701 contact that actually responds...

Hi guys, we (1280) have a prefix missing from 701's routing tables that harms us quite a bit. I've tried contacting the obvious email addresses with details, but got zero response (I've checked the spamtrap) inside 24 hours. Is there a better way to contact the actual NOC than carynmc

Re: AS 701 ?

1 PM Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:16 PM Craig wrote: > > > > Anyone else having peering issues problems with AS 701? > > meaning: > 1) "I lost all routes to 701 paths" > 2) "All my traffic into 701 never returns" > 3) link

Re: AS 701 ?

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:16 PM Craig wrote: > > Anyone else having peering issues problems with AS 701? meaning: 1) "I lost all routes to 701 paths" 2) "All my traffic into 701 never returns" 3) links to 701 are full, yikes! 4) other ? more info is more better.

AS 701 ?

Anyone else having peering issues problems with AS 701?

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

> well, I was thinking that you can survey your customers to know their > approximate inbound number, you can implement a max-prefix in from them > with that (ideally you're already doing that). > > You can figure out the output from you as well in a similar fashion. > > In either case you're

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

> On Sep 2, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > > Coloclue (AS 8283): > >For every peering partner, data is fetched from the PeeringDB API >and the fields visible here https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/2914 as >'IPv4 Prefixes' and 'IPv6 Prefixes' are used as

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 12:08:41PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > I think you'll find that some of your peers will make an educated > > guess and set an inbound limit anyway. Actively requesting that no > > limit is applied may make one part of a fringe minority. > > This is a quick survey

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

(from earlier randy) > you just assumed that the transitive closure of everybody's cones > implement and propagate count. ain't gonna happen. well, I was thinking that you can survey your customers to know their approximate inbound number, you can implement a max-prefix in from them with that

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 04:27:03PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > I am not sure what the issue here is. If I can tell my peering > > partner a recommended maximum prefix value for them to set on their > > side, surely I can configure that same value on my side as the upper > > outbound limit. > >

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

> i have 142 largish bgp customers, a large enough number that the > number of prefixes i receive from them varies annoyingly. how do > i reasonably automate setting of my outbound prefix limit? First, it seems you know the inbound so automating the outbound is simple

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 at 05:41, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> i have 142 largish bgp customers, a large enough number that the number > >>> of prefixes i receive from them varies annoyingly. how do i reasonably > >>> automate setting of my outbound prefix limit? > >> > >> First, it seems

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

>>> i have 142 largish bgp customers, a large enough number that the number >>> of prefixes i receive from them varies annoyingly. how do i reasonably >>> automate setting of my outbound prefix limit? >> >> First, it seems you know the inbound so automating the outbound is simple >> arithmetic. >

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Sep 1, 2017, at 5:26 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > i have 142 largish bgp customers, a large enough number that the number > > of prefixes i receive from them varies annoyingly. how do i reasonably

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On Sep 1, 2017, at 5:26 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > i have 142 largish bgp customers, a large enough number that the number > of prefixes i receive from them varies annoyingly. how do i reasonably > automate setting of my outbound prefix limit? First, it seems you know the inbound

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

i have 142 largish bgp customers, a large enough number that the number of prefixes i receive from them varies annoyingly. how do i reasonably automate setting of my outbound prefix limit? randy

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

I guess you're looking into something similar to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keyur-idr-bgp-prefix-limit-orf. -- Tassos Jörg Kost wrote on 31/8/17 13:50: > > > What about adding an option to the BGP session that A & B do agree on a fixed > number of prefixes in both directions, so Bs

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:50:58PM +0200, J??rg Kost > wrote: > > What about adding an option to the BGP session that A & B do agree on a > > fixed number of prefixes in both directions, so Bs

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

In a message written on Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:50:58PM +0200, J??rg Kost wrote: > What about adding an option to the BGP session that A & B do agree on a > fixed number of prefixes in both directions, so Bs prefix-in could be As > prefix-out automatically? As others have pointed out, that's

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

I think what this is is just a new (potentially) knob that can be turned. If you don't want to turn it that's your deal, you run your network how you want. There's been no suggestion that there be some explicit default value or even that its turned on by default so behavior won't change unless

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

Hi, but in reality you will factorise and summarize outbound and inbound numbers, create spare room for sessions and failover scenarios and therefore leaks and especially partial leaks can still occur. In another example scenario the BGP process may not only shutdown the session to B, that

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

Dear Jörg, On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:50:58PM +0200, Jörg Kost wrote: > but isn't peer A prefix-out a synonym for peer B prefix-in, that will > lead to the same result, e.g. a BGP teardown? > > I just feel that this will add another factor, that people will not > use or abuse: neigh $x max-out

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

Hi, but isn't peer A prefix-out a synonym for peer B prefix-in, that will lead to the same result, e.g. a BGP teardown? I just feel that this will add another factor, that people will not use or abuse: neigh $x max-out infinite What about adding an option to the BGP session that A & B do

Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

What a terrific idea..., simple & useful El 29/8/17 a las 1:41 p.m., Michael Still escribió: > I agree a max-prefix outbound could potentially be useful and would > hopefully not be too terribly difficult to implement for most vendors. > > Perhaps RFC4486 would need to be updated to reflect this

Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

Good use-case for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out and snapshot auditing before and after changes. Leak didn't last long but it could have been caught within milliseconds verses minutes via oh sh** alarms. --Tim On 8/29/17, 6:46 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Randy

Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

> Good use-case for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out and > snapshot auditing before and after changes. Leak didn't last long but > it could have been caught within milliseconds verses minutes via oh > sh** alarms. [ i happen to like bmp, but ... ] if the sender

Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

>> Damn you Google.. yup. Thanks for links. > A public post-mortem would be highly appreciated (from all parties). there has been more press hysteria on this than actual packet droppage. goog fat fingered or otherwise misannounced a numer of large consumer isp's prefixes. the leak was for aybe

Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

I agree a max-prefix outbound could potentially be useful and would hopefully not be too terribly difficult to implement for most vendors. Perhaps RFC4486 would need to be updated to reflect this as a possibility as well? On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Julien Goodwin

RE: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Marcus Josephson wrote: Damn you Google.. yup. Thanks for links. A public post-mortem would be highly appreciated (from all parties). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On 28/08/17 18:34, Job Snijders wrote: > Finally, it may be worthwhile exploring if we can standardize and > promote maximum prefix limits applied on the the _sending_ side. This > way you protect your neighbor (and the Internet at large) by > self-destructing when you inadvertently announce more

Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:48:44PM +, someone wrote: > Damn you Google.. yup. I am not sure it is fair to say "damn you Google", because accidents happen (be it through human error or software defects). All of us have entered commands at some point and subsequently

RE: Verizon 701 Route leak?

Damn you Google.. yup. Thanks for links. -Marcus From: Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr [mailto:benge...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:47 AM To: Marcus Josephson <mjoseph...@inap.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Hello, Do you mean this one ? https://d

Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

cus Josephson <mjoseph...@inap.com> a écrit : > > Anyone from Verizon want to comment on a possible route leak on the 25th > 10:30 PM EDT? Saw route table jump up to 737629 routes last night from 701. > > > Marcus Josephson > > mjoseph...@inap.com<mailto:mjoseph

Verizon 701 Route leak?

Anyone from Verizon want to comment on a possible route leak on the 25th 10:30 PM EDT? Saw route table jump up to 737629 routes last night from 701. Marcus Josephson mjoseph...@inap.com<mailto:mjoseph...@inap.com> * www.inap.com<http://www.inap.com> INAP (r) connectivity

701 contact please?

Can someone from 701 contact me off-list? - Jared

RE: OT -- seeking a knowledgable AS 701 technical contact.

[mailto:bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:36 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: OT -- seeking a knowledgable AS 701 technical contact. Apologies for the noise, but I have been absolutely unable -- despite literally *hours* of trying --to contact anyone at _any_

OT -- seeking a knowledgable AS 701 technical contact.

Apologies for the noise, but I have been absolutely unable -- despite literally *hours* of trying --to contact anyone at _any_ of the published Verizon Business phone numbers who has any comprehension of what I am talking about -- to wit: I am looking for someone with _any_

Re: OT -- seeking a knowledgable AS 701 technical contact.

Hi, If i remember right, Verizon Business has 3 or 4 different help desks. From my experience, none of the help desks know anything about the others. I dont have any numbers off hand unfortunately. -Grant On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.comwrote:

Re: OT -- seeking a knowledgable AS 701 technical contact.

sorry grant :( (gmail user fail) On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: what are you trying to do with ftp.uu.net? is it broken in some way? is it possibly that no

VZ/UU/701 Accepting AS33259 leaking

This appears to be ongoing. I'm seeing more updates here: http://puck.nether.net/bgp/leakinfo.cgi Some people at 701 are getting email alerts from my monitoring system. I'll ask them about this shortly. - jared On Feb 19, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Matsuzaki Yoshinobu wrote: Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010