- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: teleglobe broken?
by Martin, Steve 04 Jan '02

04 Jan '02

Not at PAIX...looks like BGP is broken: Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 207.45.196.77 4 6453 2355400 267091 0 0 0 00:12:44 Active But traffic did shift to AADS. Regards, Steve Steve Martin Sr. Manager; Network Engineering and Ops Conxion Corporation 4201 Burton Drive Santa Clara, CA 95054 DID: 408.566.8565 FAX: 408.988.0003 Cell: 408.309.7109 Pager: page.steve(a)conxion.net -----Original Message----- From: Paul Nguyen [mailto:paul@gotrice.com] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:16 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: teleglobe broken? anyone able to use any of the routes they get from teleglobe right now? like at paix? -p

1 0

RE: FATPipe vs. BGP
by Lee Watterworth 04 Jan '02

04 Jan '02

F5 announced a new product which will apparently accomplish the same thing, although there are no technical documents available for it yet... http://secure.f5.com/news/releases/release121201.html <http://secure.f5.com/news/releases/release121201.html> -Lee -----Original Message----- From: James Smith [mailto:jsmith@PRESIDIO.com] Sent: January 3, 2002 5:43 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: FATPipe vs. BGP Anyone deploy FATPipe boxes yet? Just got through a preso about it, they bill it as a highly survivable VPN solution, but also as a way of getting multiple inbound/outbound/backup pipes to work from multiple providers without having to use BGP. They actually use DNS with a short TTL (under 10 seconds) to do the failover on inbound. With failover related to TTL, I can guess which way the users want the knob to turn... My concern is the need for the box to be your primary (authoritative) DNS in this role, with no secondary DNS support (available in the 2.0 release, I was told). No need to tell me how bad of an idea this is, what I'm looking for is actual "by golly, we did it, and this is what we ran into" stories. Especially from multi-site, multi-sub-domain sites. I bet it is a pain to keep all those primary DNS servers in sync... http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com <http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com> James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation <include> fancy.sig

1 0

Interface error_rates question
by Holmes, Daniel 04 Jan '02

04 Jan '02

I'm looking for some real user input from network operators: To what degree would you want to be able to measure error_rates on device interfaces. Many tools currently calculate 1% and above (so if you have .9% it is displayed as 0%) but it is quite possible users may want to measure fractional percentages as well. Does anyone have any opinions/preferences based on your current experience? Does it matter the type of interface you are managing (Ethernet, serial, etc.)? Thanks - Dan Holmes

2 1

FATPipe vs. BGP
by James Smith 03 Jan '02

03 Jan '02

Anyone deploy FATPipe boxes yet? Just got through a preso about it, they bill it as a highly survivable VPN solution, but also as a way of getting multiple inbound/outbound/backup pipes to work from multiple providers without having to use BGP. They actually use DNS with a short TTL (under 10 seconds) to do the failover on inbound. With failover related to TTL, I can guess which way the users want the knob to turn... My concern is the need for the box to be your primary (authoritative) DNS in this role, with no secondary DNS support (available in the 2.0 release, I was told). No need to tell me how bad of an idea this is, what I'm looking for is actual "by golly, we did it, and this is what we ran into" stories. Especially from multi-site, multi-sub-domain sites. I bet it is a pain to keep all those primary DNS servers in sync... http:\\www.fatpipeinc.com James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation <include> fancy.sig

1 0

AT&T Trouble
by Ian A Finlay 03 Jan '02

03 Jan '02

Anyone know why? -Ian bash-2.04$ traceroute -I www.google.com traceroute to www.google.com (216.239.33.101), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 CYH-A100-VL10.GW.CMU.NET (128.2.10.254) 0.765 ms 0.435 ms 0.422 ms 2 HYPER-VL255.GW.CMU.NET (128.2.255.7) 0.462 ms 0.466 ms 0.461 ms 3 bar-cmu-g4-0-0-0.psc.net (192.88.115.181) 0.343 ms 0.318 ms 0.315 ms 4 nss5-foo.psc.net (192.88.115.3) 4.522 ms 4.253 ms 5.003 ms 5 12.124.235.73 (12.124.235.73) 15.778 ms 14.019 ms 12.569 ms 6 gbr2-p70.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.123.9.46) 13.540 ms 13.694 ms 13.477 ms 7 12.122.11.161 (12.122.11.161) 31.691 ms 15.734 ms 16.668 ms 8 * * *

3 3

Re: AT&T Trouble
by smd＠clock.org 03 Jan '02

03 Jan '02

Cool, someone has resurrected ftpmail and now it does looking glass things. Sean.

1 0

Re: Automated DLR conflict detection
by Steven M. Bellovin 03 Jan '02

03 Jan '02

In message <Pine.GSO.4.40.0112290239530.29284-100000(a)clifden.donelan.com>, Sean Donelan writes: > > >On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Peter Galbavy wrote: >> You misunderstand. Which operators will offer this (backed by some >> underwritten insurance) in an effort to be better than the competition ? > >Buying car insurance doesn't alter the chances of your car breaking >down on a long trip. Insurance doesn't alter the chances of something >bad happening. Driver training, seat belts, and spare tires are things >which can reduce risk. Yes, but insurance companies often move in and set certain behavioral requirements as a coverage requirement, just to cut their own payouts. To give just a couple of examples, both Underwriters' Laboratories and the National Electrical Code are spinoffs of the insurance industry. To return to your analogy, maybe you can only buy car insurance, or buy it at a reasonable rate, if you first bring your car in for a checkup and replace the bald tires. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com

12 15

hicups w/ 24
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 03 Jan '02

03 Jan '02

Per the registration page for NANOG24, there is an 800 number for toll-free registration. That number, 800.327.3005, is simply a referal to the correct number, 800.327.0200. The folks at this number are not able to book at the NANOG rate. They will insist that you book directly with the hotel. FYI & YMMV. --bill

2 1

NANOG 24 Meeting Information
by Carol Wadsworth 02 Jan '02

02 Jan '02

Happy New Year! Registration is now *open* for the 24th Meeting of the North American Network Operators' Group. The meeting will be held February 10-12 at the Hotel Inter-Continental in Miami, Florida, and will be hosted by Terremark Worldwide, Inc. Meeting Information: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0202 Online Registration Form: https://www.merit.edu/nanog/registration.form.html.0202 Hotel Information: http://nanog.org/mtg-0202/hotel.html

1 0

Public peering points in OC, CA
by Dr. Mosh 02 Jan '02

02 Jan '02

Anyone know any public peering facilities in Orange County, CA? Private replies thanks.

1 0