- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Hello, Detriot! This is not an operational message...
by elezar＠pfrc.org 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 05:31:27PM -0400, Al Reuben wrote: > So, we're here. In the same lines, I'm interested to hear if anyone wants to do a Spam BOF or something similar sometime in the evening. I'll be here for the rest of the evening until after the "Interesting things you can do with ospf" talk. If anyone's interested, lets say we meet in the terminal room afterwards? -- Jeffrey Haas "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has elezar(a)pfrc.org left the paths of wisdom." (Or works for Fermilab...)

1 0

Re: BGP4 and gated for Linux
by swright＠merit.edu 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

The latest public release of gated is 3.5.9 and is available at: ftp://gated.merit.edu/net-research/gated/gated-3-5-9.tar.gz Lots of information regarding licenses, bug reports, and releases can be found at http://www.gated.org/ Cheers, Shane -- Shane W. Wright /~_ _ _|_ _ |~\ Systems Research Programmer \_/ (_| | (/_ |_/ Merit Network, Inc. w w w . g a t e d . o r g

1 0

System Hack and Data Stolen
by James McKenzie 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

I'm looking for contacts for Colorado.edu. I'm the system administrator for Pathway Communications. Earlier to day our site was compromised. Data files were taken and the hardrive wiped. We have tracked him back to refuge.Colorado.edu and his home provider fastelane.net. Currently I have sent email to the contacts listed on Colorado.edu. I'm hoping someone reading this list may be with Colorado.edu or know someone who is. Any information you can provide is appreciated. The following is my contact information. James McKenzie mcs(a)1ipnet.net voice: 408/249-4780 pager: 408/233-9164 Thank you for your time. James James McKenzie mcs(a)1ipnet.net http://www.1ipnet.net

1 0

BGP4 and gated for Linux
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

Where can I get latest and which is the latest. I prefer open-source but I'll take binary-only if I don't have to cough-up the $110KUS for it. GAWD, what a rip-off! Is 3.5.5 still the latest sources? ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer(a)mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!

1 0

MTU problems with GRE tunnels
by philip bridge 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

I'm experiencing problems with fragmentation due to Cisco GRE tunnel overhead: the way I understand it, the MTU if a GRE tunnel will always be less than the MTU of the underlying IP cloud (in our case 1500 bytes) due to the IP encapsulation overhead. So 1500 byte packets attempting to traverse the tunnel will be fragmented, or dropped if the DF bit is set, in which case an ICMP message is send back to the originating host We're trying to use GRE tunnels extensivly in some fancy added-value Internet services, and it seems that there is a small but significant amount of application traffic out there that has problems when traversing a GRE tunnel with MTU < 1500. We've seen two problems: - 1500 byte packets with DF set. This is either application traffic, or MTU path discovery is broken, because the same packets get sent repeatedly - 1500 byte packets get fragmented, but the destination host cannot cope with the fragmentation (firewall issues?) We see this on a variety of platforms (from 2500, 7507) and a variety of IOS releases (11.1(18)CC, 11.1(2), 11.2(5). Talking to another provider indicates that the same problem exists with other vendors, and is having the same severe impact. Thinking about it, this is a problem is to be expected with IP tunnels of all types, but I am surprised at the extent it's influence on our customer's applications (such as large emails). I do not want to overstate the proportion of traffic we see with this problem - but it does seem to be enough to render GRE tunnels very problematic - to say the least. But I know lots of people are using GRE for this or similar applications...so what am I missing here. thanks in advance for help/tips Phil ______________________________________________________________ Philip Bridge ++41 31 688 8262 bridge(a)ip-plus.net www.ip-plus.ch PGP: DE78 06B7 ACDB CB56 CE88 6165 A73F B703

3 2

Re: Load balancing/Multiple CNAME's (Was: Re: Beyond DNS...)
by shields＠crosslink.net 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

In article <357981AD.D7950B99(a)san.rr.com>, Studded <Studded(a)san.rr.com> wrote: > In any case, all this does is reinforce Paul Vixie's statement in the > FAQ that I quoted previously. Basically he said that multiple CNAME's > are allowed now, but may go away at some point in the future. That > doesn't mean it's not a valid tool now, especially since there aren't > any better tools yet. It's not wise to deploy more instances of something which is clearly deprecated. -- Shields, CrossLink.

1 0

Re: IP over SONET considered harmful?
by avg＠pluris.com 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

> Subject: IP over SONET considered harmful? > > I'd hoped that MPLS would solve this problem, but from reviewing > the drafts I believe that the LSRs _WILL_ decrement the TTL. I think this is a non-issue, considering that with the next generation of IP-only boxes ATM will become hopelessly useless. Better yet, the real big boxes are removing any need to do clustering, so the average number of IP hops for an NSP is going to be like 3 or 4. --vadim

6 5

Re: More smurf networks. FIX YOUR ROUTERS.
by Studded 06 Jun '98

06 Jun '98

Michael J. Freeman wrote: > > Stop the spam, why don't you send mail to this person directly, Actually, I did. He replied to the list. > I'm sure no one cares to hear about dal.net, at least I don't. I felt that if one person was interested others might be. Perhaps posting that response to the list was not appropriate, if so I apologize. At the same time, I would appreciate it if any further remonstrations were sent to me in private. It is arguably worse to chastise someone publicly for not sending a response in private than it is to post a public response to a public query. But I digress, Doug

1 0

Hello, Detriot! This is not an operational message...
by Al Reuben 06 Jun '98

06 Jun '98

So, we're here. If anyone is interested in having a beer, getting dinner, whatever, call me; 973.332.4016! -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex(a)nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 0

Re: Load balancing/Multiple CNAME's (Was: Re: Beyond DNS...)
by shields＠crosslink.net 06 Jun '98

06 Jun '98

In article <35788244.55A2D71(a)san.rr.com>, Studded <Studded(a)san.rr.com> wrote: > > For the same reason you can't CNAME a zone's root to something else > > (meaning, if I am setting up the zone map for n.ml.org, I can CNAME > > web.n.ml.org to narnia.n.ml.org, > > Right. > > > but I can't CNAME n.ml.org to > > narnia.n.ml.org, nor can I CNAME n.ml.org to ftp.microsoft.com, or any > > other host), > > Why not? Because you cannot have CNAME RRs along with any other RR, including NS and SOA. DNSSEC RRs are excepted. > Finally, if you plan to disagree with anything in this post, please > quote chapter and verse from the relevant RFC. I've spent a lot of time > studying this topic and am quite sure of my facts. RFC 2181 section 10.1. -- Shields, CrossLink.

3 3