October 2008 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Network topology
by Colin Alston 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

Hi all I'm considering trying to come up with some means to automatically detect a networks topology and draw pretty pictures. This is somewhat boring though if a network isn't well arranged with VLANs and q-tag trunk routers and so on (It will just look like a big cloud of junk connected off an assumed switch). Is there any kind of cunning trick to detect standard layer2 switches along a path without stuff like STP?

9 12

Inventory and workflow management systems
by vijay gill 26 May '13

26 May '13

What software solution do people use for inventory management for things like riser/conduit drawdown, fiber inventory, physical topology store, CLR/DLR, x-connect, contracts, port inventory, etc. Any experiences in integrating workflow into those packages for work orders, modeling, drawdown levels, etc. /vijay

10 13

The DDOS problem & security BOF: Am i mistaken?
by Scott Doty 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

First, the good news: so far, the NANOG conference has been very valuable and content-rich, covering a lot of issues that need to be discussed. For that, I am grateful. But now, the bad news(?): Maybe it's just me & my paranoia, but do I detect an inkling of "murk spam" going on with some presentations? Because there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding, either on my part, or the part of certain vendors: I'm hear to discuss ideas & freely share them, and they are here to discuss (it would seem) their products. Sometimes both goals coincide, and that is fine...but... When a vendor at the security BOF starts showing documents that are "company confidential", and trying to whip up a climate of fear, that we should all deploy their product in front of our recursive name servers, i get this funny feeling that I am being "murk spammed". Perhaps that is my own perspective (& paranoia?), but I found the CERT gentleman's call to monitor icmp backscatter on our authoritative nameservers far more informative -- and open. But I was disappointed with two vendors and their presentations: the first had the tactic of saying "DNSSEC is the actual solution" when asked about why their product would be necessary...completely ignoring the fact that their proprietary "interim solution" was by no means the only way to prevent cache poisoning attacks. Indeed, I would daresay it isn't the best, either by a BCP perspective, or a cost analysis perspective. To put a finer point on this, i should say that i found myself discomforted by a presentation suggesting that I should put their proprietary appliances between my recursive name servers & the Net, and I am grateful that Mr. Vixie stood up and said that there are other ways of dealing with the problem. Then there was the gentleman with the DDOS detection/mitigation appliance, who flipped through several graphs, which were intended to show the number of each type of attack. It's unfortunate that there wasn't more time for questions, because I really wanted to ask why "http GET" and "spidering" attacks weren't listen on their graphs...more on that in a second. Fortunately, said vendor had a table at "beer and gear", so I was able to talk with one of their representatives -- and learned that they have just as much trouble with automatic detection of attacks designed to look like a "slashdotting"...which cleared up the mystery as to why it wasn't on the graphs. Because this is a real problem: anybody, with sufficient knowledge & preparation can vandalize _anybody's_ network. Showing me a graph that ping floods happen all the time doesn't impress me -- what would impress me is going over the actual methods, algorithms (and heuristics?) used in these attack mitigation appliances. Because, the "best" attack mitigation appliance vendor would seem to have 100% of their market, and thus, charge exhorbant prices for their product(s). When I brought this up with Mr. Vendor, his first reaction was to point out that the cost was less than a home-grown solution. When I raised the question of open source software to do the same thing, his reaction was to ask: "oh? who's going to write it?" And that right there would seem to be a bit of bravado, perhaps fueled by a misunderstanding of the role that FOSS has played on the Net. Fortunately -- and again, I am grateful for this -- the ISC was represented in the security BOF, presenting the SIE concept...as well as what applications _already exist_ to detect and mitigate various attacks. One demonstration that blew me away: detecting a botnet being set up for a phishing attack...and preventing the attack before it even started. So in conclusion, I'll say this: the last NANOG I attended was NANOG 9 -- and i remember that being a more challenging environment for vendors. Probably the biggest problem discussed back then was head-of-line blocking on a vendor's switches. _That_ is the kind of content that i have found valuable, both on this list, and at a conference. And so: If I weren't so knock-kneed in public venues, I would probably be doing what i would like to call on conference participants to do: if someone gives a presentation that includes their own proprietary black-box "solution", I think the best benefit for NANOG would be to point out alternatives. -Scott p.s. sorry for the long post.

17 22

Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?
by Nelson Lai 03 Nov '08

03 Nov '08

Why do some companies like Cogent get depeered relatively often and companies like Teleglobe don't even get talked about and operate in silence free from depeering? -- Hyundai to launch the i20 in India. Catch the exclusive preview on ZigWheels.com http://www.zigwheels.com/b2cam/newsDetails.action?name=Emb11_20080731&path=…

20 27

Peering - Benefits?
by Paul Stewart 03 Nov '08

03 Nov '08

Hi there... I'm in a meeting next week to discuss settlement-free peering etc..... always an interesting time. A push is on (by myself) to get into other physical locations and participate on the peering exchanges. Besides costs, what other factors are benefits to peering? I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of appealing reasons etc. such as: -control over routing between networks -security aspect (being able to filter/verify routes to some degree) -latency/performance Just looking for other positive ideas etc...;) Cheers! Paul ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."

20 39

Another driver for v6?
by Steven M. Bellovin 03 Nov '08

03 Nov '08

According to http://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2008/10/28/28idg-10-best-feature.html Windows 7 will have a cool feature called DirectAccess that "requires deploying IPv6 and IPsec". I know nothing more of this feature than is in the article, but if accurate it may create a client-centric demand for v6, i.e., desirable new functionality that isn't available on v4. Of course, Windows 7 will have to ship first, and then get deployed in the enterprise... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

21 33

RE: Sprint / Cogent
by Nick Hilliard 01 Nov '08

01 Nov '08

>>The most interesting part of the press release to me is: > >>In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides service, >>Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is unable to >>connect to Cogent's customers a free 100 megabit per second connection to >>the Internet for as long as Sprint continues to keep this partitioning of >>the Internet in place. Unfortunately, there is no way that Cogent can do >>the same for the wireless customers of Sprint-Nextel. > > This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the > same thing when Level3 depeered them. And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint. Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts: The loudest has the final say, The wanton win, the rash hold sway, The realist's rules of order say The drunken driver has the right of way. Nick

17 21

BBC Contact
by hamster＠twistedfaith.co.uk 31 Oct '08

31 Oct '08

Hello, If there is anyone from the BBC ip/peering dept here, please could they contact me offlist concerning a problem we have? Thanks, Chris

2 1

Re: Sprint / Cogent
by Brandon Butterworth 31 Oct '08

31 Oct '08

> So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Karma. brandon

1 0

Deadline extension: ICNS 2009 + 1st Workshop LMPCNAP | April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain
by Jaime Lloret Mauri 31 Oct '08

31 Oct '08

Note that the deadline for ICNS 2009 + 1st Workshop LMPCNAP has been extended to November 10. We would like to make ICNS 2009 a primary reference event. Please consider to contribute to and/or forward to the appropriate groups the following opportunity to submit and publish original scientific results. Please note that extended versions of highly ranked papers will be invited for journals submission. Full contributions are expected by the submission deadline. =========== ICNS 2009 + 1st Workshop LMPCNAP | Call for Papers =========== CALL FOR PAPERS, TUTORIALS, PANELS - ICNS 2009, The Fifth International Conference on Networking and Services April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain General page: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/ICNS09.html Call for Papers: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPICNS09.html - The first International Workshop on Learning Methodologies and Platforms used in the Cisco Networking Academy Program (CNAP), LMPCNAP 2009 will be held during ICNS 2009 in April 21-25, 2009 - Valencia, Spain General page: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/LMPCNAP.html Important deadlines: Submission (full paper) November 10, 2008 Authors notification December 5, 2008 Registration December 20, 2008 Camera ready December 25, 2008 Submissions will be peer-reviewed, published by IEEE CS Press, posted in IEEE Digital Library, and indexed with the major indexes. Extended versions of selected papers will be published in IARIA Journals: http://www.iariajournals.org Please note the Poster Forum special submission with on progress and challenging ideas. ICNS 2009 Area Tracks are the following (details in the CfP on site): ENCOT: Emerging Network Communications and Technologies COMAN: Network Control and Management SERVI: Multi-technology service deployment and assurance NGNUS: Next Generation Networks and Ubiquitous Services MPQSI: Multi Provider QoS/SLA Internetworking GRIDNS: Grid Networks and Services EDNA: Emergency Services and Disaster Recovery of Networks and Applications IPv6DFI: Deploying the Future Infrastructure IPDy: Internet Packet Dynamics GOBS: GRID over Optical Burst Switching Networks ================================= - ICNS General Chair Jaime Lloret Mauri, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain - ICNS 2009 Industry Chairs Kevin Y Ung, Boeing, USA Leo Lehmann, OFCOM, Switzerland Francisco Javier S�nchez, Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF), Spain - ICNS 2009 Technical Program Committee Chair Giancarlo Fortino, Universit� della Calabria, Italy Salvador Sales, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain Feng Xia, Queensland University of Technology, Australia / Zhejiang University, China - ICNS Advisory Chairs Wojciech Burakowski, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland Vicente Casares, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain Petre Dini, Cisco Systems, Inc., USA / Concordia University, Canada Xiaohua Jia, City University of Hong Kong - Kowloon, Hong Kong Manuel Sierra-P�rez, Universidad Polit�cnica de Madrid, Spain - LMPCNAP 2009 General Chair Rafael Tomas, Mediterranean Cisco Academy Training Center (CATC), Spain - LMPCNAP 2009 Technical Program Commitee chair Prof. Tomeu Serra, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain ================================

1 0