September 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Katrina Network Damage Report
by George William Herbert 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Todd Underwood wrote: > Sean Donelan wrote: >> Todd Underwood wrote: >> > the general idea is: take a large peerset sending you full >> > routes, keep every update forever, and take a reasonably long (at >> > least a month or two) time horizon. calculate a consensus view for >> > each prefix as to whether that prefix is reachable by some set of >> > those peers. an outaged prefix is one that used to be reachable that >> > not no longer is. in other words, one that has been withdrawn from >> > the full table by some sufficiently large number of peers. >> >> This describes a partioning, not necessarily an outage. > >can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure if Sean's thinking the same thing I am, but let me chime in with a nickel's worth of commentary. There are some inconsistent terms used in computer dependability research, but I prefer and use two key definitions: failure (something is offline) and outage (customer sees the service offline). Various redundancy can hide failures from customers and keep them from being true outages. Looking at the routing tables you see failures. If a prefix goes away completely and utterly, and is truly unreachable, then anyone trying to see it is going to see an outage. But you can have a lot of intermediate cases where routes are mostly down but not completely, or where parts of the net can see it but other parts can't due to the vagarities of route propogation and partial failures. And there are situations where the route is down but the service is still up. There are other network monitoring groups that do end to end connectivity tests from geographically distributed clients out to sample systems around the net. Some for research and some for hire for network monitoring. I think what they do is much closer to identifying true outages than your method. -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

13 29

need help regarding portmaster 2E as a dialin server
by Md. kamal Hossain 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Dear all I have portmaster 2E with 30 asyn port.I try to configure it as dialin server.But when i dial it can't authenticate. can anyone help regarding this configuration best of luck kamal -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

2 1

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Igor Gashinsky 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

:: > We also like that fact that we can change our :: > announcements so others can only use prefix X through transit provider Y :: > and not transit provider Z, unless transit provider Y goes away (those 2 :: > are obviously not the only uses of such policies, but are just examples). :: :: :: This also seems like it achievable via DNS hacks on your side. Again, :: this seems like it can be done locally. Wonderful.. so now we have to do routing in DNS, a protocol that's not exactly designed for rapid convergence (yes, neither is BGP, but it's a *lot* faster then DNS). Just brilliant. :: While I realize that the status quo is always the most comfortable, you :: should also recognize that the status quo is simply not sustainable from :: an architectural viewpoint. Thus, the charter of multi6/shim6 is to :: change the model into one that is sustainable, and the fact that certain :: features and functionality will be lost is an unfortunate necessity. While the status quo is not sustainable if growth continues for 4+ years, deciding to "fix" the problem by pretending that there was never a good reason for it in the first place, and moving it to a different place is not a very good architectural solution either. :: Well, I cannot disagree with you. However, this is the direction that :: the IETF has chosen after careful and lengthy discussions. Those of us :: who had alternative ideas have long since lost the battle and are :: resigned to the inevitable, of which shim6 seems like the best of a bad :: lot. And I hope this thread points out why more content isn't v6 enabled.. And no, I'm not saying that "the evil greedy bastards" did this on purpose, unfortunately, it's simply yet another example of things being created without operator involvement (and yes, we, the operators, are at fault for that). See you on shim6@. -igor

1 0

LA power outage?
by matthew zeier 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

I'm hearing rumors of a power outage in LA - any truth? I lost access to my gear up there and the NOC phone is fast busy. -- matthew zeier - "Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance." - Leonard Rubenstein

8 8

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Brandon Butterworth 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

> >> So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1? > > > Could be 4.1 or even 4.2. > > And therein lies the problem. My point, we don't know so some arbitrary or technology limits will have to do as there isn't financial reason to make something bigger > in any event, 32-bit AS > numbers allow for 4 billion ASes, not 4 million. Of course. So we know it's somewhere between 4G and current 20K. If the current policies apply then ASs may not increase greatly but prefixes will be lots less. Sounds like no problem for multi homing as we do now if nothing more acceptable is agreed. Otherwise people will just ignore V6 until it's too late V6 could have saved lots of upgrades for those about to hit the ~250K V4 limit of existing Ciscos > > If we need it then it will exist, if not then we won't be able to do > > that and will do something else instead > > That's not good engineering. It's what people do though, good engineering is pointless if it doesn't get used > we still have SOME time > to come up with new stuff that will make multihoming in IPv6 scale. As long as it doesn't involve pushing the problem onto the hosts, C & J don't always get it right, I'd hate to see 1M times more machines relying on M or L. brandon

1 0

12/8 problems?
by Drew Linsalata 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

Apologies for a post of an operational nature, but is anyone else seeing problems with AT&Ts 12/8 block? From a New York router connected to Global Crossing and Peer 1: border-1.nycmny> sh ip bgp 12.xxx.xxx.xxx BGP routing table entry for 12.0.0.0/8, version 86901457 Paths: (2 available, best #1) Not advertised to any peer 3549 12956 26210 64.213.176.97 from 64.213.176.97 (208.50.59.1) Origin incomplete, metric 2602, localpref 100, valid, external, best, ref 2 Community: 232589665 232618104 13768 12956 26210, (received-only) 64.34.84.117 from 64.34.84.117 (216.187.124.10) Origin incomplete, localpref 100, external, ref 2 Route views is showing a 12/8 with a fair amount of dampening/flap penalties in the last 10-12 minutes. -- Drew Linsalata The Gotham Bus Company, Inc. Dedicated Servers and Colocation Solutions Long Island, New York http://www.gothambus.com

5 9

Re: LA power outage?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

CNN is reporting that power is starting to be restored to some areas afected by the outage. - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: LA power outage?
by prue 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

Yep. LA got hit with a power outage that hit downtown and the San Fernando valley according to reports. Power was restored to USC campus which is about 4 miles from downtown at about 1:30 PDT, for an outage of about half an hour. Walt

1 0

DNSSEC in public
by Dan Mahoney, System Admin 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

In response to a recent question I saw regarding DNSSEC on RIPE domains, I'd like to ask if there's any sort of draft or standard that anyone knows about for doing DNSSEC in the public, using either a "root" key and/or possibly having master keys pulished in WHOIS? I see a very experimental thing Verisign is doing for the .net zone, and also for some other opt-in zone, but I'm sure that's highly experimental at this point. I guess my question is: is there even something up for discussion at this point? I know it's early in the game. Thanks Dan -- "I can feel it, comin' back again...Like a rolling thunder chasin' the wind..." -Dan Mahoney, JS, JB & SL, May 10th, 1997, Approx 1AM --------Dan Mahoney-------- Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org ---------------------------

5 4

DHS Cyber Security Investment Study
by Rowe, Brent 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

NANOG members, I am writing to ask for your participation in a study which I am working on for the Department of Homeland Security on IT security investment decisions. My intension is not to upset anyone with an unwanted solicitation, so if you are uninterested in this topic, please disregard the remainder of this email. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ My company, RTI, has been contracted by the the Department of Homeland Security to analyze how organizations make investment decisions related to IT security. As part of this project, we are gathering information from organizations in seven different sectors, one of which is Internet Service Providers. I am interested in talking with any individuals representing ISPs about their organizations' IT security decision making practices. Let me be clear that I are not interested in learning the makeup of your IT infrastructure, the IT policies and procedures your organization employs, the number of breaches you have each year, or any other sensitive information related to your organization's IT security. Instead, I am interested in discussing the information you use to decide how much to spend on various IT security-related activities and what information you are collecting (and using) from your IT system operations. If you are interested in participating in this study and/or have questions related to how we plan to use the data we collect, the purpose of the study, or the intended use of the study results, please contact me at browe(a)rti.org or 919-485-2626. Thank you any assistance you can provide. Regards, Brent Brent Rowe Research Economist Technology Economics & Policy RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 phone: (919) 485-2626 fax: (919) 541-6683 www.rti.org

3 2