March 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

San Jose Telephone Problems 3/10-3/17
by Sean Donelan 13 Mar '00

13 Mar '00

I'm sure this has absolutely nothing to do with me moving to the San Jose area :-) On friday a contractor cut four major Pacific Bell cables. About 11,000 circuits were affected. The affected area is roughly bordered by Interstate Highways 880 and 680 and Trimble and Berryessa roads. Pacific Bell estimates it won't have the cables repaired until Friday March 17. One cable I can understand. Two cables, ok you didn't realize the first strange noise was a cable. Three cables, accidents come in threes. Four cables?

1 0

Re: Alternative to BGP-4 for multihoming?
by Paul A Vixie 13 Mar '00

13 Mar '00

> The URL for ifdefault in your post didn't work... oops. ftp:// not http://. ftp://ftp.vix.com/pub/vixie/ifdefault/ works.

1 0

Alternative to BGP-4 for multihoming?
by Hank Nussbacher 13 Mar '00

13 Mar '00

Radware has a product called Linkproof and claims that it negates the need for BGP-4 and portable IP addresses: http://www.radware.com/product/lproof/Default.htm I have a customer that requires multihoming and they want to use Linkproof and I want them to do BGP-4. Does anyone have any experience using this as an alternative to BGP-4? Thanks, Hank

13 14

Re: Alternative to BGP-4 for multihoming?
by Vern Paxson 13 Mar '00

13 Mar '00

> TCP performance is affected by congestion symmetry, since TCP uses the > spacing of ACK packets to control the spacing of data packets. True, but this is a second order effect. The strongest effects are (1) loss rate on the forward path, and (2) bottleneck throughput on the forward path (these two being related). TCP is much more tolerant of lost acks than lost packets - you have to lose an entire flight of acks before it really kills you. So I suspect the match-the-outgoing-hop-with-the-incoming-hop approach is working better for some other reason. Perhaps it's reflecting that Web surfing is in fact bidirectional, and often not all that assymetrically (a small request fetches a small item). In that case, congestion symmetry will help, since both directions are forward paths at some point. Vern

1 0

Re: Alternative to BGP-4 for multihoming?
by Paul Vixie 13 Mar '00

13 Mar '00

tdp(a)discombobulated.net ("Travis Pugh") writes: > If the goal is to direct traffic from a client to the closest server farm, > why not just build a box to do a BGP lookup and respond to a name lookup > with the IP of that farm? No pings or zone transfers necessary. AS path length is a rotten predictor of performance. (Just ask Cisco's Distributed Director team whether they knew that not all of AS701 was equidistant from their early adopters here in the Bay Area.) -- Paul Vixie <vixie(a)mibh.net> SVP for Internet Services, MFNX M.I.B.H. Inc. is a subsidiary of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.

1 0

Network solutions does it again...
by Majdi Abbas 12 Mar '00

12 Mar '00

Hey folks....verify your domains. I've got one that looks perfect in whois, except whois claims a modification date of March 6th (which didn't happen, unless no real changes were made, and notifies weren't going out) -- and, of course, the SOA is now borked. Here we go again... --msa (VeriSign, are you sure you want to be associated with these people?)

1 0

Tours of MAE-East/West
by Timothy Brown 12 Mar '00

12 Mar '00

Does anyone know if tours of these two facilities (or AADS, or PacBell NAP, ...) are possible? Brgds, T.

2 1

inet-access off the air
by Adam Rothschild 11 Mar '00

11 Mar '00

Hi, Seems like the inet-access mailing list has been off the air since ~ 03:30 EST today. While the server it's hosted off is up, connections to TCP port 25 on it are being filtered: Interesting ports on inet-access.net (207.8.186.50): Port State Protocol Service 23 open TCP telnet 25 filtered TCP smtp I mailed the list admins, and am awaiting a response. Sorry if my post is considered inappropriate for this forum. I thought it would be of some use to this list, considering the NANOG and inet-access subscriber base does seem to overlap nicely, and people do rely upon inet-access as a source of operational information from time to time. Just a heads-up... -adam

2 1

I'm an idiot, but you know that already.
by Shawn Morris 11 Mar '00

11 Mar '00

As you can see my machine was hit be a virus today, caused by my own stupidity. I immediately disconnected my machine after clicking on the attachment, however as you can see that was not enough. Thank you to all the people who wrote to inform me of what had happened. No thanks however to the person who called to tell me "I can't believe you did that" and hung up. Real brave. If you have a beef with me and be a man and say who you are. Anyways send any deserved flames my way. Regards, Shawn Morris

5 4

Re: Hi, we're from the government and we're here to help
by Sean Donelan 11 Mar '00

11 Mar '00

On Fri, 10 March 2000, "Kelly J. Cooper" wrote: > THEN the next big thing comes along, people get scared, the > consortia suddenly get well-attended, NEW groups spring up, > the community starts complaining again and the cycle is > renewed. That is, until people get bored again, or budgets > change or the NEXT big thing that comes along has nothing > to do with security. > > This cycle is old. I know I'm bored with it. A very good summary of past cycles. There is no lack of groups. But I certainly don't have time or funding to attend meetings of all these groups, or even the groups that will have me as a member. And I definitely don't think the solution is creating yet another group. > So now what? > > How do you propose to cull the wheat from the chaff? Get all > the right information about what ISPs are trying to do, and > going into the lab to test, and researching into the right > ears (of other ISPs)? How are you going to get the right > people to speak and the wrong people to shut up for a few > minutes? > > Because if it was just as easy as kicking in a few bucks to > yet another consortium, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think a paid professional secretariat is mandatory. But costs a lot of money. It can't be a stand-alone consortium, but must be part of a larger industry group to handle the inevitable cycles of interest. It must be composed of a critical mass of industry. Groups with less than a thirty or so members tend to stagnate. -- What I do on my days off http://www.irishparade.org/ or spot me on the webcam broadcast at http://www.iwannasee.com/

1 0