- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: N+? redundancy
by sgorman1＠gmu.edu 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

Not necessarily. The number of paths in a city often has little to do with the providers and how many paths they would like offer, or at least did when they had the money to build. Many times the contraint is not demand but the zoning laws on where paths can be laid. Even if a client demanded and was willing to pay for the diverse paths there can be none available. Thus some times providers simply don't tell what the physical pathways are because they can be no different than the ones the prospective client is already using. Quite simply it is not a problem that the market can solve on its own because the market does not completely own the problem, state and municiple authorities also have a large piece of the game. The number of paths varies widely between cities, and has little to do with demand in those cities for diversity or how critical they might be to the nation as a whole. ----- Original Message ----- From: jmalcolm(a)uraeus.com Date: Saturday, April 16, 2005 2:00 pm Subject: N+? redundancy > > Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com writes: > >In my opinion, the following rule of thumb is reasonable. > > > >1 path is enough for a site/enterprise that shuts > >down its services evenings and weekends. > > > >2 paths is enough for a site/enterprise that provides > >a 24 hour, 7 day per week service. > > > >3 paths is enough for a population center with under > >a million inhabitants. > > > >5 paths is enough for a population center with over > >a million inhabitants. > > > >And a very few population centers such as New York, > >London, Tokyo, and Cheyenne Mountain should probably > >have more than 5 paths. > > Given that anything larger than a single enterprise has no central > coordinating body, how is it useful to say how many paths is "enough" > for a city of any size? Service providers will build as many paths as > make commercial sense, whatever that may be, and if customers have > opinions and are willing to back it up with money, they should express > those opinions to their providers. >

2 1

Memory leak cause of Comcast DNS problems
by Sean Donelan 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

Perhaps your DNS software also has a memory leak? Anyone know which software Comcast was using? Should other ISPs be concerned they might have the same latent problem in their systems? http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/11407913.htm Comcast said the intermittent but often-severe nighttime outages . which also occurred April 7, Tuesday and Wednesday across the country and in the St. Paul area . are related to software malfunctions on company computers responsible for receiving, interpreting and routing subscribers' Web-site requests. E-mail also was affected in some cases. A company spokeswoman wouldn't elaborate on the nature of the software problems, identifying them only as a "memory leak." But she said steps meant to end them roughly coincided with Thursday's erratic outage, which may have been less severe than the earlier ones, and added the fixes will likely avert future service blackouts of this kind.

5 5

Security Concerns Boosted VeriSign's Dot-Net Bid
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

Interesting article in the Wasington Post this morning (link is via Yahoo! News, which doesn't require registration): Security Concerns Boosted VeriSign's Dot-Net Bid http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=1804&e=2&u=/washp… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

RE: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent
by John van Oppen 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

As a cogent customer, I still see no routes to 217.167.0.0/16 (the route that holds www.francetelecom.com) via my cogent feed. That /16 also appears to be unreachable from the looking glass on cogent's website still. John van Oppen PocketiNet Communications AS23265 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jonas Frey [mailto:jf@probe-networks.de] Gesendet: Sunday, April 17, 2005 7:36 PM An: nanog(a)nanog.org Betreff: Re: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent Cogent is now reachable from OT and vice versa, apparently Cogent dropped the filters, i see everything passing verio now. Not sure since when this works again. Regards, Jonas

4 4

Re: Service providers that NAT their whole network?
by christian.macnevin＠uk.bnpparibas.com 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

A lot of european mobile providers do this, as they're evolving from addressing their own network and GPRS into 3G and "proper" internet access, if you will. Internet jra@baylink.com@merit.edu - 15/04/2005 20:43 Sent by: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu To: nanog cc: Subject: Re: Service providers that NAT their whole network? On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:39:56PM -0400, Philip Matthews wrote: > A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers > that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their > customers get private addresses rather than public address. > It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers. > > I am trying to get a handle on how common this practice is. > No one that I have asked seems to know any provider that does this, > and a search of a few FAQs plus about an hour of Googling hasn't > turned up anything definite (but maybe I am using the wrong keywords ...). > > Can anyone give me some names of providers that do this? Rose.net, the municipal provider in Thomasville GA. They'll assign you a fixed public address which can be gotten back through if you ask, for extra money, but your interface address will still be in 1918 space. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified. ********************************************************************************************** BNP Paribas Private Bank London Branch is authorised by CECEI & AMF and is regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of its investment business in the United Kingdom. BNP Paribas Securities Services London Branch is authorised by CECEI & AMF and is regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of its investment business in the United Kingdom. BNP Paribas Fund Services UK Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

1 0

Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?
by Dan Lockwood 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

Hi All, I'm trying to get some pricing on an OC-3 that we will be using for voice. We already have a master agreement with SBC for our services. I have the feeling that we are being "oversold" services and/or sold services that are not required for what we need to accomplish. Not doing this everyday, I'm confused about the "Feature Name" of things like: SONET Circuit Service OC3-c (155Mbps) $2200 vs. Central Office Node Circuit Service OC3/3c (155Mbps) $675 Anyone that is knowledgeable about SBC lingo, please feel free to ping me. If you have experience with OC3s even better! ;) Thanks! Dan

18 23

Re: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent
by Richard A Steenbergen 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, dgolding(a)gmu.edu wrote: > Richard, > > Its easy to accuse people of criminality - that's what you just did. How > about some proof? > > Cogent's ratios are very very bad. That's why some people don't like > peering with them. Being sent to sales is a common, if regretable tactic > in depeering. However, dealing with Cogent on peering matters is > incredibly unpleasant. I can understand networks and peering > coordinators feeling that it just isn't worth it. No, you got me wrong. I wasn't suggesting that anyone was doing anything criminal. I was suggesting that Cogent was now so large that if any of the folks who were pissed off at Cogent's disruptive pricing actually wanted to make an impact against them, they would need to get together and take action collectively. Teleglobe tried to depeer them, but ended up needing Savvis to transit the bits to maintain global reachability, which cost them a pretty penny while costing Cogent nothing. In the end, they promptly re-peered. I could certainly see anti-Cogent folks making the point that Cogent has amassed a customer base of people who are fully prepared for poor or partial connectivity, and who just don't care because of the price point. In the game of who can stick their fingers in their ears and hum the longest, I think Cogent will win. At least, if they continue to take on networks who don't like them one-at-a-time, and continue the policy of complete unreachability during depeering. :) -- 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)

23 42

IX Panel for Seattle
by Malayter, Christopher 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

Good Morning Nanog! I am looking for IX Operators of small to medium size, or that of regional scope of interest, or perhaps a naps offering unusual services to present at NANOG-SEA. After Las Vegas, I'm looking for a change of direction to get some new blood in. Smaller, perhaps member based, or not. Please email me with your interest. I need emails in the next 3-5 days with slides 3-5 days after. Thanks! Chris Malayter TDS Telecom - Network Services Data Network Engineering chris.malayter(a)tdstelecom.com Phone: (608) 664-4878 FAX: (608) 664-4644

1 0

RE: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent
by John van Oppen 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

All, Here is an output of show ip bgp regexp _5511_ on my cogent facing router (ie with a full cogent feed)... Most of the prefixes with best paths that are not through cogent don't exist in my cogent route feed at all (even via a non FT path). It looks like things are still a bit wonky. http://as23265.net/cogent.txt Thanks, John van Oppen PocketiNet Communications AS23265 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick@ianai.net] Gesendet: Sunday, April 17, 2005 10:26 PM An: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Betreff: Re: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent On Apr 17, 2005, at 11:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:49 PM, John van Oppen wrote: > > >> As a cogent customer, I still see no routes to 217.167.0.0/16 (the >> route that holds www.francetelecom.com) via my cogent feed. >> >> That /16 also appears to be unreachable from the looking glass on >> cogent's website still. >> > > I can trace from Cogent to FT just fine. > > Haven't checked all possible end points, but my spot check shows > connectivity. Replying to my own post, I still see some Cogent <-> FT strangeness. Tracing to www.opentransit.net works fine, but www.fracetelecom.com dies on the first hop. Spot checking other IPs in FT, they seem to work. Is it just the 'fracetelecom.com' sub-network that is still not connected? Anyone have any more info? -- TTFN, patrick

2 1

BCP for ISP to block worms at PEs and NAS
by Kim Onnel 18 Apr '05

18 Apr '05

Hello, Can someone confirm if my approach explained below is sufficient and if there is other/better ways to do this ? something i am missing. On my Cisco-based SP network with RPMs in MGX chassis acting as PEs: I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to block the common worms ports, On the NAS, i have placed the worm on the Group-Async interfaces so the worms will not propagate between user who dial up on the same NAS, and on the uplink ethernet interface.(in and out) On the PEs, i have placed it on the interface switches for the customers and on the uplink too, and then on the aggregating routers and on the gateway for all these. ip access-list extended worms deny tcp any any eq 5554 deny tcp any any range 135 139 deny udp any any range 135 netbios-ss deny tcp any any eq 445 deny udp any any eq 1026 permit ip any any Regards

8 16