[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

looking for hostname router identifier validation


I am aware that some PTR records are wrong.  Can you please name the
half dozen ISPs / suffixes so I can take a look at those in the data.
In theory the code should score suffixes which have out of date
records poorly.  For suffixes that don't score poorly but have errors,
there are other techniques that could reject incorrect clustering of
router interfaces.

Regarding uu.net (Bryan's email), it looks like those are colored red
on the website after 201207, i.e. I would not use them for anything.
But the transition to alter.net (Paul's email) looks good to me:


and I would claim the regex for alter.net is very good.  If someone
from alter.net is watching, can you comment on the gw1.iad8
inferences, where six interfaces are colored red as if they are named
wrong (back in Jan 2019).  My hunch is that the training data is
wrong, and those interfaces belong on the same router.  I can see
similar behavior for gw4.lax15.


On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 01:13:38PM -0700, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> I would caution against putting much faith in the validity of geolocation
> or site ID by reverse DNS PTR records. There are a vast number of
> unmaintained, ancient, stale, erroneous or wildly wrong PTR records out
> there. I can name at least a half dozen ISPs that have absorbed other ASes,
> some of those which also acquired other ASes earlier in their history,
> forming a turducken of obsolete PTR records that has things with ISP domain
> names last in use in the year 2002.
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 6:15 AM Matthew Luckie <mjl at luckie.org.nz> wrote:
> > Hi NANOG,
> >
> > To support Internet topology analysis efforts, I have been working on
> > an algorithm to automatically detect router names inside hostnames
> > (PTR records) for router interfaces, and build regular expressions
> > (regexes) to extract them.  By "router name" inside the hostname, I
> > mean a substring, or set of non-contiguous substrings, that is common
> > among interfaces on a router.  For example, suppose we had the
> > following three routers in the savvis.net domain suffix, each with two
> > interfaces:
> >
> > das1-v3005.nj2.savvis.net
> > das1-v3006.nj2.savvis.net
> >
> > das1-v3005.oc2.savvis.net
> > das1-v3007.oc2.savvis.net
> >
> > das2-v3009.nj2.savvis.net
> > das2-v3012.nj2.savvis.net
> >
> > We might infer the router names are das1|nj2, das1|oc2, and das2|nj2,
> > respectively, and captured by the regex:
> > ^([a-z]+\d+)-[^\.]+\.([a-z]+\d+)\.savvis\.net$
> >
> > After much refinement based on smaller sets of ground truth, I'm
> > asking for broader feedback from operators.  I've placed a webpage at
> > https://www.caida.org/~mjl/rnc/ that shows the inferences my algorithm
> > made for 2523 domains.  If you operate one of the domains in that
> > list, I would appreciate it if you could comment (private is probably
> > better but public is fine with me) on whether the regex my algorithm
> > inferred represents your naming intent.  In the first instance, I am
> > most interested in feedback for the suffix / date combinations for
> > suffixes that are colored green, i.e. appear to be reasonable.
> >
> > Each suffix / date combination links to a page that contains the
> > naming convention and corresponding inferences.  The colored part of
> > each hostname is the inferred router name.  The green hostnames appear
> > to be correct, at least as far as the algorithm determined.  Some
> > suffixes have errors due to either stale hostnames or incorrect
> > training data, and those hostnames are colored red or orange.
> >
> > If anyone is interested in sets of hostnames the algorithm may have
> > inferred as 'stale' for their network, because for some operators it
> > was an oversight and they were grateful to learn about it, I can
> > provide that information.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matthew
> >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190430/e16030c1/attachment.sig>