April 1999 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: FYI Fwd: UUNet Outage Today...
by Jay Stewart 29 Apr '99

29 Apr '99

Oddly enough, I have a T3 to UUNet on the west coast (Seattle-Kirkland), and we've seen absolutely no routing problems or impact in traffic on our link. Is this a confirmed problem? Is there a master ticker number? Jay Stewart Vice President Olympia Networking Services - "The Northwest's Premier ISP" http://www.olywa.net ------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------- >Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:15:24 -0700 >To: isp-marketing(a)isp-marketing.com >From: joie <joie(a)cyber-star.com> >Subject: UUNet Outage Today... > >Again...I can't say enough about my confidence that UUNet will come around >to the same levelheadedness they had when they began...before all the pomp >set in...I hope so...but in the meantime I was just notified about the >following.. > >In case anyone is interested, UUNet is experiencing an outage so severe on >the west coast (USA) this morning that their remaining routers are so >overloaded it is impacting all of their customers everywhere.

1 0

FYI Fwd: UUNet Outage Today...
by Brad S. Dreisbach 29 Apr '99

29 Apr '99

------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------- X-Sender: kbethke(a)mail.ezy.net Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:27:41 -0400 To: 911(a)dn.net From: Scott Bethke <kbethke(a)ezy.net> Subject: FYI Fwd: UUNet Outage Today... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dn.net id MAA22679 >Delivered-To: outgoing-isp-marketing(a)relay2.isp-lists.com >X-Authentication-Warning: spirit.sparklist.com: majordom set sender to >owner-isp-marketing(a)isp-marketing.com using -f >X-Sender: joie(a)mail.sandiego.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) >Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:15:24 -0700 >To: isp-marketing(a)isp-marketing.com >From: joie <joie(a)cyber-star.com> >Subject: UUNet Outage Today... >Sender: owner-isp-marketing(a)isp-marketing.com >Reply-To: isp-marketing(a)isp-marketing.com > >Again...I can't say enough about my confidence that UUNet will come around >to the same levelheadedness they had when they began...before all the pomp >set in...I hope so...but in the meantime I was just notified about the >following.. > >In case anyone is interested, UUNet is experiencing an outage so severe on >the west coast (USA) this morning that their remaining routers are so >overloaded it is impacting all of their customers everywhere. > >I'd like to see the RFO on this one! > >joie >CSNetwork MultiMedia CyberCafe Industry > > > > >_________________ The ISP-MARKETING Discussion List _________________ >To Remove, Send an Email To: mailto:remove-isp-marketing@isp-marketing.com > To Join, Send an Email To: mailto:join-isp-marketing@isp-marketing.com > >ChooseYourMail -- Visit us at ISPCON > http://www.chooseyourmail.com/ISPinfo1.cfm > The only opt-in, ISP-supported, email ad program > > ------------- End Forwarded Message ------------- ________________________________________________ Brad Dreisbach ~ Unix Systems Engineer digitalNATION ~ www.dedicatedserver.com Phone: 703-642-2800 ~ Fax: 703-642-3747 Work: www.dn.net ~ Personal: home.dn.net/~bradd ICQ: 22031613

1 0

Re: Contact handles disappearing mysteriously from the whois database!
by Dean Robb 29 Apr '99

29 Apr '99

At 07:34 PM 4/28/99 -0400, you wrote: >At 04:27 PM 4/28/1999 -0400, Dean Robb wrote: >>Would it be productive at all to point out that NSI did, in fact, deploy >>buggy WhoIs software without testing in the first place. > >Possibly if it were true it would be productive. It hasn't been confirmed >that they didn't test, and I doubt they wouldn't test. But someone >already pointed out that testing can reveal only the existance of a bug, >not the non-existance. All we can say from our perspective is that the >testing missed this bug, which is unfortunate. As a pretty-experienced beta tester myself, I can say with some authority that it'd be pretty hard to miss the fact that over half the data provided in a WhoIs lookup is missing during any testing procudure worthy of the name. IF it was tested, everyone involved should be in the unemployment line because they are too incompetent for words. This isn't some obscure incompatibility, this is the damn software not doing a significant portion of it's job! It's like a 3D game that can't use Direct3D, or a database program that can't read the database (hey, isn't that what's happening!?!). To use your argument: "testing can only reveal the existance of a bug...". So why didn't testing reveal the existance of this major a bug? "Let there be light!"...and God invented Thomas Edison. Dean Robb Owner, PC-EASY (757) 495-EASY [3279] On-site computer repair, upgrades and consultations Lead SimOps columnist/reviewer on http://WWW.TheGamers.Net

2 1

WATCH YOUR PROFITS GROW 30-50%!
by Larry 29 Apr '99

29 Apr '99

START ACCEPTING CREDIT CARDS & WATCH YOUR PROFITS INCREASE 30-50%! WE SPECIALIZE IN HELPING: * INTERNET * STOREFRONT * HOMEBASED OR * MAIL ORDER BUSINESSES APPLY BEFORE MAY 6, 1999 AND RECEIVE: * NO APPLICATION FEE * NO PROGRAMMING FEE YOUR TOTAL START UP COST IS ONLY $9.95! CALL 1-888-264-9272 (BUSINESS HOURS: 9AM -6PM MST) Remove at: mailto:rock29@marchmail.com?subject=remove

1 0

Re: Contact handles disappearing mysteriously from the whois database!
by John Fraizer 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

At 05:09 PM 4/27/99 -0500, Kevin Day wrote: >Could all of this have something to do with why the whois database didn't >get updated today, and why I'm receiving the same 'request for confirmation' >emails over and over again? Is anyone else seeing this? I'm seeing it here. I've been getting the same ones over and over again for about a week now. >Also, a domain of mine somehow got it's administrative handle changed from >'KD748' to 'KMD44' (both are me)... Consider yourself lucky. Some have had their domains given to other people by this SNAFU. Next trend for speculators: Load up on NIC handles and just wait for bought-and-paid-for domains to be handed to one of them by NetSOL. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ML.ORG is gone. Check out http://www.EZ-IP.Net - It's *FREE* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your *FREE* Parked Domain account at http://www.EZ-Hosting.Com ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Fraizer | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation PGP Key fingerprint = 7DB6 1CA2 DAA6 43DA 3AAF 44CD 258C 3D7E B425 81A8

1 0

RE: Severe Response Degradation
by Derrick Bennett 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

This is what we are currently seeing. Unfortunately @Home does not do reverse dns for their routers so I am going by their helpdesk's descriptions of locations. I do know that the router is in SF but could not get an exact location due to @home claiming it to be a sprint issue. This also brings back the conversation of RFC1918 addressing and the problems it can cause when troubleshooting response issues. Since opening the ticket the response times are starting to get better (less actual timeouts) but the normal ping of 30-40ms is definitely not there and does severely suffer when more data intensive packets head that way. I still am not sure about locations as @home does not publish any connectivity maps that I have been able to get a hold of. From my traceroutes I would point directly to @Home's router but do not have the ability hold them to this fact which then makes it difficult when I go back and ask for allowances for bad service on my circuits. Tracing route to www.news.com [204.162.80.176] over a maximum of 30 hops: 3 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 10.252.25.37 4 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 10.252.32.1 5 141 ms 170 ms 170 ms 172.16.2.161 @Home locates this router in SF as a Peer to Sprint 6 160 ms 180 ms 181 ms mae-west.att.net [198.32.136.124] 7 190 ms 180 ms 191 ms gr1-h30.sffca.ip.att.net [192.205.31.41] 8 190 ms 180 ms 171 ms 12.127.1.193 9 140 ms 151 ms 160 ms ar2-a300s1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.127.1.141] 10 111 ms 120 ms 110 ms 12.127.194.46 11 * 12.127.194.46 reports: Destination net unreachable. Tracing route to www.yahoo.com [204.71.200.75] over a maximum of 30 hops: 3 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 10.252.25.37 4 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 10.252.32.1 5 170 ms 160 ms 140 ms 172.16.3.205 @Home locates this router in SF as a Peer to Sprint 6 150 ms 170 ms 160 ms 206.251.7.201 7 141 ms 150 ms 140 ms 206.251.7.43 8 90 ms 121 ms 120 ms 204.71.200.75 Trace complete. Derrick Bennett Quoted from Stephen: Not that the problem doesn't exist, but ... Sprint does not have a router (or any presence whatsoever) at PAIX. If anyone at PAIX peers with Sprint from a router located at PAIX, they must be buying a circuit to a Sprint POP to do it. Since Sprint has no presence at PAIX, what do you mean by "affects many of the Sprint Net peers in PAIX?" Do you have a traceroute to support your assertion that the @Home router in question is located at PAIX? (I don't know whether it is or no, but none of the traceroutes into @Home that I do from my PAIX routers show an @Home router numbered in 172.16.6 as a next hop.) If there is a problem such as you describe, it's not affecting the two PAIX routers I have that peer with @Home. Stephen

7 9

Preliminary NANOG topics
by Susan R. Harris 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

Greetings - here are presentations we've lined up so far for the upcoming NANOG in Eugene: - Security Attacks and Detection on OC-12 and Above Backbones (Y. John Jiang, Cable & Wireless Internet Engineering) - FBI Responses to Security Attacks on the Internet Infrastructure (Scott Larson/Steve Schmidt, FBI) - DNSSec and the new version of BIND (Paul Vixie/David Conrad, ISC) - Optical Networking (Marty Schulman/Dave O'Leary, Juniper Networks) - Wireless Networking and Improved Networking in Rural Areas (John M. Brown, iHighway) - SURFnet and the GigaPort Project (Erik-Jan Bos, Surfnet) - Amsterdam Internet Exchange (Erik-Jan Bos, Surfnet) - Controlled De-Aggregation - A Successful Experiment In More Optimal Routing (Avi Freedman, AboveNet) - InterNIC Update (Mark Kosters, InterNIC) - ARIN Update (ARIN staff) - Architecting Multicast Backbones (John Meylor, Cisco) - News from the Exchange Points (Mark Pryor, PacBell, et al.) - MPLS and Packet over SONET (Alan Hannan, Frontier GlobalCenter) - Y2K Status and NOC Contingency Planning (Sean Donelan, DRA) You'll find abstracts on our (new streamlined) Web pages: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9905/ We're also in the process of lining up tutorials. On Sunday afternoon, Avi Freedman and Abha Ahuja will offer a session titled "Router Configuration Management Tools." The tutorial will most likely begin at 2:00 p.m., so please plan your flights accordingly! And, folks have expressed interest in hearing about several other topics, including: - Provisioning redundant fiber paths - Wide-area deployment experience with VOIP - Experiences with providing large-scale XDSL service Please check the Call for Presentations at the URL above, and let us know if you're interested in presenting a talk on any of these subjects. See you in Eugene! --Susan Harris, Craig Labovitz, and Pam Ciesla

1 0

Re: Above.net off the air
by I Am Not An Isp 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

At 06:51 PM 4/27/99 -0400, Becki Kain wrote: > >Personally, I'm glad it was posted. I have a friend who has two servers >at abovenet and they were not told, and definatly not 3 times, what the cause >of the downtime was. I realise it is one of the hazards of co-location of >your servers, not to be able to run to it, but still would be nice to know >it wasn't your machines that were down. In Above.Net's defense, and without making any comment on the cause or the fix of the problem, I can vouch as a "disinterested party" that three separate messages went out the tech list @ above.net regarding this issue. Perhaps your friend is not correctly registered on the contact list or something? Additionally, without commenting on the cause or the fix or even Above.Net's network, I must say Above.Net does a good job of trying to keep their customers informed. I've seen notifications for things which might not have been noticed by customers - things other providers might have tried to sweep under the rug. TTFN, patrick I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com> "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle (No, I still don't have enable.)

2 1

Severe Response Degradation
by Derrick Bennett 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

I have waited 24 hours before posting this and after many updates I believe this too be multi-vendor and operational enough for nanog. Many people have been seeing high response times (200-500ms) when packets route through an @Home 172.16.6 router I believe is at PAIX in Northern California. According to the @Home noc this is a tier 4 issue with their helpdesk and is bandwidth related. But instead of your normal saturation issue the help desk is telling me that the problem is related to a network routing storm coming from Sprint Net's network's and affect's many of the Sprint Net peers in PAIX. I have been unable to confirm this with Sprint and was hoping others on the list could help confirm this issue and it's actual reach and/or impact. Derrick Bennett

2 1

Re: Survey
by Sean Donelan 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

richer(a)cnri.reston.va.US (Ira Richer) writes: >The FCC has chartered the Network Reliability and Interoperability >Council (NRIC) to address a number of issues about the reliability of >communications systems, primarily traditional telcos. One of the A reminder. If you plan to respond to the survey Ira previously mentioned the deadline for responding is Friday. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0