September 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: layer 3 switch debate
by ip dude 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Since you are from Cisco...so it is your opinion that a Catalyst 6509 (i.e. Layer 3 switch) is equivalent to a 7206 or GSR? Of course, this is in regard to 'core' routing device in the middle of a national IP network. This network in question just happens to utilize a lot of GE LH interconnections. --- "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk(a)cisco.com> wrote: > >Thus spake "ip dude" <ipdude(a)cattle-today.com> >> IP Community: >> >> When designing an all IP network requiring mostly Ethernet interfaces, the >logical conclusion is to specify layer 3 switches (instead of routers). The cost >per port and functionality requirements make a layer 3 switch the perfect >choice. However, the rule of thumb in the IP community is that routers are >superior to layer 3 switches and should be utilized instead, especially when >considering core type functionality. >> >> Does this rule of thumb still apply considering the modern layer 3 switches >available? If not, why? What makes a layer 3 switch sub-standard to a pure >router? Any quantitative analysis you could provide would be greatly >appreciated. > > >"switch" is a marketing term meaning fast, nothing more. Any device that >operates at Layer 3 is a router by definition. Therefore, "Layer 3 switch" >means "fast router". > >Now think about your question again. > >S _____________________________________________________________ Get your own free Ranch eMail and Classified Ads at http://cattletoday.com _____________________________________________________________ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you(a)yourchoice.com w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

4 3

Anybody on 64.0.0.0/8?
by Patrick Muldoon 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

If so, could you please contact me off-list, need to run a test from outside our netblock. -Patrick -- Patrick Muldoon, Network/Software Engineer INOC, LLC doon(a)inoc.net (A)bort, (R)etry, (P)anic?

1 1

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

This report has been generated at Fri Sep 27 20:32:43 2002 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of the Route-Views router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 20-09-02 121329 87082 21-09-02 121481 87337 22-09-02 121438 87731 23-09-02 121323 87980 24-09-02 121407 88246 25-09-02 121566 88349 26-09-02 121459 87822 27-09-02 122059 87558 Possible Bogus Routes 7.1.1.0/30 AS12357 COMUNITEL Comunitel Global Autonomous System 10.5.5.0/30 AS11537 ABILENE University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development 10.11.11.0/30 AS11537 ABILENE University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development 10.33.0.0/23 AS174 PSINET PSINet Inc. 10.33.8.0/24 AS174 PSINET PSINet Inc. 39.0.0.0/8 AS4554 EP0-BLK-ASNBLOCK-4 Exchange Point Blocks AS Summary 13979 Number of ASes in routing system 5289 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1816 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS209 : ASN-QWEST Qwest 73220608 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 27Sep02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 121705 87359 34346 28.2% All ASes AS209 1816 1038 778 42.8% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS3908 1124 621 503 44.8% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. AS701 1786 1286 500 28.0% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS2548 1586 1123 463 29.2% ICIX-MD-AS Business Internet, Inc. AS7132 602 140 462 76.7% SBIS-AS Southwestern Bell Internet Services AS7018 1359 959 400 29.4% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS7843 711 341 370 52.0% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS1221 1304 938 366 28.1% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS4323 645 295 350 54.3% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS852 756 458 298 39.4% ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications AS6197 382 97 285 74.6% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS7046 590 316 274 46.4% UUNET-CUSTOMER UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS18566 272 4 268 98.5% COVAD Covad Communications AS174 593 330 263 44.4% PSINET PSINet Inc. AS4151 279 32 247 88.5% USDA-1 USDA AS4355 382 144 238 62.3% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS1 672 442 230 34.2% GNTY-1 Genuity AS6347 397 170 227 57.2% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS4814 255 36 219 85.9% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China Telecom (Group)Beijing Telecom CompanyBeijing China AS705 408 198 210 51.5% ASN-ALTERNET UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS1580 210 11 199 94.8% HQ, 5th Signal Command AS22927 215 20 195 90.7% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA AS690 517 324 193 37.3% NSFNET-T3-RT-AS Merit Network Inc. AS1239 1110 930 180 16.2% SprintLink Sprint AS2386 421 243 178 42.3% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS3356 389 214 175 45.0% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications, LLC AS6595 232 60 172 74.1% DODDSEUR DoD Education Activity Network Assistance Center AS1791 184 21 163 88.6% SPRINTLINK3 Sprint Government Systems Division AS4134 302 139 163 54.0% ERX-CHINALINK Data Communications Bureau AS6327 180 20 160 88.9% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink Limited Total 19679 10950 8729 44.4% Top 30 total Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)lists.apnic.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0

any known users of NetRange 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
by hostmaster 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Hello friends, I have this very odd email address found with one of our employees.... <hidden_user(a)172.17.0.1> A.f.a.i.k. 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 is: NetRange: 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 CIDR: 172.16.0.0/12 NetName: IANA-BBLK-RESERVED NetHandle: NET-172-16-0-0-1 Parent: NET-172-0-0-0-0 NetType: IANA Special Use NameServer: BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG NameServer: BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG Comment: This block is reserved for special purposes. Please see RFC 1918 for additional information. RegDate: 1994-03-15 Updated: 2002-09-12 Here's my questions: - Given that 1918 deals with allocation issues for "private Internets", is there a recording entity of this special address space beyond the formal IANA, which details the distribution of data from any "private Internet" once it enters the public Internet vice versa ? - Whom to anyone's knowledge is known to be using (for special projects) or perhaps misusing this 172.17.0.1 ? Greatly appreciate some insight, off list or on list, at your leisure. best to all, Bertil Bertil Fortrie hostmaster(a)nso.org

2 1

Re: any known users of NetRange 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
by Tony Rall 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

On Friday, 2002-09-27 at 03:14 GMT, "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam(a)noc.everquick.net> wrote: > It's difficult for TCP to work when there's no return path, > unless one has highly-predictable ISNs. Chances are it's > "inside" the network. Perhaps you missed the point where the original problem was with an email address: " I have this very odd email address found with one of our employees.... <hidden_user(a)172.17.0.1>" Email addresses, in fact everything in rfc822 headers, are unrelated to tcp connectivity issues. If the employee got the email I'm willing to assume there was connectivity. If you wish, I can describe exactly how such an address could be in the rfc822 From header of a message that could be delivered to you - even if 172.17.0.1 is the address of the originating device and you have no way of reaching that address. Tony Rall

3 2

Re: any known users of NetRange 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
by Tony Rall 26 Sep '02

26 Sep '02

On Thursday, 2002-09-26 at 20:42 AST, hostmaster <hostmaster(a)nso.org> wrote: > I have this very odd email address found with one of our employees.... > <hidden_user(a)172.17.0.1> > > Here's my questions: > > - Given that 1918 deals with allocation issues for "private Internets", is > there a recording entity of this special address space beyond the formal > IANA, which details the distribution of data from any "private Internet" > once it enters the public Internet vice versa ? > > - Whom to anyone's knowledge is known to be using (for special projects) or > perhaps misusing this 172.17.0.1 ? This mail is likely from a spammer or (even more likely) from a misconfigured sender behind a NAT gateway. There are lots of folks using addresses in this range on the private nets; some of it, unfortunately leaks to the Internet (all to no good). Tony Rall

2 1

RE: AP IX locations
by James Spenceley 26 Sep '02

26 Sep '02

|Given the enormous scope of the question, the US west coast almost |sounds like an effective common denominator *regardless* of the |state of interconnection within the region, or the history of |US-centric traffic demand and under-sea cable routes. PAIX alone can supply 10-15k of AP routes, coupled with AP routes from ABOV and others, that would be most it. No matter where you are located in AP, its going to be a long and difficult build to get a similar level of routes from within the region. Now if you coming from Europe it would make even less sense. -- James

1 0

MPLS as a protection mechanism
by Marian Stasney 26 Sep '02

26 Sep '02

I read the thread on NANOG about MPLS in Metro Networks and the replies danced around this issue but didn't address it directly. I'd like to know if anyone is/is considering using MPLS as a Layer 1 or Layer 2 protection mechanism, whether alone or in combination with other protection mechanisms. By "protection", I am referring to resiliency similar to SONET wrapping. Would it allow the sale of different levels of protection for individual data streams? If so or if not, please contact me off-list and I'll post the compiled replies (if any). Marian Stasney Managing Partner Telecom Inquiry Solutions mstasney(a)telecominquiry.com Ofc: 512-295-4410 Cell: 512-845-1546

1 0

RE: False-alarm generator
by Todd, John 26 Sep '02

26 Sep '02

As it turns out, the NCS has an RFI out on the street looking for input of just this sort. See it at <https://www.ditco.disa.mil/dcop/Public/ASP/requirement.asp?req_no=NCS_RFI>. We would love to hear from you all! JW

1 0

UUnet routing "problem"
by Sorin CONSTANTINESCU 26 Sep '02

26 Sep '02

Hi, This morning we've discovered that one of our IP's was routed somewhere towards an ALTER.NET customer. All the "experiments" i'm going to show you are done from route-server.exodus.net. a show ip bgp 193.231.236.41 show that the originator of the IP Block from where 193.231.236.41 belongs is AS8708 (RDSNET ROMANIA). BGP routing table entry for 193.231.224.0/20, version 4439795 Paths: (8 available, best #1) Not advertised to any peer 3561 701 702 8708, (aggregated by 8708 193.231.191.33) 209.1.40.63 from 209.1.40.63 (209.1.40.63) Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate, best 3561 701 702 8708, (aggregated by 8708 193.231.191.33) 209.1.40.129 from 209.1.40.129 (209.1.40.129) Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate 3561 701 702 8708, (aggregated by 8708 193.231.191.33) 209.1.220.242 from 209.1.220.242 (209.1.220.242) Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate 3561 701 702 8708, (aggregated by 8708 193.231.191.33) 209.1.220.134 from 209.1.220.134 (209.1.220.134) Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate 3561 701 702 8708, (aggregated by 8708 193.231.191.33) 209.1.40.141 from 209.1.40.141 (209.1.40.141) Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate 3561 701 702 8708, (aggregated by 8708 193.231.191.33) 209.1.220.7 from 209.1.220.7 (209.1.220.7) Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate 3561 701 702 8708, (aggregated by 8708 193.231.191.33) 209.1.220.7 from 209.1.220.84 (209.1.220.7) But, somewhere on the way, route-server.exodus.net>tr 193.231.236.41 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to FuckingLiveShow.home.ro (193.231.236.41) 1 dcr01-p0-1.sntc08.exodus.net (209.1.169.182) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 ibr01-g0-0.sntc08.exodus.net (66.35.194.197) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 dcr2-so-3-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.156.197) [AS 3561] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec 4 agr3-so-2-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.156.138) [AS 3561] 4 msec agr4-so-6-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.156.158) [AS 3561] 0 msec agr3-so-2-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.156.138) [AS 3561] 4 msec 5 acr1-loopback.SanFrancisco.cw.net (206.24.210.61) [AS 3561] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 6 bpr2.SanJoseEquinix.cw.net (206.24.210.27) [AS 3561] 4 msec 4 msec 8 msec 7 cable-and-wireless-peering.SanJoseEquinix.cw.net (208.173.55.2) [AS 3561] 4 msec cable-and-wireless-peering.SanJoseEquinix.cw.net (208.173.55.46) [AS 3561] 224 msec cable-and-wireless-peering.SanJoseEquinix.cw.net (208.173.55.2) [AS 3561] 4 msec 8 POS2-0.XR2.SJC7.ALTER.NET (152.63.56.166) [AS 701] 8 msec 4 msec 4 msec 9 POS5-0.XR2.SJC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.52.141) [AS 701] 8 msec 4 msec 4 msec 10 0.so-0-0-0.XL2.SJC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.55.126) [AS 701] 8 msec 4 msec 4 msec 11 0.so-3-0-0.TL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.54.10) [AS 701] 8 msec 8 msec 8 msec 12 0.so-4-0-0.TL2.DCA6.ALTER.NET (152.63.10.61) [AS 701] 84 msec 84 msec 84 msec 13 0.so-6-0-0.XL2.DCA6.ALTER.NET (152.63.38.74) [AS 701] 88 msec 88 msec 88 msec 14 0.so-7-0-0.XR2.DCA6.ALTER.NET (152.63.38.90) [AS 701] 88 msec 88 msec 88 msec 15 284.at-2-0-0.CL2.IAD5.ALTER.NET (152.63.35.58) [AS 701] 88 msec 88 msec 92 msec 16 501.ATM5-0.GW5.IAD5.ALTER.NET (152.63.43.141) [AS 701] 92 msec 92 msec 88 msec 17 xa-gw2.customer.alter.net (157.130.13.70) [AS 701] 120 msec 92 msec 92 msec 18 s1.home.ro (193.231.236.41) [AS 8708] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec route-server.exodus.net> Has anyone ever experienced this kind of problems? We've written to UUNET Europe, and they've answered to us that it's a problem at UUNET USA. It's been almost 8 hours since they replied to us, but the problem persists. PS: If there are any technicians from UUNET on this list, please give us a hand. Thank you, --- Sorin Constantinescu Tel: +402 13 010 850 Network Administrator Fax: +402 13 010 892 RDS Bucharest Email: adonay(a)rdsnet.ro Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.

5 4