October 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Level 3 US east coast "issues"
by Mike Callahan 19 Oct '04

19 Oct '04

Anyone have the latest update on this? We seem to still be experiencing routing issues from Level3 this morning and we never did get notification from them that the previously reported issue had been resolved. Thanks, Mike Callahan -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Grant A. Kirkwood Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:15 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Level 3 US east coast "issues" Level 3 experiencing widespread "unspecified routing issues" on the US east coast. Master ticket 1086844. Anyone have more specific information? -- Grant A. Kirkwood - grant(at)tnarg.org Fingerprint = D337 48C4 4D00 232D 3444 1D5D 27F6 055A BF0C 4AED

1 0

ICMP weirdness
by Jim Popovitch 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

>From Comcast Cable, at my home in Atlanta, I can ping 10.10.1.1.... which is pong'ed from a private client network hanging somewhere off of Insight Broadband's network in the North Central part of the US. Why on god's green earth do network operators allow such nonsense as this? -Jim P. Traceroute -I 10.10.1.1 produces the following: traceroute to 10.10.1.1 (10.10.1.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 10.238.10.1 (10.238.10.1) 29.089 ms 25.387 ms 28.574 ms 2 66.56.22.66 (66.56.22.66) 30.923 ms 31.305 ms 33.142 ms 3 66.56.22.70 (66.56.22.70) 35.945 ms 35.874 ms 36.832 ms 4 c-66-56-23-38.atl.client2.attbi.com (66.56.23.38) 34.740 ms 35.041 ms 37.537 ms 5 12.118.184.41 (12.118.184.41) 41.967 ms 45.584 ms 43.997 ms 6 gbr2-p70.attga.ip.att.net (12.123.21.6) 44.988 ms 44.706 ms 43.033 ms 7 tbr2-p013602.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.12.37) 49.353 ms 44.010 ms 45.244 ms 8 12.122.10.138 (12.122.10.138) 62.244 ms 62.269 ms 62.148 ms 9 gbr1-p40.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.11.114) 60.922 ms 67.005 ms 60.264 ms 10 gar1-p360.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.123.24.209) 59.572 ms 64.013 ms 60.198 ms 11 12-220-0-69.client.insightBB.com (12.220.0.69) 77.000 ms 76.050 ms 77.926 ms 12 12-220-7-198.client.insightBB.com (12.220.7.198) 95.437 ms 80.068 ms 84.076 ms 13 10.10.1.1 (10.10.1.1) 93.612 ms 97.280 ms 192.994 ms

4 3

Re: ICMP weirdness
by Robert Bonomi 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Mon Oct 18 16:01:42 2004 > Subject: Re: ICMP weirdness > From: Jim Popovitch <jimpop(a)yahoo.com> > To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve(a)telecomplete.co.uk> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:01:39 -0400 > > > On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 15:54, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > why not that seems ok to me.. ? > > > > assuming you accept the 1918 assignment to your cable then its not unreasonable > > that you can get to other end users on that network > > Across other non-private IP space? I am not all that familiar w/ > RFC1918, but I would think that this goes against it, or should I assume > that Insight Broadband is part of Comcast? It appears likely that that _is_ the case. It is numbered in historical 'Class A' space that AT&T owns. Comcast did buy up a bunch of AT&T's cable operations. Both the cable TV _and_ the internet services. By strict definitions, your home is a _separate_ network from Comcast's internal network. As such: Per RFC 1918, _you_ should be doing egress filtering, to prohibit RFC 1918 _destination_ addresses from exiting your network _to_ Comcast's network, as well as egress filtering of RFC 1918 _source_ address packets (with a few special-case exceptions), to be a 'good neighbor'. In self- defense, you should be ingress filtering any RFC 1918 destination addresses, and any RFC 1918 source addressed packets (except for the special-case exectptions -- ICMP redirect, unreachable, TTL exceeded, etc.). Similarly, Comcast should be at the 'gateway' to your network, be =egress= filtering any packets with RFC 1918 destination addresses, as well as any RFC 1918 source address packets (except for the aforementioned special-case exceptions) The should *also*, be _ingress_ filtering any RFC 1918 destination addresses coming from your network, _and_ filtering out any RFC 1918 _source_ address packets (with the same few special-case execptions) from your network. RFC 1918 restricts use of the 'private' address-blocks to networks under a _single_ administrative control. It is perfectly legitimate to use different segments of that address-space in different locations *on*the* *same*network*, even _with_ 'routable' addresses in between them. The RFC 1918 rule is that the 'private' addresses must not escape _from_ the network under the adminsistrative control of that party to a network that is controlled by 'somebody else'. That said, a *LOT* of the world doesn't use 'strict' definitions. Unfortunately. Comcast apparently considers the end-user machines as simply nodes _on_their_ _network_. And, as such, does route RFC 1918 addresses 'internally' between different locales, where different portions of that address-space are used _on_the_Comcast_network_. > > -Jim P. > > > > > Steve > > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > > > > > > > >From Comcast Cable, at my home in Atlanta, I can ping 10.10.1.1.... > > > which is pong'ed from a private client network hanging somewhere off of > > > Insight Broadband's network in the North Central part of the US. Why on > > > god's green earth do network operators allow such nonsense as this? > > > > > > -Jim P. > > > > > > Traceroute -I 10.10.1.1 produces the following: > > > > > > traceroute to 10.10.1.1 (10.10.1.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets > > > 1 10.238.10.1 (10.238.10.1) 29.089 ms 25.387 ms 28.574 ms > > > 2 66.56.22.66 (66.56.22.66) 30.923 ms 31.305 ms 33.142 ms > > > 3 66.56.22.70 (66.56.22.70) 35.945 ms 35.874 ms 36.832 ms > > > 4 c-66-56-23-38.atl.client2.attbi.com (66.56.23.38) 34.740 ms 35.041 > > > ms 37.537 ms > > > 5 12.118.184.41 (12.118.184.41) 41.967 ms 45.584 ms 43.997 ms > > > 6 gbr2-p70.attga.ip.att.net (12.123.21.6) 44.988 ms 44.706 ms > > > 43.033 ms > > > 7 tbr2-p013602.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.12.37) 49.353 ms 44.010 ms > > > 45.244 ms > > > 8 12.122.10.138 (12.122.10.138) 62.244 ms 62.269 ms 62.148 ms > > > 9 gbr1-p40.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.11.114) 60.922 ms 67.005 ms > > > 60.264 ms > > > 10 gar1-p360.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.123.24.209) 59.572 ms 64.013 ms > > > 60.198 ms > > > 11 12-220-0-69.client.insightBB.com (12.220.0.69) 77.000 ms 76.050 > > > ms 77.926 ms > > > 12 12-220-7-198.client.insightBB.com (12.220.7.198) 95.437 ms 80.068 > > > ms 84.076 ms > > > 13 10.10.1.1 (10.10.1.1) 93.612 ms 97.280 ms 192.994 ms > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: ICMP weirdness
by Jim Popovitch 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 15:54, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > why not that seems ok to me.. ? > > assuming you accept the 1918 assignment to your cable then its not unreasonable > that you can get to other end users on that network Across other non-private IP space? I am not all that familiar w/ RFC1918, but I would think that this goes against it, or should I assume that Insight Broadband is part of Comcast? -Jim P. > > Steve > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > > > > >From Comcast Cable, at my home in Atlanta, I can ping 10.10.1.1.... > > which is pong'ed from a private client network hanging somewhere off of > > Insight Broadband's network in the North Central part of the US. Why on > > god's green earth do network operators allow such nonsense as this? > > > > -Jim P. > > > > Traceroute -I 10.10.1.1 produces the following: > > > > traceroute to 10.10.1.1 (10.10.1.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets > > 1 10.238.10.1 (10.238.10.1) 29.089 ms 25.387 ms 28.574 ms > > 2 66.56.22.66 (66.56.22.66) 30.923 ms 31.305 ms 33.142 ms > > 3 66.56.22.70 (66.56.22.70) 35.945 ms 35.874 ms 36.832 ms > > 4 c-66-56-23-38.atl.client2.attbi.com (66.56.23.38) 34.740 ms 35.041 > > ms 37.537 ms > > 5 12.118.184.41 (12.118.184.41) 41.967 ms 45.584 ms 43.997 ms > > 6 gbr2-p70.attga.ip.att.net (12.123.21.6) 44.988 ms 44.706 ms > > 43.033 ms > > 7 tbr2-p013602.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.12.37) 49.353 ms 44.010 ms > > 45.244 ms > > 8 12.122.10.138 (12.122.10.138) 62.244 ms 62.269 ms 62.148 ms > > 9 gbr1-p40.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.11.114) 60.922 ms 67.005 ms > > 60.264 ms > > 10 gar1-p360.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.123.24.209) 59.572 ms 64.013 ms > > 60.198 ms > > 11 12-220-0-69.client.insightBB.com (12.220.0.69) 77.000 ms 76.050 > > ms 77.926 ms > > 12 12-220-7-198.client.insightBB.com (12.220.7.198) 95.437 ms 80.068 > > ms 84.076 ms > > 13 10.10.1.1 (10.10.1.1) 93.612 ms 97.280 ms 192.994 ms > > > > > >

2 1

RE: Level 3 US east coast "issues"
by Chris Ranch 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:32 AM PDT > > Level3 states that they have isolated the problem down to equipment in > their Washington DC Point of Presence. They believe that they have > resolved the problem and things should be normalizing in > their network.

1 0

Level 3 US east coast "issues"
by Grant A. Kirkwood 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Level 3 experiencing widespread "unspecified routing issues" on the US east coast. Master ticket 1086844. Anyone have more specific information? -- Grant A. Kirkwood - grant(at)tnarg.org Fingerprint = D337 48C4 4D00 232D 3444 1D5D 27F6 055A BF0C 4AED

3 2

WISP Coordination in California
by Charlie Khanna - NextWeb 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

For those interested in unlicensed spectrum coordination for deploying wireless networks, here is the web site I mentioned after Tim Pozar's speech (Good Engineering Practices as it Applies to Unlicensed Wireless Networks): http://www.wbanc.com <http://www.wbanc.com/> (Mailing Lists) SF-BANC (San Francisco): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SF-BANC/ LA-BANC (Los Angeles): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LA-BANC/ SD-BANC (San Diego): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SD-BANC/ Thank you, ______________________________ Charlie Khanna Tel: (510) 661-0900 Cell: (510) 520-9481 <BLOCKED::mailto:charlie@nextweb.net> charlie(a)nextweb.net NextWeb, Inc. 48820 Kato Road, Suite 101B Fremont, CA 94538 <BLOCKED::http://www.nextweb.net/> www.nextweb.net Support: (888) 565-5463 or support(a)nextweb.net The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 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 any computer.

1 0

in memoriam
by Randy Bush 16 Oct '04

16 Oct '04

six years ago today, dr. jon postel died

1 0

i've got an extra hotel room for nanog-dc -- anybody need it?
by Paul Vixie 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

i got the room just before the deadline, it's in the nanog/arin hotel, but i'm not going to make it to DC after all. first come first served; if you wanted to be in the conference hotel but missed the deadline, i can tell the hotel to put the room in your name and you can call them and give them a credit card number. as-of: Fri Oct 15 18:11:14 GMT 2004.

3 2

Re: aggregation & table entries
by Paul Vixie 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

> > > > And what do you do with a BGP customer which sends you traffic > > > > from prefixes he doesn't want to announce to you? There are such > > > > customers. Fail filter ACL? > > > > > > This has been my question with uRPF from the beginning. You can > > > solve this on for some networks, but it doesn't scale very > > > well. Especially where you really don't know that your customer's > > > customer is doing this. > > > > It's 2004, and so, your customers who want to do this have to > > explain why, and you have to maintain extra-ordinary filters for > > such customers, at either your cost or the customer's cost. > > ah-ha! Patriot-Act! not nearly. i'm not asking you to take your shoes off before you get on an airplane, nor fingerprinting you before you enter the country, nor secretly searching your residence while you're at work. the closest analogue would be wanting your body to be on the plane if your luggage is, and wanting the name on your ticket to be the same as the name on your photo-id. in san francisco before the gold rush, it was absolutely common to see citizens carrying firearms, or to know that they were carrying concealed firearms. by the end of the gold rush this was no longer common because a "carry permit" was required. same city + more people = different laws. you can say that you hate this kind of change, but what you'll really be hating is either the laws of human nature or the laws of thermodynamics. either way, your hate is irrelevant to the final outcome.

2 1