October 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

SP / Enterprise design (dis)similarities
by Tom Lanyon 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Hi all, Looking for some advice or experience in a small enterprise / hosting provider context. There's plenty of BCP information around for SPs in the network design realm, and I'm curious how much of this applies to enterprises too. Commonly advised items like: * pull-up statics created on core devices, not network border devices * using iBGP to carry customer prefixes, not an IGP * announcing defaults over iBGP or IGP In some cases I imagine it may be simpler to have all BGP finish at the network border devices and not have to worry about running both IGP and iBGP sessions inwards to the core and/or aggregation devices. I understand the limitations of putting our Internet prefixes in an IGP, but for a hosting provider style network where everything is ethernet connected and within data centres there's much less route flapping to deal with (there's no bouncing DSL lines, for example). In the case that there is both iBGP and IGP running internally, is there any reason to choose one or the other to originate a default route to our aggregation/access layers? At some point I imagine it's going to be redistributed into the IGP (or re-originated in the IGP), so would think it would be best to just always run the default in the IGP to keep things consistent. Finally - are there any reasons to avoid running next-hop-self on ibgp sessions? The upside is we get to avoid distributing all of our transit/peer upstream point to point links into the rest of the network. Again, I understand this may be undesirable from a SP perspective, but when our 'clients' are all a bunch of internal servers it makes sense to keep iBGP/IGP as clean as possible... Thanks, Tom

5 6

Fwd: [Wikitech-l] WMF Staff Announcement - Welcome Leslie Carr!
by Jay Ashworth 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

I thought you guys might be vaguely amused by this reply on the Wikimedia tech mailing list to the announcement of Leslie Carr's move to the organization from Twitter: ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: "Ashar Voultoiz" <hashar+wmf(a)free.fr> > To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:19:19 PM > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] WMF Staff Announcement - Welcome Leslie Carr! > On 10/10/11 18:52, CT Woo wrote: > > Technical Operations department is pleased to announce another new fabulous > > staff member to its team. Please join us to welcome Leslie Carr, our > > Network Operations Engineer, starting today, 10/10/11. She is based > > in San Francisco office. > > leslie@life# configure exclusive > delete bgp group Employer peer-as 13414 > set bgp group Employer peer-as 14907 > leslie@life# commit > > Welcome! > > -- > Ashar Voultoiz Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

1 0

nanog53 network status
by Anton Kapela 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Attendees, At present, we're aware of several issues affecting access to the NANOG attendee network -- in short, they include: -Apparent 'lumping' of iDevices, picking 11b/g channels of "1" and "6" (while channel 11 AP's sid idly by); adjusting additional AP's power and channel configuration to perturb this sub-optimal client selection logic. -AP's were permitting all frame bitrates (1 through 54 mbit encodings); these have been adjusted to include 5.5 mbits (cck, b) and 12 mbits (ofdm, g) encodings or greater (this reduces transmission duty cycles, frees up airtime, reduces contention, and hopefully performs better). -DHCP timer was set at 600 seconds; I'm informed that the lease time was increased to 3600 seconds at ~10:30AM PST today. Please relay any outstanding issues my way--I'll route to Verilan, which is handling the network and wireless support for the meeting. Best, -Tk

4 4

Re: new guest room SSID for NANOG
by Lucy Lynch 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > >> Very nice. I wonder if this is an option we could try to use in future >> meetings. It makes sense, really, since we already have decent connectivity >> for the conference areas, and we wouldn't be destroying the hotel's outside >> connection (only their WiFi ;-) ) > > > With enough leverage in the contracting process, you may be able to > get them to agree to allow such (particularly since it can be next > to impossible to get a configuration clueful person involved early > in the process...) > > Whether they can actually deliver (i.e. do they have any control > over their own wireless network, any onsite staff that actually > knows networking, etc.) plus the potential liability that results > from changing that configuration is entirely another matter. > > Nearly every hotel you contract with for the first time results in > a different scenario, but I agree it is worth keeping in mind for > the hotels that have competent on-site access since diverting the > hotel room traffic for conference attendees improves performance > for everyone. There was a reason the IETF kept going back to Minneapolis for meetings and it wasn't just the wild rice porridge at Hell's Kitchen. The Hilton there was extremely geek friendly and allowed us to take over both show floor and room networks. Great venue for network... - Lucy > /John > >

1 0

Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters?
by steve pirk [egrep] 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Found a decent starting reference. It was a Network solutions limit... I *knew* it! LOL http://www.123-domain-register.com/longdomainnames.htm The domain in question was inspectorgadgetthemovie.com 27 characters long including the .tld. I was off by one, the limit was 22 characters for the A record name and 4 characters for .com, .net, .org, .gov and .edu. >From the 123-domain-register web page: > The word is out... and the experts have been taking advantage of a change > in Domain Name regulations that allows up to 67 characters in domain names. > > How this will impact you: > > - > > Long domain names filled with keywords can get you ranked higher on the > search engines. (yes, the search engines will rank them) > > - > > For those who could not get a DOT.COM domain name, or were limited by > the 22 character limit, those days are over...for awhile anyway. > > - > > This revolution is driven by entrepreneurs who can act quickly. If you > do not act soon, all the good domains will be gone, and you will have to pay > premiums you do not want to in order get the domain name you want. > > Since 1993, Network Solutions has registered more than 3.4 million domain > names -- all limited to 26 characters. Now that their exclusive government > contract is ending, competitors have tossed this artificial limit and are > allowing longer names. > Cool, I was not dreaming... ;-] --steve On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 15:00, <bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 02:54:38PM -0700, steve pirk [egrep] wrote: > > I seem to recollect back the 1999 or 2000 times that I was unable to > > register a domain name that was 24 characters long. Shortly after that, I > > heard that the character limit had been increased to like 128 characters, > > and we were able to register the name. > > > > Can anyone offer some input, or is this a memory of a bad dream? > > ;-] > > > > -- Steve Pirk > > Yensid > > the foundational DNS spec sez: > > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt > > 2.3.1 > [elided] > There are also some restrictions on the length. Labels must be 63 > characters or less. > > /bill > -- steve pirk refiamerica.org "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune kexp.org member august '09

8 12

Announcement of University of Washington routing study
by Ethan Katz-Bassett 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

Hi NANOG, >From August 24 to October 4, the University of Washington and Georgia Tech will conduct an Internet routing study using AS-PATH poisoning. The study will *only* affect the Georgia Tech experimental prefix 184.164.224.0/19(and its sub-prefixes). The prefix serves *no active users/services* so the study should not affect any production prefixes or users. We plan to insert AS numbers into our announcements to route around some networks. We will always start AS-PATHs with our own ASN 47065. We will limit ourselves to at most 10 announcement changes per hour (and generally will change the announcement for a given sub-prefix at most every 90 minutes). This experiment is almost identical to one that Georgia Tech conducted in June and July without problems or complaints (http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-June/037527.html) so we do not anticipate any issues. Others have done similar studies in the past (e.g., Randy Bush et al.: http://www.psg.com/~olaf/measurements/as3130/visibility.pdf<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.psg.com/~olaf/measurements/as31…>). If, for any reason, you want us not to include your ASN in announcements for our prefix, please opt-out at any time before August 24 at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9P2TD7T . A few ASes opted out of the previous Georgia Tech study, and we will continue to honor those opt-outs. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Cheers, Ethan Katz-Bassett http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/ethan/ University of Washington

2 3

2011.10.10 NANOG53 Monday afternoon session notes
by Matthew Petach 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

Many thanks to whomever fixed the stream; post lunchtime, things worked much, much better!!! I jotted down some notes from the afternoon sessions, before the video stream was shut off for the day; notes are posted at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.10.10-nanog53-afternoon-session.txt Have fun at the socials tonight! Matt

1 0

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 53 Survey
by Betty Burke 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

Hi Everyone: Again, for those who are viewing or attending, welcome to NANOG 53. The in person attendance and the NANOG Program continue to be simply outstanding! I encourage everyone to take note of the new NANOG Survey tool. You will find a Survey links on the agenda page for many of the presentations and breaks. Your feed-back in important to the NANOG Program Committee, as well as the operational staff of NANOG. Also, please visit http://www.nanog.org/ibin/c5i?mid=8&rid=49&gid=0&k1=459, also noted on the NANOG 53 meeting page, the General Meeting Survey with an additional NOGLab Survey. We have Sponsors who have once again provided an incentive gift. Please visit the General Meeting and NOGLab surveys, share your opinions, and as a reward are eligible for the survey drawing. Gifts will be awarded on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings! If you have any questions or concerns with the process, please send them to nanog-support(a)nanog.org. All very best! Betty -- Betty Burke NewNOG/NANOG Executive Director Office (810) 214-1218 Direct (510) 492-4030 _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

2011.10.10 NANOG53 day 1 morning session notes
by Matthew Petach 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

I tried to take my usual notes from the video stream, but the quality of the stream was really bad; it kept pausing for 10 seconds, then jumping ahead on the audio, so there's big gaps that just didn't exist. :( I'm hoping the post-lunch stream will be better behaved. Posting the notes anyway, in case there's people who couldn't even get the choppy stream. Morning session notes are at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.10.10-nanog53-morning-session.txt Matt

1 0

slides
by Randy Bush 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

i can not seem to see slides for this morning on http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog53/agenda.html what am i doing wrongly? randy

2 2