- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: BGP deployment and peering questions
by Richard Welty 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

Ryan O'Connell wrote: > Unless Cisco have changed something, a 3640 can only take > 64Mb of memory max. gee, then how come we have more than 64M in ours, and they work? it's the 3620 that can only take 64M, the 3640 can take up to 128M. richard

1 0

NANOG
by Martin Hannigan 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

Well, I hate to do it, but there's no way in hell I can go. Turns out I picked up a HUGE HUGE client thanks to Pam Frailey and the XMAS party. Speaking of that, who wants to start the pool whether I can have an OC-12 up and running and pushing 400mbps of juice in 6 weeks? Joe Provo can't join he may have inside data! -M Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net Fugawi Networks Engineering Boston, MA http://www.fugawi.net Ph: 617.742.2693 Fax: 617.742.2300

1 1

Re: BGP deployment and peering questions
by Ryan O'Connell 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:49:28AM +0100, Blaz Zupan wrote: > > Unless Cisco have changed something, a 3640 can only take 64Mb of memory max. > > You'd need a 3660 for 128Mb. > > You got that backwards. A 3640 can take 128Mb of memory just fine, a 3620 is > limited to 64Mb. Yes, you're quite right of course. I should know that, I have 3640s with 96Mb in. (Must have more Caffiene before NANOGing...) And, of course, it's 256Mb for a 3660. -- Ryan O'Connell - <ryan(a)complicity.co.uk> - http://www.complicity.co.uk I'm not losing my mind, no I'm not changing my lines, I'm just learning new things with the passage of time

1 0

Re: Using unallocated address space
by Roy 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

Nice list but.... 1) only covers /8 2) Doesn't seem to be maintained (look at 32/8). Roy Engehausen Jasper Wallace wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Roy wrote: > > > > > > > What would be nice is that there was an offical list of private, unallocated, or > > reserved ranges kept somewhere that we could use and generate filters from. > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > -- > Internet Vision Internet Consultancy Tel: 020 7589 4500 > 60 Albert Court & Web development Fax: 020 7589 4522 > Prince Consort Road vision(a)ivision.co.uk > London SW7 2BE http://www.ivision.co.uk/

2 1

Re: Using unallocated address space - for DoS?
by Sean Donelan 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

On Wed, 14 February 2001, "Miguel A.L. Paraz" wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:21:32AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > > You don't have to break into the "right" router; you just have to start > > announcing the networks in a way that your peers don't -- can't -- > > detect is improper. > > I did not mean that the network operator was malicious. I meant, in the same > way that vulnerable servers are broken into and used for DoS, can routers > be broken into and do DoS via blackholes? I think it is hard unless you > know the right combination of vulnerable router (sniffable LAN?) and > unprotected upstream or peer. Once again, you don't need to break into someone else's routers. This isn't an exploit list, so I'm not going to post a cookbook on how to do it. But due to the limited protection in some networks, it remains a relatively simple attack or accident waiting to happen. Why break into a bank, when you can push a button on the side of the building and money comes out. Unlike a cash machine, where you need to know at least a PIN in addition to some working bank account number, you can wipe out almost any IP address you don't like with essentially no authentication.

1 0

www.networksolutions.com off the air today?
by Jeff Frost 14 Feb '01

14 Feb '01

Can anyone verify that Network Solutions is off the air today or that its just a problem on my side of the wire? I haven't been able to reach the website all day and can't ping it either. Traceroute follows: mail:/home/jeff% traceroute www.networksolutions.com traceroute to www.networksolutions.com (216.168.224.69), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 216.32.111.193 (216.32.111.193) 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 2 216.35.106.114 (216.35.106.114) 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 3 dcr03-g2-0.sntc03.exodus.net (216.33.152.97) 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 4 bbr02-g4-0.sntc03.exodus.net (216.33.153.66) 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 5 mae-west-ames-p1-0-0.exodus.net (216.32.173.54) 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 6 * * Of course they might block ICMP.

4 4

OSU finally plans to fix their open relays!
by John Fraizer 14 Feb '01

14 Feb '01

After years of having tons of SPAM go through their servers, knowing about it and refusing to close their open relays, OSU has decided that perhaps they want to be able to send email and not have it bounce with a MAPS or ORBS message. They flat out admit that they had their servers set as open relays INTENTIONALLY in the following release: http://www.oit.ohio-state.edu/newsroom/openrelay.html Not that I don't appreciate this greatly but, OSU: It's about %^#%^&# time! --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

3 2

[bgp-stats] Routing Table Report (fwd)
by Travis Pugh 14 Feb '01

14 Feb '01

It must be "leak private ASN" day. According to apnic's routing analysis, abovenet is leaking private ASNs like a sieve. route-views.oregon-ix.net shows a large leak from Telstra, and I've got Qwest leaking private ASNs into my local tables. * i65.132.120.0/24 209.227.130.34 50 100 0 209 65209 i * i 209.227.130.34 50 100 0 209 65209 i *>i 209.227.134.34 50 100 0 209 65209 i * i65.133.67.0/24 209.227.130.34 50 100 0 209 65209 i 65535 PRIVATE 62.4.68.96/27 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65053 PRIVATE 64.124.5.128/26 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65519 PRIVATE 64.124.60.0/24 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65519 PRIVATE 64.124.61.0/24 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65056 PRIVATE 64.124.72.128/26 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65526 PRIVATE 64.124.79.64/27 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65041 PRIVATE 64.124.98.0/24 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65041 PRIVATE 64.124.99.0/24 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65041 PRIVATE 64.124.104.0/24 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65041 PRIVATE 64.124.105.0/24 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65044 PRIVATE 64.124.160.192/26 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65046 PRIVATE 64.124.161.0/26 6461 AboveNet Communicati 65049 PRIVATE 64.124.170.64/27 6461 AboveNet Communicati Did someone hose up their "remove-private-as" function in software? -travis

2 1

Re: /24's run amuck?
by Danny McPherson 14 Feb '01

14 Feb '01

> Umm... because if you filter the /24s you will remove 58K of 95K, > or some 61%. I'm *sure* that having a routing table 40% of the original > size will help the next time you have a BGP flap. Of course, some attentive customers MAY notice reachability issues with those 58K prefixes, but no big deal, at least the routing table is smaller. Heck, might as well go ahead and filter /23 and longer, that'll loss another ~10K, or better yet... :-) -danny

4 3

Re: Juniper M series/Cisco GSR comparison
by smd＠clock.org 14 Feb '01

14 Feb '01

objective on this issue? hahahahahahahahahaha! no no, you have to figure out how to sort out the truth from conflicting hyped-to-the-max, name-calling, tribalistic rants. juuniper sux, they smell like pine trees, scott's crazy, pradeep's paranoid... Sean. (wondering if he still has friends there after this, or if they actually agree :) )

1 0