- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Paul Ferguson 21 Apr '08

21 Apr '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawg(a)netzero.net> wrote: >Hmmm. Who exactly is "The Internet Innovation Alliance"? > >Unfortunately, their website does not say: [...] As someone pointed out to me privately, this URL outlines it's membership: http://www.internetinnovation.org/AboutUs/Members/tabid/59/Default.aspx Not sure how they found it, since there is no "About Us" link on the main page. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDNdpq1pz9mNUZTMRAvo6AKCIje224+1TOsLCgbXL8mPJ3fRrdgCffnRX B4Wba6bOm/enwEico/R9LWo= =NEjI -----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/o _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

[Nanog] VoIP over Asymmetric routing
by Kim Onnel 21 Apr '08

21 Apr '08

Hello, We are going to roll out a network to carry VoIP only, between the P routers, there will be 3xOC3 links. Each site has 2xPEs, PE1 is connected to the P router in the local premises with 10GE and PE2 is connected with 2xOC3s to remote P sites for backup incase local P fails. VoIP is going to be generated by Ericsson Media Gateways and the network designers are suggesting to take traffic in the outgoing direction through the PE1 path and come back through the PE2 path (if that makes sense), so traffic will take a different link for outgoing over incoming. >From your experiences, I am wondering what are future unforeseen pitfalls we can get into? Regards, KO _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

4 3

Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Scott Weeks 21 Apr '08

21 Apr '08

--- sean(a)donelan.com wrote: From: Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to only be a single reporter's account, echoed in the bloggerdome. ------------------------------------------ For the record, I didn't say the above. I said this: --------------------------------- Look at who is saying it and it's quite obvious... "Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned... --------------------------------- 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 scott _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

[Nanog] Anyone here from EXCELLA-COMMUNICATIONS (AS22626) and/or NetONE (AS36607)
by Raul Rodriguez 19 Apr '08

19 Apr '08

Please contact me off-list. The link (or route announcement of 72.35.224.0/20 and 204.9.116.0/22), between the two of you has been flapping for the past four days, leaving our class C (204.9.119.0/24) provided by NetONE unreachable to any network other than Cogent. This link has been unreachable via any non-Cogent route since 4/18/08 @ 21:18:53. #################################################################### From XO... Tracing route to 72.35.230.230 over a maximum of 30 hops 1 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 192.168.2.1 ***DELETED*** 5 20 ms 22 ms 20 ms 66.238.50.149.ptr.us.xo.net [66.238.50.149] 6 22 ms 19 ms 20 ms p3-0-0.MAR1.LA-CA.us.xo.net [207.88.81.165] 7 22 ms 20 ms 21 ms p5-0-0.rar1.la-ca.us.xo.net [65.106.5.5] 8 23 ms 21 ms 22 ms te-4-1-0.rar3.la-ca.us.xo.net [207.88.12.153] 9 21 ms 22 ms 20 ms 207.88.12.154.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.154] 10 19 ms 20 ms 20 ms po15-3.core01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.1 1.241] 11 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms te3-1.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.1 86] 12 23 ms 19 ms 21 ms vl3493.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6. 229] 13 20 ms 38 ms 20 ms te4-2.ccr01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.24. 70] 14 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms netonecolo.demarc.cogentco.com [38.99.208.134] 15 22 ms 21 ms 20 ms 72.35.230.230 Trace complete. #################################################################### From Level 3... Show Level 3 (Los Angeles, CA) Traceroute to 72.35.230.230 1 vlan52.csw2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.62) 4 msec vlan51.csw1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.30) 0 msec vlan52.csw2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.62) 8 msec 2 ae-63-63.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.33) 4 msec ae-73-73.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.37) 4 msec ae-63-63.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.137.33) 0 msec 3 ae-2.ebr3.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.132.9) 8 msec 16 msec 20 msec 4 ae-63-63.csw1.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.226) 8 msec ae-83-83.csw3.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.234) 16 msec ae-73-73.csw2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.230) 52 msec 5 ae-62-62.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.209) 8 msec ae-92-92.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.221) 20 msec ae-72-72.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.213) 24 msec 6 ae-3.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net (4.69.132.58) 36 msec 44 msec 36 msec 7 ae-12-51.car2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.68.107.7) 40 msec 40 msec ae-12-53.car2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.68.107.71) 40 msec 8 360-NETWORK.car2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.53.2.26) 40 msec 40 msec 40 msec 9 66.62.6.65 [AS19092 {TA-DAY1}] 52 msec 56 msec 52 msec 10 slc1-core-02.360.net (66.62.3.21) [AS19092 {TA-DAY1}] 56 msec 52 msec 56 msec 11 slc1-edge-01.360.net (66.62.5.67) [AS19092 {TA-DAY1}] 52 msec 56 msec 52 msec 12 66.62.56.38 [AS19092 {TA-DAY1}] 68 msec 60 msec 60 msec 13 ge-4-2-0-cr-las-excellacom.net (208.78.104.1) [AS22626 {LADYLYNN}] 76 msec 60 msec 60 msec 14 so-3-1-0-cr-lax-excellacom.net (208.78.104.14) [AS22626 {LADYLYNN}] 32 msec 32 msec 28 msec 15 ge-1-4-0-er-lax-excellacom.net (208.78.104.22) [AS22626 {LADYLYNN}] 32 msec 32 msec 28 msec 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * timeout ! ### Show Level 3 (Los Angeles, CA) BGP routes for 204.9.119.1 BGP routing table entry for 204.9.116.0/22 Paths: (2 available, best #1) 19092 22626 36607 AS-path translation: { TA-DAY1 LADYLYNN NETONEGROUP } car2.Denver1 (metric 4390) Origin IGP, metric 500, localpref 100, valid, internal, best Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Denver 19092:100 Originator: car2.Denver1 19092 22626 36607 AS-path translation: { TA-DAY1 LADYLYNN NETONEGROUP } car2.Denver1 (metric 4390) Origin IGP, metric 500, localpref 100, valid, internal Community: North_America Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer United_States Denver 19092:100 Originator: car2.Denver1 #################################################################### From Hurricane (AS6939) (lg.he.net) Tracing the route to IP node 72.35.230.230 from 1 to 30 hops 1 8 ms <1 ms <1 ms 10gigabitethernet3-2.core1.pao1.he.net [72.52.92.69] 2 15 ms 15 ms 9 ms 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.lax1.he.net [72.52.92.22] 3 12 ms 15 ms 9 ms laiix.lax1.edge-01.360.net [198.32.146.66] 4 59 ms 51 ms 51 ms lax1-core-01.360.net [66.62.5.129] 5 51 ms 54 ms 51 ms den1-core-02.360.net [66.62.3.42] 6 55 ms 51 ms 50 ms den1-core-01.360.net [66.62.3.34] 7 55 ms 51 ms 51 ms slc1-core-02.360.net [66.62.3.21] 8 55 ms 51 ms 51 ms slc1-edge-01.360.net [66.62.5.3] 9 58 ms 67 ms 58 ms 66.62.56.38 10 61 ms 58 ms 67 ms ge-4-2-0-cr-las-excellacom.net [208.78.104.1] 11 70 ms 73 ms 67 ms so-3-1-0-cr-lax-excellacom.net [208.78.104.14] 12 80 ms 75 ms 74 ms ge-1-4-0-er-lax-excellacom.net [208.78.104.22] 13 * * * ? 14 * * * ? 15 * * * ? 16 * * * ? 17 * * * ? 18 * * * ? 19 * * * ? 20 * * * ? 21 * * * ? 22 * * * ? 23 * * * ? 24 * * * ? 25 * * * ? 26 * * * ? 27 * * * ? 28 * * * ? 29 * * * ? 30 * * * ? IP: Errno(8) Trace Route Failed, no response from target node. Storing [core1.sjc2.he.net trace 72.35.230.230] ### SH BGP 72.35.230.230 Number of BGP Routes matching display condition : 3 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 72.35.224.0/20 198.32.146.66 1 100 0 19092 22626 36607 i * 72.35.224.0/20 213.248.70.37 1 70 0 1299 174 36607 i * 72.35.224.0/20 64.209.94.49 49 70 0 3549 22626 36607 i Last update to IP routing table: 4d11h13m6s, 1 path(s) installed: #################################################################### Info from FixedOrbit: Information for AS36607 NETONEGROUP / NET ONE GROUP, LLC Peers Neighbors ASN Name 174 COGENT-PSI-1 7385 INTEGRATELECOM 21974 EKCTELECOM 22626 EXCELLA-COMMUNICATIONS 32108 Unknown 40187 DMVENTURES Thanks. -Raul R. Network Administrator PCS1 / Datavo _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

Cogent Router dropping packets
by Mike Fedyk 19 Apr '08

19 Apr '08

Hi, Some of our VoIP customers are experiencing issues using our service and it only happens when routing through Cogent. Does anyone have a contact for them? Thanks Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. adsl-63-194-xxx-xxx.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net 0.0% 6049 13.7 24.2 8.4 72.2 11.1 2. dist3-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net 2.0% 6049 19.0 23.5 8.6 217.4 13.5 3. bb1-p6-7.emhril.ameritech.net 0.0% 6049 31.7 43.0 8.6 317.3 46.4 4. ex2-p14-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 0.0% 6049 19.8 44.3 9.4 487.8 49.5 5. te8-1.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 6049 15.0 41.1 9.5 675.9 53.4 6. vl3491.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com 3.3% 6049 34.3 29.4 9.9 337.5 25.4 7. te3-4.ccr01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 5.2% 6049 19.3 30.1 10.4 275.1 23.6 8. vl3805.na21.b002695-2.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 5.1% 6049 35.0 27.7 10.2 227.3 12.2 9. PAETEC_Communications_Inc.demarc.cogentco.com 5.3% 6049 18.3 35.8 9.8 252.4 33.6 10. gi-4-0-1-3.core01.lsajca01.paetec.net 5.5% 6049 17.3 37.9 13.3 1054. 43.5 11. po-5-0-0.core01.anhmca01.paetec.net 5.5% 6049 30.7 37.5 13.7 1042. 37.9 12. gi-3-0-0.edge03.anhmca01.paetec.net 5.3% 6049 19.7 33.3 12.9 385.1 20.7 13. 74.10.xxx.xxx 5.9% 6049 23.8 35.8 18.1 86.5 11.8 14. 74.10.xxx.xxx 5.2% 6049 40.4 36.4 18.0 91.1 11.8

5 5

Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
by Mike Lieman 18 Apr '08

18 Apr '08

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman(a)es.net> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 > > From: "Mike Lieman" <mikelieman(a)gmail.com> > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <darkuncle(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > > > > > > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes > > everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in > > statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards would be ensconced in Law? _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

3 2

[Nanog] Fwd: Photo
by sean 18 Apr '08

18 Apr '08

WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner: Attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. Action taken: deleted VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim. The infected attachment has been deleted.

8 8

Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo
by Gregory Hicks 18 Apr '08

18 Apr '08

> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:51:59 -0700 > From: Jacob Appelbaum <jacob(a)appelbaum.net> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo > > Megaera wrote: > > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list for > > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've subscribed > > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had been > > dumped too. > > > > This has happened to me as well. I was a digest subscriber and now I'm > getting each message. Did someone tamper with the settings or was there > an administrative mistake? I don't have the message, but, a few days ago, there was a message from Betty that basically said that the list was moving and that we would have to recreate any individual settings... And that would be a good time to set a password. Regards, Gregory Hicks > > Regards, > Jacob > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

[Nanog] NANOG list changes
by Matthew Black 18 Apr '08

18 Apr '08

OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't been following the list for a few months. They also changed the message headers and they no longer include the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu matthew black network services california state university, long beach 1250 bellflower boulevard long beach, ca 90840-0101 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:02 +0000 nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > Welcome to the NANOG(a)nanog.org mailing list! > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > nanog(a)nanog.org > > General information about the mailing list is at: [...snip] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

4 3

Re: [Nanog] NANOG list changes
by Gregory Hicks 18 Apr '08

18 Apr '08

> From: Matthew Black <black(a)csulb.edu> > To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:22:49 -0700 > Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes > > OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't > been following the list for a few months. They also > changed the message headers and they no longer include > the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. > > Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Try this: X-BeenThere: nanog(a)nanog.org > > matthew black > network services > california state university, long beach > 1250 bellflower boulevard > long beach, ca 90840-0101 > > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:02 +0000 > nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > > Welcome to the NANOG(a)nanog.org mailing list! > > > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > > > nanog(a)nanog.org > > > > General information about the mailing list is at: > [...snip] > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0