June 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Exploding manhole covers in Washington DC
by Richard A. Steenbergen 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 05:35:58PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote: > > PEPCO doesn't know why these manholes are blowing up, but started > putting grated manhole covers on to prevent this. Don't know if this > one was grated or solid. http://www.nbc4.com/images/NBC2JRIEYNCP.jpg That one looks solid to me. But at long as it didn't cut any fiber, why do we care. :P If you are in DC and you hear a bang, you should probably duck. I'm certain most DC residents are familiar with this one already. -- 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

RE: What is up with 170.36.0.0/16
by Hire, Ejay 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

A peek at Merit shows that they haven't been advertised since the 8th. http://www.merit.edu/ipma/routing_table/ has a daily snapshot of the routing tables since the 8th. >From looking at their DNS entries, I'd guess their Administrator needs to reverse the priority of the MX records. The second one isn't pingable, but is telnet port 25 -able. -EJ -----Original Message----- From: Erik Antelman [mailto:erik@nombas.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:29 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: What is up with 170.36.0.0/16 Is someone renumbering around this area? My motivation is to understand the mechanisms and techniques \ by which a non-privelaged user (ie someone without login access to a BGP fed router) would diagnose (characterize, locate, identify, etc..) failure to reach a large corporations mail servers (1/2 of the MX servers for fleet.com) RADB has nothing on this, a New York QWEST looking glass says: Query: bgp IP address: 170.36.73.11 Location: New York Timeout: 20 seconds % Network not in table What's up?

1 0

New list Top 10 ISPs
by Sean Donelan 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

NetworkWorld published an article citing research from Probe Research ranking the top 10 ISPs and their marketshare based on Year-end (2000) revenue. 1. Worldcom (27.9%) 2. AT&T (10%) 3. Sprint (6.5%) 4. Genuity (6.3%) 5. PSINet (4.1%) 6. Cable & Wireless (3.5%) 7. XO Communications (2.8%) 8. Verio (2.6%) 9. Qwest (1.5%) 10. Global Crossing (1.3%) Since PSI is larger than C&W, that C&W should pay for transit :-) I don't know what happened to Level 3, ELI, @HOME, Broadwing, or all the non-US ISPs. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/isp/2001/00846039.html

14 19

ACL aggregation tool
by J.D. Falk 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

There's been talk here occasionally about a tool to help aggregate access lists...anyone got it handy? -- J.D. Falk SILENCE IS FOO! <jdfalk(a)cybernothing.org>

2 1

1220 L collo space
by alex＠yuriev.com 13 Jun '01

13 Jun '01

Hello, If anyone has space at 1220 L St. in DC available to collo a router, please contact me off the list. Looking for 10 RUs to 1 full rack. Thanks, Alex

1 0

RE: Prefix-length FUD (was: Re: Opinions about InterNAP)
by Tony Tauber 13 Jun '01

13 Jun '01

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Michael Martin wrote: > The relevant portion of Tony's explanation (which is very concise) is the > following -- > > ++> but should see the route via P2 if P1 is accepting it. (Some > ++> may either block the announcement or have anti-spoofing packet filters > ++> at their borders that block the traffic itself). > > His explanation is very good but the statement that Seth made was that many > providers DO block the /24 announcements. Tony doesn't say anything > specifically about this. So the example is that you're numbered out of Provider1's CIDR block. You're fearing that Provider1 will block announcements of more-specifics from w/in their own blocks. My anecdotal understanding (which I agree has limited value) was that providers who filtered made *exceptions* in their filtering policies for their own CIDR blocks. *** What policies any other providers have is unimportant to my example and things will work just fine no matter the case with those people. *** At any rate, since you're a paying customer of P1, you at least have some influence to exert to get them to make exceptions. As for packet filters (vs. route filters), I doubt many ISPs would implement such a thing as that filtering is typically done at the customer edge. Tony > I remember plenty of threads on this topic but > very few non-anecdotal facts about ISP filter policies. Not being with an > ISP I'm very curious if there is a good answer. I'm not immediately > impacted since Nortel has a class A to work with but I've run into this > question from clients while doing consulting and just don't feel qualified > to really answer it authoritatively. Anyone? > > --- > Michael Martin > Internet Design Engineer > Internet Engineering > Nortel Networks

1 0

Opinions about InterNAP
by Seth M. Kusiak 13 Jun '01

13 Jun '01

I've been told by many that most national providers filter any prefix greater then a /20 such as sprint and verio. -Seth David McGaugh writes: > /24's are sufficient to multihome with most if not all providers out > there. Why not conventionally multi-home to 2 large well established > providers? > > -Dave > > "Seth M. Kusiak" wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> We have a small network (5 /24s) and we need to host our web applications >> internally because they access backend servers that absolutely cannot be >> collocated. I am thinking about getting 2 T1s or fractional DS3s from >> InterNAP from different P-NAPS (1 from Philly and 1 from NY) each circuit >> from a different CO >> >> The reason that Im thinking InterNAP is because we dont qualify for a /20 >> and we would not be able to efficiently multi-home. It seems that InterNAP >> is perfect in our situation because they buy transit from multiple providers >> and claim to not have any black holes in their network. >> >> I hear many great things about InterNAP and I hear the opposite as well. >> >> Any thoughts would GREATLY be appreciated >> >> Thanks! >> >> -Seth

3 2

sprint supervisors
by Dan Hollis 13 Jun '01

13 Jun '01

Does anyone know how to contact the supervisor(s) for the sprint Data Account Managers? Our account rep is giving us a line of bullshit and of course won't tell us who his supervisor is. -Dan

1 0

RE: standards for giving out blocks of IP addresses
by Rishi Singh 13 Jun '01

13 Jun '01

VERY true... Many a times the closing during a contract will be the reminder to the salesperson, "So, you know we still need those 4 /24s right, as we discussed when we first met?" Then a phone a call is made and some words exchanged and the answer is, "My boss says he can do that for you, but he needs the contract back today to reserve them." :-). -----Original Message----- From: Martin, Christian [mailto:cmartin@gnilink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 8:38 PM To: 'Kevin Loch' Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: standards for giving out blocks of IP addresses > Of course bandwidth != subnet mask. He should give them > whatever IP's > they demonstrate a need for in the next three months. Determining and > justifying that > need has nothing to do with how over (or under) subscribed their > bandwidth is. Let us not forget what some salespersons will promise to potential large bandwidth customers. An OC-3 POS customer, for example, can expect many many /24s. One may say "They should go to ARIN", but alas, they would have to pay another $2500 on top of the $1 million+ they are paying for transit. <8{} It is surprising how much a salesperson will "sell" to get the commission on a 5 year OC-3 contract, forget about OC-12/48... So, in some cases, like it or not, bandwidth sold is proportional to IP addresses. chris > > If they are in fact only selling dialup (not leased lines, not web > hosting), > you might ask how many pops(locations) they plan to have right away, > modems/pop, space > reserved for internal devices (email/corporate lan) and links. You > could > easially justify a couple of /24's with a couple locations > and IP's for > all the new PC's in the marketing dept. > > KL >

3 2

Contingency Planning
by Sean Donelan 13 Jun '01

13 Jun '01

On Tue, 12 June 2001, David Beery wrote: > From some of the reports that I have seen on one of the ARRL mailing > lists is that the area is now a Federal Disaster area. Ham Radio > and the many generous hams are currently assisting emergency > communications just about everywhere, from the hospitals, the fire > departments, red cross shelters, and even assiting line men for > Southwestern Bell. It's one of those times when OCxx's, bad ass Cisco > routers, belts loaded with cell phones and pagers from every company > that provides service in the area, will do you no good. > > Thanks to RACES, ARES and MARS for providing the mainstay of emergency > communications in the effected areas! Some ISPs can qualify for priority restoration of telecommunications circuits under the federal Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) program. Its not too complicated, and the people at the NCS are fairly helpful, see <http://tsp.ncs.gov/> Licenses for Business and/or Utility radio frequencies are available so you don't need individual operator licenses for your operations staff. Of course, as we know, IP can run almost anything. I've set these up as part of an ISP's contingency plans. Remember, the time to set them up is before the disaster. Exchange points are obvious places for networks to connect and share emergency information between providers. It could range from an out-of-band web server to a private NOC voice bridge. As I mentioned most of the people you need to deal with are helpful. But if you need some pointers on how to contact the right government office, drop me a note. I hope some folks find contingency planning of relevance to network operators.

1 0