July 2009 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Data Center QoS equipment breaking http 1.1?
by up＠3.am 01 Aug '09

01 Aug '09

Sorry if this is a little OT, but we're seeing a serious problem and was wondering if it is what I think it is. In short: I have been moving services off of our servers in a data center onto a server at eSecuredata, who rents dedicated servers. The idea is to lower costs and eliminate having to deal with hardware. The advertise "unmetered bandwidth", but mention QoS measure to control "bandwidth hogs". One of my customers, whose site I just moved from a unique IP virtual host on my old server onto an Apache NameVirtualHost on the new one, worked fine at first. Then today, they started complaining about getting one of our home pages. I figured DNS or web caching issues, until I started seeing it for myself. It was no caching issue, it was NameVirtualHost breaking. I poured over my configs (I've done this config countless times), and saw this in the apache docs: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/name-based.html " Some operating systems and network equipment implement bandwidth management techniques that cannot differentiate between hosts unless they are on separate IP addresses." So, I installed lynx on the server, and sure enough, it worked perfectly fine there, just not from anywhere outside eSecuredata's network that I could see. Can anyone shed any light on this particular practice, of this company in particular? thanks James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up(a)3.am http://3.am =========================================================================

4 6

XO - a Tier 1 or not?
by Charles Mills 01 Aug '09

01 Aug '09

Trying to sort through the marketecture and salesman speak and get a definitive answer. I figure the NANOGers would be able to give me some input. Is XO Communications a Tier 1 ISP? I'd say no based on all research and googling that I've done but they seem to meet some of the criteria (some != all and therefore not Tier 1). Any help here? Thanks as always. Chuck

7 8

BGP Update Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 31 Jul '09

31 Jul '09

BGP Update Report Interval: 23-Jul-09 -to- 30-Jul-09 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS9198 96435 8.3% 291.3 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 2 - AS8452 24062 2.1% 31.4 -- TEDATA TEDATA 3 - AS22783 18285 1.6% 3047.5 -- WEBPOWER - WebPower, Inc. 4 - AS47408 14767 1.3% 703.2 -- MANDARIN-AS Mandarin WIMAX Sicilia SpA 5 - AS1659 12463 1.1% 132.6 -- ERX-TANET-ASN1 Tiawan Academic Network (TANet) Information Center 6 - AS35805 10796 0.9% 32.8 -- UTG-AS United Telecom AS 7 - AS21491 9693 0.8% 807.8 -- UTL-ON-LINE UTL On-line is RF broadband ISP in Uganda - Africa 8 - AS15491 7947 0.7% 111.9 -- WANEX-AS Wanex ltd. 9 - AS7011 7718 0.7% 35.1 -- FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS - Frontier Communications of America, Inc. 10 - AS14571 7714 0.7% 68.9 -- Internet Group do Brasil 11 - AS44083 6712 0.6% 30.8 -- STROIBAT-AS SC Stroibat Prod SRL 12 - AS8151 6657 0.6% 6.1 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V. 13 - AS5668 6631 0.6% 8.1 -- AS-5668 - CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc. 14 - AS17488 6586 0.6% 5.3 -- HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over Cable Internet 15 - AS33783 6570 0.6% 41.1 -- EEPAD 16 - AS8485 6530 0.6% 1088.3 -- SAMSC-AS SamSC RAS 17 - AS11 6453 0.6% 430.2 -- HARVARD - Harvard University 18 - AS7738 5922 0.5% 15.8 -- Telecomunicacoes da Bahia S.A. 19 - AS5050 5918 0.5% 1183.6 -- PSC-EXT - Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center 20 - AS12479 5845 0.5% 27.2 -- UNI2-AS Uni2 Autonomous System TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS22783 18285 1.6% 3047.5 -- WEBPOWER - WebPower, Inc. 2 - AS47640 1401 0.1% 1401.0 -- TRICOMPAS Tricomp Sp. z. o. o. 3 - AS38548 3938 0.3% 1312.7 -- INFRATEL-AS-ID-AP Network Access Point 4 - AS5050 5918 0.5% 1183.6 -- PSC-EXT - Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center 5 - AS25546 3443 0.3% 1147.7 -- BROOKLANDCOMP-AS Brookland Computer Services 6 - AS40060 2274 0.2% 1137.0 -- AAAWI - AAA Wireless, Inc. 7 - AS8485 6530 0.6% 1088.3 -- SAMSC-AS SamSC RAS 8 - AS46847 4210 0.4% 842.0 -- ENGINEYARD-1 - Engine Yard, Inc. 9 - AS21491 9693 0.8% 807.8 -- UTL-ON-LINE UTL On-line is RF broadband ISP in Uganda - Africa 10 - AS6671 798 0.1% 798.0 -- SAMARA-IP NETWORK FOR RESEARCH, 11 - AS35400 1476 0.1% 738.0 -- MFIST Interregoinal Organization Network Technologies 12 - AS4628 1445 0.1% 722.5 -- ASN-PACIFIC-INTERNET-IX Pacific Internet Ltd 13 - AS47408 14767 1.3% 703.2 -- MANDARIN-AS Mandarin WIMAX Sicilia SpA 14 - AS18829 657 0.1% 657.0 -- GALAXY-CONTROL-SYSTEMS - Galaxy Control Systems 15 - AS7270 468 0.0% 468.0 -- NET2PHONE - Net2Phone Corp. 16 - AS11032 460 0.0% 460.0 -- UQ - Universite du Quebec a Quebec 17 - AS11 6453 0.6% 430.2 -- HARVARD - Harvard University 18 - AS35103 364 0.0% 364.0 -- ILLUSTRA-AS AS Illustra 19 - AS29850 361 0.0% 361.0 -- MHN-AS - Memorial Healthcare 20 - AS43026 359 0.0% 359.0 -- IMPOL-AS Impol Sp. z o.o. TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 92.46.244.0/23 10507 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 2 - 89.218.218.0/23 10486 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 3 - 89.218.220.0/23 10484 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 4 - 95.59.8.0/23 10473 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 5 - 95.59.4.0/22 10472 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 6 - 95.59.3.0/24 10471 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 7 - 95.59.2.0/23 10469 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 8 - 88.204.221.0/24 10336 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 9 - 95.59.1.0/24 10304 0.8% AS9198 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom Corporate Sales Administration 10 - 41.233.94.0/23 8496 0.7% AS8452 -- TEDATA TEDATA 11 - 41.233.92.0/23 8387 0.7% AS8452 -- TEDATA TEDATA 12 - 63.163.66.0/24 6803 0.5% AS22783 -- WEBPOWER - WebPower, Inc. 13 - 205.246.203.0/24 6801 0.5% AS22783 -- WEBPOWER - WebPower, Inc. 14 - 72.23.246.0/24 5874 0.5% AS5050 -- PSC-EXT - Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center 15 - 65.212.89.0/24 4641 0.4% AS22783 -- WEBPOWER - WebPower, Inc. 16 - 203.190.47.0/24 3943 0.3% AS17670 -- INFOKOM-AS PT. Infokom Elektrindo AS38548 -- INFRATEL-AS-ID-AP Network Access Point 17 - 193.201.184.0/21 3434 0.3% AS25546 -- BROOKLANDCOMP-AS Brookland Computer Services 18 - 192.12.120.0/24 2670 0.2% AS5691 -- MITRE-AS-5 - The MITRE Corporation 19 - 200.78.218.32/27 2325 0.2% AS6503 -- Avantel, S.A. 20 - 85.60.208.0/21 2324 0.2% AS12479 -- UNI2-AS Uni2 Autonomous System Details at http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)apops.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0

Happy Sysadmin Day
by Andrew Euell 31 Jul '09

31 Jul '09

Happy Sysadmin Day nanog'ers. Thank you for keeping the internet running! http://www.sysadminday.com/ -- Andrew Euell andyzweb [at] gmail [dot] com

5 5

RE: OT: Voice Operators' Group forming
by Carlos Alcantar 31 Jul '09

31 Jul '09

How's the startup of the list looking? -----Original Message----- From: Chris Meidinger [mailto:cmeidinger@sendmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:42 PM To: Jason LeBlanc Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: OT: Voice Operators' Group forming On 29.07.2009, at 22:52, Jason LeBlanc wrote: > Brandon Butterworth wrote: >>> NAVOG works for me. >>> >> >> I'd prefer Voice Operators' Group Online Network >> >> brandon >> >> > *claps* Imagine the poetry you have to listen to when _those_ guys put you on hold...

2 1

Ahoy, SLA boffins!
by Bill Woodcock 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

So I've embarked on the no-doubt-futile task of trying to interpret SLAs as empirically-verifiable technical specifications, rather than as marketing blather. And there's something that I'm finding particularly puzzling: In most SLAs, there seem to be two separate guarantees proffered: one concerning "network availability" and one concerning "packet loss." Now, if I were to put my engineer hat on, and try to _imagine_ what the difference might be, I might imagine "network availability" to have something to do with layer-2 link status being presented as "up," while packet loss would be the percentage of packets dropped. But when I actually read SLAs, "network availability" is generally defined as the portion of the month that the path from the customer's local loop to the transit or peering routers was "available" to transmit packets. Packet loss, on the other hand, is generally defined as the portion of packets which are lost while crossing that exact same piece of network. Now, what am I missing here? Is this one of those Heisenberg things, where "network availability" is the time the network _could have_ delivered a packet _when you weren't actually doing so_, while "packet loss" is the time the network _couldn't_ deliver a packet when you _were_ actually doing so? Is "network availability" inherently unmeasurable on a network that's less than 100% utilized? Am I over-thinking this? Seriously, though, I know there are people who don't consider SLAs to be fantasy-fiction, and some of them must not be innumerate, and some subset of those must be on NANOG, and the intersection set might be equal to or greater than one, right? Can anybody explain this to me in a way I can translate into code, while still taking myself seriously? -Bill

12 14

Subnet Size for BGP peers.
by Jim Wininger 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

I have a question about the subnet size for BGP peers. Typically when we turn up a new BGP customer we turn them up on a /29 or a /30. That seems to be the "norm". We connect to many of our BGP peers with ethernet. It would be a simple matter to allocate a /24 for connectivity to the customer on a shared link. This would help save on some address space. My question is, is this in general good or bad idea? Have others been down this path and found that it was a bad idea? I can see some of the pothols on this path (BGP session hijacking, incorrectly configured customer routers etc). These issues could be at least partially mitigated. Are there larger issues when doing something like this or is it a practical idea? -- Jim Wininger -- Jim Wininger jbotctc(a)gmail.com

9 9

Re: sat-3 cut?
by Warren Bailey 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

Article said 2 weeks. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rod Beck <Rod.Beck(a)hiberniaatlantic.com> To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com>; North American Network Operators Group <nanog(a)merit.edu>; AfNOG <afnog(a)afnog.org> Sent: Thu Jul 30 04:14:15 2009 Subject: RE: sat-3 cut? I wonder how long it will take to get a ship there ... Regards, Roderick S. Beck Director of European Sales Hibernia Atlantic -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Thu 7/30/2009 1:10 PM To: North American Network Operators Group; AfNOG Subject: sat-3 cut? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8176014.stm

1 0

caches for peer-to-peer trafic
by Murtaza 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

Hey guys, I wanted to ask that if ISPs use any kind of caching system for peer-to-peer traffic? It seems to be difficult thing to do, though there is some research going on (including me). However, I wanted to ask about the practices being used by ISPs and I suppose this is the best audience to ask such a question. Thanks and regards, Ghulam Murtaza PhD Student, Lahore University of Management Sciences

2 1

Open Source / Low Cost NMS for Server Hardware / Application Monitoring
by Matthew Huff 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

I apologize for not starting a new thread before, I didn't realize that the nanog mailing list created a thread-index rather than using the subject. Even though NANOG is primarily for network operators, I know that a number of members work in NOCs where there is also monitoring of servers/applications. I would appreciate it if anyone has suggestions about monitoring systems that would be applicable to our environment. We have a large number of custom applications on a large number of hosts including Windows 2003/2008, Linux x86/x86_64 and Solaris Sparc/x86_64. We are looking for a better way of monitoring our environment. We are looking for recommendations for opensource or low-cost. We would prefer solutions where the basic monitoring is ready out of the box. Native agents with custom scripting would be highly desired (rather than SNMP/DMI/WMI polling). Some of our requirements: . Native agents for Windows 2003/2008, Linux, Linux x86_64, Solaris Sparc and Solaris x86_64. Either binaries or source code. . Ability to send alerts via email, pager and/or snmp . Monitoring of OS properties like memory, disk, cpu, etc... . Ability to extend agents with scripting to allow monitoring of custom services . Plug-in architecture for third-party add-ons . Reliable Architecture . Reasonable user interface . Non-blocking polling . Active Project (New Releases on regular basis and have existed for a reasonable period) Based on our research and feedback from NANOG, we have put a preliminary list of product to evaluate: Hyperic http://www.hyperic.com/ OpenNMS http://www.opennms.org/wiki/Main_Page opsview http://www.opsview.org/ osimius http://www.osmius.net/en/ PandoraFMS http://pandorafms.org/ Zabbix http://www.zabbix.com/ Groundwork http://www.groundworkopensource.com/ Nagios http://www.nagios.org Zenoss http://zenoss.com OpManager http://www.manageengine.com Orion http://www.solarwinds.com/products/orion/ BigBrother http://bb4.com/ Argus http://argus.tcp4me.com/ Xymon http://www.xymon.com Spiceworks http://www.spiceworks.com/ ICINGA http://www.icinga.org ---- Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139

10 9