- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

GRIDNET wake up
by Randy Bush 16 Mar '97

16 Mar '97

Dear GridNet: Mail to the contacts in your whois data bounces. So we will make this a public plea: o Fix your whois data. o Please stop the SNMP probes from 206.80.163.6 to our routers. As they get no data as you do not know our community string, the continual repition could be interpreted as a denial attack. rady

1 0

Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
by Danny McPherson 16 Mar '97

16 Mar '97

> Peers of R may still receive routes with different as-paths, but > as-path lengths and origin codes (which matter for selection) should > at least be the same for the most part, ever do a "sh ip bgp inconsistant-as" in a cisco? -danny

1 0

Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
by Jessica Yu 15 Mar '97

15 Mar '97

If a provider/AS does not have the policy of dumping hot potatos to other peers for the traffic to its customers who happen to multihome to those peers. Then there is a simple way to do it. They can have policy of always favor its own customer routes over the routes learned from other peers. This will avoid the inconsistent announcement by eliminating the cases that some part of the AS favors routes M from it's customer and other part favors M from another peer, thus announce consistent routes to other peers. It's very easy to manage this policy. Just assign lower (less favored) local_pref to routes learned from peers than those learned from customers. It's AS based. By using the default local_pref value, one only need to assign a lower than default local_pref value to the peer AS at border routers. A good side effect of this policy is that your customers routes will be protected from being blackingholed from careless ISPs leaking/advertising your customers routes but have no way to reach them. --Jessica ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.5]) by cannes.aa.ans.net (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id QAA24798 for <jyy(a)cannes.aa.ans.net>; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:58:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA25369 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for regional-techsers(a)ans.net) Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:57:00 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-5); Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:57:00 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-4); Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:57:00 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-3); Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:57:00 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:57:00 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:57:00 -0500 Message-Id: <v03101919af4e08805b01(a)[152.160.213.42]> In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.2.858281493.vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net> References: Your message of Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:46:06 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:41:41 -0500 To: Vince Fuller <vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net> From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs(a)ieng.com> Subject: Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Cc: Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)sdg.dra.com>, nanog(a)merit.edu Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2715 At 11:31 AM -0800 3/13/97, Vince Fuller wrote: >Well, if that "candidate path" is, in fact, one of Randy's customer, then >I would expect him to "cold-potato" route toward it. One would think that >to be part of the service that his customer is purchasing. I think that his internal routing policy and service to his customer is really irrelevant to the question at hand, except insofar as its side-effects affect you. >I certainly >shouldn't have to do "cold-potato" routing to his customer, as that customer >isn't purchasing anything from me. Ah, I finally see the problem. In essence, Randy's (announcement) policy assumes that a destination is either in the set of customer routes OR the set of peer routes, but not both. But in this case we have a destination which is in both. The side-effect ends up making you "cold-potato" route to destinatons in the (customer + peer) intersection. The question is, does it make sense for a destination to be considered to be in both sets? If "peer" is supposed to mean "not-customer" then the answer is probably no, there is (should be) no intersection between "customer" and "not-customer". If this is right, the problem is that sometimes the AS path is an overly blunt instrument to determine the customer-ness of a route. In the case where using the AS path doesn't allow the route to be categorized correctly, the only way *I* can see of fixing it is using manual policy (sorry). Presumably this could be done with a minimum of pain by something like (assumes M should properly be categorized as "customer"): (at router peering with customer C in Randy's example): write "customer" community onto all routes from C (at router peering with peer P in Randy's example): write "customer" community onto all routes from (P M) write "peer" community onto all other routes from P (at routers sending routes to external neighbors) send routes with "customer" community to all peer routers send routes with "peer" community to all customer routers send routes with "customer" community to all customer routers The special-casing is limited to the guy who peers with P, who has to decide to write "customer" onto (P M) routes. Presumably one could (semi) automatically detect when a new special case is needed by gathering routing table snapshots from border routers from time to time, and finding routes which are colored inconsistently (identical destinations, different communities). Regards, - --John - -- John Scudder email: jgs(a)ieng.com Internet Engineering Group, LLC phone: (313) 669-8800 122 S. Main, Suite 280 fax: (313) 669-8661 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 www: http://www.ieng.com ------- End of Forwarded Message

5 6

Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
by Vince Fuller 14 Mar '97

14 Mar '97

add a peer P to your first example. if P peers with you at Point1 close to A's connection and again at a Point2 close to B's connection, then P will hear M's prefixes at Point1 as "R A M" and at Point2 as "R B M". but because the AS path length is equal, they'll still be able to do closest exit for M's prefixes. If that were happening, then we'd consisder the routes to be consistant, at least for shortest-exit purposes. What we are seeing, though, is "R A M" at Point1 and nothing at Point2, likely because Randy doesn't consider "R B M", received from one of his peers, to be a customer route. the tone of the "consistent route" policy is to keep one provider from having to carry packets cross-country in both directions: Full agreement. in this example P does not have to do that In your example, you are correct. But your example doesn't match the situation that Randy is describing. --Vince

5 6

Blacklist of spammers?
by Dave O'Shea 14 Mar '97

14 Mar '97

Not to start another "discussion" of mailspamming again, but I seem to recall that someone out here has a BGP update containing known spammers. Having had to update my &^% router twice today to block induhvidual spammers, I don't mind throwing my hands up in disgust.

3 2

Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
by Vince Fuller 14 Mar '97

14 Mar '97

At 11:31 AM -0800 3/13/97, Vince Fuller wrote: >Well, if that "candidate path" is, in fact, one of Randy's customer, then >I would expect him to "cold-potato" route toward it. One would think that >to be part of the service that his customer is purchasing. I think that his internal routing policy and service to his customer is really irrelevant to the question at hand, except insofar as its side-effects affect you. Yup, it isn't my business to care about his internal routing, just to insure that he presents appropriate routing to me (i.e. I care about the functional specification not the design details...) I was merely speculating, perhaps incorrectly, on what might be going wrong so that I don't see what I consider consistant routes. Ah, I finally see the problem. In essence, Randy's (announcement) policy assumes that a destination is either in the set of customer routes OR the set of peer routes, but not both. But in this case we have a destination which is in both. The side-effect ends up making you "cold-potato" route to destinatons in the (customer + peer) intersection. The question is, does it make sense for a destination to be considered to be in both sets? If "peer" is supposed to mean "not-customer" then the answer is probably no, there is (should be) no intersection between "customer" and "not-customer". See your objection above - I really don't care how the routes are handled internally to Randy's net; I just want to see routes for the same prefixes with equal preference (as path length, origin, etc.) at all interconnects. --Vince

1 0

RE: Remote Operations question
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 14 Mar '97

14 Mar '97

FWIW, Crestron has some goodies that will do the trick (20 Amps) at about $80/port + controller (per site). We're trying to get them to add some voice-response DTMF control capability. Might be good to call them and tell them you're an ISP that would be interested in what ConXioN has been asking for. Might help to convince them there's a market for it. Their specialty is remote control for theater/auditorium lighting and audio/ visual stuff, but their solution looks pretty keen. They're really close to exactly what I'd want. Owen > Any thoughts on the peering question? > > At 06:09 PM 3/8/97 -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote: > >Thanks Alex...... > > > >As far as why........ well let's see; when the router gets hosed in > >our cage, and we open a ticket with MFS, and it takes 5 hours before > >they arrive..... it seems a lot more logical to be able to power cycle > >it out of band without waiting. Now if MFS's facility was truly a 24 x 7 > >facility, which you would expect for a place that was that important :-) > >By the way, your $500 is much less than the last bill they sent us ... > >$750. > > > >Amazing... and we didn't even see the gun in their hands. > > > >Rodney Joffe > >Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company > >http://www.genuity.net > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Alex Rubenstein [SMTP:alex@nac.net] > >>Sent: Saturday, March 08, 1997 4:22 PM > >>To: Rodney Joffe; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > >>Subject: Re: Remote Operations question > >> > >> > >>Leviton has some stuff the we use, they have some things that can do 20 > amps. > >> > >>The better question; why? What is the 7513 doing that you need it to be > >>rebooted? I can be paid to go do it for you; lets say, $500 ea time? :-) > >> > >> > >>At 04:18 PM 3/8/97 -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote: > >>>Is anyone using any kind of out of band controlled power system that > >>>will support remote power cycling of multiple devices with high power > >>>ratings? I'd like to be able to cycle individual components in our racks > >>>at NAPs (especially MAE E!) including 7513s. All the devices we've > >>>found are limited to 15 amps total. I think a 7513 requires 20amps on > >>>its own. > >>> > >>>Thanks > >>> > >>>Rodney Joffe > >>>Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company > >>>http://www.genuity.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >

1 0

RE: Remote Operations question
by Alex Rubenstein 14 Mar '97

14 Mar '97

Any thoughts on the peering question? At 06:09 PM 3/8/97 -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote: >Thanks Alex...... > >As far as why........ well let's see; when the router gets hosed in >our cage, and we open a ticket with MFS, and it takes 5 hours before >they arrive..... it seems a lot more logical to be able to power cycle >it out of band without waiting. Now if MFS's facility was truly a 24 x 7 >facility, which you would expect for a place that was that important :-) >By the way, your $500 is much less than the last bill they sent us ... >$750. > >Amazing... and we didn't even see the gun in their hands. > >Rodney Joffe >Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company >http://www.genuity.net > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Alex Rubenstein [SMTP:alex@nac.net] >>Sent: Saturday, March 08, 1997 4:22 PM >>To: Rodney Joffe; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >>Subject: Re: Remote Operations question >> >> >>Leviton has some stuff the we use, they have some things that can do 20 amps. >> >>The better question; why? What is the 7513 doing that you need it to be >>rebooted? I can be paid to go do it for you; lets say, $500 ea time? :-) >> >> >>At 04:18 PM 3/8/97 -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote: >>>Is anyone using any kind of out of band controlled power system that >>>will support remote power cycling of multiple devices with high power >>>ratings? I'd like to be able to cycle individual components in our racks >>>at NAPs (especially MAE E!) including 7513s. All the devices we've >>>found are limited to 15 amps total. I think a 7513 requires 20amps on >>>its own. >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>>Rodney Joffe >>>Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company >>>http://www.genuity.net >>> >>> >>> >

1 0

Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
by Vince Fuller 13 Mar '97

13 Mar '97

By the way, this general fact about BGP (external announcements are governed by internal route selection) also means that for Randy to always announce the same route to his peer, he would have to change his own, internal routing policy to do cold-potato routing to one of the two candidate paths. This doesn't seem like a reasonable thing for a peer to demand he do. Well, if that "candidate path" is, in fact, one of Randy's customer, then I would expect him to "cold-potato" route toward it. One would think that to be part of the service that his customer is purchasing. I certainly shouldn't have to do "cold-potato" routing to his customer, as that customer isn't purchasing anything from me. --Vince

2 1

Need Solid Sprintlink Contact
by Patrick J. Chicas 13 Mar '97

13 Mar '97

Greetings All, In one of my current lives, we have a need to establish peering connectivity with Sprintlink at their Anahiem POP. I am looking for a solid Sprintlink Sales Engineer that can help. Please, pass on your recommendations. Regards Patrick J. Chicas

1 0