- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

30 Gmail Invites
by Todd Mitchell - lists 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

16 16

RE: European Nanog?
by Michel Renfer 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Hi Nicolas > The "NOG" philosophy don't work in Europe. That's not correct. The concept works in switzerland with SwiNOG very well - at least two meetings every year and a good organized communitiy behind SwiNOG. http://www.swinog.ch cheers, michel

2 1

Problem
by Abhishek Verma 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Hi Nanogers, A brief introduction before i begin. I am Abhishek and am doing my masters in Comp Sc. from IT BHU. This is my first mail to Nanog, which i believe has the most number of network operators in its list. We have simulated a mini model of the Internet here in our labs with around 50 dedicated linux machines. We use and play around with Zebra for routing. I know its a small number to simulate the 'Internet' but its something that we have just started off with, and we hope to expand as time flies by. We are now facing a small problem and i want to know what people, who manage the 'real' networks do in such cases: We use a combination of OSPF and ISIS inside the autonomous systems as the IGPs and BGP4 as the EGP to interconnect the ASes. I am receiving two BGPv4 routes for a network (some server announcement) from two of my upstream peers (each of which happens to be, unfortunately in a different AS). For me both the routes are similar in preference & hence can install both of them in my forwarding table to split the traffic across these autonomous systems. My question is, that is this allowed and is it the right thing to do? What i mean by this is, that if i install the two routes in my forwarding table, and i announce just one, then am i not hiding information about the routes that i am using from my downstream peers? I take it, that this is a very normal scenario and people on this list must have seen it many times. How do people deal with this. Do they install just one route, despite having multiple ways to reach a network(s). Thanks, Abhishek P.S. I searched for a group similar to Nanog that caters to South East Asia and found out about SANOG. Is the group alive? I could see no mail archives there. -- Class of 2004 Institute of Technology Varanasi -- India

1 0

Re: 30 Gmail Invites
by Robert Bonomi 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Sat Sep 11 21:58:47 2004 > From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(a)research.att.com> > To: Paul Vixie <vixie(a)vix.com> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: 30 Gmail Invites > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:54:16 -0400 > > > In message <g38ybgi5nd.fsf(a)sa.vix.com>, Paul Vixie writes: > > > >i still can't understand why anyone would want a gmail account, free or not. > > > >not just "anyone on nanog". anyone, anywhere, ever. the reasons "why not" > >are compelling enough. but there are no counterbalancing reasons "why to", > >either compelling or otherwise. > > I agree. The privacy implications are *really* scary. (And they're > sufficiently worse for non-subscribers that I've contemplated blocking > gmail-bound messages from my (personal) systems.) > > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb > > > From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Sat Sep 11 21:58:47 2004 > From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(a)research.att.com> > To: Paul Vixie <vixie(a)vix.com> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: 30 Gmail Invites > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:54:16 -0400 > > > In message <g38ybgi5nd.fsf(a)sa.vix.com>, Paul Vixie writes: > > > >i still can't understand why anyone would want a gmail account, free or not. > > > >not just "anyone on nanog". anyone, anywhere, ever. the reasons "why not" > >are compelling enough. but there are no counterbalancing reasons "why to", > >either compelling or otherwise. > > I agree. The privacy implications are *really* scary. (And they're > sufficiently worse for non-subscribers that I've contemplated blocking > gmail-bound messages from my (personal) systems.) While we're on _that_ subject, what about Postini, or Brightmail, or -any- other big provider (e.g. SBC/Yahoo) that handles mail for multiple 'client' domains? Every one of those folks also reads and analyzes everybody's incoming mail, including correlating it with mail sent to other destination on their systems. AND correlating source (IP address and/or email address) with content.

4 3

Re: ISP Policies
by Rohit Gupta 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

On a related note : Do ISPs ever tweak around with Local Prefs and weights so as to select BGP paths with greater AS PATH length? Would it ever make sense for a provider to chose a longer AS PATH length BGP route against a shorter AS PATH length route? Rohit MTech Comp Sc. Institute of Technology Banaras Hindu University ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" To: Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:27 PM Subject: Re: ISP Policies At 11:04 AM +0530 9/9/04, Tulip Rasputin wrote: Hi Chris, Or, you just don't want to send traffic through Bill Manning's ASN because you dislike his hawiian T-Shirt Policy? There are probably a few hundred reasosn why you'd avoid an ASN... In general though I'd think that like Michel said: "It's a pain and its doing something that bgp should do for you without lots of messing about" That's why i explicitly asked for some "social/political/etc." reasons where an ISP may not want his traffic to traverse some particular AS number(s). Something which is beyond BGP to determine as of now ! :-) Indiatimes Email now powered by APIC Advantage. Help! HelpClick on the image to chat with me

3 2

Re: Untrustworthy Internet providers
by J. Oquendo 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

On Sat, 12 Sep 2004, Sean Donelan wrote: > The folks with the tinfoil hats are going to need extra shielding. http://www.politrix.org/mgz/tinfoil.jpg > If you believe your provider is untrustworthy, mail storage is a small > part of your problems. An untrustworthy provider doesn't need to run > the mail server to watch the traffic to and from it. Encryption helps a > little, but that's true even if you used a provider's mail server. > Encryption is difficult for most people to do well. If you put a > personal server in a co-lo, remember the co-lo provider potentially has > physical access to your equipment on their premises. In regards to having one's server in co-lo facilities, one can ensure their server is guarded by either having the machine startup with a password. Should some provider attempt to reboot into some form of shell it would still take some time to break a password and get in the machine. By the time (if the right measures were taken) your server went down, if you had proper monitoring on the machine, you would know and hopefully you would go on to auditing your machine. Otherwise it would take minutes to reproduce your disk which is threatening considering anyone possibly a competitor could access some sensitive information using tools small enough to hide under their arm. (http://ics.forensic.e-symposium.com/computerforensics/) This reminds me of the security at what used to be Exodus in Jersey City. Back in 1996 I worked for one company through 1999. In 99 I went to work elsewhere for a company with co-lo machines in the same facility. Of course I went through the rigorous ID'ing of proving who I was, where I worked along with all the fax information etc., and wouldn't you know it, short of stopping to take DNA samples, Exodus staff badged me with my previous employers information. When the keys were handed over I responded I no longer worked there. Go figure. > On the other hand, if your trust your provider enough to believe it will > conform to the law and contractural arrangements, you may make a > rational choice to rely on the service provider to maintain a mail > server instead of trying to maintain one yourself. Some people hide > their money in a mattress in their house, other people keep valuables in > a safe deposit box at a bank. If it's your own business, I personally feel you should take your own steps to ensure your data is protected. No one else will do the job you want. You might get all of the soupy sales talk, but the work will to some degree be subpar. One of my petpeeves with my current location is they're relying on Postini for filtering. Sure Postini does so and so filtering, but 1) they don't even use SSL, 2) they're configured to know our users' passwords and usernames which is horrible. I argued about doing our own RBL's and filtering even blocking entire subnets but some of our loony customers have called with even loonier comments such as "Is there a problem on your network today? I haven't gotten my spam" (not kidding) Being I'm just your *.Corp lacky and have become tired of rambling on, I laugh it off when poop hits the fan with a silent "told you so." > US law may still be developing in the area of stored electronic > information in comparison to physical storage. US Supreme Court > Justice Marshall said in Couch (1973) "Placing [records] in a safe > deposit box is different from letting them remain for many years with an > accountant." In the electronic world how different is storing a file > on a floppy disc in a physical safe deposit box of a bank for more > than 180 days different than storing the same file online in an > "electronic vault" of a Internet service provider for more than 180 > days? If I'm not mistaken Sarbanes Oxley placed some really harsh standards for providers. I started reading through some of the issues on the tech side of that law, but am still catching up on CALEA, CHIPs, and other fuzzy little acronym(aged) laws that sprout up like nasty weeds =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x51F9D78D Fingerprint 2A48 BA18 1851 4C99 CA22 0619 DB63 F2F7 51F9 D78D http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x51F9D78D sil @ politrix . org http://www.politrix.org sil @ infiltrated . net http://www.infiltrated.net "How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster?" Joseph McCarthy "America's Retreat from Victory"

1 0

Please *stop* with the GMAIL invites
by Etaoin Shrdlu 11 Sep '04

11 Sep '04

Trust me, anyone that has a gmail account now has invites. They're a dime a dozen, and it only comes across as spam, in my book. If you want to play the game of who's in, and who isn't, I suggest you go play on orkut, where there's still a pretense of exclusivity. Please consider the charter of the list when you post these things. Some of us read multiple mailing lists, and this sort of thing just adds to the noise. We now return to our regularly scheduled SPF flame fests. -- I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all. (Alexis de Toqueville)

1 0

Looking Glass Wiki & Route Server Wiki
by Janet Sullivan 11 Sep '04

11 Sep '04

The URL for the BGP4.net looking glass wiki has changed to simply "www.bgp4.net/lg". Likewise, the route server wiki can be found at "www.bgp4.net/rs". Thanks to those of you who have pitched in with wiki updates.

1 0

Re: Odd behavior from p4-0-0.MAR1.Austin-TX.us.xo.net
by rwcrowe＠comcast.net 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

The loop seems to be in AS 2828 (XO Communications) with router at 64.1.2.38. -- Rob Crowe rwcrowe(a)comcast.net -------------- Original message -------------- > > > We are originating traffic from AS11 and we are seeing an apparent loop > downstream from the router listed in the header when attempting to connect > to rsync1.spamhaus.org. > > Is this problem unique to us or are others seeing the same behavior. > Scott C. McGrath

3 3

Qwest engineer?
by andrew2＠one.net 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Sorry to bother the whole list with this...could someone involved in routing at Qwest ping me offlist? Thanks, Andrew

1 0