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

[Brooks Bridges]

It's also quite possible that many of the roads are perfectly passable 
by a 5000 to 7500# car however aren't cleared enough or stable enough 
for a 60,000 to 80,000# tractor-trailer.


On 10/1/2017 10:38 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:09:55 -0500, Jason Baugher said:

The more I read about this, the more disturbed I get. On the one hand, we
keep hearing that the trucks aren't moving because roads are impassable.
Then I read that government officials are driving from their remote areas
to San Juan to ask why no aid is coming, disputing the claims about the
roads.

It's quite possible for both to be true.  The fact that some government
officials are able to make it to San Juan isn't proof that nobody on the
island is stuck behind an impassable road.

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

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:09:55 -0500, Jason Baugher said:
> The more I read about this, the more disturbed I get. On the one hand, we
> keep hearing that the trucks aren't moving because roads are impassable.
> Then I read that government officials are driving from their remote areas
> to San Juan to ask why no aid is coming, disputing the claims about the
> roads.

It's quite possible for both to be true.  The fact that some government
officials are able to make it to San Juan isn't proof that nobody on the
island is stuck behind an impassable road.


pgpcIuLXn9W8f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2017-10-02 00:32, Javier J wrote:

> I hope they do. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of FEMA, Army, etc
> personnel on the ground or a shortage of truck drivers in the US willing to
> help. If 80% of Truck drivers that pick up containers from the ports can't
> make it, then this needs to be supplemented any way possible to get things
> moving.


When disaster is in focused area (Like Houston), truck drivers can
easily return to functional cities after delivering goods to the diaster
zone (so not a strain on food/lodging in diaster zone).

If you bring truck drivers (and telecom, electrical etc) workiers into
Puerto Rico, they can't go home every night, so become a strain on
shelter/food resources.

And you can't "steal" your local workers if they are busy pickup up
their belongings from collapsed homes, waiting in long queues for food
and caring for their families.

In 1998 Ice Storm, Bombardier in Montréal had full power and got a lot
of bad publicity when it threatened to fire employees who didn't show up
for work. Seesm like mamnagement lived in areas that had power and
didn't realise how life changes when you have no power,  queue up for
wood provided by city etc. (and that is nothing compared to what people
on Puerto Rico are dealing with).

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

[Javier J]

> Do FEMA and the National Guard have the authority to commandeer the
trucks and deliver the containers themselves?


I hope they do. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of FEMA, Army, etc
personnel on the ground or a shortage of truck drivers in the US willing to
help. If 80% of Truck drivers that pick up containers from the ports can't
make it, then this needs to be supplemented any way possible to get things
moving.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Jason Baugher 
wrote:

> The more I read about this, the more disturbed I get. On the one hand, we
> keep hearing that the trucks aren't moving because roads are impassable.
> Then I read that government officials are driving from their remote areas
> to San Juan to ask why no aid is coming, disputing the claims about the
> roads. We hear that there isn't fuel for the trucks, then a reporter from
> CNBC disputes that claim as well. The only thing that seems to be a common
> thread is that there are massive amounts of supplies sitting in San Juan
> and that they can't get truck drivers to deliver them.
>
> Do FEMA and the National Guard have the authority to commandeer the trucks
> and deliver the containers themselves? The telcom companies aren't going to
> be able to do much by way of repairs without supplies.
>
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Javier J 
> wrote:
>
>> At this point, I wouldn't trust status.pr and any media reports without
>> verifying information. As far as LibertyPR is concerned my cousin who
>> lives
>> in Carolina, PR told me thieves were stealing fiber optic cable after the
>> storm. I trust the Seon Donelan, FCC, US Military, FEMA reports in that
>> order. There was a report that 33% of cell phone service was reported.
>> That
>> is BS. We know from FCC reports it is still at ~90% out as far as number
>> of
>> operational cell sites.
>>
>>
>> The media here in the states is no better. I have multiple confirmations
>> and am looking for hard proof but the Teamsters Puerto Rico trucking union
>> is refusing to move containers out of the port. Only 20% of truckers
>> showed
>> up for work. Perhaps someone who works at Crowley can give us more
>> concrete
>> info but if you can't even move supplies out of the port, how the heck are
>> you supposed to replace wires/fiber/fuel etc?
>>
>>
>> Here is a CNBC report:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Z01o4tBlI
>>
>> - Javier
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2017, Sean Donelan wrote:
>> >
>> >> The first public statement I've seen from LibertyPR was yesterday.
>> Their
>> >> network was completely down.  They've restored some of their main
>> >> infrastructure, i.e. cable headends and main fiber connections.
>> >> 100% of subscribers are out of service.
>> >>
>> >> I've seen pictures on twitter of LibertyPR crews fixing cables and
>> poles
>> >> on the island.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Liberty cable Puerto Rico has put out a press release today.
>> >
>> > LibertyPR is opening one public WiFi hot spot in Bahia Urbana in San
>> Juan
>> > from 3pm to 7pm Saturday, and 8am to 7pm daily starting Sunday.
>> >
>> > Additional hot spots will be announced by LibertyPR via press release in
>> > the future.
>> >
>> > I guess this is a sign LibertyPR's public relations office is back in
>> > operation.
>> >
>>
>
>

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

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2017-10-01 23:09, Jason Baugher wrote:
> The more I read about this, the more disturbed I get. On the one hand, we
> keep hearing that the trucks aren't moving because roads are impassable.

Note: media NEVER shows places that are up and running, only shows
disaster zones, so one may not get full story by looking at media.

Just saw a report on Al Jazeera. 2 sisters trying to get to their father
who lives up in the hills. They show some main roads now open, but they
get to a "road closed" by a huge landslide (with diggers working to
clear it) and have to walk from there, including fording rivers. They
eventially get to their dad who is still alive.

If there are many cell towers on top of hills where the roads are
blocked by landslides, trees, restoration would take a long time before
ground crews get to clear those remote roads that might be considered
low priority.

(and it isn't clear that a helicopter could land there either).

> Do FEMA and the National Guard have the authority to commandeer the trucks
> and deliver the containers themselves? The telcom companies aren't going to
> be able to do much by way of repairs without supplies.

Where telecom wiring is underground, it may be easier to light the links
back up. But where it is aerial, they would have to wait for the
electric utility to fix the poles before stringing new wiring. Not clear
how much of aerial plant needs rebuild, or mere fixes.


After Sandy, Verizon saw the state of corrosion in lower Manhattan and
decided to not fix the copper and string  fibre instead. If enough of
the copper plant is destroyed, would Claro (or govt) consider stringing
FTTH instead of stringing copper?

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

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:28:31 -0400, Javier J said:

> The media here in the states is no better. I have multiple confirmations
> and am looking for hard proof but the Teamsters Puerto Rico trucking union
> is refusing to move containers out of the port. Only 20% of truckers showed
> up for work.

I haven't seen any reports of a Teamster union refusal. I *have* seen
reports that only 10-30% of truck drivers are operational, because of
one or more of:

1) Their rigs are stuck behind a highway outage due to washout
or downed trees.

2) Their rigs are stuck due to lack of diesel.

3) Rigs are fine, but drivers are stuck due to 1) or 2), or they
are too busy trying to save their families/etc to show up to work.

I've seen too  many reports of "I have been waiting in line for 5 hours for
water / gasoline / ice for 's insulin" to get too irate at people who
fail to show up for work.

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

[Jason Baugher]

The more I read about this, the more disturbed I get. On the one hand, we
keep hearing that the trucks aren't moving because roads are impassable.
Then I read that government officials are driving from their remote areas
to San Juan to ask why no aid is coming, disputing the claims about the
roads. We hear that there isn't fuel for the trucks, then a reporter from
CNBC disputes that claim as well. The only thing that seems to be a common
thread is that there are massive amounts of supplies sitting in San Juan
and that they can't get truck drivers to deliver them.

Do FEMA and the National Guard have the authority to commandeer the trucks
and deliver the containers themselves? The telcom companies aren't going to
be able to do much by way of repairs without supplies.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Javier J  wrote:

> At this point, I wouldn't trust status.pr and any media reports without
> verifying information. As far as LibertyPR is concerned my cousin who lives
> in Carolina, PR told me thieves were stealing fiber optic cable after the
> storm. I trust the Seon Donelan, FCC, US Military, FEMA reports in that
> order. There was a report that 33% of cell phone service was reported. That
> is BS. We know from FCC reports it is still at ~90% out as far as number of
> operational cell sites.
>
>
> The media here in the states is no better. I have multiple confirmations
> and am looking for hard proof but the Teamsters Puerto Rico trucking union
> is refusing to move containers out of the port. Only 20% of truckers showed
> up for work. Perhaps someone who works at Crowley can give us more concrete
> info but if you can't even move supplies out of the port, how the heck are
> you supposed to replace wires/fiber/fuel etc?
>
>
> Here is a CNBC report:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Z01o4tBlI
>
> - Javier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2017, Sean Donelan wrote:
> >
> >> The first public statement I've seen from LibertyPR was yesterday. Their
> >> network was completely down.  They've restored some of their main
> >> infrastructure, i.e. cable headends and main fiber connections.
> >> 100% of subscribers are out of service.
> >>
> >> I've seen pictures on twitter of LibertyPR crews fixing cables and poles
> >> on the island.
> >>
> >
> > Liberty cable Puerto Rico has put out a press release today.
> >
> > LibertyPR is opening one public WiFi hot spot in Bahia Urbana in San Juan
> > from 3pm to 7pm Saturday, and 8am to 7pm daily starting Sunday.
> >
> > Additional hot spots will be announced by LibertyPR via press release in
> > the future.
> >
> > I guess this is a sign LibertyPR's public relations office is back in
> > operation.
> >
>

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

[Javier J]

At this point, I wouldn't trust status.pr and any media reports without
verifying information. As far as LibertyPR is concerned my cousin who lives
in Carolina, PR told me thieves were stealing fiber optic cable after the
storm. I trust the Seon Donelan, FCC, US Military, FEMA reports in that
order. There was a report that 33% of cell phone service was reported. That
is BS. We know from FCC reports it is still at ~90% out as far as number of
operational cell sites.


The media here in the states is no better. I have multiple confirmations
and am looking for hard proof but the Teamsters Puerto Rico trucking union
is refusing to move containers out of the port. Only 20% of truckers showed
up for work. Perhaps someone who works at Crowley can give us more concrete
info but if you can't even move supplies out of the port, how the heck are
you supposed to replace wires/fiber/fuel etc?


Here is a CNBC report:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Z01o4tBlI

- Javier







On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2017, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>> The first public statement I've seen from LibertyPR was yesterday. Their
>> network was completely down.  They've restored some of their main
>> infrastructure, i.e. cable headends and main fiber connections.
>> 100% of subscribers are out of service.
>>
>> I've seen pictures on twitter of LibertyPR crews fixing cables and poles
>> on the island.
>>
>
> Liberty cable Puerto Rico has put out a press release today.
>
> LibertyPR is opening one public WiFi hot spot in Bahia Urbana in San Juan
> from 3pm to 7pm Saturday, and 8am to 7pm daily starting Sunday.
>
> Additional hot spots will be announced by LibertyPR via press release in
> the future.
>
> I guess this is a sign LibertyPR's public relations office is back in
> operation.
>

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[Tim Evens]

Looks like attachments do not work in the mailer. See below, a bit ugly,
but it's CSV so you should be able to cut/paste it to check it out. 

timestamp,as_path_length,as_path
2017-09-29 22:26:40.00,568, 2518 2914 174 262206 262206 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197
2017-09-29 22:26:39.00,568, 393406 6453 174 262206 262206 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197
262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 262197 

Re: Terminology Clarification - "Active Wave"

[jeff herbel]

Yes. They might be thinking of dark fiber..

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017, 4:20 PM Rod Beck 
wrote:

> A financial firm asked me if a 10 gig wave offer was an "active wave". 
>
>
> LAN PHY 10 GigE, WAN PHY 10 GigE, transparent, STM64, OC192. Yes.
>
>
> Active?
>
>
> Roderick Beck
>
> Director of Global Sales
>
> United Cable Company
>
> www.unitedcablecompany.com
>
> 85 Király utca
> ,
> 1077 Budapest
>
> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
>
> 36-30-859-5144
>
>
> [1467221477350_image005.png]
>

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[Scott Weeks]

> Nowhere in the BGP RFCs it says it is okay for the 
> software to crash.

:: we could send a community to signal that it's ok 
:: to crash

Call it the ECB.  (Evil Crash Bit).  ;-)

scott

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[Randy Bush]

> Nowhere in the BGP RFCs it says it is okay for the software to crash.

we could send a community to signal that it's ok to crash

randy

Re: AS PATH limits

[Randy Bush]

looks to me as if 262206 is trying a silly tactic to down-pref inbound
from cogent.  as cogent probably prefers customers to peers, it may not
be working as 262206 expected, so they keep pounding with the same
hammer hoping for a miracle.

cogent accepts it as they are being paid to do so; normal practice.

perhaps our ire should be directed at 262206, not cogent?  has anyone
tried to contact them?

randy

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Kelly Dowd  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:29 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
>
>> To the chucklehead who started announcing a 2200+ byte AS path yesterday
>> around 18:27 EDT, I beg of you: STOP. You've triggered a bug in Quagga
>>
>
> Is this better or worse than the "chucklehead" who is running buggy
> routing kit and complaining about what is a perfectly valid configuration?
>

Hi Kelly,

Show me a reasonable use case for an AS path that's much longer than the
Internet is wide and I'll withdraw my complaint.

Your software has bugs too. You just didn't get bitten. This time.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[Tim Evens]

The outliers are >100. Based on several peering points, <= 60 should be
fine. See attached CSV file that shows the top 120 distinct AS Paths
seen for the past month. Looks like 55644 likes to prepend a lot which
is pushing the length above 50. 

--Tim 

On 01.10.2017 09:16, marcel.duregards--- via NANOG wrote: 

> What would be a recommended value for a maximum as-path filter ?
> 
> 50 ?
> 
> On the DFZ I've only 11 prefixes longer than 30 as-path, so for safety I
> would also assume 50 as a max is well enough. Any advice ?
> 
> Regards,
> -
> Marcel
> 
> On 01.10.2017 00:29, William Herrin wrote:
> 
>> To the chucklehead who started announcing a 2200+ byte AS path yesterday 
>> around 18:27 EDT, I beg of you: STOP. You've triggered a bug in Quagga 
>> that's present in all versions released in the last decade. Your 
>> announcement causes routers based on Quagga to send a malformed update to 
>> their neighbors, collapsing the entire BGP session. Every 30 seconds or so. 
>> For everyone else: please consider filtering BGP announcements with stupidly 
>> long AS paths. There's no need nor excuse for them to be present in the DFZ 
>> and you could have saved me a painful Saturday. Cisco: router bgp XXX bgp 
>> maxas-limit 50 Juniper: 
>> https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB29321 [1] Quagga: 
>> ip as-path access-list maxas-limit50 deny ^([{},0-9]+ ){50} ip as-path 
>> access-list maxas-limit50 permit .* Regards, Bill Herrin
> 
> .



Links:
--
[1] https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=contentid=KB29321

Re: Terminology Clarification - "Active Wave"

[Rod Beck]

Thanks. I think that makes sense.


- R.



From: Tony Wicks 
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 10:33 PM
To: Rod Beck
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Terminology Clarification - "Active Wave"

I would suggest they are asking if it is to be carried on an active (Powered) 
DWDM ADM (Add Drop Mux), or over passive optical Mux's (short range).



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rod Beck
Sent: Monday, 2 October 2017 9:19 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Terminology Clarification - "Active Wave"

A financial firm asked me if a 10 gig wave offer was an "active wave". 


LAN PHY 10 GigE, WAN PHY 10 GigE, transparent, STM64, OC192. Yes.


Active?


Roderick Beck

Director of Global Sales

United Cable Company

www.unitedcablecompany.com>

85 Király utca, 1077 Budapest

rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com

36-30-859-5144


[1467221477350_image005.png]

RE: Terminology Clarification - "Active Wave"

[Tony Wicks]

I would suggest they are asking if it is to be carried on an active (Powered) 
DWDM ADM (Add Drop Mux), or over passive optical Mux's (short range).



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rod Beck
Sent: Monday, 2 October 2017 9:19 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Terminology Clarification - "Active Wave"

A financial firm asked me if a 10 gig wave offer was an "active wave". 


LAN PHY 10 GigE, WAN PHY 10 GigE, transparent, STM64, OC192. Yes.


Active?


Roderick Beck

Director of Global Sales

United Cable Company

www.unitedcablecompany.com

85 Király utca, 1077 Budapest

rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com

36-30-859-5144


[1467221477350_image005.png]

Terminology Clarification - "Active Wave"

[Rod Beck]

A financial firm asked me if a 10 gig wave offer was an "active wave". 


LAN PHY 10 GigE, WAN PHY 10 GigE, transparent, STM64, OC192. Yes.


Active?


Roderick Beck

Director of Global Sales

United Cable Company

www.unitedcablecompany.com

85 Király utca, 1077 Budapest

rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com

36-30-859-5144


[1467221477350_image005.png]

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[Jon Lewis]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:


Could you list which prefix(es) you saw were being announced with these
long AS paths?


186.177.184.0/23 - still being announced with 533 occurrences of 262197
in the AS path.


aut-num: AS262197
owner:   MILLICOM CABLE COSTA RICA S.A.
ownerid: CR-ACCR1-LACNIC
responsible: Jonathan Cisneros
address: 350mts Oeste del Ministerio de Agricultura, frente a entrada 
principal UCIMED, Sabana Oeste, 0, 0

address: 10108 - San Jos� - SJ
country: CR
phone:   +50 2 2790099 []
owner-c: JOC63
routing-c:   JOC63
abuse-c: ATR9
created: 20130709
changed: 20140804

Anyone care to bet on whether they're using a Mikrotik and did

/routing filter add set-bgp-prepend=262197

and this somehow got truncated to fewer than the "requested" 262197 
prepends?  I'm seeing 562 prepends...which doesn't seem to work out to any 
obvious amount of bitwise truncation/wrap.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[sthaug]

> Could you list which prefix(es) you saw were being announced with these
> long AS paths?

186.177.184.0/23 - still being announced with 533 occurrences of 262197
in the AS path.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[Mark Price]

Hi Bill,

Could you list which prefix(es) you saw were being announced with these
long AS paths?


Mark



On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:29 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> To the chucklehead who started announcing a 2200+ byte AS path yesterday
> around 18:27 EDT, I beg of you: STOP. You've triggered a bug in Quagga
> that's present in all versions released in the last decade. Your
> announcement causes routers based on Quagga to send a malformed update to
> their neighbors, collapsing the entire BGP session. Every 30 seconds or so.
>
> For everyone else: please consider filtering BGP announcements with
> stupidly long AS paths. There's no need nor excuse for them to be present
> in the DFZ and you could have saved me a painful Saturday.
>
> Cisco:
>
> router bgp XXX
>  bgp maxas-limit 50
>
>
> Juniper:
> https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB29321
>
>
> Quagga:
>
> ip as-path access-list maxas-limit50 deny ^([{},0-9]+ ){50}
> ip as-path access-list maxas-limit50 permit .*
>
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>

Re: Long BGP AS paths

[marcel.duregards--- via NANOG]

What would be a recommended value for a maximum as-path filter ?

50 ?

On the DFZ I've only 11 prefixes longer than 30 as-path, so for safety I
would also assume 50 as a max is well enough. Any advice ?

Regards,
-
Marcel



On 01.10.2017 00:29, William Herrin wrote:
> To the chucklehead who started announcing a 2200+ byte AS path yesterday
> around 18:27 EDT, I beg of you: STOP. You've triggered a bug in Quagga
> that's present in all versions released in the last decade. Your
> announcement causes routers based on Quagga to send a malformed update to
> their neighbors, collapsing the entire BGP session. Every 30 seconds or so.
> 
> For everyone else: please consider filtering BGP announcements with
> stupidly long AS paths. There's no need nor excuse for them to be present
> in the DFZ and you could have saved me a painful Saturday.
> 
> Cisco:
> 
> router bgp XXX
>  bgp maxas-limit 50
> 
> 
> Juniper:
> https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB29321
> 
> 
> Quagga:
> 
> ip as-path access-list maxas-limit50 deny ^([{},0-9]+ ){50}
> ip as-path access-list maxas-limit50 permit .*
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 

.