February 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth
by Stephen Stuart 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

> Like many Internet settlement schemes, this seems to not make much sense. If > a person reads USENET for many years enjoying all of its wisdom, why should > he get a free ride? And why should the people who supply that wisdom have to > pay to do so? A USENET transaction is presumed to benefit both parties, or > else they wouldn't have configured their computers to make that transaction. Well, the idea wasn't exactly fully formed, and you've taken it in a direction that doesn't match what I was thinking. I am definitely *not* thinking at the granularity of "users." I've heard of users, and their hunger for pornography, MP3s, and pirated copies of Word, but this isn't about them. It's about sites that want to offer USENET to these "users," and the ever-increasing cost to play in the global USENET pool. The topic being discussed is to try to reduce USENET bandwidth. One way to do that is to pass pointers around instead of complete articles. If the USENET distribution system passed pointers to articles around instead of the actual articles themselves, sites could then "self-tune" their spools to the content that their readers (the "users") found interesting (fetch articles from a source that offered to actually spool them), either by pre-fetching or fetching on-demand, but still have access to the "total accumulated wisdom" of USENET - and maybe it wouldn't need to be reposted every week, because sites could also offer value to their "users" on the publishing side by offering to publish their content longer. It would be helpful if that last decision - how much to publish - didn't have global impact the way it does now. When someone injects a copy of Word into the USENET distribution system now, everyone's disk and bandwidth cost is incurred immediately. If a pointer was flooded instead, the upfront cost is less, and article transfer cost is (arguably) able to more closely match a site's level of demand, rather than other sites' willingness to supply. This would have the effect of letting sites with different levels of willingness to expend resources still play in the global USENET game with, in theory, greater access to information. It would, again in theory, allow sites that don't necessarily have the benefit of a lot of resources to spool articles to leverage access to sites that do (thus the comment about the cost being incurred by the publisher, or, more appropriately, those willing to publish). The primary benefit, I think, is that sites that publish poorly - allow a lot of trash to be posted - could do so without poisoning the village green for others. A downstream spool might be able to implement the policy option of choosing not to pre-fetch on a site-by-site basis, rather than having to tune their spool on a group-by-group basis, and the information is all still there. The incentive to publish quality information is that downstream sites are more willing to pre-fetch from you, lowering your bandwidth costs. There are, of course, a thousand devils in the details, like how to chase down an article when you didn't necessarily have it and you didn't necessarily know who might still be offering a copy. Some of those problems in that vein that appeared insurmountable ten years ago might have solutions in current "peer-to-peer" networking technologies (thus the off-hand comment about Napster). Users, in theory, would not really see anything different than they see today. Underneath the covers, though, (a) some articles might take longer to fetch than others, and (b) there'd be less trash distributed globally. I don't envision reducing the hunger of "users" for pornography, MP3s, or pirated copies of Word. Maybe we don't need to incur so much cost transmitting them to and storing them in thousands of sites around the net each week, though. Stephen

1 0

Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering
by David McGaugh 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4D00A25647F176B9D31DD94C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just curious if anyone is performing MAC Address Filtering at any of the Ethernet Exchange Points. If so has it been found to be easy to administer or difficult where by peers may be changing Layer 3 devices or Interfaces without notice? Alternately is MAC Address Filtering considered an unneeded security measure? Thanks, Dave --------------4D00A25647F176B9D31DD94C Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="david_mcgaugh.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Dave McGaugh Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="david_mcgaugh.vcf" begin:vcard n:McGaugh;David tel;fax:360.816.3297 tel;work:360.816.3718 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.eli.net org:Electric Lightwave, Inc.;Network Planning and Engineering adr:;;4400 NE 77th Ave.;Vancouver;WA;98662;USA version:2.1 email;internet:dmcgaugh@eli.net title:Internetwork Engineer x-mozilla-cpt:;26448 fn:David McGaugh end:vcard --------------4D00A25647F176B9D31DD94C--

1 0

Re: Querying Large Number of Whois Records?
by Spencer.Wood＠dot.state.oh.us 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 004A012C85256B59_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We are wanting a way to go though our web servers logs, and try to get a idea of where our traffic is coming from...... We have a script that works really great, but we have to put a pause in it to keep from overloading ARIN... Spencer ************************************************************ Spencer Wood, Network Manager Ohio Department Of Transportation 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 E-Mail: Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us Phone: 614.387.0710/Fax: 815.361.0714/Pager: 866.591.9954 ************************************************************* Doug Barton <DougB(a)DougBarton.net> Sent by: doug(a)yahoo-inc.com 02/07/2002 12:06 AM To: Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Querying Large Number of Whois Records? Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us wrote: > Anyway, we are looking for a way to query a large number of Whois > Records. For what purpose? Doug -- "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, ... we will see freedom's victory." - George W. Bush, President of the United States State of the Union, January 28, 2002 Do YOU Yahoo!? --=_alternative 004A012C85256B59_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" We are wanting a way to go though our web servers logs, and try to get a idea of where our traffic is coming from...... We have a script that works really great, but we have to put a pause in it to keep from overloading ARIN... Spencer ************************************************************ Spencer Wood, Network Manager Ohio Department Of Transportation 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 E-Mail: <a href=mailto:Spencer.Wood@dot.state.oh.us>Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us</a> Phone: 614.387.0710/Fax: 815.361.0714/Pager: 866.591.9954 ************************************************************* <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>Doug Barton <DougB(a)DougBarton.net> Sent by: doug(a)yahoo-inc.com 02/07/2002 12:06 AM <td>                To:        Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us         cc:        nanog(a)merit.edu         Subject:        Re: Querying Large Number of Whois Records?</table> Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us wrote: > Anyway, we are looking for a way to query a large number of Whois > Records.                 For what purpose? Doug --   "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power.      And in this great conflict, ...  we will see freedom's victory."                 - George W. Bush, President of the United States          State of the Union, January 28, 2002         Do YOU Yahoo!? --=_alternative 004A012C85256B59_=--

1 0

RE: Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering
by Deepak Jain 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of David McGaugh Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:18 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering Just curious if anyone is performing MAC Address Filtering at any of the Ethernet Exchange Points. If so has it been found to be easy to administer or difficult where by peers may be changing Layer 3 devices or Interfaces without notice? Alternately is MAC Address Filtering considered an unneeded security measure? Thanks, Dave ---- Speaking of this, is MAC Address filtering [at an IX] really designed to eliminate the possibility of new hardware showing up on the port or is it more the idea of keeping lots of boxes from showing up directly [like hanging another switch off the port]. If its the latter, a seemingly sensible approach would be to limit the number of unique MAC addresses to like 2-4 per port. This way you can change your equipment without prior notice, but you can't (as easily) violate the integrity of the switching fabric. I know for our network ports we limit to no more than 2 unique MACs in a certain time period [~5 minutes or so] which again, allows swapping of equipment without compromising anything that MAC layer filtering is supposed to protect. Deepak Jain AiNET

1 0

Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth
by Paul Vixie 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

avg(a)exigengroup.com (Vadim Antonov) writes: > ... > In other words - USENET cannot be fixed with technological improvements as > long as the root problem (admission control) is not solved. Improving > transmission or storage systems would only let spammers to send more spam > for free. ...which is why my proposal didn't involve multicast and assumed that each newsgroup would be authoritatively sourced by a well known server or mirrored cluster of servers. spam or offtopic postings, to be deleted, would only need to be deleted in that one place. then the hierarchical nntpcache graph would simply "not find" the trash rather than needing to be told to remove it as is done today with "full nntp" servers. the other motive here is implicit moderation: no newsgroup which could not find a sponsoring server or mirrored cluster could continue to exist; any such server or cluster which was known to never remove trash would eventually become uninteresting to discerning parties (e.g., me) while still being completely usable by undiscerning parties. > Therefore, i'd say it is time to declare USENET defunct. It was fun while > it lasted. "death of usenet predicted. film at 11."

1 0

RE: route-views.oregon-ix.net
by Peter Rohrman 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

No problem my friend. Pete -----Original Message----- From: David Meyer [mailto:dmm@sprint.net] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:09 AM To: Peter Rohrman Cc: 'nanog(a)nanog.org' Subject: Re: route-views.oregon-ix.net There was some problem with it. I wasn't on site but Joel handled it. Thanks for the report. Dave On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:11:13AM -0500, Peter Rohrman wrote: >> >> I cant get to route-views.oregon-ix.net. Is this route server >> decommissioned or is this just an outage? >> >> Pete >> >> ************************************************************************** >> Peter Rohrman One Executive Dr. >> Network Engineer Fort Lee, NJ 07024 >> Everest Broadband Networks (201) 905-8491 >> **************************************************************************

1 0

Re: Round Robin DNS
by Christopher A. Woodfield 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

One solution I've seen implemented is to put one nameserver in each data center, and that nameserver only responds to queries with IPs that are in that location, and sets a short TTL. So, if that center loses connectivity, no new DNS queries are being answered with IPs in the affected location. The only "lag time" is the DNS TTL. -C On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 09:04:19PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > Ken Yeo wrote: > > > > I would like to get your comments on pros and cons on using round robin DNS > > to load balance web servers that are located in geographical disperse > > locations? > > DNS isn't really designed to handle these kinds of problems, although > DNS plus other technologies can. Akamai is really good at this sort of > thing, you'll probably be better off working with them, since in all > likelihood it'll be cheaper to work with them than to try and roll your > own. > > Doug > -- > "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. > And in this great conflict, ... we will see freedom's victory." > - George W. Bush, President of the United States > State of the Union, January 28, 2002 > > Do YOU Yahoo!? -- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil(a)semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B

1 0

Re: zebra/ospf issue
by Paul Froutan 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

On Friday 08 February 2002 12:37 am, Josh Gentry wrote: > ! > interface lo > ! > interface eth1 > ip ospf authentication-key <password> > ! > interface eth0 > ip ospf message-digest-key <keyid> md5 <password> > ip ospf priority 5 > ip ospf hello-interval 10 > ip ospf dead-interval 40 > > ! > router ospf > ospf router-id 216.184.8.55 > ospf abr-type cisco > ospf rfc1583compatibility > network 198.59.115.0/24 area 0 > network 216.184.8.0/24 area 51 > area 0 authentication message-digest > area 51 authentication > redistribute static > > > Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks. > > Josh > jgentry(a)systemstability.org Have you tried it without the message-digest? I messed with this back in the day and I had problems with the keys and the way they're hashed.

1 0

RE: Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering
by Deepak Jain 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

I assume you mean a non-peer defaulting to you, yes? With wirespeed ACLs one could filter packets not terminated on your network at your point of ingress. Deepak Jain AiNET -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of David McGaugh Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:59 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering Actually, I was more speaking in terms of applying the filters to your router port as an Exchange Point Member to prevent another unscrupulous exchange point member from default routing you or other things nasty. -Dave Deepak Jain wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > David McGaugh > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:18 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Ethernet EP - MAC Address Filtering > > Just curious if anyone is performing MAC Address Filtering at any of > the Ethernet Exchange Points. If so has it been found to be easy to > administer or difficult where by peers may be changing Layer 3 devices > or Interfaces without notice? Alternately is MAC Address Filtering > considered an unneeded security measure? > > Thanks, > Dave > > ---- > > Speaking of this, is MAC Address filtering [at an IX] really designed to > eliminate the possibility of new hardware showing up on the port or is it > more the idea of keeping lots of boxes from showing up directly [like > hanging another switch off the port]. If its the latter, a seemingly > sensible approach would be to limit the number of unique MAC addresses to > like 2-4 per port. > > This way you can change your equipment without prior notice, but you can't > (as easily) violate the integrity of the switching fabric. > > I know for our network ports we limit to no more than 2 unique MACs in a > certain time period [~5 minutes or so] which again, allows swapping of > equipment without compromising anything that MAC layer filtering is supposed > to protect. > > Deepak Jain > AiNET

1 0

Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth
by Jonas M Luster 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Quoting Paul Vixie (vixie(a)as.vix.com) > ...which is why my proposal didn't involve multicast and assumed that each What are your concerns with mcntp? http://sourceforge.net/projects/mcntp/ jonas

1 0