- Test - lists.nanog.org

FUD: 15% of world's internet traffic hijacked
by Bob Poortinga 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

This is starting to be picked up by mainstream media, but was was first reported here (I believe): <http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=249> "Cyber Experts Have Proof That China Has Hijacked U.S.-Based Internet Traffic" "For 18 minutes in April, China.s state-controlled telecommunications company hijacked 15 percent of the world.s Internet traffic, including data from U.S. military, civilian organizations and those of other U.S. allies." This article, which quotes Dmitri Alperovitch of McAfee, is full of false data as far as I can tell. I assert that much less than 15%, probably on the order of 1% to 2% (much less in the US) was actually diverted. The correct statement is that 15% of the world's network prefixes were "hijacked", but the impact was minimal in the US. My concern is that this "report" will be presented to the US Congress without being refuted by experts in the know. My request is that someone with some gravitas please issue a press release setting the facts straight on this matter. I have been in contact with Dan Goodin at The Register but I'm just a lowly grunt with a small network. -- Bob Poortinga K9SQL <http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobpoortinga> Bloomington, Indiana US "the Internet interprets spam as noise and suppresses it"

9 12

RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
by Scott Weeks 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens... >;-) http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------- "NAT is your friend" "IP doesn’t handle addressing or multi-homing well at all" "The IETF’s proposed solution to the multihoming problem is called LISP, for Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol. This is already running into scaling problems, and even when it works, it has a failover time on the order of thirty seconds." "TCP and IP were split the wrong way" "IP lacks an addressing architecture" "Packet switching was designed to complement, not replace, the telephone network. IP was not optimized to support streaming media, such as voice, audio broadcasting, and video; it was designed to not be the telephone network." -------------------------------------------------------------- And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture: Layers are recursive." I can hear the angry hornets buzzing already. :-) scott

26 88

suggestion network devices
by adrian kok 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Hi all I need high laten cy network devices products. eg: router/switch/firewall Can you share to me? and How can I test it also? Thank you so much

1 0

Re: Want to move to all 208V for server racks
by Mark Kent 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

"Why do we install 120v instead of 208v?" was asked over a year ago either here or on cisco-nsp. It generated a long discussion, but it should have been cut short as early in the thread someone said all that had to be said: "because we are idiots." -mark

4 3

Re: AT&T to Level 3 routing issue?
by James Stahr 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

At 04:33 AM 12/2/2010, Harris Hui wrote: >Hi, > >Does anyone using AT&T seeing the routing issue to Level3? We saw some >issue with the end users using AT&T as a service provider having issue to >our upstream provider. Thanks > We saw issues with at&t last night as well. We called into Level3, but they "weren't aware of any issues". Not accepting that explanation for things, we eventually looked at Internet Health Report and saw a latency of 115ms and packet loss at 33% between at&t Chicago and Level 3 Detroit. So if anyone has more information, I'd appreciate it. thanks, -James

1 0

RE: Want to move to all 208V for server racks
by David Hubbard 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

We have run into some reasonably recent flat panel LCD's not running on 208v; we began having our colo build the new cages we order with 208v a few years ago and then found we couldn't use one of our crash carts in the newer cages until we replaced the monitor. If you're doing colo, some customers may have rack mounted LCD panels that could be an issue. And this was not a power brick monitor, straight plug. David > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Nakamura [mailto:zeusdadog@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:59 AM > To: NANOG > Subject: Want to move to all 208V for server racks > > I really want to move all newly installed internal and customer racks > over to all 208v power instead of 120v. As far as I can remember, I > can't remember any server/switch/router or any other equipment that > didn't run on 208v AC. (Other than you may need a different cable) > Anyone have any experience where some oddball equipment that couldn't > do 208v and regret going 208v? We won't have any TDM or SONET > equipment, all Ethernet switches, routers and servers. I have control > over internal equipment but sometimes customers surprises you. > > >

2 1

AT&T routing issues at 32.114.248.9 in Middletown US
by Harris Hui 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Hi, Does anyone from AT&T can contact me off the list? We experienced a routing issues at 09:07GMT to 10:18GMT. The traffics to our subnet was stopped at one the AT&T router 32.114.248.9 in Middletown US. Tracing route to 74.220.121.100 over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 9.126.177.132 2 5 ms 5 ms 3 ms 9.182.248.14 3 4 ms 3 ms 4 ms 9.182.229.20 4 6 ms 3 ms 3 ms 9.64.194.210 5 9 ms 11 ms 14 ms 9.64.194.253 6 38 ms 34 ms 40 ms 9.64.193.214 7 40 ms 35 ms 32 ms 9.64.193.179 8 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms 9.182.211.22 9 34 ms 33 ms 35 ms 9.124.118.4 10 33 ms 32 ms 33 ms 122.248.182.2 11 241 ms 169 ms 252 ms 122.248.176.50 12 32.114.248.9 reports: Destination host unreachable.

1 0

Anyone here from CSX Transportation?
by Andy Ringsmuth 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Having an issue with our mail being rejected on account of Microsoft Exchange security policies that I'd like to get resolved. --- Andy Ringsmuth andyring(a)inebraska.com

1 0

[NANOG-announce] Reminder: Today is the last day to register for NANOG 51 at the early bird rate
by David Meyer 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Register today to get the early bird rate. Looking forward to seeing you in Miami. Dave (for the NANOG PC) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

3 3

AT&T to Level 3 routing issue?
by Harris Hui 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Hi, Does anyone using AT&T seeing the routing issue to Level3? We saw some issue with the end users using AT&T as a service provider having issue to our upstream provider. Thanks Tracing route to 74.220.121.100 over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 9.126.177.132 2 5 ms 5 ms 3 ms 9.182.248.14 3 4 ms 3 ms 4 ms 9.182.229.20 4 6 ms 3 ms 3 ms 9.64.194.210 5 9 ms 11 ms 14 ms 9.64.194.253 6 38 ms 34 ms 40 ms 9.64.193.214 7 40 ms 35 ms 32 ms 9.64.193.179 8 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms 9.182.211.22 9 34 ms 33 ms 35 ms 9.124.118.4 10 33 ms 32 ms 33 ms 122.248.182.2 11 241 ms 169 ms 252 ms 122.248.176.50 12 32.114.248.9 reports: Destination host unreachable. NetRange: 32.0.0.0 - 32.255.255.255 CIDR: 32.0.0.0/8 OriginAS: NetName: ATT-32-0-0-0-A NetHandle: NET-32-0-0-0-1 Parent: NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS.DE.PRSERV.NET NameServer: NS.UK.PRSERV.NET NameServer: NS.NL.PRSERV.NET RegDate: 1990-05-30 Updated: 2009-06-19 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-32-0-0-0-1 OrgName: AT&T Global Network Services, LLC OrgId: ATGS Address: 3200 Lake Emma Road City: Lake Mary StateProv: FL PostalCode: 32746 Country: US RegDate: Updated: 2009-05-04 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/ATGS

1 0