October 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Yankee Group declares core routing obsolete (was Re: Anybodyu sing GBICs?)
by Martin, Christian 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

Steinar, Yes, the PL has pricing that has changed for us at least, and will be changing for others as well. Expect Tetra to be selling for less in short time (if not already). Looks as if the GE OSM has dropped in price too. As Deepak pointed out, YMMV based on application. For me, I must look across the gamut of services and cards, like 4-port OC-12c ATM, 4-port CHOC-12 to DS1, 4x OC-48 ports, while considering chassis density, etc. In the time I've spent with the 7609, and admittedly that has been fleeting, I have come away disappointed more than impressed, but I have a wider array of services to support. For many applications, I think it is phenomenal - for example, security services. But those aren't core routing services. I would be interested in seeing, say, a 7609-GSR or better yet 7609-T640 bakeoff. I think that would prove 2 things - 1) you get what you pay for, and 2) purpose-built routers are still better at routing heavy loads with diverse media. Sure, the loaded 640 will be more expensive, but it will most definitely knock the power supplies off the 7609 in general performance. Perhaps the SUP-720 will change that - I look forward to seeing it in our lab, where I may be reconvinced... c -----Original Message----- From: sthaug(a)nethelp.no [mailto:sthaug@nethelp.no] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:08 PM To: cmartin(a)gnilink.net Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Yankee Group declares core routing obsolete (was Re: Anybodyusing GBICs?) > Things are getting better, but "L3-switches" pale in comparison to > today's high-end routers on almost all fronts. If you take GigE out > of the equation, modern "L3 Switches" are just as expensive as modern > "core routers" - and routable, "mpls-able" L3 GE ports are _more_ > expensive on "switches" than "routers" (see 4xGE OSM vs 4xGE GSR > 'tetra' pricing). In *my* Cisco GPL, 4GE-SFP-LC is listed at $75,000 while OSM-2+4GE-WAN+ is listed at $44,000. But then I tend to think of the 6500/7600 as a router... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

2 1

Re: IPv6 NAT
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

>NAT also has the advantage that if packets do leak >bogon filters at the border will drop them. NAT is simply an algorithm which causes a firewall to drop all traffic which doesn't match an entry in a set of internal state tables. The NAT algorithm sets up these state tables based on outgoing traffic and based on specific operator configurations, i.e. static NAT mappings. This algorithm can be implemented in a trivial piece of software that runs on cheap, low-power devices commonly used in things like DSL routers. The IPv6 folks are claiming that you can very easily implement the same type of algorithm on IPv6 routers to drop all traffic which doesn't match an entry in a set of internal state tables. The IPv6 algorithm would set up these state tables based on outgoing traffic and based on specific operator configurations, i.e. static enabled addresses. The only difference is that the IPv6 device never changes the packet contents, i.e. never replaces source or destination addresses in the headers. The IPv6 version can still drop traffic and can still dynamically enable certain incoming traffic based upon detection of an outgoing TCP session starting up. It could even do port redirection if that was still useful to people. It could also allow operator configuration to enable incoming traffic to specific addresses. The IPv6 version would be just as secure as an IPv4 NAT device but it would not interfere with protocol functioning. Now, I'm not claiming that every device capable of IPv4 NAT is currently able to function in this way, but there are no technical barriers to prevent manufacturers from making IPv6 devices that function in this way. The IPv6 vendor marketing folks can even invent terms like NAT (Network Authority Technology) to describe this simple IPv6 firewall function, i.e. IPv6 NAT. It wouldn't be the first time that acronyms have been reinvented, e.g. RED, GSM. --Michael Dillon

5 4

Blocked traffic from Canada to France
by Cedric Fontaine 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

Hello, I'm not sure if it's the right place to post, but I found some related conversations in the archive, so I hope it'll be ok for me to post. Since yesterday morning, here in Montreal, all my traffic from 24.202.28.177 to 213.186.35.30 get stucked in New York (traceroute below). My ISP is looking at my problem, but problem is always here since one day now... I tried to contact cw.net but I just got a forward mail saying : "Here is another routing issue which is also being affected through our peering point.". I always thought that Internet was a wonderful network where packet can't get lost and always find the good route ! Why is it so long ? Am I the only one with this problem ? tracert spidmail.net Détermination de l'itinéraire vers ovh.com [213.186.35.30] avec un maximum de 30 sauts : 1 75 ms 12 ms 11 ms 10.102.0.1 2 11 ms 12 ms 10 ms modemcable213.240-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca [24.200.240.213] 3 14 ms 13 ms 11 ms 10.154.0.154 4 11 ms 29 ms 13 ms ia-piex-bb02-ge8-0.vtl.net [207.96.146.17] 5 32 ms 29 ms 34 ms iar2-so-3-3-0.Toronto.cw.net [208.175.169.117] 6 27 ms 27 ms 57 ms bcr1-so-2-2-0.Toronto.cw.net [208.175.171.137] 7 30 ms 27 ms 25 ms dcr2-so-3-0-0.NewYork.cw.net [206.24.207.209] 8 333 ms 26 ms 27 ms agr1-so-2-0-0.NewYork.cw.net [206.24.207.178] 9 25 ms 48 ms 50 ms iar1-loopback.NewYork.cw.net [206.24.194.23] 10 * * * Délai d'attente de la demande dépassé. 11 * * * Délai d'attente de la demande dépassé. Thanks -- Cordialement, Cedric Fontaine (Easy Soft) - mailto:cfontaine@easysoft.fr (DH/DSS)PGP-key Server ID: 0xBDD6E604

1 0

RE: Yankee Group declares core routing obsolete (was Re: Anybodyusing GBICs?)
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

> Things are getting better, but "L3-switches" pale in comparison to today's > high-end routers on almost all fronts. If you take GigE out of the > equation, modern "L3 Switches" are just as expensive as modern "core > routers" - and routable, "mpls-able" L3 GE ports are _more_ expensive on > "switches" than "routers" (see 4xGE OSM vs 4xGE GSR 'tetra' pricing). In *my* Cisco GPL, 4GE-SFP-LC is listed at $75,000 while OSM-2+4GE-WAN+ is listed at $44,000. But then I tend to think of the 6500/7600 as a router... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Kuhtz, Christian 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

> The end result is that in the near future it will be much > harder, or impossible for network operators to collect > statistics based on traffic type or to filter particular > types of traffic without being able to dig into the payload > itself and see what type of traffic is passing. > > Some people see this as a problem, some do not. Isn't that the whole point of running a VPN connection? ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.61"

11 30

CP INTERNET contacts
by Vachon, Scott 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

Hello, If anyone on the list works for or has a reliable contact at CP Internet (Duluth, MN)then please contact me off-list ASAP. I have tried the NOC and ABUSE to no avail. Thanks. Scott Vachon CNS-Salem Network Group Paymentech L.P. Learn more about Paymentech's payment processing services at www.paymentech.com THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your computer.

2 1

new routeviews mailing lists
by David Meyer 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

Folks, We have set up a few new mailing lists for the routeviews project; see http://routeviews.org/~majordom/rv-lists.html Thanks, Dave

1 0

Anybody using GBICs?
by lance_tatman＠agilent.com 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

I'm looking into doing some research that will make use of GBICs(Gigabit Interface Converters), but I need to know how many of you are using GBICs in your networks? If you are using them, where do they fit into your topology? -Lance- Agilent Laboratories lance_tatman(a)agilent.com

14 17

RE: more on filtering
by daryl＠introspect.net 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of Chris Parker > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:01 PM > To: Alex Yuriev > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: more on filtering > [...] > I don't see how that is the same thing here. I have an > agreement with cust X to provide services in accordance with > my AUP. cust X resells that service to cust Y, etc. cust Y > is bound to the terms and conditions of my agreement with > cust X, despite that I do not have a direct agreement with cust Y. Oh christ...network engineers trying to be lawyers. I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by reference in the other. Daryl

5 4

RE: more on filtering
by daryl＠introspect.net 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com] > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:12 AM > To: Daryl G. Jurbala; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: more on filtering > [...] > > NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by > > reference in the other. > > Yes and no. If my agreement with cust X says that they take > responsibility for ensuring that any customers to whom they > resell my service (or any traffic they transit into my > network, to be more specific) must conform to my AUP, then > the fact that it is cust Y that originated the violating > traffic has little effect. I can still hold cust X > responsible. As a good guy and for good customer service, I > will, instead, first ask X to hold Y accountable and rectify > the situation. If that doesn't work, you bet X will get > disconnected or filtered. I 100% agree with this (other than the first three words;) ). But legally, the agreement is not transitive. Legally it's YOUR customer only that is responsible to your AUP. It follows logically, but not legally, that your customer binds their customers to an AUP that is at least as restrictive as yours, or YOUR CUSTOMER will be in breach with you, if their customers exercise practices violating your AUP...whether they are "allowed" to in the contract with their upstream or not. I'm speaking legally only (yes, by random chance, I had my contract attorney on the phone when I first read this post). Logically, you're correct....but law != logic. Daryl

2 1