- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

NANOG meeting stats
by Susan Harris 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Greetings - here's some info about the last NANOG meeting. ================================================================= NANOG 25 June 9-11 Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada Host: Group Telecom Total Attendees: 509 (up from 425 at NANOG24) Speakers: 39 (3 panels) Countries represented: 17 Wireless card loans: 52 Typical # of ethernet users: 33 Largest simultaneous # of wireless users: 400 Concurrent multicast viewers: ~20 to 30 Unique multicast viewers: ~50 to 100 Concurrent RealMedia viewers: up to 85 Multicast broadcast: University of Oregon, Cisco Squid, DNS, DHCP: Packet Pushers Meeting coordination: Merit Sponsors: Avici, Extreme, Group Telecom, Juniper, OPNET, Pluris, Redback, Riverstone, RouteScience

1 0

Off-topic - 802.1Q
by Jeff Oliver 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Sorry for the off-topic request, but can anyone point me to a copy of the 802.1Q spec? Jeff -- Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...... -- Jeffrey L. Oliver Email: jeff.oliver(a)uleth.ca Network Analyst Web: http://telecom.uleth.ca Telecommunications Unit The University of Lethbridge Cell: 403.315.4461 4401 University Drive Lethbridge, Alberta Tel: 403.329.5162 Canada, T1K3M4 Fax: 403.382.7108 --

3 2

RE: ATTBI refuses to do reverse DNS?
by Rowland, Alan D 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

As an ATTBI customer at home (only [reasonably priced] high speed available in the area), the recent network/service changes being rolled out have a high negative pressure coefficient. Haven't tried FTP lately, will have to see if it still works on 'my' network tonight! I do know their USENET feed has gotten 'interesting' in the last week. Lots of 'there is no such group' with lots of new, mainly full of 'local' spam groups and significant numbers of 'no new articles' for days in normally high traffic hierarchies. Almost seems like their services are now being admin'd in China or something. Just my 2¢. The delete key is your friend. -Al -----Original Message----- From: Lou Katz [mailto:lou@metron.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:31 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: ATTBI refuses to do reverse DNS? A client of mine just discovered that he could no longer do ftp transfers to my machine. His IP address had changed to one in 12.240.20 and there is no reverse DNS for that block. His previous assignment was in a totally different block which did have reverse DNS. Calls to ATTBI got the answer that they are not obligated to provide reverse DNS and have no plans to do so. My servers refuse connections when there is no reverse lookup. Is this common? -- I suppose I could set up a bogus reverse for him, but, feh... -=[L]=-

1 0

ConfigMaker Beta
by jim bruer 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

I send you this file for your advice. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

4 4

Re: remember the "diameter of the internet"?
by Mathew Lodge 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

At 07:28 PM 6/18/2002 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >Path is one of the last things to be checked > >BGP first checks all kinds of network admin defined things such as local >prefs etc which ought to be properly set by the admins to ensure traffic >is going the best way (which should include local interconnects rather >than last resort transits). Then all things being well BGP can make >choices on path! So, you're advocating that the admin do all of the optimization manually for all destinations by setting preferences? Mathew >On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Mathew Lodge wrote: > > > > > At 01:33 PM 6/18/2002 -0400, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote: > > >Are you asking _why_ there are so many hops between yourself and the guy > > >across town? > > > > He's not, but answer is that BGP's key metric is AS path length. This can > > have very little to do with the optimality (expressed as efficient use of > > resources) of the actual packet path. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mathew > > > > > > > > > > >Jane > > > > > >brett watson wrote: > > > > > > > > i sit behind cox-cable service at home, and in troubleshooting why my > > > > connectivity is *so* horrible, i find the following traceroute. does > > > > anyone do any sane routing anymore? does diameter matter (we used > to talk > > > > about it a long, long while ago). i guess i'm just old and crusty > but this > > > > seems to violate so many natural laws. > > > > > > > > i find in more random testing that i seem to be a minimum of 15 > hops from > > > > anything, and it's not just the # of hops, it's the *paths* i travel. > > > > bouncing between two cities several times, on several different > provider > > > > networks, from one border to the other. > > > > > > > > wow. > > > > > > > > -b > > > > > > > > traceroute www.caida.org > > > > > > > > 1 10.113.128.1 30 unavailable > > > > 2 68.2.6.25 10 ip68-2-6-25.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 3 68.2.0.26 40 ip68-2-0-26.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 4 68.2.0.18 50 ip68-2-0-18.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 5 68.2.0.10 20 ip68-2-0-10.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 6 68.2.0.70 10 ip68-2-0-70.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 7 68.2.14.13 10 chnddsrc02-gew0303.rd.ph.cox.net > > > > 8 68.1.0.168 20 chndbbrc02-pos0101.rd.ph.cox.net > > > > 9 68.1.0.146 30 dllsbbrc01-pos0102.rd.dl.cox.net > > > > 10 12.119.145.125 40 unavailable > > > > 11 12.123.17.54 30 gbr6-p30.dlstx.ip.att.net > > > > 12 12.122.5.86 51 gbr4-p90.dlstx.ip.att.net > > > > 13 12.122.2.114 80 gbr2-p30.kszmo.ip.att.net > > > > 14 12.122.1.93 50 gbr1-p60.kszmo.ip.att.net > > > > 15 12.122.2.42 70 gbr4-p40.sl9mo.ip.att.net > > > > 16 12.122.2.205 60 gbr3-p40.cgcil.ip.att.net > > > > 17 12.123.5.145 60 ggr1-p360.cgcil.ip.att.net > > > > 18 207.88.50.253 90 unavailable > > > > 19 64.220.0.189 80 ge5-3-1.RAR1.Chicago-IL.us.xo.net > > > > 20 65.106.1.86 70 p0-0-0-0.RAR2.Chicago-IL.us.xo.net > > > > 21 65.106.0.34 60 p1-0-0.RAR1.Dallas-TX.us.xo.net > > > > 22 65.106.0.14 120 p6-0-0.RAR2.LA-CA.us.xo.net > > > > 23 64.220.0.99 80 ge1-0.dist1.lax-ca.us.xo.net > > > > 24 206.111.14.238 211 a2-0d2.dist1.sdg-ca.us.xo.net > > > > 25 209.31.222.150 80 unavailable > > > > 26 198.17.46.56 140 pinot.sdsc.edu > > > > 27 192.172.226.123 91 cider.caida.org > > > > | Mathew Lodge | mathew(a)cplane.com | | Director, Product Management | Ph: +1 408 789 4068 | | CPLANE, Inc. | http://www.cplane.com |

3 3

PacBell contact?
by David G. Andersen 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

We're seeing some strange packet dropping behavior with a monitoring host on PacBell DSL - if we send two packets back to back, the probability that both get dropped is actually higher than the probability of losing one packet if it's sent alone. We're trying to explain the behavior to understand in what situations some of our tools won't work, and I'd like to chat with someone in the know. (PacBell's trouble@ address didn't seem like the right place). Or, if anyone knows what kind of traffic shaping equipment or other such would exhibit that behavior, I'd love to know. The only places we've seen this are on DSL and Cable modem links. Thanks! -Dave -- work: dga(a)lcs.mit.edu me: dga(a)pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/

1 0

Re: XO
by blitz 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

At 12:46 6/18/02 -0400, you wrote: >On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > The difference is XO will be fine, Adelphia will be bought by <EVIL>, or > > potentially liquidated. > >They're talking about selling out to Charter. The deal with Charter fell through a week ago.....Adelphia's so dirty, no one wants to touch them...guess we'll wait for the fire sale.

2 1

XO
by blitz 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Did I hear right on the nightly news, XO went bankrupt today? Presently, we're taking bets on when Adelphia goes chapter 11...

7 6

[Fwd: FOUND VIRUS IN MAIL from <owner-nanog@merit.edu>]
by Larry Rosenman 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Fair Warning.... -----Forwarded Message----- From: vscan(a)lerctr.org To: virusalert(a)lerctr.org Subject: FOUND VIRUS IN MAIL from <owner-nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: 17 Jun 2002 22:48:16 -0500 A virus was found in an email from: <owner-nanog(a)merit.edu> The message was addressed to: -> <ler(a)lerami.lerctr.org> The message has been quarantined as: /var/virusmails/virus-20020617-224816-21028 Here is the output of the scanner: Scanning /var/amavis/amavis-milter-4Oa4l925/parts/* Scanning file /var/amavis/amavis-milter-4Oa4l925/parts/msg-21028-1.txt Scanning file /var/amavis/amavis-milter-4Oa4l925/parts/msg-21028-2.html Scanning file /var/amavis/amavis-milter-4Oa4l925/parts/msg-21028-3.exe /var/amavis/amavis-milter-4Oa4l925/parts/msg-21028-3.exe Found the DDoS-Slack trojan !!! Summary report on /var/amavis/amavis-milter-4Oa4l925/parts/* File(s) Total files: ........... 3 Clean: ................. 2 Possibly Infected: ..... 1 Here are the headers: ------------------------- BEGIN HEADERS ----------------------------- Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0FA7F9124E; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing(a)trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B621F9124F; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61099124E for <nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8CCEA5DE57; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog(a)merit.edu Received: from web21109.mail.yahoo.com (web21109.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.227.111]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id D92105DE52 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:45:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20020618034556.54382.qmail(a)web21109.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.36.89.121] by web21109.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:45:56 PDT Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:45:56 -0700 (PDT) From: jim bruer <jim_teh_man(a)yahoo.com> Subject: ConfigMaker Beta To: nanog(a)merit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-340633384-1024371956=:50295" Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing(a)merit.edu X-Loop: nanog -------------------------- END HEADERS ------------------------------ -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(a)lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

3 3

RE: Qwest leaking routes?
by Jeff Harper 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Humble suggestion would be to block the advert of RFC 1918 addresses at your peering points. Jeff Harper, VCE, CNEP IEEE#: 40306184 Manager of Network Engineering Verizon Internet Services [AS 6541/AS 6976] 214.513.6791 | jharper(a)vzlink.com -----Original Message----- From: Vinny Abello [mailto:vinny@tellurian.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:47 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Qwest leaking routes? Has anyone else noticed that Qwest appears to be leaking routes to 10.0.0.0/8?? BGP routing table entry for 10.0.0.0/8, version 1073573 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 1784 209 216.182.0.65 (metric 5803520) from 216.182.0.65 (216.182.0.65) Origin IGP, localpref 90, valid, internal, best Vinny Abello Network Engineer Server Management vinny(a)tellurian.com (973)300-9211 x 125 (973)940-6125 (Direct) Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com (888)TELLURIAN

1 0