- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

UUNet Canada (AS701)
by Jason Lixfeld 15 Nov '00

15 Nov '00

Did 701 up north fart today at about 2:40pm EST this afternoon? I lost about 50MB/s of traffic for about 20 minutes. Anyone else notice anything odd in TO?

1 0

RE: Colo facilities @ 151 Front St, Toronto
by Jason Lixfeld 15 Nov '00

15 Nov '00

RACO is really good, when they have space. That's the problem now. They have been promising more space for 3 or 4 months now. > -----Original Message----- > From: David A. Snodgrass [mailto:dave@thedatasource.net] > Sent: November 14, 2000 4:43 PM > To: Jason Lixfeld; nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Colo facilities @ 151 Front St, Toronto > > > > I've been trying to get colo-space for over a year at 151 > Front. ISP-Chat > bounces me from person to person who have even less and less clue. > Typical Telco behaviour :/ > > -dave > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jason Lixfeld" <jlixfeld(a)team.look.ca> > To: <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:22 AM > Subject: Colo facilities @ 151 Front St, Toronto > > > > > > Does anyone know of, or work for a Company who can offer colocation > > facilities at 151 Front St. in Toronto? I need a cage > between ~15'x15' to > > ~20'x20'. RACO has been giving me and many more of it's > Toronto customers > > the runaround for the last 2 months on new space. Their > promises have > come > > up empty and I'm between a rock and a hard place right now > because I have > a > > few GSRs sitting in my warehouse but no place to install them. > > > > Thanks in Advance. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Jason A. Lixfeld > > Senior Network Engineer > > Look Communications Inc. > > -- > > jlixfeld(a)team.look.ca > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > This email server is running an evaluation copy of the > MailShield anti- > spam software. Please contact your email administrator if you have any > questions about this message. MailShield product info: www.mailshield.com

1 0

RE: Operational impact of filtering SMB/NETBIOS traffic?
by Sutantyo, Danny 15 Nov '00

15 Nov '00

How do you proxy Netbios? -----Original Message----- From: Joe Shaw [mailto:jshaw@insync.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 2:44 PM To: Scott Call Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Operational impact of filtering SMB/NETBIOS traffic? It may break some things your customers use, like Exchange mail with NT domain authentication. Also, be aware that Netbios now operates on higher porrts on Win2k and possibly WinME (445/TCP) as well as the 135-139 range. Netbios can also be proxied via 80/TCP now as well, though I think that may only be outbound. People who design protocols like this should be tarred, feathered, and then shot. -- Joseph W. Shaw Sr. Network Security Specialist for Big Company not to be named because I don't speak for them here. I have public opinions, and they don't. On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Scott Call wrote: > Due to an increasing number of intrusions into windows-based machines > through unprotected shares, I've started filtering both incoming and > outgoing traffic for our customers on ports 138/139. > > So far this has caught a fair amount of traffic coming from customers, > but none have called to complain about a lack of connectivity. > > Because this traffic is IP traffic, I wanted to ask others on this list > how they treat SMB traffic on their backbones?

2 2

Operational impact of filtering SMB/NETBIOS traffic?
by Scott Call 14 Nov '00

14 Nov '00

Due to an increasing number of intrusions into windows-based machines through unprotected shares, I've started filtering both incoming and outgoing traffic for our customers on ports 138/139. So far this has caught a fair amount of traffic coming from customers, but none have called to complain about a lack of connectivity. Because this traffic is IP traffic, I wanted to ask others on this list how they treat SMB traffic on their backbones? Thanks -Scott

8 7

Colo facilities @ 151 Front St, Toronto
by Jason Lixfeld 14 Nov '00

14 Nov '00

Does anyone know of, or work for a Company who can offer colocation facilities at 151 Front St. in Toronto? I need a cage between ~15'x15' to ~20'x20'. RACO has been giving me and many more of it's Toronto customers the runaround for the last 2 months on new space. Their promises have come up empty and I'm between a rock and a hard place right now because I have a few GSRs sitting in my warehouse but no place to install them. Thanks in Advance. Regards, -- Jason A. Lixfeld Senior Network Engineer Look Communications Inc. -- jlixfeld(a)team.look.ca

3 2

Does Exodus have a peering point in Toronto?
by Jason Lixfeld 14 Nov '00

14 Nov '00

I know they only have a couple of DS3s here but are they offering public/private peering? Anyone have a contact name/number/email so I can bounce a few questions off them? Thanks in advance. Regards, -- Jason A. Lixfeld Senior Network Engineer Look Communications Inc. -- jlixfeld(a)team.look.ca

2 2

STM-1 mux
by Simon Lockhart 14 Nov '00

14 Nov '00

All, Can anyone recommend a Mux for terminating STM-1 circuits? We use the Digital Link DL3100 for our DS3 circuits, and it does the job nicely, but now we need to look for something bigger. What we're looking for is something which will take a single STM-1 in, and break out into smaller chunks. I guess realistically we'll only get whole DS3's out. Looking for something not too big, and not too expensive. (Long term, we'd probably be looking to use the Cisco ONS15454, but that doesn't do STM-x yet). Suggestions? Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart(a)bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/

1 0

Re: Trusting BGP sessions
by Sean Donelan 14 Nov '00

14 Nov '00

ANS used to filter every peering session they had. Other ISPs (I won't mention any names) don't seem to filter anything, peer, customer or other. This seems to have less to do with technical or trust, than how management decides to run their business. ANS's management decided to do one thing, and paid Curtis a lot of money to do it, other ISP's management decide its too much work. See http://www.academ.com/nanog/may1996/state-of-the-internet-nsps-qna.html On Tue, 14 November 2000, "Steven M. Bellovin" wrote: > In message <20001114202940.19022.cpmta(a)c004.sfo.cp.net>, Sean Donelan writes: > >On Mon, 13 November 2000, David Diaz wrote: > >> The cabal makes jokes "Officially there is no cabal." > >> In reality the fact is that peering is a trust event. You are > > > >Peering is a business decision. It is not an engineering decision > >nor a trust event. > > > >Technically, can a peer BGP session do any more or less damage to > >your network than a customer BGP session? The protocol is identical. > > Peer BGP is (often) worse because you can't filter it as aggressively. > You *know* what prefixes your customers can advertise, and you can > discard anything else. But if you have two or more peer sessions, you > don't in general know which prefixes can legally come from which > sessions.

1 0

Re: Trusting BGP sessions
by Steven M. Bellovin 14 Nov '00

14 Nov '00

In message <20001114202940.19022.cpmta(a)c004.sfo.cp.net>, Sean Donelan writes: > >On Mon, 13 November 2000, David Diaz wrote: >> The cabal makes jokes "Officially there is no cabal." >> In reality the fact is that peering is a trust event. You are > >Peering is a business decision. It is not an engineering decision >nor a trust event. > >Technically, can a peer BGP session do any more or less damage to >your network than a customer BGP session? The protocol is identical. Peer BGP is (often) worse because you can't filter it as aggressively. You *know* what prefixes your customers can advertise, and you can discard anything else. But if you have two or more peer sessions, you don't in general know which prefixes can legally come from which sessions. --Steve Bellovin

1 0

RE: Trusting BGP sessions
by Mark Borchers 14 Nov '00

14 Nov '00

Please do not say that in public unless you want to hasten the day when peering relationships are in the hands of sales persons and/or corporate bean counters and treated like commodities. (not to say that isn't already the case in certain places) > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 2:30 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Trusting BGP sessions > > Peering is a business decision. It is not an engineering decision > nor a trust event.

1 0