March 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: MCI noc
by Danny McPherson 05 Mar '97

05 Mar '97

trouble(a)mci.net or 800-663-9932... > I work for the Network Operations Center for the Army Corps of > Engineers. We (ceap.net) are basically the ISP for the entire Corps. One > of our internet service gateways is provided by MCI and we are having a > hell of a time getting a service issue with them resolved. Some time at > about 1:00 pm PST that gateway went down. Apparently, someone in their > provisioning group has decided to administratively shut down their > interface to us. That much I gathered from talking to someone in their > Internet group. He couldn't give me a good reason why this was the case > and the vapid account managers can't even find a circuit id and can't get > their connections to the MCI noc to do anything. I haven't been able to > get a hold of any one from their Internet group since then. This is > absurd. Is there anyone from MCI here who might be able to give me a > hand? > > > -------------------------------------------- > Esteban Gutierrez > US Army Corps Of Engineers > CEAP Network Operations > (503) 326-6126 > noc(a)ceap.net > >

1 0

MCI noc
by E Gutierrez 05 Mar '97

05 Mar '97

Greetings- I work for the Network Operations Center for the Army Corps of Engineers. We (ceap.net) are basically the ISP for the entire Corps. One of our internet service gateways is provided by MCI and we are having a hell of a time getting a service issue with them resolved. Some time at about 1:00 pm PST that gateway went down. Apparently, someone in their provisioning group has decided to administratively shut down their interface to us. That much I gathered from talking to someone in their Internet group. He couldn't give me a good reason why this was the case and the vapid account managers can't even find a circuit id and can't get their connections to the MCI noc to do anything. I haven't been able to get a hold of any one from their Internet group since then. This is absurd. Is there anyone from MCI here who might be able to give me a hand? -------------------------------------------- Esteban Gutierrez US Army Corps Of Engineers CEAP Network Operations (503) 326-6126 noc(a)ceap.net

1 1

Re: karl and paul, expostulating
by Paul Traina 05 Mar '97

05 Mar '97

[back from the grave] paul(a)vix.com (Paul A Vixie) writes: > Filtering packets based on source address makes Ciscos go way slow on > every packet. Filtering based on destination address makes Ciscos go > very fast on most packets and a little slower on SYN-ACKs. While I agree with what you're trying to do, your statement about filtering packets on source addresses is not correct. It's exactly the same hit. Paul -- The streets will flow with the blood of non-believers.

1 0

Re: Firewall in Routers??
by William S. Duncanson 05 Mar '97

05 Mar '97

At 12:47 3/4/97 -0500, Robert Laughlin wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Andrew Smith wrote: >> Anyone who has a 75XX and a single T1 needs to be taken out back and shot >> by their overly generous accounts payable division ;) > > >At a recent Cisco seminar aimed at corporate customers, Cisco was >specifying the 7500 be used in all the following situations: > >1. connecting a single mainframe computer to the campus backbone >2. connecting a large office to the campus backbone >3. connecting a remote office over frame relay at 512 kbs to the campus >backbone. But do not despair, if you are running at 256kb, you can drop >back to a 7200. > > >#3 implies we are over driving our 7500s. If the 7500 is intended to >handle a single serial line at 512kb, no wonder it seems to get overloaded >on the backbone. Wonder what they would recommend for a DS1 or a DS3, then. BFR, anyone?

4 4

Fw: "routing table slots" and the real problem
by garyz＠savvis.com 05 Mar '97

05 Mar '97

---------- > From: Gary Zimmerman <garyz(a)savvis.com> > To: Nathan Stratton <nathan(a)netrail.net> > Cc: Joseph T. Klein <jtk(a)titania.net>; nanog(a)merit.edu; Paul Ferguson <pferguso(a)cisco.com> > Subject: Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem > Date: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 7:29 AM > > Nathan, > > I know we have five 16 slot routers up and running to date and will go to > 19 soon. We have had some issues with adding pvc(s) . The new code should > be released soon, but it is not good, when you have to take other customers > down to add a new one. Like you we are very please with the gigarouter, > but they still have a way to go. Have you tried getting stats from hssi > cards? Have you tried to look at the bgp tables? Have you tried > communities and federations? > > Any way I am not upset with them, I know they have alot behind, the fact > that they are open is the main plus, that is why I am carring their flag, > but they really need to get behind scaling the product. What a problem, > sell more in one month than you sold in the first three years. > > Anyway, let's keep in touch. I am getting some code this week that should > really make a big difference. > > Gary Zimmerman > > ---------- > > From: Nathan Stratton <nathan(a)netrail.net> > > To: Gary Zimmerman <garyz(a)savvis.com> > > Cc: Joseph T. Klein <jtk(a)titania.net>; nanog(a)merit.edu; Paul Ferguson > <pferguso(a)cisco.com> > > Subject: Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem > > Date: Monday, March 03, 1997 3:16 PM > > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Gary Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > Has anyone looked at Ascend's (NetStar Gigarouter). We have and like > the > > > direction. If they continue to deliver, I think they are going in the > > > right direction. Still some parts missing, I hope we can hold on until > > > they get here, but the direction is right. I think the open idea is > the > > > only way to go on this issue. > > > > We have been using them for about 5 months now, and I like them a lot. We > > have worked with Ascend to fix a large numbers of problems. They are very > > stable now, and have a lot of people working to make them better. > > > > > > Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. > > Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 > > WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about > > itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34 > >

1 0

Firewall in Routers??
by Tim Crowell 04 Mar '97

04 Mar '97

With all of the recent attacks against ISP services, has anybody considered implementing Checkpoint Firewalls into the CISCO 7513s to front end all traffic from the Internet? Although in theory this sounds feasible from a security standpoint I'm not sure I am comfortable with the processing power that would be required and having anything looking at every packet. It seems that this would introduce a significant latency into the routing of the traffic (which is the function of a router or at least it used to be). I prefer to let my routers route. Interested in any and all ideas on the subject. -- Tim Crowell - GTE Intelligent Network Services tcrowell(a)gte.net Voice: 214.751.3881

8 8

Re: The Big Squeeze
by Sean Donelan 04 Mar '97

04 Mar '97

>To back Paul up here.. >Tests we have run would indicate that this is not _generally_ the case. >I guess it depends on your point of viewing but we certainly see an >inordinate amount of oscillation in the longer prefix ranges. >(It also depends on the parameters you associate with certain prefixes of >course ;-) >(Sorry - no facts and figures to back that up) It also depends on how you mentally group things. I agree, there are a few prefixes that have an inordinate amount of oscillation. But what group membership would I assign them? I've noticed more recently assigned network numbers seem to flap more than older network numbers. Perhaps more importantly, networks in more recently assigned AS numbers seem to flap more. Again, this is just raw observations, no real numbers to back up my feelings. Don't let the way "show ip bgp flap" happens to group networks by prefix control your mental schema. I would much rather see the decision based on how any individual route behaves rather than the 'neighborhood' the network happens to be located in. We might be willing to give a network that has been stable for a long time a few extra flaps. While brand new networks that flap would be better off being 'covered' by a shorter, more stable prefix. Is the goal to encourage stable routes? or encourage short prefixes? >For instance, take this snapshot and note the /24 from within the 153.96 >network. The flap column is the interesting one compared with other class Bs. >This is not representative but gives a flavour of what we have been seeing. > >They are all from the same originator and it would not take a great amount >of effort to apply a null0 tie down ! Or even aggregate them. But you bring up an important point. Often all the routes from the same originator flap together, irregardless of their prefix length. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: Firewall in Routers??
by sob＠academ.com 04 Mar '97

04 Mar '97

Glynn writes: > Firewall-1 does address 'hiding' making it look to the external world > like all connects come from a single IP. This should go to the "firewalls" list, I think. Anyway, Firewall-1 version 2.1 and later can do single ip to another ip address translation as well as "hiding" many addresses on one side to make the all look like one on the other. I have done this for my customers who have needed it and wanted to use that product. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

RE: The Big Squeeze
by Jim Fleming 04 Mar '97

04 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 02, 1997 11:28 PM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso@cisco.com] wrote: @ At 04:03 PM 3/2/97 -0600, Scott Huddle wrote: @ @ > @ >I'll assert that if the costs of accepting a route announcement are @ >non-zero that this can only happen if there is a market for @ >announcements and a system of settlements between providers. @ > @ >If the costs are zero, then why have the filters? @ > @ @ I'd suggest that costs are non-zero, and they cannot be quantified @ by dollars, at least today. Since the majority of instability in @ the global Internet is originated by prefixes longer than /19's, @ the amount of resources consumed is an exercise left for the reader. @ Would you support charging $$$ for circuits that go in and out of service beyond some reasonable amount ? Car insurance companies charge people more that have more accidents...:-) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Re: The Big Squeeze
by Paul Ferguson 04 Mar '97

04 Mar '97

At 10:30 PM 3/3/97 -0600, Sean Donelan wrote: >From a single data point on my router, /24's currently account for 64% of >the routing table entries and for 65% of the flapping prefixes. /16's >account for 12% of the routing table entries, and 10% of the flapping >prefixes. It doesn't appear to me there is a significant difference >between flap behaivor of long prefixes and short prefixes. There are >more long prefixes than short prefixes. But as a group they both tend >to flap the same proportion of 2% of the routes within the group. Sorry, I'm not convinced this is the case. There is not enough empirical evidence. - paul

2 1