January 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

EveryDNS Down?
by Mike Damm 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

Sorry, slightly off topic, but they seem to serve quite a large number of domains. Is anyone having problems reaching domains with EveryDNS hosted name servers? It appears even their offsite machines are not responding. --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research & Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: miked(a)irwinresearch.com

2 1

Last Call for Participation: Peering BOF VI at NANOG
by William B. Norton 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

Several folks have asked me for a list of who is participating at the Peering BOF VI at NANOG. Here is a list of who I have so far: Steve Schecter Net Access Corp AS8001 Chris Malayter TDS Telecom AS4181 Celeste Anderson USC/ISI AS226 Daniel Golding AOL/Time Warner AS1668 Shawn Solomon Indiana Telecom Net AS1767 Chris Caputo Altopia AS6456 Ingrid Erkman ICG AS2551 Matthew Ploessel ToneLink AS26322 Ren Nowlin SBC AS7132, 5673, 5676, ... Patrick Gilmore Akamai AS12222 Louie Lee Equinix AS14609, 9989, 17819 Allison Feese BroadWing AS6395 Joe Provo RCN AS6079 Joe Klein Adelphia AS19548 Pete Kruckenberg Utah Educ Net AS210 We can take maybe 10 or so more Peering Coordinators. If you would like to participate, please fill out the form and send it to wbn(a)equinix.com. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/norton.html For the BOF we'll have each Peering Coordinator stand up, introduce themselves, talk about their network, what they look for in a peer and why other ISPs/CPs should want to peer with them. On the screen behind them will be their contact info (Name,email,AS/Company Peering URL) along with answers to the questions about Peering Inclination (Content Heavy, Access Heavy, Open Peering vs. Multi-Site requirements, etc.) and Current/Planned Peering locations. This has proven to be a valuable way for Peering Coordinators to meet each other and make that initial contact for establishing peering. ( It is much easier when people recognize you from your 3-5 minutes of fame.) Comments/Suggestions welcome. Bill >Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:16:02 -0800 >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >From: "William B. Norton" <wbn(a)equinix.com> >Subject: Peering BOF VI at NANOG > >Hi all - > >If you are not a Peering Coordinator attending NANOG 27 then you needn't >read any further. > >The 6th Peering BOF at NANOG will be held Monday night and focuses on >helping Peering Coordinators make contact with other Peering Coordinators >using "Peering Personals." We solicit Peering Coordinators (via this >e-mail), asking them to characterize their networks and peering policies >in general ways ("content heavy" or "access (eyeball) -heavy," "Multiple >Points Required" or "Will Peer anywhere," "Peering with Content OK," >etc.). From the answers we will select a set of ISP Peering Coordinators >to present a 2-3 minute description of their network, what they look for >in a peer, etc., allowing the audience to put a face with the name of the >ISP. At the end of the Peering BOF, Peering Coordinators will have time to >speak with Peering Coordinators of ISPs they seek to interconnect with. >The expectation is that these interactions will lead to the Peering >Negotiations stage, the first step towards a more fully meshed and >therefore resilient Internet. > >If you are a Peering Coordinator and wish to participate in this BOF, >please fill out the following form and e-mail it to wbn(a)equinix.com with >Subject: Peering BOF VI . > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Name: >Title: >Company: >AS#: > >Check each that applies: >___ We are an ISP (sell access to the Internet) > -- OR -- >___ We are a Non-ISP (content company, etc.) >___ We are Content-Heavy > -- OR -- >___ We are Access-Heavy >___ Peering with Content Players or Content Heavy ISPs is OK by us >___ We generally require peering in multiple locations >___ We will peer with anyone in any single location >___ We have huge volumes of traffic (lots of users and/or lots of content) > (huge: > 1 Gbps total outbound traffic to peers and transit > providers) >___ We have a global network >___ We require Contracts for Peering >Current Peering Locations: _______________________ >Planned (3-6 mos) Peering Locations: _______________________________ > >See you in Phoenix! > >Bill > >PS - This form is also on the NANOG web page at: >http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/norton.html > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >William B. Norton <wbn(a)equinix.com> 650.315.8635 >Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison Equinix, Inc.

1 0

RE: att.net email issues?
by Jack McCarthy 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

One of my clients is having this exact problem as we speak. Their MX record lists the correct domain name and IP but when they send mail out, the domain name stays the same but the IP is different. The public IP, not the MX record IP, gets associated to the email. I'm wondering if is the cause... --- Andy Dills <andy(a)xecu.net> wrote: > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:01:34 -0500 (EST) > From: Andy Dills <andy(a)xecu.net> > To: Jim Popovitch <jimpop(a)rocketship.com> > CC: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: att.net email issues? > > >>On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Jim Popovitch wrote: >> >> >> Chris at UUNet help determine this is a rDNS issue. att.net seems >> to have started rejecting email from mail servers that don't have a >>proper reverse DNS entry. This is a good thing, even though it is >>causing me some problems at the moment. Thanks Chris. >Hah! That'll last all of about three days. > >At least, that's how long it took for my users to line up outside with >pitchforks and shotguns...we quickly removed that check from being the >default behavior and added it to our most aggressive filtering >configuration (for those users who, like me, just don't give a damn >about getting mail from people who can't take the time to configure >reverse DNS.) > >Andy > >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Andy Dills 301-682-9972 >Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access

1 0

AADS NAP contact
by Tony Mumm 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 NANOG, I am trying to get a hold of a sales/marketing contact at the Ameritech NAP in Chicago. My previous contact is apparently no longer employed by SBC/Ameritech. Does anyone have a contact that I can use? I would check www.aads.net, but it appears that the /24 its in is no longer being routed. Please reply off list. Thanks for any help, Tony -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPjFwc89/cCqjBxGyEQJ/6ACgvLsEsKpIvEMBFq0av5KmhCyc1aMAoJCs 4WbGotQez0s5CuldFtZ09XMq =LoHS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

This report has been generated at Fri Jan 24 21:45:50 2003 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 17-01-03 118250 85350 18-01-03 118505 84955 19-01-03 117957 85033 20-01-03 118153 85036 21-01-03 118131 85084 22-01-03 118226 85008 23-01-03 118178 85134 24-01-03 118201 85092 AS Summary 14428 Number of ASes in routing system 5654 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1592 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS701 : ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 73080832 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'). --- 24Jan03 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 118323 85145 33178 28.0% All ASes AS3908 1185 694 491 41.4% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. AS18566 443 5 438 98.9% COVAD Covad Communications AS701 1592 1180 412 25.9% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS7018 1437 1036 401 27.9% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS7843 592 250 342 57.8% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS4323 527 187 340 64.5% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS6197 468 152 316 67.5% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS1221 1137 839 298 26.2% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS6347 372 85 287 77.2% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS1239 962 679 283 29.4% SPRINTLINK Sprint AS4355 408 133 275 67.4% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS7046 556 282 274 49.3% UUNET-CUSTOMER UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4151 329 58 271 82.4% USDA-1 USDA AS22927 289 22 267 92.4% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA AS4814 261 15 246 94.3% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China Telecom (Group) AS705 429 186 243 56.6% ASN-ALTERNET UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS852 678 445 233 34.4% ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications AS1 656 434 222 33.8% GNTY-1 Genuity AS6198 423 202 221 52.2% BATI-MIA BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS17676 227 28 199 87.7% GIGAINFRA XTAGE CORPORATION AS22291 228 29 199 87.3% CHARTER-LA Charter Communications AS690 521 326 195 37.4% MERIT-AS-27 Merit Network Inc. AS6140 317 125 192 60.6% IMPSAT-USA ImpSat AS209 520 332 188 36.2% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS4134 298 114 184 61.7% ERX-CHINALINK Data Communications Bureau AS2386 425 252 173 40.7% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS2048 260 89 171 65.8% LANET-1 State of Louisiana AS6327 186 35 151 81.2% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink Limited AS17557 329 182 147 44.7% PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan Telecom AS11492 299 157 142 47.5% CABLEONE CABLE ONE Total 16354 8553 7801 47.7% 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

Customer moving colo. Opinions please.
by Chris Johnston 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

I have a client that is looking to move from one colo facilty to another more provider-neutral facility. They are wanting to be able to purchase transit directly from several carriers without being steered one way or the other. So, if they want 100mbits from carrier 'A' and carrier 'B', they simply want to pay a cross-connect and be done with that part. Of course fees to the tranist provider would be paid. So with that said, what are the list's preferences regarding OneWilshire vs. Equinix in Los Angeles? Do any of the tier[1-2] guys prefer one over the other? We have seen both and most of the big players are in both. What about the more middle guys? The peering in EquinixLA seems about ready to take off. While PAIX at OneWilshire is just getting started. Does anyone expect one of the peering effors to dominate and the other stagnate? From a "being able to purchase transit" point of view, they both seem an excellent choice. From a "how does the wiring look" point of view, one of them ... ahem ... needs improvement, *cough* 4th floor. So, I guess the whole point is, "what am I not seeing that would steer me (nee, my client) towards one or the other?" Chris Johnston <chris(a)routerguy.com> 714-306-5746 949-653-8819 (fax)

1 0

Searchable NANOG Archive at www.SecurityClipper.com
by Lists 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

The NANOG mailing list is now archived and searchable on the Security Clipper website at: http://www.securityclipper.com Dozens of other security-related mailing lists are available on Security Clipper, as well, and all are freely searchable.

1 0

FYI: CVS vulnerability
by Eric Germann 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-981830.html ========================================================================== Eric Germann CCTec ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 Fax: 603 825 5893 "The fact that there are actually ways of knowing and characterizing the extent of one’s ignorance, while still remaining ignorant, may ultimately be more interesting and useful to people than Yarkovsky" -- Jon Giorgini of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

1 0

archived bgp data - searchable
by Jared Mauch 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

hello. i've created a new way to search the ipv4 and ipv6 routing tables of the internet. i'm not soliciting bgp feeds for my data set (i may at some later time but i need to think about more long-term disk space and database performance issues before i do that). hope people find this useful. http://puck.nether.net/bgp/ - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared(a)puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.

3 3

can you ping mount everest?
by Gordon Cook 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/technology/circuits/23sher.html If you remember my comments about the remarkable sherpa i met in kathmandu relative to the SANOG conference which opens there today, the above URL takes you to a very good story in todays new york times....1400 words with 3 pictures ....unfortunately the picture the times published is of the wrong base camp.... they published the north face which is in china not the south face base camp which is in nepal. sigh oh...everest not likely pingable for another 60 days -- ======================================================== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook(a)cookreport.com Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml VoIP Enterprise Adopt & Open Spectrum January Feb 2003 107 pages available at http://cookreport.com/11.11.shtml ========================================================

5 5