June 1997 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Adjusting BGP timers on high-latency links
by Danny McPherson 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

router bgp <as> timers bgp <keepalive> <holdtime> -danny > > > > Is there a way to adjust BGP keepalive timers on a per neighbor basis? > > Haven't been able to figure out a way under any of CISCO's IOS's version > > (we're running IOS 11.x on our boxes). > > > > TIA > > > > --curtis > > -- > > Curtis Generous > > generous(a)uucom.com > >

2 1

Re: Adjusting BGP timers on high-latency links
by Barry A. Dykes 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

neighbor *.*.*.* advertisement-interval (0-600 seconds) External peers are already 30 seconds and internal I beleive is 5 sec. Anyway I hope that this is what you are looking for. Barry > We're running into a problem getting an iBGP session to remain active > with a remote site connected via a high latency link (VSAT T1). The router > at this end of the link (cisco 7513) also eBGP peers with a couple of > upstream ISP's. > > Is there a way to adjust BGP keepalive timers on a per neighbor basis? > Haven't been able to figure out a way under any of CISCO's IOS's version > (we're running IOS 11.x on our boxes). > > TIA > > --curtis > -- > Curtis Generous > generous(a)uucom.com

1 0

Adjusting BGP timers on high-latency links
by Curtis Generous 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

We're running into a problem getting an iBGP session to remain active with a remote site connected via a high latency link (VSAT T1). The router at this end of the link (cisco 7513) also eBGP peers with a couple of upstream ISP's. Is there a way to adjust BGP keepalive timers on a per neighbor basis? Haven't been able to figure out a way under any of CISCO's IOS's version (we're running IOS 11.x on our boxes). TIA --curtis -- Curtis Generous generous(a)uucom.com

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by William Allen Simpson 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

> From: Eric Kozowski <kozowski(a)structured.net> > I received the following from Jon Postel. Posted with his permission. > > >The USDNS organization is esentially a broker for domain names in the > >US (and maybe other) domains. > >... > >In the world there are many such services, we all make tradeoffs every > >day between doing something ourselves vs using a service to do it for > >us. We all trade money vs time and/or knowledge and/or skill. > >... > >The US Domain Administration does not make any recommendations positive > >or negative about such services. > > > Great. Just wanted to be clear on this official policy. We can still register ourselves without paying any service, anywhere in the US domain. And any "service", fee or no fee, can update the _same_ subdomains. There is no subdomain "ownership". Also, there was another posting saying that IANA had made a limitation last year for each "service" only serving 50 US sub-domains. I didn't see any such announcement. Could you update the US domain RFC accordingly? WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by Mark Borchers 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

> My suggestion to ISI at this point would be to distinguish between > "community" registrars and "commercial" registrars. A community registrar > must have a reasonable relation to the place for which it's a registry, > e.g. live or have an office within 20 miles of it, and handle registrations > at no charge. Commercial registries have no such restrictions. In case of > conflicting requests between community and commercial registrars, the > community registrar wins. > This seems like the seed of a great idea, although the 20-mile restriction may be too tight. I'm thinking specifically of a regional ISP from the NSFNet days which... - Provided US domain registration services in a very professional manner for roughly an entire state. - Never charged for registration (still doesn't as far as I know) - Did a lot to promote use of the US domain within its region On a related note, last year ISI, evidently in response to the problem you describe, announced that US subregistries would be limited to 50 delegations apiece. I don't know if this limit was applied retroactively to subregistries that were already handling a larger number of subdomains or not.

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

I received the following from Jon Postel. Posted with his permission. >Eric: > >Thanks for asking. > >The USDNS organization is esentially a broker for domain names in the >US (and maybe other) domains. > >The idea seems to be that if a customer wants a domain name and does >not know how to get it he can go to the broker and ask for what he >wants. The broker then does the work by contacting the appropriate >domain manager and getting the name registered and paying any fees due >to the domain manager. The broker adds on his own fee and bills the >customer. > >There seem to be several such services in operation. > >Some people seem to be glad to find such helpful services, other people >seem to think that since these services charge you for something you >could do directly yourself for less there is something wrong about >their existance. > >In the world there are many such services, we all make tradeoffs every >day between doing something ourselves vs using a service to do it for >us. We all trade money vs time and/or knowledge and/or skill. > >The US Domain Administration does not make any recommendations positive >or negative about such services. > >--jon. > -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

1 0

Re: usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

>a peek at their web page indicates they are *not* related to ISI. i am >not aware of anything that would give them the right to charge for .us >registration. sounds like a big scam to me. That is what I figured. The guy kept throwing out how much $$ we could make if we came on board with them, etc., etc. It sounded pretty suspect. IMO, it borders on fraud. -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

2 1

Re: NSP ... New Information
by Phil Howard 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

Michael Shields writes ... > If you have to filter someone, better to filter the small guys. > You'll get fewer complaints than if you applied filters evenly. So the complaint levels from the small guys are low enough that no one needs to worry about? OK, then let them complain all they want. > (Of course prefix length != connectivity value. But it's all we have.) Then we need more. One way is to divide the IP space up into value tiers and bid for it. I'm sure NSI would be more than willing to do this :) -- Phil Howard KA9WGN +-------------------------------------------------------+ Linux Consultant | Linux installation, configuration, administration, | Milepost Services | monitoring, maintenance, and diagnostic services. | phil at milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------+

3 2

usdns.org
by Eric Kozowski 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

I just received a fishy call from a guy a usdns.org. Bottom line is they want to bill for .US domain registrations and give us a kickback for the .US subdomains that we host. What do any of you know about this group? -- Eric Kozowski VP Internet Services eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (800)390-5945 Support A Verio Affiliate (800)881-0962 Sales/Info http://www.structured.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = 0A E4 91 B8 BD CB 3E 95 42 12 04 4E 14 DF 86 76 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

10 9

Re: Which RFC?
by Roger Fajman 11 Jun '97

11 Jun '97

> Anyone remember the RFC# that details the suggested email user names for > specific operations? i.e. dns-admin for DNS, abuse for Abuse, postmaster > for mail problems, noc for technical problems and requests, and peering > for peering request/problems etc. If anyone remembers what is is, > could you please email it to me? (I do not wish to furthur muddle up the > list.) It was published last month as RFC 2142.

1 0