- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Cisco's CNR vs ISC Bind/DHCP
by Ron Buchalski 20 Mar '00

20 Mar '00

>From: Fletcher E Kittredge <fkittred(a)sss1.gwi.net> >Reply-To: fkittred(a)sss1.gwi.net, nanog(a)merit.edu >To: "Ron Buchalski" <rbuchals(a)hotmail.com> >CC: nanog(a)merit.edu, gwi-network(a)sss1.gwi.net >Subject: Re: Cisco's CNR vs ISC Bind/DHCP >Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:43:28 -0500 <snip> > We are about to deploy an additional cable network and a DSL >network. Before using ISC again, I wanted to check that there had >been no change in Cisco CNR status, that might lead us to do a full >blown evaluation again (these things cost money.) I haven't turned up any >evidence that there have been any changes useful to larger >installations like ours. If you have information to the contrary, >please let me know. What version are you currently using? -rb ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Mae-East FDDI?
by Reid B. Fishler 19 Mar '00

19 Mar '00

Anyone else seeing hte FDDI bouncing up and down in the last half hour or so? Reid Fishler Lightning.net

2 1

New Mexico power outage
by Sean Donelan 19 Mar '00

19 Mar '00

The associated press reports most of the state of New Mexico lost power about 5pm on Saturday. A grass fire in the four corners area bewteen Farmington and Albuquerque is being blamed for causing the outage. After a transmission line was damaged, two power plants shutdown. Individuals lost power from 45 minutes to three hours. At last report, 85 percent of the state power grid has been restored to service. US West reported slight but random problems with telephone service.

2 1

NRIC - Hi, We're From the Government
by Robert Cannon 17 Mar '00

17 Mar '00

The first meeting of NRIC V will take place Monday March 20from 10:00am to 12:30pm at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305, Washington, DC. Frequently there are real audio feeds of these things. NRIC V's Charter is now online at http://www.nric.org/charter_v.html Please note the following from the charter: -- QUOTE -- 2. Network Reliability. (a) The Committee will evaluate, and report on, the reliability of public telecommunications network services in the United States, including the reliability of packet switched networks. . . . . . (c) During the charter of the previous Committee, interested participants recommended that the FCC adopt a voluntary reporting program, administered by the National Communications System, to gather outage data for those telecommunications and information [Internet] service providers not currently required to report outages. The Committee will monitor this process, analyze the data obtained from the voluntary trial and report on the efficacy of that process, as well as the on-going reliability of such services. -- END QUOTE -- Note that "telecommunications" means telephone network. But the line between telephone and Internet networks is blurred, particularly when you talk about packet-switched network reliability. Apparently IOPS was involved in NRIC IV and was in favor of a voluntary period of network outage reporting by ISPs to the FCC's NRIC. ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

NRIC - Hi, We're From the Government
by Robert Cannon 17 Mar '00

17 Mar '00

The first meeting of NRIC V will take place Monday March 20from 10:00am to 12:30pm at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305, Washington, DC. Frequently there are real audio feeds of these things. NRIC V's Charter is now online at http://www.nric.org/charter_v.html Please note the following from the charter: -- QUOTE -- 2. Network Reliability. (a) The Committee will evaluate, and report on, the reliability of public telecommunications network services in the United States, including the reliability of packet switched networks. . . . . . (c) During the charter of the previous Committee, interested participants recommended that the FCC adopt a voluntary reporting program, administered by the National Communications System, to gather outage data for those telecommunications and information [Internet] service providers not currently required to report outages. The Committee will monitor this process, analyze the data obtained from the voluntary trial and report on the efficacy of that process, as well as the on-going reliability of such services. -- END QUOTE -- Note that "telecommunications" means telephone network. But the line between telephone and Internet networks is blurred, particularly when you talk about packet-switched network reliability. Apparently IOPS was involved in NRIC IV and was in favor of a voluntary period of network outage reporting by ISPs to the FCC's NRIC. ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

Re: Hi, we're from the government and we're here to help (long)
by Robert Cannon 17 Mar '00

17 Mar '00

Concerning Government Addressing These Issues, See National Infrastructure Protection Center http://www.fbi.gov/nipc/welcome.htm Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office http://www.ciao.gov/ President's Council on Critical Infrastructure Protection www.pccip.giv Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section www.cybercrime.gov FCC's Network Reliability and Interoperability Council www.nric.org looking into reliability of packet switched networks -B www.cybertelecom.org ------Original Message------ From: Patrick Greenwell <patrick(a)cybernothing.org> To: Chris Brenton <cbrenton(a)sover.net> Sent: March 14, 2000 6:32:02 AM GMT Subject: Re: Hi, we're from the government and we're here to help (long) On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Chris Brenton wrote: > Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > > My fear is that if we do not address these issues as a community, > government/law enforcement will eventually step in and try and take care > of it for us. Absolutely correct. The infrastructure is beginning to generate far too much revenue to be ignored anymore. ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

2 1

Re: Cisco's CNR vs ISC Bind/DHCP
by Ron Buchalski 17 Mar '00

17 Mar '00

Brett writes: >From: brett watson <bwatson(a)mibh.net> >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Cisco's CNR vs ISC Bind/DHCP >Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:58:13 -0800 <snip> >one would hope that cisco licensed the core code for this from Nominum >(www.nominum.com) i don't consider application/software development to be >cisco's "thing". Actually, Cisco acquired this product (and others) when it acquired American Internet Corporation in 1998. -rb ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

mysterious packet delay to/from www.caida.org was: Cisco Netflow Analysis Software
by Kai Schlichting 17 Mar '00

17 Mar '00

Can anyone else confirm the following observation ? If yes: what might be causing this ? (CEF is my usual suspect, but toggling it on/off doesn't do anything) Naturally, I went to www.caida.org in response to one of the NANOG postings, but seemingly hit a roadblock: the site just wouldnt want to load properly. As engineers from time to time get bitten by the curiosity bug, I tracerouted and ping'd around to find the cause of this non-responsiveness. Surprise: depending on the IP space used to access the site, there would be a considerable pause in the packet flow: 20 sec. for a BSDI 4.1 machine or a Win98 machine, 80 sec. for an OpenBSD 2.4 machine , but NO pause when using a different set of IP space (to be exact: Interface IP space belonging to upstream provider). One could literally switch around the 'ip telnet source-interface' on the gateway router to use the different IP space blocks, and would get the long delay or not, depending on which space was used. Note that there is no duplicates or visible packet loss whatsoever, and the delay is occurring at the exact same packet in the flow each and every time, regardless of client operating system (tcp receive buffers/window are set to 2^16 though, which didn't make a difference other than different packetization). I have tried this from 2 other locations, and the long pause (there) would melt down into the 100ms range mostly sometimes go away. Sorry for the tcpdump in advance...a simple GET / HTTP/1.0 on their server. This is out of 208.192.0.0/10 (AS 701) , btw., with no more specific route visible net-wide. bye,Kai ------ (BSDI 4.x at work here:) 15:35:57.505400 host.35570 > ipn.caida.org.www: S 3494476576:3494476576(0) win 65535 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,[|tcp]> [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 5418) 15:35:57.700158 ipn.caida.org.www > host.35570: S 1151006778:1151006778(0) ack 3494476577 win 8760 <mss 1460> (DF) (ttl 239, id 11105) 15:35:57.700794 host.35570 > ipn.caida.org.www: . ack 1 win 65535 [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 12399) 15:36:01.446201 host.35570 > ipn.caida.org.www: P 1:17(16) ack 1 win 65535 [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 24844) 15:36:01.714702 ipn.caida.org.www > host.35570: . ack 17 win 8760 (DF) (ttl 239, id 11106) 15:36:01.715261 host.35570 > ipn.caida.org.www: P 17:19(2) ack 1 win 65535 [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 463) 15:36:01.972221 ipn.caida.org.www > host.35570: P 1:1461(1460) ack 19 win 8760 (DF) (ttl 239, id 11107) 15:36:01.972910 host.35570 > ipn.caida.org.www: . ack 1461 win 64240 [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 10930) 15:36:02.240938 ipn.caida.org.www > host.35570: . 1461:2921(1460) ack 19 win 8760 (DF) (ttl 239, id 11108) 15:36:02.246988 ipn.caida.org.www > host.35570: P 2921:4097(1176) ack 19 win 8760 (DF) (ttl 239, id 11109) 15:36:02.252069 host.35570 > ipn.caida.org.www: . ack 4097 win 65535 [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 24582) 15:37:22.984047 ipn.caida.org.www > host.35570: P 4097:4933(836) ack 19 win 8760 (DF) (ttl 239, id 30829) 15:37:22.984192 ipn.caida.org.www > host.35570: F 4933:4933(0) ack 19 win 8760 (DF) (ttl 239, id 30830) 15:37:22.987340 host.35570 > ipn.caida.org.www: . ack 4934 win 64864 [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 53067) 15:37:22.999506 host.35570 > ipn.caida.org.www: F 19:19(0) ack 4934 win 65535 [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 36125) 15:37:23.222742 ipn.caida.org.www > host.35570: . ack 20 win 8760 (DF) (ttl 239, id 30831)

2 3

Final report from DOE Power Outage Study Team
by Sean Donelan 17 Mar '00

17 Mar '00

How many of these statements could be applied to other interconnected systems, such as the Internet. Think about the outages last summer in the power system which lead to this report. What would a similar scope of outages look like on the Internet? Compare and contrast. You have 2 hours to complete this test :-) >From the Department of Energy's Power Outage Study Team final report on the Summer of 1999 power outages issued on Monday. http://www.policy.energy.gov/electricity/postfinal.pdf "This change makes the current system of voluntary compliance with reliability standards inadequate for ensuring reliability. Mandatory standards for bulk-power psystems are needed to ensure that the "rules of the road" are implemented in a straightforward and balanced manner." "Many forums for exchanging information on "best practices" for maintaining and operating electric generation, transmission and distribution systems already exist. However, concerns exist about the consistency of some information (such as reliability indicies), the availability of data to all industry stakeholders, and the continued viability of these forums in a restructured industry. The federal government could play an important role in enhancing the definition, collection, and sharing of information." "Emergencies on bulk-power systems affect large geographic areas, involve many stake holders, and affect millions of customers. The events of the summer of 1999 demonstrated that effective communication and coordination among many parties are critical during times of system emergencies. The federal government should actively support efforts to continually review and improve planning and response capabilities." "In view of the regional and national implications of power outages, known and emerging electric system vulnerabilties need to be studied from a national rather than local perspective. Studies from a national perspective uniquely belong to the federal government, but studies must be carried out in close partnership with the electric industry."

1 0

Need to speak to a clueful Qwest BGP Engineer
by Hitesh Patel 17 Mar '00

17 Mar '00

I apologize for posting this message here, but it's my last hope. for upwards of a month now I have been trying to get a BGP Announcement problem fixed through the 'correct' channels at Qwest. So far there has not been any progress, and the people i'm talking to seem to not be clueful enough to help. If there is a knowledgeable Qwest routing engineer out there please contact me at any of the methods listed in my signature. Is anyone else having these problems with Qwest? So far there NOC response times have been nothing but crappy and it seems that there technical people know less then 3 monkeys trying to get 2 cisco's talking. If you are having the same problems please email me so I have some ammunition to go after Qwest with. -- |---------------------------------|----------------------------| | Hitesh Patel | Voice: (541) 759-3126 | | | Fax: (541) 759-3214 | | Preferred Communications Inc. | Email: hitesh(a)pciwest.net | |---------------------------------|----------------------------|

1 0