March 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Heads up: Long AS-sets announced in the next few days
by Kurt Erik Lindqvist 03 Mar '05

03 Mar '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2005-03-03, at 10.27, Geoff Huston wrote: > >> On 2005-03-02, at 19.38, James A. T. Rice wrote: >> >> > This seems to suggest that you are just picking ASns at random to >> > inject into the paths, and that you don't have a set of ASs which >> you >> > have the assignees permission to use. >> >> Would't this then actually equate to resource hijacking along the >> lines >> of prefix hijacking? Who will be the first to hit the RIRs? > > Isn't this a case of illustrating how easy it is to tell lies in BGP > today? I don't > see what hitting the RIRs has do to with this. The problem appears to > be more > basic than that - its just too easy to tell lies in BGP and get the > lies propagated > globally. Well agreed. And that is an important point in itself. The reference to the RIRs was me trying to be ironic as when we have prefix hijacks that seems to be reported to the RIRs. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQibejKarNKXTPFCVEQKO6ACeIzkX5j04JA3RK3Y48fSsXM0DMLEAoM+k 6+j6phNoiKSg5Qai2CNSloLa =TWvV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Localizing traffic using BGP
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Well, the most specific prefix wins in the forwarding selection process, but I won't make any comments on "best current practice" since "best" is somewhat relative to the idea of max-aggregation ....but this reference might help: G. Huston Request for Comments: 3221 Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the Internet ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3221.txt [snip] 5.4 Lack of Common Operational Practices There is considerable evidence of a lack of uniformity of operational practices within the inter-domain routing space. This includes the use and setting of prefix filters, the use and setting of route damping parameters and level of verification undertaken on BGP advertisements by both the advertiser and the recipient. There is some extent of 'noise' in the routing table where advertisements appear to be propagated well beyond their intended domain of applicability, and also where withdrawals and advertisements are not being adequately damped close to the origin of the route flap. This diversity of operating practices also extends to policies of accepting advertisements that are more specific advertisements of existing provider blocks. [snip] - ferg -- Ashe Canvar <acanvar(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hello all, BGP design question. My scenario is very much like an online gaming company with servers on multiple continents. Details : 1. I have datacenters/servers in many POPs globally. 2. I am a stub AS with multiple ISPs available at each POP. 3. I do not have the resources to buy dedicated fiber to link these POPs, so my backbone is essentially a bunch of VPN tunnels. 4. I own a /21. Of which I announce /24's. 5. I have a mechanism to allocate client sessions to any ONE of the POPs based on network performance (which is what I want to optimize). Questions : I presently announce different /24's out of different POPs to localize traffic. All these prefixes are announced from the same AS number. This obviously can't be best practice. Are there any published BCPs or RFCs tackling this issue ? Is it recommened that I get multiple AS numbers and announce symmetrically from each "smaller" AS ? Or should I announce inconsistently from different locations ? Thanks! -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

Localizing traffic using BGP
by Ashe Canvar 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Hello all, BGP design question. My scenario is very much like an online gaming company with servers on multiple continents. Details : 1. I have datacenters/servers in many POPs globally. 2. I am a stub AS with multiple ISPs available at each POP. 3. I do not have the resources to buy dedicated fiber to link these POPs, so my backbone is essentially a bunch of VPN tunnels. 4. I own a /21. Of which I announce /24's. 5. I have a mechanism to allocate client sessions to any ONE of the POPs based on network performance (which is what I want to optimize). Questions : I presently announce different /24's out of different POPs to localize traffic. All these prefixes are announced from the same AS number. This obviously can't be best practice. Are there any published BCPs or RFCs tackling this issue ? Is it recommened that I get multiple AS numbers and announce symmetrically from each "smaller" AS ? Or should I announce inconsistently from different locations ? Thanks!

1 0

Is anyone actually using OER to do traffic shaping/balancing?
by Drew Weaver 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Hit me offlist if you have experience with this actually working for you. -Drew

2 1

AOL scomp
by Edward B. Dreger 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Can AOL's "this is spam" feedback loop be abused with a single person responding to a single message many, many times? Inquiring minds want to know. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc(a)brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq(a)intc.net -*- sam(a)everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.

22 31

Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
by Sean Donelan 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Although RFC2476 was published in December 1998, its amazing how few mail providers support the Message Submission protocol for e-mail on Port 587. Even odder, some mail providers use other ports such as 26 or 2525, but not the RFC recommended Port 587 for remote authenticated mail access for users. Large mail providers like AOL, GMAIL and Yahoo support authenticated mail on port 587; and some also support Port 465 for legacy SMTP/SSL. But a lot of universities and smaller mail providers don't. They still use SMTP Port 25 for roaming users. With AT&T, Earthlink, COX, Netzero and other ISPs filtering port 25 for years, I would have thought most mail providers would have started supporting Port 587 by now. What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers with large roaming user populations to support RFC2476/Port 587? What can be done to encourage the mail client software programers (i.e. Outlook, Eudora, etc) to make Port 587 the default (or at least the first try) and let the user change it back to port 25 (or automatically fallback) if they are still using a legacy mail server. Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult for system administrators to configure Port 587 (if it doesn't say click here for Port 587 during the Windows installer, its too complicated).

46 118

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
by Network.Security 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

So...how much of the revenue stream is built around the actual facilities (i.e. copper, fiber, etc) ownership monopoly? Shouldn't senior staff recognize the short-sightedness of building one revenue stream from two distinct sources: one content delivery and one plant ownership? Sell access first for a profit and then add ala carte services for a profit, don't mix them. Brad Swanson bradley.swanson(a)target.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Robert M. Enger Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:57 PM To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson); nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions... The subject is of most concern at the edge. There are multiple long-haul providers, but often the consumer has only one option for multi-megabit connectivity. The entity currently enjoying the edge monopoly attempts to create vertical service alignment, to maximize profit. They DON'T want to provide packet data service, they want to provide ALL services (control content, filter, etc). This is not a technical matter, it's senior staff maximizing rate of return. To diverge from VoIP, an interesting situation will present itself in the future. Verizon is installing FTTH. Data offerings in their present service area are: 5, 15, and 30Mbps downstream. http://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/fios/root/package.asp These speeds would support broadcast quality video delivery (even HD quality) if properly implemented. As hot a topic as voice is, the total money involved is decreasing. Video services, however, still represent a huge revenue stream. Will Verizon be a pure pipe provider? Or, will they attempt to control services? It would be nice to see Comcast get some meaningful competition. Till now, they could never find the money to upgrade or maintain their RF plant, but they had money available to pursue acquisition of Disney... As troublesome as VoIP may (appear) to be, imagine video. Very high duty-cycle, multi-megabit streams. "36ccs", so to speak. But, content creators could sell directly to end users. Potentially, no cable company, no TV networks. Perhaps even the studio structure will collapse. A lot depends on how well the FTTH providers, and their long-haul backbone partners do their job. Whether they embrace disruptive change, or resist it as an annoyance to their routine.

1 0

Re: So, anyone still using Redbus?
by Brandon Butterworth 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Sure, the other two buildings still work. Hex has had a history of power problems. I'm in Sovereign and it's been OK so far. Of course we have other buildings as anything can break (e.g. 25 Broadway) "We host ecommerce sites turning over million of pounds, pay redbus a significant amount of money for their service" sounds like they need to spend some of those millions on site redundacy brandon

1 0

Re: Heads up: Long AS-sets announced in the next few days
by Lorenzo Colitti 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

James A. T. Rice wrote: > This seems to suggest that you are just picking ASns at random to inject > into the paths, and that you don't have a set of ASs which you have the > assignees permission to use. > > In which case please keep AS8330, AS8550, and AS8943 out of your > experiments too. > > Using not yet allocated ASns out of RIPEs asn-blocks would have been > more sensible, IMHO. James, we are not picking ASes at random. The AS-set announcements are part of new techniques we are developing for ISPs who wish to discover how their prefixes are seen by the rest of the Internet. We believe this will come to be a useful tool for operators. However, since this is still work in progress, and in scientific research there is no room for second place, I can't really reveal any more than that at the moment. I would like to point out, though, that our research group does have a proven track record in the field network discovery (examples available on request), and has created software useful to the operator community such as BGPlay [1][2]. That said, if you want us to exclude those ASes from our AS-sets, then we will do so. Regards, Lorenzo [1] http://www.ris.ripe.net/bgplay/ [2] http://bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay/

1 0

So, anyone still using Redbus?
by Joe Johnson 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Ouch . . . http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/01/rebdus_power_failure/. Sincerely, Joe Johson www.JoeLovesDreamweaver.com joe(a)sendjoeanemail.com

1 0