- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Honest Cogent opinions without rhetoric.
by Charles Gucker 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:10:35PM -0500, Omachonu Ogali wrote: > I have the need to de-pref my routes to Level3, to be of equal value as the > routes they receive from their peers, but they don't offer a community for > that. But wow, I can see that this route originated from Tustin, CA! Hrm, this seems very straight forward to me: >From http://www.onesc.net/communities/as3356 customer traffic engineering communities - LocalPref -------------------------------------------------------- 3356:70 - set local preference to 70 3356:80 - set local preference to 80 3356:90 - set local preference to 90 I believe peering routes are set to a local preference of 70 within L3, but I could be mistaken. Would be best to ask the TCAM group what a peer's LP is set to by default. > Everyone's traffic engineering needs are different. BGP communities were > created because one size doesn't fit all. But that doesn't mean that you > will find the same communities (that are of use to you) on a different > provider. Agreed, but you also have to understand that some networks have more or less flexiblity with their peers. The ones who have more "authority" (or believe they do) will publically offer greater control, while those with less "authority" may decide to limit their public statements. The other train of thought I've seen with a number of providers is.. The more communities they support, the more questions/misconfiguration they will run into as a result. I even know a few providers who refuse to give out their community guides without proving your technical knowledge first. charles

1 0

RE: Honest Cogent opinions without rhetoric.
by David Hubbard 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

From: Omachonu Ogali [mailto:oogali@pantherexpress.net] > > I have the need to de-pref my routes to Level3, to be of > equal value as the routes they receive from their peers, > but they don't offer a community for that. But wow, I can > see that this route originated from Tustin, CA! I've found them pretty responsive to unusual requests, maybe they'd find a way to do that if you ask them; or go through your sales rep if the support guys aren't being helpful. Or maybe you can alter the preferences your providers that peer with them announce for you. Besides them, we've also had good help for unusual things from Global Crossing, who we no longer use for reasons other than dissatisfaction, and Time Warner Telecom. Have not yet had a need to make unusual requests of our other providers so I can't say how they'd deal with it. > Everyone's traffic engineering needs are different. BGP Yes, that's why the more a provider offers, the better. I'd rather have more than I need than not having what I currently need; my only point was that Cogent's community support is more lacking than the others I have used and BGP communities are often something that is not considered until the link is up or until the first problem where they would come in handy is encountered. > P.S. You have transit, not peering. Thank you, an egregious typo on my part. David

1 0

Sales contact at MCI/UUNET?
by Drew Weaver 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

I realize this is most likely off topic and is likely to get me flamed but I am in desperate need of the contact information for someone in sales or management at MCI/UUNET. We have been paying a reseller for a UUNET circuit for about 6 months and I guess he hasn't been paying MCI/UUNET for this circuit and he's telling us they're about to disconnect circuit and this would be absolutely catastrophic to us right now; so if anyone has the contact information of anyone that would be in a position to assist us in transitioning this circuit or making arrangements to get something done; we would be forever in your gratitude. Thanks, -Drew

2 1

RE: Honest Cogent opinions without rhetoric.
by David Hubbard 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

From: Charles Gucker > > > > Depends on if you like to do traffic engineering; Cogent's > > BGP community support, consisting of a whole three things you > > can set (two if you only have a single connection to them), > > makes that rather difficult. > > Umm, where did you get that mis-information from? The last > communitiy guide I've seen from them has quite a bit more than two ;p > > For a quick reference: > http://www.onesc.net/communities/as174/as174.pdf > > charles I was meaning more along the lines of types of things you can control. You have limited route export control, and even more limited path prepend control; that's two. :-) Or if you're multi-homed to them, you can set local pref too. Alternatively, I'll just use Level 3 as an example because we have peering with both of them as well as three others. Level 3 lets us control local pref, prepend to specific remote AS numbers (incredibly useful and something everyone should insist on from their providers), prepend to EU peers, all the same export controls and then some, announce to specific AS, do not announce to specific AS. On the incoming side, where Cogent has tags for all of four whole groups (NA non-customer, NA customer, EU non-customer, EU customer), Level 3 has tags for the same plus peering points, cities, countries, regions, MEDs ignored, MEDs accepted, internal, etc.. We like having our connectivity to Cogent because we like to have fast delivery of our customers' content to Cogent's customers, not because of the price. On more than one occasion we have had issues where the only solution to a problem of our customers accessing us coming through a remote peer of Cogent's who had a problem, and a preference for the Cogent route, was to turn down our session with them until that remote peer resolved their issue; there's no other way to make them prefer a different route, including with the help, or lack thereof, of Cogent's NOC. David

1 0

RE: Honest Cogent opinions without rhetoric.
by David Hubbard 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

From: alex(a)pilosoft.com > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > > We have heard a lot of negatives about them, about their > > pricing model, about their network, about de-peering with > > Level 3, etc. What we really need is actual information. > > > Much of the negatives is from jaded competitors who don't > want to fairly compete. Other than that, the answer is 'it depends'. Depends on if you like to do traffic engineering; Cogent's BGP community support, consisting of a whole three things you can set (two if you only have a single connection to them), makes that rather difficult. David

2 1

Re: Honest Cogent opinions without rhetoric.
by Martin Hannigan 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

At 01:56 AM 3/8/2006, alex(a)pilosoft.com wrote: >On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > I am looking for user experiences for people who have > > > purchased > > >transit from cogent in the 300Mbps or up range as far as performance, > > >stability, and any other measurable metric of quality you can come up > > >with. > > > > > > We have heard a lot of negatives about them, about their > > >pricing model, about their network, about de-peering with Level 3, etc. > > >What we really need is actual information. >Much of the negatives is from jaded competitors who don't want to fairly >compete. Other than that, the answer is 'it depends'. > >[ SNIP ] >(from Marty) > > From a global perspective[1], the top 12 (I stopped at Cogent since you > > are asking about them) service providers whose customers and peering > > partners reach the largest number of networks are listed below. You can > > make some fairly interesting assumptions on your own: ><snip> > >This gotta be the most meaningless metric ever. What does "reach" >mean? More ASNs seen behind given network? What does it tell, precisely? >There are ASNs which have significant chunks of intarweb (say, AS1668) >behind them, while AS721 is not likely to matter in a grand scheme of >things, even though all .mil installations are behind it. > >Note that many Cogent customers, while using Cogent for outbound, prefer >not to announce any routes to Cogent for political reasons (or prepend or >depref their routes). So, that metric won't be exactly helpful. 721 is included because it's on the list. In some markets Cogent is a leader and they cause price pressure. There are metro areas that Cogent is number two verses big tier 1. You ought to be getting good deals from the tier1 in that market as you manage your capacity. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan(a)renesys.com

1 0

Italy orders ISPs to block sites
by Rodney Joffe 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

It appears that Italy has ordered Italian ISPs to block access to a number of Internet Gambling sites. It would be interesting to see how the Italian ISPs are handling this, what with dynamic DNS and all that... From Monsters and Critics.com Tech News Italy bans unauthorised online gambling sites By DPA Mar 3, 2006, 19:00 GMT Rome - Italy has become the first European nation to outlaw scores of unauthorised gambling sites that are available on the Internet. Italy\'s Economy Ministry has published a list of more than 600 offshore gaming sites that are in the process of being made unavailable to Italian internet users. The list includes popular gambling sites such as 888.com, which is based in the Caribbean island of Antigua and which describes itself as \'the world\'s No. 1 online casino & poker room.\' A spokesperson for Italy\'s State Monopolies told Deutsche Presse- Agentur dpa on Friday that Italian police were currently moving to prevent Italian internet providers from allowing connections to the banned sites. Internet providers that fail to comply face fines of up to 180,000 euros (216,000 dollars). ... More available at http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/news/ article_1134456.php

20 26

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

[Crossposted to shim6 and NANOG lists, please don't make me regret this... Replies are probably best sent to just one list for people who don't subscribe to both.] On 27-feb-2006, at 22:13, Jason Schiller (schiller(a)uu.net) wrote: > Is it the consensus of the shim6 working group that the full suite > of TE > capabilities should not be a requirement? Or is this just the > opinion of > a few vocal people? I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that there is consensus that we need good enough traffic engineering from the start. (Where "start" means deployment, not necessarily the publication of the first RFC.) I think basic balancing of both incoming and outgoing traffic over the available links is both assumed to be part of what we need to have and implementable without too much trouble. Push back by transit ASes is harder. This is what I mean by that: A --- B / \ X Y \ / C --- D C's link to D may be low capacity or expensive, so D would prefer it if X would send traffic to Y over another route if possible. C can make this happen in BGP by prepending its AS one or more times so X will see the following AS paths: A B Y C C C D Y All else being equal, X will choose the path over A to reach Y. The simple answer here is that if the multihomed site receives a BGP feed just like today (except that it's a read only feed) and thus makes outgoing path selection decisions just like today, transit ASes have exactly the same tools as they have today. But presumably, if shim6 takes off many smaller sites that aren't comfortable with BGP will multihome also, so this push back won't work as well anymore. Creating a new way to accomplish this result is probably possible, but not entirely non-trivial, and probably something we wouldn't want to deliver on day one. Thoughts? Another capability that would be hard to replicate with shim6 is selective announcement. Today, many transit ASes allow multihomed sites to influence the way their prefix is propagated to neighbors of the transit AS. For instance, in the picture above X may decide that the link between C and D is of low quality, and set a community on the prefix it sends to C that tells C either that it should perform AS path prepending on X's prefix ONLY towards D and not towards other neighbors of C, or even not announce the prefix at all. We would need considerable extra mechanisms to replicate this capability, and maybe it can't even be fully replicated at all. So how critical is this capability?

46 200

announcement: reporting and mitigating malicious websites and phishing
by Gadi Evron 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

On the public botnets mailing list, there have been quite a few "off topic" reports of Malicious Websites. Sites holding malware, malicious code, drive-by installs, phishing sites, etc. The botnets list is of high traffic while it is busy figuring itself out. We expected this might happen, and so we prepared a second list where these can be handled, along with potentially phishing, etc. Baddies on Websites. There is quite a community of sysadmins, security professionals, etc. who deal with these daily. It was nice to find the public being so effective. The new PUBLIC and OPEN mailing list where anyone can join in and report suspected malicious web sites is now open. The mailing list will serve as as place: *. Where you can discuss detection techniques. *. Where you can report the sites. *. Where all relevant groups (private or otherwise) will get your reports. *. Where the relevant ISP will be automatically notified. *. Where you can see action taken on your reports. To subscribe, go to the following page: http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/phishing Otherwise, to report a malicious website/phishing PRIVATELY and reach all relevant groups, please send email to: c2report(a)isotf.org Thanks, Gadi.

1 0

Re: How to measure network quality&performance for voip&gameservers (udp packetloss, delay, jitter,...)
by Vince Hoffman 07 Mar '06

07 Mar '06

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Justin Church wrote: > Vince Hoffman wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Gunther Stammwitz wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello colleages, >>> >>> I'm trying to find out how one can measure the performance or quality of a >>> network for gamers and voip-users. >>> Both applications are very sensitive to packetloss, delays or jitter since >>> they're using udp instead of tcp and are very timing critical. >>> >>> ==> Which tools (under linux) are you using in order to measure your own >>> network ore on of your upstreams in terms of "gameability" or voip-usage? >>> >>> Ordinary pings won't help since routers are regulary dropping them and >>> even >>> an end-to-end ping is not perfect since one of the hosts might be busy or >>> something like that? >>> >>> Starting your favorite online game and play on a server that is being >>> housed >>> in your own network isn't the solutions I'm looking for :-( >>> >>> Your ideas are appreciated :-) >> >> >> iperf is probably your best bet here, although it needs a client/server >> config which isnt alway practical. >> it might be worth looking at pchar >> http://www.kitchenlab.org/www/bmah/Software/pchar/ >> which is pretty in depth if damm slow ;) >> >> >> Vince >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Gunther > > I too am looking for a tool to measure qos metrics for a voip deployment. > Whatever this 'something' ends up being, it needs to be highly distributed - > colocated with endpoints, do call simulation, provide some reasonable means > of centrally collecting the results, and above all cheap, since dense > distribution is key. Does such a magical tool exist? > If you are using cisco kit you could use the saa stuff which will simulate calls and provide you with jitter data[1] and knock together a few shell scripts for data collection (or use something like cricket/mrtg) Vince [1] http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/126/saa.html > -jc >

1 0