- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Digging in warm climates
by Sean Donelan 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

Sorry, I meant the other texas capital, Austin. On Fri, 16 February 2001, Sean Donelan wrote: > It seems like the backhoes are still active in the warm climates. UUNET > lost a fiber tonight around Dallas/Forth Worth, and ATT had a cable cut > last friday near San Antonio. > > Who is still planting fiber? I thought Level3, Qwest and IXC(Broadwing) > had all finished their builds. Is there a new one?

1 0

Digging in warm climates
by Sean Donelan 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

It seems like the backhoes are still active in the warm climates. UUNET lost a fiber tonight around Dallas/Forth Worth, and ATT had a cable cut last friday near San Antonio. Who is still planting fiber? I thought Level3, Qwest and IXC(Broadwing) had all finished their builds. Is there a new one?

1 0

BGP deployment and peering questions
by Pyda Srisuresh 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

Hi, I have a couple of questions concerning BGP deployment. I would appreciate any feedback from folks knowledged in the deployment. Thanks very much. 1. What is the maximum no. of peers a core-BGP peers with externally? What is a good average or median number? How does this vary with Tier-1 BGP speakers vs. Tier-2 BGP speakers? Also, What is an average no. of peers a BGP border router multi-homes with? (Do not include Border routers with a single ISP peer - only the multi-homed border routers) 2. I understand, an AS by itself does not originate more than 10,000 (UUnet being the one with this many) subnets. But, I believe, when you peer with a tier-1 ISP BGP speaker, you will get AS Paths for the entire 90,000+ routes (or whatever the maximum core routing tabel size is) exchanged at BGP connection setup time. On the other hand, I believe, the number of routes exchanged to be much less when you peer with a tier-2 BGP. What is a resonable average size of routing entries you could expect from a tier-2 ISP (and even a Tier-1 ISP, for that matter)? 3. Do yo have an estimate of memory requirements for some of the core routers (peering with tier-1 ISPs or tier-2 ISPs)? Is there a relation with the number of BGP peers? Thanks. Regards, suresh ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

5 5

Re: happy bday IGS-R
by Walter Prue 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

> From: John Payne <john(a)sackheads.org> ... > > Umm, when Cisco bought IBM's router division, didn't they take on the support > contracts for those routers? > > The IBM 2210 had a lot of Proteon history... Well the Cisco had a lot of Proteon in it too. You could take a Proteon chassis pull out the processor, slap in a Cisco processor and use Proteons serial and ethernet cards, boot and run. Both Cisco and Proteon used the same multibus and bought interface boards from a third party vendor if I remember it right. Walt

1 0

Re: Using unallocated address space
by Sean Donelan 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

On Thu, 15 February 2001, Alan Hannan wrote: > In this scenario you outline, combined with your proposal of > a registry announcing 'black-holing routes' -- what compels > the ISP to accept and act upon the routing announcement? > > And how does this different situation protect them from the > lawsuits you suggest below? What "compels" ISPs to filter 0.0.0.0/255.255.255.255 from their peers and not to announce it to their peers? I believe Paul Vixie is having a BOF at NANOG to discuss best practices between ISPs. And now that I don't operate a network, I've thought about publishing my full peering agreement as a template.

1 0

Re: Using unallocated address space
by Sean Donelan 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

On Thu, 15 February 2001, Omachonu Ogali wrote: > So now we need someone to hold the hand of 17,000 ASes because of 1 > or 2 mishaps. Rethink this please. I doubt the DFZ needs a government. > If you hate it, filter them, if not ignore it. It is considerably more than 1 or 2 mishaps. However, unless it happens to www.whitehouse.gov, it doesn't get much attention. On any day, if you looked at the route table, you would find several examples.

1 0

[CoralReef 3.4.1 released to public]
by k claffy 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

----- Forwarded message from Ken Keys <coral-info(a)caida.org> ----- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:55:53 -0800 From: Ken Keys <coral-info(a)caida.org> To: coral-dev(a)caida.org Cc: elfcore(a)caida.org, "Joerg B. Micheel" <joerg(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: CoralReef 3.4.1 released to public CoralReef 3.4.1 is now available. Both public and member versions can be found at http://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/coralreef/. CoralReef is a comprehensive software package from CAIDA for passive monitoring of ATM, POS, and other network interfaces and reading "crl" and pcap tracefiles. It includes FreeBSD drivers for Apptel POINT (OC12 and OC3 ATM) and FORE FATM (OC3 ATM) cards, support for WAND DAG (OC3 and OC12, POS and ATM) cards on linux, programming APIs for C and perl, and software applications for capture, analysis, and reporting of ATM, IP, and TCP/UDP traffic. Direct questions to coral-info(a)caida.org. Major differences between the last public release and this one include: * Support for live pcap interfaces * Support for DAG capture cards and file formats * Support for POS, CHDLC, PPP (over POS, ATM, or Ethernet), Bridged ethernet over PPP * Tcpdump style packet filtering in all CoralReef packet applications * t2_report++ can graph the top N applications (members only) * Many other enhancements and fixes to applications and C and perl APIs For a complete list of changes, see http://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/coralreef/doc/doc/CHANGELOG. -- Ken Keys CoralReef: http://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/coralreef/ ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

Using unallocated address space
by Sean Donelan 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

On Mon, 12 February 2001, John Fraizer wrote: > Any time a network is caught announcing non-allocated address space, the > registry should bill them accordingly. If they refuse to pay, the > registry should yank their ASN. That would be strong encouragement to do > the right thing. Other than making it difficult for people to figure out WHOIS using that ASN, "yanking" an ASN's registration has little practical effect. You can use an un-allocated ASN almost as easily as using an un-allocated address block.

6 8

cablemodems and voip
by Miguel Mata-Cardona 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><FontFamily><param>System</param>Hi, I've been following this list quite a while, I'm a little off topic but in the need of serious help. You can mail me direct all your help and I'll post a summary at the end. thanks in advance. ----------------------------------------------- problem: We are a cablemodem provider and have disabled the peer to peer options in our CMTSs to avoid problems with NBT and directed broadcast to our customers. The network has been split in many nodes around the city and each node is as follows: to other nodes | | ------------- | router | | 10.2.15.1 | ------------- | | --------------- | cable modem | | termination | | system | --------------- /\ / \ / \ / \ me other 10.2.15.2 10.2.15.3 As you might guess, under this configuration "me" and "other" won't be able to ping to each other. We have done some tests with linux setting "route -net 10.2.15.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.2.15.1" and it works but it does not on win9x. We are looking for this solution because we are deploying a VoIP to some customers on the same node. The above solution, if possible under win9x, would bring a problem because we are modifying the customer machine instead of our network but is feasible solution anyway. Is there a way on doing this within our nodes? if not, is there a way to modify or tweak the win9x routing table?<FontFamily><param>Arial</param> <nofill> -------------------------- Miguel Mata-Cardona CCI El Salvador mmata(a)sv.cciglobal.net

2 1

Juniper M series/Cisco GSR comparison
by Martin Cooper 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

Matthew Correll writes: > I'm looking for objective sources for a comparitive analysis > between Juniper's M10 and/or M20 routers and Cisco's GSR 12000 > series. [...] > I'm not looking for opinions or vendor bias - only documented > testing done by reliable (and hopefully objective) sources. Cisco appears to have commisioned an independent evaluation of its GSR 12016 series by "The Tolly Group" for what it's worth: <URL:http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/12000/prodlit/tolly_in.pdf> M.

1 0