- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RIR filtering & Level3
by Justin Shore 16 Nov '07

16 Nov '07

Are any other L3 customers seeing the large number of /25 and smaller routes from L3? I'm seeing almost 2500 of these routes in 4/8, some but not as many in 8/8 and still more in L3's non-US allocations. Looking at the AS paths for a handful of those specific networks I only see them via our L3 connection and not via our other 2 upstreams. I'm seeing paths to the larger aggregate networks via our other upstreams of course; the Oregon and AT&T route servers see the same aggregates too. To be more accurate we actually touch L3's acquisition form a year or so ago, Telcove (19094). All of the small routes are originating from L3 though (3356). Best I can tell L3 is aggregating before it advertises to a peer but not before it advertises to a customer. Or, on the otherhand, perhaps L3 is advertising without aggregation to Telcove and Telcove is not aggregating before advertising to us. So, that said, what is everyone else doing to perform sanity checks on their learned routes? Are a good many implementing RIR filtering and dropping everything smaller than a /24? L3 of course isn't the only source of these tiny routes but it's so obvious I saw it and wasn't even looking for it. This would explain why I'm getting so many more routes from L3 too. I'm getting 232k from AT&T, 233.5k from Cox and 244k from L3. Thanks Justin

8 8

US Provisioned GSM cards abroad... SSL Issues?
by Mike Lyon 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

Curious. Has anyone on the list here ever encountered issues while traveling in EMEA accessing SSL websites back in the states while using an ATT/Cingular GSM data card? We are seeing some issues with this and were curious to see if anyone else is seeing the same issue. Any insight would be appreciated. Thank You, Mike Lyon

3 2

Re: [NANOG-Admins] Options et. al. on admins@ list
by Martin Hannigan 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

They're not points, Alex. They should be agenda items. On Nov 14, 2007 7:13 PM, Alex Pilosov <alex(a)pilosoft.com> wrote: > Thanks Marty, I'll bring both points up. > > -alex > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > Folks: > > > > We should be able to see subscribers to admins so that we know who is > > on the list. Can we get a current listing so that we can see who is > > receiving our mail? > > > > We should also use Merit's conference bridge if it's toll-free. We pay > > for this stuff through our fees so we should not be tied to a members > > service since it could be disrupted if that person does not attend or > > is no longer on the MLC. > > > > Also, proposals > > > > Meeting Etiquette: > > > > Roberts Rules of Order > > Quorum: 51% or more, depending upon membership make up. > > Required to hold official Meeting: majority of voting members (4 as of current) > > > > > > > > 1. Adding people to admins(a)nanog.org > > > > When an individual is being proposed to be added to the MLC mailing > > list, the proppsal will be discussed on admins(a)nanog.org. In the event > > of any objection, the issue will be discussed and voted on at the next > > MLC call. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Admins mailing list > > Admins(a)nanog.org > > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/admins > > > >

1 1

Re: FCC rules for backup power
by Jerry Dixon 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Jared> and all this time I thought you just wanted to attend those meetings to see all of our bright faces and partake of the chocolate chip cookies :) In all seriousness, it is very good to get involved in these meetings and stay on top of what is going on. Plus it helps the gubment types out on what is reality or what is doable versus going off on a wild tangent. Especially with recovery, understanding what the real vulnerabilities or exposures are, and of course planning response activities. I can't thank many of you enough that have taken an active role in helping USG out over the last few years and also the insights that you've shared with many of us that have worked these issues in the past. So with that said, get involved and let your opinions be known. Also you have a great opportunity coming up with new elections about to take place to help shape or influence the way ahead but you've got to get involved. Another good link on current documents on national level response and preparedness can be found here: http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/publications/ Also recommend setting up the usual google alerts on some keywords like: "cyber and homeland" "communications and homeland" Lastly there is a great effort underway led by a bi-partisan Congressional Commission. See http://www.csis.org/tech/cyber/ Congressman & Chairman Langevin & Ranking Member McCaul are two good people to send letters to or communicate with related to many of these issues if you have concerns. There office is real responsive to Cyber & Communication issues. They're the ones that setup the Congressional Cyber Commission. http://homeland.house.gov/about/subcommittees.asp?subcommittee=12 -Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.nether.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 04:44 PM To: 'Mike Lyon' Cc: 'Wayne E. Bouchard', 'Sean Donelan', nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: FCC rules for backup power On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 01:15:53PM -0800, Mike Lyon wrote: > What? The gov't putting their nose in where it shouldn't be? NEVER! I must say, if you're a provider with US presence and you're not paying attention to the FCC, DHS (NCS, NCSD) and possibly that thing called NSTAC you may wake up one day and be amazed what is going on. Take an example - Unregulated chemical industry becomes regulated under DHS. (One of the 17 sectors that the govvies track). There's stuff to track that doesn't involve having a full time employee to associate with it, but some allocation of time is valuable. If you don't, who knows, you may have Senator Stevens setting policy that is relevant to you. http://hsgac.senate.gov/ http://homeland.house.gov/ There's all sorts of interesting stuff in this space to track. What if your network traffic doubled tomorrow due to a pandemic outbreak and everyone starts telecommuting? http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0760.shtm Perhaps it's wrong, or maybe they're right? I think continuing to watch the activities in this space are going to be critical to our evolution as providers of these ip packets. - Jared ps. other stuff of interest: www.it-scc.org (free) www.pcis.org (us, ca) -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared(a)puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.

1 0

cpu needed to NAT 45mbs
by Carl Karsten 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

I do the networking in my house, and hang out with guys that do networking in small offices that have a few T1s. Now I am talking to people about a DS3 connection for 500 laptops*, and I am bing told "a p4 linux box with 2 nics doing NAT will not be able to handle the load." I am not really qualified to say one way or the other. I bet someone here is. * for wifi, going to be using this system: http://wavonline.com/vendorpages/extricom.htm March 13-17 (testing a week or 2 before) for PyCon in Chicago. If anyone wants to see it in action, etc. drop me a line. Carl K

17 23

Comcast SMTP problems
by up＠3.am 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

This is probably just regional, but here in SE PA, I've had a few customers who send their outgoing mail through smtp.comcast.net getting "internal queueing error". Anybody find what it is or was and when/if it was fixed? TIA, James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up(a)3.am http://3.am =========================================================================

1 0

RE: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs]
by Tom Grenier 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

Aruba has some pretty large implementations under their belt including Microsoft Corp. Check them out. Tom -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Niels Bakker Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:35 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] * frnkblk(a)iname.com (Frank Bulk) [Tue 13 Nov 2007, 14:24 CET]: >If you're going with Extricom you don't need to worry about channel >planning beyond adding more "channel blankets". I understand Foundry's wireless products do the same thing. Seems to work ok but have not heard about larger test cases than a hundred or so clients. * carl(a)personnelware.com (Carl Karsten) [Tue 13 Nov 2007, 05:56 CET]: >On Wifi for 1000: [..] In the context of that, you may wish to peruse the proceedings of the last few CCC Congresses in Berlin, which had pretty much working wireless - even with thousands of attendees: http://events.ccc.de/camp/2007/Fahrplan/attachments/1347-Camp07-NetworkR eview.pdf http://events.ccc.de/congress/2006/Fahrplan/attachments/1247-23c3-noc-re view-corrected.pdf http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/fahrplan/attachments/652-slides_netwo rk_review.pdf (They're still looking for a sponsor of wireless equipment for this year's edition, by the way) Regards, -- Niels. -- "The Mac doesn't have a one-button mouse, it has a five-button mouse, with four of the buttons on the keyboard." -- Peter da Silva <peter(a)taronga.com>

1 0

Re: General question on rfc1918
by Paul Ferguson 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Joe Greco <jgreco(a)ns.sol.net> wrote: >[pick-a-random-BCP38-snipe ...] > >It's a feature: You can tell which of your providers does BCP38 this way. > Don't get me started... ;-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHOd4Bq1pz9mNUZTMRAnp1AKC/TauxcxjtxjMozpnfGplnMNlSkwCguJF9 MeNbuE1zBjMCBsOtR7me4sU= =AGZb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: General question on rfc1918
by Robert Bonomi 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Tue Nov 13 09:12:04 2007 > Cc: "nanog(a)merit.edu" <nanog(a)merit.edu> > From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)ca.afilias.info> > To: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver(a)thenap.com> > Subject: Re: General question on rfc1918 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:10:26 -0500 > > > > On 13-Nov-2007, at 10:08, Drew Weaver wrote: > > > Hi there, I just had a real quick question. I hope this is > > found to be on topic. > > > > Is it to be expected to see rfc1918 src'd packets coming from > > transit carriers? > > You should not send packets with RFC1918 source or destination > addresses to the Internet. Everybody should follow this advice. If > everybody did follow that advice, you wouldn't see the packets you are > seeing. Really? What do you do if a 'network internal' device -- a legitimate use of RFC1918 addresses -- discovers 'host/network unreachable' for an external-origin packet transitinng that device? <evil grin> Your comment _is_ "generally correct", but there are some significant 'corner cases' that do complicate life. Packets that could conceivably generate a reply/response and have an RFC 1918 address (source -or- dest) should be ingress *and* egress filtered -- unless there is specific agreement with the adjacent network with regard to coordinated use of specific portions of that space. Packets which are strictly error/status reporting -- e.g. IMP 'unreachable', 'ttl exceeded', 'redirect', etc. -- should *NOT* be filtered at network boundaries _solely_ because of an RFC1918 source address.

3 2

Cable capacity Japan - US
by James Spenceley 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

G'day, Is there anyone on the list buying capacity from on PC1 (Japan - US) ? If so could you contact me off list. Thanks, -- James

1 0