- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: PBI down?
by Sean Donelan 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

On Thu, 16 November 2000, Roy wrote: > Anyone know about an outage in PacBell Internet? A friend who subscribes > to their service is unreachable and he says the trouble number isn't > answering the phones. Pacific Bell Internet reports: Customers in the Rockville, Placerville, Davis, and Sacramento areas may be unable to access the Internet at this time. Our Engineering Team is working to resolve this issue. Our estimated time to repair is approximately 4 hours.

1 0

PBI down?
by Roy 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

Anyone know about an outage in PacBell Internet? A friend who subscribes to their service is unreachable and he says the trouble number isn't answering the phones. Roy Engehausen

2 1

RE: PBI down?
by rdobbins＠netmore.net 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

I'm multihomed with them out of Los Angeles, and show no abnormalities in my traffic to/from their network any time today. ----------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)netmore.net> // 818.535.5024 voice -----Original Message----- From: Roy [mailto:garlic@garlic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 1:06 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: PBI down? Anyone know about an outage in PacBell Internet? A friend who subscribes to their service is unreachable and he says the trouble number isn't answering the phones. Roy Engehausen

1 0

Re: PBI down?
by Walter Prue 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

Roy, >Anyone know about an outage in PacBell Internet? That doesn't narrow it down very much. PacBell Internet is island service. PBI can't provide interlata service so they buy backbone service from various service providers. So for each LATA that PBI would provide service they would have their own local island of service. Each island is then interconnected through backbone providers. I have PBI Internet access, among others, from the Los Angeles area and that island appears to be OK. I have a T3 and I saw no dip in load in or out in the last 24 hours. Walt

1 0

Re: Any "standard" name for ISP time services?
by Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:14:59 PST, you said: > http://www.ucop.edu/irc/wp/wp_Reports/wpr008/wpr008_Wasley.html > suggests using ntp.foo.com or nettime.foo.com Yes, but does 'ntp.aol.com' or 'ntp.mindspring.com' or.... you get the idea actually *work* in The Real World? I am *NOT* looking for a list of "what I use" or similar - the question is a resource location problem. For a piece of shareware that could be on *any* machine in the Internet, is it worth trying 'ntp.<my-isp-here>.com', or similar? I've heard back from a guy at Exodus (thanks!! ;) regarding their scheme. Yes, I know many domains have a 'clock' or 'time' or 'clepsydra' or similar. Maybe what's NEEDED here is a DHCP option.. that would help. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech

2 2

Re: Any "standard" name for ISP time services?
by Steven M. Bellovin 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

In message <200011162031.eAGKV5w31046(a)black-ice.cc.vt.edu>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt .edu writes: > >Maybe what's NEEDED here is a DHCP option.. that would help. ;) > It exists, of course -- section 8.3 of RFC 2132. --Steve Bellovin

1 0

Re: Please send me your comments
by Randy Bush 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

folk concerned with asn exhaustion should see draft-chen-as4bytes-00.txt and comment if they see operational issues. randy

3 3

(cisco) ATM interfaces and flow stats
by Thomas P. Brisco 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

Has anyone else noticed any oddities with GSRs, ATM interface and flow statistics? We're seeing a GSR (12.0(11)S) occasionally stop sending out flow stats (though logging them as being sent out). I've done the rudimentary checking, but (curiously enough) a "clear ip flow stat" seems to tickle it enough to actually start sending data to the collector again. After the ATM/dCEF debacle, I'm pretty immediately suspicious of the line card. Has anyone else seen anything similar to this? - TP -- -- Thomas P. Brisco tbrisco(a)globix.net

1 0

Uunet to Level 3 San Jose peering problems?
by Rusty H. Hodge 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

FYI- Seeing problems with Uunet to Level 3 connections out of San Jose. 5 192.ATM7-0.GW3.SJC2.ALTER.NET (146.188.144.37) 9.891 ms 5.801 ms 6.792 ms 6 L3OC3-sjc2-gw.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.197.118) 2922.661 ms 2936.127 m 2999.177 ms 7 so-4-1-0.mp1.SanJose1.level3.net (209.247.11.5) 3029.523 ms 3121.549 ms 3101.799 ms 8 pos9-0.core1.SanFrancisco1.level3.net (209.247.10.234) 2002.210 ms 1978.46

4 4

Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions)
by Sean Donelan 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

No I'm not suggesting basing it on what a provider is currently advertising. But rather on what the provider has registered and is authorized to announce. The set of authorized routes may be the same or a superset of what the routes the provider is currently announcing. If you want asymetric routes, you can register and authorize traffic via either route; and then dynamically announce which route you want to use moment to moment. On Wed, 15 November 2000, "Bora Akyol" wrote: > If I understand you correctly, you want to filter inbound traffic from a > service provider to another based on what that service provider is > advertising and based on the decision process that we run. > > How do you suggest we handle asymmetric routes? > > Bora > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Donelan" <sean(a)donelan.com> > To: <heas(a)shrubbery.net> > Cc: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) > > > > > > On Wed, 15 November 2000, john heasley wrote: > > > > > > great, that must be why these problems dont occur. which solution are > > > you using? i'm not flinging s*!@ over the fence; i'm truely interested. > > > > > > If the problem is truely no router vendor make a router capable of > > holding a fully filtered route table we need to tell the router vendors > > this is a mandatory requirement or we won't buy their routers. Remember, > > once upon a time when no router could handle more than 30,000 routes or > > 64,000 routes. Once the router vendors were told what was needed, they > > built a box to meet that need. > > > > It is not a given that no router will never support filtering a full > > tier-1 ISP's route table. Its just no one has made it a requirement. > > > > Lets make it a requirement of the router vendors. > > > > > >

3 4