- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: The Backhoe Summit
by Sean Donelan 25 Sep '00

25 Sep '00

On Sat, 23 September 2000, John Fraizer wrote: > On 23 Sep 2000, Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 rdobbins(a)netmore.net wrote: > > > Do the large carriers now participate in 'one-call' operations like power > > > and gas companies do? At least in Virginia a couple of years ago, they > > > didn't. It might be a good idea for them to do so. > > > > "For competitive reasons we can't tell you the location of our fiber." > > > > - An anonymous representative of a very large telco > > Wow. They must not have any fiber near our facility. The folks running > the digging operations are keeping Plastikote in business selling orange > paint. There seems to be more orange than black on the blacktop -- all of > it marked pretty clearly with the carrier name. Ask them for a map. Yeah, I know a lot of folks have resorted to calling OneCall, getting the street painted orange, and making their own maps.

4 3

Re: CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update)
by Danny McPherson 25 Sep '00

25 Sep '00

> One could note that a regular packet-filtering ACL inbound on the > customer's port could achieve a congruent functionality. > That's probably true. In this case, I had a different idea in mind > when I asked for the feature but this is what came out. Right, the latter is nothing more than a standard packet filter. Ideally, on could employ the same policy used for route filtering from a peer (perhaps generated via IRR or other similar mechanism) to perform source address 'authorization' in the forwarding path. Given, the practicality of performing these functions in hardware today is, well, interesting.... If this were widely supported and deployed (especially inter- domain), IP spoofing DoS attacks would largely be a thing of the past. Of course, if prefix filtering and/or ingress packet filtering were widely deployed even at the edge, this would largely be a thing if the past. This is one of the things that we plan to discuss during the "Service Provider Route Filtering" panel @NANOG. -danny

1 0

Re: netscan.org update
by Michael Shields 25 Sep '00

25 Sep '00

In article <20000924175334.A46043(a)ussenterprise.ufp.org>, Leo Bicknell <bicknell(a)ufp.org> wrote: > A large part of it is probably that very few administrators > set of warning bells on a single ping, but a substantial fraction of > mail administrators get floods of e-mail warnings from the mail testing > programs, wasting their time and energy. > > When you scan properly locked down boxes in a way that fills > an admins mailbox they get testy. http://www.nfr.net/forum/publications/id-myths.html -- Shields.

1 0

Telemarketing
by Susan R. Harris 25 Sep '00

25 Sep '00

Hi everyone - we've received reports that some of you have received calls from telemarketers saying they are from NANOG and want information on attendees. We want to note that these calls are in no way associated with Merit Network, Inc., or other NANOG staff. Susan R. Harris Merit Network/Univ. of Mich. (734) 936-2100

1 0

RE: The Backhoe Summit
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 25 Sep '00

25 Sep '00

> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 rdobbins(a)netmore.net wrote: > > Do the large carriers now participate in 'one-call' operations like power > > and gas companies do? At least in Virginia a couple of years ago, they > > didn't. It might be a good idea for them to do so. > > "For competitive reasons we can't tell you the location of our fiber." > > - An anonymous representative of a very large telco > - Almost every representative of every large telco I've ever talked to about this subject. Owen

1 0

Looking for colo space in Denver email me direct...
by Rich Sena 25 Sep '00

25 Sep '00

-- In a brood of blind back biting vipers... ...the one-eyed snake is king! Rich Sena -.~~~ssssSSSSiSSSSssss~~~.- ras(a)thick.net

1 0

Re: netscan.org update
by John Fraizer 25 Sep '00

25 Sep '00

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > At 02:01 PM 9/24/2000 -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > >It's sounding like what we're working our way around to is that two > >separate BGP feeds would be needed: <SOAPBOX> OK... In typical engineer fashion, we're all over-engineering this. Even if we do manage to set up a RBL style BGP feed, all this will do is limit OUR ability to reach the SMURF-friendly networks. That's the wonderful thing about BGP. You can limit what you accept but, once you hand an announcement to someone, there is no real way to say "announce this to everyone but the SMURF-friendly networks." So, what we end up doing is limiting the damage done by a smurf attack. Unless you're running CEF, your router is going to pass traffic destined for networks you're announcing to those networks. I have yet to find an easy way to implement CEF on the border that doesn't break something in some funky way or another. What needs to happen (and most likely won't... I'll grant you that) is that we need to begin dropping peering sessions with those ASNs that host smurf amplifiers and refuse to do anything about it. Networks who host stub sites who refuse to do anything about their smurf activities need to flat out DROP those customers! When the smurf sites can no longer connect to anyone because either they or their transit provider has been dropped by the rest of the world, they can't cause any damage to anyone else. Like I said above, I doubt this will happen because there are far too many pointy-head types and bean-counter types vs engineer types. Since we _know_ that the obvious solution will _NOT_ happen on a large enough scale to really make any impact, there is something that we can ALL do to prevent the problem from getting any worse. 1) If someone is connecting to your network for transit, make sure that, at a minimum, their router is configured for no ip directed broadcast. 2) Make sure that your AUP has provisions for disconnecting a customer who is causing network disruptions AND DISCONNECT THEM WHEN THEY ARE!!! 3) Make sure your AUP has provisions to drop a customer like a bad habbit if they have multiple "accidental misconfigurations" that cause network disruptions. 4) Make sure that there is room in your bi-lateral peering agreements for you to drop the session when you're seeing SMURF traffic from a peer and KEEP IT DOWN until they fix their problem. DON'T TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT! TEST IT YOURSELF! When someone has to buy transit to you to smurf you via a free/inexpensive bi-lateral peering session, it WILL get their attention. Folks, we build and run the internet in North America and parts unknown. I'm NOT advocating that we adopt an elitist attitude. We do however have the power to make it painful/expensive for those who don't play by the rules. It's time for us to USE IT! Simply blocking crap at our borders does not prevent it from makeing it to our borders and clogging the pipe/cpu at the borders. If collectively we refuse to put up script kiddies and networks that provide safe havens for them, we will no longer have to deal with them. Tell me... Has anyone heard of anyone from the US "tagging" in Singapore? Hell no. They made an example. They don't put up with that crap. I would MUCH rather someone spraypaint the front of our NOC than throw 300Mb/s of ICMP towards us. Perhaps if we all started hiring an "enforcer" for our AUPs who "visited" problem clients, they would go away. It's time to take a tough stand against SMURF-haven networks/clients. We DON'T want their business and we DON'T want to peer with them. We DO want them to get their act together and fix their networks/customers. It's just that simple. Like most things in life, I'm sure that this is far too simple to catch on. Something has to be complicated for people to appreciate the beauty generally. </SOAPBOX> --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

1 0

Re: The Backhoe Summit
by David Lesher 24 Sep '00

24 Sep '00

Forwarded message: > I've come to the conclusion that a lot of these problems could be > avoided with a bit of enforced cooperation. Recent ordinances require > competing cell providers to licence or share existing towers before > new tower permits are allowed. We don't allow multiple rows of > telephone poles in the same easement. Why do we allow unconstrained > underground work? The rampant "competition" just isn't tenable. > > WSimpson(a)UMich.edu This has been very visible in DC; the PhiberPholks have had every ingress route torn up multiple times, making our (already 2nd worst in US) traffic far less tolerable. Mayor saw the issue on his radar, declared a moritorium and made lots of noises about requiring cooperation al-la Richmond. If such is now happening; I've not seen mention of it. The carriers all claimed they could not tell their competition where they were headed for, and I suspect no one will willing to buy space in advance they'd not want for 6+ months. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

WS-G5487 1000BaseZX GBICs
by Rich Sena 24 Sep '00

24 Sep '00

Does anyone have any experience with these GBICS that claim to extend the distance of Gigabit Ethernet over 70km on single mode fiber? From http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat5000/cnfg_nts/ethern… WS-G5487 The WS-G5487, 1000BaseZX operates on ordinary single mode fiber optic link spans of up to 70 km in length. -- In a brood of blind back biting vipers... ...the one-eyed snake is king! Rich Sena -.~~~ssssSSSSiSSSSssss~~~.- ras(a)thick.net

2 1

RE: The Backhoe Summit
by Sean Donelan 24 Sep '00

24 Sep '00

On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 rdobbins(a)netmore.net wrote: > Do the large carriers now participate in 'one-call' operations like power > and gas companies do? At least in Virginia a couple of years ago, they > didn't. It might be a good idea for them to do so. "For competitive reasons we can't tell you the location of our fiber." - An anonymous representative of a very large telco

3 6