September 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Filter on postoffice.reston.mci.net
by Kevin Houle 24 Sep '97

24 Sep '97

Okay, I give up. Apparently MCI has an SMTP filter either on the domain netins.net or on something in the 167.142.0.0/16 network on postoffice.reston.mci.net. [167.142.225.4]$ telnet postoffice.reston.mci.net 25 Trying 204.70.128.20... Connected to postoffice.reston.mci.net. Escape character is '^]'. 220 postoffice.Reston.mci.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.5/8.8.5; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:2) HELO netins.net 250 postoffice.Reston.mci.net Hello kevin(a)worf.netins.net [167.142.225.4], pleased.. MAIL FROM:<kevin(a)netins.net> 550 Access denied QUIT I've called the iNOC, they sent me to a 'systems group'. The systems group listened carefully and wrote down the error code '550 Access denied' before shuffling me off to the Reston office. There, I spoke to a very nice sales person, who searched a list of voicemail boxes she might forward me to. We pay MCI good money, and find ourselves unable to send mail to trouble(a)mci.net or other MCI addresses. Now I'm stuck in the MCI phone maze. If there was an incedent warrenting an SMTP filter, we'd certainly deal with it if notified. I know if that happened with one of our downstream customers, we'd actually contact them before throwing in filters. Anyone know who takes care of postoffice.reston.mci.net ? Kevin

4 3

Re[2]: Extending a MAE connection ...
by Rocky Rosas 24 Sep '97

24 Sep '97

1 0

Extending a MAE connection ...
by Alex Rubenstein 24 Sep '97

24 Sep '97

Here is a question.. a strange one, no less. Is it feasible to do this: WASHINGTON DC NEW YORK CITY | B R I D G E | MAE -- 100 Mb/s -- | Cisco | -DS3- | Cisco | -- FDDI or -- (multiple East FDDI | 4700M | | 4700M | 100Base T peers) giga Switch Why? here's why. Several folks in the same building in NYC want to connect to MAE-East. But, we all don't want T1's or 10 Meg HLI to MAE-East, but DS3. So, this allows us all to connect to the MAE, peer directly with others without an intermediary ASN, and we can split the cost of the routers and the DS3. I know (at least, I can't think of any reason it can't be done) that is can be done. The unanswered questions are: 1) Will MFS allow us to connect multiple Peers on the same FDDI port (from thier webpage, it looks like it, but I am not sure). 2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad? 3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less attractive (politically) ? Thanks for any input on this. If there is anything I am missing, please slap me. Thanks.

6 7

Looking for Peerage Contacts
by pflores＠ns1.wcg.net 24 Sep '97

24 Sep '97

Does anyone have a contact name/number/email address handy for peering contacts with the following? MCI Sprint UUNET/Worldcom/ANS/Compuserve . . . (Man is that list getting LONG) PSI We am entering the closing phases of bringing up our NAP connections, (4 so far), and would appreciate the contact info to help facilitate the peering process. Paul Flores Williams Communications Group (918) 588-5172

1 0

Re: Extending a MAE connection ...
by Tony Li 24 Sep '97

24 Sep '97

Technically, I believe that this is doable. Using FDDI in NYC would cause the fewest technical issues. Note that if the DS3 is to be filled, it may require more than a 4700. Please note that this does not constitute an endorsement of the strategy or of the 'taste' of such an operation. ;-) Tony > Here is a question.. a strange one, no less. > > Is it feasible to do this: > > > WASHINGTON DC NEW YORK CITY > > > | B R I D G E | > MAE -- 100 Mb/s -- | Cisco | -DS3- | Cisco | -- FDDI or -- (multiple > East FDDI | 4700M | | 4700M | 100Base T peers) > giga Switch > > > Why? here's why. > > Several folks in the same building in NYC want to connect to MAE-East. > But, we all don't want T1's or 10 Meg HLI to MAE-East, but DS3. So, this > allows us all to connect to the MAE, peer directly with others without an > intermediary ASN, and we can split the cost of the routers and the DS3. > > I know (at least, I can't think of any reason it can't be done) that is > can be done. The unanswered questions are: > > 1) Will MFS allow us to connect multiple Peers on the same FDDI port (from > thier webpage, it looks like it, but I am not sure). > > 2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad? > > 3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less > attractive (politically) ? > > Thanks for any input on this. If there is anything I am missing, please > slap me. Thanks. >

2 1

Datacom article
by Hank Nussbacher 24 Sep '97

24 Sep '97

http://www.data.com/roundups/trouble.html Is the Internet in Trouble Nicely done. I liked the customizable tables. -Hank

1 0

Ascend/BGP4 <-> hop <-> Cisco/BGP4
by Phil Howard 24 Sep '97

24 Sep '97

Has anyone done a BGP4 peering between an Ascend GRF and a Cisco IOS when there is an extra hop in between? I want to be on the lookout for the pitfalls. The Ascend GRF will be on my side, as well the extra hop which is needed because Ascend isn't shipping T1 media cards for the GRF, yet. So we have to do with an ethernet first link out. I'm assuming both of my upstreams are running Cisco 7xxx. The topology looks like: ------- ------ | CRL |---T1---|P400|-- ---- servers ------- ------ \ / --------- |GRF 400|-- dialup --------- ------- ------ / \ | MCI |---T1---|P400|-- ---- dedicated ------- ------ When the T1 cards show up, I plan to simplify the topology. -- Phil Howard +-------------------------------------------------------------+ KA9WGN | House committee changes freedom bill to privacy invasion !! | phil at | more info: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14180,00.html | milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------------+

3 2

Hrmph.
by Alex Rubenstein 24 Sep '97

24 Sep '97

I just got paged. More than 50,000 routes: whi4#sho ip bgp sum BGP table version is 1925975, main routing table version 1925975 51634 network entries (139774/154912 paths) using 10685780 bytes of memory Anyone else see this? actually, as I am typing this, it keeps going up: 51654 network entries (139788/154972 paths) using 10688840 bytes of memory 51661 network entries (139796/154993 paths) using 10690436 bytes of memory 51680 network entries (139813/155050 paths) using 10694480 bytes of memory 51694 network entries (139839/155092 paths) using 10697632 bytes of memory (all about one minute apart).. They seem to be /24's leaking in from 705 (UUnet).

2 1

RE: Hrmph.
by Brooks, Ryan 23 Sep '97

23 Sep '97

Don't see that many routes here: Electron#show ip bgp sum BGP table version is 4107345, main routing table version 4107342 46143 network entries (133578/180808 paths) using 10780420 bytes of memory But it has risen by about 1k in the last 10 minutes. My peer session with BBN is flapping about every five minutes, so somebody is having fun tonight. Ryan Brooks ryan(a)inc.net >-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Rubenstein [SMTP:alex@nac.net] >Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 10:24 PM >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Hrmph. > > >I just got paged. More than 50,000 routes: > >whi4#sho ip bgp sum >BGP table version is 1925975, main routing table version 1925975 >51634 network entries (139774/154912 paths) using 10685780 bytes of memory > > >Anyone else see this? > >actually, as I am typing this, it keeps going up: > >51654 network entries (139788/154972 paths) using 10688840 bytes of memory >51661 network entries (139796/154993 paths) using 10690436 bytes of memory >51680 network entries (139813/155050 paths) using 10694480 bytes of memory >51694 network entries (139839/155092 paths) using 10697632 bytes of memory > >(all about one minute apart).. > >They seem to be /24's leaking in from 705 (UUnet). > > >

1 0

Part of the state of Hawaii off-line
by Sean Donelan 23 Sep '97

23 Sep '97

For network purposes, I guess Hawaii counts as part of North America. Yet Another Utility Explosion. A utility explosion has effected electrical service to the building housing several of the inter-state providers for Hawaii. Is anyone keeping statistics on these? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1