- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

AT&T ATM Outage
by David Hares 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

A number of our AT&T ATM DS3s in various parts of the US are down, and AT&T is telling us they're experiencing "nationwide" problems with their ATM network. Is anyone else having problems? Have any insight? Dave ----------- David Hares Director, Network Engineering NetworkTwo Communications Phone: 734.827.3620 650 KMS Place FAX: 734.827.3690 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Email: dhares(a)networktwo.net

1 0

Peering contract, needed or optional?
by Wolfgang Tremmel 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Hello, I just had a discussion with our legal advisor whether it is necessary or not to sign a peering contract with every (little) peering partner. I know that a lot of the big ones require these contracts and I don't have a problem with that, my opinion just is that a contract with a peer who announces one /19 is not really necessary. Another question is if there has ever been any lawsuit about peering... Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Tremmel VIA NET.WORKS Deutschland GmbH, Bismarckstrasse 120, D-47057 Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Professor Michael Rotert, Amtsgericht Duisburg, HRB 7672 Fax: +49 203-3093 112, Mobil: +49 172-2586959, E-Mail: w.tremmel(a)vianetworks.de http://www.vianetworks.de Alle Angebote sind unverbindlich Auftraege erledigen wir zu unseren allgemeinen Geschaeftsbedingungen

2 1

Is this list still working?
by Russell Briggs 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Please disregard. /r

1 0

RE: Minimum globally routable address space?
by Paul Schultz 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

If you're going to get a /20, I'd say get your own from ARIN. The biggest pain of a routing policy I've had to deal with (as far as other people's policies go) is Verio, who only accepts /20 and greater for all of the recently opened legacy class A networks (64., 65., 66 etc) As long as you don't try to slice and dice your /20's into more specific blocks to come out of other places, you'll be fine. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Dan Streufert [mailto:dans@icss.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:34 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Minimum globally routable address space? I am writing from a small, multi-homed ISP. We are contemplating terminating our relationship with one of our providers, and will need to replace that non-portable space. We are debating between getting a /20 from ARIN (we have justifiable usage) or a /20 from our other provider. On one hand, portability would be nice. On the other, is a /20 globally routable in practice? I seem to remember hearing that /19 was the smallest that would not be filtered by anyone. If anyone knows if there are filters for /20s out there, I would be interested to know who filters them. Thanks, Dan Streufert

1 0

Minimum globally routable address space?
by Dan Streufert 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

I am writing from a small, multi-homed ISP. We are contemplating terminating our relationship with one of our providers, and will need to replace that non-portable space. We are debating between getting a /20 from ARIN (we have justifiable usage) or a /20 from our other provider. On one hand, portability would be nice. On the other, is a /20 globally routable in practice? I seem to remember hearing that /19 was the smallest that would not be filtered by anyone. If anyone knows if there are filters for /20s out there, I would be interested to know who filters them. Thanks, Dan Streufert

2 1

re: Network for sale
by Troy Corbin 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Sorry about my previous post... Was meant to be a private reply. ;-) Dont know how i cc:d the list... Again, my apologies. -troy

1 0

Re: Peering contract, needed or optional?
by Sean Donelan 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

On Tue, 20 February 2001, "Wolfgang Tremmel" wrote: > I just had a discussion with our legal advisor whether it is necessary or > not to sign a peering contract with every (little) peering partner. > > I know that a lot of the big ones require these contracts and I don't have > a problem with that, my opinion just is that a contract with a peer who > announces one /19 is not really necessary. You have gone to the right place, your legal advisor. Your lawyer is the only one with a duty to provide accurate legal advice for your situation. In the US, the subject of peering is not one which the Statute of Frauds requires a written contract. So it is possible to have a binding legal agreement without one. However, I expect most lawyers would advise their clients it is best to have a written agreement, if only to prevent future misunderstandings about what is and is not included. Some people believe "peering" is an asset, and accounting rules require written evidence of an agreement to perform. > Another question is if there has ever been any lawsuit about peering... I have never heard of a decision rendered by jury or court about peering. There have been legal squabbles, but so far, they've all been settled between the parties before a court entered a judgement. Several, but not all peering agreements include arbitration clauses. In the US, arbitration is considered private.

1 0

Re: RED deployment testing
by John Kristoff 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> I have a related Question, what OID are you using to display Dropped > Packets?? A number of people have asked me how to monitor dropped packets so rather than answer another either... .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.19.n (or just ifOutDiscards.n) where n is the interface number. What would really be nice is if I could do trending on the queue length (ifOutQLen), if anyone has any ideas on how to systematically monitor that, I'd be interested in hearing how you it is done. John

1 0

Re: Network for Sale
by Paul Vixie 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

nanog(a)Overkill.EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer) writes: > I suspect that your new technology simply adds another variable to the > best-path-selection process based on your ping/traceroute script RTT's to > a specific network based on what you have divolged thusfar. 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. Serve to learn, man.

1 0

Re: Network for Sale
by Paul Vixie 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

dan(a)netrail.net ("Daniel L. Golding") writes: > I would suspect Savvis, perhaps, or Epoch? Curt is certainly not involved > with NetRail in any way. I just liked the description, "small tier-1". (I guess if you have a PC and a modem, you're tier-1 now?)

15 30