January 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: net.terrorism
by Jerry Scharf 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

I can't resist trying to sum this up: Somebody wants to talk to an ORBS server and has Abovenet transit. They don't like being caught in the orbs/abovenet mess. So rather than a) getting a new provider b) getting another provider and fixing the local routing to use them to ORBS the person opted for c) send a misleading flame message to NANOG Operational issues of enforcing trafic delivery policies for customers has been discussed till it's dead. Everyone knows where they stand, and anyone who does it has is as part of their service agreement. As has been pointed out, this is not a subject that will engender any sympathy in this group. does anything else need to be said? If not, let's let this die. jerry

1 0

Original peering policies (com-priv archives?)
by Sean Donelan 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

Has anyone kept an archive of the various peering policies different providers had over the years? For example, Sean Doran published Sprint's peering policy on COM-PRIV a number of years ago. And I believe the original peering policy on the CIX router included an "AUP-Free" clause, that no provider would impose an acceptable use policy on traffic between the providers. Or how could I forget ANS's original CO+RE settlment plan (i.e. everyone pays ANS). But I'm just going from memory, and some of those brain cells aren't as young as they were. I'm interested in seeing a timeline and evolution of policies over the last 10 years. I know some have changed.

4 3

Re: net.terrorism
by Paul A Vixie 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

this is not relevant to nanog, and because of the high likelihood that any private reply i send will end up being posted to nanog later, i'm going to drop out of this thread after this reply. > What I would expect is that you would choose between two things: > > 1. you blackhole but do NOT announce those netblocks; > 2. you annonce AND deliver traffic to every host in it; > > Don't you agree that announcing means delivering traffic? no. > Especially for customers. you should read the terms of service in your abovenet customer agreement to find out what customers can expect from abovenet. > > why are we discussing this on nanog? > > Because Above.net seems violates the first thing needed in > internetworking: trust. If you tell me you will deliver traffic to $blah, > I think I may expect you to do so. That's my whole point. Nullroute as > much as you want but don't announce it on your border routers... oh good, yet another pointless debate held in yet another ivory tower. bye.

1 0

UUNET peering policy
by Barrows, Jeff 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

UUNET has just posted their new peering policy: http://www.uu.net/peering/ ...even if you don't like it, you have to give them credit for finally making it available to the public without requiring an NDA. ;-> - jsb

8 7

Re: UUNET peering policy
by smd＠clock.org 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

| How many medium sized ISPs do we need to get to work together to make a | "meta ISP" and get peering with UUNet ;) 0, because there is no single legal entity owning the facilities in each of those 15 states. Alternatively, 0, because it is not in UUNET's business interests to give a 100% discount to some set of their target market. However, a big enough buyer is likely to be able to negotiate something approaching a discount of 100% on a paid-peering-like service, so you might phrase your question, "how much discount would a meta ISP of size X be able to negotiate on a single fixed-term contract?". As Sean Donelan noted, there is a difference between being qualified to negotiate a no-settlement peering agreement, and actually entering into one. The policy is designed to make it very easy to answer "no, you don't qualify" without having to enter into long business discussions under NDA, which is time-consuming. It also answers the question of, "does your no today mean no tomorrow also?" Sean.

1 0

Re: UUNET peering policy
by Jeff.Hodges＠kingsmountain.com 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

Folks here may find the below interesting. also available here.. http://www.interesting-people.org/200101/0015.html JeffH ----- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:01:33 -0500 To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com From: Dave Farber <farber(a)cis.upenn.edu> Subject: IP: A watershed event has occurred with no fanfare... Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ip-sub-1(a)admin.listbox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Length: 2706 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:41:14 -0700 >From: Rodney Joffe <rjoffe(a)centergate.com> >To: Dave Farber <farber(a)cis.upenn.edu> >Subject: A watershed event has occurred with no fanfare... > >Hello Dave, > >As you probably know from your time at the FCC, as well as your earlier >'net history, probably the most controversial and secretive subject >relating the the true backbone, and infrastructure of the Internet, has >been that of peering and peering relationships. For clarification, >peering in the Internet sense is the exchange of traffic between two >networks without filtering, limitation, or fee. > >As the founder of the original Genuity, in 1993-4 I was the last of the >networks to be party to the multi-lateral peering agreement that made >the commercial Internet work. From that moment on, it became virtually >impossible for anyone else to connect and exchange traffic with the rest >of the Internet without paying a transit or traffic fee to someone else. >The whole subject became mired in obfuscation and secrecy, and over the >next 7 years, the company that everyone needed to peer with but no new >company could was UUNet (now Worldcom/MCI/UUNet). Even with the other >major networks at the time (Sprint, MCI, BBN, AT&T, IBM etc.) this was >difficult, because the secret sauce seemed to be finding out what a >given network's peering requirement was, and then meeting those >requirements. And no major network ever published it's requirement. > >The requirement was generally political, but articulated in some vague >technical specification (e.g. to be present at 5 public exchange points, >with a point-to-point clear channel T3 between all points, and at least >one redundant path between any two exchange points, etc.). > >So the rest of the Internet industry basically gave up on ever being >able to join the chosen few who peered at the center of the Internet >without paying any form of settlement fees. > >Then, apparently in the last few days, a clear statement on peering >policy and requirements has appeared on the UUNet website - see >http://www.uu.net/peering/ This is a remarkable document in that for the >very first time ever, in a public form, it sets standards for >settlement-free (i.e. no charge) peering with UUnet, the world's largest >Internet network. > >If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear >requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge. > >This will undoubtedly change the landscape of the Internet. > >Regards, >-- >Rodney Joffe >CenterGate Research Group, LLC. >http://www.centergate.com >"Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM) For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Operate until failure
by Sean Donelan 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

Is there any consistency among network operators how they operate their networks when they know a possibility of imminent failure exists? 1. Do you attempt to preserve service as long as possible, including running equipment to the point of destruction? 2. Do you attempt to minimize recovery time by shutting down equipment to a "safe" condition before failure? If you are running a database/transaction oriented system, I would expect you want to put the database into a stable condition. On the other hand, if you are operating mostly communication equipment, you would want to leave it operating as long as possible. I'm aware of a variety of proprietary software shutdown programs associated with UPS vendors. But I'm wondering do any "open standards" exist for initiating soft shutdowns?

8 9

SprintNAP
by Simon Lockhart 07 Jan '01

07 Jan '01

Does anyone know if SprintNAP are accepting new customers again yet? I spoke to them over a year ago and they said "We'll have our ATM stuff real soon now, and then we'll accept more customers", but I've not heard anything either way since then. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart(a)bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/

1 0

Re: Exchange point networks
by Sean Donelan 06 Jan '01

06 Jan '01

On Sat, 06 January 2001, deen(a)slt.lk wrote: > > Is a separate AS Number required for an Internet Xchange point network. > No, nor does an exchange point network need to be announced outside the exchange point. If the exchange point network is announced, it will be associated with one or more ASNs. Some exchange points have a separate AS number, other exchange point networks are announced within the ASN or ASNs of its members, and finally some exchange point networks are not announced outside the exchange point.

1 0

RE: FTP with authentication to RADIUS
by Roeland Meyer 06 Jan '01

06 Jan '01

With FTP ... just say "no!". 1) many versions of FTP make you system vulnerable to root cracks. 2) There is NO way to run FTP in a SSH tunnel because it uses dynamic port assignments. 3) FTP logins are plain-text. For sharing files, with anonymous users, HTTP is much better (see: http://files.dnso.net) > From: Steven J. Sobol [mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:35 PM > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, joshua stein wrote: > > Michael Medwid wrote: > > > Anyone know of an FTP server product that hooks into RADIUS for > > > authentication? NT or Linux? > > proftpd has more features, but isn't very stable (and has had a few > > security problems in the past). > > It's much less security-hole-ridden than the godforsaken piece-of-crap > copy of wuftpd that ships with many Linux distros (in

9 10