October 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

~ OT: D-LINK DWL-650
by Nipper, Arnold 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

Is anyone using $subject successfully @ the current NANOg meeting? Can't figure out how to match the given settings(Domain, Beacon, IEEE Name) to what's availbale with the DWL-650. TNX, Arnold -- Arnold Nipper / nIPper consulting email: arnold(a)nipper.de phone: +49 172 2650958 fax: +49 1212 512 364 310

1 0

ADSL DSLAM
by deen＠slt.lk 21 Oct '01

21 Oct '01

Hello, I am new to this list. I am evaluating the Cisco ADSL switch 6260. Can anyone who has used it comment on it. It's performance and pro's and con's. It's integration with third party CPE's. Regards, Deen

1 0

whois syntax
by Andrew Brown 21 Oct '01

21 Oct '01

i was arguing with my friend about whois servers. he thought that all whois servers were relatively similar in design and function, and i convinced that wasn't the case. network solutions can look up domain names and host records, along with having a 'help' function and 'tags' you can add to your 'query' to focus your answer. most of the other domain registrars just do domain name queries. i assume they can do host queries as well, but i've not checked. i've not yet found one that has the same 'tagging' ability that network solutions has. arin.net can map network addresses (and netblock names) to the names of the registering party, where radb.net can do that and also handles as numbers. the output of all of them differs (which makes parsing the output a lot of fun :). the thing that gets me, though, is that the radb.net whois server seems to have some 'extended command language' whereby one can pass query after query over one tcp connection and not get dropped. is this 'language' documented anywhere, or do i just have to find and read source code that uses it? -- |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----| codewarrior(a)daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet twofsonet(a)graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!" andrew(a)crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."

9 12

NANOG23 DNS broken, again
by Simon Lockhart 21 Oct '01

21 Oct '01

Bah, why does this seem to happen at every NANOG conference? Looks like someone has just put in the reverse DNS for the NANOG network IP addresses, but not put in forward DNS. This breaks tcp_wrappers. Can someone fix? 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/

2 1

OC3 Multiplexers
by Christopher Wolff 21 Oct '01

21 Oct '01

Hello, happy weekend to you; I've been browsing around for a mux to break an OC3 down into DS3's. ADC et al only have DS3-DS1 muxen, from what I can tell on their site (Although the widebank 28 has worked great for me). It looks like my only option is to go with something like a Fujitsu FLM150 which is a good box, but I wanted to see if there's anything cooler, cheaper, faster out there. Thanks, Christopher

1 0

RE: 12000 ACL issue
by Rubens Kuhl Jr. 21 Oct '01

21 Oct '01

Sup2(6500 or 7600) is not demand-based, there is no flow-based forwarding on it; it can actually go that far, but you are right about past (and most of current) Cisco claims. In order to have 30 Mpps inside 15Gbps traffic, packet size on the line would be 62.5 bytes and no silence between packets would be allowed. When preambles and inter-frame-gaps are included, bottom line traffic would be higher, and real packet size distribution would make it usable for up to lot more traffic. As this thread was started by ACL issues, are the 50/90/150 Mpps boxes you mentioned capable of ACLs at these line rates ? What other beasts besides IP II, Sup2, Eng 3 and Eng4/edge can handle high-rate ACLs ? Rubens Kuhl Jr. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Pete Kruckenberg Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:44 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: 12000 ACL issue On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote: > Why do you think 6500/7600 doesn't have the required performance ? 30 > Mpps Sup 2 with fabric-enabled line-cards can perform incredibly > well... Having FlexWAN and other non-fabric line-cards will slow down > to 15 Mpps, which is usually enough. VLAN L3 interfaces are > required only on CatOS (which is today required by POS > modules, unfortunately), but not on Supervisor IOS. Those are advertised numbers, best-case assuming flows that can be distributed away from the MSFC. My experience with Cisco in the past is they rarely get close to advertised numbers, YMMV. Not that even 30Mpps (15Gb/s) is adequate for a GigE aggregation device, and 15Mpps (7Gb/s) is not enough. Even then, other vendors are advertising on the order of 50-90Mpps in the same size chassises, and at least in my lab they are achieving that. For the same price or less than 6500, lots less than 7600. And larger chassises are avaiable doing on the order of 150Mpps. In my experience, service providers that are doing lots of L3 GigE are not using 6500's or other Cisco products, at least for GigE services. 6500 is still strong in the L2 GigE space. With 10GigE, Cisco is even less appealing. SONET is a different story, of course. Pete.

2 2

RE: 12000 ACL issue
by Goodwin, Dustin T [IT] 21 Oct '01

21 Oct '01

It seems like just yesterday everyone was blown away by an OC-48 capable router. Now everyone is bitching that they can't apply access lists on 8 port GE card. I am absolutely blown away by what a short memory everyone in this industry has. - Dustin -

2 1

abha
by Randy Bush 20 Oct '01

20 Oct '01

abha is no longer with us in body. her s.o. says her family is probably going to hold a private service. if i learn where it is appropriate to send flowers, fruit, etc. i will post. randy

1 0

RE: 12000 ACL issue
by Rubens Kuhl Jr. 20 Oct '01

20 Oct '01

It seems that GigE edge features (ACL, rate limiting) is scheduled to be addressed with the 10-GigE port card for 12400, with the "Engine 4 with extra sauce". It was supposed to be available at this time frame, can anyone confirm or deny this ? Amyway, the distributed architeture of GSR means you need to heavily look, insist and beat them regarding having all the features you need on all possibile media cards, but time has shown that so far it didn't work. So, my message to Cisco is that if Cisco wants to use the "distributed versus centralized" slogan in the war against competition, it must provide all features at all possible media interfaces: POS, GigE, ATM, channelized Tn. Rubens Kuhl Jr. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:25 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: 12000 ACL issue On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 09:55:39AM +0100, James A. T. Rice <james_r-nanog(a)jump.org.uk> wrote: > Does anyone else here use ACL's on subinterfaces of single GigE > linecards on GSRs? As of 12.0(16S), the ability to type 'ip > access-group' while in the subinterface configuration was removed, > leaving me stuck on 12.0(15S3). > > Cisco seem to be under the impression that BBC are the only customer > who used this feature, if anyone else ACL's on GigE subinterfaces, > please get in touch so we can correct them. We've been beating on them for some time over this issue. In my personal experience, you can put the ACL on the physical port - making sure of course it passes everything you want it to for _every_ vlan on that interface allowing you to filter some traffic. Basically the ACL on the physical interface seems to get applied to every subinterface. Cisco has clearly not gotten the message, so for all those Cisco people reading this I will restate it clearly: _ALL_ interfaces must support basic ACL's or we're not going to buy them from you. There is no such thing as an interface that doesn't need ACL's, no matter how much you rationalize it. A number of us are already speaking out on this issue with our $$$ taking it to vendors who understand this. You don't need 50,000 line ACL's, 37 kinds of QOS, or all that other crap on every card, but the ability to do a 10 line filter is a critical feature, and not having it is like not having a routing engine, it makes the box useless. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

5 7

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 20 Oct '01

20 Oct '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Oct 19 23:00:00 PDT 2001 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. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report-region.html for the regional version of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/autnums.html for a complete list of autonomous system number to name mappings as used by the CIDR-Report. 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 GX Networks for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to CIDR Report <cidr-report(a)cisco.com>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 19Oct01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 121001 104773 131001 104893 141001 104864 151001 104979 161001 105115 171001 105004 181001 105147 191001 104997 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: 11802 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 7010 (3983 cidr, 3027 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 852 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1392 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 19Oct01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1231 944 287 23.3% Telstra Pty Ltd AS4151 306 171 135 44.1% USDA AS13999 136 9 127 93.4% Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. AS16473 201 76 125 62.2% Bell South AS577 304 184 120 39.5% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS4293 373 266 107 28.7% Cable & Wireless USA AS2048 216 116 100 46.3% State of Louisiana AS271 161 74 87 54.0% University of British Columbia AS11686 224 143 81 36.2% Education Networks of America AS4755 201 124 77 38.3% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS1239 488 414 74 15.2% Sprint AS12302 106 35 71 67.0% MobiFon S.A. AS4200 141 74 67 47.5% Apex Global Information Services, AS19632 72 7 65 90.3% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS3464 160 96 64 40.0% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS17557 131 69 62 47.3% Pakistan Telecom AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS209 308 253 55 17.9% Qwest AS306 60 6 54 90.0% National Guard Bureau AS226 146 93 53 36.3% Los Nettos AS400 136 85 51 37.5% Headquarters Standard Systems Cen AS17561 111 60 51 45.9% Internet service provision to Wes AS1913 155 106 49 31.6% Defense Logistics Agency AS1 527 479 48 9.1% BBN Planet AS10620 68 21 47 69.1% TVCABLE BOGOTA AS4323 247 201 46 18.6% Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS15290 248 202 46 18.5% AT&T Canada IES AS376 120 75 45 37.5% Reseau Interordinateurs Scientiqu AS16814 64 19 45 70.3% NSS, S.A. AS5106 81 38 43 53.1% Ameritech Advanced Data Services, 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