August 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: BBN Peering issues
by Martin, Christian 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

>You play engineering and revenue as a dichotomy when in fact >it is a duality. In the "real world" that you like to refer >to, it is more of a symbiotic relationship. Though it would >be nice to be aloof in a lab and be lavishly compensated, I would >venture to say that such a situation is not the norm. >Let us get one point understood. You deserve nothing more than >you pay for. You were not, by merit of your diction, infrastructure, >prowess, or mandate from heaven, conferred a right to the >resources of another individual or conglomeration of individuals. >If you abhor these paper-pushers so, you are more than able to >find the capitalisation to finance a global altruistic >network where anyone can peer with anyone and we will all get along. >It will be akin to the communes of the 60s. We can just >hallucinate until the reality evaporates. > >BR "Well said, well spoken." -Irwin Fletcher (AKA Fletch (AKA Chevy Chase))

1 0

Cisco CC images and SMTP access-lists
by Martin, Christian 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

Has anyone noticed problems with NetFlow enabled interfaces having difficulty handling SMTP access-lists? ICMP works fine, as well as as-path lists, but we are seeing SMTP traffic passing lists as if they don't exist. --Chris

1 0

RE: Smurf Attack Reporting?
by Martin, Christian 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

http://www.powertech.no Regards, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Jason Weisberger [mailto:jweis@softaware.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 3:13 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Smurf Attack Reporting? Where is the central repository these days for reporting a fairly large Smurf attack? Who is running the blackhole list? -- Jason Weisberger Chief Technology Officer SoftAware, Inc. 310/305-0275 "Trust in God and fear nothing." --Gen. Lewis A. Armistead

1 0

Re: intranet
by Chris Gibiault 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

Well .. That is one way to do it .. another and I think a BETTER way would be to only use 1 set of ip's ( a set that is "portable" ) and talk bgp with both providers. This way you can move the traffic in the most efficient way . If you take routes from both of em you may get a better path to site X from provider a and a better path to site Y from provider B . This way if provider a goes down the BGP will move trafic of the link that is still "GOOD" What do the rest of ya think -Chris At 05:43 PM 8/18/98 +0800, william(a)pacific.net.ph wrote: > >Hi all! > >Just wondering if the following is possible: > > >Situation: > >Corporate intranet is currently connected to 2 separate ISPs using 2 >different set of IP addresses. When one is down, the network has to be >reconfigured for access via the 2nd ISP. > > >Required Result: > >Corporate intranet connects to 2 ISPs. When one is down or unavailable, >traffic will automatically shift to the other connection. DNS server and >mail server remains inside the intranet. The DNS and mail servers should >not be reconfigured during any problems and should keep on working. > > >Proposed Solution: > >The 7010 router will be connected to the 2 ISPs. The 7010 will be upgraded >to an IOS that supports NAT; all IP address behind the 7010 will be treated >as internal IP addresses (to reduce reconfiguration). IP address subnets >from both ISPs will be NAT-mapped to internal IP addresses over the 7010, >including the DNS server and the mail server. > >The DNS will be configured to use their DNS as the primary name server. >The 2 ISPs' name servers will be used as secondary name servers. > >The mail server will be configured to have 2 IP address, one actual and one >virtual IP address using the network card. The DNS will have an MX 10 and >an MX 20, each pointing to one IP addresses for the network card. > > >Is this solution possible? Will it work? Did I forget anything? Any tips? > > >William > > > Christopher Gibiault LI.Net / Verio LongIsland (516) 265-0997 x 226

1 0

re: BBN Peering issues
by Jerry Scharf 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

gordon, for someone who claims to be a reporter, you are sometimes amazing. Buying leased circuit bandwidth from Worldcom or bozo the clown does not mean that that they are buying internet peering. You have no facts to prove anything you say, yet you content that people who do have facts are misrepresenting the truth. take a break, jerry

4 4

ipportfw on linux
by Tatsuya Kawasaki 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

Dear Nanog ml users, Does anyone ever use ipportfw port patch for Liunx? Found any bug? TIA, Tatsuya かわさき TK3197 = = = = = = Business Network Telecom (BNT) ビジネスネットワークテレコム株式会社〒111-0053　東京都台東区浅草橋3-8-5 31山京ビル6階 TEL 03-5687-3945 FAX 03-5687-6009 http://www.giganet.net

1 0

Re: BBN Peering issues (fwd)
by Sean M. Doran 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

ftp.gatekeeper.com, like all content hosting sites, attracts users to one location, when it could instead attract users to the same content in multiple locations. This is inefficient. Many archive sites direct people to mirrors topologically closer to them, and as more actual content owners purchase duplicate sites in places like Europe (http://www.europe.cnn.com, http://www.yahoo.{se, .co.uk, .ca}) both for the technical gains and also as a means of strengthening one's brand globally. This is much more efficient. This should be carried on. It is in carriers' interests to encourage the trend too, and it is probably a good idea to work out means of hosting content more locally than data centres in California, as a means of increasing network efficiency. It is in content-owners' interests to encourage the trend also, as ultimately their brand is the one that is hurt by unreliability. Yes, it might hurt carrier X's business when carrier X cannot get to Popular Content Site, but some fraction of carrier X's customers will go away thinking, "performance to Popular Content Site sucks! Popular Company sucks!" Moreover, as the capacity market distortions are sorted out in many places, it almost certainly will be cheaper for content owners to spread the work of distribution around, so that the traffic stays as local as possible. Sean.

2 1

AOL spamming policy?!?
by Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

I've gotten this same message now from four different AOL users today. Just wondering if anyone knows if this is just a group of people working together to fight spam, or if AOL is doing this, sending e-mail from their users without them knowing, or ... ??? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:43:40 EDT From: *** FROM DELETED *** To: postmaster(a)nodomainname.com, *** OTHER ADDRESSESS REMOVED *** Subject: Polite Request Dear Sirs I have received Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail (UBE) apparently from yourselves or from one of your direct or indirect customers. I don't like it and would ask for your cooperation to put a stop to it. Most of the UBE I receive looks dishonest to me. I am sure your company isn't like that but you would do well to avoid using or permitting the same methods as these "spammers" lest you be tarred with the same brush. Also, you may be aware that a growing number of ISPs are taking to blocking incoming mail from "spam" domains. I don't want that to happen because I might lose legitimate mail and you might be inconvenienced. --snip-- The original message then followed, and it turns out that I am getting the mail because the spammer is trying to fake their host name, but it is simple to look and see their real IP address and reverse DNS, so, no, noone is spamming from my domain. I guess nodomainname.com is a popular domain name if you have no domain name. But that's beside the point. +-----------------------------+--------------------------------+ | Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo | jake(a)nodomainname.net | | NoDomainName Networks | http://www.nodomainname.net | +-----------------------------+--------------------------------+

3 2

Re: The Cidr Report
by Sean M. Doran 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

Tli asked: | Exercise for the reader: If prefixes of length F and longer are filtered, | and a domain has a prefix of length N, how many prefixes can they propagate | into the backbone? How many before people start proxy aggregating them? A/ (2 ** F) - 1. [assuming nobody imposes exact-match prefix filters] B/ When we can easily do: "router bgp N proxy-aggregate route-map Lazy-Types ! exceptions route-map Lazy-Types deny 10 match as-path 100 ! the rule route-map Lazy-Types permit 20 match originated-prefix-count 16" then the number 16 strikes me as a starting point, although I probably want to re-read Dennis's comments from a few years ago. Do I pass? Sean.

2 1

BBN Peering issues
by dlr＠bungi.com 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

If anyone would like to communicate privately about the BBN Peering issues, please drop me an email, or call. Dave Rand +1 408 254-7111 -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

24 39