- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Sprint peering policy
by Patrick W. Gilmore 28 Jun '02

28 Jun '02

At 08:00 PM 6/27/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > >> Pick a strategy and run with it. Being a broadband provider in >> SE Canada, I suggest sniffing out public peering in NYC and CHI >> for a start. IIRC, Hotmail and Y! are at AADS and will peer with >> most anyone -- there's a good chunk of traffic. Now Akamaize >> your network if you haven't already. > >I'm already working on NYC. For Chicago an OC3 connection to AADS would >cost more than the long-haul back to Toronto. I also prefer ethernet >peering instead of ATM. Equinix looks like the best option in Chicago, >but most long-haul carriers are in 600 Federal and not 350 Cermak. > >As for Akamai, I've found very little of my traffic (<5%) is >Akamai. Akamai is at NYIIX anyway, so once I get into 25 Broadway I'd >peer with them. Mind if I ask how you got the traffic stats for Akamai? >-Ralph -- TTFN, patrick

2 1

RE: How do I log on while in flight?
by Irwin Lazar 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

see: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41177,00.html there are several reasons why cell phones aren't allowed to be used on planes, the above citation provides explanations. Irwin -----Original Message----- From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:lachisho@tnc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:54 PM To: Scott Weeks; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: How do I log on while in flight? The FCC prohibits communication using a cellular telephone while in an aircraft in US airspace. In Canada, I don't believe there is such a regulation. >From doing research on this topic earlier this year, I came across news articles that say that several aircraft manufacturers have tested the use of cellular telephones on aircraft systems and found no effects whatsoever. So why the FCC ruling? Likely it's because of the design of the cellular network - which from what I understand, is far more dense in the US than it is in Canada (which might be why the CRTC doesn't have such a prohibition). The problem is what happens when a cellular device is based above the cellular system antennae - there is an ability to connect to multiple systems simultaneously, and that's something the system wasn't designed to see happen. Additionally, there's the hand-off factor, of the negotiation process of what happens when you leave the range of one cellular tower and enter the range of another. In an aircraft, that happens at a rate greater than would be if the cellular phone were used in a car - so again, there's a problem there. The Airphone system found on commercial aircraft was designed to overcome these limitations - which is why they CAN be used onboard commercial aircraft systems. So, besides it being illegal, you run the risk of taking down your service provider's cellular network - and from what I've heard, this doesn't make them very happy. In summary - don't do it. -- Leigh Anne Chisholm Network Engineer Applied Design Networks > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Scott Weeks > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:11 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: How do I log on while in flight? > > I was wondering if any of y'all could give me pointers to services I could > use to log into a network during flight on a private airplane. For example > a person is in flight cross-country and needs to do a videoconference, > send email from his network to interested parties, or any of the normal > things we do from the ground. Is this possible or would it interfere with > the plane's other systems? > > scott

1 0

Re: ARIN IP allocation question
by Robert Tarrall 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

"Jeff Nelson" wrote: -> Small ISP or no, how far off are you from begin multi-homed? Growing pains Pretty far off. The reason we went with Viawest is that we're colo-ed in a very good facility (Level3's colo in downtown Denver) and Viawest is multi-homed through TouchAmerica, Level3, and Internap. Internap are themselves of course very well interconnected locally. Doing multihoming in-house wouldn't necessarily improve reliability; it'd just shift the failure point from Viawest's router to our own, meaning much more $$$ worth of router here and much more administrative load for me. I really doubt I can do a better job of running BGP than Internap, or even Viawest. -> leasing from ARIN is best for you. If you see continued growth, I would make -> the plunge and revel in the discoveries. Yup. Right now we've got a nice, steady, maintainable growth rate; unless our business model changes it'll be years before we need a /21. In reality a large and obvious "sea change" in the ISP business or in our business model would precede any need for a big block of addresses here. If things look like they're changing (or if it looks like Viawest and Level3 are both going under) I'll definitely be talking with ARIN; until then there should be no need. -> You can be allocated blocks from ARIN in a 2-3 week period of time; another -> provider bringing you a DS-3 (or whatever) could take 6+ depending on your -> location. One of the nice things about the Level3 colo (or any large colo, really) is that the slowest part of adding a DS-3 is the cross-connect. We got a DS-3 from XO a while back and XO's end was done in about 5 days. Took 3-4 weeks for Level3 to run the cross-connect, of course. -Robert Tarrall.- Unix System/Network Admin E.Central/Neighborhood Link

1 0

Re: ARIN IP allocation questionn
by Joel Baker 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

At the request of my employer, I will be making no further posts on this topic. Disclaimers are apparently insufficient, though I would politely remind everyone reading that I spoke on my behalf only, and not that of the company. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer(a)lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

1 0

Re: ARIN IP allocation questionn
by Joel Baker 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:56:26AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > >My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once > >they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock > >assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept through another > >change...) > > The guidelines have a strong preference for singly-homed networks to > use IP address space allocated to them from their upstreams. I can think > of no logical reason* an ISP would prefer their customers to go to ARIN > rather than deal with them. The global routing table is better off for it > as well, as the customer's /20 would be a new route, rather than being > included in their provider's presumably larger block. The assumption that the ISP has a larger block is not always a wise one to make. > On the other hand, I can think of many reasons a customer would prefer > to deal with ARIN than their upstream, assuming the meager cost wasn't a > factor and they don't mind polluting the global table a tad. Of course, > that's not really an operational issue. Most of the places I've worked would be charging them for the IP usage either way, since the ISP has to pay ARIN, eventually... > DS > > * The only reason I could possibly think of is if the ISP is afraid that > the large allocation will impact their future allocations because they > don't have the confidence or competence to extract a proper justification > from their customer and present/defend that justification to ARIN when > their next allocation comes up. But this wasn't the reason you were > thinking of, right? See above. Sometimes you have lots of IP space, but nothing *large*, due to business constraints. This often changes over time, but some of us don't have multiple legacy /16s from Back In The Day (and then again, some of us do - but not the 'us' I work for, anymore). Not under NDA, since all of it can be found by asking ARIN, of course. :) -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer(a)lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

3 2

MPLScon
by Irwin Lazar 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

I'm looking for folks to participate as speakers or panel members at MPLScon in October in Denver. For obvious reasons, finding people who work for carriers and can commit to traveling to Denver has been extremely difficult. If there are any folks on this list who are interested in talking about their operational experiences with MPLS, and are local to the Denver area (or can travel there), please contact me off list at ilazar(a)mplscon.com <mailto:ilazar@mplscon.com> . I'm currently recruiting for panel discussions related to MPLS VPN security, OAM, and MPLS vs. ATM. Thanks, Irwin --- Irwin Lazar Conference Director, MPLScon Next Event: October 7-10, Denver, CO E-Mail: <mailto:ilazar@mplscon.com> ilazar(a)mplscon.com Phone: 703-742-9659 Cell: 703-402-4119 http://www.mplscon.com/ <http://www.mplscon.com/>

1 0

SSHD
by Ian A Finlay 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

Not sure if folks have seen this. If not, better go read it. http://www.openssh.com/txt/preauth.adv http://www.openssh.com/txt/iss.adv -Ian

3 2

Controlling Spam to the NOC
by Jeff Workman 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

Hello, Has anybody on this list figured out an effective way to eliminiate, or at least severely limit, the amount of spam that arrives in your NOC? I am aware of solutions such as Spamassassin, Vipul's Razor, and the various RBL lists, but has anybody used one of these solutions, or anything else, to reduce the amount of spam going into noc@/trouble@/etc mailboxes without severely restricting the rest of the internet's ability to reach the noc via email for legitimate purposes? Particularly in a NOC where it's quite possible that some of your customers are listed in the RBLs but still need to reach you. -Jeff -- Jeff Workman | jworkman(a)pimpworks.org | http://www.pimpworks.org

4 3

KPNQwest
by Majdi S. Abbas 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

AMSTERDAM, June 27 (Reuters) - U.S. telecoms giant AT&T is no longer interested in bidding for Europe's largest data network that was owned by bankrupt KPNQwest because of legal and ownership issues, sources close to the talks said on Thursday. Ouch. Good luck to all the EBone folks, --msa

1 0

ARIN IP allocation question
by tarrall＠ecentral.com 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

So, after lurking here for about 4 years I actually have a question... We're a fairly small ISP; we currently have a /24, a /25, and a /28 allocated piecemeal from our upstream's two /19s. (Upstream is Viawest). Now that we've rolled out DSL we're needing a bit more space - based on current trends about 200 addresses over the next 6-12 months. Viawest has just told me that their policy is that customers who go over a /23 worth of address space must request further space directly from ARIN. In other words, we're supposed to call ARIN up and get a private /24 for this. We're not multi-homed; we have absolutely no need for a private /24 instead of a chunk of Viawest's existing space. We're not growing rapidly and it's very unlikely we'll more than 4 class C's worth of address space in the next 4 years. Questions: can we actually qualify for a /24 from ARIN? Will all NSPs accept a private /24 announced from Viawest without us having to track down each NSP and negotiate with them? Will the ARIN fee be $2500? Is refusing to provide small blocks out of their own address space a common practise for NSPs? The private /24 issue makes me mildly grouchy due to the whole "global routing table size" issue, but the $2500/year makes me REALLY grouchy, especially as that same /24 would cost our upstream about $40/year. Thanks - -Robert Tarrall.- Unix System/Network Admin E.Central/Neighborhood Link

6 5