May 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Google wants to be your Internet
by Mark Boolootian 08 May '07

08 May '07

Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed backbones: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html

39 74

Load balancing
by dan 08 May '07

08 May '07

Hello, I currently have 2 routers with a single gigabit link (and corresponding internal BGP session) between them. router1 <---------gigabit------->router2 Simple setup. Now that we have reached the limit on this gigabit link, we are adding a second gigabit link between the same 2 routers, and we wish to load balance across them. Traffic is about 5:1 ratio of out:in. router2 has bgp sessions with several upstreams, and router 1 has bgp sessions with further internal routers. What is the best way to balance across these 2 links? --- dan

6 5

barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec
by Joe Maimon 08 May '07

08 May '07

I was wondering if someone could shed some light on this little curiosity. US ping (sourced from different networks, including cable customer in NE) to the consumer grade residental israel dsl cpe (currently cisco 871) look really nice and sweet, gotomypc works alright, consumer is enjoying overall internet experience. vnc from customer to US is a non-starter. ssh from US almost never works. ipsec performance is horrid. traceroute/tcptraceroute show packet loss and MUCH higher rtt than the corresponding direct pings on the reported hop entries. Is this some sort of massaging or plain just "faking it"? Or is such things merely net-urban myth? Here is a traceroute snippet 8 dcr3-ge-0-2-1.newyork.savvis.net (204.70.193.98) 31.008 ms 31.539 ms 31.248 ms 9 208.173.129.14 (208.173.129.14) 62.847 ms 31.095 ms 30.690 ms 10 barak-01814-nyk-b2.c.telia.net (213.248.83.2) 30.529 ms 30.820 ms 30.495 ms 11 * * po1-3.bk3-bb.013bk.net (212.150.232.214) 277.722 ms 12 gi2-1.bk6-gw.013bk.net (212.150.234.94) 223.398 ms 235.616 ms 214.551 ms 13 * * gi11-24.bk6-acc3.013bk.net (212.29.206.37) 227.259 ms 14 212.29.206.60 (212.29.206.60) 244.369 ms013bk.net * 246.271 ms 15 89.1.148.230.dynamic.barak-online.net (89.1.148.230) 251.923 ms 256.817 ms * Compared to ICMP echo root@jml03:~# ping 89.1.148.230 PING 89.1.148.230 (89.1.148.230) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 89.1.148.230: icmp_seq=1 ttl=240 time=190 ms --- 89.1.148.230 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 190.479/190.479/190.479/0.000 ms root@jml03:~# ping 89.1.148.230 PING 89.1.148.230 (89.1.148.230) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 89.1.148.230: icmp_seq=1 ttl=240 time=186 ms 64 bytes from 89.1.148.230: icmp_seq=2 ttl=240 time=196 ms 64 bytes from 89.1.148.230: icmp_seq=3 ttl=240 time=187 ms 64 bytes from 89.1.148.230: icmp_seq=4 ttl=240 time=181 ms 64 bytes from 89.1.148.230: icmp_seq=5 ttl=240 time=184 ms 64 bytes from 89.1.148.230: icmp_seq=6 ttl=240 time=190 ms --- 89.1.148.230 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 181.572/187.756/196.277/4.685 ms root@jml03:~# ping 212.29.206.60 PING 212.29.206.60 (212.29.206.60) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 212.29.206.60: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=179 ms 64 bytes from 212.29.206.60: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=171 ms 64 bytes from 212.29.206.60: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=171 ms --- 212.29.206.60 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 171.388/174.375/179.968/3.972 ms root@jml03:~# ping 212.29.206.37 PING 212.29.206.37 (212.29.206.37) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 212.29.206.37: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=177 ms 64 bytes from 212.29.206.37: icmp_seq=2 ttl=242 time=176 ms 64 bytes from 212.29.206.37: icmp_seq=3 ttl=242 time=175 ms --- 212.29.206.37 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 175.412/176.516/177.187/0.858 ms Joe

8 21

Foundry/Cisco MM 100Base-T SFP in Philly?
by Robert Boyle 07 May '07

07 May '07

Hello all, Does anyone have a multi-mode 100Mbit SFP which I can borrow or purchase in the Philadelphia area? Preferably at 401 N. Broad, but anywhere in the Philly area will do. Tonight would be nice. Tomorrow will be fine too. It is for a Foundry XMR so I need the new dual-mode SFPs which work in a GigE port at 100Mbit. I will be happy to pay for or replace the equipment or to return the favor in any way possible. We are doing an upgrade and I didn't document that we have one MM fiber connection here so I didn't bring an SFP. If so, please call my cell 973-214-3626. Thanks! -Robert Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

1 0

BOGON Announcement question
by Jason Lewis 07 May '07

07 May '07

I'm seeing this announced at CIXP Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222 My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement? Is it just not propagating out of the exchange? It's been announced for a few days and only seems to appear at the exchange. jas

9 10

RE: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec
by Scott Weeks 07 May '07

07 May '07

--- ltd(a)interlink.com.au wrote: From: "Lincoln Dale" <ltd(a)interlink.com.au> To: "'Joe Maimon'" <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> > The standard control plane arguments dont apply > when the pattern holds all the way through to > equipment under your {remote-}control. : : it most certainly does. lets use an example : network of: : F : | :A---B---C---D---E : | : G : : : you are looking at ICMP/traceroute responses : through sending traffic to/from A & E. : :for all you know, there may be an ICMP DDoS attack What about something as simplistic as tcptraceroute? It won't give you path MTU info, but there're other tools that can. scott

3 2

Typical core router ports
by Saqib Ilyas 07 May '07

07 May '07

How many ports does a router in the core network typically have (on average/max)? On average/max how many ports does it actually use out of its available ports? Thanks and regards -- Muhammad Saqib Ilyas PhD Student, Computer Science and Engineering Lahore University of Management Sciences

1 0

Clueful @ New Edge Networks/Earthlink
by Scott Morris 05 May '07

05 May '07

Sorry for the off-topic, but is anyone hanging around here on the weekend bgp clueful at New Edge Networks (or I suppose Earthlink as they were purchased)??? Puuuuhhhlllease unicast me! I have a 15 second bgp thing that needs fixing and has been an open support ticket for 5+ days. Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE #153, MCSE, CCDP, CCNA-WAN Switching, CCSP, Cable Communications Specialist, IP Telephony Support Specialist, IP Telephony Design Specialist, CISSP CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-J swm(a)emanon.com

1 0

Verizon Technical Contact requested
by LM Network Ops 04 May '07

04 May '07

Could a Verizon technical contact in relation to routing problems contact me... Thanks Jason Burton Leximedia LLC noc-admin(a)leximedia.net

2 1

Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
by Scott Weeks 04 May '07

04 May '07

--- ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com wrote: On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <surfer(a)mauigateway.com> wrote: > : Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him... > > Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak. Both practices arguably ingenious or idiotic... ----------------------------------------------------- Doesn't matter. He doesn't want to see the .sig and it's his email system. Others do the same. I gotta admit it's a really big .sig that's utterly useless. It *IS* being disseminated, distributed and copied and on a global basis. It's "unlawful" in what country? No one's going to delete all copies. Blah, blah, blah... scott ----------------------------------------- This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

6 6