January 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Internet metrics III
by jamie rishaw 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

Are any major backbones doing Internet metrics in the oldschool (and more interesting) method -- services breakdown? I remember being a cust of OARnet back in the early 90's, being able to look at true metrics.. bandwidth utilization broken down by service, what percentage of bandwidth was being used over what services over a given period of time. I haven't seen anything similar to that in years. I would love to. As would many others, I'm sure. jamie -- i am jamie at arpa dot com .. and this is my .sig. All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power. "i remember when i was little, my mom used to tell me how santa couldnt start his journey until all the little boys and girls went to bed around the world... then i remember staying up the whole night just because i thought it would set back christmas for everyone and it would be funny.." - my friend shortie

1 0

RE: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
by Richard Welty 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

> So the picture that emerges is that Randy is very definitely > speaking of NAT as Bi-directional or Two-Way NAT (in the terminology > of RFC 2663), where no address conservation is practiced, and > machines with private addresses are directly reachable via public > addresses, through a fixed incoming mapping applied by the NAT > device. umm, fixed is not a requirement here. you can go two way through addresses allocated out of a pool easily enough. yes, the hacker won't have control over what is in the pool that he is trying to hack into, and the externally visible addresses of systems may change, but as long as the NAT is being done and is two way, there are things which are subject to attack. the combination of RFC 1918 space and NAT is a sorry excuse for security. you need some sort of packet filtering or access control on the path, possibly in the box doing the NAT, possibly in some other box, but you _must_ have it. if a network is completely isolated from the public internet, then the RFC1918 issue is irrelevant, as the network is inaccessible regardless of what network addresses are being used. richard

1 0

NANOG 21 -- Registration Open
by Carol Wadsworth 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

***************************** NANOG 21 Registration Open ***************************** Happy New Year Everyone! Registration is now open for the 21st Meeting of the North American Network Operators' Group. The meeting will be held February 18-20 at the Sheraton Atlanta Hotel in Georgia and will be hosted by Riverstone Networks. ---------------------- Online Registration: https://www.merit.edu/nanog/registration.form.html.0102 ---------------------- Hotel Reservations: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0102/hotel.html ---------------------- Call for Presentations: Submission deadline: January 8 http://nanog.org/mtg-0102/call21.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0102/call21.pdf Hope to see you in Atlanta! Carol Wadsworth Merit Network, Inc.

1 0

RE: public route servers
by Jeremy Furr 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

There is also: route-server.ip.att.net (12.0.1.28) Jeremy jfurr(a)va.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:neil@DOMINO.ORG] Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 5:24 AM To: snoble(a)sonn.com Cc: goemon(a)sasami.anime.net; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: public route servers Ones I know of are: ner-routes.bbnplanet.net route-server.exodus.net and route-server.colt.net Neil. > > I randomly check www.traceroute.org at the bottom... they tend to have a > nice list. > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 04:32:26PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote: > > > > route-server.cerf.net appears to have been shut down, so all I have left > > is route-views.oregon-ix.net... > > > > What are some others...? > > > > -Dan > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > : Steven Noble / Network Janitor / Be free my soul and leave this world alone : > : My views = My views != The views of any of my past or present employers : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > >

1 0

Packeteer
by Hank Nussbacher 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

Can anyone point me to a user forum, newsgroup, mailing list discussing Packeteer? Thanks, Hank

1 0

Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
by Ryan O'Connell 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 11:31:17AM -0500, Andrew Brown wrote: > speaking of rfc1918 addresses...one of my machines at home got poked > at, so i did the usual thing which was perhaps waste about five > minutes poking back from some place else if i feel like it. what i > saw piqued my interest: [snip bt.net traceroute] BT have little-to-no-clue in their ISP technical management it seems. They filter out all ICMP to their web servers, then use NT web servers that set the DF bit. (NANOGs passim) As a result, you can't access BTs web servers if there's any network with an MTU of less than 1500 between you and BT. (Which covers many default Frame Relay configs...) Talking to BT tech support is useless, they refuse the escalate any problem unless they get large numbers (tens/hundreds) or users complaining. (Kudos to Unet for rapidly escalating the problem to their top engineers and 'fixing' their network by upping the Frame Relay MTU, when it wasn't even their problem in the first place.) They're also totally inflexible in their sales department - refuse to sell just a leased line with BGP peering, they insist on supplying a router too because it's "too difficult" to support a customer that doesn't have an ISP-provided router, apparently. They only appear to want to sell to clueless customers. I've also had issues with BT leaking routes they shouldn't be and their NOC probing (Telnet and SNMP) routers I've managed, because they weren't sure what they were. (They were not in their network, they were in a colo facility) Rant over. :-) -- Ryan O'Connell - <ryan(a)complicity.co.uk> - http://www.complicity.co.uk I'm not losing my mind, no I'm not changing my lines, I'm just learning new things with the passage of time

1 0

Re: Dialup congestion and winter weather
by Sean Donelan 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

On Thu, 28 December 2000, Shawn McMahon wrote: > Data circuits are not a priority for the repairs, they're more concerned > with restoring power to the hospitals and 911 service to residences. With the increase in telemedicine, EDI for ordering supplies, and even scheduling; data circuits aren't as optional as they were.

1 0

RE: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
by Richard A. Steenbergen 01 Jan '01

01 Jan '01

On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:00:25AM -0500, John Fraizer wrote: > > We use 1918 space in our network -- It's 100% test environment, > unconnected, and secure. If someone breaches physical security, more > power to them amd SMAME ON US! (Please, someone try! It's been a > while since we've had someone at gunpoint and we're forgetting all of > the lines from the Dirty Harry movies.) (Yes, we've had people at > gunpoint before. I doubt they'll EVER try again.) Whoa... How much to get you and Chance Whaley in a caged death match? We can call it "Rumble in the Colo", sell tickets and stream it over the 'net. Just give me 20% of the cut, deal? -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/humble PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

2 3