- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: AT&T Worldnet problem
by Sean Donelan 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

Additional information from the AT&T web site about Wednesday's Worldnet problem. >An Apology... And an Explanation. > >On December 1, 1999, there was an outage that affected AT&T WorldNet Service >members. First I would like to apologize for any inconvenience this may have >caused, and second, I'd like to explain what happened. > >This problem was not caused by AT&T's network. However, it did affect our >system, and our members. Another Internet Service Provider made a network >change that caused the public Internet to have incorrect information on how to >reach AT&T WorldNet servers. As a result AT&T WorldNet customers could not >browse the Internet, and mail from other Internet Service Providers to AT&T >WorldNet members was delayed. AT&T engineers worked to isolate the problem and >provided a work around to restore service by 4:30 p.m. In addition, AT&T >notified the other Internet Service Provider, who in turn corrected their >configuration. The smooth operation of the entire Internet depends on accurate >information and cooperation from all Internet Service Providers. This reflects >the distributed nature of the Internet and its design characteristics. > >AT&T WorldNet Service continually works to improve its service. In fact, based >on a recent study by Solomon Wolff Associates, AT&T WorldNet Service was rated >as having the highest level of customer satisfaction among the five largest >Internet Service Providers. > >Again, you have our sincerest apologies for yesterday's outage. Please be >assured that we are working to prevent this kind of an interruption in the >future. > >Thank you for being an AT&T WorldNet Service customer. > >Ed Chatlos >AT&T WorldNet® Service Vice President & General Manager

2 1

OT(semi) backhoes in space
by Alex Pilosov 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991203/sc/mars_sidebar_2.html Let's hope that martians don't have any buried fiber... -- Alex Pilosov | http://www.acecape.com/dsl Acecape, Inc. | AceDSL:The best ADSL in Bell Atlantic area 325 W 38 St. Suite 1005 | (Stealth Marketing Works! :) New York, NY 10018 |

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Howard C. Berkowitz 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

>> > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for >> > annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering? >> >>thanks geoff. :-) >> >>and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8 >>disaster? ahhh, when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check >>would have bounced! >> >>randy > > >When people talk about charging for announcements, it seems as if >there is an assumption that any time a new announcement shows up, it >should be advertised and a charge made for that advertising. Does >the problem simplify, however, if the orientation isn't quite so >real-time? > >What if "problem" long route entries in routing registries had an >additional, digitally signed, flag that said "the originator will >accept charges for this long prefix?" Providers would generate path >filters that permitted advertisements that would generate revenue, >but not others. Since the deaggregated 129/8 would not have been >registered, filters wouldn't have passed it. > >Obviously, there has to be some mechanism, TBD, for actually >settling the charges. > >Also, we would need to guard against cybersquatters that set up >routers just to collect advertising charges. My hunch would be that >squatting is less a problem here, given the need to qualify for an >AS and go through the capital expense of setting up an AS that meets >registry requirements.

1 0

RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

> It's a PITA and not the cleanest of methods, but until all the backbones > quit filtering /24s it's what we have to do. The other alternative (and > we've considered it) is to obtain a much larger space directly from ARIN and > burn the unused space. So which is worse for the net, a table full of /24s or a table full of /19s and no address space left? The hope is registry policy will stop people from getting /19s. Hope doesn't scale. brandon

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Danny McPherson 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

> Uhh, maximum-prefix is used for the maximum number OF prefixes from a > neighbour Uhh, yeah. Which is what I believe Alex R. was referring to when initially suggesting other methods by which one could control the large numbers of prefixes advertised by some large peers, large numbers of prefixes that cannot be accommodated by today's routers and prefix filters. -danny

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Danny McPherson 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

> > > There are ways to get around this (as-path filtering, maximum-paths, etc) > > > that aren't as nazi as one would hope, but will prevent stupidity and > > > provide sanity checking. > > > > Maximum paths deals primarily with ibgp > > Well, thats patently wrong. I don't know how else to respond to this. It's actually "maximum-prefix" in Cisco parlance, perhaps this introduced the confusion. As for Verio's policy of filtering based on registry allocations, I know of several other providers that implement it as well, and have for quite a while. -danny

1 0

BGP recordings
by Sean Donelan 02 Dec '99

02 Dec '99

Besides the Route Tracker at IPMA/Merit, does anyone else record the BGP announcements they hear?

1 0

Re: Seattle - Westin Building The WTO is in town
by Sean Donelan 02 Dec '99

02 Dec '99

My bored source may have exagerated a bit. Another person reported you just needed to go down to the lobby and the guard would arrange for a police escort out of the area. Although I guess I could understand why someone with multiple body piercings and an unusual hair colour would be reluctant to go up to the police and ask for a ride :-) In any case, there was no disruption to service. Although the Starbucks down the street didn't fair as well.

4 4

RE: gTLD DNS RFP
by Newell, Tom 02 Dec '99

02 Dec '99

Sean, The NSI Registry is responsible for the DNS service at the top of the COM/ORG/NET zones and thus the motivation for the RFP. Diversity will be sought through diverse transit, geographical and topological dispersion, etc. If you are implying diversity of organization responsible for serving the zone, the NSI Registry is 100% responsible for serving the zones and is working through this process to put that in a formal framework, a necessary business condition given our contractual obligations. We are trying to do that openly and with the involvement of this community. In terms of the extent of the service performed by the hosting organization, that depends upon the nature of the proposals we receive - we are open-minded. The roots are still roots but that is an RSSAC/ICANN issue. --Tom -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 10:36 PM To: tomn(a)netsol.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: gTLD DNS RFP On Tue, 30 November 1999, "Newell, Tom" wrote: > NSI recently released an RFP seeking hosts for gTLD DNS > servers for COM/NET/ORG. As it likely reached the "sales" > people at the organizations many of you represent, I > thought it appropriate to send a "heads-up" to this list. Is NSI replacing the current root-servers being used with its own gTLD servers, or is this for the gTLD servers already installed by NSI? Since NSI already controls over 40% of the servers used for COM/NET/ORG, and 40% seems to be the magic number for continued reliable operation of the zones, I would be interested in how diversity will be maintained.

1 0

AT&T Worldnet problem (Re: AS7170 flaps and resulting non-event)
by Sean Donelan 02 Dec '99

02 Dec '99

On Wed, 01 December 1999, John Todd wrote: > C: Could this be related? > http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99121.icatt.htm I > don't think so, but it's an interesting note nonetheless. I don't > see how DNS could be attached to the route flaps, but again I don't > have a crystal ball into AT&T's network. I don't have a crystal ball either, I don't even have a chair. Here is what AT&T posted on their web page about yesterday's event. >At approximately 8:15 AM [EST] on Wednesday, December 1, AT&T began >experiencing a series of service interruptions on its dial Internet Protocol >[IP] platform. The impact was nationwide in scope and affected AT&T's Worldnet >Service, Business IP Dial Service, and portions of its Virtual Private Network >service. AT&T 's IP backbone was not affected by this incident, nor were there >any service disruptions to customers using AT&T's dedicated Internet access >service. >Reports indicate that incorrect routing by another Internet Service Provider >[ISP] generated this problem. That routing error has been corrected, the >network has been stabilized, and service has been restored. >We apologize for any inconvenience these interruptions may have caused. As >always, you can report problems with AT&T WorldNet Service by using the Contact >Us link on the left side of this page. >Thank you for using AT&T WorldNet Service.

1 0