November 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

MPLS in metro access networks
by srihari varada 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

Hello: I have heard some stressing the role of MPLS in metro access networks. It is difficult for me to visualize the need for it in them while it is not so difficult to understand the utility (load balancing and fault restoration etc.) of it in the metro backbone networks. To characterize metro access networks in the context, the following is provided: -- aggregates traffic from residential (arriving via broadband access links such as xDSL, Cable) and business consumers (arriving via broadband access links such as xDSL and high speed links such as Ethernet or SONET) -- funnels aggregated traffic to metro backbone networks for destination hosts in the local metro region or remote regions across the internet regional and backbone networks. Majority of such access networks are SONET/ATM based (I didn't come across any case of Gig Ethernet. However, I do not preculde it). Thus, there are two questions: -- Are there known RBOCs/ILECs and CLECs entrenching MPLS in the said network scope? (I do not see many major ILECs in the un-official MPLS service providers list being circulated but it may mean little) -- If so, what motivates them to do so? Any analysis of the driving forces is appreciated. Regards, Srihari Varada

1 0

Re: Rate limiting UDP,Multicast,ICMP
by Brian 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

I have alao heard of providers who have rate limited icmp on their own backbone links, or links facing peering partners, just something else to consider.. Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Schwartz" <davids(a)webmaster.com> To: <TGainer(a)e-xpedient.com>; <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:53 PM Subject: Re: Rate limiting UDP,Multicast,ICMP > > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:42:01 -0500, Thomas Gainer wrote: > > >A little more information. We sell 100Mb Ethernet pipes to the Internet. > >(Yes, there are a few of us left). A fair number of these customers are > >small businesses. Usually, they have servers but very little IT support and > >even less IT know how. My thought is to rate limit UDP and ICMP at the > >customer port to no more than 3Mb/s so WHEN (not if) a customer is > >compromised, the effects are somewhat limited and my MAN pipes have some > >measure protection. The question is, what am I not thinking of? DNS, TFTP > >and such should all operate virtually unaffected, as they are not bandwidth > >hungry services. > > Are you rate limiting only inbound? Or both ways? Are you trying to protect > your customers from attack or prevent them from being the source of attacks > if their machines are compromised? Or both? > > If you rate-limit UDP outbound, you make it very hard for your customers to > source streaming media. If you rate-limit inbound, you make it very hard for > your customers to reflect streaming media. So long as you let your customers > know what you're doing in advance, you shouldn't have any problems. > > You may wish to allow clueful customers to opt out of this filtering > (ideally selectively) if they do wish to do things with high-bandwidth UDP > applications. It wouldn't be unreasonable to require customers opting out of > such filtering to assume responsibility/liability for any floods that might > affect them as a result. You may wish to charge them for your costs associate > with floods they originate that affect others as well. > > DS > >

1 0

Rate limiting UDP,Multicast,ICMP
by Thomas Gainer 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

A little more information. We sell 100Mb Ethernet pipes to the Internet. (Yes, there are a few of us left). A fair number of these customers are small businesses. Usually, they have servers but very little IT support and even less IT know how. My thought is to rate limit UDP and ICMP at the customer port to no more than 3Mb/s so WHEN (not if) a customer is compromised, the effects are somewhat limited and my MAN pipes have some measure protection. The question is, what am I not thinking of? DNS, TFTP and such should all operate virtually unaffected, as they are not bandwidth hungry services. Thomas

3 2

Cisco 7206 Reboot / Bus Error
by Gyorfy, Shawn 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

What's up? One of my routers rebooted yesterday, this is what I got. System returned to ROM by Bus Error at PC 0x60527D44, address 0xFFFFFFFF As per Cisco's website Mapping Address page, it states Reserved Memory (0x0 5000 0000 - 0x0 FFFF FFFF) [it's a 7206 w/ a NPE]. When I do a 'sh region' I can't find the correlation. If I do 'sh tech-support' I find 0xFFFFFFFF at Timers Counters at CT0 but can't go any further. Has anyone experienced the above error? If so, what action did you take? The system is up and running fine now, it just rebooted but I would like to make sure it doesn't happen again. shawn.

2 1

Strange BGP phantom announce remaining
by Stephane Bortzmeyer 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

I probably made a stupid mistake when changing my BGP announces but I cannot see where. We are a customer of Abovenet and Telia in France (we have AS 20766) and we peer with AS 6461 and 1299. We announce one prefix, 80.67.160.0/19. All the looking glasses I've tried see that prefix, including routers at Abovenet. The strange is that people at Colt (try yourself on route-server.colt.net) see two prefixes, 80.67.160.0/19 and 80.67.160.0/21. The second one, more specific, was indeed announced but is no longer sent for six days. Our routers seems correct and displays only one announce: drowzee-bgpd> show ip bgp neighbors 62.4.73.26 advertised-routes Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 80.67.160.0/19 62.4.73.30 50 32768 20766 i Total number of prefixes 1 Does you have any idea why routers at Colt still see the old announce? People at Colt have no idea. Abovenet checked on its side and sees only the good prefix. Configuration: Debian "woody", Linux kernel 2.4.9, Zebra routing software 0.91 and 0.92a (hence the copy to the Zebra list). http://lookinglass.gitoyen.net/ if you want to examine our network.

2 2

Rate limiting UDP,Multicast,ICMP
by Thomas Gainer 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

Is it common practice for ISPs to rate limit UDP, Multicast and ICMP on a customer connection to reduce the effects of various DOS attacks? On the backbone? TIA, Thomas

5 5

BGP Route Damping
by German Martinez 13 Nov '01

13 Nov '01

Good Day, Perhaps this document was already discussed (I'm new in this list). If it was please let me know. Basically, I wanted to get an opinion from US based ISP about this document. Does somebody know how Tier-1 networks implement route damping ? Here is the document: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-210.html Thank you for your comments ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * THE DILBERT FUTURE * * Thriving on Stupidity in the 21st Century * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Internet capacity will increase indefinitely to keep up with the egos of the people using it"

3 2

Re: FreeIPdb released
by David R Huberman 13 Nov '01

13 Nov '01

Check again. > Thats great, been looking for something like this for ages > But the download directory is empty :( > > David R Huberman wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > As promised, Global Crossing API is pleased to announce the release of > > FreeIPdb Version 1.0 at: > > > > http://www.freeipdb.org

1 0

FreeIPdb released
by David R Huberman 13 Nov '01

13 Nov '01

Hello, As promised, Global Crossing API is pleased to announce the release of FreeIPdb Version 1.0 at: http://www.freeipdb.org FreeIPdb is an open-source suite of tools allowing you to manage your IPv4 and IPv6 address space and address space assignments in the most efficient manner possible. Future versions will incorporate RWHOIS, SWIP, and inetnum capabilities. Enjoy the tools and please subscribe to the mailing lists for support and to provide us feedback. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing API | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | (703) 627-5800 | | huberman(a)gblx.net | *--------------------------------*

1 0

Re: Strange BGP phantom announce remaining
by neil＠DOMINO.ORG 13 Nov '01

13 Nov '01

Hello, > Does you have any idea why routers at Colt still see the old announce? > People at Colt have no idea. Abovenet checked on its side and sees > only the good prefix. Who in COLT did you email? Nothing came in via noc(a)colt.net regarding this. We saw this route from a peer that was announcing us a huge number of routes that for some reason max-prefix didn't prevent from happening, although after rebooting, the box did take the session down. My guess is that the routes announced to us had sometype of corruption that didn't send it through the max-prefix subroutine properly to detect the number of routes being advertised. Regards, Neil. --------------------------------------------------------------------- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx route-server.COLT.NET xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx COLT INTERNET Backbone Route Monitor xxxxxxxxxxxxx This router maintains peerings with key infrastructure routers in the COLT backbone. This service is provided for informational purposes only and as such is unsupported, hence it may go away at any time. Questions and queries should be addressed to noc(a)COLT.NET xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2 1