August 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

flow export and cflowd
by Dorn Hetzel 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

An operational report: We installed rsp-p-mz.111-13a.CA1.bin this weekend on one router in Atlanta. So far, so good, no meltdowns or mystery behavior. We are also now exporting version 5 flow data to cflowd running on Linux (slackware flavor) with no problems. Linux wasn't listed as a tested OS, but no problems were encountered; the ./configure; make; make install process did the trick with no glitches. For anyone considering giving it a try, cflowd was painless to set up and is producing very cool data even on our first day with it. A big thanks to the authors for some great bits. -Dorn

1 0

Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by Brian Horvitz 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

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 >> >> > >

2 1

Re: NACAMAR and ICMP at Mae-east (fwd)
by Eric D. Madison 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

This issue has been resolved. Thanks for the info guys! Eric ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:17:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Trede <tom(a)nacamar.de> To: Richard Almeida <rpa(a)insnet.net> Cc: "Eric D. Madison" <madison(a)acsi.net>, peering(a)nacamar.net, landi(a)nacamar.net Subject: Re: NACAMAR and ICMP at Mae-east Hello, this has been resolved meanwhile. Please forward this information to NANOG, too. Thank you, Richard. -tom On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Richard Almeida wrote: > Hi Eric > > Ive copied this mail to Klaus (landi(a)nacamar.net) and Thomas (trede(a)nacamar.net) > who speaks English, and will probably fix the problem .. (i rehashed the > subject line to draw his attention) > > Ive copied below the contact details from the UK peering point LINX (on > www.linx.net/admin.html) for the UK subsidiary of nacamar, who Im sure can > contact the German net admin guys aswell if you call them > > support(a)nacamar.net.uk Noc email > +44 1438 715607 Noc fax > +44 941 114133 Noc 24 hour > peering(a)nacamar.net.uk Peering contact > > I havent copied this back onto NANOG list on purpose. > > Richard > > > In a previous message Eric D. Madison wrote: > > > > There are still a lot of broadcast ICMP's at Mae East and they are coming > > from Nacamar's Interface. I have tried to contact them, but they are not > > cooperative. Anyone have a good POC for them that speaks English and > > might be willing to help? > > > > Eric > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - > > ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group > > 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net > > > > > > > > > -- > Richard Almeida email: rpa(a)insnet.net > Technical Director phone: +44 181 296 9201 > Internet Network Services Ltd fax: +44 181 296 9282 > The Education Exchange Ltd (EDEX) mobile: /dev/null ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Netrail woes (was Re: Atlanta-NAP down (fwd))
by Alex Rubenstein 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

According to the folk who answered over there, they are saying that 'Worldcom is done, and it should be resolved within an hour.' Also, it only appears that thier primary DNS is down, but secondary is OK: traceroute to 205.215.6.2 (205.215.6.2), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets . . 7 h1.peer1.wdc1.genuity.net (207.240.1.246) 20.514 ms 27.583 ms 27.301 ms 8 mae-east.netrail.net (192.41.177.228) 46.077 ms 40.92 ms 40.871 ms 9 gf010.rt1.DCA.netrail.net (205.215.4.1) 39.081 ms 63.107 ms 66.406 ms 10 ginger.netrail.net (205.215.6.2) 38.71 ms 33.085 ms 26.207 ms >> The Atlanta NAP (www.atlanta-nap.net run by Nathan Stratton) is down, >> probably for good. We're a customer (luckily a multihomed one!), and >> the word is WORLDCOM pulled all their circuits due to debts. So all the >> netrail.net mailing lists and stuff will be down too. >You know, although I do feel bad for Netrail and its >customers, I did read this with a keen appreciation for >the irony, given Mr Stratton's public comments about how >badly BBN's power system was misdesigned for allowing them >to take multi-hour outages, particularly in light of the >fact that the outage in question was beyond BBN's >immediate ability to fix, and not BBN's fault. > >It didn't have the personal tastiness of Mr Bass's >unfortunate encounter with bad weather a year or so ago, >but frankly, I can't help but engage in schadenfreude >anyway. > >I also wonder how the millions of GRFs and the billions of other >high-tech expensive pieces of equipment in Netrail's large >network Mr Stratton often commented upon are coping right >now. > >One final extract, from <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970716143738.3017A-100000(a)netrail.net> >posted to NANOG during the recent backhoe season: "Ya, we >are going to kill worldcom for this [outage caused by a >fibre-cut]". No tickee, no complainee? > >The moral of this story: bad things happen to everyone. >But when it happens to braggarts who seem to specialize in >doing things better than people who are trying their best, >it's terribly, terribly cool. --:) --- "Don't go with a spineless ISP; we have more backbone." Alex Rubenstein -- alex(a)nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

1 0

Re: NANOG Meeting October 27 & 28
by Sean M. Doran 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

>The Attendee List for the NANOG Meeting has been updated. Is the prevalence of AT&T Technical Marketing people registered & paid an omen? Sean.

1 0

NANOG Meeting October 27 & 28
by Pam Ciesla 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

The Attendee List for the NANOG Meeting has been updated. The meeting will be held in Phoenix, AZ, October 27 & 28. Any questions regarding this meeting please contact me. Thanks xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 313-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 313-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

FYI: UUnet/EUnet transit changes
by Per Gregers Bilse 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

Several years ago, as could coincidentally be deduced based on items discussed last week, UUnet and EUnet entered into an agreement whereby UUnet would provide transit for EUnet. For historical background, the first agreement between EUnet and "somebody" in the US concerned a 9.6kbps line between a machine called mcvax and a machine called seismo; signed by Piet Beertema, system administrator for mcvax, and Rick Adams, system administrator for seismo. The line was at the time used only for UUCP transport of mail and news, and predated the advent of IP connectivity. Things have grown since then, and by mutual agreement UUnet will be ceasing providing transit for EUnet, with experimental turn-off tomorrow morning, Tuesday August 26th 1997 at 0500 GMT. Nobody should observe any connectivity loss as a result of this. I would like to take this opportunity to thank UUnet and especially Rick Adams for their support over the years. -- ------ ___ --- Per G. Bilse, Director Network Eng & Ops ----- / / / __ ___ _/_ ---- EUnet Communications Services B.V. ---- /--- / / / / /__/ / ----- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL --- /___ /__/ / / /__ / ------ tel: +31 20 5305333, fax: +31 20 6224657 --- ------- 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865 --- Connecting Europe since AS286 --- http://www.EU.net e-mail: bilse at domain

1 0

Broadcast ICMP's at Mae East
by Eric D. Madison 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

There are still a lot of broadcast ICMP's at Mae East and they are coming from Nacamar's Interface. I have tried to contact them, but they are not cooperative. Anyone have a good POC for them that speaks English and might be willing to help? Eric _______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net

1 0

Atlanta-NAP down (fwd)
by Jon Lewis 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

I don't have any first hand knowledge of the info below, but I was asked for forward this to the list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Return-Path: <jgarzik(a)pobox.com> Received: from pretzel.normnet.org (pretzel.normnet.org [206.240.111.163]) by inorganic5.fdt.net with ESMTP id BAA11315 for <jlewis(a)inorganic5.fdt.net>; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:58:58 -0400 Received: from pretzel (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretzel.normnet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA03008; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:59:33 -0400 Sender: jgarzik(a)pretzel.normnet.org Message-ID: <33FFCDC4.4E8A10C6(a)pobox.com> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:59:32 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik(a)pobox.com> Reply-To: jgarzik(a)pobox.com Organization: Spinne http://spinne.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Thomas P. Koltai" <tomk(a)koltai.com>, Joe Rhett <jrhett(a)ISite.Net>, Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)inorganic5.fdt.net> Subject: Atlanta-NAP down Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not on the NANOG mailing list, so I picked you guys because you've posted there recently. Could one of you be kind enough to forward this announcement to the NANOG list, if it has not already appeared there: The Atlanta NAP (www.atlanta-nap.net run by Nathan Stratton) is down, probably for good. We're a customer (luckily a multihomed one!), and the word is WORLDCOM pulled all their circuits due to debts. So all the netrail.net mailing lists and stuff will be down too. Jeff Garzik News Administrator Spinne, Inc.

2 1

Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by Gary Zimmerman 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

Joe, I agree with you. We have several of the GRF2s (16 slot) and a few GRF400s, (1 - 7513) almost cisco fee. I have been working with the GRF since last August and we like it alot. It does take a while to get the gated stuff down, but once you get past that then these routers will handle some traffic and some large BGP tables. We run a ATM network and believe that IP switching is the right way to go and the GRFs are the first step in that direction. Move the processing to the board instead of a central processor also makes alot of sense. Gary Zimmerman V.P. Network Engineering SAVVIS Communication Inc. http://www.savvis.com ---------- > From: Joe Shaw <jshaw(a)insync.net> > To: Lane Patterson <lane(a)isi.net> > Cc: Christofer Hoff <hoff(a)nodewarrior.net>; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch? > Date: Sunday, August 24, 1997 1:32 PM > > > The new name for the BFR (Big F**king Router) is the GSR. As much as I > like cisco and it's configurablility, The Ascend GRF is still a very > powerful box for a lot less than the biggest cisco out there that can't > perform close to it. The only problem I have with the GRF is that if > you're a newbie to GateD, then it will take you a bit of tinkering to get > a working setup. This was my case since I'm much more accustomed to the > Cisco way of doing things. However, the GRF is a nice change. > > Joe Shaw - jshaw(a)insync.net > NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services > "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee > > > On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Lane Patterson wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0