June 1999 - Test - lists.nanog.org

TOS issues with non RFC compliant TCP stacks
by Alan Hannan 13 Jun '99

13 Jun '99

Howdy. We have learned of a problem with non RFC compliant users of the Internet. We believe this problem will be of interest to NANOG and tcp-impl WG participants. We would like to involve a larger body so that: - more people are aware of this issue - ISPs can more quickly handle potential problems when they arise - we can learn about additional IP stacks that have this problem - alternate opinions can be presented that may argue this behaviour is appropriate, and RFC compliant It has come to our attention that a notable fraction of the internet client community uses a TCP stack which is not RFC compliant, as far as we can determine. Certain versions of MacTCP send a RST when they receive SYN ACK packets of TOS!=0. I assume there are other TCP implementations which also have this behaviour. This concerns us, as we would like to see IP transport utilize TOS markings for the growth of the Internet. In discussions with several vendors, colleagues, and review of RFCs, the following phrase seems most applicable, from Postel in RFC 793: ------------------------ = ------------------------ 2.10. Robustness Principle TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. ------------------------ = ------------------------ Open Transport (an alternate, Apple supported stack) follows this principle and works well. Additionally, a patch is available on the net for MacTCP (see below). So, the empirical part: We implemented TOS bit-setting for the purpose of tracking traffic flows and traffic levels. For an entirely arbitrary reason, we chose TOS=5 for the default of traffic. We found that MacTCP ceased functioning. The MacTCP stack would initiate an RST when receiving SYN ACK packets with a TOS=5, as the SYN packets had a TOS=0. Therefore, all TCP sessions would fail. We can quite simply work around our customer's problem by setting TOS=0 on all traffic to/from the customer interface. However, any traffic towards nonFGC customer's [ie, from our interconnection partners] will not be modified. Therefore, they are also vulnerable to this problem. Because of a hardware implementation limitation on most of routers, INbound TOS setting is efficient, while OUTbound TOS setting is inefficient. So it is difficult for us to modify the TOS settings leaving our network. It would be moderately trivial for most interconnection partners to modify the TOS settings on input. This is a path we plan to pursue. As it turns out, this is an archaically (sp) known problem, with a pre-existing patch. Information about this patch for MacTCP exists at: http://www.mactcp.org.nz/mactcp.html At this time we do not modify TCP TOS bits. Once we have more information we intend to move forward with the TOS modifications, after notifying our InterConnection partners and customers of potential impact. Thank you for your consideration. -alan

3 2

Murphy comes to St. Louis
by Sean Donelan 12 Jun '99

12 Jun '99

Murphy has been working overtime in St. Louis. A combination of several sever thunderstorms and grid problems with AmerenUE, the local electric power company, flash floods due to rain, and even a major water main break in the business district; and ISP's are testing all parts of their backup plans. At least four different St. Louis ISPs had problems at some time in the last 24 hours for a variety of different reasons. UPS failure, generator failure, flooding, and electrician error while doing preventive maintenance. http://www.stlnet.com/postnet/pnhelp.nsf/ByDocID/F7F43108C9DD71408625678D00… Postnet is located at 900 Walnut in St. Louis which is the main CLEC/carrier hotel facility in downtown St. Louis. Other outages also occurred at a university in mid-St. Louis county, and at ISPs in west county. Some ISPs survived one wave of thunderstorms, only to succumb to a later wave. And my personal experience, a direct lightning strike on a tree next to my bedroom window. Anyone want to buy some used surge protectors? Only used once :-) -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

New Paper
by Cho R. Lame 12 Jun '99

12 Jun '99

Friend Frank Rizzo send me attach paper. CHO _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com IP/DWDM Analysis as some vehicle fo' netwo'k 'espansion Internet Protocol (IP) [1] ova' Dense Wavelengd Division Multiplexin' (DWDM) [2] be emergin' as de future fo' longhaul netwo'k infrastructure in bod de public telephony and private Internet Service Provida' (ISP) netwo'ks. In dis document, we gots'ta examine da damn underlyin' technology wid dis issue as sheeit as comparin' and contrastin' it against oda' current practices. We gots'ta den present some conclusion regardin' dis technology and its impact on de future uh telecommunicashuns netwo'ks. Acronym Guide, dig dis: ADM - Add/Drop Multiplexer ANSI - American Nashunal Standards Institute APS - Automatic Protecshun Switchin' ATM - Asinchronous Transfa' Mode DCS - Digital Cross-connect System IP - Internet Protocol ITU - Internashunal Telecommunicashuns Union LTE - Line Terminatin' Equipment MM - Multimode PDH - Plesiochronous Digital 'Sup, dudeerarchy PTE - Pad Terminatin' Equipment SDH - Synchronous Digital 'Sup, dudeerarchy SM - Sin'le Mode SONET - Synchronous Optical Netwo'k STE - Stashun Terminatin' Equipment STS - Synchronous Transpo't Signal STM - Synchronous Transpo't Mode TDM - Time Division Multiplexin' WDM - Wavelengd Division Multiplexin' Motivashuns and 'Sup, dudesto'ical Background, dig dis: To dig it de motivashuns towards dis new technology, one gots'ta to dig it some uh de histo'y uh telecommunicashuns. Telecommunicashuns started wid de provisionin' uh individual physical circuits fo' each end-usa' stashun. Dese circuits stretched fum de central office t'de telephone in de crib. Increasin' capacity wuz simply some matta' of hirin' labour t'lay mo'e pairs uh coppuh'. Inter-witch capacity wuz also handled wid big-ass bundles uh coppuh' pairs as sheeit as frequency division multiplexin' in lata' years. FDM basically transmitts multiple signals ova' de same medium at difference frequencies t'de opposite stashun. An easy analogy which illustrates de concept be dat of de public transista' stashuns. Each transmits at some different frequency widout interferin' wid de oda' signals. De impo'tant wahtahmellun t'note about dese technologies employed in de public switched telephone netwo'k (PSTN) wuz dat dey wuz essentially analog. De wavefo'ms generate by speech pattern wuz merely duplicated fum stashun t'stashun. No erro' co'rectin' wuz puh'fo'med. Even FDM be some analog technology. Slap mah fro! It simply transmits de wavefo'ms at different frequencies. It wuz not until de invenshun uh de integrated circuit dat de telecom industry started its massive high speed deployment. One uh de most impo'tant advantages uh de digital system wuz dat equipment wuz now able t'group signals into binary representashuns. Switches now could employ analog t'digital converters and could now could opuh'te wid clunker chips t'discriminate and group signals. Dis led t'de development uh de digital signallin' hierarchy uh communicashuns protocols. Now, instead uh transmittin' analog wavefo'ms, de switch transmitted digital pulses on its high speed trunks. Dese pulses wuz gadered fum samplin' de end-user's analog wavefo'm at discrete time intervaces (8000 times some second) and den relatin' de sample intensite to a unique binary digit (bit) pattern [3]. Wid de advent uh faster signallin' interfaces, de switches wuz now able t'multiplex many individual voice circuits togeda' into some digital bitstream fo' transmission t'an adjacent switches. De economies uh scale realised from de mutiplexin' uh digital signals led AT&T t'invest large sums of bre'd in some Time Division Multiplexin' (TDM) toll infrastructure. What it is, Mama! Dis allowed dem t'eliminate da damn need fo' individual coppuh' pairs strung between switches. As some example, one DS1 (digital signallin' level 1) allowed fo' de TDM transmission uh 24 voice channels ova' a sin'le coppuh' pair. Ah be baaad... A DS3 allowed fo' de TDM transmission uh 672 voice channels ova' a sin'le pair uh coaxial cable. What it is, Mama! De next large evolushun wuz fum de coppuh'-based infrastructure to some fibre optic infrastructure. What it is, Mama! De advantages uh fibre ova' coppuh' wuz much de same as TDM ova' earlia' sin'le pair transmissions, dig dis: fibre allowed fo' mo'e simultaneous voice channels (up t'10 terahertz) [4]. Addishunally, fibre duz not suffa' from cross-rap o' interference a'cuz transmission ova' it duz not generate some magnetic field. AT&T fust started deployin' de nashunwide fibre infrastructure in de early 1980's befo'e deir divestiture [4]. As competishun grew fum nascent long distance carriers suin' demselves into 'esistence (MCI and US Sprint), it wuz now necessary fo' jimmey communicashuns protocols t'be developed. Now, netwo'ks which suppo'ted different vendo's needed t'communicate between each oder. Ah be baaad... Dis led t'de fo'mulashun and development uh de SONET/SDH standards. Dese standards also helped solidify some scalable protocol architecture fo' high speed optical transmission. 'S coo', bro. Dis allowed netwo'ks de advantage of defined optical upgrade alleys as sheeit as introducin' new opuh'shuns and maintenance features likes APS and rich diagnostic frame info'mashun[6],[7]. Besides sublte alley over'haid and tributary differences, de main difference between SONET and SDH be dat SDH is specified in some internashunal standard [7] while SONET be specified in some ANSI standard [6] specific only t'de United States. Current Technology, dig dis: Now we are seein' some push back towards de old FDM/WDM days in addishun and sometimes as some replacement t'de SONET/SDH infrastructure. What it is, Mama! WDM simply applies de same principles on fibre as FDM dun did on coppuh'. It transmits multiple signals simultaneously at N different wavelengds which allows some sin'le optical fibre's capacity t'be increase N times. Basically, some multiplexa' on each end uh de dark fibre pair snatch'd input signals fum its tributaries and assigns each tributary t'an unique wavelengd. De oda' end uh de dark fibre pair filters de incomin' signal back out into individual wavelengds and routes dem towards deir appropriate alleys. De current push towards dis technology comes fum many angles. De main angle in de suppo't fo' DWDM (dense WDM) be purely economic. If some fibre provida' has invested hundreds uh millions of dollars in telecommunicashuns infrastructure and suddently kin add 24 times capacity on each fibre pair wid de addishun uh two relatively in'spensive multiplexers, de advantages are obvious. Now, de provider can add mo'e current capacity t'offset da damn cost uh de netwo'k buildout. Also, de provida' duz not gots'ta invest in any intervenin' 'espensive SONET equipment fo' de deployment uh dese services[2]. In addishun t'obvious multiplicative economic advantages de last decade, dere gots'ta been some 'splosion in telecommunicashun netwo'k usage fo' data services and not da damn tradishunal voice services. De Internet falls unda' dis data services catego'y. Slap mah fro! Now, company internetwo'ks are growin' to de size uh public telephony longhaul netwo'ks. One interestin' fact of IP service be dat dere be no clear demarcashun o' set multiplexin' scheme fo' de end users. All uh de data traffic be lumped togeda' in a haphazard fashion and transmitted widout any preconceived noshuns of o'der. Ah be baaad... Derefo'e, de IP netwo'ks which are buildin' demselves ova' de global telecommunicashuns netwo'k infrastructure do not need de funcshunality uh 'spensive sonet ADMs and STEs. SONET provides 'sellent funcshunality if ya' wanna assemble and disassemble multiplexed tributaries fum some larga' stream frequently. Slap mah fro! In fact, some SONET netwo'k spannin' de united states could conceivably gots' 100 individual nodes on a sin'le fibre alley who kin boogie out service fo' localities and transmit service fum localities [6]. IP netwo'ks are some different paradigm. 'S coo', bro. Commonly, some link be built ova' de telecommunicashuns infrastructure directly fum coast t'coast (bypassin' stops in de intervenin' netwo'k elements). Derefo'e, IP netwo'ks do not need all uh de 'esensive SONET equipment in between de IP protocol routers. Anoda' drivin' facto' towards DWDM be de lack uh vendo' interfaces suppo'tin' signallin' rates in 'sess uh STM-16/OC48. Currently NORTEL be de only telecom vendo' who suppo'ts some STM-64 interface. What it is, Mama! Fo' netwo'k providers, it be cheapuh' t'provide 24 STM-16 wavelengds dan it be to devote some fibre pair t'an STM-64 signal. Also, in de wo'ld uh IP netwo'ks, no vendo' gots'ta some switch o' some interface which suppo'ts STM-64. Many IP providers who deploy deir own infrastructure are choosin' IP runnin' directly ova' DWDM t'save on netwo'k costs as sheeit as providin' some pad fo' future 'espansion. 'S coo', bro. Current Deployments, dig dis: Currently, many telecom infrastructures are deployin' DWDM fo' bod tradishunal longhaul telephony and fo' dedicated IP services. Some examples include US Sprint, Qwest, and Hermes Europe Railtel. All of dese providers are usin' CIENA equipment as de DWDM. Many uh de telecom firms are also lookin' at leveragin' de benefits uh IP netwo'ks ova' tradishunal circuit based telephony. Slap mah fro! Basically, dey wanna run voice calls directly ova' IP cuz' of substantial cost savin's. Companies dat do dis kin totally igno'e da damn SONET/SDH deployment and instead concentrate on deployin' Voice ova' IP ova' DWDM infrastructure at a significant cost savin's when compared t'last-generashun SONET/SDH netwo'ks. De largest cost savin's gots'ta be in de bypass uh 'spensive SONET multiplexin' gear. Ah be baaad... Dere be also de obvious cost savin's of duplicatin' some fibre pair 24 times ova' when de entire infrastructure investment gots'ta already been scribblin'ed as some capital 'espenditure. What it is, Mama! De capacity sold on de 23 'dim fibre' lambdas be now nearly pure profit fo' de telecom netwo'k. Many providers fum tradishunal telecoms t'startup VoIP outfits to Internet transit netwo'ks are deployin' IP/DWDM. While da damn VoIP and IP providers concentrate deir co'e business on IP/DWDM, de telecoms are concentratin' on DWDM and providin' some few lambdas on deir netwo'k dedicated t'IP traffic. Examples uh current VoIP providers deployin' IP/DWDM are Qwest and Level 3 Communicashuns. Examples uh tradishunal telecoms who are deployin' de techology are GTS carria' services, Sprint, and AT&T. Examples uh IP providers who are deployin' dis technology are Frontia' Globalcenter, Ebone A/S, and Sprintlink. Dese companies fo'm some substantial co'e uh de telecom market and gots' seen de economic benefits IP/DWDM affo'ds bod de consuma' and deir own toll netwo'ks. Tradishunal telecoms likes AT&T are takin' some cautious approach to movin' deir toll traffic across some IP backbone. What it is, Mama! Dey are wary dat deir large revenue stream might be distrupted by unfo'seen failures in de nascent IP protocol deployments. While dey gots' fifty years 'sperience wid fault tolerance fo' deir voice switches, de mere five years 'espuh'ience wid IP switches makes dem tread wid trepidashun. Nearly every facilities based telecom be upgradin' eida' entire netwo'ks o' congested alleys wid DWDM. As IP be better understood and reliable switches are built, we gots'ta see some move fum connecshun o'iented services predominant in de voice netwo'ks t' connecshunless netwo'k services which provides some "best-effo't" transmission attempt o' puh'haps even differentiate levels of service (and pricin') fo' plantation consumers. Currnet Physical Interfaces t'de DWDM netwo'k, dig dis: Current IP suppliers are usin' SONET/SDH interfaces t'comunicate wid oda' nodes ova' DWDM netwo'ks. De reason fo' dis be dat da damn only interfaces which suppo't STM-16 sin'allin'. De disadvantage t'deployin' dis interface be dat ya' carry all uh de 'estra SONET secshun, line and pad over'haid which amounts t'17% uh de sin'alled bandwidd[5]. At OC48, dis be about 400 megabits/s in SONET over'haid which be unutilised fo' IP services[6]. Dese SONET/SDH interfaces connect into some CIENA optical multiplexa' which den converts each input into its own unique wavelengd fo' transmission. 'S coo', bro. Fo' sho't distances (less dan 40 miles) long reach lasers are sufficient fo' communicatin' between two CIENA muxes widout de use uh intervenin' repeaters (again savin' on equipment costs). Telecommunicashuns gear likes de No'tel S/DMS transpo't node also connects t'de CIENA equipment via fibre optic interface. What it is, Mama! Dis unit also speaks SONET/SDH protocol t'de adjacent SONET multiplexin' equipment. However, de general telephony applicashun be relatively betta' suited to de SONET protocol cuz' it gots'ta some tendency t'boogie out da damn little-assed tributaries (DS1s o' DS3s) as it interfaces into de PDH fo' voice communicashun [6]. Protocol technologies related t'IP ova' DWDM: Dere are some few key protocols which are battlin' fo' communicashun control uh de bits on de netwo'k. ATM and da damn point t'point protocol (PPP) are fightin' fo' supuh'io'ity at OSI laya' 2. SONET/SDH, Wireless transmission, Satellite transmission and IP ova' raw fibre are competin' fo' control uh de physical layer. Ah be baaad... At da damn datalink laya' (laya' 2) ya' find PPP and ATM. ATM wuz widely deployed by telecom and IP netwo'k vendo's durin' de early po'shun of de 90s cuz' it allowed fo' some fina' level uh traffic engineerin' and bandwidd guarentees dan had previously been achievable in de telecom services field. PPP wuz in use in de early po'shun uh de 90s mainly fo' lowa' speed access lines (DS1, DS3, and analog phone lines). Midway drough de 90s, sucka's started movin' away fum ATM cuz' of its high protocol over'haid. ATM be some stream uh fixed-lengd cells. It consists of a fixed foe byte 'haida' in some 53 byte cell. Dis instantly creates some 10% over'haid. Also, ATM handles dropped cells poo'ly cuz' it be not connecshun o'iented. If one cell be dropped, de whole session needs to be retransmitted. Dis leads t'practical over'haid uh 25% in opuh'shunal netwo'ks. De combinashun uh 17% at da damn SDH laya' and 25% at da damn datalink laya' wuz simply too much over'haid fo' providers dat wuz primarily interested in supplyin' large bandwidd aggregate connecshuns. Dese providers opted fo' de PPP ova' SDH interfaces. PPP be much better suited t'variable lengd IP packets cuz' its frame size be adaptably variable. What it is, Mama! Dus, it cut waaay down on protocol over'haid t'a manageable level and allowed IP service providers t'squeeze mo'e usable bandwidd (baaaadput) out uh deir telecommunicashuns connecshuns. At da damn physical layer, we gots' terrestrial fibre alleys runnin' SDH, Satellite alleys, wireless alleys runnin' SDH and trials uh ip ova' raw DWDM fibre. What it is, Mama! Fo' longhaul applicashuns, SDH ova' fibre (and in some cases ova' WDM) be de currenty deployment base. What it is, Mama! SDH specifies signallin' speeds down to STM-64 and also provides key services t'telecom providers likes enhanced opuh'shuns and management features and automatic protecshun switchin' in case uh link failures. De richness in debuggin' features comes at some cost uh 17% uh de signalled bandwidd in allocashun t'such features as dree laya' bit erro' parity checkin', unallocated 'espansion slots, and oda' management funcshuns[5]. IP ova' raw fibre gots'ta directly compete wid SDH fo' netwo'k dominance uh de highest speed links on de globe. What it is, Mama! Fo' IP services, runnin' IP directly ova' de fibre widout intervenin' over'haid uh de SONET laya' would definitely improve da damn overall feasible baaaadput uh a link. As telecom providers 'espuh'iment wid runnin' voice netwo'ks over IP, de advantages which de SONET/SDH infrastructure provide in some circuit based environment diminish. Wireless (and its subset satellite) technologys mainly occupy de domain uh communicashun where runnin' fibre optics be not currently feasible fo' economic o' engineerin' reasons. Wireless be used t'strech across de nashun in remote areas as sheeit as t'provide roamin' netwo'ks fo' cellular phone users. Satellite communicashun be used t'access remote areas when no oda' fo'm uh communicashun be possible. What it is, Mama! Bod satellite and wireless transmission media suffa' from atmospheric phenomena interference. What it is, Mama! Satellite communicashun also suffers fum de propogashun delay induced by de speed uh light propogashun time fum base stashun t'satellite t'base stashun. Dis kin renda' some fo'ms of interactive communicashun nearly unusable. What it is, Mama! Dere are two types uh majo' toll telecommunicashuns systems. One be de terrestrial large bandwidd links. IP/DWDM and IP/SONET/DWDM gots'ta be competin' fo' some share uh dis infrastructure. What it is, Mama! SDH gots'ta de advantage uh bein' some internashunal standard wid specified signallin' levels and optical interfaces while da damn nascent IP/DWDM field duz not [7]. However, de IP ova' raw fibre field duz gots' de advantage of bein' streamlined fo' IP communicashuns. Should IP communicashuns be de next revolushun t'de telephony netwo'k as companies likes Qwest and Level3 are wagerin', de SONET/SDH infrastructure gots'ta lose ground to IP/DWDM interfaces. De realm which wireless and satellite communicashuns gots'ta occupy is one fo' mobile o' remote lines where physical land lines aint feasible. What it is, Mama! Wireless and satellite link summed bandwidd levels gots'ta be significantly little-assa' dan deir terrestrial fiba' counterparts. Future Outlook fo' IP/DWDM: Currently, de only deployed vendo' fo' DWDM products be CIENA. However, dere deployment base be global in scope and deir product is accepted as reliable and funcshunal. CIENA currently gots'ta some 24xSTM-16 DWDM system. 'S coo', bro. By years end dey are 'espected t'gots' 80xSTM-16 and 40xSTM-64 products. As vendo's start introducin' mo'e STM-64 products fo' IP and SONET/SDH netwo'ks we gots'ta see competative prices on de STM-64 rollout in toll and ip transit systems. Runnin' IP/DWDM o' at least DWDM netwo'ks gots'ta be da damn trend uh de future. What it is, Mama! Some telecoms are tryin' t'load all uh deir voice traffic over IP while oders wanna stay wid some tradishun circuit switched allocashun model. Fo' dose who wanna deploy IP services, IP/DWDM be some tremendous costs savin's. Not only be dere some feasible mutaplicative revenue gain from sellin' lambdas ova' de fibre, dere be also no need fo' SONET gear ova' de longhaul secshuns uh de netwo'k. It be debatable wheder IP/DWDM kin solve all uh de telecom netwo'k 'espansion problems. SONET/SDH has some sheeit o'dered and documented interface into de PDHs uh de wo'ld. While IP/DWDM offers substantial economic advantages ova' de longhaul, de handoff t'de PDH gots'ta likesly still run drough SONET/SDH ADMs. De future fo' IP/DWDM be told best by simple market competishun. IP/DWDM allows telecoms t'offa' mo'e service at lower prices. If telecoms do not deploy IP/DWDM in some free market, dey gots'ta not be able t'compete wid telecoms wid multiplicative capacity and a lowa' cost base. What it is, Mama! Bod de telecom netwo'ks and da damn plantation consumer benefit by de sudden glut in bandwidd on toll netwo'ks. Apart from de fo'mashun uh a cartel, de consuma' should see relative price drops wid reflect da damn accountin' gains uh de large netwo'k providers. References [1] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol" RFC 791, USC/Info'mashun Sciences Institute, Septemba' 1981. [2] Fundamentals uh DWDM Whitesheet, CIENA, 1998 [3] Bellamy, Raz'tus C., "Digital Telephony", Wiley Publishers, January 1991. [4] Ramaswami, Rajiv et al., "Optical Netwo'ks, A Practical Perspective", Academic Press, February 1998. [5] Chow, Min'-Chwan, "Understandin' SONET/SDH: Standards and Applicashuns", AT&T Bell Labo'ato'ies, 1995. [6] SONET Rates and Fo'mats ANSI T1.105 [7] Characteristics uh Synchronous Digital 'Sup, dudeerarchy Multiplexin' Equipment Funcshunal Blocks, ITU-T G.783

1 0

NOC notification policies
by Troy Davis 12 Jun '99

12 Jun '99

This is half rant and half hope that it'll make someone, somewhere check their emergency policies who otherwise wouldn't. We're seeing a ~15 mbps flood, most of which is sourced from ernie.eecs.uic.edu. Traceroutes to that machine show it to be ~800 ms slower than the hop before it, so the flood isn't spoofed. I did a whois on uic.edu and called the contact. I was greeted by voicemail, where I promptly left a message. uic.edu has a /16 and is not SWIPped out of anyone else's ARIN space; the same person (voicemail during off hours) is the contact. A different voicemail number is the contact for AS 6200, the University of Illinois at Chicago's AS. Their web site didn't cover networking. If you can't have either your IP block or domain whois point folks to a 24/7 contact, get your uplink to be the point of contact. We'll see in a second why that wouldn't have helped here, but in cases where the uplink has > 10% of a clue, it would. So I moved up the food chain. uic.edu receives transit from Nap.net (single-homed, according to route-server.cerf.net and nitrous.digex.net) After checking ARIN whois for AS 6200 and Jared Mauch's (excellent, BTW) NOC contact list, I came up with 1-800-801-3920 (the other number, (414) 747-8747, refers to this number for network emergencies). I call it. "Teresa" answers, representing GTE and Nap.net. I tell Teresa my problem and she politely requests I call back during business hours when their staff is available. I tell her how big this flood is and request she page their engineer or her boss. She refuses. As she puts it, we're not Nap.net customers. I inform her of what the flood is doing to my network and she says that they only serve customers, as if I was looking for technical support. She's unwilling (unable, as she puts it) to investigate, we trade arguments, it goes nowhere, we hang up. Her wording sounded very much like an official Nap.net policy - no pages except for customers. There is at least 1 "backbone" (cough) peering at multiple major NAPs who is completely unreachable during the off hours. I doubt my experience today is as rare as we'd all like it to be. I'm thoroughly disgusted. Please test your 24/7 monitoring from the perspective of a third party who needs immediate attention. Follow what I did - see if whoises on your domain name, IP block, and/or ASN reveal the NOC number (or one which can refer you there). Call it at 2 AM once or twice in the next couple weeks and see what happens. Good night. -- Troy Davis

1 0

RE: Emergency Maintenance - Los Angeles
by Jeff Harper 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

My bad, I forgot to add the window time. It's from Saturday, June 12 at 10:00 PM to Sunday, June 13 at 6:00 AM PDT. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Harper [mailto:jharper@gte.com] Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 12:52 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Emergency Maintenance - Los Angeles There is an Emergency Power Shutdown Notification from Southern California Edison, scheduled for June 12, 1999, at a UUNet hub in Los Angeles. The power shutdown should not be customer effecting, however I thought it would be beneficial if some are aware of this activity. You never know with BGP, eh? ;-) The service window is scheduled for a full eight hours, too, but I expect that to be worst case. They will probably have everything back up in 3 or 4. The 8 hour schedule is probably to cover themselves in case of unexpected problems. Hope this helps, Jeff Harper Manager - Infrastructure Engineering & Support GTE Internetworking - GTE.net jharper(a)gte.com

2 1

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 11 12:00:00 PDT 1999 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 11Jun99 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 040699 60877 050699 60904 060699 60755 070699 63430 080699 63562 090699 59692 100699 59760 110699 59966 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: 5088 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 2604 (1420 cidr, 1184 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 418 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 827 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 11Jun99 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS271 347 145 202 58.2% BCnet Backbone AS4293 262 155 107 40.8% IMCI AS577 280 187 93 33.2% Bell Canada Backbone AS174 583 491 92 15.8% Performance Systems International AS7046 320 242 78 24.4% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS4200 177 100 77 43.5% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS3749 135 62 73 54.1% TECNET AS7496 99 33 66 66.7% Power Up AS10928 115 51 64 55.7% UNKNOWN AS7122 139 78 61 43.9% MTS ADVANCED Network Policy AS1221 452 392 60 13.3% TELSTRA-AS AS1239 540 481 59 10.9% SprintLink Backbone AS4755 134 76 58 43.3% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS9269 66 9 57 86.4% Hong Kong CTI AS7657 187 130 57 30.5% The Internet Group Limited AS72 95 39 56 58.9% Schlumberger Information Network AS4740 317 261 56 17.7% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS7545 123 71 52 42.3% TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS719 462 410 52 11.3% LANLINK autonomous system AS2493 171 119 52 30.4% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS3737 159 110 49 30.8% PenTeleData Inc. (ASN-PTD) AS549 222 178 44 19.8% ONet Backbone AS803 73 37 36 49.3% SaskNet Backbone AS3549 152 117 35 23.0% Frontier GlobalCenter AS1 483 448 35 7.2% BBNPLANET AS6172 154 120 34 22.1% HOME-NET-1 AS6944 34 2 32 94.1% RapidSite, Inc. AS1785 246 214 32 13.0% NYSERNet Backbone AS11515 32 1 31 96.9% UNKNOWN AS10479 36 5 31 86.1% ITESM-Rectoria Zona Norte 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

Emergency Maintenance - Los Angeles
by Jeff Harper 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

There is an Emergency Power Shutdown Notification from Southern California Edison, scheduled for June 12, 1999, at a UUNet hub in Los Angeles. The power shutdown should not be customer effecting, however I thought it would be beneficial if some are aware of this activity. You never know with BGP, eh? ;-) The service window is scheduled for a full eight hours, too, but I expect that to be worst case. They will probably have everything back up in 3 or 4. The 8 hour schedule is probably to cover themselves in case of unexpected problems. Hope this helps, Jeff Harper Manager - Infrastructure Engineering & Support GTE Internetworking - GTE.net jharper(a)gte.com

1 0

Re: [SNMP] Re: HP Openview Slowness.
by Alex P. Rudnev 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

> Your next assignment is to take a Kinetics FastPath 4 and get the > protocol you detail below to fit in its memory. The KFPS4 was chosen > because it represents good minimum platform for back when snmp was > being developed and is still a reasonable minimum-sized platform to > design for given the proliferation of tiny microcontrollers that you > may want to snmp-control. I'll even be gracious and allow you to rip > out all the appletalk functionality (the whole reason the box existed > in the first place) in an effort to gain more memory to do its thing. > Remember that it has to be as extensible as snmp, and since it is > ascii-based you will of course have to fit the entire text > representation of the MIB in there as well. The FastPath 4 had either > 64k or 256k of memory depending on which rev you got. And it have not internal tables already? Organised by the vendor-defined structures (port.statistic.traffic_statistic.{input_butes,input_packets, output_bytes,output_packets})? I claim _SNMP realisations tends to be slow and pure because MIB structure have nothing with the real data organisation_. To make protocol implementation simpler, you need to make data structure looks like it is stored already in the memory. And then, this FastPath have TCP/UDP stack and 'sprintf' function? You don't need to convert host data to the network data, you don't need to store data structures and alogn fields in the memory in case of the text protocol. And then, if this device have any CLI (and 99% of devices have it already) you just have everything to add one more text language. > > I suppose you also argue that bootp and tftp are terrible protocols Not at all. Note - this protocols do not need to be FLEXIBLE -> binary format work best this case. But if you need FLEXIBLE and COMPATIBLE protocol - text format sometimes is much better. And if your protocol can be used by human been for debug purposes - in extra one arg to make it binary. Modern network tends to use text protocols more (and compare H.323 and SIP protocols - first can't be read withouth the tears from the eyes)... I don't try to prove 'binary is better_ or _text is better_; I am trying to understand why SNMP protocol appear to be so unpleasant and /relatively - you can't avoid it but 99% of network configurations and even 20 - 30% of network monitoring don't use it - imagine engeneer who use SNMP instead of CLI to debug serial link/ useless. Alex. > because they are not text-based. > > Cheers, > > ---Rob > > > "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex(a)Relcom.EU.net> writes: > > > And the worst thing, If someone think _SNMP IS SUITABLE PROTOCOL_ he is > > wrong. In case of CISCO (as an example) we was caused to use boths 'SNMP' > > and 'rsh show ....' methods to get appropriate information. I think > > those who developed SNMP was the childs of the hell (it's terrible > > example of _how you should not develop protocols_; for example, compare > > > > 'rsh -t 120 -l monitor "show ip route"' > > > > request and requesting ip route table by SNMP; compare 'sh interface > > Serial0' and SNMP (10 - 20 different MIB tables with the very euristic > > INDEXES), try to ask _how much BGP router does router have_ or _how mach > > packets was received by ISL sublink_ etc etc. If someone answer _that's > > because of CISCO don't like SNMP_ I can't agree - no, thet's because SNMP > > is wrong protocol at all. > > > > Such protocol should be: > > > > - ascii text based; > > - with domain-like names, with the asterisk; > > - based on reliable UDP and/or TCP; > > - use something like MD5 checksumming for the simple protection. > > > > For example, I'd like to ask > > > > 'BASE 'router' > > GET interface Serial* > > ' > > > > and get > > ORIGIN router.interface.Serial1 > > in-packets: 223334 u32 > > in-errors: 1122 u23 > > in-bytes: 124563874 u64 > > .... > > ORIGIN router.interface.Serial2 > > .... > > > > (1) TEXT mode, no terrible binary octets, etc etc; > > (2) SIMPLE variables, withouth terrible MIB descriptions (they are not > > usefull here); > > (3) Another hierarchy (interface.variable, not variable.index) > > (4) simple addition private variables > > > > CISCO.in-bad-frames: 223344 > > instead of (as now) > > > > vendor.cisco.mgrt....interface.lapsha-na-palochke.INDEX > > > > etc etc... > > > > And then, if the protocol (SNMP) is BAD, don't think the tools for this > > protocol should be GOOD. > > > > // And compare this with the WEB interface implemented into some new > > routers and switches - simple, robust, can be used easily, and 100 times > > more flexible. Through it's only simple interfaces with the operator, not > > for the tools, for now. > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Scott Call wrote: > > > > > Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:51:33 -0700 > > > From: Scott Call <scall(a)devolution.com> > > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > > Subject: Re: HP Openview Slowness. > > > > > > > > > "Alex P. Rudnev" wrote: > > > > > > > If you begin to use commercial soft after free one, then: > > > > - don't drop free soft, ypu'll use it anyway; > > > > > > I know :) I'm doing HPOV because the 'suits' want a pretty network map on a projector > > > somewhere. MRTG/etc will still be very present in the system :) > > > > > > > - increase memory, CPU and disk up to 2 - 4 times (if you had 64RAM, > > > > install 512); > > > > > > Noted, thanks. > > > > > > > - be ready to be disappointed; > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > Through HP OV is not bad piece of software. > > > > > > It's not, but I am disappointed it's not more router-centric. I appreciate the need to > > > monitor workstations, but I've got multitudes more network devices that workstations/servers. > > > > > > Thanks for all the responses everyone. > > > -scott > > > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > |Scott Call |"How could this be a problem in a country where | > > > |Router Geek | we have Intel and Microsoft"-AlGore on y2 k | > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow > > (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) > > (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax) > Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)

1 0

simple question...
by Rich Sena 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

Anyone know the true rating of gigE? Embarras me privately please... -- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras(a)poppa.thick.net

1 0

Re: HP Openview Slowness.
by Vadim Antonov 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

Alex Rudnev wrote: >I do not know how it's about Sprintlink now; it was published there >(ftp.sprintlink.net) about 3 - 56 years ago. You can ask Vadim >directly. The original version (1993 vintage) is posted at http://www.civd.com/~avg . It has man pages in English, and was used (maybe still is used) to monitor SprintLink backbone and some 500 frame-delay private networks on a single SparkStation 2. So i guess it's pretty much adequate for many mid-size ISPs today. It has real-time alerts and postscript report generator, it does _not_ have any fancy eye candy. In other words, this is a piece of software designed for real operational support as opposed to boss pacifiers commonly sold as network management platforms. And yes, it is simple and easily integrated with automated configuration management systems. --vadim

2 1