July 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?]
by Paul Vixie 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

> > i've been told that if i ran a tier-1 i would lose my love for the > > vni/pni approach, which i think scales quite nicely even when it > > involves an ethernet cable through the occasional ceiling. perhaps > > i'll eat these words when and if that promotion comes through. > > meanwhile, disintermediation is still my favorite word in the > > internet dictionary. i like it when one's competitors > > As we have seen before in previous lives, and I'm pretty sure stephen > stuart will step in, normalizing "throw the ethernet over the wall" > school of design just leads to an incredible amount of pain when trying > to operate, run and actually document what you've got. that only happens if you grow, though. in other words it's a nice problem to have. i guess i'll defer to the people who have started from scratch and gotten all the way up to having the problem you describe. i met a lot of them though my PAIX experience. you should defer to them on this point also. > I thought it was illustrative to take a look at some of the other > messages in this thread. People rushing in to argue the scale comment > when the actual heart of the matter was something else entirely, > which apparently only Tony managed to get. i understood and agreed with tony's point. and during my mfn experience i was quite supportive of normalization, and was quite damning in my curses of what had been doing done in the early/growth period "before my time." but that doesn't mean that the occasional ethernet cable over the ceiling isn't the right business decision for people who have done what many here have not done, which is to say, started from scratch. > In any case, I am going to pull a randy here and strongly encourage my > competitors to deploy this "ethernet over ceiling tile" engineering > methodology. i would think that was puerile and shallow no matter who actually said it.

1 0

Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?]
by Hannigan, Martin 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Kind of summarizes why we are still heavy on the "best effort" side of the equation. -M Regards, -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 http://www.verisign.com/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu <owner-nanog(a)merit.edu> To: Paul Vixie <vixie(a)vix.com> CC: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Mon Jul 05 21:32:14 2004 Subject: Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 01:43:14AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > > vgill(a)vijaygill.com (vijay gill) writes: > > Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale. > > i think it's important to distinguish between "things aol and uunet don't > think are good for aol and uunet" and "things that aren't good for anybody." > > what i found through my PAIX experience is that the second tier is really > quite deep and broad, and that the first tier doesn't ignore them like their > spokesmodels claim they do. Paul, I think you took a left at the pass and went down the wrong road here. I am not saying ethernet doesn't scale or even vni/pni doesn't scale, but the mentality embodied in the approach "throw it over the wall" doesn't bode well if you are to scale. > not agree is free to behave that way. but it's not useful to try to dissuade > cooperating adults from peering any way they want to. > > i've been told that if i ran a tier-1 i would lose my love for the vni/pni > approach, which i think scales quite nicely even when it involves an ethernet > cable through the occasional ceiling. perhaps i'll eat these words when and > if that promotion comes through. meanwhile, disintermediation is still my > favorite word in the internet dictionary. i like it when one's competitors As we have seen before in previous lives, and I'm pretty sure stephen stuart will step in, normalizing "throw the ethernet over the wall" school of design just leads to an incredible amount of pain when trying to operate, run and actually document what you've got. I thought it was illustrative to take a look at some of the other messages in this thread. People rushing in to argue the scale comment when the actual heart of the matter was something else entirely, which apparently only Tony managed to get. In any case, I am going to pull a randy here and strongly encourage my competitors to deploy this "ethernet over ceiling tile" engineering methodology. /vijay

1 0

Announcing a /19 from a /16
by Eric Pylko 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

Hi- I'm working on a project within a large corporation and asked their network folks about getting a /19 from one of their /16s. I wanted it to avoid NAT and any possible overlapping from using RFC1918 addresses. This project gets connected to the internet at different times throughout the year at different locations through different ISPs. I would announce the /19 for a short period of time, maybe a month or so. The response I got back was that this was impossible since ISPs require an announcement of the /16 the /19 would come from. I have done work with ISPs before (and have read the NANOG list for many years) but haven't heard of such a requirement nor can I find any standards that indicate the same thing. Does anyone have requirements of a /19 announcement requires the /16 to be there as well? The company has plenty of /16s that it uses internally that are not being announced on the Internet at all. Thanks- -Eric

3 2

RE: Announcing a /19 from a /16
by Michael Hallgren 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

> > > > Hi- > > > > I'm working on a project within a large corporation and asked > > their network folks about getting a /19 from one of their > > /16s. I wanted it to avoid NAT and any possible overlapping > > from using RFC1918 addresses. This project gets connected to > > the internet at different times throughout the year at > > different locations through different ISPs. I would announce > > the /19 for a short period of time, maybe a month or so. > > > > The response I got back was that this was impossible since > > ISPs require an announcement of the /16 the /19 would come > > from. > > Maybe one of the (fairly rare, from what I see) actors that > ingress filter > (or takes into account those small few that does) by strict > allocation border >? (What > prefixes are yopu talking about?) > > mh > ;) mh > > > I have done work with ISPs before (and have read the > > NANOG list for many years) but haven't heard of such a > > requirement nor can I find any standards that indicate the > same thing. > > > > Does anyone have requirements of a /19 announcement requires > > the /16 to be there as well? The company has plenty of /16s > > that it uses internally that are not being announced on the > > Internet at all. > > > > Thanks- > > > > -Eric > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: Sipura VoIP phone adapters and DoS against name servers
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

> I guess the real question is why was the local VoIP provider giving the > phones your DNS IP? Should they have been using their own DNS server? As to why, we don't know. They *will* be using their own DNS servers soon, however :-) Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Re: Sipura VoIP phone adapters and DoS against name servers
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

> Get in contact with manufacturing vender for a fix, > and then tell us what they did or what they intend > to do to remedy the problem. We have already suggested this to the local VoIP provider. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

2 1

Sipura VoIP phone adapters and DoS against name servers
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

Last night we configured our equipment to reject recursive DNS lookups from non-customers. This morning, soon after normal office hours began, we started receiving around 2500 DNS lookups per second more than normal to our recursive name servers. After analyzing the DNS lookups, we found that all of the extra traffic was generated from customers of a local VoIP provider which uses Sipura (SPA-2000) phone adapters. It seems that when these adapters don't receive answers to their DNS queries, they will retransmit the query once per second (until they receive an answer). Multiply by number of adapters, and you have the recipe for a nice DoS. Shades of Netgear NTP DoS (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/) - don't vendors ever learn? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

3 2

RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking
by Callahan, Richard M, GVSOL 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

As much as I hate to open this can of worms, I am online, I do work for AT&T and I do have a vested interest in SPAM and other ISP related issues. Some of you may recall I was the naive idiot that allowed AT&T to launch the Do Not Call Registry without first learning the rules, etiquette and proper structure of email. It caused a stir among many of you nanog'ers and a major pain for AT&T in email blocking and other unintended consequences. As the Government pushes through the maze in an effort to make sense of the CANSPAM Act, I continue to stay engaged and am most definitely an anti-spam proponent. When I saw Mr. Lorenz's post I immediately verified it did indeed come from AT&T and called the responsible party. Having spoken directly to her, I would like to point out that she did indeed take the time to research the FCC SPAM laws and has stuck to them. She has provided an opt-out message and assures me she takes it very seriously. If you have responded to her with a request to NOT be contacted again, you have not been. The other side of this coin is her responsibilities are to sell specifically to ISP's, she is young, aggressive and very successful. AT&T's new rate structure has been significantly reduced and this was an expedient way to get the word out. For nearly 80% of those on her mail list, there has been a very positive response and many smiling faces at the money they will be saving. I do not mean this to be a sales pitch, just a different perspective. My apologies to those that are/were offended. I will monitor all input from nanog on this communication chain and forward my (and your) thoughts to Ms. Macker for consideration and appropriate action. Thanks for listening!! Richard Callahan -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Dr. Jeffrey Race Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:40 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking In the last few days I have had two spams with injection point 127.0.0.1. This definitely needs to be addressed by ATT. Anyone online from ATT like to say something? Jeffrey Race On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:17:08 -0400 (EDT), William R. Lorenz wrote: > >So, with AT&T being a network provider at all, is it just customary for >them to SPAM like this? This is the second one I've received from them. >

8 8

Who broke .org?
by Richard A Steenbergen 04 Jul '04

04 Jul '04

I guess I'll ask first... -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

11 16

Re: Who broke .org?
by Per Gregers Bilse 03 Jul '04

03 Jul '04

On Jul 2, 2:48pm, Jeff Wasilko <jeffw(a)smoe.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:38:12PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > > run .org, I just think a blanket statement "anycast is bad" is, well, > > bad.) > > I'd be totally happy to see a combination, too. It's just pretty > obvious that the current solution isn't reliable over the long-haul. At least the previous outage (a couple of weeks ago) had nothing to do with anycast, I was getting NXDOMAIN replies back, and no kind of fallback or non-anycast deployment would have helped. Anycast functionality is well understood, and is less likely to cause problems than the fact that the servers seem to be under a single "one typo breaks all" management system. True redundancy requires the two sets of servers to be managed by different people doing different things in different ways at different times; this too is well understood, and I'm a little dismayed this (or at least some weaker form thereof) seems not to be the case. (Note I'm saying "seem", I'm just guessing based on the observations I and other people have made.) I think a statement from UltraDNS and/or Public Interest Registry as to what caused the problems would have been, and still is, appropriate, considering the public interest aspect. -- Per

2 1