February 2004 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Microsoft on security holes
by Brian Bruns 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

I just saw this on slashdot, so for those of you who don't read slashdot, enjoy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3485972.stm Yeah, its a little bit off topic, but with the recent amount of viruses, worms, trojans, etc going around the Internet that are causing havoc with general day to day operations of ISPs, this is quite an interesting read. Basically, Microsoft is claiming that security exploits only come out after patches. Uh huh, yeah right. (waiting for his list AUP violation notice, again) -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.sosdg.org The Abusive Hosts Blocking List http://www.ahbl.org

1 0

Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

> So now we have a partial X and partial >Y network, X goes down, and chances are your network got hammered >like an icecube in a blender set to Frappe. If IP networks become the single layer 2/3 telecommunications technology in the world then we can never let that Frappe happen. We will have to find ways to deliberately build networks using vendor X and vendor Y in such a way that the sum total is more reliable than a pure X or a pure Y network. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Converged Networks Threat (Was: Level3 Outage)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

> Wouldn't it be great >if routers had the equivalent of 'User mode Linux' each process >handling a service, isolated and protected from each other. The >physical router would be nothing more than a generic kernel handling >resource allocation. Each virtual router would have access to x amount >of resources and will either halt, sleep, crash when it exhausts those >resources for a given time slice. This is possible today. Build your own routers using the right microkernel, OSKIT and the Click Modular Router software and you can have this. When we restrict ourselves only to router packages from major vendors then we are doomed to using outdated technology at inflated prices. --Michael Dillon

2 1

Re: Level 3 statement concerning 2/23 events (nothing to see, move along)
by Pete Templin 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

If an IP-based system lets you see the status of the 23 hospitals in San Antonio graphically, perhaps overlaid with near-real-time traffic conditions, I'd rather use it as primary and telephone as secondary. Counting on it? No. Gaining usability from it? You betcha. Brian Knoblauch wrote: > If you're counting on IP (a "best attempt" protocol) for critical > data, you've got a serious design flaw in your system... > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Pete > Templin > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:10 > To: Colin Neeson > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Level 3 statement concerning 2/23 events (nothing to see, move > along) > > > > > Are you sure no one died as a result? My hobby is volunteering as a > firefighter and EMT. If Level3's network sits between a dispatch center > or mobile data terminal and a key resource, it could be a factor > (hospital status website, hazardous materials action guide, VoIP link > that didn't reroute because the control plane was happy but the > forwarding plane was sad, etc.). > > And if the problem could happen to another network tomorrow but could be > prevented or patched, wouldn't inquiring minds want to know? Your life > might be more interesting when the fit hits the shan if you have the > same vulnerability. > > Colin Neeson wrote: > > >>Because, in the the grand scale scheme of things, it's really not that >>important. >> >>No one died because of it, the normal, everyday events of the world >>went >>on, >>unaffected by a Level 3 outage... >> >>Might be nice to know what happened, but my life will certainly not be >>less interesting by not having that knowledge... > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > This message was scanned by GatewayDefender > 9:13:43 AM ET - 2/25/2004 > > > > __________________________________________________________ > This message was scanned by GatewayDefender > 9:25:39 AM ET - 2/25/2004 > >

16 23

Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
by W.D.McKinney 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Gibbard [mailto:scg@gibbard.org] >Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:30 AM >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat) <snipped> >>So, it appears that among general infrastructure we depend on, there are >probably the following reliability thresholds: > >Employees not being able to get to work due to snow: two to three days per >year. >Berkeley storm sewers: overflow two to three days per year. >Residential Electricity: out two to three hours per year. >Cell phone service: Somewhat better than nine fives of reliability ;) >Landline phone service: I haven't noticed an outage on my home lines in a >few years. >Natural gas: I've never noticed an outage. > >How Internet service fits into that of course depends on how you're >accessing the Net. The T-Mobile GPRS card I got recently seems >significantly less reliable than my cell phone. My SBC DSL line is almost >to the reliability level of my landline phone or natural gas service, >except that the DSL router in my basement doesn't work when electric power >is out. I'm probably poorly qualified to talk about the end-user >experience on the networks I actually work on, even if I had permission >to. Like pretty much everybody else here, I'm always interested in doing >better on reliability. And, like many of my neighbors, I'd like to be >able to store stuff on my basement floor. In comparison to a lot of other >infrastructure we depend on, it seems to me the Internet is already doing >pretty well. > >-Steve > > With BPL on the horizon and the Electric Utils looking to de-regulate in some areas, it will be interesting to watch infrastructure adapt accordingly. I think the Internet is doing pretty well save some IOS code problems from time to time, and the typical root server hicups. Dee

3 2

Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
by W.D.McKinney 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

Thanks for pointing that out. That was the wrong way to describe my standpoint. Frequent changes in DNS across the board, including edge servers make connections seem non-working, when in reality it is a mis-configured DNS zone. So whether Dee >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@isc.org] >Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:57 AM >To: 'W.D.McKinney' >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: How reliable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat) > > > >On 26 Feb 2004, at 08:46, W.D.McKinney wrote: > >> I think the Internet is doing pretty well save some IOS code problems >> from time to time, and the typical root server hicups. > >I'm interested to know what you mean by "typical root server hicups". >I'm trying to think of an incident which left the Internet generally >unable to receive answers to queries on the root zone, but I can't >think of one. > >By "typical", do you mean "non-existent"? > > >Joe > >

1 0

Re: New Draft Document: De-boganising New Address Blocks
by Randy Bush 25 Feb '04

25 Feb '04

[ nick has trouble posting, so ... ] Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:27:00 -0500 From: Nick Feamster <feamster(a)lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: New Draft Document: De-boganising New Address Blocks To: nanog(a)nanog.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:28:48PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > Why can't ISPs subscribe to a feed of all new > > RIPE allocations in near real-time? > > Personally I think this is a great idea and if we hear from a lot of > operators actually willing to take such feeds it may become reality > beyond volunteer efforts like the Team CYMRU one. However there are a > number of serious issues with something like this, not the least of > which are the liability issues in case this goes wrong very dynamically > and semi-automatedly. > > It is certainly something to progress if there is enough interest. > > However I think the current proposal shold go ahead too because the false > positives are a real problem that needs to be addressed quickly. > fyi, I have written a configuration checking tool that checks for a configuration's conformance to the Cymru bogon list. See: http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/bgp/rolex/ for more information. The tool also checks for various other errors (summarized at http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/bgp/rolex/tests.html) I also have a writeup that describes the tool in further detail, as well as an empirical evaluation that supports these observations about bogon filtering practices (based on results of running the tool on several ASes). Let me know if you'd either (1) like a copy of this writeup or (2) want to help me generate more empirical data (i.e., want to run the tool on your configs, let me do so, etc.) Cheers, -Nick

1 0

Sprint midwest/NW backbone issues?
by Dave O'Shea 25 Feb '04

25 Feb '04

Anyone at sprint care to shed some light on a latency issue that's been going on since December? (While the SLA credits are always nice, there's something to be said for actually getting the traffic from A to B!) sl-bb20-fw>ping 144.228.241.75 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 144.228.241.75, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 84/115/172 ms sl-bb20-fw> ... and Seattle to Dallas: sl-bb20-sea>ping 144.228.241.51 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 144.228.241.51, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 76/76/80 ms sl-bb20-sea>

1 0

Re: T1 Customer CPE Replacement?
by Curtis Maurand 25 Feb '04

25 Feb '04

They're still in business. They've been bought out, but they're still there. Curtis On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Sameer Khosla wrote: > Just to add my 2 cents, I have installed a lot of Openroute routers over the > years, and have had virtually no problems with them. There is a GTX 1000 > Model that is modular, for which there are T1 CSU modules available. I > believe there were DSL modules as well. There was also a GTX1500 model > which had the encryption hardware for VPN's. > > If anyone is interested, drop me a line and I'll do some digging with one of > their former SE's. He has access to a fair supply of them. > > Sameer > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Curtis Maurand" <curtis(a)maurand.com> > To: "Brian Bruns" <bruns(a)2mbit.com> > Cc: "Claydon, Tom" <Tom.Claydon(a)DobsonTelco.net>; <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:35 PM > Subject: Re: T1 Customer CPE Replacement? > > > > > > > > I had excellent luck with OpenRoute (formerly Proteon) GT90's. They > > handle dual ethernet or T1/E1. They need an external CSU/DSU, but they > > get the job done and they're very stable. They will do NAT and most of > > the other goodies that you can think about. They also have gt900 firewall > > and they have a model with a hardware accelerator to handle cryptographic > > calculations. I installed one of the latter into a customer about 4 years > > ago and I've not had any trouble with it, except to upgrade the OS once to > > fix some wierd packet length issues surrounding IPSEC tunnels. > > > > http://www.openroute.com > > > > Curtis > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Brian Bruns wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, February 23, 2004 3:37 PM [EST], Claydon, Tom > > > <Tom.Claydon(a)DobsonTelco.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > We're looking for a good replacement for fractional T1 customers with > Cisco > > > > 1600- & 1700-series routers as their CPE. They are good routers, but > the > > > > ongoing support costs are an issue, and we need to replace them ASAP. > > > > > > > > Someone had mentioned several CPE vendors, such as Adtran and Netopia. > Are > > > > there any others, and does anyone have any pros/cons of what they're > > > > familiar with? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm quite familiar with the Netopia R53xx series T1 routers. Excellent > little > > > routers for deplyoing to customers. Very reliable, and if you are > familiar > > > with the DSL routers, you'll be right at home. They have built in > > > PPTP/ATMP/IPSec VPN support (both client and server), basic routing > features, > > > filtering, NAT, one-to-one IP mapping, remote syslog logging, as well as > > > everything you'd expect in a T1 router (fractional T1 support, HDLC, > PPP, > > > FrameRelay, etc). Theres also a 56k dialup backup module which is > handy. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Curtis Maurand > > mailto:curtis@maurand.com > > http://www.maurand.com > > > > > -- -- Curtis Maurand mailto:curtis@maurand.com http://www.maurand.com

1 0

Re: Converged Networks Threat (Was: Level3 Outage)
by Matthew Crocker 25 Feb '04

25 Feb '04

> > Yesterday we witnessed a large scale failure that has yet to be > attributed to configuration, software, or hardware; however one need > look no further than the 168.0.0.0/6 thread, or the GBLX customer who > leaked several tens of thousands of their peers' routes to GBLX shortly > This should be rewritten 'Or GLBX who LET one of their customers leak several tens of thousands of the peers routes...'. I'm sorry, a network should be able to protect itself from its users and customers. BGP filters are not that hard to figure out and peer prefix limits should be part of every config. Don't trust the guy at the other end of the pipe to do the right thing. -Matt

1 0