWIDTH  SECURITY  SUPPORT
P: 305.967.6756 x1009   E: r...@orsiniit.com   TF: 844.OIT.VOIP
7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016
http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View
Your Tickets




-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Reza Motamedi
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two
networks

Hi NANOG,

I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather
primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet
measurement so I know how things work in theory.

My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of
different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two
networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on
Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer.

Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange between
AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" and "show ip
bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering between
AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands. If yes is
there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged locally in
LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records showing iBGP vs
eBGP.

On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the border
router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show commands?

Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that gateway
router in SF?

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon


Re: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks

2016-01-13 Thread joel jaeggli
On 1/13/16 9:36 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote:
> Hi NANOG,
> 
> I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather
> primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet
> measurement so I know how things work in theory.
> 
> My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of
> different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two
> networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on
> Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer.
> 
> Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange between
> AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" 

show bgp summary just tells you about your bgp neighbors.

> and "show
> ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering
> between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands.

You see AS path, and the nexthop the route was learned from (which is
probably (nexthop self) the router on which the prefix is learned) in
san francisco. that route is probably resolved by your igp.

so in an extremely simple example

   Network Next Hop Metric  LocPref Weight Path
 * >   8.8.8.0/24  72.14.202.50 96  56  0   15169 i

the nexthop happens to be an attached google peer

the as path is
15169 i

> If
> yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged
> locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records
> showing iBGP vs eBGP.

If the router in LA sees the path as being through a router in san
francisco that is the direction it will forward it in.

> On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the
> border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show
> commands?
> 
> Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that
> gateway router in SF?
> 
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature