swinog

swinog@lists.swinog.ch

8 participants
2926 discussions

IANA AS Numbers Registry Update
by Selina Harrington 20 Jan '25

20 Jan '25

Hi, The IANA AS Numbers registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of the following blocks to APNIC: 153914-154937 Assigned by APNIC 2025-01-17 154938-155961 Assigned by APNIC 2025-01-17 You can find the registry at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/ The allocation was made in accordance with the Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-policy-asn-blocks-2010-09-21-en Best regards, Selina Harrington IANA Operations Manager

1 0

Peering issues?
by Rafael Pfister AVENIQ 14 Jan '25

14 Jan '25

Hey everyone Starting from today at 19:30, Sunrise seems to be experiencing issues connecting to Cloudfront/AWS services. Can someone from Sunrise investigate? Has anyone else noticed slow response times? RESOLVED 20min.ch TO 108.139.10.50 STARTED QUERY AT 2025/01/13 19:20:59 UTC Fetching Measurement: 86068412 Traceroute from 172.17.0.2 to 108.139.10.50 (108.139.10.50): 1 172.17.0.1 0.075ms 0.056ms 0.095ms 2 192.168.1.1 0.456ms * 0.564ms 3 xdsl-188-154-10-1.adslplus.ch (188.154.10.1) 2.368ms 1.901ms 3.253ms 4 zur05pe01.eth-trunk41.bb.sunrise.net (195.141.217.14) 2.461ms 2.803ms 9.844ms 5 oer02lsr01.100ge-9-0-1.bb.sunrise.net (195.141.215.136) 2.627ms 5.823ms 1.903ms 6 be2395.ccr52.zrh02.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.50.25) 8.263ms 8.217ms 9.805ms 7 be3073.ccr22.muc03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.0.62) 17.955ms 18.746ms 20.905ms 8 be7944.ccr42.fra05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.75.98) 16.912ms 17.089ms 16.851ms 9 be2950.ccr42.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.72.41) 24.289ms 24.86ms 23.311ms 10 be2183.ccr22.lpl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.58.69) 134.45ms 164.259ms 134.418ms 11 be3043.ccr22.ymq01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.44.166) 138.134ms 133.711ms 138.456ms 12 be3260.ccr32.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.89) 135.28ms 133.366ms 137.568ms 13 be2994.ccr22.cle04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.31.233) 134.227ms 134.991ms 140.254ms 14 be2718.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.7.129) 134.623ms 134.97ms 133.9ms 15 be5068.ccr32.oma02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.166.73) 145.19ms 141.644ms 145.105ms 16 be4995.ccr22.den01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.165.213) 154.102ms 156.75ms 152.903ms 17 be5456.ccr32.slc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.45.166) 174.593ms 177.368ms 176.57ms 18 be3110.ccr22.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.44.141) 241.622ms 176.059ms 174.992ms 19 be3670.ccr41.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.43.14) 175.015ms 176.262ms 174.053ms 20 38.142.246.130 200.991ms 199.207ms 176.41ms 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 255 server-108-139-10-50.sfo5.r.cloudfront.net (108.139.10.50) 177.981ms 175.763ms 174.853ms Init7 seemed to have the same issues: RESOLVED 20min.ch TO 108.139.10.16 STARTED QUERY AT 2025/01/13 19:25:18 UTC Fetching Measurement: 86068442 Traceroute from 192.168.20.206 to 108.139.10.16 (108.139.10.16): 1 192.168.20.254 0.644ms 0.142ms 0.129ms 2 85-195-253-129.fiber7.init7.net (85.195.253.129) 0.366ms 0.344ms 0.363ms 3 r1stg7.core.init7.net (141.195.83.16) 1.408ms 1.189ms 1.178ms 4 r1stg2.core.init7.net (141.195.82.186) 2.125ms 1.238ms 1.266ms 5 r1wil2.core.init7.net (141.195.83.130) 1.572ms 1.5ms 1.954ms 6 r1win11.core.init7.net (5.180.135.88) 2.123ms 2.031ms 1.977ms 7 r1win12.core.init7.net (5.180.135.87) 2.282ms 2.274ms 2.127ms 8 r1zrh11.core.init7.net (5.180.135.34) 2.63ms 2.533ms 2.342ms 9 5-180-134-166.init7.net (5.180.134.166) 3.114ms 3.047ms 3.028ms 10 r2zrh2.core.init7.net (5.180.135.156) 2.948ms 2.929ms 2.892ms 11 80.157.206.137 3.255ms 2.971ms 2.968ms 12 pao-sb3-i.PAO.US.NET.DTAG.DE (62.154.5.242) 153.927ms 153.928ms 153.934ms 13 80.157.200.202 154.046ms 171.753ms 176.436ms 14 52.93.141.167 154.049ms 153.991ms 154.115ms 15 54.240.243.159 154.763ms 154.914ms 154.643ms 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 255 server-108-139-10-16.sfo5.r.cloudfront.net (108.139.10.16) 154.221ms 154.225ms 154.22ms Best wishes Rafael Pfister Aveniq AG Brown Boveri Strasse 7 | 5400 Baden Rafael.Pfister(a)aveniq.ch<mailto:Rafael.Pfister@aveniq.ch> | aveniq.ch<www.aveniq.ch>

5 6

Quad9 routing issues
by Antoine Jacot-Descombes 13 Jan '25

13 Jan '25

Hi All, Do you also experiment weird routing with Quad9 ? From AS6730, no more route. From AS13030 no problem From our network - AS205747 we have instabilities to 9.9.9.9 and 149.112.112.112 Best regards, Antoine ____ Antoine Jacot-Descombes Head of Infrastructure and Network leader VNV SA - AS205747 Allée des Défricheurs 4 - 2300 La Chaux-de-Fonds

1 0

Hardware offer (HPE MSL 1/8 Tape-Library)
by Mueller Urs SBB CFF FFS 08 Jan '25

08 Jan '25

Hi Guys We have a HPE MSL 1/8 Tape Library available. We had it in use during the last 8 month and will replace it through a larger one. List prices (whoever pays that ;-)) are around 1300 CHF. This is the “empty” tape loader, you would need to insert your own LTO drive and tapes. Most probably we do not provide original packaging. Please contact me off list for details. Kind regards (and happy new year), Urs SBB AG Konzernsicherheit Cyber Defense Center Poststrasse 6, 3072 Ostermundigen urs.bf.mueller(a)sbb.ch<mailto:urs.bf.mueller@sbb.ch> / www.sbb.ch<http://www.sbb.ch>

1 0

Re: Swiss Telecom Regulator orders Swisscom to peer on a zero-settlement basis
by Fredy Kuenzler 24 Dec '24

24 Dec '24

> Am 24.12.2024 um 14:00 schrieb Arnold Nipper <arnold(a)nipper.de>: >> On 23.12.2024 12:55, Fredy Künzler via swinog wrote: >> >> Big victory for Init7: Swisscom is obliged to operate interconnections on a zero-settlement basis! 🎉 🥂 🍾 > > congratulations! This has been a long fight! And ComCom's decision is encouraging for the interconnection industry. > Q1: does that mean that Swisscom has to peer with any network worldwide? Or only with Swiss? And which routes? The order applies only to Init7, however it could prejudice similar cases. Most relevant is that Swisscom is considered dominant in the relevant market (access to their end customers). There is no other option foe content heavy networks to send traffic via paid peering (any ratio beyond 2:1 is expensive) or buying transit from DTAG, and it’s known that DTAG is paying kickback to Swisscom and others because they can enforce overpriced fees from content. That pattern is considered illegal, SC and DTAG formed a cartel according to Swiss law. I hope that ComCo (Wettbewerbskommission) will sanction it any day soon. Since swiss operators are requested to register themselves at OFCOM, they become FDA (Fernmeldedienstanbieterin) and the FMG Fernmeldegesetz (Swiss telecom law) applies. Here are the rules: A Swiss FDA can start negotiating with Swisscom about zero settlement peering. If no consensus is reached within three months, the FDA can request an order at ComCom with reference to our case and documenting all the steps taken to achieve an agreement (emails, protocols etc.). ComCom is supposed to rule within 7 months. The decision of ComCom can be appealed to the Federal A Court by either party. It’s not risk free and I suggest to get a lawyer with clue to avoid formal mistakes, in case there is no consensus possible with Swisscom. It could have also a financial impact, as we lost the first attempt, we were asked to pay ~CHF 126’000 to cover the cost of the procedure. Since Swisscom has lost now, they have to pay ~CHF 170’000. I suggest to read page 4 to 11 of the «Verfügung» https://www.init7.net/de/vf-2024-12-19-001-entscheid-comcom-verf-init7-swis… (German) to get a clue how painful it could be. I assume that Swisscom is going to rework their peering policy and change it to a compliant version. I suggest to wait until the new version is out. > Q2: as a corollary: shouldn't all networks in a country peer with each other their national routes on a zero-settlement basis? Thats a hypothetical question and is beyond the ruling of ComCom, I guess. -- Fredy Künzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur https://www.init7.net/

1 0

Swiss Telecom Regulator orders Swisscom to peer on a zero-settlement basis
by Fredy Künzler 24 Dec '24

24 Dec '24

Big victory for Init7: Swisscom is obliged to operate interconnections on a zero-settlement basis! 🎉 🥂 🍾 The Swiss Telecom Regulator (ComCom) rules 100% in favor of Init7 in the #Interconnect #Peering case, which has been ongoing since 2013. Swisscom is categorized as dominant in the relevant market (access to its end customers) and has abused its technical monopoly. The decision will have implications internationally. More information in our media release: https://www.init7.net/de/news/241223-mm-init7-comcom-orders-swisscom- must-operate-zero-settlement-peering-with-init7-en.pdf (English) https://www.init7.net/de/news/241223-mm-init7-comcom-verfugt-swisscom-muss-… (German) P.S. The case mustn’t be confused with the fiberglass dispute. -- Fredy Künzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur https://www.init7.net/

3 2

Wanted: 16-Bit ASN for Exchange7
by Fredy Künzler 19 Dec '24

19 Dec '24

If anyone has a 16-Bit ASN spare and is willing to sell it for a decent price, please contact me off list. No fancy number required. RIPE NCC is handing out ASNs from just one pool these days, and the pool contains probably 99% 32-Bit ASN. Purpose: Route Servers of our Exchange7 project. -- Fredy Künzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur https://www.init7.net/

2 2

Residential FTTH IPv6
by Mat Kowalski 12 Dec '24

12 Dec '24

Hi all, This came up recently when I was talking with some colleagues about residential connections... You know, regular stuff people discuss over a beer or two... We all know Init7 is recognized as The Provider for power users and no one argues with that. But also everyone knows we have mainstream ones kinda-supporting IPv6. Swisscom gives public IPv4 and IPv6 via 6rd tunnel. Similar with Sunrise, but sometimes you end up on CG-NAT. Salt is only CG-NAT, at least according to the anecdotal proofs. Power users wouldn't be power if they did not try stuff. So I took my Sunrise FTTH over native fiber (EWZ in my case, not Swisscom BBCS) and it turns out I get public IPv4 from DHCP (expected) as well as IPv6 /56 prefix via DHCPv6 (not expected at all). The last one is extremely surprising - the status quo was that you can get IPv6 with Sunrise via 6rd, but DHCPv6 is a novelty. Or is it not? What is the state in 2024 ? Who does IPv6 ? Who does it natively ? I am surprised there is no single google result about Sunrise doing DHCPv6 so I wonder what we don't know about other ISPs. Cheers and have a nice day, Mat

7 8

Problems with www.postfinance.ch
by Stefan 28 Nov '24

28 Nov '24

Dear List, Does anyone of you also have problems with postfinance.ch being sporadically unavailable? For us, it's mainly customers who use a Fortigate firewall who are affected, apparently since last Friday when Postfinance had technical problems [1]. First I was thinking that ssl-inspection is doing some strange things, I disabled it but now I see sporadic no reply to TCP-SYN packets. Is anyone experiencing the same behaviour? [1] https://www.inside-it.ch/grosse-stoerung-bei-postfinance-20241101 Regards Stefan

6 5

IANA IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments Registry Update
by David Dong 02 Nov '24

02 Nov '24

Hi, The IANA IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of the following block to APNIC: 2410::/12 APNIC 2024-11-01 You can find the registry at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ The allocation was made in accordance with the Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv6-rirs-2012-02-25-en Best Regards, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

swinog