December 2002 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Real contact at YahooMail
by Hunter Pine 26 Dec '02

26 Dec '02

Yahoo sucks trying to find a real person. It is possible if you call their main office (408) 349-3300 (which you can only find on their site in their Investor Relations section buried 10 or so links away from their home page). Last time I called that number, there was a menu that actually included an option for technical support. You will eventually get someone who will help you, but it won't be easy or fun. They do however have a wonderful policy where they will NOT hang up on you. Just stay on the phone and be a pest long enough until they decide that you're really not going to go away and they magically find a solution to your problem. In my experience, if you actually tell them "I'm not going away until you fix this, keep me on hold all you like, I know your policy", they sometimes give in faster and help you right away. :) If anyone else has a better solution, please cc me, I'd love to have a direct number for someone too. :) Good luck, Hunter Pine > -----Original Message----- > From: davidu(a)everydns.net [mailto:davidu@everydns.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 2:57 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Real contact at YahooMail > > > > Does anyone have contact information for a real person at YahooMail they > wouldn't mind passing along? > > Thanks, > David U. >

1 0

Re: Acceptable Losses (was Re: Whoops! (re: WH network monitoring plan response))
by Steven M. Bellovin 25 Dec '02

25 Dec '02

In message <Pine.GSO.4.44.0212241538270.9020-100000(a)clifden.donelan.com>, Sean Donelan writes: > >On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Richard Forno wrote: >> In my last post when I said this: >> > If something's deemed 'critical' to a large segment of the population, the >n >> > security must NEVER outweigh conveinience. Period. Non-negotiable. >> >> I meant to say that security must ALWAYS outweigh convienience. > >Sigh, people are playing games with words to force false choices. Of >course its negotiable because the act of defining something "critical" >is a negotiation. > > Not only that -- security is not 0/1, all or nothing. It is possible to be more or less secure; building a security system -- like a firewall -- that has only the two states of "wide open" and "absolutely impenetrable" is a bad idea. Security is about risk management -- see Schneier's book "Secrets and Lies". --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

1 0

White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet (fwd)
by David Lesher 24 Dec '02

24 Dec '02

[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes will you need to make? What will they cost? Who will pay?] <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html?pagewanted=print&p…> December 20, 2002 White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ The Bush administration is planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users. The proposal is part of a final version of a report, "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the Sept. 11 attacks. The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is preparing the report, and it is intended to create public and private cooperation to regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only from everyday hazards like viruses but also from terrorist attack. Ultimately the report is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new Department of Homeland Security. ..............................

14 25

contact at rackspace?
by Peter van Dijk 24 Dec '02

24 Dec '02

Does anybody know a _working_ contact at rackspace.com? Greetz, Peter -- peter(a)dataloss.nl | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue http://www.blinkenlights.nl/party/ - birthday party (page in Dutch) all geeks invited - send mail to party(a)blinkenlights.nl for more info

1 0

Bogus ASN tracking
by Rob Thomas 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

Hi, NANOGers. Bogon prefixes aren't the only bits of garbage one will find in the Internet routing table. There are also bogus (unallocated, reserved, and private) ASNs to be found therein. Please take a moment to check my Bogus ASN Report. I have recently enhanced it a bit to include the full path and better tracking. The report is updated hourly, and you will find it here: http://www.cymru.com/BGP/asnbogusrep.html Comments and feedback are always welcome! Thanks! Rob. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);

1 0

Analyzing The Cidr Report (fwd)
by Lee Howard 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

I've agreed to analyze the CIDR Report, to understand why people don't aggregate more/better, as suggested below. I'll look into AS701, and (time and security permitting) any other UUNET ASN. I do expect to make my findings public, at least in summary form. Whatever I find will be more useful if other operators do the same, so we can present an overall analysis of many of the top "offenders" of poor aggregation. At first glance, it looks like it may not require too much time, but I would like to agree on a methodology and a final report format. So if anyone from any of the operators listed below would like to work jointly, reply privately and we'll work out the details. -- Lee Howard Lee.Howard(a)wcom.com (703) 886-5231 Sr. Manager Internet Installations, WorldCom IP Policy and Allocations ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:00:00 +1100 (EST) From: cidr-report(a)potaroo.net To: cidr-report(a)potaroo.net Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu, eof-list(a)ripe.net, apops(a)lists.apnic.net, routing-wg(a)ripe.net, afnog(a)afnog.org Subject: [apops] The Cidr Report This report has been generated at Fri Dec 13 21:45:30 2002 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 06-12-02 116870 84511 07-12-02 116855 84559 08-12-02 116930 84442 09-12-02 116755 84596 10-12-02 116879 84724 11-12-02 117039 84740 12-12-02 117133 84733 13-12-02 116860 84827 AS Summary 14178 Number of ASes in routing system 5599 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1805 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS3908 : SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. 72982528 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 13Dec02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 116935 84790 32145 27.5% All ASes AS3908 1805 1063 742 41.1% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. AS701 1676 1219 457 27.3% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS18566 419 5 414 98.8% COVAD Covad Communications AS7018 1389 1014 375 27.0% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS4323 524 185 339 64.7% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS1221 1162 843 319 27.5% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS6197 456 141 315 69.1% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS7843 596 295 301 50.5% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS4355 405 136 269 66.4% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS6347 352 85 267 75.9% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS7046 586 319 267 45.6% UUNET-CUSTOMER UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS22927 289 22 267 92.4% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA AS1239 935 670 265 28.3% SPRINTLINK Sprint AS705 434 195 239 55.1% ASN-ALTERNET UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4814 249 15 234 94.0% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China Telecom (Group) AS1 665 440 225 33.8% GNTY-1 Genuity AS6198 420 201 219 52.1% BATI-MIA BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS17676 232 28 204 87.9% GIGAINFRA XTAGE CORPORATION AS690 513 319 194 37.8% MERIT-AS-27 Merit Network Inc. AS6140 314 121 193 61.5% IMPSAT-USA ImpSat AS4151 326 135 191 58.6% USDA-1 USDA AS4134 292 108 184 63.0% ERX-CHINALINK Data Communications Bureau AS209 519 339 180 34.7% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS852 625 445 180 28.8% ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications AS2048 260 88 172 66.2% LANET-1 State of Louisiana AS6327 183 34 149 81.4% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink Limited AS2386 377 232 145 38.5% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS17557 314 173 141 44.9% PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan Telecom AS3215 308 170 138 44.8% AS3215 France Telecom Transpac AS702 807 670 137 17.0% AS702 UUNET - Commercial IP service provider in Europe Total 17432 9710 7722 44.3% Top 30 total Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)lists.apnic.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org _______________________________________________ apops mailing list apops(a)apops.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops

1 0

Optical interface failure rates
by David Waitzman 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

Historically, optical interfaces have had lower reliability (MTBF) than electrical interfaces, of the same rate, due to a high burnout rate for the lasers. This has apparently changed now, and optical failure rates are lower. Do customers perceive this as true? Do you know of estimates for MTBF for lasers vs copper, for example, 1Gig ether O versus E? Assume that we're talking VSR usage; otherwise copper wouldn't be suitable. And in terms of all optical interface types, if you want roughly 10Gbps speed but are agnostic about how, what about OC192C POS interfaces versus 10Gig Ether? thanks, -david waitzman

2 1

one final question...
by blitz 22 Dec '02

22 Dec '02

Does anyone here have a contact at Hotmail net? Let me know direct, thanks.

1 0

Softhome/Yahoogroups-Resolved
by blitz 22 Dec '02

22 Dec '02

The problem has been resolved. THANK YOU ALL! Seems there was a congestion prob that was leading softhome to blackhole anything outbound to yahoogroups. This was the cause of the mail looking like it was directed to RFC1918 space. After some discussion with people on both ends, a workout was achieved. Doug, Brian, hats off...thanks. I know you're reading this somewhere. I personally want to thank the people, too numerous to cite individually who got both softhome and yahoo net people into the loop. I know there were more than a few nanogers involved, things just don't go this smooth otherwise. You people are like firefighters, unappreciated until we need you. The reports I got from you all were informative and helped us bring this to a successful and rapid conclusion. A lot of people who have no idea how the net functions are sending mail again, without knowing there was even a problem. I'm usually cited here as more a PITA than a contributor here, but I do give credit where due, thanks to you all, from the traceroutes, and digs, and the prodding and private emails (All appreciated). I'm not much for patting the backs, but you people here are the best. My problem was insignificant compared to the daily grief you folks deal with and the bandwidths you manage. I'm proud to associate with you, and extend my thanks. Now you all go have a good, un-interrupted holiday.....may the pagers and C-phones be silent, and the emails be few. Marc Blitz Macronet.net

1 0

Yahoogroups
by blitz 22 Dec '02

22 Dec '02

Mail to yahoogroups for two days is giving some strange responses. Mail is attempting to go to 172.16.3.10 when sent to a yahoogroup. This looks real strange....that block is reserved I believe? Wondering why theyre resolving to that address? Router mismanagement? Poisoning? I dont know...but its causing some grief here... Yahoo is real lax in giving some human contact addy, perhaps the esteemed group here can shed some light... Thanks..

3 2