- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: rfc 1918?
by SMcGrath＠dhhs.state.nh.us 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Just had to weigh in on this issue Just look at SANS or CERT, IETF et al and their recommendations for filtering i.e. egress filters should only allow your registered address space and/or networks which you allow to transit your network and ingress filters which filter ALL RFC1918 traffic at your network border. See RFC's 2267,2827 & 3013 Ingress/egress filtering is simply good operational practice which makes the internet a more friendly place

1 0

Nanog-21 people flow analysis
by Lane Patterson 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

WARNING: If you are a manager with travel budget cutting approval please read no further: delete this mail NOW! nanog-scan aggregates people packets by their autonomous system names. At Nanog-21 it was used to look at top people flows by company ;-) suggestions for future functionality include categorization of flows into service types such as Vendor, ISP, IXP, EDU, ORG, as well as time-series trending and visualization of past nanogs. as expected from flow data, there is rapid decay of the distribution and a long tail. Cheers, -lane 22 Verio 19 Sprint 19 CiscoSystems,Inc. 16 RiverstoneNetworks 16 GlobalCrossing 14 No Affiliation 14 MFN 10 UUNET 10 Level3Communications 9 MeritNetwork,Inc. 9 AT+T 8 JuniperNetworks,Inc. 8 Equinix,Inc 8 AkamaiTechnologies 7 Pluris 7 EnronBroadbandServices 7 BellSouth 7 ARIN 6 SBC 6 Microsoft 5 WilliamsCommunications 5 NTTCommunications 5 NextHopTechnologies 5 NetRail,Inc. 5 NetAccessCorporation 5 LucentTechnologies 5 JapanTelecom 5 iVMG,Inc. 5 CogentCommunications 5 360networks 4 XOCommunications 4 UniversityofOregon 4 RIPENCC 4 QwestCommunications 4 NortelNetworks 4 NASA 4 InterlinkNetworks,Inc. 4 Interland,Inc. 4 GoldmanSachs 4 Genuity,Inc. 4 FirstWorldCommunications 4 Broadwing 4 AtogaSystems 4 AmericaOnline 3 TeliaInternet 3 TelcordiaTechnologies 3 ReliantEnergyComm.,Inc. 3 QoSNetworks 3 Photuris 3 OptiGlobe,Inc 3 NTTCommunications 3 Logictier 3 InternetInitiativeJapanInc. 3 ExtremeNetworks 3 EpikCommunications 3 CoreeNetworks 3 Concert 3 Charlotte'sNetworks,Inc. 3 Carrier1 3 Cable+Wireless 3 AllegianceTelecom 2 YellowBrix,Inc. 2 Worldcom 2 Villageworld.com 2 Verisign 2 UniversityofWisconsin 2 UnisphereNetworks 2 TTNet 2 TenorNetworks 2 SunGardeSourcing 2 Speedtrak 2 ShawCablesystemsG.P. 2 RenesysCorporation 2 RealNamesCorporation 2 QuarryTechnologies 2 PenTeleData 2 PacketDesign 2 PacketClearingHouse 2 OneSecure,Inc. 2 NovoNetworks,Inc. 2 Nominum,Inc. 2 NacamarDataCommunications 2 MultaCommunicationCorp. 2 i-STTPteLtd 2 InterouteTelecommunications 2 Inktomi 2 IBR 2 iBEAMBroadcasting 2 GoldWireTechnology,Inc. 2 GlobixCorporation 2 GlobalCenter 2 FranceTelecom 2 FoundryNetworks 2 FortPointPartners 2 Exodus 2 Excite@Home 2 EuroNetInternetB.V. 2 DACOMCorporation 2 CoreExpress 2 CircleNet,Inc. 2 ChiaroNetworks 2 CenterGateResearchGroup 2 Callisma 2 Caimis 2 CAIDA 2 CablevisionSystemsCorp. 2 BrixNetworks 2 Bravida 2 AxiowaveNetworks,Inc. 2 AmberNetworks 2 AlliedRiserCommunications 2 AllegroNetworks 2 Aleron 2 AdelphiaBusinessCommunications 1 ZiaNet 1 YipesCommunications 1 XebeoCommunications,Inc. 1 WorldCom 1 WireOneTech. 1 VirtualPhotonics 1 VideotronTelecomLtee 1 ViaNetCommunications 1 Velocita 1 VBCnetGBLtd 1 ValiantNetworks,Inc. 1 ValiantNetworks,Inc 1 USC/ISI 1 UrbanMediaCommunications 1 UniversityofMissouri-KansasCity 1 UnirCorporation 1 TriVergentCommunications,Inc 1 TransNAP,Inc. 1 TokyoTelecom.NetworkCo.,Inc. 1 TiaraNetworks,Inc. 1 TheBurtonGroup 1 TerremarkWorldwide,Inc./NAPoftheAmericas 1 Terabeam 1 TelusAdvancedCommunications 1 Telocity,Inc. 1 TelehouseAmerica 1 TaquaSystems 1 SWITCH 1 SwisscomAG 1 Swisscom 1 SteinbergConsulting 1 SonyCorporation 1 Sonicity,Inc. 1 SigmaNetworks 1 ShawneeLinkCorporation 1 ServerVault 1 RoutingLoopIntergalacticNetworking 1 RoadRunner 1 RedbackNetworks,Inc. 1 RCNInternet 1 rard 1 RackspaceManagedHosting 1 QUEit 1 PSINet 1 ProvidianFinancial 1 ProcketNetworks 1 Pathnet 1 PacketPushers 1 OsakaMediaPortCorporation 1 OnSiteAccess 1 OnFiberCommunications 1 NTTCommunicatins,inc 1 NIKKEI 1 Nextlec 1 NetworkInfrastructureInc. 1 NetigyCorporation 1 NetEffectCorporation 1 NetDestiny,Inc. 1 NERONetwork 1 NECCorporation 1 Navisite 1 NaviSite 1 Napster 1 NAILABS 1 MulticastTechnologies 1 Motorola,Inc. 1 MojoNetworks 1 MitsubishiElectricInfor.NetworkCorp. 1 MirrorImageInternet 1 Micromuse 1 Merike,Inc 1 McLeodUSA 1 MCIWorldCom 1 MazuNetworks 1 Matrix.Net 1 Marnie 1 MarconiCommunications 1 MapleOpticalSystems 1 MahiNetworks 1 LuminousNetworks 1 LondonInternetExchange 1 LightningInternetServices,LLC 1 LaurelNetworks 1 LatencyNetworks 1 KPNQwest 1 KPG,Inc. 1 JetstreamCommunications 1 JENSCorporation 1 IXL,Inc 1 InterWorldCommunications,Inc. 1 InternetMultifeedCo. 1 InternetInitiativeJapanInc 1 InterNAP 1 Intellispace 1 integratelecom 1 INTECWebandGenomeInformaticsCorp. 1 IndependentConsultant 1 Incanta 1 IFXNetworks 1 ICRS,Inc. 1 ICANN 1 H.S.Inc. 1 HSACorp 1 HarvardUniversity 1 GTGroupTelecomServicesCorp. 1 GreenflashTechnologies 1 Google 1 GlobalNAPs 1 GeneralDynamics 1 FujitsuNetworkCommunication 1 Eziaz 1 EugeneSchoolDistrict4J 1 ESnet 1 EpochInternet 1 EnnovateNetworks 1 EnnovateNetwork 1 eDial,Inc. 1 EdgixCorporation 1 EarthSun,L.C. 1 DigitalIsland 1 Digex,Inc. 1 David 1 Datastate 1 DACOMCorp. 1 CWISInternet 1 Curium 1 CosineCommunicationsInc. 1 Coreon,Inc 1 CoradiantInc. 1 ConXionCorporation 1 CIX 1 ChagresVentures,LLC 1 CERT/CC 1 CelerantConsulting 1 CaspianNetworks 1 CalixNetworksInc 1 CaliforniaStateUniversity 1 BroadviewNetworks 1 BroadRiverCommunications 1 BBC 1 AVICI 1 AstaNetworks 1 ArgonneNationalLaboratory 1 ArborNetworks 1 AONNetworks 1 ani+companyInc. 1 Amazon.com 1 AlcatelNetworks 1 Alcatel 1 AlaskaFiberStar,LLC 1 AgilentTechnologies 1 AdvancedTelcomGroup 1 Aduronet 1 AddisonWesleyLongman 1 AcceLightNetworks 1 2600Enterprises

1 0

Re: Network for Sale
by Steven M. Bellovin 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

In message <200102212028.MAA50344(a)redpaul.mfnx.net>, Paul A Vixie writes: > >>> Oh god, I hope not. RTT has never been an accurate predictor of end-to-end >>> performance. (Just ask anyone who bought into ping-based global server load >>> balancing.) ASPATH length is almost as bad (as a predictor) as RTT. >> >> well, it's the way icmp_echo is handeld in some vendor routers and >> sometime also the poor implementation of an IP stack on the echoing >> device which is a problem. > >no, that is not the problem. oh i admit that ping time jitter is ~random. >but even if it weren't, RTT doesn't drive performance, (bw*delay)-loss does. > And how does "delay" differ from RTT, except for the obvious constant factor? --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

2 1

Re: Beer and Gear surprise
by Ukyo Kuonji 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

I disagree. Read my other post. The charter defines membership. Of course it is entirely too broad. As I interpret it, if you are a network operator, researcher or vendor, you may be a member of NANOG. The charter does not define community, only membership. --- Opinions in this email are the personal opinions of the author and are not associated with author's employer. This email account is a not the regular email account of the author and is being used for the protection of the employer. ----Original Message Follows---- From: abha <ahuja(a)wibh.net> To: Ukyo Kuonji <kawaii_iinazuke(a)hotmail.com> CC: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: Re: Beer and Gear surprise Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:28:30 -0800 (PST) In regards to Merit, how NANOG is run and organized, etc... Merit has been running NANOG forever as part of a service to the community and has always tried to keep the community's best interest at heart (if you don't think this is happening, put it on your survey form) and there is no membership. It is really quite simple, if you don't like it, you don't have to come. There are other member-based organizations that might meet your needs. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

5 4

A new thread...
by Rich Sena 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Martin Hannigan inlipstick and a t-shirt - discuss amongst yourselves I'm to vehklempt! -- Rich Sena - ras(a)thick.net ThickNET Consulting "On the way to understanding; you understand, and forget."

1 0

Re: Beer and Gear surprise
by Danny McPherson 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

> 1) What does Merit do for Nanog? Umm, pretty much everything .. unless I've missed something. > 2) What gives Merit the right to make decisions about the group > without consulting the membership? Oh, I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they organize the whole thing and most of us would rather not be bothered with the details anyway. > 3) If Merit is not listening to it's membership, and is only providing the > web page and mailing list, is there a reason why they are still hosting > NANOG? Nope, not at all. Why not host your own? > 1) The NANOG Charter needs to be revised into a more inclusive charter > which includes the resolution of conflicts within the membership, review of > the officials actions by the membership and removal of officials by the > membership in the event that the actions are in conflict with the membership > or charter. There should also be included, in the charter, how to revise > and amend the charter. In this option, Merit would still be the ruling > body. Dude, get over it... > 2) Remove Merit from the ruling body. There is no reason, today, that the > web site and mailing list could not be hosted by someone else. I do not > believe that Merit is doing a bad job, but there isn't that much work > involved in providing this service. The charter states that meetings are to > be organized by the hosting company. I don't see a reason why this could > not continue. The charter will still need to be resizes, however to include > the items from option 1 Again, please, go setup your own. Give away bloomers, create a bunch of rules, have your way with it... > 3) Continue to live under the rule of a ruling body that does not consult > of inform it's membership or decisions that affect the membership and > meetings. Jeez... > I don't want to play politics, but I think something needs to be done. Oh, you don't want to play politics but you're certain we need more politics. Actually, you know, perhaps that would be good. Then the membership could vote to tell you that you've been heard, now it's time to shut up. -danny

2 1

Re: Beer and Gear surprise
by Ukyo Kuonji 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

I disagree. The charter defines membership: "The group will have membership that broadly includes network providers. These may include private, public, federal, commercial or other networks that consider themselves providers of Internet services. However the representatives attending this group should be prepared to engage in technical discussions. Membership should not be limited to North American participants though the general focus of the discussion should be from the NA networking point of view." --- Opinions in this email are the personal opinions of the author and are not associated with author's employer. This email account is a not the regular email account of the author and is being used for the protection of the employer. ----Original Message Follows---- From: owen(a)dixon.delong.sj.ca.us (Owen DeLong) To: nanog(a)merit.edu, kawaii_iinazuke(a)hotmail.com Subject: Re: Beer and Gear surprise Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:40:45 -0800 <fact> There is no NANOG membership. There is the NANOG community. There are no firm criteria for citizenship in said community, so it would be difficult to define a voting process in terms of who does or does not get to vote. </fact> Owen _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

Re: Network for Sale
by Paul A Vixie 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

> > RTT doesn't drive performance, (bw*delay)-loss does. > > FWIW, the heavily interactive apps are more affected by RTT than they are > by bandwidth. Network games are the new TELNET. They despise varying > latency levels, and are generally oblivious to bandwidth. Your point is > still mostly valid, in that the only thing they hate more than varying > latency is packet loss, but if the network isn't losing packets then RTT > does affect "perfomance" for the heavily interactive apps. i wasn't talking about network performance in general. (and i would never, ever recommend (bw*delay)-loss as a routing metric!) this is in the context of so-called global server load balancing. RTT may, or may not, matter in the decisions such a system must make ("serve this client from which proxy?")

2 1

Big Brother fights back
by David Lesher 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Tired of listening to all the gossip; Big Brother in the guise of Fairfax County VA cut a phone cable....while installing more red-light cameras. Word is, 5000+ subscribers are now not talking to anyone. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 2

[MAIL-SA@syndesis.com: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken.]
by Shawn McMahon 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Ok, somebody needs to direct their email support people to get a life. I got the following bounceback for saying "piss off" in that email. I'm sure I'll get another from this one. ----- Forwarded message from System Attendant <MAIL-SA(a)syndesis.com> ----- From: System Attendant <MAIL-SA(a)syndesis.com> To: "'Shawn McMahon'" <smcmahon(a)eiv.com> Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken. Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:54:00 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) X-UIDL: :Og!!)%`!!o]W"!`Sm!! Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. Place = nanog(a)merit.edu; ; Sender = Shawn McMahon Subject = Re: Beer and Gear surprise Delivery Time = February 22, 2001 (Thursday) 08:53:59 Policy = Dirty Words Action on this mail = Quarantine message Warning message from administrator: Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0