- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Refusing Pings on Core Routers??? A new trend?
by Fergie 20 Oct '06

20 Oct '06

IIRC, this is not news. - ferg -- "Rubens Kuhl Jr." <rubensk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > template response -- I hear is "Well, you can't rely on traceroute > because of ICMP prioritisation". When you start to explain how > traceroute actually works (both ICMP-based and UDP-based (which > still relies on ICMP responses, of course!)), and that ICMP prio > should only affect the IP of which the router listens on (and not > hops beyond or at the dest), most NOCs fire back with another If I recall well, Cisco GSRs impose low priority and/or limits for all ICMP traffic flowing thru the box, not just packets to/from router itself, and there's not a knob to adjust that. Also of notice is that packets that expire TTL needs some kind of low-path processing, and will be subject to increased latency or loss compared to normal ones, and this affects every tool to trace packets thru the network I've seen. -- "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

GBLX issues
by J. Oquendo 20 Oct '06

20 Oct '06

Anyone else seeing issues with GBLX, DC area? -- ==================================================== J. Oquendo http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net The happiness of society is the end of government. John Adams

4 3

SunGard Austin Morning Outage
by James Baldwin 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

Doesn't appear to have affected many, if any, people on this list but SunGard Austin experienced a partial power outage this morning. This event began around 0530 CST and most power was restored by 0700 CST. SunGard Austin is currently running without redundant UPS and does not have an ETR. This is being tracked on ticket HD104086.

1 0

Re: dns - golog
by Rod Ed 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

We've had exactly the same here that led to Golog being implemented. Golog is just a two line patch to bind to redirect 'NXDOMAIN' : ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;ww.gooooooooregergerger.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: ww.gooooooooregergerger.com. 10000 IN A XX.XX.XX.XX ww.gooooooooregergerger.com. 10000 IN TXT "NXDOMAIN" While we had the same concerns the implementation led to no problems except for a brief round of complaints from users. We did however only issue it to our users and do not preform any lookups from our server base to it. While it's something I personally don't like the cut throat DSL market does make it necessary for us to create revenue where ever possible without a major effect on customers and to be honest Golog is one of the lesser evil services of this type I have come across. regards Rod Luke Besson wrote: I work for a big French ISP and I manage the DNS architecture (based on Linux+Bind); Golog proposed to our society the DNS redirect service (redirect all the not existant domains according to marketing criteria). Even if our marketing team would like to join this solution, our technical team opposes hardly to such a not-standard implementation of the DNS. Can you suggest me any objective reason in order to invalidate this proposal? Regards Luke

1 0

Road Runner contact
by Tom Sands 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

Can someone from Road Runner please contact me off-list. Thanks -- ------------------------------------------------------ Tom Sands Chief Network Engineer Rackspace Managed Hosting (210)447-4065 ------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Any Cox.net ops in here?
by Jamie Bowden 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

For about the last two weeks, you've had something broken in your internal routing (here's a traceroute from my house in Reston to a server in TX, just as a sample): Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:\Documents and Settings\jamie>tracert 67.18.76.10 Tracing route to a.4c.1243.static.theplanet.com [67.18.76.10] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.254 2 9 ms 9 ms 8 ms ip68-100-160-1.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.160.1] 3 8 ms 8 ms 7 ms 68.100.1.113 4 36 ms 38 ms 37 ms ip68-100-0-65.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.0.65] 5 60 ms 62 ms 57 ms mrfddsrj02gex070003.rd.dc.cox.net [68.100.0.149] 6 68 ms 69 ms 68 ms mrfdbbrj02-ge020.rd.dc.cox.net [68.1.1.6] 7 70 ms 67 ms 60 ms nrfkbbrj02-so000000.rd.hr.cox.net [68.1.1.235] 8 54 ms 56 ms 87 ms nrfkbbrj01-ge030.rd.hr.cox.net [68.1.0.22] 9 77 ms 83 ms 70 ms dukebbrj01-so000100.rd.at.cox.net [68.1.0.20] 10 127 ms 92 ms 75 ms dukebbrj02-ge030.tc.at.cox.net [68.1.0.3] 11 116 ms 134 ms 117 ms nrfkbbrj01-as0.rd.hr.cox.net [68.1.0.9] 12 98 ms 96 ms 101 ms btnrbbrj01-ge030.rd.br.cox.net [68.1.1.204] 13 114 ms 111 ms 110 ms dalsbbrj01-so-010000.r2.dl.cox.net [68.1.1.194] 14 106 ms 109 ms 114 ms et2-25.ibr05.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.85.126.22 5] 15 98 ms 101 ms 99 ms vl31.dsr02.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.85.127.30] 16 105 ms 107 ms 107 ms vl22.dsr02.dllstx2.theplanet.com [70.85.127.76] 17 122 ms 116 ms 118 ms vl1.car04.dllstx2.theplanet.com [12.96.160.14] 18 123 ms 124 ms 129 ms a.4c.1243.static.theplanet.com [67.18.76.10] Trace complete. Until your internal routing went to hell, this normally took <40ms. Of course, the huge jump in latency from one router in NoVA to another didn't used to happen either, and the interesting routing through Norfolk two different times is just a bonus, so I have no idea what you've done to your network. Do you? Jamie

3 2

Re: Boeing's Connexion announcement
by a.harrowell＠gmail.com 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

Renesys Todd thinks Panasonic is buying the thing. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

7 7

F-Secure.com contact
by Stasiniewicz, Adam 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

Is there anyone from F-Secure on this list? Or anyone who has a contact at F-Secure? Please contact me off list. Thanks, Adam Stasiniewicz

1 0

Application management in ISP network
by Joe Shen 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

It is heard many ISPs are implementing or plan to implement application management facilities. With such tools/facilities, it is said they could control applications in their network, such as blocking BT, degrade QoS of e2e VoIP , or control attacking traffic. Is there anyone could tell me how many ISPs have done as above ? To my knowledge, there is few traffic management product which could work with 10Gbps links. But, ISP network is usually made up of 10Gbps links (even 40Gbps). Could current technology deal with such situation? Joe __________________________________ What is the internet to you? Contribute to the Yahoo! Time Capsule and be a part of internet history. http://timecapsule.yahoo.com/capsule.php?intl=sg

1 0

AT&T refuses to provide PTR records?
by David Hubbard 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

Anyone familiar with AT&T's policies on PTR records for their customer-assigned address space? We have a customer whose website we host that has their own in-house mail server that they run off of their AT&T internet connection at their office. We handle the DNS for their domain name. AT&T is refusing to set up PTR records for them because they're not handling DNS for the domain name. Is this normal? I haven't dug through the ARIN agreements but I thought it was required to provide reverse DNS on your allocations. Thanks, David

4 4