- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Agenda topics (so far) for Eugene
by Susan Harris 25 Sep '02

25 Sep '02

The NANOG26 meeting dates are Oct. 27-29, and you'll find abstracts for most of the talks here: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0210/topics.html Sunday Tutorials --------------- * Managing IP Networks with Free Software (Level: Intermediate) Joe Abley, Internet Software Consortium * IPv6 Basics (Level: Introductory/Intermediate) Tony Hain, Cisco * BGP Troubleshooting Techniques (Level: Introductory/Intermediate) Phil Smith, Cisco * ISP Security - Real World Techniques II Barry Raveendran Greene, Cisco Kevin Houle, CERT General Session --------------- * Update on the National Strategy for Cyberspace Security Paul Kurtz, Office of Cyberspace Security * Operational Feedback to IP Equipment Vendors Vijay Gill, AOL Time Warner * Route Flap Damping: Harmful? Randy Bush, IIJ * Experiences With Developing, Testing, Planning, and Operating IPv6-Enabled Nameservers Paul Vixie, PAIX * How to 0wn the Internet in Your Spare Time Stuart Staniford, Silicon Defense, Vern Paxson, ICSI/ICIR Nicholas Weaver, UC Berkeley * Where Are the Limits of Manageability for RFC 2547 VPNs? Randy Bush, IIJ & Jim Griffin, AT&T Research * Panel: Services, Complexity, and the Internet: What Direction? David Meyer, Sprint & Univ. of Oregon, moderator Randy Bush, IIJ; Vijay Gill, AOL Time Warner; Lixia Zhang, UCLA; Dave Ward, Cisco; Thomas Telkamp, Global Crossing * Panel: Persistent Route Oscillation - Issues and Solutions. Sue Hares, NextHop, moderator Participants to date: Enke Chen, Redback * Toward Lowering the Load on DNS Root Nameservers Duane Wessels, The Measurement Factory/CAIDA * Observation and Analysis of BGP Behavior Under Stress Lan Wang, UCLA; Xiaoliang Zhao, USC/ISI; Dan Pei, UCLA; Randy Bush, IIJ; Daniel Massey, USC/ISI; Allison Mankin, USC/ISI; Felix Wu, UC Davis; Lixia Zhang, UCLA * Panel: Trends in Measurement and Monitoring of Internet Backbones David Meyer, Sprint & Univ. of Oregon, moderator Chris Martin, Verizon; Christophe Diot, Sprintlabs; Jennifer Rexford, AT&T Research; Mujhaid Khan, Sprint; Tony Tauber, Genuity * New Services From the RIPE NCC Henk Uijterwaal, RIPE-NCC * Carrier Class Availability for IP Networks Sanjay Kalra, Juniper * Traffic Characteristics and Capacity Planning Thomas Telkamp, Global Crossing * Commercial IPv6 Deployment by ISPs in Japan J. Hagino, IIJ/KAME * Scriptroute: A Public Internet Measurement Facility Neil Spring, David Wetherall, & Tom Anderson, Department of CSE, University of Washington BOFs ---- * Toolmaker BOF Joe Abley, ISC, moderator * ISP Security BOF I Barry Raveendran Greene, Cisco & Merike Kaeo, merike.com, moderators

1 0

I agree with Susan ....
by Joe Baptista 25 Sep '02

25 Sep '02

and those who are interested in exploring the future of ipv6 and contributing to my next article are welcomed. including my detractors on this list. contact me privately. susans getting a little dictatorial but i'll respect her position if everyone gets spanked. i can support the technical position of my article - but my detractors keep alluding to fiction and never have pointed out what is wrong with the statements made. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communications & Computing Facility a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:06:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Baptista <baptista(a)dot-god.com> To: Susan Harris <srh(a)merit.edu> Cc: nanog-support(a)merit.edu, Publisher - CircleID Network <ali(a)circleid.com> Subject: Re: i think terroists are going to love ipv6 this isn't a political discussion this is fact. but i will cease with the warnings. those who are interested can semd me provate email. i'm pulling together a team to examine these issues. however i do agree with you that politics will impose itself on ipv6 technology. and isp's will be forced to participate in the fight against any form of political lobby against some authority or monied interests. but certainly my concerns with respect ti the spam is critical to this list. at least i see alot of that. now i hope your also sending this warning out to the people who are calling the article nonsens. i expect network administrators top point out where i have been mislead. it is after all leading members of the industry who i have interviewed. vint cerf is no small bananas and the advice provided in the article certainly is relevant to network engineering and operational issues. so i expect you to provide me with some written assurances that those hoi paloy hecklers have been appropriately bitch slapped by you. whats good for the goose is good for the gander so the saying goes. so relax - take a valium - be happy. we both know the isociety tries to quite the truth and i suspect your a leading member here if you don't warn those others. i expect you to do the right thing. love and kisses XOXOXOXOX joe baptista On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Susan Harris wrote: > Mr. Baptista - The NANOG list focuses on discussion of backbone network > engineering and network operational issues. Please keep political > commentary in private email. Refer to the NANOG list AUP: > > http://www.nanog.org/aup.html > > I contacted you two years ago about another AUP violation on your part. If > you continue to violate the AUP, we'll need to remove your posting > privileges from the list. > > Susan Harris, Ph.D. > Merit Network/Univ. of Mich. > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > > > > > > Not commenting on some of the fantasies in the article.... > > > > you should point out any fantasies you find in the article. i can support > > my findings with facts. fiction is a best a condition dictated by > > bureacrats, and on the internet that end up a comedy of errors. ipv6 is > > an end control system at this time in an ipv6 cloud where the ends are > > under complete end user control. i love ipv6. am looking forward to > > playing with it. > > > > > From what I remember China is pretty is active in IPv6 and from the > > > APNIC presentations they also have a allocation. Not sure how come to > > > the conclusions you do.... > > > > who cares. China is not aware of the security implications to the > > homeland. china is after all a nation ruled by madarines. the colours of > > authority change with the wind but the rules of the mandarine class has > > not ended. order is critical to the natural balance of chiness society. > > > > ipv6 challenges order. so what will the nat wall of china do now. i > > shall of course be investigating. i think icann goes to china next ;) > > > > cheers > > joe > > > > > > > > - kurtis - > > > > > > On onsdag, sep 25, 2002, at 11:55 Europe/Stockholm, Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.circleid.com/articles/2539.asp > > > > > > > > and i expect so will freedom fighters in china et. al. Maybe the > > > > subject > > > > of a future interview. and the biggest question of all, will china > > > > block > > > > the ipv6 protocol for homeland security reasons? > > > > > > > > i look forward to some answers. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Joe Baptista > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Planet Communications & Computing Facility > > > > a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: i think terroists are going to love ipv6
by Miquel van Smoorenburg 25 Sep '02

25 Sep '02

In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.33.0209250824550.1530-100000(a)dot-god.com>, Joe Baptista <baptista(a)dot-god.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > >> Not commenting on some of the fantasies in the article.... > >you should point out any fantasies you find in the article. The main focus of this growth is to ensure that the IPv4 distribution nightmare that left Europe, Asia and Africa with an infrastructure shortage is not repeated. Hmm, the old "everything outside the USA is a third world country" again. "Europe has a shortage of IP addresses". Not. Mike. -- Computers are useless, they only give answers. --Pablo Picasso

1 0

Reminder: Pre-NANOG 26 Oregon Rafting Adventure
by Daniel Golding 25 Sep '02

25 Sep '02

Hello! Just a reminder about the Pre-NANOG 26 Oregon Rafting Adventure. (More information lives at http://www.users.qwest.net/~mdrose7/) When: October 26th, the day before NANOG 26 starts. Where: The Upper Mckenzie River, www.hcexpeditions.com What about a Hotel: Many of us are staying the nights before and after at The Belknap Resort, then caravanning to Eugene on Sunday morning. How Far: About 50 miles from Eugene Where should I fly into: PDX Airport - Portland. This should be less expensive than trying to fly into Eugene. Who is running this?: This trip is being coordinated by Mitchell Rose and Daniel Golding. Ren Nowlin ordinarily runs these things, but she's in China, so we have been left in charge. Fear it. :) Who can come: Anyone who wants to. What's included: All day rafting, lunch, and use of the Hot Spring at the Belknap Resort. How Much: $75, but there may be discounts if we can get enough folks. How do I sign up?: Send email to dgold(a)fdfnet.net. I'll get back to you with information on how to sign up. The cutoff date for this adventure is 10/3/02. After that, it's purely "space available" Transportation: None, but we can all carpool there and back. Please let me know if you need or want a ride, or can provide one. Is fun guaranteed?: Yes. Thanks, Daniel Golding and Mitchell Rose

1 0

Re: Whitehouse Tackels Cybersecurity
by Steven M. Bellovin 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

In message <3D8899BF.6060301(a)ehsco.com>, "Eric A. Hall" writes: > > >on 9/18/2002 10:12 AM Sean Donelan wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 sgorman1(a)gmu.edu wrote: >> >>>A little flavor of what I'd alluded to in some of the previous >>>threads. Any guesses what the proposal to change both BGP and DNS to >>>improve security might entail?? >> >> The official document should be posted on WhiteHouse.GOV later today. > >Is it on again? See http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/ A news story I saw said that they're treating this as a draft, too, and asking for two months of public comment. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

29 53

Popular trouble ticket management system for IP NOC
by Yu Ning 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

Hi nanog, Have any idea of the current popular trouble ticket system for the NOC ? The system used to accept, dispatch, close, store and search trouble ticket or customer case ? It's pretty much a NOC work flow system, but more focused on IP NOC. So what's the popular one ? How about HP help desk, or CA ? Any other ? thanks for any input. Yu Ning ______________________________________ (Mr.) Yu Ning, Vice Director Networking & Engineering Dep. North Telecom BU, China Telecom Beijing, P.R.China +86-10-66501239 Personal Page-> http://navidog.126.com ______________________________________

5 5

Cogent service
by Arie Vayner 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

Hi Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) about Cognet as a transit provider in New York? They seem to be too cheap. Arie

18 24

Pricing model for transit services
by Olivier Bonaventure 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

Hello, We are working on a research project on interdomain traffic engineering and would like to quantitatively evaluate interdomain traffic engineering solutions in a realistic way. We have a BGP simulator that allows us to simulate networks with a few hundreds of AS and are adding several mechanisms to this simulator. To complement the simulator, we are looking for realistic cost models of transit services. Since we do not buy transit services, we have some difficulties finding this information. For the moment, our cost models are the following : - flat fee for a L Mbps link - volume based, y $ per Mbps (95% quantile) for a L Mbps link - burstable, flat fee for x Mbps on a L Mbps and z $ per Mbps above x We would like to know whether these three cost models accurately reflect the current pricing schemes of transit services and what are the most popular ones ? If you know other pricing schemes that should be taken into account, we would appreciate to have additional information. I heard of destination-based pricing schemes, but do not have enough details on them and don't know whether they are frequently used. You can either answer directly to us (Olivier.Bonaventure(a)info.fundp.ac.be and suh(a)info.ucl.ac.be) and we will summarize or directly to the list. Thanks a lot for your help, Olivier Bonaventure --- http://www.infonet.fundp.ac.be

7 7

AS3303 customer under attack
by Andre Chapuis 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

Dear NOC /Nanog, We (Swisscom, AS3303) have a customer that is being attacked for about 5 days now. It is a DOS attack with spoofed source IP addresses. The destination network is: 193.77.0.0/16 , as-path 3303 8437 5603 2610 The attack is (at least !) 100Mb/s, and is coming from different peers. Yesterday it was on our peerings with AS7018 and AS6453 in Palo-Alto, today seems to be more on the AADS in Chicago. I applied the following packet filter (access-list 19 below) to all our external links, and there is a huge amount of packet with those source IP coming in. Although we drop these packets at our ingress, may i ask everyone peering with us (and others if you feel concerned) to configure that packet filter in output ? Thanks a lot for your help (or feedback if you are also experiencing such problems) and have a nice day André ----------------------------------------------------------------------- access-list 19 deny 0.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 1.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 2.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 5.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 7.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 14.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 23.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 31.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 36.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 37.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 39.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 41.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 42.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 58.0.0.0 1.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 60.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 70.0.0.0 1.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 72.0.0.0 7.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 82.0.0.0 1.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 84.0.0.0 3.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 88.0.0.0 7.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 96.0.0.0 31.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 169.254.0.0 0.0.255.255 access-list 19 deny 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 access-list 19 deny 176.0.0.0 15.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 192.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 19 deny 192.0.2.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 19 deny 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 access-list 19 deny 222.0.0.0 1.255.255.255 access-list 19 deny 224.0.0.0 31.255.255.255 access-list 19 permit any --------------------- Andre Chapuis IP+ Engineering Swisscom Ltd Genfergasse 14 3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 chapuis(a)ip-plus.net CCIE #6023 ----------------------

1 0

RE: Cogent service
by Frank Scalzo 23 Sep '02

23 Sep '02

This was a totally bogus reason from the very beginning. Given that real backbones carry no prefixes longer than 24 bits the "long" lookup in Last numbers I saw put 701 at over 100k prefixes in the /25-/32 range. The more correct statement is backbones carry no external prefixes longer then /24. The point is there can be a HUGE number of internal prefixes that can make a difference. I will admit 701 route bloat, is not a typical example.

1 0