August 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Congestion between NY and Ashburn on Teleglobe ?
by W. Kevin Hunt 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Anyone else seeing congestion / high latency between New York and Ashburn on Teleglobe ? We've been seeing an extra 50-80ms of latency between the two on and off throughout the day... 7. 216.140.15.158 1.1% 34.1 40.0 33.9 143.4 19.3 G1-1.rp0.chcg.broadwing.net 216.140.14.110 G2-3.rp0.chcg.broadwing.net 8. s0-3-3.core1.chi.foc.broadwing.net 0.0% 34.7 34.2 33.9 35.0 0.3 9. if-0-1-0.core2.NTO-NewYork.teleglobe.net 0.0% 49.4 52.1 49.4 99.3 8.6 --- all fine to here, then we hit Ashburn --- 10. if-1-0-0.core3.AEQ-Ashburn.teleglobe.net 0.0% 163.5 170.7 137.7 197.2 11.8 11. ix-3-0-9.core3.AEQ-Ashburn.teleglobe.net 0.0% 156.6 163.1 129.5 242.4 15.2 12. ge-1-0-0-p407.msr2.ac2.yahoo.com 0.0% 155.7 161.3 124.3 187.5 12.6 ge-0-0-0-p205.msr1.ac2.yahoo.com

1 0

"2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey.
by David Conrad 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Hi, In another mailing list, someone has asserted that "noone believes router vendors who say [they can support 2M routes today and 10M with no change in technology]". Or perhaps more accurately, the router vendors claiming this are being a bit disingenuous in that while it is possible routers can handle this many static routes, they'll quickly fall down if they were subjected to real world dynamic conditions ISPs would see if you extrapolate routing flux in today's tables up to (say) 2M routes. My questions: Do you believe router vendors who state they today have "capacities on the order of 2 million ipv4 routes and they have no reason to expect that they couldn't deliver 10 million route FIB products in a few years given sufficient demand."? If you do not (or you believe the router vendors are being disingenuous) and routing system growth continues: - where do you believe existing routing technology will fall down? - what steps will you take/are you taking to limit your vulnerability? Feel free to respond privately if you don't feel comfortable discussing this in a public forum. I promise to hold any responses confidential, publishing only a summary of responses. Thanks, -drc

10 11

SNMP Trap Alarm?
by Deepak Jain 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Ok, I could have picked a better title. I'm looking for a pointer to a box (pref. an embedded platform of some kind) that will receive/accept SNMP traps and sound a real world alarm/siren/klaxon. It can do fancy things like logging and such, but not strictly required. I could build one, but I'd rather have something OTS. Thanks in advance, Deepak

2 1

RE: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4
by John van Oppen 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

We did the same thing... It seems easiest from a management perspective to copy the ipv4 logical layer with v6. The only change on our side was the fixed prefix length which if anything was a nice change. We did run into a few devices (old layer 3 switches) that don't support ipv6 and on those we either did not deploy IPv6 or moved the routing off for both v4 and v6 to the nearest "core" router that could handle v6 for any vlans that required the v6 capability. John van Oppen Spectrum Networks LLC 206.973.8302 (Direct) http://spectrumnetworks.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:25 AM To: John Osmon Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4 On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 MDT, John Osmon said: > > Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for > IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make > sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked > out of it rather easily. We decided to map our IPv6 subnets one-to-one to our IPv4, so each of our routed /22 to /27 subnets gets a /64 IPv6 prefix. This however was just due to the fact that our topology permitted that - your mileage may vary.

3 2

Operational Feedback Requested on Pending Standard
by Ted Seely 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

All, Below is an email sent to the IETF OPS Area mailing list soliciting feedback from operators regarding firewalls. We would also appreciate feedback from the Operators Mailing Lists. Please respond to the OPS Area mailing list if you have a position on the item below. You can subscribe to the Operations and Management Area mailing list at the URL below if you are not already subscribed. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area On behalf of the OPS Area Directors and myself, thank you. Ted - With OPS Area WG Hat On -------------------------------------------------------------- During the final review phases of the review of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-midcom-mib-09.txt the issue described below surfaced. It is actually not completely new, it was discussed in the past in a form or another, and it is not necessarily specific to this document and MIB module only, but also to other MIB modules. We believe that input from network operators can help, and we solicit this input. The MIDCOM-MIB defines tables containing firewall rules, indexed by ifIndex. ifIndex values can change when interfaces are swapped or devices reboot, and this could lead to rules being applied to the wrong interface. How do you, network operators, prefer interfaces be identified? - Is ifIndex the preferred choice even though the indices can change on reboot? - Is ifName a better choice for identifying interfaces in rules, since it is set by the device and remains fairly stable across reboots and is guaranteed to be unique? - is ifAlias a better choice, since it can be set by operators, although it is not guaranteed to be unique? We would appreciate inputs and thank you for your cooperation.

2 1

IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4
by John Osmon 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked out of it rather easily. Years ago, I worked on a academic network where we had a mix of IPX, DECnet, Appletalk, and IP(v4). Not all of the routers actually routed each protocol -- DECnet wasn't routable, and I recall some routers that routed IPX, while bridging IP... This all made sense at the time -- there were IPX networks that needed to be split, while IP didn't need to be. DECnet was... DECnet -- and Appletalk was chatty, but useful. I keep hearing the mantra in my head of: "I want my routers to route, and my switches to switch." I agree wholeheartedly if there is only one protocol -- but with the mix of IPv4 and IPv6, are there any folks doing things differently? With a new protocol in the mix are the lessons of the last 10 (or so) years not as clear-cut?

7 7

Re: Cogent latency / congestion
by Paul Ferguson 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 For what its worth: [snip] Internet service providers in the U.S. experienced a service slowdown Monday after fiber-optic cables near Cleveland were apparently sabotaged by gunfire. [snip] More: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/082107-gunplay-blamed-for-internet.ht ml - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFGyj7/q1pz9mNUZTMRAo/yAJ0X199ex+1fWEp6PW8fKwTkhJKvOwCeMQmA rD+mWO/IT94i9kt7u6Ls/q4= =rGFI -----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/

12 15

ICMP being dropped between Global Crossings and Onvoy
by Brian Raaen 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

I have a network (AS33234) I am trying to support that is downstream from Onvoy on one of their connections. Our monitoring equipment is located in AS4452. Our monitoring system is not able to ping their network through Onvoy. The block seems to be happening at either Global Crossings or Onvoy. We are able to reach them using any protocol other than an ICMP ping (We are able to traceroute). Does anyone else know about or see a similar block going on. I have attached part of a traceroute. 2 suwC6.gig3-1-4.qualitytech.com (216.154.207.145) [AS 20141] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec 3 suw04-gig1-0-0.qualitytech.com (216.154.207.173) [AS 20141] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 4 gig6-2.suwangaeq01w.cr.deltacom.net (66.35.174.165) [AS 6983] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 5 * * * 6 pos5-0.atlngapk22w.cr.deltacom.net (66.35.174.101) [AS 6983] 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 7 so-0-0-0.ar3.DAL1.gblx.net (64.208.169.141) [AS 3549] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 8 so1-0-0-622M.ar2.MIN1.gblx.net (67.17.71.34) [AS 3549] 44 msec 44 msec 44 msec 9 WBS-CONNECT-LLC-Minneapolis.ge-2-3-0.409.ar2.MIN1.gblx.net (64.215.81.82) [AS 3549] 44 msec 44 msec 44 msec 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 WikstromTel-7003.onvoy.net (137.192.32.30) [AS 5006] 52 msec 52 msec 56 msec -- Brian Raaen Network Engineer braaen(a)zcorum.com

1 0

Re: equinix dc2 contact
by Randy Bush 26 Aug '07

26 Aug '07

thanks! verio noc beat you to it. but thanks! randy

1 0

equinix dc2 contact
by Randy Bush 26 Aug '07

26 Aug '07

anyone have a phone contact number for equinix ashburn dc2? i am in tokyo and a box in dc2 needs an attitude adjustment. thanks. randy

1 0