- Test - lists.nanog.org

YIPES outage in San Diego?
by Philip Lavine 19 Jun '08

19 Jun '08

1 0

Level 3 / Time Warner problem in Columbus OH?
by Peter Pauly 19 Jun '08

19 Jun '08

Time Warner is reporting to me that their provider, Level 3 is having problems in Columbus OH that is affecting several large midwest cities. Anyone have more details?

6 5

Wifi access problem: control session time and accounting accuracy
by Joe Shen 19 Jun '08

19 Jun '08

hi, we provide Wifi access to customers. The basic system architecture is, customer get IP address using DHCP, but BAS limit customer access to special IP address block before customer log in. Customer log in at portal page, where policy server get username/passwed and authenticate by sending radius packets to AAA server. We use Redback NPM with SE800 and Juniper C2k with E1440. We met two problem : 1. Could we control customer session time according to radius authentication echo message ( Session-timeout )? it seems redback could not translate Session-timeout to its internal control policy. 2. How could we track customer status ? we noticed some people leave hotspot without log out explicitly disconnect. There leave a lot of open session record on radius server, because no Accouting-Off packet received. Is there any mechanism we could use to detect cliet status in Wifi environment ? ( e.g. PPPOE keepalive message ) thanks in advance . Joe Try cool new emoticons, skins, plus more space for friends. Download Yahoo! Messenger Singapore now! http://sg.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

P2P agents for software distribution - saving the WAN from meltdown?!?
by Netfortius 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Has anybody used (and been successful at) a bit-torrent-like agent for fast distribution of LEGAL software (install programs of large-DVD size), across multiple sites, all over the globe, with bad WAN connectivity? I have read a couple of references online (e.g. http://torrentfreak.com/university-uses-utorrent-080306/) about such, but I am a little reluctant to do it in a corporate environment, especially in the light of potential misuse of such ... unless finding a way to install, use and remove the P2P agent, all in one shot ... catch 22, sort of (distributing the P2P agent, that is :)) ... Stefan P.S. If inappropriate for this mailing list, I apologize - but the "long fat pipe" thread gave me the idea to ask here, vs. sysadmin-like lists, as the potential for network impact is my primary concern.

13 13

Re: P2P agents for software distribution - saving the WAN from meltdown?!?
by Laird Popkin 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

To address the original question, there are several p2p companies focusing on optimizing p2p for internal distribution of software and rich media. In particular, Kontiki and Ignite both offer such services, and between the two have many of the Fortune 1000 as customers (Coke, Bank of America, Accenture, McDonalds, Canon, Burger King, etc.). Their systems manage not just the (p2p) physical delivery of the bits, but also the enterprise management aspects (e.g. sending the right versions of the right software to the right desktops, managing data flow in a way that works well on a corporate LAN, security, running the installs/upgrades, etc.). Addressing the Revision3 comment in the thread, I don't think that the "RIAA and similar organizations" had any problem with Revision3 using the BitTorrent protocol, but with them running an (inadvertently) open Tracker that was hosting 250K pirate torrents. The "attack" was pretty clearly a MediaDefender software bug in their code that monitors pirate torrents, multiplied by the large number of servers that they run, which unfortunately kicked in over a holiday weekend when nobody was around to fix it. Once MediaDefender was notified of the problem, Revision3 said that it was fixed quickly. So while you may not like what MediaDefender does for a living, it doesn't look like they were trying to DDOS Revision3 for using p2p protocols. - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blaine Fleming" <groups(a)digital-z.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:20:28 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: Re: P2P agents for software distribution - saving the WAN from meltdown?!? Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Netfortius <netfortius(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Has anybody used (and been successful at) a bit-torrent-like agent for fast >> distribution of LEGAL software (install programs of large-DVD size), across >> multiple sites, all over the globe, with bad WAN connectivity? I have read a >> couple of references online (e.g. >> http://torrentfreak.com/university-uses-utorrent-080306/) about such, but I >> am a little reluctant to do it in a corporate environment, especially in the >> light of potential misuse of such ... unless finding a way to install, use >> and remove the P2P agent, all in one shot ... catch 22, sort of (distributing >> the P2P agent, that is :)) ... >> > > revision3.com > And we saw how it worked out for Revision3.com. MediaDefender considered them illegal and launched a Denial of Service attack against them over Memorial Day weekend. P2P is considered illegal and wrong by people with lots of money and that makes it hard to use for legitimate services. Because MediaDefender is backed by the RIAA and similar organizations they seem to be immune to prosecution. However, if *I* did the same thing then I know I would be locked up right now. --Blaine

1 0

[NANOG-announce] Reminder - NANOG PC tool is accepting presentations for both NANOG 44 & 45
by Ren Provo 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Hi folks, As mentioned in the NANOG Program Committee call minutes, posted at http://www.nanog.org/pc.nanog44_minutes.html, we are currently accepting presentations for both NANOG44 and NANOG45. Several abstracts have been received for the October meeting and we are going to assume they are intended for NANOG44. Please clearly mark submissions if NANOG45 is your intention. Our next call is scheduled for early July so keep the submissions, and promised slides for those with abstracts in the tool at present, flowing. Thanks! -Ren, on behalf of the NANOG Program Committee _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story
by ops.lists＠gmail.com 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Another legacy /16, after the previous one - the sf bay packet radio /16 http://www.47-usc-230c2.org/chapter3.html This time 128.168/16 - and by the same group that seems to have acquired control of the earlier one. --srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

8 8

SMTP no-such-user issues
by Steve Bertrand 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Hi everyone, We are experiencing an issue in regards to SMTP MTA relay responses regarding 'no such user', and it *apparently* appears to be only occurring when a particular site attempts to deliver email to us. Any advice on how to further troubleshoot my issue would be greatly appreciated. I want to keep this as brief as possible...please bear with me. We have a cluster of Barracuda Spam Firewalls operating as an SMTP server/client to a cluster of Qmail MTA/MDA's (with CHKUSR in place). In short, a user from Sympatico (which now delivers via Hotmail) sends an email to a list of addresses at our domain in which only a single one of those addresses is bad, a response is sent back to the Sympatico client advising that ALL the destination addresses were bad, which is not the case. It doesn't matter whether the recipients were listed in the RCPT field, or within the DATA field as Cc: or Bcc:. This is a nightmare on the helpdesk. When I attempt to simulate the issue from ANY other mail system that I've tested (my own personal, GMail etc, etc), the legitimate addresses receive the message, and the relay agent in question in the test scenario sends back a 551 for ONLY the invalid recip, as opposed to including even the valid recips. Although it has not been yet completely verified via logs that the client SMTP server sends a QUIT before verifying all of the addresses, it certainly appears thus far that all of the addresses are put through the standard verification stages prior to DATA and then gives up, even if the invalid recipient is the last one passed to our system. Can anyone else provide advise on how to further troubleshoot this, or for those who live in my part of North America (Toronto), test it for themselves who have MTA bounce-no-recip in place, that have access to the Hotmail mail system (I've confirmed the exact same problem exists (the 551 is very near identical) from a web-based Hotmail address as well as Sympatico). Examples of logs and bounces can be provided if necessary. Thanks, Steve

3 9

AS Numbers registry updated
by Leo Vegoda 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Hi, This is to let you know that we have updated the AS Numbers registry in cooperation with the RIRs. It now shows which RIR currently provides Whois service for an AS Number instead of the RIR to which the AS Number was originally allocated. The updated registry is now over 2000 lines long but the format has not changed. In addition to the current format, the AS Numbers registry will be made available in XML during July. The updated registry will shortly be available at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers Kind regards, Leo Vegoda IANA

1 0

PPPoE over L2TP over GigE questions
by Jean-François Mezei 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but I would need to know how packets between a BAS/LAC and an ISP's router are transported (this is within Bell Canada ADSL territory). Bell uses L2TP to link each BAS/LAC to the ISP. Some of the ISPs get a Gigabit Ethernet link to the Bell cloud. Would the L2TP payload be an ethernet packet which contains a PPPoE packet, or would the L2TP payload be the PPPoE packet only ? Also, while I am at it: Architecturally, is a BAS considered a router, or a bridge/switch ? (since the PPPoE packet has no routing information (source, destination), it is the BAS which maintains the table of source/destination for each PPPoE session ID. Yet, the BAS machines are supposedly Juniper ERX routers in Bell territory... And while I am at it: >From the end user point of view, the ADSL modem sends all ATM frames to a predetermined ATM destination (VPI/VCI). I assume that VPI/VCI points to the BAS. How does the BAS address ATM packets back to an individual subscriber ? Do each subscribers get their own VPI/VCI that points to the right port on the right DSLAM ? And in cases where the telcos are extending the ethernet to the DSLAM, with the fragmentation into multiple ATM frames limited to the ADSL link itself, how does the BAS address invididual customers ? Does each ADSL port on the DSLAM get its own ethernet address ? (since some services do not use PPPoE, I have to assume that the DSLAM doesn't base its packet switching on PPPoE session IDs.)

5 6