- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

update bogon routes
by Miguel Mata 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

Hi guys and gals, please update your bogon lists to avoid 190.0.0.0/8 that has been asigned to LACNIC as you can see from: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://whois.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=190.5.0.0 We have had some problems of being beaten back. Our space, being annocunced by AS 16592, is 190.5.128.0/19 Thanks for your time. -- Miguel Mata Gerente de Operaciones Intercom El Salvador mmata(a)intercom.com.sv voz: ++(503) 2278-5068 fax: ++(503) 2265-7024 "Intercom, sus Telecomunicaciones en buenas manos"

3 3

Hot weather and power outages continue
by Sean Donelan 26 Jul '06

26 Jul '06

Due to the hot weather in many parts of the US, there have been various power outages. Some large outages have been caused by severe storms, but mostly the heat has just overloaded power distribution equipment. The good news so far is the Net has shown very few disruptions due to the heat and some multi-day power outages. The major ISP access providers have been indicating about average numbers of outages in their networks, i.e. even during "normal" times, there are usually a few tens of thousands of lines down nationwide. While its expected for individual customers to go down during power outages, usually because the customer does not have local backup power, it is less common for major web sites and co-location centers to experience downtime during power outages. MySpace.com reported it was down tonight due to power problems, with a temporary page up now. MySpace.com is hosted at a few Internet co-location data centers (Equinix and CWIE).

12 14

Global Crossing Contact / BGP and SONET interaction question
by Forrest W Christian 26 Jul '06

26 Jul '06

Two somewhat intertwined questions. I'll ask the second part first. I buy transit from Global Crossing and another carrier on HDLC encapsulated DS3's. Recently my BGP session has started flapping on the GX circuit... It looks something like this: Jul 21 21:17:43.731 UTC: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: received from neighbor 67.17.168.73 6/6 (cease) 0 bytes Jul 21 21:17:43.731 UTC: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 67.17.168.73 Down BGP Notification received Jul 21 21:18:25.439 UTC: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 67.17.168.73 Up Jul 21 21:29:52.315 UTC: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: received from neighbor 67.17.168.73 6/6 (cease) 0 bytes Jul 21 21:29:52.315 UTC: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 67.17.168.73 Down BGP Notification received Jul 21 21:30:38.511 UTC: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 67.17.168.73 Up Jul 21 21:31:34.411 UTC: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: received from neighbor 67.17.168.73 6/6 (cease) 0 bytes Jul 21 21:31:34.411 UTC: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 67.17.168.73 Down BGP Notification received Jul 21 21:32:20.535 UTC: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 67.17.168.73 Up Jul 21 21:32:52.547 UTC: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 67.17.168.73 Down Peer closed the session Jul 21 21:33:32.703 UTC: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 67.17.168.73 Up There are no other log entries during the periods when this occur. Unfortunately this causes enough prefix flaps that any prefixes which are preferred through GX are damped for like a half hour by certain providers as my BGP routes get added/withdrawn through the GX link. GX claims (although I'm not sure they really know) that these are caused by SONET ring switches. I can believe this, since I haven't seen any real circuit flaps, and my understanding is that a SONET switch should generally be fast enough that you normally won't see the transition other than perhaps an error counter or two cranking up. However, it seems strange that I'm getting a 6/6 (cease) notification which I read as "configuration change" from their router. GX also seems to be at a loss to explain why my BGP is flapping - other than to point at the SONET switches. I guess I'm trying to find out if someone on the list recognizes what this might be so I can perhaps help GX find and fix this. I'm also kinda curious as to whether or not typically a SONET ring switch event would actually propagate into a router in such a way that BGP would try to shut down the BGP sessions. I'm just having a hard time visualizing how a supposedly below-layer-two switch would cause bgp to reset in this manner. Not being a SONET expert even by any long stretch of the imagination leaves me with some holes here, but I thought the whole goal of SONET when used to provide DS3 circuits was to hide the ring switches as much as possible from the DS3 circuits - realizing that framing may be hard to preserve on a ring switch which would cause momentary loss of sync or similar - which usually shows up as an error instead of a interface flap. And finally, does anyone have a contact within GX with a clue? So far I'm not sure I've talked to anyone who knows anything but how to spell BGP. I'd really like to talk to someone about the real cause of these flaps and try to resolve them so they don't reoccur. -forrest

5 5

Eurid suspends more than 74,000 .eu domain names
by Henry Linneweh 26 Jul '06

26 Jul '06

I think this operationally impact some people http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&art… -Henry

5 5

more on Net Neutrality
by virendra rode // 25 Jul '06

25 Jul '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5538363 enjoy :-) regards, /virendra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFExk/jpbZvCIJx1bcRAuC9AJ4nmNhEVtv7ONVCn+PPjhxUFXf8ZQCcDtjF Pm8gl8bnMgaG/8iyncwlKMs= =rAxX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: SBC Lost of connectivty to Canada?
by Richard A Steenbergen 25 Jul '06

25 Jul '06

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 09:43:19PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:18:42 EDT, Richard A Steenbergen said: > > Actually they just leaked some routes this morning, and blew out max > > prefixes to most peers. Pretty typical as far as accidental leaks go, > > those folks with sensible filtering and running routers which trip on max > > prefixes accepted not prefixes received probably weren't even affected. > > Another day on the internet. > > If I didn't know better, I'd say you were implying that your best bet for > a survivable design is to plan as if your peers listened to Randy Bush on > network design? Not sure what you're referencing there. If Randy said something to the effect of "all peers will screw up and leak something to you eventually, no matter how large or generally well run, so plan accordingly", I would agree with it though. I was suggesting that if even if you don't have the ability to fully prefix or as-path filter every peer (which, face it, most of us with large numbers of interesting peers don't have), you can still filter the really obvious stuff and prevent a large amount of the impact from common fat finger events. I can't tell you the number of problems that are prevented by applying a simple set of as-path filters matching large networks you know you should never hear from your peers (or most of your peers). Something simple like: deny _209_ deny _701_ deny _1239_ deny _1299_ deny _1668_ deny _3320_ deny _3356_ deny _3549_ deny _3561_ deny _5511_ deny _6453_ deny _7018_ Catches a huge amount of "stupid stuff", especially when the event isn't a full blown leak which trips max prefixes, but is an isolated set of prefixes leaked by someone not directly connected to you. On a Cisco, the leaked 7018 routes from 7132 this morning would have been gone splash harmlessly with such a filter, and sessions wouldn't even trip max prefixes and bounce. Unfortunately Juniper has a bit of a backwards take on the use of prefix limits. They believe that the reason to have a prefix limit is to protect a router against memory exhaustion (for example, someone sending you a few million routes that you are rejecting filling up your adj rib in), rather than as a policy tool (shutting down a wildly broken session that is sending you stuff it shouldn't). Juniper applies the max prefixs to routes received from a session rather than routes accepted, so even if the routes are filtered the prefix limit will still trip and shut down the session. This is particularly bad if for example you have a customer session which is fully prefix list filtered, and the customer accidentally leaks you a table. In reality, both types of limits are probabaly a "good idea". I've talked to a lot of people from a lot of companies who say they have requested Juniper add a seperate accepted-prefixes limit (or more likely, convert the existing limits to accepted-prefixes, and add a new received-prefixes knob), but so far it hasn't been implemented. If you are a Juniper customer who is reading this and you think having prefix limits which only count accepted prefixes is a good idea, please use this as an opportunity to submit an enhancement request so we can get this behavior improved. Feel free to throw in a request for "outbound prefix limits" as a last ditch safety net too. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

1 0

RE: Hot weather and power outages continue
by Daniel Senie 25 Jul '06

25 Jul '06

At 09:59 PM 7/24/2006, Frank Bulk wrote: >Depending on the state you live in, the PUC generally requires 4 to >8 hours of dialtone if it's generated from the C.O. Dialtone >generated from SLC may not be explicitly covered under the rules. So when they moved about 1/2 of the town from CO to SLC, they got out of the obligation to provide dial tone in power outage? That seems, ummm, interesting. Will be interesting to see what the police chief learns (I'm on a town board that works closely with the police, so he and I get to talk often and get along well). He was quite concerned to learn about the telephone outages that happen. Thanks for the info. I will follow up with the PUC folks as well and see what they have to say. The Verizon service folks did tell me they expected dialtone to work during power failures, and kept claiming it must be my telephones that are at fault (plugging a very basic, known-functional POTS phone into the network interface says they're wrong). > >Regards, > >Frank > > >---------- >From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf >Of Daniel Senie >Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5:47 PM >To: Brandon Galbraith >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Hot weather and power outages continue > >At 06:26 PM 7/24/2006, Brandon Galbraith wrote: >>While hardwired (fiber/coax/copper) aggregation points usually >>don't have backup power on them, most cellular towers have either >>batteries or generators for backup power, correct? > >We see good cable modem connectivity during power outages. Batteries >must still be good in the HFC nodes in our area. Verizon POTS >service, on the other hand, dies when the power does. The batteries >in their SLC units are toast. I've got the local police chief off >conversing with the Verizon E911 folks to find out why it's OK to >have no 911 service to a large part of town when there's no power >(Verizon repair kept trying to tell me it must be my equipment, >despite testing at the network interface). > >I am looking at moving telephone services off to Comcast or VOIP >because they're more reliable than Verizon is, in my particular neighborhood. > > >>-brandon >> >>On 7/24/06, William S. Duncanson >><<mailto:caesar@starkreality.com>caesar(a)starkreality.com > wrote: >>Indeed, my RoadRunner connection is the same way. All of my stuff stays up, >>but "teh Interweb is broken." I'm guessing that they (DSL/CableCo's) find it >>too cost-prohibitive to roll out UPSes to the customer aggregation points. >>Suprisingly, my cable TV goes out as well when the power goes, so it might >>just be more than the CMTS that's going out. >>-----Original Message----- >>From: <mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu>owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [ >>mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of >>Michael Loftis >>Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 16:20 >>To: <mailto:nanog@merit.edu>nanog(a)merit.edu >>Subject: Re: Hot weather and power outages continue >> >> >> >>--On July 24, 2006 2:22:26 AM -0400 Sean Donelan >><<mailto:sean@donelan.com>sean(a)donelan.com> wrote: >> > While its expected for individual customers to go down during power >> > outages, usually because the customer does not have local backup >> > power, it is less common for major web sites and co-location centers >> > to experience downtime during power outages. >>Except if you're in Qwest territory. Apparently they don't put any battery >>backup at their mini-DSLAMs and such. Every time we lose power, I'm still >>up, but the DSL signal goes away. Haven't checked dialtone, but I keep >>meaning too during the next outage. >>Now I know it's not exactly fair singling out Qwest, because I'll bet >>Verizon and others share the same thing, and I'm pretty sure it's just their >>ADSL service and not the voice service (I haven't checked though) it's >>still becoming more and more common that as an individual user your >>connection to the internet, unless you're paying for something other than >>ADSL or Cable, will be just as affected by local power outages. >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Brandon Galbraith >>Email: <mailto:brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>brandon.galbraith(a)gmail.com >>AIM: brandong00 >>Voice: 630.400.6992 >>"A true pirate starts drinking before the sun hits the yard-arm. >>Yarrrr. --thelost"

2 1

Re: Hot weather and power outages continue
by Daniel Senie 25 Jul '06

25 Jul '06

At 06:26 PM 7/24/2006, Brandon Galbraith wrote: >While hardwired (fiber/coax/copper) aggregation points usually don't >have backup power on them, most cellular towers have either >batteries or generators for backup power, correct? We see good cable modem connectivity during power outages. Batteries must still be good in the HFC nodes in our area. Verizon POTS service, on the other hand, dies when the power does. The batteries in their SLC units are toast. I've got the local police chief off conversing with the Verizon E911 folks to find out why it's OK to have no 911 service to a large part of town when there's no power (Verizon repair kept trying to tell me it must be my equipment, despite testing at the network interface). I am looking at moving telephone services off to Comcast or VOIP because they're more reliable than Verizon is, in my particular neighborhood. >-brandon > >On 7/24/06, William S. Duncanson ><<mailto:caesar@starkreality.com>caesar(a)starkreality.com> wrote: > >Indeed, my RoadRunner connection is the same way. All of my stuff stays up, >but "teh Interweb is broken." I'm guessing that they (DSL/CableCo's) find it >too cost-prohibitive to roll out UPSes to the customer aggregation points. >Suprisingly, my cable TV goes out as well when the power goes, so it might >just be more than the CMTS that's going out. > >-----Original Message----- >From: <mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu>owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >[mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of >Michael Loftis >Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 16:20 >To: <mailto:nanog@merit.edu>nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Hot weather and power outages continue > > > > >--On July 24, 2006 2:22:26 AM -0400 Sean Donelan ><<mailto:sean@donelan.com>sean(a)donelan.com> wrote: > > > While its expected for individual customers to go down during power > > outages, usually because the customer does not have local backup > > power, it is less common for major web sites and co-location centers > > to experience downtime during power outages. > >Except if you're in Qwest territory. Apparently they don't put any battery >backup at their mini-DSLAMs and such. Every time we lose power, I'm still >up, but the DSL signal goes away. Haven't checked dialtone, but I keep >meaning too during the next outage. > >Now I know it's not exactly fair singling out Qwest, because I'll bet >Verizon and others share the same thing, and I'm pretty sure it's just their >ADSL service and not the voice service (I haven't checked though) it's >still becoming more and more common that as an individual user your >connection to the internet, unless you're paying for something other than >ADSL or Cable, will be just as affected by local power outages. > > > > >-- >Brandon Galbraith >Email: <mailto:brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>brandon.galbraith(a)gmail.com >AIM: brandong00 >Voice: 630.400.6992 >"A true pirate starts drinking before the sun hits the yard-arm. >Yarrrr. --thelost"

2 1

Re: managing mycompany.{all iso TLD + icann TLD) ?
by Doug Barton 24 Jul '06

24 Jul '06

Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Someone's possesion of a domain name contining a string you have a > trademark on *in one specific line of business* *does not constitute an > infringement of your trademark*. > > Unless they *use it* *in conjunction with a product or service name* > *in the appropriate line of business* *in a jurisdiction where you hold > trademark rights*, they're not infringing you, and registering the > string in 435 TLD's just to make sure they can't is the worst kind of > stupid. If I can borrow from Randy, I encourage my competitors (and more importantly the competitors of my clients) to operate in the manner you describe. Doug -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough

2 1

Re: Hot weather and power outages continue
by Frank Coluccio 24 Jul '06

24 Jul '06

There are a few tens of thousand families at this time around the country who wouldn't see any humor in this. Local to me, the problems that began eight days ago in Queens NY persist to this day, and the best ETAs now being given by the City and Con Ed is at least two more days. But that's what was projected last Friday, or three days ago. Some lawmakers in the affected districts are calling for the resignation of Con Ed's CEO, while some blackout victims are calling for his imprisonment. http://tinyurl.com/oge8n The article doesn't go far enough to inform the reader that many of the "restored" residential and small business units that are holding their own (as opposed to sputtering out within two hours, like many that were placed back onto the grid) are being fed by a slew of portable truck-mounted generators that are tied directly into the local low-voltage feeder networks going to customer locations. A report on CNN (IIRC) earlier today focused on a range of "hot-spots" around the country, from Beverly Hills to St. Louis to New England, noting that for the most part the electric power problems that are being encountered (as roads and rails buckle from the heat) do NOT point to supply as much as they do to the inability of distribution networks in the last mile to withstand the increased loads being caused by mounting demand from air conditioning (and while no other application was mentioned at that point, you've got to know what other drains on power went through my mind). As a society we've already taken ample note of the aging (in many instances, crumbling) infrastructure, ranging from sewer systems, roads and rails, water tunnels, bridges and so on that are still working decades beyond their time. Has anyone given serious focus to the underspaces and overheads that house the nation's last mile electrical distribution systems, in toto? If so, what does it say about Queens' ability to handle summer loads? Frank On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > Come on Sean, this "very few disruptions" stuff is below your usual > standards. The least you can do to help us pass the time in this damn heat > is to recount a few good stories about routers you could scramble eggs on. > :) there is a funny story of some dial devices on fire, and still passing packets... ) Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile

3 2