March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Mcleod.net anyone?
by Sehmel, William C. 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Has anyone ever delt with mcleod.net for connectivity before? They gave us a pretty nice offer, just wanted to get info from other people on them. Please reply off list Thanks Bill Sehmel Sr. Network Engineer chcs.com wcs(a)chcs.com "The great nations have always acted like gangsters and the small nations like prostitutes." -- Stanley Kubrick

1 0

Network Sizing Guidelines?
by Daniel R Glover 04 Mar '01

04 Mar '01

Can you point me to some current network sizing advice for Internet service (WAN and LAN)? I am looking for rules-of-thumb, guidelines, equations, books, or even anecdotal evidence that would help me in evaluating future network design concepts. I have somewhat unconventional network constraints, but I would like to start from current conventional assumptions on, say, numbers of users (home or office) that can be supported by various bandwidths. I've tried the related links off the NANOG pages, but some are old or broken. I have found some advice like "a T1 will support 200 to 300 28K modem users," but I hope there may be more current advice somewhere especially with regard to QoS, future trends, and to larger networks. Any relevant pointers or advice would be welcome. R/ Dan Glover

5 6

Re: Covad SUCKS!
by Sam Habash 04 Mar '01

04 Mar '01

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Adam McKenna wrote: > Hmm, gee, isn't there a cliche' that fits this exact problem? Something > about eggs? Yeah, all of MHSC.COM dns is fried in one swamp /24-sized basket: NS1.MHSC.NET 199.108.175.25 NS2.MHSC.NET 199.108.175.27 NS3.MHSC.NET 199.108.175.26 --Sam

6 5

RE: Network Sizing Guidelines? [OT]
by Mathew Butler 04 Mar '01

04 Mar '01

May you live in interesting times, may you get everything you ask for, and may you come to the attention of those in power. - Ancient Chinese Proverb Mat Butler -----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 9:08 PM To: Scott Francis Cc: nanog(a)merit.org Subject: Re: Network Sizing Guidelines? On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:40:27 PST, Scott Francis said: > Freenet, Gnutella, Aimster ... napster is merely the poster child for a > new generation of file sharing clients and protocols. Pandora has > already opened the box, regardless of Napster's ultimate fate. I'm not sure which is more surreal, the 11th-hour proposal by Napster to filter based on filename "because nobody would ever misspell Metallica", or the interesting twist in Aimster's usage policy, which would require the record industry to intentionally violate the same laws they wanted passed in order to get evidence to use as the basis of a lawsuit.... "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly dissapear and be replaced by something even more bizzare and inexplicable. There is another that says this has already happened". -- Douglas Adams "May you live in interesting times" -- ancient Chinese curse Hang on everybody, we're in for a ride.... Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech

1 0

@HOME AS6172 Problems
by Casassa, Nathan 03 Mar '01

03 Mar '01

Anyone from the @HOME NOC out there? I have been seeing this problem for days between the bb1-fe5-0.pg1.md.home.net and bb1-fe5-0.pg1.md.home.net POS connection - a consistent amount of packet loss between the two devices. I am sure this is affecting a large amount of users besides me that take this route. Any help would be appreciated: CORE703-VA#trace www.cisco.com Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25) 1 x.x.x.x 48 msec 80 msec 56 msec 2 bb1-fe5-0.pg1.md.home.net (24.23.63.33) 24 msec 64 msec 84 msec <----HERE 3 c1-pos9-2.washdc1.home.net (24.7.72.57) 456 msec 608 msec 80 msec <----HERE 4 home-gw.wswdc.ip.att.net (192.205.32.253) 132 msec 124 msec 68 msec 5 gbr3-p50.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.123.9.50) 100 msec 80 msec 104 msec 6 gbr3-p80.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.2.145) 80 msec 124 msec 148 msec 7 gbr3-p20.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.2.74) 120 msec 188 msec * 8 gbr1-p50.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.1.162) 232 msec 224 msec 136 msec 9 ar4-a300s3.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.12.89) 212 msec 140 msec 240 msec 10 12.126.204.58 184 msec 140 msec 176 msec 11 sty.cisco.com (128.107.240.154) 224 msec 172 msec 160 msec 12 www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25) 196 msec * * CORE703-VA#ping Target IP address: 24.23.63.33 Repeat count [5]: 500 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 500, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 24.23.63.33, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (500/500), round-trip min/avg/max = 12/38/148 ms CORE703-VA#ping Target IP address: 24.7.72.57 Repeat count [5]: 500 Sending 500, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 24.7.72.57, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ..!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!.!! !!!!!!!!.!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!.! !!.!!!.!!! Success rate is 94 percent (473/500), round-trip min/avg/max = 48/94/192 ms =========================================================================== AND FROM THE OTHER SIDE: route-server.gblx.net>traceroute x.x.x.x Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to xxxxx.dlcty1.va.home.com (x.x.x.x) 1 e1-0-7.hr5.SNV.gblx.net (206.132.67.3) 108 msec 136 msec 0 msec 2 pos0-2-155M.cr1.SNV.gblx.net (206.251.0.198) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 pos0-0-2488M.cr1.SNV3.gblx.net (64.211.147.42) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 4 so0-0-0-622M.br1.SNV3.gblx.net (208.178.255.145) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 5 c2-pos7-1.snjsca1.home.net (24.7.70.177) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 6 c1-pos7-0.cmdnnj1.home.net (24.7.69.34) [AS 6172] 64 msec 60 msec 60 msec 7 c1-pos1-0.washdc1.home.net (24.7.65.85) [AS 6172] 64 msec 64 msec 60 msec <----HERE 8 bb1-pos2-0.ritchie1.md.home.net (24.7.72.58) [AS 6172] 76 msec 72 msec 68 msec <----HERE 9 ubr1.dlcty1.va.home.net (24.23.63.43) [AS 6172] 80 msec 76 msec 76 msec 10 xxxxx.dlcty1.va.home.com (x.x.x.x) [AS 6172] 96 msec 92 msec * route-server.gblx.net>ping Protocol [ip]: Target IP address: 24.7.65.85 Repeat count [5]: 100 Datagram size [100]: Timeout in seconds [2]: Extended commands [n]: Sweep range of sizes [n]: Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 24.7.65.85, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 60/62/64 ms route-server.gblx.net>ping Protocol [ip]: Target IP address: 24.7.72.58 Repeat count [5]: 100 Datagram size [100]: Timeout in seconds [2]: Extended commands [n]: Sweep range of sizes [n]: Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 24.7.72.58, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!.!!!!!!!!!..!!!!.!!.! !.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!! Success rate is 90 percent (90/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 64/74/124 ms K. Nathan Casassa Network Operations Center Verizon Global Networks Work 703.295.4619 FAX 703.295.4279 Text Email Pager: 8889359125(a)skytel.com

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 03 Mar '01

03 Mar '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Mar 2 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. 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 xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 02Mar01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 230201 96158 240201 96768 250201 96770 260201 97876 270201 97797 280201 98047 010301 97829 020301 97761 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 91.16.23.0/24 from AS11770 *** Bogus 103.22.7.0/24 from AS9768 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 10115 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 5957 (3388 cidr, 2569 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 957 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1715 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 02Mar01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1584 1187 397 25.1% Telstra Pty Ltd AS701 1715 1501 214 12.5% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS8006 145 19 126 86.9% Systems & Software Consortium, In AS7545 190 70 120 63.2% TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS9269 161 52 109 67.7% Internet service Provider in Hong AS6429 213 108 105 49.3% RdC Internet AS6595 165 63 102 61.8% DoD Education Activity Network As AS13999 109 7 102 93.6% Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. AS4293 384 291 93 24.2% Cable & Wireless USA AS271 197 107 90 45.7% University of British Columbia AS8013 330 243 87 26.4% PSINet Ltd. Canada AS705 327 240 87 26.6% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4755 213 130 83 39.0% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS4151 219 142 77 35.2% USDA AS1942 136 64 72 52.9% FR-CICG-GRENOBLE AS7018 642 571 71 11.1% AT&T AS1727 176 105 71 40.3% Commander Naval Surface force US AS577 238 168 70 29.4% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS174 494 426 68 13.8% PSINet Inc. AS9498 87 20 67 77.0% BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. AS724 215 149 66 30.7% DLA Systems Automation Center AS5106 101 37 64 63.4% Ameritech Advanced Data Services, AS11170 64 1 63 98.4% Bewell Net AS7046 312 250 62 19.9% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS3749 119 58 61 51.3% Tennessee Board of Regents AS3464 153 93 60 39.2% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS226 154 94 60 39.0% Los Nettos AS7657 166 109 57 34.3% The Internet Group Limited AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS6413 67 11 56 83.6% Southern Online Systems, Inc. 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

2 1

Network Maps
by Karyn Ulriksen 02 Mar '01

02 Mar '01

A while back someone posted a site that tracked URLs for all the network maps besides the CAIDA mappings. Can whoever know where that site is repost it? Thanx!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Best regards, Karyn Ulriksen Director of Network Operations PublicHost, A SiteStream Company 1 Jenner, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 USA Phone: (949) 743-2000 email: kulriksen(a)publichost.com URL: http://www.publichost.com ===========================================

3 2

RE: Covad SUCKS!
by Mathew Butler 02 Mar '01

02 Mar '01

What's worse is when Taligent's going under makes XO turn down your T1 so your primary nameserver (which is stupidly located on the same T1 as the webserver) goes down and it takes AGES to get the nameservice restored because NSI/Verisign are too slow to fix it... well, let's just say that mails to my domain are bouncing right now, due to the zone expiring and the secondaries not being able to reach the primary. Thank the gods it was just a .org, not a massive .com. But still. -Mat Butler -----Original Message----- From: mdevney(a)teamsphere.com [mailto:mdevney@teamsphere.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 2:00 PM To: Sam Habash Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Covad SUCKS! Grr, didn't we just have this discussion about Microsoft? On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Sam Habash wrote: > > > Hmm, gee, isn't there a cliche' that fits this exact problem? Something > > about eggs? > > Yeah, all of MHSC.COM dns is fried in one swamp /24-sized basket: > > NS1.MHSC.NET 199.108.175.25 > NS2.MHSC.NET 199.108.175.27 > NS3.MHSC.NET 199.108.175.26 > > --Sam > > >

1 0

RE: Zero-wing references [OFF-TOPIC]
by Mathew Butler 02 Mar '01

02 Mar '01

All your Zero-Wing reference are belong in /dev/null. Ha ha ha ha... -Mat Butler -----Original Message----- All your MAE-ATM ports are belong to us.

2 1

PSI free peering
by jlewis＠lewis.org 02 Mar '01

02 Mar '01

Has anyone actually successfully taken advantage of this offer recently? I started looking into it about 2 months ago. Did the NDA over a month ago. The account rep assigned to me was going to see which of their POPs was closest to one of our POPs and get back to me in a few days. He never did get back to me and I've been leaving him voice mail every few days for the past month. He never answers his phone and has not returned my calls. When I tried to go around him and get a different account rep, I was told nobody else could touch the account for 60 days since it was "his account". Is this the normal routine with PSI, or did I just get the rep from hell? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis(a)lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

1 0