- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]
by Laird Popkin 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

This raises an interesting issue - should optimization of p2p traffic (P4P) be based on "static" network information, or "dynamic" network information. It's certainly easier for ISP's to provide a simple network map that real-time network condition data, but the real-time data might be much more effective. Or even if it's not real-time, perhaps there could be "static" network maps reflecting conditions at different times of day? Since P4P came up, I'd like to mention that the P4P Working Group is putting together another field test, where we can quantify issues like the tradeoff between static and dynamic network data, and we would love to hear from any ISP's that would be interested in participating in that test. If you'd like the details of what it would take to participate, and what data you would get out of it, please email me. Of course, independently of the test, if you're interested in participating in the P4P Working Group, we'd love to hear from you! - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks email: laird(a)pando.com mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell(a)gmail.com> To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer(a)nic.fr> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10:28 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] Personally I consider P4P a big step forward; it's good to see Big Verizon engaging with these issues in a non-coercive fashion. Just to braindump a moment, it strikes me that it would be very useful to be able to announce preference metrics by netblock (for example, to deal with networks with varied internal cost metrics or to pref-in the CDN servers) but also risky. If that was done, client developers would be well advised to implement a check that the announcing network actually owns the netblock they are either preffing in (to send traffic via a suboptimal route/through a spook box of some kind/onto someone else's pain-point) or out (to restrict traffic from reaching somewhere); you wouldn't want a hijack, whether malicious or clue-deficient. There is every reason to encourage the use of dynamic preference. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(a)nic.fr> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:21PM +0100, > michael.dillon(a)bt.com <michael.dillon(a)bt.com> wrote > a message of 46 lines which said: > > > This is where all the algorithmic tinkering of the P2P software > > cannot solve the problem. You need a way to insert non-technical > > information about the network into the decision-making process. > > It's strange that noone in this thread mentioned P4P yet. Isn't there > someone involved in P4P at Nanog? > > http://www.dcia.info/activities/p4pwg/ > > IMHO, the biggest issue with P4P is the one mentioned by Alexander > Harrowell. After that users have been s.....d up so many times by some > ISPs, will they trust this service? > > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

6 7

[Nanog] Outlook Junk Email After Migration?
by Matthew Evans 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

Hello all, Is anyone else have a problem with the NANOG messages ending up in their Outlook Junk Email folder since the migration to nanog.org? It only seems to happen when someone replies to another post and CC's nanog(a)nanog.org rather than replying to nanog(a)nanog.org directly. If anyone else has run into this, what have you done to resolve it? Matthew Evans, MCSA Alpha Theory | "the right decision, every time." 2201 Coronation Blvd., Suite 140 Charlotte, NC 28227 www.alphatheory.com _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

3 3

[Nanog] Fwd: IANA Update: Project to convert registries to XML
by Martin Hannigan 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

Knowing that some here use this data for ops purposes.....FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:49:44 -0700 Subject: IANA Update: Project to convert registries to XML To: "ietf(a)ietf.org" <ietf(a)ietf.org> IETF Community: IANA is currently engaged in a project to convert the IETF related registries to XML to provide the community with multiple ways of viewing registry information. When conversion to XML is done, XML will become the source format for the registries and the current formats of html and plain text will be generated from the XML source. Stylesheets and schemas will also be made available together with XML. Users will be able to access the registries in new and useful ways, while still having the ability to see the registries in the original style. Part of the conversion requires IANA to "clean-up" the registries in order to fit with the XML schemas. IANA is not changing the data in the registries. IANA is cleaning up the formatting including regularizing spacing and providing consistent display of titles, references and registration procedures. For those registries that need extensive format changes, IANA will be working with the appropriate working groups and area directors to make sure that the format changes do not affect the content of the registry. Those registries that are required to be in specific formats, for example the MIBs and language subtags registries, will still be produced in the existing formats. IANA has consulted with the IETF XML directorate to make sure that the XML schemas are properly formulated. Certain decisions on schemas reflect the needs of IANA in maintaining the registries moving forward. In the coming months, cleaned-up versions of the registries will begin appearing on the IANA website. If you notice any content issues with the updated versions, or if they are not accessible, please notify IANA staff immediately and we will work with the appropriate parties to correct any inconsistencies. We look forward to providing the XML versions of the registries to better serve the community's needs. IANA will announce in advance when the registry conversion will be completed. After the conversion is complete, we intend to introduce new services such as the ability to subscribe to be notified when specific registries are updated Thank you, Michelle Cotton IANA IETF Liaison Email: michelle.cotton(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

[Nanog] [NANOG-announce] Program Committee vacancy: call for volunteers
by Todd Underwood 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

Ted Seely has decided to step down from the NANOG Program Committee. On behalf of the Program Committee, and the NANOG community as a whole, I'd like to thank Ted for his many years of service to NANOG, not just in his capacity as a member of the Program Committee, but as a presenter and active participant. The Steering Committee has directed me to solicit candidates to fill the remainder of his term, which ends with the fall 2008 meeting. As some of you know, the Program Committee is responsible for the content of the NANOG conference. It is important work and we really need a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives to make the conference relevant for conference attendees. If you ever thought that the content of a conference wasn't as good as it should be, this is your chance to step up and work to make it better. ** Procedure ** To nominate yourself or someone else, please send mail to nominate(a)nanogpc.org with the following, no later than Monday, May 5, 2008 - Your name - Nominee's name (if not you) - Nominee's email address - Nominee's phone number - Reasons why you believe the nominee is qualified to serve on the Program Committee. A committee member will contact each of the nominees to verify interest and possibly request additional information. The Steering Committee, with input from the current Program Committee, will then select the person to fill the position. ** Eligibility ** The charter states: "To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Program Committee, an individual must have attended one NANOG meeting within the prior calendar year (12 months). " ** Duties ** Again quoting the charter: "The Program Committee is responsible for motivating/soliciting people to submit interesting talks, selecting the submissions which seem most appropriate (with some attention to presentation skills), and following up with speakers after acceptances to ensure that presentations are completed in time, with ample warning of potential problems with the presentation." "Each member of the Program Committee must review all presentations submitted for each meeting. The Chair may excuse a member from one meeting's review cycle due to extenuating circumstances, but if a member misses two meetings in a row, he or she may be removed from the committee." ** Length of term ** This position is for the remainder of a two year term, which began after the Fall 2006 meeting, and ends with the Fall 2008 meeting. So, yes, this term is only for a single NANOG meeting. But this will not impact the successful candidate's ability to serve two full terms. If you have any further questions, please post to the nanog-futures list, or contact the Steering Committee at steering(a)nanog.org. Todd Underwood, Chair Program Committee [1] The full charter is available at http://www.nanog.org/charter.html -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd(a)renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

[Nanog] Crypto export restricted prefix list
by Kevin Blackham 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

Is there a prefix list available listing the IP space of cryptographic export restricted countries? My google skills are failing me. I'm required to apply a ban on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 1

Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Paul Ferguson 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Scott Weeks" <surfer(a)mauigateway.com> wrote: >I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the "Westminster >eForum" but can't find anything. > >www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx > For what it's worth, I agree with Ryan Paul's summary of the issues here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080420-analysis-att-fear-mongering-o n-net-capacity-mostly-fud.html ...but take it at face value. $.02, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDBkpq1pz9mNUZTMRAlZ1AKCehJ0/xwgXXA9RBRwuIWfcLGp+9ACfbcJw lsmtPaDeGkV5/PllhBqBV88= =z8LR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

22 37

Re: [Nanog] Crypto export restricted prefix list
by Kevin Blackham 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

Thanks for the reply. I'm aware of the limitations of this approach. For the same reasons you stated (proxy etc), I don't expect this to be foolproof or accurate. I'm only intending to satisfy a demand to "do something". We already dictate export requirements in the EULA, but we need to also attempt to block the embargoed countries. On 4/22/08, Buhrmaster, Gary <gtb(a)slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > > > Is there a prefix list available listing the IP space of cryptographic > > export restricted countries? My google skills are failing me. I'm > > required to apply a ban on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba. > > I am pretty sure that while you can get a list of IP addresses > "currently" being used, you know (as well as I do) that those > can/will change, and NAT/Proxies make it nearly impossible > to really enforce this. So while it can be something to > do, it is not going to be complete. > > I am pretty sure you need something like a "click-through" > for people to say they agree they are not citizens of those > countries, and agree not to export to them (same as Cisco > and others do). > > In any case, check with your lawyers are to the actual > acceptable practices. They are the ones who will need > to defend your company if/when the software gets to > the "evil-doers" (and it will, if they want it, and > we all know it), and someone decides you should have > done more and decides to sue. > > (The ITAR (and equivalent) restriction laws are complex, > and you want to make sure you get it right, since you > do not want to be the "designated felon" as our lawyers > likes to call the guy who is responsible for compliance > and will be the one the feds go after if the software > or information gets to the "wrong" groups. So, make > sure someone else is the "designated felon".) > > Gary > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

[Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Scott Francis 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue streams attached to them ... -- darkuncle(a){gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

14 14

Re: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets
by John van Oppen (list account) 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

I know I have experienced the engineering department there as well, the best one was when they wanted paper documentation for every route I asked to have in our filters... (and they were incapable of using RADB). It was especially odd since we have > 80 of our own peers and three other transit providers to who we were announcing over 100 routes while they still wanted paper docs. But, filters seem to be an annoyance for most big providers... I have been trying to get level3 to fix our radb-based filtering for a while now (it just stopped pulling new updates for some reason). :) John -----Original Message----- From: manolo [mailto:mhernand1@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:23 AM To: Joe Greco Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets Well it also was the total arrogance on the part of Cogent engineering and management taking zero responsibility and pushing it back everytime valid issue or not. You had to be there. But everyone has a different opinion, my opinion is set regardless of what cogent tries to sell me now. Manolo Joe Greco wrote: >> Well it had sounded like I was in the minority and should keep my mouth >> shut. But here goes. On several occasions the peer that would advertise >> our routes would drop and with that the peer with the full bgp tables >> would drop as well. This happened for months on end. They tried blaming >> our 6500, our fiber provider, our IOS version, no conclusive findings >> where ever found that it was our problem. After some testing at the >> local Cogent office by both Cogent and myself, Cogent decided that they >> could "make a product" that would allow us too one have only one peer >> and two to connect directly to the GSR and not through a small catalyst. >> Low and behold things worked well for some time after that. >> >> This all happened while we had 3 other providers on the same router >> with no issues at all. We moved gbics, ports etc around to make sure it >> was not some odd ASIC or throughput issue with the 6500. >> > > Perhaps you haven't considered this, but did it ever occur to you that > Cogent probably had the same situation? They had a router with a bunch > of other customers on it, no reported problems, and you were the oddball > reporting significant issues? > > Quite frankly, your own description does not support this as being a > problem inherent to the peerA/peerB setup. > > You indicate that the peer advertising your routes would drop. The peer > with the full BGP tables would then drop as well. Well, quite frankly, > that makes complete sense. The peer advertising your routes also > advertises to you the route to get to the multihop peer, which you need > in order to be able to talk to that. Therefore, if the directly connected > BGP goes away for any reason, the multihop is likely to go away too. > > However, given the exact same hardware minus the multihop, your direct > BGP was still dropping. So had they been able to send you a full table > from the aggregation router, the same thing probably would have happened. > > This sounds more like flaky hardware, dirty optics, or a bad cable (or > several of the above). > > Given that, it actually seems quite reasonable to me to guess that it > could have been your 6500, your fiber provider, or your IOS version that > was introducing some problem. Anyone who has done any reasonable amount > of work in this business will have seen all three, and many of the people > here will say that the 6500 is a bit flaky and touchy when pushed into > service as a real router (while simultaneously using them in their > networks as such, heh, since nothing else really touches the price per > port), so Cogent's suggestion that it was a problem on your side may have > been based on bad experiences with other customer 6500's. > > However, it is also likely that it was some other mundane problem, or a > problem with the same items on Cogent's side. I would consider it a > shame that Cogent didn't work more closely with you to track down the > specific issue, because most of the time, these things can be isolated > and eliminated, rather than being potentially left around to mess up > someone in the future (think: bad port). > > ... JG > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

2 1

[Nanog] OARC DNS Operations Meeting, Brooklyn NY, 4/5th June
by Keith Mitchell 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

I'm pleased to announce the next OARC DNS Operations meeting will take place immediately after the NANOG43 meeting, in Brooklyn, NY, USA. The venue will be CUNY's Brooklyn College, about 5 miles from the NANOG Hotel. The open DNS Operations workshop will take place on the afternoon of Wed 4th June, and the morning of Thu 5th June. The OARC members-only meeting will take place on the afternoon of Thu 5th June. Further meeting information will be published as it becomes available at: http://public.oarci.net/dns-operations/workshop-2008/ We are grateful to OARC members for supporting this nonprofit meeting, allowing registration to be free for all participants. In order to help with meeting logistics, if you are planning to attend please register at https://oarc.isc.org/register.php as soon as possible. The strengths of OARC's meetings are very much due to the active participation of our members and the wider operators' community, and we are seeking presentations and suggestions for speakers on topics relevant to DNS Operations and Research. If you have either, please submit a short abstract to <admin(a)oarc.isc.org> by the 31st May. Please contact me if you can assist with any of the above or need further information. Keith Mitchell OARC Programme Manager _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0