April 2008 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets
by John van Oppen (list account) 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

I know I have experienced the engineering department there as well, the best one was when they wanted paper documentation for every route I asked to have in our filters... (and they were incapable of using RADB). It was especially odd since we have > 80 of our own peers and three other transit providers to who we were announcing over 100 routes while they still wanted paper docs. But, filters seem to be an annoyance for most big providers... I have been trying to get level3 to fix our radb-based filtering for a while now (it just stopped pulling new updates for some reason). :) John -----Original Message----- From: manolo [mailto:mhernand1@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:23 AM To: Joe Greco Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets Well it also was the total arrogance on the part of Cogent engineering and management taking zero responsibility and pushing it back everytime valid issue or not. You had to be there. But everyone has a different opinion, my opinion is set regardless of what cogent tries to sell me now. Manolo Joe Greco wrote: >> Well it had sounded like I was in the minority and should keep my mouth >> shut. But here goes. On several occasions the peer that would advertise >> our routes would drop and with that the peer with the full bgp tables >> would drop as well. This happened for months on end. They tried blaming >> our 6500, our fiber provider, our IOS version, no conclusive findings >> where ever found that it was our problem. After some testing at the >> local Cogent office by both Cogent and myself, Cogent decided that they >> could "make a product" that would allow us too one have only one peer >> and two to connect directly to the GSR and not through a small catalyst. >> Low and behold things worked well for some time after that. >> >> This all happened while we had 3 other providers on the same router >> with no issues at all. We moved gbics, ports etc around to make sure it >> was not some odd ASIC or throughput issue with the 6500. >> > > Perhaps you haven't considered this, but did it ever occur to you that > Cogent probably had the same situation? They had a router with a bunch > of other customers on it, no reported problems, and you were the oddball > reporting significant issues? > > Quite frankly, your own description does not support this as being a > problem inherent to the peerA/peerB setup. > > You indicate that the peer advertising your routes would drop. The peer > with the full BGP tables would then drop as well. Well, quite frankly, > that makes complete sense. The peer advertising your routes also > advertises to you the route to get to the multihop peer, which you need > in order to be able to talk to that. Therefore, if the directly connected > BGP goes away for any reason, the multihop is likely to go away too. > > However, given the exact same hardware minus the multihop, your direct > BGP was still dropping. So had they been able to send you a full table > from the aggregation router, the same thing probably would have happened. > > This sounds more like flaky hardware, dirty optics, or a bad cable (or > several of the above). > > Given that, it actually seems quite reasonable to me to guess that it > could have been your 6500, your fiber provider, or your IOS version that > was introducing some problem. Anyone who has done any reasonable amount > of work in this business will have seen all three, and many of the people > here will say that the 6500 is a bit flaky and touchy when pushed into > service as a real router (while simultaneously using them in their > networks as such, heh, since nothing else really touches the price per > port), so Cogent's suggestion that it was a problem on your side may have > been based on bad experiences with other customer 6500's. > > However, it is also likely that it was some other mundane problem, or a > problem with the same items on Cogent's side. I would consider it a > shame that Cogent didn't work more closely with you to track down the > specific issue, because most of the time, these things can be isolated > and eliminated, rather than being potentially left around to mess up > someone in the future (think: bad port). > > ... JG > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

2 1

OARC DNS Operations Meeting, Brooklyn NY, 4/5th June
by Keith Mitchell 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

I'm pleased to announce the next OARC DNS Operations meeting will take place immediately after the NANOG43 meeting, in Brooklyn, NY, USA. The venue will be CUNY's Brooklyn College, about 5 miles from the NANOG Hotel. The open DNS Operations workshop will take place on the afternoon of Wed 4th June, and the morning of Thu 5th June. The OARC members-only meeting will take place on the afternoon of Thu 5th June. Further meeting information will be published as it becomes available at: http://public.oarci.net/dns-operations/workshop-2008/ We are grateful to OARC members for supporting this nonprofit meeting, allowing registration to be free for all participants. In order to help with meeting logistics, if you are planning to attend please register at https://oarc.isc.org/register.php as soon as possible. The strengths of OARC's meetings are very much due to the active participation of our members and the wider operators' community, and we are seeking presentations and suggestions for speakers on topics relevant to DNS Operations and Research. If you have either, please submit a short abstract to <admin(a)oarc.isc.org> by the 31st May. Please contact me if you can assist with any of the above or need further information. Keith Mitchell OARC Programme Manager _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

Anyone know how I can contact uky.edu abuse?
by Jake Matthews 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

I've tried from 4-5 different mail providers to send something to abuse(a)uky.edu. Can't figure out what's wrong, as I've never seen AuthRequired anywhere before. Every single one of them has gotten the reply of: *Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:* abuselist(a)email.uky.edu <mailto:abuselist@email.uky.edu> Your message wasn't delivered because of security policies. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Generating server: ad.uky.edu <http://ad.uky.edu> abuselist(a)email.uky.edu <mailto:abuselist@email.uky.edu> #550 5.7.1 RESOLVER.RST.AuthRequired; authentication required ##rfc822;dl_abuselist(a)email.uky.edu <mailto:rfc822%3Bdl_abuselist@email.uky.edu> _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

3 2

Re: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets
by Mike Fedyk 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

(Crossed Fingers) Cogent's network seems "OK", for now. I've received several responses asking for details on how I would avoid Cogent. It looks like getting a connection to the AT&T network will allow us to serve our customers on their DSLS and use their direct peering to the Time Warner network for our customers with cable Internet. If anyone has any ideas on how this will work, please let me know. For instance, do most networks prefer to keep packets on their network until closest to the end point or might a network just send the traffic through cogent in another part of their network a few hops away? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Fedyk Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:59 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets I spoke too soon: Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. adsl-63-194-XXX-XXX.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net 0.0% 109 9.2 19.2 8.4 57.9 11.0 2. dist3-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net 0.9% 109 8.4 16.7 8.3 45.6 9.6 3. bb1-p6-7.emhril.ameritech.net 0.0% 109 8.6 36.3 8.5 256.6 44.2 4. ex2-p14-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 0.0% 109 10.3 39.4 9.3 209.3 46.2 5. te8-1.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 108 32.4 34.3 9.3 238.6 45.1 6. vl3491.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com 3.7% 108 17.0 23.4 12.9 98.9 13.4 7. te3-4.ccr01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 17.6% 108 39.1 28.8 16.4 198.9 22.1 8. vl3805.na21.b002695-2.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 12.0% 108 34.1 27.6 17.0 68.7 11.2 9. PAETEC_Communications_Inc.demarc.cogentco.com 10.2% 108 22.4 35.3 17.0 168.7 27.8 10. gi-4-0-1-3.core01.lsajca01.paetec.net 18.5% 108 21.2 34.2 21.0 188.6 20.6 11. po-5-0-0.core01.anhmca01.paetec.net 10.3% 108 35.7 33.9 20.5 232.7 23.9 12. gi-3-0-0.edge03.anhmca01.paetec.net 13.0% 108 21.0 31.6 20.2 157.9 16.6 13. 74.10.xxx.xxx 11.1% 108 25.7 33.9 25.2 55.2 8.9 14. 74.10.xxx.xxx 15.7% 108 26.7 35.7 25.0 70.8 11.7 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Fedyk Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:15 PM To: Ryan Harden Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets Thank you, the issue seems to be fixed now at Cogent. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

7 13

Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]
by Brandon Butterworth 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

> Is there a problem that needs to be solved that is not solved by > Akamai's of the world already? Yes, the ones that aren't Akamai want to play too branodn _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Brandon Butterworth 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

> So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? Because we can. One day ISPs might do multicast and it might become cheap enough to deliver to the home. If we don't then they probably will never bother fixing those two problems I've been multicasting the BBCs channels in the UK since 2004. The full rate are mostly used by NOCs with our news on their projectors, we have lower rate h264, WM and Real for people testing multicast over current ADSL. The aim is by 2012 to be able to do all our Olympics sports in HD (a channel per simultaneous event rather than the usual just one with highlights of each) something we can't do on DTT (= ATSC) due to lack of spectrum (there's enough but it's being sold for non TV use after analogue switch off) > Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? Sure, STB for TV and VLC etc for most OS. It's trivial > No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs > per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the > bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. That's because they don't have a viable business model (unlimited use...). Cable companies are moving to IP, they already carry it from their core to the home just the transport is changing. > And nobody is > going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just > to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day > whether they are at home or not. When people do it unicast regardless then not doing multicast is silly > At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single > ISP's network. Unlikely, too much infrastructure and not all content is available locally > Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV. See Sky Movies for a simulation of multicast VoD > IP multicast > does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 > unique streams. True but the 10000000 watching BBC1 may as well be multicast, at least you save a bit. > In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could deliver the > same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big > melting pot. But that day is long gone. Evidence is a lot of people still like to vegetate in front of a tv rather than hunt their content. Once they're all dead we'll find out if linear TV is still viable, by then IPv6 roll out may have completed too. > On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video > files during off-peak hours on the network. Sure but P2P isn't a requirement for that and currently saves you no money (UK ADSL wholesale model) over unicast. If people are taking random content you won't be able to predict and send it in advance. If you can predict then you can multicast it and save some transport cost vs P2P/unicast > Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could arrange > for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering > circuit during > the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute > elsewhere. Or they could just run an http cache and save a lot more traffic and not have to rely on P2P apps playing nicely. Apologies for length, just "no" seemed too rude brandon _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

REDUSE LEASE PERIOD
by Felix Bako 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

Hi Guyz We have a cisco PDSN that acts as a NAS for our Wireless BroadBand Clients. The PDSN tackles the IP alllocation Part. This is because we have defined the ips to be allocated using the IP LOCAL POOL command. Is there a way to reduce the lease period of the allocated IPs. The IOS code is disk2:c7200-c6ik9s-mz.123-11.YF4.bin. -- Best Regards, Felix Bako Team Leader Networks Africa Online, Kenya Tel: +254 (20) 27 92 000 Fax: +254 (20) 27 100 10 Email: fbako(a)africaonline.co.ke Aim:felixbako * Africa Online Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note * This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Africa Online Holdings (Kenya) Limited and / or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and have received this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, delete this e-mail immediately and do not disclose or use the same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages, however incurred, resulting from the use of this e-mail or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail, nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. For more information about Africa Online, please visit our website at http://www.africaonline.com _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Scott Weeks 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

--- darkuncle(a)gmail.com wrote: From: "Scott Francis" <darkuncle(a)gmail.com> Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? ---------------------------------------- From: Bill Nash <billn(a)billn.net> I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was an element of multi-pronged lobbying approaches... ---------------------------------------- Look at who is saying it and it's quite obvious... "Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned... scott" _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

7 6

Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Scott Weeks 21 Apr '08

21 Apr '08

--- Marc.Williams(a)neustar.biz wrote: From: "Williams, Marc" <Marc.Williams(a)neustar.biz> http://www.worldmulticast.com/marketsummary.html ---------------------------------------------- We should be careful when discussing IPTV traffic issues. Is it inter-AS or intra-AS traffic? I'd imagine the beginning of the IPTV roll-out will be intra-AS traffic, rather than inter-AS and global. We're looking into starting up with it on a small scale to work all the bugs out before expanding the customer base (like AT&T did in San Antonio) but no IPTV traffic will leave our network. AT&T is rapidly expanding U-verse (http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2826839220070328 and http://seekingalpha.com/article/30657-project-lightspeed-at-t-s-iptv-archit…) and perhaps they've seen the BW issues better than others, thus the FUD by their vice president of legislative affairs at the Westminster eForum. Perhaps in his PoV AT&T's current network infrastructure is the Internet's current network architecture. scott --------------------- _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Scott Weeks 21 Apr '08

21 Apr '08

------- johnl(a)iecc.com wrote: ------------ The most interesting part is the author bios at the end: Bruce Mehlman was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bush. Larry Irving was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton. They are co-chairmen of the Internet Innovation Alliance, a coalition of individuals, businesses and nonprofit groups that includes telecommunications companies. ------------------------------------------------- It also includes AT&T as well as schloads ;-) of companies that sell stuff to them. scott ------- _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0