- Test - lists.nanog.org

searching for BGP table donors
by Edward B. DREGER 05 Mar '06

05 Mar '06

Greetings all, The fuss over shim6, routing table size, and long-prefix PI space has intrigued me. I've started analyzing some [simulated] FIBs and believe I may have found something interesting. In the name of statistical sampling, I'd like to analyze some other [simulated] FIBs from different BGP views. Would anyone be interested in donating "show ip bgp" output? I assume most people are familiar with script(1), but will mention it here, in passing, "just in case". Compressed via bzip2 or rzip strongly preferred; there's a reason I'm not keen to try this on public route servers. ;-) Email is fine for up to a few megabytes. If anyone feels like sending output from so many routers that even a compressed tarball exceeds that, ping me to set up an FTP drop. Network topology and size matter not. "The more the merrier" when it comes to data analysis. :-) TIA, Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc(a)brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq(a)intc.net -*- sam(a)everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.

4 4

RE: Presumed RF Interference
by David Hubbard 05 Mar '06

05 Mar '06

From: Jon R. Kibler > > I should also add some other points: > -- We have observed failures when the building had zero > power, except for the UPS battery power in the server room, > so we don't think that we are getting power spikes from > anything within the building. If you had failures before utility power was even applied, it sounds like multiple building grounds with differences in potential. David

1 0

Confirmed: AT&T to Acquire BellSouth for $67B
by Fergie 05 Mar '06

05 Mar '06

Via MSNBC. [snip] AT&T Inc. confirmed Sunday that it has reached a deal to buy Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp. for $67 billion. [snip] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684785/ - ferg -- "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/

1 0

RE: Welcome back, Ma Bell
by Fergie 05 Mar '06

05 Mar '06

You know what they say about opinions... Well, anyways, the main thrust of the concern here is not a technical one -- unless you consider the lack of susbcriber options technical. It is, perhaps, a technicality, but I digress... I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out. Now -- back to our regularly scheduled diminutives regarding Shim6. :-) - ferg ps. I do wonder, however, whaet Judge Green would think of this, coming on the heels of AT&T's 111th birthday (3 March 1885)? :-) -- "Edward W. Ray" <spamjail(a)mmicman.com> wrote: With Katrina and all the other hurricanes hitting Bell south's area, they are just overwhelmed. The prize here is Cingular anyway; the landline business is declining. Since neither SBC nor Bell South have too much interest in FiOS, the harm the consumers near term is minimal. In fact, some of the hurricane-ravaged areas may see upgrades and repairs sooner rather than later. The impact will be felt near term and longer term most by small and mid-sized businesses, especially those run out of the home. Most of the expense of NxT1/T3 (typical speeds needed by small and mid-sized businesses lines are eaten up by the atrocious local-loop charges, which will most likely rise as a result of this deal. Getting Ethernet and/or Fiber to the premises will be a long way away in the areas served by these two companies. Yes there is cable and DSL, but for now these are not as reliable as the dedicated lines that a NxT1 or a T3 would bring. Add the that the need for some to multi-home and the costs continue to rise. This is where the FCC, in the role of regulator, would do the most good. But as someone mentioned in a previous post the FCC is feckless at this point. Bigger is not necessarily better or worse, but when government abdicates its role as the regulator of free markets, it is most definitely worse. Edward Ray -- "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/

1 0

RE: Welcome back, Ma Bell
by Edward W. Ray 05 Mar '06

05 Mar '06

With Katrina and all the other hurricanes hitting Bell south's area, they are just overwhelmed. The prize here is Cingular anyway; the landline business is declining. Since neither SBC nor Bell South have too much interest in FiOS, the harm the consumers near term is minimal. In fact, some of the hurricane-ravaged areas may see upgrades and repairs sooner rather than later. The impact will be felt near term and longer term most by small and mid-sized businesses, especially those run out of the home. Most of the expense of NxT1/T3 (typical speeds needed by small and mid-sized businesses lines are eaten up by the atrocious local-loop charges, which will most likely rise as a result of this deal. Getting Ethernet and/or Fiber to the premises will be a long way away in the areas served by these two companies. Yes there is cable and DSL, but for now these are not as reliable as the dedicated lines that a NxT1 or a T3 would bring. Add the that the need for some to multi-home and the costs continue to rise. This is where the FCC, in the role of regulator, would do the most good. But as someone mentioned in a previous post the FCC is feckless at this point. Bigger is not necessarily better or worse, but when government abdicates its role as the regulator of free markets, it is most definitely worse. Edward Ray

1 0

Re: Welcome back, Ma Bell
by Fergie 05 Mar '06

05 Mar '06

Reuters and CNN/Money also reporting same: http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/companies/att_bellsouth/index.htm Mind-boggling. - ferg -- "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: This is from Dave Farber's list .. > Subject: Everything old is new again > From: Kevin G. Barkes > > NEWS ALERT > from The Wall Street Journal > > AT&T is planning to acquire BellSouth for roughly $65 billion. A > deal between the two could be announced as early as Monday. I somehow wonder if the old executives at Ma Bell had already worked out a timeline for resurrecting her well before she was split up .. --srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) -- "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

Re: shim6 @ NANOG
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 05 Mar '06

05 Mar '06

On 5-mrt-2006, at 12:09, Ian Dickinson wrote: > As an irrelevent aside, when someone comes up with a way to > firewall/acl > shim6, how much breaks? The idea is that there will be a shim6 header that can do two things: carry shim6 signalling and carry data packets with rewritten addresses after a rehoming. Since data packets with rewritten addresses can only occur after there have been shim6 signalling packets on the same path, filtering out packets with the shim6 header on the initially chosen path makes it impossible for the shim state to be created so there is no multihoming. If shim packets are allowed on the initially chosen path but not on the backup path, shim6 (un) reachability detection won't work over the backup path so the backup path will be considered broken and won't be used. In other words: you fall back to single homing without ill effects. Of course having a TCP session or the like change addresses halfway through the session may throw stateful firewalls a bit.

2 1

RE: absense of multicast deployment
by Israel, David B. 04 Mar '06

04 Mar '06

> If there's such a compelling need for native multicast, why > has it seen such limited deployment, and why is it available > to such a tiny proportion of the Internet? Other reasons have already been posted, but I wanted to throw mine in: Because multicast was designed from an organizational (presumably a university) point of view, not from the core. When you have a protocol designed that way, you get assumptions about the Internet topology that aren't necessarily true, the biggest one being that there is some root node at the top that connects you to the cloud, and you work down from there. If you have a copule of root nodes, it still works fine, but if you're in the core, with peer connections instead of root nodes, handling several orders of magnitude more connections, it ceases to work so nicely. So another answer to your question is that, while people would love to do multicast, it is fundimentally broken in a wide-deployment scenario. It simply doesn't scale to Internet size yet, despite the numerous protocols that have been thrown at the problem. Big backbones don't want to deploy a broken protocol that few people use over wide ranges, and individual sites don't want to develop for a broken protocol that big backbones aren't deploying. When somebody fixes the protocol, in such a way that it still provides a benefit to the transmitter and all the interested end stations can use it, then we'll see wide deployment. This scenario can be applied to almost any protocol/technology that folks want to see deployed and can't understand why it hasn't been yet. Naming the biggest example is left as an exercise for the reader. -Dave

1 0

personal apology
by Gadi Evron 03 Mar '06

03 Mar '06

Hi guys. There are a couple of things I think I should apologize for, as there have been several complaints to me recently which convinced me I am wrong. 1. Cross posting. It was done before yes and not just by me, but the controversy on that showed up *recently*. In that recent space, it was done in a very limited time-frame and for a reason. That reason was to find people outside the normal scope of operations who also handle these issues. That was a success. I already apologized for that on nanog-futures as indeed that criticism of me is 100% correct. All the above is irrelevant. I was wrong. Nothing more to it despite whatever reasons and excuses I may have. 2. Responding to trolling. Responding to trolls and flames is counter-productive and further removes content from signal to noise. Shouldn't have done that. I was wrong. Nothing more to it despite whatever reasons and excuses I may have. Enough of "me" - On other issues some may disagree with us, but the approach is operational. If we are wrong we will find out. We listen to input but unlike others who just criticize, we go out and try to do good - some don't like that one bit as it shakes their view of the world. We will listen and consider, but forgive us if we will give more value to the voices of those who actually do instead of talk. Thanks everyone, I felt I owed this email to the community. On these two subjects I am indeed very much at fault. On the rest - let the trolls be trolls. Gadi.

1 0

Re: absense of multicast deployment
by Brandon Butterworth 03 Mar '06

03 Mar '06

> If there's such a compelling need for native multicast, why has it > seen such limited deployment It hasn't been needed by enough people We have a growing need and are doing a little bit to encourage use http://www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/ Other content owners agree, we have a number working on joining us (sadly I can't mention names until they're live) This is a work in progress (it's been live for two weeks), we have a long way to go. When I see a need for V6 and it looks viable I'll try and do the same for it. As it's only doing something we can do already it'll be a harder sell. brandon

1 0