December 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

16 Dec '01

Does anyone know what local-pref AS701 sets for their customers and their peers? I called their NOC, and was told that is was set to 100 for both, though I know most providers set local-pref on peers lower than customers. I just want to get confirmation on what i was told by their NOC. TIA. -- -sean Spoon!

6 7

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 15 Dec '01

15 Dec '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Dec 14 23:00:00 PST 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is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes.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 14Dec01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 071201 104426 081201 104464 091201 104331 101201 104395 111201 104269 121201 104989 131201 105206 141201 104473 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: 12150 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 7358 (4177 cidr, 3181 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 785 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1373 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 14Dec01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1164 895 269 23.1% Telstra Pty Ltd AS701 1373 1143 230 16.8% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4151 294 160 134 45.6% USDA AS16473 203 77 126 62.1% Bell South AS577 317 193 124 39.1% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS7018 801 693 108 13.5% AT&T AS705 280 178 102 36.4% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS6595 156 57 99 63.5% DoD Education Activity Network As AS852 395 300 95 24.1% Telus Advanced Communications AS8010 123 38 85 69.1% PublicNet Communications, Inc. AS4755 226 141 85 37.6% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS17557 164 79 85 51.8% Pakistan Telecom AS7046 305 224 81 26.6% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS19632 92 11 81 88.0% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS1239 485 405 80 16.5% Sprint AS2048 183 104 79 43.2% State of Louisiana AS12302 109 33 76 69.7% MobiFon S.A. AS6471 134 68 66 49.3% ENTEL CHILE S.A. AS3464 160 98 62 38.8% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS724 211 150 61 28.9% DLA Systems Automation Center AS703 279 218 61 21.9% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS2149 337 278 59 17.5% Performance Systems, Inc. AS4200 112 55 57 50.9% Apex Global Information Services, AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS13999 70 14 56 80.0% Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. AS1 520 465 55 10.6% BBN Planet AS3908 311 258 53 17.0% Supernet, Inc. AS209 298 247 51 17.1% Qwest AS855 145 95 50 34.5% Canadian Research Network AS376 124 74 50 40.3% Reseau Interordinateurs Scientiqu 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

"Cisco Release Of Goner Worm Raises Eyebrows" (Newsbytes)
by Simon Lyall 15 Dec '01

15 Dec '01

9 10

NYC report on technology/Sep11
by Sean Donelan 14 Dec '01

14 Dec '01

I didn't hear about this conference. Avi Duvdevani the Acting Commissioner, New York City Department of Information Technology spoke at the NECCC Electronic Government Conference in Las Vegas on Monday. http://ec3.org/ Here is a brief press report. As you may recall, the NYC.GOV web site was intermittent. http://www.fcw.com/geb/articles/2001/1210/web-nyc-12-14-01.asp While Verizon was working to restore voice communications, Duvdevani said that the city's Web site (www.nyc.gov) became a resource for disseminating information to the public and media. Volume of traffic was 100 times greater than normal, he said. Did anyone attend the NECCC conference?

1 0

Peering: Sprint v. Conxion
by Sean Donelan 14 Dec '01

14 Dec '01

Conxion and Sprint had a peering tif earlier this week during IETF. It appears Sprint and Conxion are now passing packets again over Level 3.

1 0

StLouisNAP
by Alex Muse 14 Dec '01

14 Dec '01

I was sent the recent thread about LayerOne and the opening of the St. Louis NAP. I read the rules for posting and feel my explanation of our company and the StLouisNAP, while somewhat self serving, is appropriate given the questions and answers posted to the list. My name is Alexander Muse and I am the CEO of LayerOne and I thought I could answer most, if not all, of your questions. LayerOne provides two basic services, the first is network interconnection/access between major carriers. Today LayerOne interconnects the networks of over 60 carriers including Verizon, Bell South, Southwestern Bell, Cable & Wireless, Global Crossing, Worldcom, Qwest, and Williams. Our second basic service is the license of colocation space. We build, on average, 10,000 square feet of data center space to house the critical network elements of the carriers who utilize our interconnection services. We provide basic colocation services to Yahoo, Earthlink, Cox, Level (3), Cogent, Telseon, Yipes, and Genuity. Last year, as part of our nationwide expansion, we purchased a colocation facility that was home to the MiamiNAP. The MiamiNAP was built by former MFS DataNet employees and is home to over 30 network providers. In fact, StarTAP's StarLight Network utilizes the facility as a stitch point. The MiamiNAP was founded on the simple notion that a network access point did not need a centralized switch or router. When we purchased the site the founders suggested that this premise was supported by the fact that traditional network access points operated by MFS, PAIX, Ameritech, and PacBell have seen a sharp decline in the percentage of total Internet traffic that traverses their equipment at a time when Internet traffic has increased over a hundred times. They claimed that private, bilateral peering was the buzzword and that they had perfected the process. Whether they were right or wrong did not really matter to us as we simply wanted the facility. We built our business within the carrier class facility that housed the MiamiNAP and really left the NAP operation alone. Earlier this year one of the NAPs founders indicated that he wanted to expand the NAP idea into each of LayerOne's exchange facilities. He also concluded that a centralized fabric was an added benefit to the NAP and while not replacing private bilateral connections, would offer an alternative solution to folks like Yahoo! who were strongly suggesting that we offer a centralized fabric. This was the basis for the creation of the StLouisNAP. The StLouisNAP is housed within our exchange facility in St. Louis and will be publicly announced in January. The NAP will focus on its primary solution - bilateral peering, while offering a $2.0MM centralized peering fabric with a bias for 10/100/1000 Ethernet interfaces as an alternative for those who cannot afford or do not desire to create private solutions within the NAP. If you have any more questions please email me or give me a call. Regards, Alexander Muse CEO LayerOne Holdings, Inc. 214-752-6204 amuse(a)layerone.com

2 1

Peering Agreements
by Robert Tryce 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

I have a question on public peering agreements. I have seen some providers using them while others are not. What is the general opinion on peering agreements? Are most peering agreements used mainly for private peering? Also, what are the pros and cons and what kind of protection should I expect from such an agreement? Thank you in advance, Robert Tryce

4 3

Re: Peering Agreements
by renster 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

Peering agreements for a public peering arrangement are a waste of legal time. When there is a cost associated with termination of a circuit then it makes more sense. Most peering agreements have the termination without cause clause regardless. YMMV. -ren At 03:00 PM 12/13/2001 -0500, Robert Tryce wrote: >I have a question on public peering agreements. I have seen some providers >using them while others are not. What is the general opinion on peering >agreements? Are most peering agreements used mainly for private peering? >Also, what are the pros and cons and what kind of protection should I >expect from such an agreement? > > >Thank you in advance, > >Robert Tryce

2 1

P2P and higher education workshop - Jan. 30-31, 2002 - Tempe, AZ
by Chris Rapier 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

P2P and higher education workshop - Jan. 30-31, 2002 - Tempe, AZ We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We are pleased to announce the rescheduled workshop, "Collaborative Computing in Higher Education: Peer-to-Peer and Beyond", and encourage you to visit the registration page (http://www.internet2.edu/activities/html/p2pworkshop-reg.html) to register for what promises to be an excellent event! Collaborative Computing in Higher Education: Peer-to-Peer and Beyond http://www.internet2.edu/activities/html/p2pworkshop.html Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona January 30, 2002, 12:00 noon - 5:00 pm January 31, 2002, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - REGISTER early and save $50.00! If you register by January 4, 2001, the registration fee is $125 per person. After January 4, the registration fee is $175.00 per person. Please note that registration is SEPARATE from the NLANR/Internet2 Joint Techs meeting. Go to http://www.internet2.edu/activities/html/p2pworkshop-reg.html we have to check this one! - Lodging: The block of rooms at the Holiday Inn Phoenix-Tempe/ASU will be held only until *December 21, 2001* so book your room as soon as possible. Information on lodging is at http://www.internet2.edu/activities/html/p2p-hotel.html Participants include: - David Anderson on "Lessons from SETI@home" - Ian Foster, Argonne National Laboratory and University of Chicago on "P2P and Grid Computing" - Andy Oram, O'Reilly Associates on "Research Possibilities to Pursue in Peer-to-Peer Networking" - Bill St. Arnaud, CANARIE. Inc on "P2P Applications and eScience" - Eytan Adar, Hewlett-Packard Labs on "A Peer-to Peer System for Harvesting Community Knowledge" - Bob Knighten, Peer-to-Peer Evangelist, Intel on "Building the peer-to-peer computing community" - Steve Waterhouse; Director of Engineering, JXTA Services and Applications, Sun Microsystems on "Project JXTA: A Technology Overview" A preliminary schedule is available at: http://www.internet2.edu/activities/html/p2p-program.html This workshop is being co-sponsored by SURA (Southeastern Universities Research Association) and Internet2. If you have questions, please contact Dave Futey (dfutey(a)stanford.edu) Ana Preston (apreston(a)utk.edu) or Linda Roos (lroos(a)oar.net) Please pass this message along for those you think may be interested. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Preston Office of Research and Information Technology University of Tennessee v.865.974-6555 f.865.974-4810

1 0

AOL Host/Mail Contact?
by Joel Rowbottom 13 Dec '01

13 Dec '01

Hi folks -- Anyone out there from AOL who's listening, or does anyone out there have a contact for someone appropriate to this query please... One of our domains, US.com, and all subdomains, are being bounced by AOL and AOL alone. There's nothing wrong with the zone, AOL's relays are just giving "Host not found" whereas everything else is fine. Seems to be only US.com or *.US.com, and only on AOL, which leads me to believe there's something icky in AOL's resolvers doing this. Dig reveals everything fine all the way down the line as far as DNS is concerned. Any assistance would be appreciated please! Thanks Joel (aka joel(a)centralnic.com) -- Joel Rowbottom, http://www.centralnic.com CTO, failed Vogon, self-confessed Unix geek, fine Peter Principle example <t> +44 (0)20 7751 9000 <f> +44 (0)20 7736 9253 <e> joel(a)centralnic.com # Note: Contents may not necessarily represent the opinions of CentralNic.

4 4