June 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Bet on with my boss
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

steve uurtamo wrote: > > > No. That's not what the bet is about. Sorry. > > > > The bet was if I could stop the various SPEWS threads. > > ha! i was close, at least admit that! Someone else was closer actually. Hold on, let me back track through the posts and see who . . . Andy Dills. He said, and I quote: "I probably should take your advice, but that's an interestingly ambiguous question so I'll indulge on a slow Friday afternoon. Anything to derail that spews thread." I think that's pretty close, but then he wasn't guessing was he. I think you were the first to attempt a guess. > > > But I am actually curious about this. Because, you see, genuity, as I > > understand it, restored "phone" service to lower manhattan post 9/11 > > through voice over ip. And I was just wondering how they would fix a > > shafu with the internet if the only phone service was Voice over IP. And > > that got me thinking about this whole convergence, you know, when we all > > migrate to a packet switched network and the telcos are all bankrupt. > > And I wondered if anyone else needs/hates the phone the way I do. > > oh, i think that telephones, with their existing ridiculous, but reasonably > effective routing system, will be around for a long time. plus, you can be > on a packet switched network without being affected by internet snafus. HOW?!?! I'm fairly new to this, so . . . Maybe it's cause I'm not well versed on VoIP. Dunno. But it seems that if your packet switched, you need a router. Unless you design the network so voice traffic routed by a different router, using all different fiber, in different trenches, so there is no possibility of an internet snafu nixing phone service. Because, I thought the reason ... people ... were all hot to converge the networks was ease, one stop shopping and all that crap (can you say crap here?) BTW, since you're being so nice and not ignoring me, what does FIARK mean? > i think that the day is reasonably far away when everyone who picks up a > phone is actually transmitting packets across the globally connected internet. > same goes for cell phones. Some ... people ... think its no more than five years away, for metropolitan areas that is. Which is where most of the people are anyway. It may take another hundred to get _everyone_ packet switched. I mean there are some 1AESSes still out there. > > you know, a good friend of mine once hung up the phone at a point that seemed > a bit early in the conversation, after suggesting that we go somewhere to > talk instead. his reason? he said he'd rather talk to a person than to > a piece of plastic. i liked that reason. me too. I hate phones. Doesn't mean they aren't absolutley necessary. > > > That's all. > > > > I think I stopped the spews thread. > > what an aptly named thread, you know? > > :) your clever question, as well as steven sobol ranting about being > asked to quit posting about it, seemed to have dried it up. > > > Thanks for your support. > > no problemo, > > s. I may have to unsubscibe to nanog, or figure out some way to fix this so it stops filling my inbox. Who'd ever thought network operators talked so much! Anyone got a great idea on how to recieve only the messages for you, and not recieve everything addressed to nanog, without dumping HUGE quantities of mail into some unknown box in yahoo?? or aol?? Thanks again, Jane

1 0

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 21 23:00:00 PDT 2002 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 amount 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 21Jun02 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 140602 111440 150602 111459 160602 111437 170602 111518 180602 111528 190602 111542 200602 111562 210602 111582 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: 13153 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 8033 (4515 cidr, 3518 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 658 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1352 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 21Jun02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1352 1079 273 20.2% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS1221 1090 846 244 22.4% Telstra Pty Ltd AS17557 295 111 184 62.4% Pakistan Telecom AS6595 189 57 132 69.8% DoD Education Activity Network As AS7018 808 678 130 16.1% AT&T AS852 480 354 126 26.2% Telus Advanced Communications AS16473 194 76 118 60.8% Bell South AS705 301 201 100 33.2% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4151 235 141 94 40.0% USDA AS19632 98 4 94 95.9% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS12302 122 29 93 76.2% MobiFon S.A. AS1239 517 427 90 17.4% Sprint AS7046 322 233 89 27.6% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS7303 152 65 87 57.2% Telecom Argentina Stet-France Tel AS16814 105 20 85 81.0% NSS, S.A. AS226 176 92 84 47.7% Los Nettos AS2048 179 103 76 42.5% State of Louisiana AS577 262 190 72 27.5% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS4755 196 124 72 36.7% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS4323 408 339 69 16.9% Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS724 226 158 68 30.1% DLA Systems Automation Center AS3464 165 104 61 37.0% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS19834 64 4 60 93.8% NetForce, Inc. AS10620 83 23 60 72.3% TVCABLE BOGOTA AS3908 308 251 57 18.5% Supernet, Inc. AS209 319 262 57 17.9% Qwest AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS1 445 389 56 12.6% GENUITY AS9051 81 26 55 67.9% INCONET Autonomous System AS6535 69 16 53 76.8% Chilesat Servicios Empresariales Total 55073 42468 12605 22.9% 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

rogue networks
by Dan Hollis 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

Has anyone else come to the conclusion that AS23205 is black hat / rogue? Contact me in private email. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

1 0

Re: Bet on with my boss
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

steve uurtamo wrote: > > especially with the "you can ignore this if you want to", i'd > have to say that the most interesting part of your question > was that the bet is not neccesarily related to the question > itself. > > my guess is that you guys bet on how many responses the question > would generate. > > :) > No. That's not what the bet is about. Sorry. The bet was if I could stop the various SPEWS threads. But I am actually curious about this. Because, you see, genuity, as I understand it, restored "phone" service to lower manhattan post 9/11 through voice over ip. And I was just wondering how they would fix a shafu with the internet if the only phone service was Voice over IP. And that got me thinking about this whole convergence, you know, when we all migrate to a packet switched network and the telcos are all bankrupt. And I wondered if anyone else needs/hates the phone the way I do. That's all. I think I stopped the spews thread. Thanks for your support. Jane > s.

1 0

Re: Bet on with my boss
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

Oh you made me laugh ... thanks, Jane "Sam Hayes Merritt, III" wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > How important is the phone to you? I mean, given some situation that > > arises, can we solve it without the phones? > > > > Just curious. > > > > You can ignore me if you want. That's okay. > > > > Jane > > To me, personally, as an individual and not speaking as an > admin, i could give a damn. Try not to use the flipping things > except very rarely, irritating nuisances they are. > > To me, speaking as someone who works as a clec/cable company/isp, > they're purty damn important. Phones can save lives. Without them, > its damn hard to reach emergency service so nearly every house now > has one. But the internet, you can get by just fine without it now. > It doesn't yet have a killer app ;) > > sam

1 0

I've been informed that I'm off-topic and off-charter
by Steven J. Sobol 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

so I will no longer post about SPEWS here. Of course, I find it exceedingly interesting that Ms. Harris decided to yell at me and apparently not at any of the other 30+ people participating in the thread. Nor can I find any comments in the charter or on the web site about whether spam or DNS blacklists are on-topic or off-topic for this mailing list. And I don't expect Susan to reply to the private e-mail I sent her reiterating those two exact points. **SJS -- Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET - I do my best work with one of my cockatiels sitting on each shoulder - 6/4/02:A USA TODAY poll found that 80% of Catholics advocated a zero-tolerance stance towards abusive priests. The fact that 20% didn't, scares me...

4 3

Re: SPEWS?
by Dave Israel 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but the fact of the matter is, if SPEWS behavior is abusive towards a network, that network does have a limited recourse: null-route SPEWS. Thus, the more providers they anger, the less network they can reach. Some users may complain, but if SPEWS is abusing your customer base, I think it's a valid response. It's a powerful threat, and incentive for SPEWs to play fair. On 6/20/2002 at 20:33:43 +0100, Chrisy Luke said: > > Steven J. Sobol wrote (on Jun 20): > > If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues > > available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming - > > whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation > > may work if the collateral damage caused by escalation is enough to get > > the spammers' neighbors to complain to the ISP. > > Can't find the terrorists you're looking for so start killing bystanders > until someone submits? Sounds militia to me. > > The service providers are not the enemies. If you treat them like enemies > then enemies they will become. > > Perhaps we should move mail transfer to a peering model. You wanna send > email to my SMTP server? Where's the peering contract? BGP-equivalent for > SMTP anyone? > > -C > (tired of getting bounces for email I never sent!)

2 1

Any opinions regarding Telehouse ?
by joe mcguckin 20 Jun '02

20 Jun '02

We're seriously considering moving out of 1 Wilshire, due to Carlyle's factor of eight fee increase for meet-me room cage rents and their practice of insisting on charging us for items our contract specifically says we can't be charged for. One leading candidate for our new 'home' in LA is Telehouse. Any opinions about them? Thanks, Joe

5 4

heh - ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken. (fwd)
by Stephen J. Wilcox 20 Jun '02

20 Jun '02

Looks like all those nasty words 'terrorism' 'militia' 'killing' and of course 'blacklist' have tripped someones content alarm ;) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:01:39 -0500 From: System Attendant <NT-1-SA(a)mail.eatel.com> To: 'Stephen J. Wilcox' <steve(a)opaltelecom.co.uk> Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken. Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. Place = Geo.; nanog(a)nanog.org; Sender = Stephen J. Wilcox Subject = RE: SPEWS? Delivery Time = June 20, 2002 (Thursday) 16:01:38 Policy = Custom Action on this mail = Quarantine message Warning message from administrator: Sender, An email you have sent was stripped. If this email was worked related please contact the helpdesk.

3 2

query about determining ingress interface
by Rajesh Talpade 20 Jun '02

20 Jun '02

Hi Is there a way for an ISP to determine the ingress router interface at its network border that will carry IP traffic _from_ an IP address not owned by it? I don't want to assume the path is the same in both directions, and tools such as CAIDA's skitter plot paths from specific sources. One approach might be deriving network paths from CAIDA's data, perhaps someone has already done this? Thanks. Rajesh.

5 6