October 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Linux Router KIT
by Pete Carah 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

>On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Jon Lewis wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Dan Hollis wrote: >> > > Also, for a long time, Linux had a hard time with lots or routes. >> > No longer applies. In fact Linux is now faster than BSD up to about >> > 60-70,000 routes. BSD is faster at about 200,000. In between its about >> > even. >> Where/how are you doing simulations with that many routes? > >These are just numbers reported by Alan Cox and Alexey Kuznetsov. > >> Feeding full routes to a linux 2.0.3x box running gated, I get: >> # cat /proc/net/route | wc -l >> 54677 >> and that command takes 13s to complete. > >Well thats great for benchmarking procfs B) > >I wonder how long 'netstat -rn' takes on *BSD with 54k routes. % time eval 'netstat -rn | wc -l' 53606 2.6u 2.3s 0:05.74 86.4% 64+407k 0+0io 0pf+0w I don't know which process the u and s numbers refer to; it could easily be wc... This is on a box with an AMD K6/300 and 256mb ram (unneeded normally, but it was starting to swap a little at 128m. After being up a day (we upgraded hardware last night; before that it had been up a month) it looks like 144mb ram would be plenty.) It gets 4 full views and several private peers, with 4 ethernet cards and a quad (et) sync. Gated's ram is not too bad for 4 full views: root 182 0.0 15.6 40088 40440 ?? S 11:58PM 2:22.73 /usr/local/sbin/gated We normally push 10-12mbits/sec but only around 1k packets/sec. With about 50 (ipfw) filter rules, the cpu is normally around 5-15%, almost all "interrupt", as might be expected. -- Pete

1 0

Re: Despamming wholesale dialup
by Dean Anderson 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

At 05:33 PM 10/29/98 -0500, Scott Gifford wrote: > An interesting answer to the problem you discussed above was suggested by >somebody from the EFF at a spam BOF at USENIX this summer. He suggested >that by default, you filter on port 25. But if somebody needs access for >legitimate reasons, or even if they don't, have a letter they can fill out, >sign, and send in which states that they will not send spam, subject to a >$500/message penalty. Then if they do, just bill them. One problem is that the wholesale provider may not have permission to do this. You must obtain permission from a party to the communication prior to interfering with it, unless it qualifies as an abuse. You should be aware that the pro-spammers have a bill in Congress to explicitly define spam as a legitimate activity, ie not an abuse. It will likely be passed in this session. I tried to tell people a year and a half ago that spammers were closely associated with an advertising lobby that would be effective on this is issue, and that they needed to try a more reasonable approach. But they insisted "I was wrong". So "Spam fighting" is now a lost cause, which should not be discussed on Nanog anyway. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4 3

Re: Despamming wholesale dialup
by Dean Anderson 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

Most of the wholesalers I know of lead one to believe they are getting a private packet service. "just like having your own modems" But I agree with you that if one's service definition says "no port 25", than they are probably ok. But many don't do that, so they may not have the permission they need. --Dean At 03:45 PM 10/30/98 -0500, Ray Everett-Church wrote: >At 01:52 PM 10/30/98 , you wrote: >>At 05:33 PM 10/29/98 -0500, Scott Gifford wrote: >>> An interesting answer to the problem you discussed above was suggested by >>>somebody from the EFF at a spam BOF at USENIX this summer. He suggested >>>that by default, you filter on port 25. But if somebody needs access for >>>legitimate reasons, or even if they don't, have a letter they can fill out, >>>sign, and send in which states that they will not send spam, subject to a >>>$500/message penalty. Then if they do, just bill them. >> >>One problem is that the wholesale provider may not have permission to do >>this. You must obtain permission from a party to the communication prior to >>interfering with it, unless it qualifies as an abuse. > >Only if you have a really narrowly and poorly worded AUP/TOS contract. The >Electronic Communications Privacy Act forbids looking at the contents >without authorization, but carriers are protected in certain circumstances >some cases and moreover most carriers have provisions in their contracts >that fill in the gaps. I would be very surprised if blocking port 25 would >be covered by ECPA... filtering it for content without authorization is a >different matter. > >> >>You should be aware that the pro-spammers have a bill in Congress to >>explicitly define spam as a legitimate activity, ie not an abuse. It will >>likely be passed in this session. I tried to tell people a year and a half >>ago that spammers were closely associated with an advertising lobby that >>would be effective on this is issue, and that they needed to try a more >>reasonable approach. But they insisted "I was wrong". >> >>So "Spam fighting" is now a lost cause, which should not be discussed on >>Nanog anyway. >> >> --Dean >> >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com >> LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Um... well you're wrong, at least on the subject of the pending >legislation. The anti-spam lobby was successful in getting it stripped from >the legislation which passed the House, and although Sen. Murkowski was >interested in putting it back during the conference committee process, it >languished there and wasn't finished before Congress adjourned. So all the >pending spam legislation - both anti and pro - is dead for now. And yes, it >is off topic for Nanog. :) > >-Ray > >-- ------------------------------------------------------------------ >Ray Everett-Church (RE279) * More info: <http://www.everett.org> >Attorney/Internet Consultant * Opinion(REC) != Opinion(client(REC)) >This mail isn't legal advice. * Outlaw Spam = <http://www.cauce.org> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > My Spam total for 1997: 6,037 pieces at 41.6 Mb. What Spam problem? > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

RE: exodus?
by Chris Mauritz 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

You got them to admit they had a congestion issue? Wow. Did you use truth serum or a cattle prod? 8-) C -----Original Message----- From: Erica L Johansson [mailto:acire@arpa.com] Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 11:46 AM To: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: exodus? We have been having problems reaching hotmail and ebay for weeks now.. Our customers called them, and they said it was within our network because they couldn't see us (traceroute clearly showed congestion on their side though). We finally did get some info out of them: Exodus net admitted that they have a bandwidth problem to MCI, and their border routers are severely congested. They are currently in the process of increasing their bandwidth with C&W. Their estimate (in their own words) is approximately 40 days until the circuits are upgraded. So, it will be quite a while before this will be remedied apparently. Erica L Johansson Network Administrator ServiceCo/Road Runner On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote: > Anybody else have any problems with exodus, or is it just me? > > 8 scca-25-p0-0.core.exodus.net (209.185.9.30) 82.383 ms * * > 9 * sewa-01-p0-0-0.core.exodus.net (209.185.9.186) 145.048 ms * > 10 * * 209.67.64.21 (209.67.64.21) 131.238 ms > 11 * 209.67.68.102 (209.67.68.102) 122.367 ms 153.178 ms > 12 * * 209.67.73.2 (209.67.73.2) 139.211 ms > 13 beta.sierra.com (209.67.71.106) 88.127 ms * 130.032 ms

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Oct 30 12:00:00 PST 1998 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 30Oct98 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 241098 53540 251098 53536 251098 53530 261098 53995 271098 53565 281098 53597 291098 53550 301098 53608 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 4166 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 2015 (1071 cidr, 944 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 615 announced by AS3561 Largest number of classful routes: 943 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 30Oct98 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS271 351 149 202 57.5% BCNET-AS AS1785 605 410 195 32.2% NYSERNet Backbone AS4293 414 239 175 42.3% IMCI AS3749 232 72 160 69.0% TECNET AS2493 349 197 152 43.6% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS174 690 560 130 18.8% Performance Systems International AS701 943 814 129 13.7% Alternet AS4200 190 98 92 48.4% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS5668 126 42 84 66.7% Century Telephone Inc. AS7046 272 195 77 28.3% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS3221 118 44 74 62.7% EENet Autonomous System AS4755 127 62 65 51.2% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS4740 399 334 65 16.3% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS7545 117 63 54 46.2% APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK AS8517 125 72 53 42.4% ULAKNET-ASN AS6335 71 19 52 73.2% NTRNET AS549 197 147 50 25.4% ONET-AS AS72 89 41 48 53.9% Schlumberger Information Network AS1239 523 476 47 9.0% SprintLink Backbone AS1221 362 315 47 13.0% AARNET-AS AS803 77 33 44 57.1% SASK-NET-AS AS852 166 125 41 24.7% CANET-ASN AS7122 123 82 41 33.3% MTS ADVANCED Network Policy AS4539 68 28 40 58.8% NETROPOLIS AS3804 189 149 40 21.2% WORLDLINX AS10928 87 48 39 44.8% UNKNOWN AS6181 64 30 34 53.1% FUSE-NET AS7496 64 31 33 51.6% APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK AS2707 65 32 33 50.8% WEC AS4307 32 1 31 96.9% SVINET-1 For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

RE: Linux Router KIT
by Chris Mauritz 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

What do you mean? For folks with 7200/7500 series routers, one ethernet interface is priced at a very reasonable <turn head and cough> $5k list price. :-( The minute some company comes out with a rationally priced alternative to the 7500 series Ciscos, and assuming cisco doesn't immediately buy them, I think we'll all be the happier for it. I actually priced out the 24x7 smartnet prices for a couple of loaded 7206's and it was cheaper just to buy a spare router to gut for parts. C -----Original Message----- From: Network Operations Center [mailto:noc@nwrain.net] Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:34 AM To: alex(a)nac.net Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Linux Router KIT Hello All, On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 alex(a)nac.net wrote: > > It's also possible to get spare parts for PCs at 8 PM on Saturday. > > Not true for Cisco. > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/sno/smons_ds.htm > > Section: SMARTnet Onsite 24x7x4 But, Not at $79.00 + tax for a -good- 10/100 card . True ? JimL

1 0

RE: CISCO Easter Egg
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

Not only interesting, but dishonest. Forcing a company to spend money on false premise is tantamount to theft or conversion. That cisco gives them the opportunity for doing so is aiding an abetting. Particularly so when the upgrade cost adds to cisco's revenue. In other words, I sincerely hope that you are joking. Yes, I'm a "suit" and only a part-time operator/developer these days. At 05:52 AM 10/29/98 -0500, Martin, Christian wrote: >Sean, > >Why would they use this feature for that purpose? To fake a router >crash in order to load new software? Interesting way of "breaking the >rules." > >Chris > >> >> This was put in to allow a small handful of engineers in >> various companies >> to load new software into boxes outside the maintenance windows >> imposed upon them by misguided but fanatical operations management. >> >> This particular feature saved the Internet on several occasions. >> >> Sean. >> > ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer(a)mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky

2 1

Re: Linux Router KIT
by John Fraizer 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

Actually, dollar for dollar, the linux box will outperform the cisco. What the cisco gives you is much simpler access to the knobs that make the bells ring and whistles blow. At 04:26 PM 10/28/98 -0500, you wrote: >So does linux. > >Linux can be: > >A packet forwarder (router) >A packet filter (firewall) >An IP masquerading packet filter (NAT firewall) >Can run RIP, BGP, EGP, OSPF (via gated) > >Maybe I'm being naiive here, but what does Cisco offer beyond this (besides >the availability of higher performance)? > >--Adam > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Shields <shields(a)crosslink.net> >To: dirk(a)power.net <dirk(a)power.net> >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu>; list(a)inet-access.net ><list(a)inet-access.net> >Date: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 4:01 PM >Subject: Re: Linux Router KIT > > >In article <19981028100541.00359(a)orlando.power.net>, >dirk(a)power.net wrote: >> Linux doesn't just kill Microsoft's NT and Solaris. It also eats >> Cisco for lunch. > >This isn't true. IOS does a lot more than just get packets from >interface A to interface B. (In terms of managability as well as >functionality) >-- >Shields, CrossLink. > > > > ------- John Fraizer | __ _ The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

9 8

RE: exodus?
by Chris Mauritz 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

No, it's not just you. C -----Original Message----- From: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin [mailto:ekool@ns1.netmdc.com] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 1998 6:09 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: exodus? Anybody else have any problems with exodus, or is it just me? traceroute to beta.sierra.com (209.67.71.106), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 gw.netmdc.com (206.29.138.1) 3.689 ms 1.867 ms 1.714 ms 2 netmdc-gw.abq-rtr-01.ihighway.net (206.29.131.21) 14.854 ms 20.363 ms 14.58 ms 3 bordercore2-hssi5-0-6.Bloomington.cw.net (166.48.176.25) 35.153 ms 77.288 ms 35.456 ms 4 core5.SanFrancisco.cw.net (204.70.4.85) 110.107 ms 65.928 ms 78.949 ms 5 * pb-nap-OC3-1.exodus.net (198.32.128.25) 51.899 ms * 6 * * * 7 * scca-05-p1-0.core.exodus.net (209.1.169.41) 86.462 ms 140.852 ms 8 scca-25-p0-0.core.exodus.net (209.185.9.30) 82.383 ms * * 9 * sewa-01-p0-0-0.core.exodus.net (209.185.9.186) 145.048 ms * 10 * * 209.67.64.21 (209.67.64.21) 131.238 ms 11 * 209.67.68.102 (209.67.68.102) 122.367 ms 153.178 ms 12 * * 209.67.73.2 (209.67.73.2) 139.211 ms 13 beta.sierra.com (209.67.71.106) 88.127 ms * 130.032 ms ZD(ekool@ns1)D(506/ttyp0)D(04:07pm:10/29/98)D- @D($:/etc)D- ping -c 5 beta.sierra.com PING beta.sierra.com (209.67.71.106): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 209.67.71.106: icmp_seq=0 ttl=114 time=130.6 ms 64 bytes from 209.67.71.106: icmp_seq=2 ttl=114 time=191.4 ms 64 bytes from 209.67.71.106: icmp_seq=3 ttl=114 time=246.8 ms 64 bytes from 209.67.71.106: icmp_seq=4 ttl=114 time=132.1 ms --- beta.sierra.com ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 20% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 130.6/175.2/246.8 ms _ __ _____ __ _________ ______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Engineer __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------] 4:05pm up 18 days, 19:34, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.00

1 0

Re: exodus?
by Richard Steenbergen 30 Oct '98

30 Oct '98

>Anybody else have any problems with exodus, or is it just me? 5 293.ATM2-0.XR1.DCA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.160.105) 72.323 ms 77.182 ms 79.678 ms 6 195.ATM1-0-0.BR1.DCA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.160.225) 80.290 ms 78.349 ms 78.451 ms 7 137.39.23.30 (137.39.23.30) 98.816 ms 91.098 ms 96.739 ms 8 heva-01-f4-0-0.core.EXODUS.NET (209.185.9.98) 190.945 ms 129.143 ms 167.105 ms 9 heva-06-p1-0.core.EXODUS.NET (209.185.249.34) 99.464 ms 91.557 ms 98.960 ms 10 irca-06-p0-1.core.EXODUS.NET (209.185.9.206) 4151.534 ms * * 11 irca-01-p6-0-0.core.EXODUS.NET (209.185.249.17) * 3167.908 ms 4181.674 ms 12 rsm-ir-b-vl921.lan.EXODUS.NET (209.67.128.70) 4170.220 ms * 4173.790 ms 13 209.185.207.140 (209.185.207.140) * 4163.093 ms 4173.945 ms 14 10.1.1.2 (10.1.1.2) 5173.929 ms 4582.807 ms 4177.523 ms You're not alone, seems like exodus has been taking a shit more often then my cat on the new carpet for the past couple weeks. -- Richard Steenbergen <humble(a)lightning.net> Data Innovations System Admin http://www.bitchx.com/~humble - humble@EFnet - PGP KeyID: 0x21581362 PGP Fingerprint: 7552 6AB2 B9C7 5A1B F1B6 8EA3 DFCF 793D 2158 1362 "(C)aught (L)ying (I)n (N)ine (T)imes (O)ut of (N)ine."

1 0