- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

[possibly off-topic] Announcing the Ottawa Internet Exchange
by William F. Maton 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Greetings, FYI, there's a new IX being built in the city of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada. Interested ISP's should check out the following URL: http://www.ottix.net/ Several local ISP's will be connecting to the OttIX switch this week and the next and we hope to get peering up and running within the next couple of weeks. tx., wfms

1 0

Net Management Protocol Folk and Net Operators - Reality Check #2
by Randy Bush 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

To: IETF Announce NANOG list From: IETF OPS ADs Date: xx Subject: OPS-NM Interim Meeting All, At the last IETF OPS Area Open meeting we started a good discussion between the OPS NM folk and some Operators. We would like to continue that discussion and so we are planning an OPS-NM Interim, or you could also say Net Management Protocol Folk and Net Operators - Reality Check #2 We consider it an IETF Interim Meeting for the OPS-AREA Network Management people so that we can meet with real operators to try and understand their needs and to explain to them how we think that our NM related work in the IETF can help them to manage their networks. We probably need to have similar sessions in the future to meet with people who operate enterprise networks, because their requirements may be different. We are still working on the agenda, however below you will find a prelimenary agenda proposal. Any suggestions should be sent to Randy and Bert (bwijnen(a)lucent.com) We have limited space for this meeting. Those who plan to attend, pls send a short email to Bert Wijnen, bwijnen(a)lucent.com to let us know. Bert and Randy -------------- OPS-NM Interim Meeting details ------------------ The plan is to have this meeting immediately following the next NANOG meeting, namely NANOG 22. That means: May 20-22 NANOG 22, ends around 5pm on 22nd May 22-23 OPS-NM Interim, starts on 22nd 7pm So we plan to meet 7-10pm on 22nd 9-1pm 23rd possibly 2-4pm 23rd too. NANOG 22 and OPS-NM Interim will be in Scottsdale Arizona, USA, in the Doubltree Paradise Valley. For NANOG and hotel registration, pls visit: www.nanog.org The hotel rate ($119) for NANOG can also be used for OPS-NM, that is if you attend NANOG as well. It may not apply if you only stay for OPS-NM (note OPS-NM is not yet known at the DoubleTree as a meeting identifier), but we have heard even lower rates if NANOG is not mentioned. Prelimenary Agenda ------------------ - Agenda bashing and intro - From SNMP people - How can SNMP and MIBs help manage your network - New developments SNMPCONF and EOS - Operator experience with SNMP - how it has been and is being used - issues with SNMP - area it does not help with - From COPS people - how COPS and PIBs can help manage your network - Operator experience with COPS (if any) - From POLICY people - how policy framework and tools will help manage your network - Operator experience with POLICY (if any) - Operator requirements - what are the real hot issues to be solved this year - what are the constraints within which the tools have to work - Next steps - Wrapup/Summary

1 0

Peering Troubleshooting
by K. Graham 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Just a quick quesiton. I am looking for some information as to "How to troubleshoot Peering". If anyone can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. I have been able to find alot on what it is, how to set it up, where to set it up but nothing on how to troubleshoot it if it is down, a degraded service, or being overloaded due to a ddos. If you like contact me off list. I can make a summary of the information if it is wanted. Kim

1 0

Nokia
by Andre Fecteau 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Hello, I've heard some good things about a Nokia product called the Nokia P022 Access Controller. Has anyone heard anything about this? I would like to purchase one, but I can't find a contact to purchase from? Can someone please help me out? Thank You, Andre

1 0

Re: "Cisco MPLS-based VPNs" & BGP Stability
by Danny McPherson 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

> Not at all. Please provide data which would prove your "clearly" > statement. Second I would say if there is any impact this is only > implementation specific impact. In other words if your bgp > implementation does not separate different address family processing, > trie maintenance, allow for independent timers etc ... you may be right > but I am not aware of any such implementation deployed anywhere so far > :). > > As a matter of fact a lot of today's mpls-vpn deployments use different > set of relflector's hardware for vpnv4 routes plus are using default > route for providing internet access for mpls-vpn customers so I don't > really see how those SPs/ISPs would impact with mpls-vpns any ipv4 bgp > Internet infrastructure or bgp stability. Total AF isolation can be also > easily achived even for inter-as mpls-vpns as well with correctly > architected design. I'm referring more to the PE impact, or any other router that participates in unicast IPv4 peering. There's still a single BGP process, a finite amount of memory and CPU resources, etc.., and impacting any of these can adversely effect IPv4 route stability. Or does the separation you refer to suggest that we have no worries with BGP and route table growth, churn frequency, et al., and that it should be left to the academics? I fully agree that if dedicated infrastructure is employed for this purpose then there will clearly be less impact. However, the whole pitch is that existing network elements can be used to offer the service, the same network elements that provide "Internet" connectivity today -- and lots of folks have drank the kool-aide -- all in hopes of generating more revenue from their existing IP infrastructure, not new dedicated or overlay ones. Then every time someone brings up a scalability or convergence or security issue with BGP/MPLS VPNs a slew of Cisco folks tell them it's targeted at private networks and different infrastructures (hence the requirement for BGP, MPLS, etc.., I guess). Rob, I know how you & your cohorts feel, I was looking for operator feedback. Feedback especially regarding the "Security" document I referenced. As well, I felt that feedback on potential impacts to the global routing stability should be of relevance to the community (versus swept under the rug). -danny (who strives to only listen to the rest of this thread)

4 4

CDN services offered
by Steve Glines 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

I have a demo of a DNS redirection system up and running at http://www.proximy.net I'd like to know what everyone(anyone) thinks about it? Thanks in advance, Cheers SG __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/

2 1

Virus warning, was: Re: All your NIC handles are belong to us
by Kai Schlichting 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

Hmm, my Norton AV/Win2000 just spit up a warning about the "W32.Badtrans.13312@mm" virus file being detected in the following mail - as a SETUP.pif attachment. Given that it quotes a 6-week old NANOG posting of mine, I am almost sure that I am not the only recipient. lightreading|agora|thorn copied FYI: you might want to give your user a phone call about this, in case he doesn't read his email on a regular basis or/and if he is blissfully unaware of what's transpiring on his machine. http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/cgi-bin/virauto.cgi?vid=28772 describes this as a MAPI worm that uses a few more filenames to disguise itself: Pics.ZIP.scr images.pif README.TXT.pif New_Napster_Site.DOC.scr news_doc.scr hamster.ZIP.scr YOU_are_FAT!.TXT.pif searchURL.scr SETUP.pif Card.pif Me_nude.AVI.pif Sorry_about_yesterday.DOC.pif s3msong.MP3.pif docs.scr Humor.TXT.pif fun.pif I guess Norton/Symantec can change the "wild" level from "low" to "medium" now. bye,Kai > Received: from oboe.agora.com ([199.221.118.30]) > by conti.nu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02337 > for <kai(a)pac-rim.net>; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:24:28 -0400 (EDT) > Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:24:28 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from maggie2 ([216.213.101.18]) by oboe.agora.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.977.9); > Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:20:34 -0400 > Message-ID: <019a01c0c813$43afc360$0c01a8c0(a)ltread.org> > From: "Marguerite Reardon" <reardon(a)lightreading.com> > To: <kai(a)pac-rim.net> > Subject: Re: Re: All your NIC handles are belong to us > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0197_01C0C7F1.BC7C91A0" > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 > Date: 18 Apr 2001 10:20:34 -0400 > X-UIDL: 55e8d6494df8edb047065b7e1c036c3b > 'Kai Schlichting' wrote: > ==== > - > - *knock knock* > - > - ALL YOUR NIC HANDLES ARE BELONG TO US. > - > - The mystery with posts going to nowhere has re-appeared. No bounces > - due to NANOG-post. No moderation notice. Nothing. > - Does Majordomo mind Subjects starting with "OT:" ? > - > - Feb 26 18:10:44 sonet sendmail[27445]: SAA27445: from=<kai(a)pac-rim.net>, size=2083, class=0, pri=32083, nrcpts=1, msgid=<6669287802.20010226180952(a)conti.nu>, bodytype=8BITMIME, proto=ESMTP, > relay=localhost.conti.nu [127.0.0.1] > ...' >> Take a look to the attachment.

5 4

Re: Virus warning, was: Re: All your NIC handles are belong to us
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

Yep... I received it too. My mailer treated it as strange-looking text, and it was harmlessly deleted. Oh the benefits of not running Whine-Doze. Owen > > > I can confirm at least 2 others (including myself) having received the message. > I sent off a note to Marguerite Reardon saying I neither have Windows, nor > do I run attachments from strangers. > > Mine was fun.pif, and was Windows executable. > > >

1 0

Virus in attachment
by SMcGrath＠dhhs.state.nh.us 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

I have received 1 with the me_naked.avi.pif It went into the trash bin Scott

4 3

Re: Virus warning, was: Re: All your NIC handles are belong to us
by Andrea Abrahamsen 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

I got it too. Mine was New_Napster_Site.DOC.scr. Andrea. At 08:16 04/18/01, you wrote: I can confirm at least 2 others (including myself) having received the message. I sent off a note to Marguerite Reardon saying I neither have Windows, nor do I run attachments from strangers. Mine was fun.pif, and was Windows executable.

1 0