November 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...
by David Lesher 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/11/verizon_search.html November 3, 2007 Subscribers to Verizon's high-powered fiber-optic Internet service (FiOS) are reporting that when they mistype a Web site address, they get redirected to Verizon's own search engine page -- even if they don't have Verizon's search page set as their default. ,,,,, You can guess most of the rest. I guess we didn't get that wooden stake in deep enough last Tuesday... -- 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

23 39

AS-level connectivity survey
by Ricardo V. Oliveira 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

Hi, We are doing a survey as a part of an academic research on inter-AS connectivity, namely assessing how many AS-level links are missing from that inferred from public sources such as BGP tables. If you could participate in this survey, it will be greatly appreciated. All data will be anonymized in any kind of use, including the survey report. If you would like to participate, could you please send me a message offline with information bellow? For each ASN in your network: * Type of network (transit/content/eyeball/research) * Total number of neighbor ASes (e.g. if AS A and AS B have multiple eBGP sessions, it will count only once). * Number of peers (versus customers) * Number of peers that peer at IXPs? * Which IXPs do you have presence Plus any comments you'd like to make about inter-AS connectivity, and feel free to give a partial answer. We have condensed the BGP-derived AS-level connectivity information in the following website: http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/topology/survey Which you can use to check how accurate is the "public view" of your network connectivity. Thanks! --Ricardo

1 0

Returned mail: 30 Delivery failures on Mon, 05 Nov 2007
by Mail Delivery Subsystem 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

On this date, there were delivery failures where the associated deliver status notification messages were suppressed. --- The following addresses had suppressed delivery status notifications --- nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu ----- Transcript of session is unavailable ----- No information is available on specific messages.

1 0

bgp protection
by Randy Bush 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

at nanog san jose, steve bellovin presented a simple proposal for bgp tcp/md5 re-keying. it is now rfc 4808 "Key Change Strategies for TCP-MD5." this allows us to install and/or roll keys without disturbing the bgp session. and it is trivial for vendors to implement and for operators to use. imiho, until it is easy for us to use ipsec, or some other wonderful universal solution, that we implement and deploy rfc 4808. it will solve 95% of our problem for the next five years while more sophisticated scheme(s) can be developed. so i propose we ask our vendors to please implement 4808, which should be far simpler than the other hacks they seem to be adding, and that those of us who care enough to use data integrity assurance on our bgp peerings deploy it. kierkegaard nietzsche you are a stoopid schmuck kant :) randy

1 1

RE: STM-1 Connection between Cisco LS1010 an Marconi ASX-200BX
by Neil J. McRae 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Could be attenuation limit. Try adding 10db -----Original Message----- From: Sebastian Ganschow <s.ganschow(a)buelow-masiak.de> Sent: 05 November 2007 15:09 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: STM-1 Connection between Cisco LS1010 an Marconi ASX-200BX Hi, sorry for this little OffTopic. We've got a brand new STM-1 Connection between 2 of our POPs. The Problem is, we're not able to put it into service. On Side A we've got a Cisco Lightstream 1010 ATM-Switch with a 155SM PAM Modul. Side B is a Marconi ASX-200BX with a NM-4/155SMIRE Module. The Link is up on both sides, but both switches aren't able to establish the ATM Connection. The path has been measured twice with the result that it seems that there are no problems on the physical Layer. On Side A we can see, that cells are beeing transmitted but no cells are received while Side B is only receiving cells. If we configure a loopback on Side B Side A is reveiving cells. We've tested almost everything you can configure on both sides but the connection can't be established. As far as I know both Switches should configure themselfs automatically. It would be nice if anybody can give us a hint what we might have forgotten to configure. Confusing is, that we've configured everything exactly the same as three other STM-1 Connections between this Cisco LS and two other Marconi ASX-200BX ATM Switches. Thanks in advance. Regards Sebastian -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Dr. Buelow & Masiak GmbH ---------------------------------------------------------- Sebastian Ganschow s.ganschow(a)buelow-masiak.de B.Sc. Dr. Buelow & Masiak GmbH http://www.buelow-masiak.de Victoriastraße 119 Telefon +49 (0)2365 4146- 0 D-45772 Marl Fax +49 (0)2365 4146-58 ----------------------------------------------------------- ################################################################ Geschäftsführer: Dr.Gudrun Bülow, Gerhard Bülow & Michael Masiak Handelsregistereintrag: Amtsgericht Gelsenkirchen HRB 5913 Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE 170261670 ################################################################

1 0

RE: Least Sucky Backbone Provider
by David Hubbard 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

From: Gregory Boehnlein > > Good morning, > I'm considering dropping Cogent completely out of my > transit mix, as the number of outages and problems they > have been experienced over the past year has reached an > unacceptable level. It has gotten to the point that we > their BGP session is shutdown for longer periods than it > is on. Based on the availability of on-net fiber in my > facility, I have narrowed the field to the following > candidates: > > 1. Level 3 > 2. MCI/Verizon > 3. AT&T > > I'm looking for comments from actual customers of the above > providers in relation to; > > 1. Network reliability and performance > 2. Responsiveness to outages > 3. Proactive notification of network maintenance > > 95% of our traffic mix is US48 in nature, so International > routes are not a huge decision point. We've got connectivity to all three of those plus Cogent and TWTC. Similar to what someone else posted, a much smaller percentage of our web hosting traffic seems to naturally prefer the other providers compared to Level 3. In some cases this has appeared to be forced as testing has shown other paths to be optimal in speed/delay, so we've forced traffic to some ISP's out through other providers manually rather than going over the L3 link. We still send the bulk of the traffic over L3 though as they are optimal in many cases and very reliable. In order of reliability, it's been Level 3, AT&T, UUNet, TWTC, Cogent with all providers being in use with us for at least 18 months. Level 3 and AT&T have always been very responsive and I've had success getting someone who knows BGP rather than a delayed call back. Never actually called UUNet since the few outages there have been have all been short enough that we just disabled the session for a bit and brought it back up with no issues so I can't say with experience how they actually are, although since I have never needed to call that is a good thing. If you're single homed probably best to find out more on their support if you were going to use them. TWTC I've had some issues with community filtering rules that we need dropping out with no warning and multi-hour delays getting someone who could help. Cogent, with their unusual inbound/outbound peering setup, seems to have an issue with their outbound side of our link regularly, every few weeks, while the inbound session has been up for 460 days. I also dislike their very poor community offerings, we can't do many of the things with them that we do with the others. We keep them and prepend three times on our advertisements to them so they are primarily just a link for traffic going to and from other Cogent customers. If the pricing is right, I think you'd be happy with either L3 or AT&T, probably MCI/Verizon/UUNet (or whoever owns them this week) too provided their support is good since we have found them to be pretty reliable. Dave

1 0

STM-1 Connection between Cisco LS1010 an Marconi ASX-200BX
by Sebastian Ganschow 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Hi, sorry for this little OffTopic. We've got a brand new STM-1 Connection between 2 of our POPs. The Problem is, we're not able to put it into service. On Side A we've got a Cisco Lightstream 1010 ATM-Switch with a 155SM PAM Modul. Side B is a Marconi ASX-200BX with a NM-4/155SMIRE Module. The Link is up on both sides, but both switches aren't able to establish the ATM Connection. The path has been measured twice with the result that it seems that there are no problems on the physical Layer. On Side A we can see, that cells are beeing transmitted but no cells are received while Side B is only receiving cells. If we configure a loopback on Side B Side A is reveiving cells. We've tested almost everything you can configure on both sides but the connection can't be established. As far as I know both Switches should configure themselfs automatically. It would be nice if anybody can give us a hint what we might have forgotten to configure. Confusing is, that we've configured everything exactly the same as three other STM-1 Connections between this Cisco LS and two other Marconi ASX-200BX ATM Switches. Thanks in advance. Regards Sebastian -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Dr. Buelow & Masiak GmbH ---------------------------------------------------------- Sebastian Ganschow s.ganschow(a)buelow-masiak.de B.Sc. Dr. Buelow & Masiak GmbH http://www.buelow-masiak.de Victoriastraße 119 Telefon +49 (0)2365 4146- 0 D-45772 Marl Fax +49 (0)2365 4146-58 ----------------------------------------------------------- ################################################################ Geschäftsführer: Dr.Gudrun Bülow, Gerhard Bülow & Michael Masiak Handelsregistereintrag: Amtsgericht Gelsenkirchen HRB 5913 Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE 170261670 ################################################################

1 0

NANOG Mailing List Committee update
by Philip Smith 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Hi everyone, In its last scheduled meeting the NANOG Steering Committee reappointed Brett Watson to the Mailing List Committee. Brett will serve a two year term. The NANOG Mailing List Committee for 2007/2008 is as follows: David Barak Martin Hannigan Sue Joiner (Merit Appointee) Alex Pilosov (Chair) Brett Watson Tim Yocum Many thanks to all the MLC members for volunteering their time and energy to take care of the NANOG mailing list on behalf of the entire community. Philip Smith (for the SC)

1 0

BGP Peering and Prefix filterin Question
by Jim McBurnett 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Hello, Recently I have been told that some ISP's are automatically or maybe manually modifying their BGP inbound prefix listing after a network is not advertised to them for a period of time. So the questions I pose to the group: 1. Is this normal? 2. Can anyone share your policies? 3. Who does it? 4. How often? 5. Is it automagic? Or the dirty work slaved off to the junior engineer in the corner somewhere? a. I know you probably won't trust that junior engineer, but some do.... Anyway just a little research after a small problem a customer recently had. Thanks, Jim

3 3

Returned mail: 9 Delivery failures on Fri, 02 Nov 2007
by Mail Delivery Subsystem 03 Nov '07

03 Nov '07

On this date, there were delivery failures where the associated deliver status notification messages were suppressed. --- The following addresses had suppressed delivery status notifications --- nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu ----- Transcript of session is unavailable ----- No information is available on specific messages.

1 0