August 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: ICMP Attacks???????
by Joe Rhett 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

> > That's not a fault of the router vendor, or the software. > > Stipulated. but neither of those excuses protect the net. Not concerning with protecting the 'Net. The 'Net should be protected by cluefull ISPs. Your idea is to waste CPU cycles to prevent people from reading the manual. > I've yet to have anyone explain to me why adding a requirement to tell > the router that a given port has other routers behind it, instead of > hosts, "won't work in many, many implementations"... by which I assume > you mean many networks, rather than many router brands. You obviously fail to understand corporate networks. Since corporate networks are still 90-9?% of the router business, your requirements for what the 'Net needs are irrelevant. (also irrelevant since the functionality is there. You just have to RFTM..) > > Not enough reason. Small picture. Pretty silly proposition. I can think of > > many better propositions, with much better reasons, that I'd rather see put > > forward. > Pointers? Replace BGP with PATH metrics and congestion info. More intelligent route filters More adaptive response to route table fluctuations. Defined backups when routing table destablizes. Automatic local priority updates when routing table fluctates (Bay has it, noone else does). Defined actions for loss/gain of specific routes. Better path info update in OSPF. Common path info exchange in OSPF (wake up Cisco) Cleaner route switching in OSPF. On-Demand SVC Frame Interfaces. Real code, real purpose, real function. Not code to prevent people from reading the manual. -- Joe Rhett Systems Engineer JRhett(a)ISite.Net ISite Services PGP keys and contact information: http://www.navigist.com/Staff/JRhett

2 1

Broadcast ICMP's at Mae East from Nacamar / Nacamar Contact
by Thomas Trede 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Hello, the problems with the broadcast ICMP's at Mae East have been fixed meanwhile. The Nacamar Network Operations Center can be reached via eMail: noc(a)nacamar.net or via phone: +49 6103 9901 62. If anyone still sees an ICMP Broadcast problem at Mae East, please contact our NOC or directly me. Regards, Thomas PS: I was on a business trip for two weeks and was unsubscribed from the NANOG mailing list... ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Trede NACAMAR Data Communications Senior Network Engineer P.O.Box 102262 63268 Dreieich / Germany e-mail: trede(a)nacamar.net voice: +49-6103-993-910 www : www.nacamar.net fax : +49-6103-993-999 -------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Native Multicast (Was: Re: Contest! )
by Eric Kozowski 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

>PS: The real prize should go to the *next* person to post useful technical >content. OK, I'll take a stab at it, although it'll be in the form of a technical question, which will hopefully draw technical content/answers. I'm getting ready to run some native multicast on our backbone, mainly as an experiment in replacing our existing set of DVRMP/MRouted tunnels. Equipment is cisco 7XXX and 4500, with a 2501 CPE router (my home connection). Most are running some flavor of 11.2, with one or two still running 11.1. I'm looking for tips and suggestions from folks who are actually running native multicast in a cisco environment. While I've been getting help from Dave Meyer (Thanks, Dave!), I figure that others could benefit from the same information, hence my posting here. -Eric

3 2

Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by Ron Buchalski 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Joseph, To make a fair comparison between your 7500 and your new GRF, are you going to configure your 7500 to be comparable? Put an RSP4, VIP2-40 interface processors, and CEF code (otherwise known as distributed FIB) into the 7500 to make it fair. You'll see what a modern 7500 can REALLY do. Cisco has made quite a few advancements/modifications to the original 7500 over the past two years, a fact that seems to have escaped the folks at the Tolly Group. The more interesting data published by the Tolly report clearly indicates that the GRF has a LONG way to go to meet the performance objectives described in Ascend's product literature. Compare the numbers yourself. -rb ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by hoff＠nodewarrior.net 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We are in the development phase of engineering the deployment of approximately 60 POPs throughout the US. Our 'standard' configuration is normally based upon cisco equipment and more often than not consists of a 7513 connected to a Catalyst 5000/5500 via FDDI with the various internal LAN segments switched from there via FD 100BaseTX. We've begun to explore the viability of deploying the GRF for several reasons, not the least of which is cost and performance. Given (and taken with a grain of salt) the apparent performance differential between the cisco 7513 and the Ascend GRF (the GRF outperforms the 7513 substantially in our tests,) my concerns are more operations-related. The GRF DOES support the 'full' implementation (including extensions) of BGP4 and the other 'vanilla' TCP services that you'd come to expect from a router (er, layer 3 switch?) of this caliber. Since it's NOT a cisco, we'd have to deviate and not utilize EIGRP as our IGP of choice, and deploy OSPF which poses its own set of issues. SO, the bottom line...has anyone else deployed multiple GRF400's with success. Ascend will tell you that UUNET has deployed (or is going to) a hundred or so. I want to talk to people USING the technology, not thinking about it. Your comments and opinions are welcomed. TIA, Christofer Hoff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBM/3KcnRoVZYHVpX1EQKKwgCgsnu30mTvCXZRyH68TOWeq3z0uZkAnj0F Kmgl0te7Wq6AzsQ1/0GjMV5N =d5NC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ,,, (o-o) ------.oOO--(_)--OOo.--------------------------------- Christofer L. Hoff \ No true genius is Chief Nerd, \ possible without a NodeWarrior Networks, Inc \ little intelligent \ madness! hoff(a)nodewarrior.net \ http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth "Nuthin' but Net!" \ ------------------------------------------------------ 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax

6 5

Re: Router management at MAE-East and MAE-West
by Joe McGuckin 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

For MAE-WEST, you could use Frigate Networks (Charlie Slater, cslater @frigate.com) They do PC & router work & they have reasonable pricing. -joe

1 0

Re: Netrail woes
by William Allen Simpson 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

> From: Ehud Gavron <GAVRON(a)ACES.COM> > "No bible-toting fool who won't pay his bills will be > in business long." - Ehud (look it up, it's in the same book.) > Enough with the Bible (and person) bashing. He said they were a charge for circuits never ordered. I've seen a bit of the same myself, and thus I believe him. I've also seem multiple installation charges for the same order, charges for interior cabling when I personally did the wiring from the network interface, and a fair number of other shenanigans. However, in this litiginous world, the correct approach is to pay the disputed billing, give them 5 days notice to refund the overcharge, and then sue them, including fees and costs. (Although I've never had to do this over $300K, which isn't exactly pocket change.) Fortunately, the Uniform Commercial Code gives a reasonable rate of return on the interest: 1% a month from date of filing. Somewhat better than I can get at the local bank.... I usually take plenty of time to conclude the dispute after filing, for that very reason. The big guys hold their very bigness over your head to force payment, so you might as well take advantage of their natural slowness. :-) Hopefully, he has a good lawyer. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1

My hastily chosen words.
by Ehud Gavron 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

I should have trimmed the CC list. I apologize for the comments, inappropriate as they were, as well as wasting your time with them. Ehud

1 0

Router management at MAE-East and MAE-West
by Wookie 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question... I work for an ISP and we're looking at hooking up our own links to MAE-East and MAE-West. A problem we forsee is that we're 1,000+ miles from both of these locations, and we'd rather not have to drop everything and jump on a flight if the router goes down and needs a reboot or hardware replacement, and we dont really want to have to take on an employee living near each MAE to do this stuff. How do other ISPs deal with hardware problems at remote MAEs? Someone told me that there are companies (possibly MFS themselves?) who can do 24x7router hardware management, and even install the router in the first place. Does anyone have experience of these services? Are they reliable? Can they provide "out of band" router access, eg through the console serial port to a console server? Any contact details would also be very helpful. Thanks! Wookie

4 3

RE: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by Chris MacFarlane 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

Well they are out as we (ACC) have deployed them and the have worked well so far. We have had a couple of bug to date and Ascend has addressed them quickly. As for them being new they have been around for two years but I do agree that they need some polishing on the router management side. Rgds cjm -----Original Message----- From: Brian Horvitz [SMTP:horvitz@mediaone.net] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 1997 1:06 AM To: Lane Patterson; Christofer Hoff Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch? Why, you know where to get one? And even if they were out, I'm not sure I'm want to deploy anything in a 60 node network pushing that much data which was so new. Brian >Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail. He's our collective test case :-) > >Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too? > >-Lane > >On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Christofer Hoff wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> We are in the development phase of engineering the deployment of >> approximately >> 60 POPs throughout the US. Our 'standard' configuration is normally >> based upon >> cisco equipment and more often than not consists of a 7513 connected >> to a Catalyst >> 5000/5500 via FDDI with the various internal LAN segments switched >> from there via FD 100BaseTX. >> >> We've begun to explore the viability of deploying the GRF for several >> reasons, >> not the least of which is cost and performance. Given (and taken >> with a grain >> of salt) the apparent performance differential between the cisco 7513 >> and the >> Ascend GRF (the GRF outperforms the 7513 substantially in our tests,) >> my >> concerns are more operations-related. >> >> The GRF DOES support the 'full' implementation (including extensions) >> of >> BGP4 and the other 'vanilla' TCP services that you'd come to expect >> from >> a router (er, layer 3 switch?) of this caliber. Since it's NOT a >> cisco, >> we'd have to deviate and not utilize EIGRP as our IGP of choice, and >> deploy >> OSPF which poses its own set of issues. >> >> SO, the bottom line...has anyone else deployed multiple GRF400's with >> success. >> Ascend will tell you that UUNET has deployed (or is going to) a >> hundred or so. >> I want to talk to people USING the technology, not thinking about it. >> >> Your comments and opinions are welcomed. >> >> TIA, >> >> Christofer Hoff >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 >> Charset: noconv >> >> iQA/AwUBM/3KcnRoVZYHVpX1EQKKwgCgsnu30mTvCXZRyH68TOWeq3z0uZkAnj0F >> Kmgl0te7Wq6AzsQ1/0GjMV5N >> =d5NC >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> ,,, >> (o-o) >> ------.oOO--(_)--OOo.--------------------------------- >> Christofer L. Hoff \ No true genius is >> Chief Nerd, \ possible without a >> NodeWarrior Networks, Inc \ little intelligent >> \ madness! >> hoff(a)nodewarrior.net \ >> http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth >> "Nuthin' but Net!" \ >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax >> >> > >

4 3