- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: QOS or more bandwidth
by smd＠clock.org 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

TE is really a buzzword used by vendor marketroids to extract cash from operators who could just as easily spend it on the competition's gear. IOW, the traffic that is engineered is the flow of money. Why did Cisco invent Tag Switching? Hint: where is Ipsilon these days? Hint II: how many big-iron ATM vendors are at the core of the Internet today? Cynically, Sean.

3 2

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 1 23:00:00 PDT 2001 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 01Jun01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 250501 101869 260501 101666 270501 101615 280501 101654 290501 101680 300501 101711 310501 102185 010601 102687 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 10917 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 6470 (3678 cidr, 2792 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 1111 announced by AS705 Largest number of classful routes: 1406 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 01Jun01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1385 1032 353 25.5% TELSTRA-AS AS13999 103 11 92 89.3% autonomous system number assigned AS1 591 536 55 9.3% GTE Internetworking AS13544 71 18 53 74.6% autonomous system number assigned AS10692 67 14 53 79.1% DLS Internet Services AS10692 AS11686 143 93 50 35.0% Education Networks of America AS11774 74 28 46 62.2% AS 11774 Object AS1239 444 400 44 9.9% SprintLink Backbone AS1267 68 26 42 61.8% Infostrada S.p.A. AS1237 96 54 42 43.8% KISTI AS12235 48 7 41 85.4% Cove Software Systems Inc AS12302 66 28 38 57.6% MobiFon S.A. AS14 51 15 36 70.6% Columbia University in the City o AS10620 52 18 34 65.4% autonomous system number assigned AS13345 66 33 33 50.0% autonomous system number assigned AS11507 86 53 33 38.4% TouchAmerica Montana AS11311 42 9 33 78.6% autonomous system number assigned AS12064 34 2 32 94.1% autonomous system number assigned AS11859 45 13 32 71.1% autonomous system number assigned AS12497 32 1 31 96.9% SA*Net Network - AS AS12067 32 1 31 96.9% autonomous system number assigned AS12062 34 3 31 91.2% autonomous system number assigned AS11606 43 12 31 72.1% autonomous system number assigned AS14103 36 7 29 80.6% ACD.net Network AS11418 45 16 29 64.4% autonomous system number assigned AS11371 76 48 28 36.8% Rhythms AS10722 58 31 27 46.6% Aluminum Co. of America AS13208 32 6 26 81.2% Newtel Solutions Autonomous Syste AS12709 32 6 26 81.2% Melita Cable Autonomous System AS12564 31 5 26 83.9% Bulgarian Government Autonomous S For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

Outage ?
by Dee McKinney 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

Is there some outage on UUNET, L3 or Above.Net right now ?

3 2

mac-address accounting
by Alex Rubenstein 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

Perhaps I am using this feature wrong, but I don't think so. This morning, I am trying to get mac-address accounting working on a 7507MX/RSP8/12.0.17S/GEIP+ running ISL, to indentify large peers off an ethernet peering fabric. I've done 'ip accounting mac-address out'. I then wait. Then, I: core1.nyc#sho int g0/0/0 mac-accounting GigabitEthernet0/0/0 to external peers and customers Output (475 free) 0001.64da.bc00(3 ): 2 packets, 179 bytes, last: 3036ms ago 0004.de2b.e41c(9 ): 1 packets, 99 bytes, last: 3036ms ago 00e0.52a6.1f00(11 ): 1 packets, 99 bytes, last: 3036ms ago 0100.0c00.0000(13 ): 57198 packets, 37155973 bytes, last: 388ms ago 0030.7bee.fc54(13 ): 2 packets, 218 bytes, last: 2836ms ago All of the mac-addresses listed in this 'sho' are valid, except for '0100.0c00.0000', which doesn't exist: core1.nyc#sho arp | inc 0100 core1.nyc# All the others are valid, yet they are way, and I mean *way* under the amounts that I know I am sending to that peer. Any clues? I've searched CCO/Bug Toolkit, I don't see anything relevant.

3 2

Location for Henry Hub LA
by Sean Donelan 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Are hubs built where lots of pipes connect, or do people build pipes to places where the largest hubs are? http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2767091,00.html

1 0

RE: C&W Peering Problem?
by Karyn Ulriksen 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

If anyone else is seeing wierd problems with their GBLX uplinks, please let me know. I stopped announcing routes out them because some of my customers were having a lot of problems such as one IP would go through, but the next consecutive IP couldn't and would get locked up in NYC. Earlier I was seeing the same thing happen in Atlanta. They can't seem to replicate the problem, even though I have sent them several traceroutes where they are all stopping at the same point. I know that stopping my announcements is going to hamper troubleshooting, so if others are having similar problems maybe we can get them to look a little closer. K :: -----Original Message----- :: From: Jason Lewis [mailto:jlewis@jasonlewis.net] :: Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 1:09 PM :: To: nanog(a)merit.edu :: Subject: RE: C&W Peering Problem? :: :: :: :: Does anyone know who was dropped? I have been having :: strange connectivity :: problems between my network on the C&W network and my :: datacenter which is on :: GlobalCenter's net. No one can tell me what is going on, :: but maybe this has :: something to do with it. :: :: Jason Lewis :: http://www.packetnexus.com :: It's not secure "Because they told me it was secure". The :: people at the :: other end of the link know less about security than you do. :: And that's :: scary. :: :: :: :: -----Original Message----- :: From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On :: Behalf Of :: Simon Lockhart :: Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 3:03 PM :: To: David Diaz :: Cc: Charles Scott; nanog(a)merit.edu :: Subject: Re: C&W Peering Problem? :: :: :: :: >I was wondering when this issue was going to be brought up. C&W :: >dropped peering with several backbones. I will bet the problems :: >started about a week ago. :: :: Probably because they didn't meet the new C&W peering requirements. :: :: They sent me a link to their peering requirements the other :: week when I :: asked. Basically, to peer you have to have an OC48 backbone with :: redundantly connected nodes in 9 regions of the USA :: (according to their :: definition of regions), peering at 4 diverse locations, with :: a minimum of :: 45Mbit/s of traffic at each location. :: :: Interestingly, C&W's network map doesn't show PoP's in all of their 9 :: regions. :: :: Simon :: -- :: Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 :: Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 :: BBC Internet Services | Email: :: Simon.Lockhart(a)bbc.co.uk :: Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/

1 0

RE: PSINet Files Chapter 11...
by Los, Ralph 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Hey, OK, I have to say, in their defense...what little technology/engineering they DO have, have been very solid on the T-1 we have from them. I've had only a single problem about a week ago when one of their routers stopped announcing a route Herndon-->Chicago (oops), and we've had that T-1 in for over 7 months now. They are doomed, yes, but they do have a decent engineering staff. Ralph M. Los Asst. Vice-President, Internet Systems and Security EnvestNet Advisory Corp. rlos(a)envestnet.com (312) 827-3945 (direct) (312) 296-9003 (wireless w/voicemail) -----Original Message----- From: up(a)3.am [mailto:up@3.am] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 1:01 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: PSINet Files Chapter 11... On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Joe Abley wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 05:39:51PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > Does anyone know whats happening with PSINet UK? I see only reference to > > USA, Canada and South America.. > > http://www.psinet.com/news/pr/01/june1.html > > PSINet Businesses Not Affected by Actions Nice, objective source :). I do know of someone who has a T1 to them for the past 6 months or so, and are not terribly pleased. It seems that laying off most of your tech staff can in fact, affect business... James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up(a)3.am http://3.am =========================================================================

2 1

Mindspring
by Karyn Ulriksen 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

If there is a member of the Mindspring NOC staff listening, can you contact me at (949) 743-2014 at your earliest? Thanx in advance! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Best regards, Karyn Ulriksen Network Operations Manager SiteStream, A VitalStream Company 1 Jenner, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 USA Phone: (949) 743-2000 email: kulriksen(a)vitalstream.com URL: http://www.vitalstream.com ===========================================

1 0

PSINet Files Chapter 11...
by Christopher A. Woodfield 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

About time! http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-6155076.html?tag=mn_hd -C --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil(a)semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B

5 4

Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding
by Jim Shankland 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Dan Foster <dsf(a)frontiernet.net> writes: > I, too, am much looking forward to the proposed standards to turn this > kind of thing into a non-event. :) Well, look no further than here, for your prayers are answered: On any connection to an end-user, ISPs shall forward only packets with source addresses assigned to that end-user by the ISP. Exceptions can be made for multi-homed end-users: e.g., if an end-user has 1.2.3.0/24 from ISP A, and 5.6.7.0/24 from ISP B, each ISP may choose to accept packets with source addresses from the block assigned by the other ISP, by prior arrangement with the end-user and the other ISP. Now, if you're looking forward to the *implementation* of this proposed standard, you had best be looking through a very strong telescope. It will happen some time after the last open SMTP relay on the Internet is secured :-(. Jim Shankland

1 0