April 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper
by Mark Persiko 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

We use ip helper-address in our network at each subnet and we haven't had any problems with PC's finding the WINS servers. It seems like a very scalable way to handle WINS and DHCP relays. We do get into problems with multiple NT servers on the same subnet that all want to be master browsers, which we resolve by hacking the NT registry to force master browsing on only one server. Thanks, Mark - Mark C. Persiko, persiko(a)bvsd.k12.co.us - MIS Dept, Boulder Valley Public Schools > -----Original Message----- > From: Carter, Gregory [mailto:omni@dynmc.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 1:26 PM > To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Cc: 'jrivera(a)stei.com'; 'srabalais(a)stei.com' > Subject: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper > > > > Greetings! > > I have a bit of a philosophical question regarding the use of > a WINS Proxy > versus using Cisco's IP Helper to forward UDP datagram > packets off to a central > WINS server. Let me give some background to the setup of the > company I work > for. > > Currently we are noticing that we have too many WINS servers > running throughout > our divisions and some of our servers are corrupting the WINS > database. As a > whole our IS divisional managers will be meeting soon and > would like to discuss > this situation and limit our WINS servers down to one per > division. We have a > total of five divisions; the fifth is a central office where > for the most part > the whole company looks to as the head office. Each division > is also split up > into regions, which usually have a hub site that is connected > up to the division > hub site then to our main hub site (the fifth division). All > of our locations > are setup on frame relay and all of them have Cisco 1600 > routers. Currently we > have a WINS server at the division site, and two regions with > WINS servers in > them. The Cisco routers use IP helper at our spoke sites to > forward the UDP > datagram packets from the local LAN of the spoke sites up to > the WINS server for > that region. The regional WINS servers then push pull up to > the division WINS > server and the division WINS server push pulls up to the > company's main hub site > (fifth division) thereby syncing the entire company. > > By limiting the divisions to a single WINS server obviously > the regional WINS > servers will either need to go away or they will need to be > replaced with WINS > proxy servers that will proxy the requests back up to the > divisional server. > > My concern is to whether it would be wiser for us to dump the > regional WINS > servers altogether and change IP helper to point back to the > division WINS > server instead, or to go ahead and shut down the regional > WINS servers and > replace them with WINS proxying. I have come to the > conclusion that either way > would take the same amount of bandwidth, and as far as > redundancy is concerned > we can simply change the secondary WINS server address in > DHCP to the main hub > site's address. > > Does anyone here have a relevant opinion on this matter, or > any reasons not to > implement one or the other of the solutions? > > +(Omni(a)Dynmc.Net)--------------------------------------------- > ---------+ > | Dynamic Networking Solutions InterX > Technologies | > | Senior Network Administrator bits/keyID > 1024/7DF9C285 | > | omni(a)interx.net omni(a)itstudio.net omni(a)undernet.org > omni(a)webpop3.com | > +--------[ DC 50 57 59 C3 76 46 E8 EB 75 A8 94 FE 96 9E D3 > ]----------+ > >

2 1

WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper
by Carter, Gregory 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

Greetings! I have a bit of a philosophical question regarding the use of a WINS Proxy versus using Cisco's IP Helper to forward UDP datagram packets off to a central WINS server. Let me give some background to the setup of the company I work for. Currently we are noticing that we have too many WINS servers running throughout our divisions and some of our servers are corrupting the WINS database. As a whole our IS divisional managers will be meeting soon and would like to discuss this situation and limit our WINS servers down to one per division. We have a total of five divisions; the fifth is a central office where for the most part the whole company looks to as the head office. Each division is also split up into regions, which usually have a hub site that is connected up to the division hub site then to our main hub site (the fifth division). All of our locations are setup on frame relay and all of them have Cisco 1600 routers. Currently we have a WINS server at the division site, and two regions with WINS servers in them. The Cisco routers use IP helper at our spoke sites to forward the UDP datagram packets from the local LAN of the spoke sites up to the WINS server for that region. The regional WINS servers then push pull up to the division WINS server and the division WINS server push pulls up to the company's main hub site (fifth division) thereby syncing the entire company. By limiting the divisions to a single WINS server obviously the regional WINS servers will either need to go away or they will need to be replaced with WINS proxy servers that will proxy the requests back up to the divisional server. My concern is to whether it would be wiser for us to dump the regional WINS servers altogether and change IP helper to point back to the division WINS server instead, or to go ahead and shut down the regional WINS servers and replace them with WINS proxying. I have come to the conclusion that either way would take the same amount of bandwidth, and as far as redundancy is concerned we can simply change the secondary WINS server address in DHCP to the main hub site's address. Does anyone here have a relevant opinion on this matter, or any reasons not to implement one or the other of the solutions? +(Omni@Dynmc.Net)------------------------------------------------------+ | Dynamic Networking Solutions InterX Technologies | | Senior Network Administrator bits/keyID 1024/7DF9C285 | | omni(a)interx.net omni(a)itstudio.net omni(a)undernet.org omni(a)webpop3.com | +--------[ DC 50 57 59 C3 76 46 E8 EB 75 A8 94 FE 96 9E D3 ]----------+

3 2

RE: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper
by Carter, Gregory 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

Ya, I too have read that, and some who have already flamed me in personal email obviously don't know the full capabilities of Cisco's IP helper forwarding on the NetBIOS UDP multicast packets, which also allow browsing on the network from multiple subnets without a WINS proxy on EACH subnet. Just to clarify, my question here is for opinions on either implementation, I KNOW how to implement them and that both will work. I'm looking for an experienced answer on this one. Greg +(Omni@Dynmc.Net)------------------------------------------------------+ | Dynamic Networking Solutions InterX Technologies | | Senior Network Administrator bits/keyID 1024/7DF9C285 | | omni(a)interx.net omni(a)itstudio.net omni(a)undernet.org omni(a)webpop3.com | +--------[ DC 50 57 59 C3 76 46 E8 EB 75 A8 94 FE 96 9E D3 ]----------+ -----Original Message----- From: Roeland Meyer (E-mail) [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 12:59 PM To: 'Carter, Gregory'; nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: jrivera(a)stei.com; srabalais(a)stei.com Subject: RE: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper If you want a really good discription of how WINS servers interoperate, see the Smaba documentation/browsing.txt especially concerning WINS interactions across sub-nets and sub-domains. It clarified stuff for me that the MS dox left very muddied. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Carter, Gregory > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 12:26 PM > To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Cc: 'jrivera(a)stei.com'; 'srabalais(a)stei.com' > Subject: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper > > > > Greetings! > > I have a bit of a philosophical question regarding the use of > a WINS Proxy > versus using Cisco's IP Helper to forward UDP datagram > packets off to a central > WINS server. Let me give some background to the setup of the > company I work > for. > > Currently we are noticing that we have too many WINS servers > running throughout > our divisions and some of our servers are corrupting the WINS > database. As a > whole our IS divisional managers will be meeting soon and > would like to discuss > this situation and limit our WINS servers down to one per > division. We have a > total of five divisions; the fifth is a central office where > for the most part > the whole company looks to as the head office. Each division > is also split up > into regions, which usually have a hub site that is connected > up to the division > hub site then to our main hub site (the fifth division). All > of our locations > are setup on frame relay and all of them have Cisco 1600 > routers. Currently we > have a WINS server at the division site, and two regions with > WINS servers in > them. The Cisco routers use IP helper at our spoke sites to > forward the UDP > datagram packets from the local LAN of the spoke sites up to > the WINS server for > that region. The regional WINS servers then push pull up to > the division WINS > server and the division WINS server push pulls up to the > company's main hub site > (fifth division) thereby syncing the entire company. > > By limiting the divisions to a single WINS server obviously > the regional WINS > servers will either need to go away or they will need to be > replaced with WINS > proxy servers that will proxy the requests back up to the > divisional server. > > My concern is to whether it would be wiser for us to dump the > regional WINS > servers altogether and change IP helper to point back to the > division WINS > server instead, or to go ahead and shut down the regional > WINS servers and > replace them with WINS proxying. I have come to the > conclusion that either way > would take the same amount of bandwidth, and as far as > redundancy is concerned > we can simply change the secondary WINS server address in > DHCP to the main hub > site's address. > > Does anyone here have a relevant opinion on this matter, or > any reasons not to > implement one or the other of the solutions? > > +(Omni(a)Dynmc.Net)--------------------------------------------- > ---------+ > | Dynamic Networking Solutions InterX > Technologies | > | Senior Network Administrator bits/keyID > 1024/7DF9C285 | > | omni(a)interx.net omni(a)itstudio.net omni(a)undernet.org > omni(a)webpop3.com | > +--------[ DC 50 57 59 C3 76 46 E8 EB 75 A8 94 FE 96 9E D3 > ]----------+ >

1 0

RIP
by Joshua Goodall 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

If you have interests in the UK, and you're not already aware of the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers" legislation due this year, then read http://www.stand.org.uk/ripnotes/ http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl/scenarios.html http://www.fipr.org/rip/ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmbills/064/2000064.htm http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/techcost.pdf There's some potentially nasty wrinkles that, for example, remove the presumption of innocence, and right not to self-incriminate. Hilariously, it becomes an offence to reveal to anyone (including your organisational superior) that the police have forced the disclosure of a private key. See the scenarios in particular for more cryptographic and telco situations, including IP related possibilities. You may have to pay for the cost of tapping your own users. However it seems to me that this legislation will fall apart with the first test case. Several techniques based on international disclosure would make a mockery of what is already a gross violation of the EU Convention on Human Rights. - Joshua -- Joshua Goodall "Bandwidth Evangelist" ... p.s. <grin /> at cross-over with PG's note to similar effect ...

1 0

nasa noc
by Randy Bush 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

the email address we have on file for the nasa noc is broken. anyone have more current info? 550 <noc(a)nsipo.nasa.gov>... User unknown calls to the non-800 nunber in our data base get "no such number" a call to the 800 number gets us a nice person who gives us email addresses which also do not work. and jared's list has nothing for nasa. randy

2 1

Re: Re: New Federal Law (COPPA)
by Shawn McMahon 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

It's worse than that. Giving something away in a contest that's illegal in Florida? Sorry, can't ask what state they're from without parental permission. Need their email address for password verification? Sorry. Effectively, this bars children from accessing the net, since companies won't be able to affordably comply. And all to protect children from something that their parents can far more effectively protect them against. On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Andrew Brown wrote: > > i have a website that might be collecting information from children, > even though that's not the "target" audience. can i ask the person > how old they are, or is that a violation of the law? > > it seems to me that i must break the law in order to comply.

4 3

NASA contact info
by hardie＠equinix.com 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

Try 256-544-1450 or 256-961-4000; that's the wide area monitoring group that took over some of the NISN functions during the transition to CSOC. I just checked and 256-544-1450 does give you a real human who does know what peering means. They may not be the right people for everything, but they are probably a decent start. You can also try the EIS Helpdesk group at 1 888-564-2762, but they will probably make you wait on hold before transferring you to the WAN group. If you are looking for help with something specific (like e.root-servers), you might want to post a general sense of what it is, as some of the NASA alumni still help out with stuff that got dropped during all of the transitions. For those of you keeping score, the host nsipo.nasa.gov noted below was part of the NASA Science Internet Project, which got folded into NISN, the NASA Integrated Services Network, which was folded into the Consolidated Space Operations Contract. regards, Ted Hardie "22 re-orgs during 4 years at NASA" the email address we have on file for the nasa noc is broken. anyone have more current info? 550 <noc(a)nsipo.nasa.gov>... User unknown calls to the non-800 nunber in our data base get "no such number" a call to the 800 number gets us a nice person who gives us email addresses which also do not work. and jared's list has nothing for nasa. randy

3 2

Re: Peering Table Question
by Martin Cooper 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: > teir-1s don't pay for routing to anywhere. tier-2s pay for > routes from tier-1s and may also pay for transit. > > tier-1s seem to have the majority of the customers. > > this may be good or bad. but it's the terminology we've been > using for about seven years now. of course tier-Ns, where N > is greater than 1, seem to have an interest in distorting it. > big surprise. In my view the tier system is based on perceived importance, which is built on peering, and ultimately marketing. It's not that tier-1s don't have to pay for routing to anywhere, it's that they're big enough not to have to give a damn about being unable to reach a /32 on the end of a piece of string in outer Mongolia -- the piece of string will come to them if it wants reachability to their customers. Peering is a poker game. The more of it you can get, the more people will want to use your services, and the more networks will want to peer with you to reach those customers. As you go along you add bigger peers and drop the smaller ones. Lather, rinse, repeat, until your network IS the Internet because you've got everyone else's customers and they all want to peer with you to get them back. The bigger you are in terms of customers, the *less* peering you want to do. I believe UU figured that one out some time ago, evidenced by its dropping the majority of its peers to force them to buy transit to gain reachability to them. Ultimately it's all about marketing, so why should it be such a surprise that the smaller players should try to redefine the terms in a bid to gain the advantage? M.

2 1

24.0.0.67 et al going wild
by Dirk Harms-Merbitz 25 Apr '00

25 Apr '00

Anybody at home @home.net? 24.0.0.67 24.0.3.67 24.2.8.67 Are sending millions of requests to POWER.NET nameservers. What are those things? We have tried to contact @home without success. Does anybody have a real NOC number? This has been going on for two weeks now. Please make it stop! Dirk dirk(a)power.net 310.918.4450

2 1

Re: Peering Table Question
by Hank Nussbacher 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

At 13:28 19/04/00 -0600, Christian Nielsen wrote: The Oct 1999 issue of Data Communications (RIP), had a comprehensive article about peering: http://www.data.com/issue/991007/peering.html They detailed private and public peering (see their tables). They did it using MIDS which did 1.2 million traceroutes from various beacons located thruout the Internet. Very easy to determine who is a tier-1 and tier-2 ISP. -Hank > >On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Randy Bush wrote: > >> > To further complicate matters, many networks out there >> > are mis-representing themselves as [cost-free-] peering >> > with other networks when they are actually customers, or >> > in some type of 'settlement' arrangement. >> >> i contend that one can count the true tier one networks on the fingers >> of two hands. > >is a network tier one if they have settlement based peering? or is it just a >network that sees no transit routes from any one company? > >christian > > >

6 6