March 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

NET99 sabotages IGC's routes
by Joel Katz 17 Mar '96

17 Mar '96

IGC (Internet Gateway Connections, an ISP in Florida that was multihomed between NET99 and MCI) just had an unexpected outage lasting in excess of an hour. This outage was deliberately engineered by AGIS/NET99. First, a little history: IGC's first 'Net T1 was to NET99. Instead of connecting us directly to their backbone (as we had expected) they connected us to Netrunner (one of our competitors). Netrunner/NET99 only has a single T1 out of Miami (to Atlanta) and as a result, our throughput was awful and we obtained an additional T1 to MCI. A few days ago, someone at Netrunner got upset with someone at NET99/AGIS and shut off _our_ service. For some reason (we strongly suspect a configuration error at NET99) our traffic failed to reroute over our MCI T1 for several hours. (They have a habit of broadcasting static routes to route around outages, thus completely screwing their multi-homed customers.) We asked AGIS for a one month refund to compensate us for our losses due to the sabotage. Instead, they issued us a _one_day_ credit. We got upset, both with the ability of our T to pass traffic, with NET99's continual routing problems, with NET99's backbone being disassembled from under us, and with NET99/AGIS's continual delays in migrating us to the AGIS network. We asked them to discontinue our service. They did. They also deliberately and maliciously began broadcasting more specific routes for the individual class C networks in our CIDR block. (We confirmed this with MCI.) When I spoke to AGIS about the outage, they told me I had to speak with Randy Epstein. Randy Epstein is the person at IGC who made the decision to discontinue our AGIS/NET99 service. I contacted MCI again and they contacted AGIS/NET99 with the ultimate threat being for MCI to stop carrying AGIS' traffic if they would not cease broadcasting the bogus routes. Shortly after being contacted by MCI, AGIS/NET99 stopped announcing the bogus routes to MCI, but continued advertising these routes to their other peers at the NAPs. Fortunately, MCI was able to reconfigure our access lists at their router to allow us to broadcast competing more specific routes for each individual class C in the CIDR block. Thus (more or less) restoring IGC's net connectivity. NET99's deliberate, malicious actions are contrary to the very spirit of the Internet. They resulted in DALnet (the third largest IRC network) being split to ribbons, depriving 2,500 people of the ability to converse with each other and cutting off DALnet's security and access control system which is hosted here. Please excuse me if this is not the appropriate forum for discussing this event. David Schwartz Director of Network Services Internet Gateway Connections (954)-430-3030

5 4

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Fleming 17 Mar '96

17 Mar '96

On Sunday, March 17, 1996 5:56 AM, Ronald Barron Yokubaitis[SMTP:rony@texas.net] wrote: @On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Barry Shein wrote: @ @> @> @> Would you claim there have been no anti-monopoly or anti-trust actions @> ever (successfully) prosecuted under Taft-Hartley? Or that @> Taft-Hartley itself is just entirely the product of deluded morons? @ @ @Howdy...........Taft-Hartley is Labor Legislation *not* Anti-Trust. Are you @referring to the Clayton Act? Sherman Antitrust laws?......Ron @ @ @ @Ronald Barron Yokubaitis A Texas NetWorking, Inc. @Texas Networking Inc. B TOTAL INTERNET SOLUTIONS @San Antonio 210-272 8111 5 $9.95 Internet Access @Austin 512-472 2532 L e-mail info(a)texas.net @ J http://www.texas.net @_.. . ._ _... ..... ._.. ._ _ _ ._ _... ..... ._.. ._ _ _ _._ @ @ @ I think that RICO (spelling) has the most teeth... Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Paul Ferguson 17 Mar '96

17 Mar '96

At 12:45 PM 3/14/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >In any case, so what? Economic allocation of resources is, if >anything, more important when there is significant scarcity. > >Perry > This also creates monopolies where, if this were to occur, would give Uncle Sugar plenty of reason to step in and arbitrate and/or reallocate. - paul

5 6

RE: Sprint Peering Requirements? WAS More network problems (fwd)
by Jim Fleming 16 Mar '96

16 Mar '96

On Saturday, March 16, 1996 5:47 AM, Matthew Petach[SMTP:mpetach@falcon.netflight.com] wrote: @ @Recently, Paul Vixie wrote... @> @> > P.S. what is the deal with the Santa Clara POP anyway? I've seen gas @> > main explosions, circuits cut by a blowtorch (gee? maybe they're related), @> > "missing" fiber, "lost" circuits, and other shenangans. @> @> The story may be growing with the telling, but I was told that a gas main @> ruptured, with or without a small explosion (depends on who you ask), and @> the fire marshall came in, smelled natural fumes all over, and ordered that @> power be cut to the surrounding buildings, presumably to prevent explosions @> due to sparks and such. WilTel ultimately brought in a portable generator @> and put this wonderful new spark generator out in the parking lot, closer @> to the natural gas fumes than anything inside the building would have been. @ @*sigh* @ @I'd kinda hoped the issue would die down, but since it won't, I guess @I'll actually speak up. @ @I was driving to work, running a bit late at around 11:10 am, and turned @west on Walsh Avenue from San Tomas. I pulled into the left turn lane @leading into the business park, and noticed the driveway was blocked @with orange cones and a backhoe digging. A woman in a dark, Pennsylvania @green lincoln towncar pulled up into the left turn lane behind me. When @the left turn arrow turned green, I made a u-turn on Walsh, and entered @the business park via a secondary driveway closer to San Tomas. I glanced @in my rear-view mirror, and saw that the woman in the green car was @stopped midway through the intersection, blocking oncoming traffic, @waiting for the construction crew to move the cones to let her into @the parking lot via that driveway; I guess she figured the earth @rotated around her, so why shouldn't everyone else change to fit?\ So the moral of this story is that we all have to beware of people that drive Lincoln Town cars...making accomodations to them could cause the Internet to crash and burn...this is especially true if they have an out of state license...:-) I think that this criteria could be added to the IP Address Allocation and Domain Name policies...I can just see the RFC..."individuals that drive Lincoln Town cars will not be considered as qualified or able to become an ISP....only people with Berkinstocks and Bicycles will be considered for a /8 as long as you have $10 million in venture capital"... Just kidding...everyone should have equal access to Internet resources... although an official at the NSF told me that he did not think this was a goal, a given, or even a good thing... Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Net news....
by Dave O'Leary 16 Mar '96

16 Mar '96

Thanks for the first hand gem on the outage. This Internet thing is pretty cool... :-) The ability to get first hand impressions/perspectives on news events is definitely a feature... Tian'anmen Square, the SCUD missiles, Milo's (that evil @home IP-addr hoarding guy) message about the NSS at NASA Ames during the earthquake... Anyway, enough ramblings.... Back to your regularly scheduled flamefest.... dave

1 0

Re: Sprint Peering Requirements? WAS More network problems (fwd)
by Sean Donelan 16 Mar '96

16 Mar '96

>> In the meantime just dump the Sprintlink traffic through Sprint's T1 >> line at the CIX, and let Sprint backhaul it to the other coast. > >That link has been down for 19 hours. I'm not sure what the problem is; >the T1 IXC won't talk to me about it since it's not my circuit. Awsome, the sales people will love that :-). A policy against the use of available alternate paths results in a single failure turning into a prolonged outage. I love big providers, they make it so easy. At least Sprint has a policy. MCI's and AGIS's lawyers have been working on a policy for months. But haven't come up with a coherent one yet. P.S. what is the deal with the Santa Clara POP anyway? I've seen gas main explosions, circuits cut by a blowtorch (gee? maybe they're related), "missing" fiber, "lost" circuits, and other shenangans. This time I'm glad we followed WorldCom's (WilTel, whatevertheirnameisthisweek) site recommendation and used DC power for our equipment. But this POP is like working out of a telecommunications war zone. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

3 2

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Fleming 16 Mar '96

16 Mar '96

Yes...and we are headed for some big time Internet crashes... Now that big bucks and lawyers are entering the scene, a new picture will emerge...those people will bring politicians and their constituencies will follow... This is the first "Election Year" in the U.S. where the Internet will play a major role in the outcome... ...maybe by the year 2000 there will be an Internet Party and candidate... Jim Fleming Naperville, IL ---------- From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 1996 2:59 PM To: Jim Fleming Cc: 'NANOG List' Subject: RE: Allocation of IP Addresses At 01:58 PM 3/15/96 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > >The growth of the railroads in the United States is also a good story >to study. There are many parallels with the Internet story. > With the number of train crashes in the past couple of months, this comparison leaves a lot to be desired, Jim. :-) - paul

1 0

Re: Sprint Peering Requirements? WAS More network problems (fwd)
by Sean Donelan 15 Mar '96

15 Mar '96

>I got this from one of our downstream customers. > >Is there any truth to this ? >> Okay, here's what you can do...Have your ISP contact Sprint and >> complain that they don't have connectivity to CRL network >> Services. CRL has T3s at several places that Sprint is at, but Sprint >> won't peer with them (Sprint has some stupid new requirements, >> apparantly, requiring peering at 3 NAPs.) No problem - all of CRLs are >> on 7507s :-) >> >> Anyway, CRL is at 2 NAPs - Washington DC and PacBell. Sprint's just >> being stubborn. ...anyway, have them complain to Sprint. The contact >> person at CRL is Eric Mehlhaff (415) 837 5300, he's the cheif network >> engineer. Sprint should take CRL up on CRL's offer :-). CRL has been telling me for months CRL can't peer at the Washington DC MAE-East because all of CRL's BGP peer slots at Mae-East are on "allocation." And therefore CRL doesn't have room for any more peers in DC. mae-east> show cdp neigh detail [...] Device ID: gwdca1.crl.com Entry address(es): IP address: 192.41.177.104 Platform: cisco 2500, Capabilities: Router Trans-Bridge Interface: Fddi0/0, Port ID (outgoing port): Ethernet1 Holdtime : 166 sec Version : Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 3000 Software (IGS-I-L), Version 11.0(2), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-1995 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Mon 25-Sep-95 18:34 by deannaw In the meantime just dump the Sprintlink traffic through Sprint's T1 line at the CIX, and let Sprint backhaul it to the other coast. Its a great sales opportunity when Sprint customers call ask why performance is so bad. Our network engineers may not like Sean Doran, but our sales people sure do. We've had several Sprint customers buy direct circuits to our network because Sprint's peering policies caused their traffic to travel the long way (and sometimes get lost along the way). As long as Sprint keeps refusing, you get to look like the helpfull company trying to meet the customer's needs. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Sprint Peering Requirements? WAS More network problems (fwd)
by Forrest W. Christian 15 Mar '96

15 Mar '96

I got this from one of our downstream customers. Is there any truth to this ? -forrestc(a)imach.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:07:57 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate(a)sri.MT.net> To: forrestc(a)mt.net Subject: More network problems OK, here's the scoop, from the network weenie at Walnut Creek. > Okay, here's what you can do...Have your ISP contact Sprint and > complain that they don't have connectivity to CRL network > Services. CRL has T3s at several places that Sprint is at, but Sprint > won't peer with them (Sprint has some stupid new requirements, > apparantly, requiring peering at 3 NAPs.) No problem - all of CRLs are > on 7507s :-) > > Anyway, CRL is at 2 NAPs - Washington DC and PacBell. Sprint's just > being stubborn. ...anyway, have them complain to Sprint. The contact > person at CRL is Eric Mehlhaff (415) 837 5300, he's the cheif network > engineer. > > (pass this info on to Sprint, but don't have your ISP call CRL - Eric > would just be annoyed). > > Eric is trying to force Sprint to peer with them at DS3 speeds > (45mbit), and this might help. Right now, I can get to WC in-directly by going through sri.com, but this isn't acceptable as I need direct IP connectivity to get the latest source bits. Nate

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Robert Moskowitz 15 Mar '96

15 Mar '96

At 02:20 PM 3/14/96 -0500, @NANOG-LIST wrote: >Brian asks (rhetorically?): > >> Show me how I can create more ip numbers today. >> > >(1) Create new numbers, call it IPv7; > IPv7 was the CATNIP proposal. I think you have to go out to IPv9 to get an unused version #. Robert Moskowitz Chrysler Corporation (810) 758-8212

2 1