May 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
by Scott Weeks 02 May '07

02 May '07

: Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him... Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak. scott --- ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com wrote: From: Ron da Silva <ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com> To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:21:17 -0400 Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...can anyone else here provide some insight into the reachability testing provided for this allocation given to Randy from ARIN? Thanks, -ron ------ Forwarded Message From: "da Silva, Ronald" <ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:14:52 -0400 To: <randy(a)psg.com> Conversation: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Subject: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Randy - I see...96.0.0.0/16 flagged for reachability testing, but we have allocations from 98.0.0.0/8 and seem to be educating folks like <omitted> and others to drop stale bogon filters...you see any issues with the 96/16 block? If not, it might be a false positive for the rest of the /6...perhaps folk were applying policies based on /8's instead of the /6... Thanks! -ron ------ End of Forwarded Message ----------------------------------------- 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.

3 3

Re: cisco ios bug...?
by Scott Weeks 02 May '07

02 May '07

--- payam(a)bhsecurity.com wrote: From: Payam chiachi <payam(a)bhsecurity.com> : A bit off topic here but I was wondering if anyone else out there has : experienced the same thing as I have in regards to a layer3 gig switches : from cisco. You'll probably have better luck on the cisco-nsp list: puck.nether.net/cisco-nsp There're a lot of cisco experts there. scott

1 0

cisco ios bug...?
by Payam chiachi 02 May '07

02 May '07

Hey Guys, A bit off topic here but I was wondering if anyone else out there has experienced the same thing as I have in regards to a layer3 gig switches from cisco. Ive enabled unicast filtering on all access ports to protect against any mass outbound floods that could possibly saturate the trunks or even worst take down the network. Breakdown of what happens: Without warning the port goes into blocking mode...no snmp traps are generated, executing a 'showstorm-control unicast' shows the port to be in blocking mode and moving 4.6G pps Here is what ive tried: 1) removing the adjacent device from the ge3 switch - the port goes out of blocking mode and enters 'disconnected' 2) plugging the rj45 cable back in - the port immediately enters blocking mode and shows 4.6G pps <-- at this point there is no actual traffic being generated from the adjacent device connected to the ge3 (0 pps/ 0 bps) 3) manually shutdown the affected switch port and re-enable it - same results as #2 I have had the same issue come up a few times on both 12.1 and 12.2 IOS. When the issue first came up in my testbed, I was only sending udp and tcp syn traffic... no malformed packets or anything along those lines. The only way I have been able to clear this error is by performing a hard reload on the switch. Here is the switch / ios info... TestSwitch#show version Cisco IOS Software, C3550 Software (C3550-IPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.2(25)SEE1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-2006 by Cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Mon 22-May-06 08:08 by yenanh Image text-base: 0x00003000, data-base: 0x00DC0370 ROM: Bootstrap program is C3550 boot loader TestSwitch uptime is 6 days, 5 hours, 43 minutes System returned to ROM by power-on System restarted at 10:29:43 PDT Thu Apr 26 2007 System image file is "flash:c3550-ipservicesk9-mz.122-25.SEE1.bin" Any input on this issue would be greatly appreciated Much Thanks, Payam

1 0

Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
by Scott Weeks 02 May '07

02 May '07

--- ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com wrote: On 5/2/07 2:58 PM, "Scott Weeks" <surfer(a)mauigateway.com> wrote: > 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... I'll happily send your question to my IT and legal folks. :-) ----------------------------------------------- Or use another email address which you have control over to shut up grumpy `ol guys like me or get your questions answered by others that filter out such nonsense... ;-) scott

1 0

Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
by Martin Hannigan 02 May '07

02 May '07

Scott Weeks said: >Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak. Most definately. He's said as much here on many occasions. Ron da Silva said: >Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...can anyone >else here provide some insight into the reachability testing provided for >this allocation given to Randy from ARIN? Maybe this is better: OrgNOCHandle: ARINN-ARIN OrgNOCName: ARIN NOC OrgNOCPhone: +1-703-227-9840 OrgNOCEmail: noc(a)arin.net -M<

1 0

Bandwidth Augmentation Triggers
by Jason Frisvold 01 May '07

01 May '07

Greetings, I'm working on a system to alert when a bandwidth augmentation is needed. I've looked at using both true averages and 95th percentile calculations. I'm wondering what everyone else uses for this purpose? We're talking about anything from a T1 to an OC-12 here. My guess is that the calculation needs to be slightly different based on the transport, but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks, -- Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold XenoPhage0(a)gmail.com http://blog.godshell.com

3 2

IRC bots and SOPs regarding
by Eric Frazier 01 May '07

01 May '07

Hi, Is there someone who can contact me off list, who might be looking for some billable consulting hours? Thanks, Eric

1 1

96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
by Ron da Silva 01 May '07

01 May '07

Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...can anyone else here provide some insight into the reachability testing provided for this allocation given to Randy from ARIN? Thanks, -ron ------ Forwarded Message From: "da Silva, Ronald" <ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:14:52 -0400 To: <randy(a)psg.com> Conversation: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Subject: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Randy - I see...96.0.0.0/16 flagged for reachability testing, but we have allocations from 98.0.0.0/8 and seem to be educating folks like <omitted> and others to drop stale bogon filters...you see any issues with the 96/16 block? If not, it might be a false positive for the rest of the /6...perhaps folk were applying policies based on /8's instead of the /6... Thanks! -ron ------ End of Forwarded Message ----------------------------------------- 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.

1 0

Re: BGP Session Timeout
by Fergie 01 May '07

01 May '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 One could also presume that BFD should also be considered dangerous, if enabled. - - ferg - -- Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor(a)spale.com> wrote: > Is it likely that BGP times out before underlying IP topology > reconvergences > after a link/node failure? Do service providers ever set such low > values of > BGP timeouts that BGP timeout will occur? > > If not, what else may cause a BGP session to time out? Depending on your hardware, you can trigger your BGP and IGP to shut sessions when the peer is gone. On some cisco, you can have BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection). you have to enable this on both sides. If BFD notices the peer is down, it will notify OSPF,BGP,... (if configured so). for example: ! interface GigabitEthernet0/0 ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.252 bfd neighbor 10.1.1.2 bfd interval 250 min_rx 250 multiplier 3 ip ospf bfd ! This will send a BFD packet every 250ms, expect one every 250ms and if 3 packets are missed (after 750ms) it will tell OSPF to shut any session towards 10.1.1.2 (or routed via 10.1.1.2 for the BGP case). Pascal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.1 (Build 1012) wj8DBQFGNvYRq1pz9mNUZTMRAjKOAKDTAyIHrxZMjzuBmzCG54Mz1jWOZwCfVYzj DG01G8MGXfV/KQ27Pj6N58Y= =HfOW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

BGP Session Timeout
by Saqib Ilyas 01 May '07

01 May '07

I have a question regarding BGP session time outs. Is it likely that BGP times out before underlying IP topology reconvergences after a link/node failure? Do service providers ever set such low values of BGP timeouts that BGP timeout will occur? If not, what else may cause a BGP session to time out? -- Muhammad Saqib Ilyas PhD Student, Computer Science and Engineering Lahore University of Management Sciences

2 1