April 2003 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: changing host records
by Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 18 Apr '03

18 Apr '03

I was under the same misconception, which is why I was looking to change my host record at NSI even though the domain is registered with OpenSRS (and in desparation ended up posting to nanog). Apparently it is now up to the registrar of the matching domain to manage the host records, and luckily, OpenSRS does have an easy interface to it, but I take it this varies greatly from registrar to registrar. Grisha On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Bruce Robertson wrote: > Hopefully the domain that the host record refers to is with NSI, otherwise > it is flatly impossible. I gave up trying to get NSI to change the IP address > of our third nameserver. Even after explaining to them that it doesn't > matter that GREATBASIN.NET is not one of their domains, including resorting > to drawing little pictures of how a relational database works, they couldn't > manage to change the IP address. So, the few domains we still have with > NSI have the wrong IP address in the third nameserver field. > > Good luck! > > -- > Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299 > Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412 > http://www.greatbasin.net > >

1 0

Free traffic analysis tool
by Livio Ricciulli 18 Apr '03

18 Apr '03

I would not post this to nanog unless it was free. Reactive Network Solutions has made most of FloodGuard's functionality free to download. We are trying to increase awareness of the Internet flooding problem and at the same time help out the community. If you like this, perhaps you'll want more from us.. FloodGuard Alert detects and analyzes bandwidth anomalies and provides useful information to possibly stop the attacks. FloodGuard Alert "learns" normal traffic over time and has a rich Java GUI with unique traffic monitoring tools. Our web page has a sign-up form for FloodGuard Alert and more details. http://www.reactivenetwork.com

1 0

Re: [Re: selective auto-aggregation]
by Joshua Smith 18 Apr '03

18 Apr '03

my company does it (not by my choice) - my downstreams do it regularly (mostly because they don't understand how/why to do something different) i have been told that it is that way for 'backup' purposes (they announce one or two /2[456]s to me with about 15 as prepends, and announce their entire /20, plus all of their longer prefixes, to another provider) they also told me that it will not be changed...apparently, as routers get more powerful and memory gets 'cheaper', they feel that it is not their responsibility to help maintain global routing table sizes Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> wrote: > > McBurnett, Jim wrote: > > Only 1 question: > > What about the companies that have a /24 out of the /20 0r /21 that are multi-homed? > > If the route rules are not carefully prepared the multi-homed customer then might be single-homed and tied to the upstream they got the IP's from. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I was curious how much of the de-aggregation was due to multi-homed > companies requiring the longer prefixes. Are there companies that > actually announce their smaller routes despite controlling the shorter > prefix? What would be the benefit of doing so? > > -Jack > > "Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence." - Stephen Hawking -

2 1

RE: selective auto-aggregation
by McBurnett, Jim 18 Apr '03

18 Apr '03

Only 1 question: What about the companies that have a /24 out of the /20 0r /21 that are multi-homed? If the route rules are not carefully prepared the multi-homed customer then might be single-homed and tied to the upstream they got the IP's from. Thoughts? Jim >-----Original Message----- >From: bdragon(a)gweep.net [mailto:bdragon@gweep.net] >Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:56 PM >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: selective auto-aggregation > > > >I believe we're losing the aggregation war. More and more entities are >deaggregating, and not announcing their largest aggregates which makes >prefix-length filtering less effective. > >I'ld like to propose the concept of selective aggregation, whereby >a router can be configured to aggregate based upon rules. > >For example, if an RIR allocation boundary for a particular /8 is >/21, that routes which are longer than /21 could be aggregated to >/21 rather than discarded. Obviously, this would only be effective >facing one's transit, since aggregating a peer would violate most >peering agreements. In transit-free networks, this functionality would >not be useful. > >Similarly, the ability to auto-aggregate contiguous networks originated >by the same AS, which could be applied even to routes with lengths >shorter than an RIR boundary. This functionality could be useful >facing ones peers. > >This type of thing would need to be selective, since permitted >deaggregation (no-export tagged routes with meaningful MEDs) can >still be useful between entities which agree to such things. > >If we can, I'ld like to avoid a holy war on whether deaggregating >is someone's god given right, and stick to the premise that there >are networks who will enforce aggregation policies, and want to do so >in the most effective manner possible. > >

5 4

DNS Servers
by Ray Burkholder 18 Apr '03

18 Apr '03

Is there anybody out there who is seeing that their DNS servers are going in and out of operation? We have 5 DNS servers, the service, not the server, is available/not-available/available. Am I imagining things or is something funky happening? Ray Burkholder

5 4

RE: Fiber Converters, was RE: DS3 Coax..
by Bender, Andrew 18 Apr '03

18 Apr '03

Might be worth moving up to an honest-to-goodness ADM... there are very reasonable ones for point applications such as these, and they are made for continuous CO operation, unlike the wall-wart powered devices that seem to be so popular. A number of our customers have had some luck with these: http://www.oasystel.com/Products/Minimux155/Minimux155.htm Regards, Andrew Bender taqua.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:chris@bblabs.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:13 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Fiber Converters, was RE: DS3 Coax.. > > > > Andy, > > Thank you for bringing up fiber converters. I have a comment I was > trying to bring to the list that escaped this old man's memory. > > To the best of my recollection, I have not implemented a > fiber converter > that lasted more than say, 12 months. I've tried different > brands with > no luck. > > So, my question is, does a 'ruggedized' fiber/coax/X-baseT converter > exist? > > Regards, > Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO > Broadband Laboratories, Inc. > http://www.bblabs.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of > Andy Ellifson > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:07 AM > To: Mike (meuon) Harrison; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: DS3 Coax.. > > > 735 DS-3 cable has a specification max length of 225'. 734 DS-3 cable > has a specification max length of 450'. When you use this long cable > length, the mux that is providing the DS-3 needs to have the pads > removed (or provisioned) for a long cable run. > > Transition Networks (and others) make DS-3 fiber converters. They are > not cheap. This would be my preferred method as fiber > (especially OSP) > is much better suited for outdoor exposure and temperature changes. > > -Andy > > --- "Mike (meuon) Harrison" <meuon(a)highertech.net> wrote: > > > > > > I need to run a DS3 across our parking lot.. Seriously. > > > > What's the max length I can use coax for (I know, gotta use a GID), > > and what's the best brand/type of coax I can use? It'll be through > > innerduct.. Looking for some real world answers from people that do > > a LOT more of this than me.. (It might take 350-400 feet). > > > > > > > > > >

4 3

Sorry, refresh my memory if possible.
by Drew Weaver 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Does anyone know the URL of the AS search? I used to have it in my favorites. By AS search I mean you type in an AS number and it shows you all of the networks that are announcing/broadcasting it in the BGP table. Thanks, -Drew

5 4

selective auto-aggregation
by bdragon＠gweep.net 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

I believe we're losing the aggregation war. More and more entities are deaggregating, and not announcing their largest aggregates which makes prefix-length filtering less effective. I'ld like to propose the concept of selective aggregation, whereby a router can be configured to aggregate based upon rules. For example, if an RIR allocation boundary for a particular /8 is /21, that routes which are longer than /21 could be aggregated to /21 rather than discarded. Obviously, this would only be effective facing one's transit, since aggregating a peer would violate most peering agreements. In transit-free networks, this functionality would not be useful. Similarly, the ability to auto-aggregate contiguous networks originated by the same AS, which could be applied even to routes with lengths shorter than an RIR boundary. This functionality could be useful facing ones peers. This type of thing would need to be selective, since permitted deaggregation (no-export tagged routes with meaningful MEDs) can still be useful between entities which agree to such things. If we can, I'ld like to avoid a holy war on whether deaggregating is someone's god given right, and stick to the premise that there are networks who will enforce aggregation policies, and want to do so in the most effective manner possible.

1 0

RE: DS3 Coax..
by Mike (meuon) Harrison 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

> They might not be so nice after the next electrical storm or ground fault > rolls through the area and toasts something expensive... We are actually plugging into what they are calling a 'GID' Ground Interupter Device. btw: Several of the buildings here have HUGE bundles of coax between them.. all underground (like this will be)... no real problems (yet). Our wireless rack equipment rack (up on the third floor) is fed on isolated (floating) power, and has it's own VERY heavy grounding system.. I've watched lighting balls crawl the rack.. and everything kept working. Found Belden quad-shield outdoor (but not direct burial) RG-6 for $110/1000ft..

2 1

Re: Independent space from ARIN (fwd)
by Lee Howard 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Email change kept this off the list originally. . . ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:02:13 -0400 (EDT) From: lhoward(a)uu.net To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> Cc: Bill Woodcock <woody(a)pch.net>, North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: Re: Independent space from ARIN ObDisclosure: I'm the Treasurer for ARIN. It's my job to make sure ARIN has enough money. Common wisdom has it that IPv6 will render the RIRs unnecessary, because no one will ever come back for a second request. Registration Services Group is certainly the most visible department in terms of most peoples' day-to-day interaction with ARIN. But even if we get to a certain saturation threshhold where North America only requires one person to handle allocations, other services will still be required. For instance, we will still need the Engineering group if we expect to delegate reverse zones IP6.ARPA and provide WHOIS. Possibly more, if the public decides you want ARIN to provide CA services related to sBGP and DNSSEC proposals (as presented at the last two meetings). Maybe v6 obsoletes those requirements, I don't know. How much service Member Services has to provide is up to the Members, of course, but so far the idea of open policy development has seemed to require open policy meetings. Education should continue to be a part of ARIN's charter, especially where other organizations (e.g., governments) act with insufficient understanding. In the science-fiction future of inexhaustible addresses, somebody has to pay for those services above, which means there has to be a business department to handle billing. By the time you have all those departments, you're going to need an administrative group to make sure ARIN can actually operate. Interestingly, an ARIN that never handles a second request for address space looks a lot like the ARIN of today. We're still trying to work out the fee structure for IPv6, by the way, and I'm always soliciting suggestions. At the moment, the current system (annual renewals for four categories of space) is the best suggestion. In direct response to your comment, I should say: - The RIRs don't technically lease addresses, at least not in the legal sense. - Addresses are not granted permanently because they aren't owned. The RIRs coordinate to ensure global uniqueness, not to sell or lease. - There's always work to do, even if additional allocations is only part. ppml(a)arin.net would be a good place to debate the future of ARIN services. Lee On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:09:05 -0500 > From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> > To: Bill Woodcock <woody(a)pch.net> > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Subject: Re: Independent space from ARIN > > > Thus spake "Bill Woodcock" <woody(a)pch.net> > > When the day arrives when people don't want new IPv4 addresses, or > > there aren't any to be had, and everybody who needs v6 addresses has > > them, how is the registry going to be paid for? > > That's why RIRs lease addresses to you, not sell them -- they get to keep > collecting money forever even if they do no additional work. > > S > > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking >

1 0