May 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

What is the typical router environment
by Sean Donelan 22 May '01

22 May '01

One question which keeps coming up with network equipment vendors is what type of environment should they expect their equipement to operate in the typical ISP colocation or POP. This may or may not be the same as a "telco" environment. However, there isn't any good data, so folks fall back onto things like NEBS or IBM. I'd like to collect some real, typical data about the types of environments ISPs operate their equipment in. I have eight data loggers at NANOG, which I can loan people until the next NANOG. I'm asking some ISPs to put the loggers in their equipment rooms near the equipment (although not directly in the exhaust air) to measure the environment. The loggers are smaller than a box of coughdrops, however they are not for outdoor use. Please don't expose them to rain or water. I will be in Scottsdale until Wednesday, and in exchange for a business card (so I can keep track of who I loaned them too) and a promise to send the sensor back to me by the next NANOG, I will give you a pre-programmed temperature and humidity logger. If you prefer to collect the data yourself, and send me me data, rather than using my box in your POP: Collect current temperature (F) and relative humidity (%RH) once every 60-72 minutes with a timestamp (date and time) for 3 months. I can deal with either a plain text files containing comma-seperated values; or Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (97 or 2000). I need all the data points, not just averages from MRTG or the like. If you miss a few measurements, that's ok, as long as the timestamps shows valid data. If you use your own sensors, please verify the calibration of the sensors ahead of time. I don't need it traced to NIST, but use another thermometer and compare the readings. I've found the quality control on sensors used in router equipment isn't always the best, and can be systematically off by several degrees.

1 0

Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
by Dave Israel 22 May '01

22 May '01

On 5/21/2001 at 14:18:15 -0700, Robert Raszuk said: > > > not be interested. The issue here is that Cisco will tend to > > add IGP routes to the default table, not the VPN table. Bad > > things ensue. > > What ... ? For protocols that have been vrf aware routes go into vrfs > and not global RIB. That's the problem: not all the IGP's (specifically, not ours) are aware, and handling for a non-aware IGP on a VRF interface is more dangerous than one might expect. -Dave

1 0

Re: RFC2547 VPN discussion group? (With an inter-AS VPN question )
by Richard A. Steenbergen 22 May '01

22 May '01

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:18:22AM +0800, Yu Ning wrote: > > Yu Ning > ____________________________________________ > > (Mr.) Yu Ning, Chief Engineer > ChinaNET(AS4134) Sr. Sup.& New Sev. R&D > Internet Product Dep. DCB, China Telecom > Beijing, P.R.China +86-10-62072357/62072354 > ____________________________________________ Interesting. Either a troll, or 4134 is not quite as rogue as the long rant (which I have no desire to restart) would lead you to believe. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

Nanog LiveCast
by Rich Sena 22 May '01

22 May '01

Is there is a schedule of when the livecasts will be available... The link on the page ATM is for mom-morn... -- Rich Sena - ras(a)thick.net ThickNET Consulting "On the way to understanding; you understand, and forget."

2 1

RFC2547 VPN discussion group? (With an inter-AS VPN question )
by Yu Ning 22 May '01

22 May '01

Hi All, Does anyone know RFC2547 VPN discussion group ? I can only find generic MPLS discussion from IETF. Better cisco oriented, because we use Cisco RFC2547 solution. Here is one of the problem we encountered now. Can anyone help ? We have 3 PEs connected with 3 CEs. PE1, PE2 are in the same AS4134, while PE3 in AS41340. It's not so luck that PE1 and PE3 is not back-to-back connected, but can be reached via a tag-switching enabled intermediate network. PE1-PE2 has MP-iBGP peer, while PE1-PE3 has MP-eBGP peer. Then we verify the traffic, and see that CE3, CE1 can ping each other, while CE3 can't ping CE2 ? But all three CEs can see prefix from other CEs. AS4134 AS41340 |----| |---| |---| |CE1 |-------|PE1|--(Tag switching )--|PE3| |----| |---| enabled inter- |---| | mediate network | | | | |---| | |CE3| |----| |---| |---| |CE2 |-------|PE2| |----| |---| BTW, We run PE on IOS Version 12.1(5)T6 regards, Yu Ning ____________________________________________ (Mr.) Yu Ning, Chief Engineer ChinaNET(AS4134) Sr. Sup.& New Sev. R&D Internet Product Dep. DCB, China Telecom Beijing, P.R.China +86-10-62072357/62072354 ____________________________________________

4 4

Study cites 'Net backbone for slowing Web sites
by Hank Nussbacher 22 May '01

22 May '01

http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/2001/119957_05-07-2001.html Incidentally, the end of the article is FUBARed. As an unpaid service to Network World here is how the article ends: "They can look at the application and the platform and tell you where things should be because of the repetition of what they see." Mercury Interactive sells two Web site tesing services: Active-Watch for monitoring Web site performance over the Internet and Activetest for load-testing Web sites. Mercury Interactive's study was based on the firm's ActiveTest customers. Mercury: www-heva.mercuryinteractive.com -Hank

1 0

Stealth Blocking
by Dee McKinney 21 May '01

21 May '01

I didn't get a good look at this URL until after the BOF today. http://www.peacefire.org/stealth/group-statement.5-17-2001.html Wish I had :) W.D.McKinney (Dee) deem(a)wdm.com

2 1

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 21 May '01

21 May '01

> From: Bruce Campbell [mailto:bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:41 PM > > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote: > > > There is some (as yet unpublished) research data that says > ~20% of the > > queries currently going to the root servers are for invalid > TLDs (as setup > > by .private internal operators). Endorsing the use of > private domains will > > make this much worse. > > There was some mention (cue bill) at the last IETF about an > endorsement of > '.int' for internal networks by some insert-dns-clueless-company-here. > which of course sends (significant?) unwanted traffic towards the .int > nameservers. Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use of INT internally would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT TLD from the clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions it has been suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for internal use only. Let me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My personal preference is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The next question is; should this be an RFC? > A better step would be to thoroughly endorse .private or > similar, and have > the distributed root.hints file point it back to the local > nameserver, so > such dns traffic does not end up on the cruel and heartless internet. You gotta be careful here, to not point to a recursive server, for a non-recursive reference. > Of course, lack of clue when setting up internal networks will always > happen (such as allowing those queries out, or not setting up > a correct > private tree off your regular domain etc etc).

2 1

RE: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
by Dave Israel 21 May '01

21 May '01

Oops... I answered this privately, assuming NANOG at large would not be interested. The issue here is that Cisco will tend to add IGP routes to the default table, not the VPN table. Bad things ensue. I was actually referring to the CE interface address; peering with the CE's loopback is, IMHO, more trouble than its worth unless you have multiple connections on the same router. But as long as the address you are peering with is in the private routing table, you're fine, regardless of whether or not it is also in the default table. I cannot speak to the "most common;" I think it is too early to tell. But we are tending towards static routes (nice and stable, without the chance of the other guy breaking you) and BGP (which is already designed to handle trans-border communication.) I have not tried it, but I would assume the OSPF area "repair" toys would work nicely over this, if you want an IGP running across your CE routers. (I'm more of an ISIS guy than an OSPF guy... anybody know why this would blow up in your face?) -Dave On 5/19/2001 at 21:14:40 -0700, Elwin Eliazer said: > > Even i am interested in knowing the exact issue with > using IGPs? What is the most common CE-PE route > exchange behaviour now ... Static routes OR IGP OR > BGP?? > > Dave, are you referring the CE loopback address also > to be local? > > cheers, > Elwin. > > --- Alex Mondrus <alex.mondrus(a)ipoptical.com> wrote: > > Dave > > > > I also like the RFC2547bis. > > > > I would like to learn more about your painful > > experience with IGP in this > > context. Please elaborate a little bit more on this > > subject -> Dave Israel > > wrote "Besides, in at least one major current > > implementation, your IGP > > options are painfully limited." > > > > http://www.ipoptical.com > > > > Thanks in advance, Alex > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Israel > > [mailto:davei@biohazard.demon.digex.net] > > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:45 PM > > To: Elwin Eliazer > > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges > > ... > > > > > > > > On 5/18/2001 at 14:13:53 -0700, Elwin Eliazer said: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > RFC2547bis suggests the use of EBGP between > > > CE and PE routers; Is this a preferable model for > > > service providers and enterprise customers, when > > > compared to using IGP? > > > > Yes. BGP is designed for network borders. Besides, > > in at least one > > major current implementation, your IGP options are > > painfully limited. > > > > > Are there anyone who have deployed this? If so, > > > how is the EBGP peering setup if the CE router > > > is with a local (VPN) IP address? > > > > The BGP session lives in VPN space, the routes only > > exist in VPN > > routing tables. Your CE having a VPN address is > > really just the > > natural solution. > > > > -Dave > > > ===== > ------- > Elwin Stelzer Eliazer > Corona Networks > ------- > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ -- Dave Israel Senior Manager, IP Backbone Intermedia Business Internet

2 1

Nortel & 10Gig Ethernet 802.3ae
by Eric Hutchinson 21 May '01

21 May '01

NANOG Users, Nortel Networks Introduces 10-Gigabit Ethernet. http://www.nortelnetworks.com/corporate/news/newsreleases/2001b/05_09_010134 5_passport_8600.html (White Papers) http://www.nortelnetworks.com/products/library/collateral/87015.25-01-01.pdf

1 0