April 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

This report has been generated at Fri Apr 11 21:46:50 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 04-04-03 121205 86530 05-04-03 121077 86591 06-04-03 120820 86365 07-04-03 120917 86463 08-04-03 121020 86473 09-04-03 121144 86561 10-04-03 120942 86620 11-04-03 121008 86701 AS Summary 14913 Number of ASes in routing system 5884 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1564 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS701 : ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 73154560 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'). --- 11Apr03 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 121213 86696 34517 28.5% All ASes AS4151 691 75 616 89.1% USDA-1 USDA AS7843 642 188 454 70.7% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS701 1564 1111 453 29.0% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4323 567 167 400 70.5% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS7132 802 414 388 48.4% SBIS-AS SBC Internet Services - Southwest AS3908 911 529 382 41.9% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. AS7018 1351 976 375 27.8% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS1221 1107 797 310 28.0% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS1239 965 682 283 29.3% SPRINTLINK Sprint AS6198 457 181 276 60.4% BATI-MIA BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS6197 476 202 274 57.6% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS705 487 215 272 55.9% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS22927 286 14 272 95.1% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA AS4355 373 115 258 69.2% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS4814 270 16 254 94.1% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China Telecom (Group) AS17557 378 144 234 61.9% PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan Telecom AS209 529 303 226 42.7% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS2386 507 282 225 44.4% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS17676 237 29 208 87.8% GIGAINFRA XTAGE CORPORATION AS27364 266 59 207 77.8% ACS-INTERNET Armstrong Cable Services AS11305 341 143 198 58.1% INTERLAND-NET1 Interland Incorporated AS22773 203 8 195 96.1% CCINET-2 Cox Communications Inc. Atlanta AS690 495 316 179 36.2% MERIT-AS-27 Merit Network Inc. AS3561 513 335 178 34.7% CWUSA Cable & Wireless USA AS6347 367 190 177 48.2% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS2048 254 84 170 66.9% LANET-1 State of Louisiana AS22291 241 79 162 67.2% CHARTER-LA Charter Communications AS6327 190 34 156 82.1% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink Limited AS7303 242 93 149 61.6% AR-TAST-LACNIC Telecom Argentina Stet-France Telecom S.A. AS3215 321 175 146 45.5% AS3215 France Telecom Transpac Total 16033 7956 8077 50.4% 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)apops.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0

RE: Singtel contact (AS 7473)
by Ben Buxton 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

> Jeff Nelson wrote: > > > Does anyone have a contact for this provider? > > > > (Some missing prefixes) > > Their NOC: noc(a)ix.singtel.com (or you can phone on +65 9780 8011 > them if you want to call Singapore, and speak singlish ;-)). > > I'll email you directly the name of someone there with relatively > good spoken english (if you get others who can't understand you). I would hope you do get someone who speaks English, given that it's the official language there. :) Of course, the accent of some Singaporeans (naming no-one!) can be quite...erm...challenging. BB

2 1

Singtel contact (AS 7473)
by Jeff Nelson 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

Does anyone have a contact for this provider? (Some missing prefixes) Thanks, -- Jeff Nelson

2 1

Re: dual router vs. single "reliable" router
by Joe Provo 10 Apr '03

10 Apr '03

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 11:59:25AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: [snip] > There are several networks out there using Cisco devices to achieve > over six 9's availability, and the way they do that is by extensive > procedure review and rigorous software testing. [snip] Tear this page out of the notebook and highlight it. Even a small shop that "can't afford" a testbed or lab can dramatically reduce problems with formal procedures borrowed from software engineering. Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

1 0

RE: www.worldnet.att.net Network not in table
by Sachs, Marcus 10 Apr '03

10 Apr '03

Unreachable from inside a DoD network.... ms =========== X:\>tracert www.worldnet.att.net Tracing route to www.worldnet.att.net [204.127.12.39] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <10 ms <10 ms 10 ms hqs-gw1.ncr.disa.mil [164.117.144.5] 2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 209.22.99.10 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 209.22.99.20 4 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 206.38.93.33 5 10 ms 20 ms 20 ms 33.250.52.1 6 110 ms 260 ms 250 ms 198.26.122.9 7 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms 198.26.122.50 8 * * * Request timed out. 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 * * dca-edge-01.inet.qwest.net [63.149.72.25] reports: Desti nation host unreachable. Trace complete. X:\>

1 0

Re: www.worldnet.att.net Network not in table
by Mike Hogsett 10 Apr '03

10 Apr '03

> Is anyone else having difficulty reaching ATT's Worldnet? Looks ok from here (30 miles south of San Fran). --> traceroute -I www.worldnet.att.net traceroute: Warning: www.worldnet.att.net has multiple addresses; using 204.127.43.37 traceroute to www.worldnet.att.net (204.127.43.37), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 remus (130.107.15.1) 0.566 ms 0.559 ms 0.541 ms 2 cesd-gw (192.12.33.1) 1.703 ms 1.160 ms 1.126 ms 3 12.127.35.37 (12.127.35.37) 41.946 ms 37.427 ms 50.182 ms 4 gbr1-p21.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.213.2) 65.655 ms 59.535 ms 52.337 ms 5 gbr3-p70.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.1.161) 43.734 ms 39.852 ms 36.488 ms 6 gbr3-p30.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.2.73) 65.435 ms 91.713 ms 55.814 ms 7 gbr1-p10.bgtmo.ip.att.net (12.122.4.69) 94.097 ms 96.978 ms 85.323 ms 8 12.122.248.254 (12.122.248.254) 103.066 ms 66.282 ms 99.714 ms 9 * * * 10 www.worldnet.att.net (204.127.43.37) 100.293 ms 67.475 ms 65.033 ms > traceroute to www.worldnet.att.net (204.127.43.37), 30 hops max, 40 byte > packets > 1 e3-4.aggr2.bwi1.network.coloco.com (199.34.53.129) 1.769 ms 1.869 ms > 1.777 ms > 2 fa3-0.core1.bwi1.network.coloco.com (198.180.62.134) 2.162 ms 1.752 > ms 1.836 ms > 3 dca1-lan2-g6-0-102.cidera.net (208.184.7.229) 2.706 ms 3.114 ms > 3.328 ms > 4 dca1-lan2-g6-0-102.cidera.net (208.184.7.229) 2.566 ms !H * *

1 0

China Telecom Peering Contacts
by German Martinez 10 Apr '03

10 Apr '03

Hello, If there is somebody on this list from China Telecom NOC/Peering, please contact me off-list. Thanks German -- "The man who fights for his ideals is the man who is alive." --CERVANTES author of DON QUIJOTE

1 0

RE: NANOG/ARIN in Chicago
by Pete Templin 10 Apr '03

10 Apr '03

I'm sure I'd feel terrorized if my plane had been stranded there. Pete Templin IP Network Engineer TexLink Communications (210) 892-4183 pete.templin(a)texlink.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark Radabaugh [mailto:mark@amplex.net] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 3:03 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: NANOG/ARIN in Chicago > A little quick on the gun with the "Terrorist" label? Is everyone you > disagree with in public office a "Terrorist"? > Nope - I absolutely mean terrorist. When you show up at 1:00am with Bulldozers and destroy public property without telling anyone what you are about to do what would you call it? What do you think you would get called if you did it? Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 720-3635

1 0

RE: The Paradox of Commoditization
by St. Clair, James 10 Apr '03

10 Apr '03

Jack Bates wrote: *I have yet to see someone swear by their own life that the new *technologies will meet the uptimes of the legacy. The fact is, in the *telco world, they don't. Good point, but I think what Gordon *may be* saying is that part of the reason the above is true is the degree monopolies are struggling to keep their legacy systems. I would argue those folks who have paid (handsomely) for *pure* transitions to new technologies have seen benefits; it is the persistent hybrids of new and legacy that complicate service. *Even businesses that require time sensitive, guaranteed communications *don't trust the new technology whole heartedly. Hmm, I would disagree. More and more critical processes (such as RTU controls at utilities) are going to new technologies, with the ROI being less expense of special technicians and remote controls. Dell "bet the farm" on new technologies for e-commerce and helped turn PCs into a commodity. Just a thought... Jim

3 2

Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture
by Pete Kruckenberg 10 Apr '03

10 Apr '03

http://www.nspllc.com/New%20Pages/Reliable%20IP%20Nodes.pdf Argues that by going from a dual-router POP design to a single redundant router configuration, I can reduce annual downtime costs by 93% (?) and reduce CAPEX and OPEX (seems logical). Also mentions that the single redundant router can get closer to the ever-elusive 5-9's. Anyone doing this in their network? Is there validity in the claims in this white paper? Anyone looked at the Alcatel product that apparently funded this paper? Pete.

4 4