November 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

LA Meeting Stats
by Susan Harris 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

NANOG 35 October 23-35, 2005 Los Angeles Host: Equinix ---------------------- Many thanks to Equinix, our new Steering/Program committees, and all of you for making this such a great meeting! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total attendance 515 Women attendees 9% NAPs represented 11 (5 outside N. America) Univ./Colleges repr. 19 (up from 13 in Seattle) Non-US/Canada/Mexico attendees 65 (up from 19 in Seattle) Attendee occupation breakdown: Vegas Seattle LA ----- ------- --- ISPs/NetOps 44% 50% 42% Hardware vendors 20% 15% 13% Software vendors 3% 4% 3% R&E 11% 9% 10% Government 4% 3% 3% Consultant 4% 3% 3% Content provider 3% 4% 4% Other 11% 12% 22% (IXPs, registries, misc.) Wireless card loans: 5 Maximum RealMedia streaming participants: 70 Support: Meeting coordination: -Merit Network Host: -Equinix Squid, DNS, DHCP: -Measurement Factory Multicast, v6 feed: -Merit Sponsors: -Arbor, Cariden, Cisco, Cloudshield, Foundry Force10, Juniper, Nominum, Packet Design QOSmetrics, Redback, Sandstorm, Tellabs, Wilshire Connection, XKL, and many transit/peering sponsors

1 0

Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
by Sam Crooks 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

I agree... Harvard architecture anyone? On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:39 -0600, James Baldwin wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Eric Gauthier wrote: > > > This latter case is what worries me since it implies > > that there is a fundamental problem in IOS, the problem still > > exists even after > > patching, and that Cisco can't readily repair it. > > I would postulate that this is a fundamental problem in how machines > represent and execute code. > > --- > James Baldwin > "Tolerance is for the insincere" > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, and any attachments, are intended only for the lawful and specified use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from disclosing, printing, storing, disseminating, distributing or copying this communication, or admitting to take any action relying thereon, and doing so may be unlawful. It should be noted that any use of this communication outside of the intended and specified use as designated by the sender, may be unlawful. If you have received this in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail, fax and/or telephone, and destroy this original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

2 1

RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
by Hannigan, Martin 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

> On Monday 07 Nov 2005 3:42 pm, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > > It's an argument for vendor diversity. > > No it is an argument for code base diversity (or better > software engineering). > > Vendor diversity doesn't necessarily give you this, and you > can get this with > one vendor. How so? Haven't we recently seen an across the board bug in multiple version of $vendor code? > > Vendor diversity might be a good idea, but for other reasons. Sure. There are more reasons than one to do it. I was specifically pointing out that code diversity is a good one - and not forgetting associated cost and economic impacts as mentioned in a later followup. -M<

4 4

ALLTEL NOC
by Bob Collie 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

Will someone from the Alltel NOC contact me off-list. Your NOC number is not listed on puck, nor do your front end helpdesk-ites or main switchboard folks know how to contact you. Thanks, -Bob -- Bob Collie Education Networks of America, Inc. (ENA) p: +1 615 312-6004 or +1 317 612-2883 f: +1 615 250-0535

1 0

Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
by J. Oquendo 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote: > Don't use proprietary protocols and insist on interoperability. > Then make them play nice together! Good luck getting vendors to do something a-la "Open Standards" and withdrawing from labeling their product better because of "new and improved *PIMP* F(ool)u-ness!" So Cisco rewrote RIP to IGRP then to EIGRP patented "extended rip!" capabilities and made a profit. I blame those who were conned into falling for the bait because now they're stuck on that fish hook. But also those who failed to adapt and change faster are to be blamed. But what can you expect from a bunch of underappreciated volunteers. Where can I send a Starbucks coffee platter for those engineers in some upcoming event? =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://mo.fscker.com :: Obscurity through Insecurity "How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster?" Joseph McCarthy "America's Retreat from Victory"

1 0

RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
by Hannigan, Martin 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:43:35AM -0500, J. Oquendo wrote: > > the center of the information security vortex. Because IOS > controls the > > routers that underpin most business networks as well as the > Internet, > > I think in general this is an argument against > converged networks, > the added complexity and outages may not be worth the gains.. Convergence isn't going away because Networld Week thinks routers are insecure (no, really?). It's an argument for vendor diversity. -M<

4 3

BGP terminology question
by NetSecGuy 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

I asked this question on inet-access and it was suggested I try NANOG. I understand BGP flapping to be announcements followed by withdraws over a short period. I am seeing a peer with a large number of announcements and the normal number of withdraws. Is there a term to describe what I am seeing? I'd like to understand what is happening, but I've been looking for more info and can't seem to find anything. I suspect I am just not using the right words to search. If there isn't a term, why would a peer announce thousands of time an hour with very few withdraws?

6 6

oh k can you see
by Randy Bush 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

so a few of us are still looking at routing through the anycast sunglasses. a particular probe is seeing instability [0] for k.root-servers.net [1]. so we hop on to a router nearby, and have some fun looking at things. we discover an anomaly which takes a while to sort out o some of the anycasted servers mark their announcements with the magic NO_EXPORT community in an attempt to localize their distribution (it would be good if a server in kenya did not take load from nyc) o they also have a server or two which does not so mark their announcements on the presumption that the rest of the world can get to those non-marking server(s) this last assumption is not safe o consider large providers p0 and p1 which are connected to k0 which announces with NO_EXPORT o there is also server k1 which is out there somewhere and announcing without NO_EXPORT o test point t0 is in a multi-homed asn connected to p0 and p1 o the routers in p0 and p1 at which t0's router is connected have their best path to k being the one to k0 o this obscures their path to k1 o and, as they obey k0's NO_EXPORT, they can not export any route to a k.root-servers.net server to t0 o so t0 sees no route to k.root-servers.net this implies that a non-trivial part of the net can not see anycast services for which some of the servers are marking their announcements as NO_EXPORT. note that we saw this from a multi-homed site in seattle, not from some more net-isolated probe. whoops! randy --- [0] - please remember, this is not that the servers are unstable, but rather that routing near the probe is unstable, and the anycasted prefixes are likely to show this more than those which are unicast. [1] - side note: we got misled for a few seconds by % host k.root-servers.org. k.root-servers.org has address 193.0.0.214 % host k.root-servers.net. k.root-servers.net has address 193.0.14.129

9 20

Re: Domino and Message-ID's
by David Lesher 06 Nov '05

06 Nov '05

{empty msg-ID....} > Are you sure it's really missing? It's supposed to be between < and > > symbols. If you're seeing that email through a web interface, or your > email client is either attempting to display or attempting to strip > all HTML from the message, it might be invisible or missing from your > perspective. A) Yes it is blank. I have seen it on multiple recipients, some with postfix, others EIMS, and "He's dead, Jim" applies. I only stumbled onto this because Eudora will sometimes NOT show you the message; and other times will show it when it is new, and THEN make it vanish. I thought I was losing my mind because that message was right here and..... (Looks like Eudora may index on that field, and when there are two or more, bye!) B) Yes, other Notes installations make proper Message-ID's. So does theirs most of the time; 90% of their mail to me is OK. (I looked in my file of mail from him and grepped.) C) My friend's not an admin of NANOG level, but he's FAR from stoopid, and spent 4+ hours looking at every variable you can set to no avail. They have 2 servers, and it's not clear if only one is doing this, but we think that's the case. D) I do see other mentions, such as: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2005-02/1412.html and http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.mail.imap.cyrus/day=20050907 but mostly on people wanting to patch THEIR end to make up for Note's borkeness...NOT how to fix it. Hence this query. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Domino and Message-ID's
by David Lesher 06 Nov '05

06 Nov '05

I've figured out that a friend's Domino Notes server is [being generous..] saving energy by skimping on bits; the Message-ID headers are as you see below. |X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 August 18, 2005 |Date: 03-Nov-2005 09:12:57 EST |Message-ID: |X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on IPMail01/IPSW(Release 6.5.1|January 21, 2004) at 11/03/2005 | 09:13:00 AM |MIME-Version: 1.0 |Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII The usual sources on a fix come up snake-eyes. Has any NANOGer run into a solution for this errr... unique RFC interpretation? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1