- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

traffic graphs
by Ian A Finlay 02 Jan '02

02 Jan '02

Are there carriers other than AboveNet (I mean MFN) that provide traffic graphs? I'm thinking of something similar to http://west-boot.mfnx.net/traffic/. I know there are a number of smaller carriers that provide graphs, but it seems the larger ones don't. For example, I can't seem to find the same thing for carriers like Qwest or UUNET. Qwest and UUNET *do* provide latency figures, but no traffic graphs that I can find... Thanks, Ian

2 2

gps time server problems ?
by Pierfrancesco Caci 02 Jan '02

02 Jan '02

Hi, anyone else is having problems with ntp servers based on gps receivers? Both ours are drifting away since yesterday, and are now reporting some stardate around 2021 :-( One is a TrueTime NTS-90-GPS and the other is a similar model from the same brand. Thanks Pf -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pierfrancesco Caci | System Administrator @ seabone.net p.caci(a)seabone.net | Telecom Italia S.p.A. - International Operations Linux paperino 2.4.16 #1 Mon Nov 26 16:28:11 CET 2001 i686 unknown

4 5

.edu Registry change
by Rodney Joffe 02 Jan '02

02 Jan '02

Hello, It appears that the .edu TLD is now administered by Educause (http://www.educause.edu) and not Verisign (authorized by the Dept. of Commerce last April). However, the verisign-grs system has not been updated, despite notifications to Verisign. As a result, if you attempt to follow the crsnic.net delegation tree, you will have whois data returned by Verisign that claims to be authoritative, but is incorrect and out of date. Don't use it. If you need to track down whois data for any .edu, either connect to their port 43 server at whois.educause.edu, or their web interface at http://www.educause.edu/edudomain/ Whois-servers.net has been updated correctly and GeekTools SuperWhois will be updated during the day tomorrow (Wed 02/01/02). -- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(R)

1 1

C&W Outage
by Rodney Joffe 01 Jan '02

01 Jan '02

It seems that C & W's LD network suffered a problem at around 7pm EST (0001 on Jan 1 2002) in at least the AZ area, and possibly wider. Their Tandem switches are reporting a carrier fail to the ILEC switches. We're currently only able to dial out using our AT&T circuits, and we're unable to reach any NOC 800 numbers that are on the C&W network (for example, C&W's own 800 number at 800-486-8686). No master ticket yet. If you need to reach them, the best way in appears to be (703) 790-5300. Y2K+2? -- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(R)

1 0

OUTAGE: five bridges across Mississippi destroyed
by Sean Donelan 31 Dec '01

31 Dec '01

Now that I have your attention. My intent with the DLR discussion was to find out how we can estimate, predict, simulate how robust the Internet really is; not debate vendor certifications. Several telephone companies, working together, simulated what would happen to the public telephone network if five bridges across the Mississippi river carrying fiber optic lines were destroyed. The result was the public telephone network was unaffected, according to the participating telephone companies. I believe this was considered the worst scenario at the time. Has anyone, or any group of ISPs done a similar analysis for data and Internet traffic?

3 2

Clueful Verio contact?
by Stanley, Jon 31 Dec '01

31 Dec '01

I just attempted calling the Verio NOC (we are not a customer or peer) because they are leaking our IP space (204.194.10.0/24 to be exact). This space contains nntp2.savvis.net, among other things, so obviously this is something of a problem for us. The response that I got from Verio was first to email their abuse department. After making clear that it was not an abuse issue, but rather a BGP misconfiguration, they told me that they do not support BGP, though customers may use it if they want. At any rate, the leak needs to stop. Could someone from Verio either contact me off list, or just stop the leak? Thanks!

1 0

RE: Automated DLR conflict detection
by Kevin Gannon 31 Dec '01

31 Dec '01

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of EA Louie Sent: 31 December 2001 08:01 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Automated DLR conflict detection ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesper Skriver" <jesper(a)skriver.dk> > > > > Actually I would be much happy with a Certified something. I can't > > figure out why people want a CCIE to run their Juniper routers. > > Because a CCIE is about a lot more than knowing how to configure a Cisco > device, very few will pass a CCIE test without _knowing_ the technology, > and what they are doing, and that is the same regardless of the label on > the equipment. That may have been true during your genre of CCIE's, but not with the latest round of CCIE's, my friends... you should see the posts I see on the ccie lab mailing lists. Its enough to scare even me, and I don't scare easily. The latest round of study materials is creating a "puppy mill" of CCIEs - inexperienced, money-hungry, power-conscious, and absolutely clueless. I wouldn't give most of them the enable passwords to my routers... I agree that certainly the newer CCIE trend is for money as fast as possible and I have meet some of the newer CCIE's and ....... However something to note is the vast amount of CCIE's work for Gold Partners in these kind of environments it is very hard to hide. Of the better CCIE's I have worked with they tend to be very down to earth. I have meet some very self important guys as well, these tend to have something to hide. Many seem to have a problem saying "I dont know" the betters ones can say I dont know but they will find out for you. I hope to be joining the "puppy mill" soon and if I get power consciuos my peers will be quick to give me a kick back to relatity. Regards, Kevin ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. For more information contact postmaster(a)lancomms.ie phone + 353 1 4093000 fax + 353 1 4093001 **********************************************************************

1 0

RE: Automated DLR conflict detection
by Kevin Gannon 31 Dec '01

31 Dec '01

Guys sorry to jump in mid thread, however some of you might know how do the voice carriers handle SLA's. I know our telco voice guys seem to live on SLA's. I can not rember the last time there was any kind of widespread voice outage on an international network. Regards, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Peter Galbavy Sent: 29 December 2001 09:35 To: Sean Donelan Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Automated DLR conflict detection > 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. > > A warranty is not a substitute for due dilegence. > > How can you perform due dilegence on a carrier? With a car, you > can open the trunk and check the spare tire. What is the best way > to check a spare circuit? To me, the diverse route *is* the safety belt. If it does not work when it is supposed to, I (or my mourning relatives) will sue the car companies arse off - if the attribution for the failure rests with a design of manufacturing flaw. Safety / Seat belts are not decoration - and neither should a diverse route or protection circuit be. (Yes, my English can boldly go... but I am still waiting for the coffee to finish.) Peter ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. For more information contact postmaster(a)lancomms.ie phone + 353 1 4093000 fax + 353 1 4093001 **********************************************************************

2 1

Re: microsoft
by Christopher Schulte 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

At 12:21 PM 12/28/2001 -0500, Ian A Finlay wrote: >Can anyone shed light here? 1) Both of the listed Nameservers for windowsupdate.microsoft.com timed out when I sent them non recursive DNS requests. 2) I killed my DNS cache, and asked again for the NS records for windowsupdate.microsoft.com. A new third one was listed, and one of the original servers began to respond. 3) Another reload shows only 2 servers listed again, and they both respond. Looks to me as if Microsoft is altering global delegation of their windowsupdate service. Maybe diversifying the dns structure as they did with microsoft.com after the attacks a while back? They now have 12 DNS servers scattered around the globe, just to serve microsoft.com dns. >iaf@duwo/iaf 148=>nslookup >Default Server: duwo.pair.com >Address: 209.68.2.64 > > > windowsupdate.microsoft.com >Server: duwo.pair.com >Address: 209.68.2.64 > >*** duwo.pair.com can't find windowsupdate.microsoft.com: Non-existent >host/domain >-Ian

5 6

RE: Automated DLR conflict detection
by Marc Pierrat 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Peter Galbavy Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 5:47 AM To: Sean Donelan; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Automated DLR conflict detection >On many occasions in my prior life at Demon Internet we laughed sales people >out of meetings when they offered SLAs that were limited to the value of a >months service. But, in the end *all* the salepeople offered the same deal. >Until when SLAs come with a pay back greater than the cost of the contract, >and in fact cover consequential losses, most service providers will treat >the failure to deliver within the SLA as a risk associated with the service >and not something more serious. However: Would you (or anyone in the group) be willing to pay a premium for that, and how much is a "real" SLA, one covering consequential losses, worth to you? Marc Pierrat marc(a)sunchar.com www.sunchar.com

5 6