- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Is your ISP Influenza-ready?
by Fergie 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Oh, that _is_ rich. ;-) I think a lot of people would love to know just how they plan to make that happen. :-) - ferg -- "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins(a)isc.org> wrote: In a www.washingtonpost.com article: http://tinyurl.com/s2jpz It is said: President Bush is expected to approve soon a national pandemic influenza response plan that identifies more than 300 specific tasks for federal agencies, including [some stuff and] expanding Internet capacity to handle what would probably be a flood of people working from their home computers. That's not a lot of detail, and the article only cites www.pandemicflu.gov as a reference. They don't appear to have published any detailed plan that Pres. Bush is evidently about to sign there. What is published there feels like background information, and is vaguer still. Anyone with more information on what they're talking about? [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

Fixing outside plant isn't an easy job
by Sean Donelan 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Maintaining the physical plant we all depend on is the job of a lot of dedicated individuals. Its not an easy job, and sometimes it can be a dangerous job. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/16/worker_e… SHARON, Mass. --A repairman for Verizon Communications Inc. was electrocuted Sunday morning while fixing a damaged telephone pole in Sharon, a company official said. [...] The fire department responded to a report of the worker shocked at about 8:30 a.m. Buckman was transported to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

2 1

Survey about maintenance operations
by Olivier Bonaventure 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

Dear All, In the framework of research projects, we are working on techniques to reduce the impact of planned maintenance operations on the routing protocols and the packet forwarding (see e.g. discussions on ordered IGP convergence in RTGWG at IETF). Several studies of ISIS or OSPF data have shown that maintenance operations are very frequent in large ISP networks. We would like quantify the number of maintenance operations that occur in large networks and would appreciate if you could answer the following survey (please reply directly to me, I'll summarize to the list) : Network size : - approx # routers - approx # links - approx # eBGP sessions Maintenance operations : - How often do you need to completely reboot each of your routers ? [ once per day, once per week, once per month, never,...] - How often do you change the IGP metric of each of your links ? [ once per hour, once per day, once per week, once per month, never, ...] - How often do you manually shutdown each of your intradomain links ? [ once per hour, once per day, once per week, never, ...] - How often do you need to stop and restart each of your eBGP sessions ? [ once per hour, once per day, once per week, never ...] - Do you use special operational procedures to perform those maintenance operations to reduce their impact on routing and packet forwarding ? [ please provide comments if any ] Thanks for your help. Olivier Bonaventure -- CSE Dept. UCL, Belgium - http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/OBO/

1 0

RE: Is your ISP Influenza-ready?
by Barry Greene (bgreene) 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

> (Back in the days of dial-up, I had a lot of trouble > connecting to Bell Labs on snow days. No rule, and the place > was officially open for business. But everyone just did the > rational thing.) I think the point is to start capacity and contingency planning now. Is your VPN infrastructure set up to have every employee connecting back to the office? Are your upstreams sized to take this load? Are you VPN concentrators sized to take this load?

1 0

Re: Reaching Google through Cogent
by Rick Kunkel 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

This is what I'm seeing.... (Note: We aren't actually a Cogent customer, but it looks as if this upstream uses them for one of THEIR upstreams... I know they have several...) # traceroute www.google.com traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using 64.233.179.99 traceroute to www.l.google.com (64.233.179.99), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 7206-ge-0-1-10 (207.244.153.1) 1.840 ms 0.258 ms 0.652 ms 2 208.99.192.133 (208.99.192.133) 2.312 ms 1.822 ms 1.702 ms 3 204.8.32.85 (204.8.32.85) 1.702 ms 2.318 ms 1.273 ms 4 38.112.26.185 (38.112.26.185) 2.356 ms 2.318 ms 2.350 ms 5 g3-8.core01.sea01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.15.137) 2.218 ms 2.083 ms 2.955 ms 6 p14-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.54) 32.661 ms 32.820 ms 32.382 ms 7 p15-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.69) 32.386 ms 32.870 ms 33.349 ms 8 p4-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.94) 32.823 ms 32.072 ms 32.652 ms 9 g12-0-0.core01.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.238) 31.998 ms 31.737 ms 32.092 ms 10 google.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.254) 22.814 ms 22.389 ms 21.870 ms 11 66.249.94.2 (66.249.94.2) 23.564 ms 23.119 ms 23.220 ms 12 * * * It peters out after that. That last hop IS Google though... I wonder if it could be a routing issue where that traffic can't find their way back to me...(?) I have an InterNAP connection as well, and things are working fine if they pass through there. Thanks, Rick On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote: > > > > > > Is anyone else having problems reaching Google through Cogent's network > > right now? > > > What signs are you seeing? Can you show pings/traceroutes/mtr/etc. > > Thanks, Tuc/TBOH > >

1 0

Reaching Google through Cogent
by Rick Kunkel 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

Is anyone else having problems reaching Google through Cogent's network right now? Thanks, Rick Kunkel

2 1

[NANOG] Intellispace or Wave2Wave contact
by Lyons, Myke 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

Other than the two numbers/email addresses on their website does anyone know a contact for either one of these companies? The estimated hold time is less than 1 minute however I have been waiting 2 hours. I have tried their email addresses but only received the auto response (6 hours ago). .myke

1 0

Re: Common Carrier Question
by Fergie 16 Apr '06

16 Apr '06

Google it. And you're naive to you think its just VoIP anymore. The whole, nasty, underlying issue with 'network inequity' is that it is a bubble in its truest sense -- some infrastructure simply will not support tens of thousands, etc. unicast streams, AND also support traditional 'best effort' traffic. It's the old 'ten pounds of shite in a five pound bag' dilemma. Somethings gotta give ($) or something's gotta go ($) -- or be degraded somehow. Warnings on this were sounded ten (or more) years ago. :-) - ferg ps. Funny that -- the complexities of things these days vs. traditional recurring telco revenue streams. ;-) -- Alain Hebert <ahebert(a)pubnix.net> wrote: Eric Germann wrote: >Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then they aren't neutral and it >is QoS (unless the QoS == 0 for VoIP) > > We (or its just me) might be curious about which ISP did that. [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

4 4

IP ranges, re- announcing 'PA space' via BGP, etc
by Alexander Koch 16 Apr '06

16 Apr '06

Folks, I see very often that customers in the US send morespecs all over the place, deaggregate whole /14s or such scary crap, ask us to accept random stuff out of 4/8 and 8/8 (L3 space) by example. I am practically asking what is (if any) the normal way for any of this. I am working by the principle that not everything I could do I should do, especially not right away. Is there any accepted procedure / policy for anyone to a) announce and b) accept (the transit supplier) and have that sanctioned formally? Maybe nobody cares, then tell me. ;-) Coming from Europe where pretty much everyone is RIPE LIR and has its own /21 at the least I might not see the problem that allegedly some (many) US ISPs do have. Enlighten me. (And, no, I do not fall for the urban legend that RIPE or ARIN are by default evil, clearly not. I do have real- life experience that whenever you can rightfully justify even large IP assignments you do get it.) Thanks, Alexander

8 8

RE: Open Letter to D-Link about their NTP vandalism
by Church, Chuck 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

"Service Area: Networks BGP-announced on the DIX" Since the intended (and announced) use of this server is just for DIX networks, blocking NTP from any other networks should be trivial. That IP address will still be hit by D-Link devices looking for a suitable server, but with no response, they'll move onto another device, and probably never try the DIX address again, at least until they're rebooted. That alone should kill off 95% of the unwanted traffic hitting the box, and probably 80% of the traffic even being sent to DIX in the first place. Chuck

29 44