- Test - lists.nanog.org

2006.02.12 Open Committee Meeting Notes
by Matthew Petach 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

I captured some notes during tonight's open mike committee meeting, in case they may be of interest to the list. Apologies in advance for typos, it was hard to keep up with the speakers. ^_^; Matt Steering Committee Report (steering(a)nanog.org) 2006.02.12 1700 hours Central Time. AGENDA Steering Comittee (Randy Bush) Program Committee (Steve Feldman) Financial Report (Betty Burke) Mailing List Report (Chris Malayter) Steering committee report Tryng to hear the membershiip responsible for ML, PC, Lostistics But trying not to micro-manage Establishing normal but minimal business practices Semi-weekly minutes on web site SC Tries to listen Transparency: SC Minutes, ML, Stats, ... Trying Mon-Wed Meeting (instead of Sun-Tues) Newcomers' Session (did it work?) No more Terminal Room (Laptops plugged to printers near registration) Change badge fonts (larger company name/person name) (really a question of size, according to WBN) Suggestion from a nice gentleman at the microphone who says "why not print the badge on both sides, so you don't need to flip badge around all the time? Did NOT change Number of meetings per year Many costs of support are fixed, ie not per-meeting Currently amortized over three meetings If over two meetings, fees would go up significantly Did NOT change Working Lunch Hotels have monopoly on food The charges for lunch are what you would expect from a monopoly But we will try to be more sensitive to ease of getting lunch near or at the meeting venue (not economical to have hotel provide food) Rights in Data NANOG trademark is held by Mertic Presos are copyright by the author Right to freely distribute, but not modify, granted to NANOG PC is drafting this formally copyright notices on slides are OK if small and unobtrusive What does it mean to be a member? Attendance at meetings, and participation in the mailing list is pretty much what defines membership. Program Comittee First change using new process seemed successful Why have you not submitted a talk? Wht do you want to hear? Mailing List Worked the process to fill vacancy left by Steve Gibbard Still working with ML panel to document their process Still working With MP to develop an appeals processs Statistics are published monthly on NANOG web site ML Panel Appointments No Terms, etc. in current charter Straw proposal charger change parallels SC and PC two year terms staggered two sequential terms max without a vacation Please comment, change, propose (Bill Norton, Equinix, Use of nanog-futures to discuss this very type of issue...Randy will get to it) ML panel proces cont. This would give members a light at the end of the tunnel Volunteers would know what they're signing up for Allwos chang without bad vibe of removal Normal organizational practice Chartger Change Octove is the end of the process so start now MLL Panel straw poproasal staring Need to get Steve's name adn other star-upisms removed No other proposals received for this year New Ideas BLOG--no progress Wiki, no progress SlashNOG, no interest Trial of new tech gear at NANOG, nothing exciting Video in hallways, Do you like it? It's back, same size, better location!! By cafe tables near registration area, near where food will be. Traded terminal room for informal breakout rooms, informal seating, allow for more mingling. Ren Provo--http://nanog.multiply.com/, about 100 pictures with names and affiliations, so you can match up faces with names to help newcomers. Mailing Lists Engineering and Ops dicsussion only (nanog(a)nanog.org) Discussion about NANOG itself (nanog-futures(a)nanog.org) Steering (steering(a)nanog.org) Program (nanogpc(a)nanog.org) ML <nanog-admin(a)nanog.org) Fruit supplied, yum! Discussion? How can we make NANOG more useful, fun, informative? Randy gripes the mailing list has gotten boring recently. Cut to Steve Feldman for Program Committee Report. Steve Feldman, CNET, PC Chair. All opinions, mistakes, his, all the good stuff is thanks to the PC. NANOG 36 program 26 submissions (down from 41!!) 22 accepted 1 cancelled 1 withdrawn 2 rejected 2 very late, both accepted Areas for improvement Speaker solicitation Tool improvements self-service submission web interface Reports Program Format Mon-Weds format morning plenaries afternoon BOF, Tutorials Evening social events Newbie meeting is there a better name Tracks? not without more content!! for tutorials, bofs, hopefully not too much overlap or need to be in two places at once. Party tomorrow courtesy of Yahoo! Tuesday, Beer and Gear with sponsors. For Tracks, need sufficient space as well as content. Lightning Talks Criterion: on-topic for mailing list Signups start Monday morning instructions during plenary Random acceptance of submissions made before 2pm Monday Submission order after that (if slots remain) (No personal insults! Stay technical, keep it below 10 minutes) Feedback Talk to us! PC members have yellow and green badges Send mail nanog-futures(a)nanog.org (public) nanogpc(a)nanog.org (private) Open Discussion What topics would you like to hear more (or less) about? How can we (PC and community) get speakers on those topics? Joe Wool, ATT, newbie--what is mission or purpose of this organization? Might help us develop content if we knew the purpose of the organization. We're a group of network operators who talk about network operations stuff. Open to anyone who operates large networks using networking technology. Bill Norton--what obstacles are there for people that prevent them from doing Question from the gallery--what talks would be relevant to the group? Security! IPv6 deployment new last-mile connectivity (DSL, DOCSIS 3, etc) peering? how to convert from OSPF to ISIS economics of networking? what macroeconimic events are shaping networking? Geoff Huston did great set of talks at the last meeting, for example. Randy notes potter.net is his monthly article, same subject Randy notes broadband deployment in Japan might be of interest--Cho-san could talk about it; you can get 100baseT in most places in Japan for $30/month. US is one of the last place developed countries in last mile deployments. Steve notes PC has assumptions about what we don't want to hear; no sales pitches from router vendors, no far future standards that may or may not happen, no talks of internet politics like ICANN politics, etc. If those aren't valid assumptions, should be challenged. Bill Norton notes that finding topics is sometimes easier than finding people to get up to the microphone and talk about it. For example, company spending millions on IPv6 gear testing could do a simple presentation on what they found. You might think it's horribly boring, but others might find it more useful. Tom Schull, ATT, hard to talk about deployments when vendor bashing isn't permitted. Maybe relax that restriction? Are vendors really that intertwined with NANOG? Vendors do provide financial support in terms of beer and gear; vendors don't sway the program comittee choices. Most vendor talks aren't vendors, but tutorials seem to be (they have budget for it?) Honesty isn't disallowed, but try to steer clear of simple hyperbole and invective. What about performance measurements? Those tend to be very cut-and-dried, factual details. Virender? RiverDomain?, what about advent of malware, events of denial of service, how do large networks use to mitigate those type of events? Lessons learned type talks. Steve notes the Katrina talk will focus on that type of "lessons learned" talk--see if those are of use to the group or not. Thank you all for the comments, and send email as well. Next up, Betty Burke for Merit Financial Report. NANOG 36 community meeting, Betty Burke, PM, Merit. Welcome!! Attendance Chart NANOG35 Report (financial report) NANOG36 predictions General Updates Acknowledgements Attendance: risen from about 100 in 94 to about 500 in LA slight downward dip for 34 down to 450. Each meeting has location as well as time of year that affects attendance NANOG35, LA Oct.05 Revenu 267,198.07 Expense 240,306,13 Academic Calendar: Jul1 to Jun31 Will give fiscal year update next meeting Equipment supplies 16,431.79 merit staff travel 9,255.32 Non merit staff travel 0.00 Speakers 0.00 Hosting 93,879.93 Admin Overhead 120,739.09 Technical overhead Per Meeting Balance: 26,891.94 No speakers who needed to be sponsored to attend in LA. 93K hosting is check to hotel for food, meeting room, power, etc. Admin Overhead is a rollup; July to October admin staff salararies, tech staff salaries, other GA from Merit that needs to be charged to NANOG for hosting it. 518 attendees, 26,891.94 surplus to carry forward. NANOG36 predictions Current registration 340 w/o cancellations due to bad weather Current Sponsors B&G - 8 (usually 10, down 2 from normal) Breaks - 0 (no vendors sponsoring breaks this time) Expenses Hotel about the same Travel +2 (2 additional staff members, ensure the tools and wireless network would be up to snuff) Fewer equipment expenses (spend in October beefing up, reuse in Feb) Revenue number will be lower than LA, with similar expenses to last time, so may Updates Accomplished Improved Budget Reporting Video Wiring (less big bulky RGB cables in white crates!) Statistics New meeting format (set-up, badges, agenda) Next quarter Merit CEO Search Improved Voting process Improved Registration Process New switch hardware Possibilities Presenters website NANOG list server update Carol Wadsworth has been working hard to make sure talent logistics work out Merit is looking for new CEO, Betty Burke will have a new manager in June. The improved voting and registration process will finally be merging this year. Develop a database, capture photos, etc. of people. Will be getting some new switch hardware as well, to help improve connectivity. Considering a separate presenter's website. Aiming to beef up servers to speed response time. Future meeting sites: Spring 06 --not yet confirmed Oct 06 w/ARIN --confirmed Feb 07 w/Internet2 --planning underway with internet2 joint techs--one day overlap with them. Acknowledgements SC, PC, List-admins Host and Sponsors Yahoo, ATT, Duane, Arbinet, Arbor Networks, Cariden, Cisco Systems, Foundry Networks, Juniper Networks, Renesys, Tellabs Merit Staff Attending Manish, Jon, Bert, Mary Merit Staff in Ann Arbor Sue, Bob, Charlie, Jeff, Brad Merit NANOG Staff on site David, Rick, Jason, Dale, Chris, Larry, Gayle, Carol, Susan, There's Merit staff both here and in Ann Arbor working hard to keep everything running smoothly. Questions? Bill Norton asks why it's in Merit's strategic interests to continue playing the host/coordinator role for NANOG, esp. in light of the evolution that happened last year. In Betty's opinion, after the meeting with Merit's board two weeks ago, when that question was asked, it is worth it for Merit to go through the shakeup. Merit's purpose is to run a first-rate, high-end research and educational network in the state of michigan. But beyond the regional network, it aims to showcase its network to the wider world, and from that perspective, it makes good sense to support NANOG. Merit board of directors generally agrees. Betty notes there was a question of what would happen if Merit didn't handle NANOG? If the community felt it was important, it would go on; but Merit felt it was in a good position, and the cost recovery was preventing it from being a drain, that the community good will benefit was worth the bumps along the way. Bill Norton--are things easier? Randy goes back to first question. Look to Europe and Asia, where internet registry takes a stronger role; the ops community is largely run by the registry, and fragmentation has started to creep in. With ARIN, LACNIC, etc., it's more like a partnership, so less fragmentation. Merit also brings educational background, eliminates any partisanship that might creep in from vendor support. Back to Bill--it's easier, because we're talking more as a community, opening up to more transparency, showing the benefits Merit brings with their platforms more clearly to the community. Slight tension still, working as a community rather than just being "merit making decisions over here off to the side by ourselves". Oh! Looks like BLUE badges for Merit staff?? Chris Malayter, Mailing list admin panel presenter up to talk about the mailing list. AGENDA: Status update on membership Process Flow Addition to AUP -- Anti Spam List stastics Questions Rob, Susan here, Rob Wilcox not able to be here. Membership Stve Gibbard -- resigned Steve Wilcox --added Present committ Rob Seastrom Susan Cris Steve Process Flow User sends an email to the lsit an MLC voluntter jduges email to be a violation of the AUP AUP per EMAIL list AUP The SC is authorized to make changes per the NANOG charter For one-off violations, an MLC volunteer sends an off-list note to the offending user, giving guidance about the list's AUP and explaining the MLC volunteers' concerns. For repeated violleations, the MLC discussion on the nanog-admin list may result in an official warning being sent to the user, outlining the specific violations the user has been responsible for, and specifyng that further violations might result in revoking of posting privileges For repeated violations following one or more official warnings, MLC discussion on the nanog-admin list may result in a decision to remove posting privileges for the user for 3 to 6 months For repeated violations following one or more official warnings and also following a temporary posting ban, MLC discussion on the nanog-admin list may result in a decision to permantly revoke posting privagletges for the user Bill Norton asks if a single MLC volunteer can act unilaterally Joel Yagli?, regardless of how process has been designed thus far, taking the light touch is probably the best thing that could have been done thus far. Bill Woodcock wants more moderation and heavy handedness; his views are amusing. Louis, from Equinix; what about appeals? Chris notes there is a process being discussed for an appeals process; Merit is the last line of appeal, after the and in conjuction with the steering committee. Legally, Merit owns the trademark "NANOG", so it is responsible for legal ownership of the term NANOG. However, it wants to work with the community and not be heavy handed. But Merit does reserve the final go-no-go decision. Bill Norton asks if the warning comes from a group address, or an individual account? Rob Seastrom replies--after Steve left, he's been sending out the warnings from his own account. But if there is a user who has procmail'd a given list admin, can they be considered to have been giving fair warning? If the first warning is ignored, the second warning would come from a different list admin, who would hopefully not be procmail'd. Mike Wallace?, ModWest. Recommendation that a role account be created, but sign each message with the name and signature of the person writing it, but, the "from" line would be from the role account, which would prevent individual treatment of messages. Also, removes the view of actions being singular user singling out vs a more "group oriented action. Randy Bush, IIJ, notorious procmail; if you send mail Cc'd to something he's responsible for, it will always get past his procmail filters. If you have a role account, you can make it part of the subscription process that the role account be whitelisted past any filters. Propopsed addition to AUP first proposed addition since committee started. 8. Challenge/response sender whitelisting software which requires interaction by any party to validate a post to the NANOG mailing list as non-spam shall be treated by the list administration team like any other condition that generates a bounce message. Subscribers with software (such as but not limited to TMDA) that is (mis)configured ...slide moves on, can't capture the rest of it. Question--Regarding AUP Addition: Should we treat vacation messages the same way as mis-configured whitelisting messages? Joel Yagli--in general, opposed to summary kicking off the list; but in a case like this, which is essentially DoS'ing the list, yes. Jared Mauch, NTT America, he hosts puck.nether.net, which has mailing lists on it; his solution is to use his best judgement on when to remove people; auto-whitelist tend to be quickly removed. People on 2 month sabbatical tend to be problematic. Pete Templin, TexLink--should they discriminate to just posts that kick back to the list, vs that kick back to the sender. The big damage is when it goes to the full list, clearly. Martin Hannigan, Renesys--if Reply-To goes to the sender, it goes once in a 30 day period, so is this really a problem? Joe Provo; if it's a one-on-one problem, they shouldn't be whining to the list admin. Joel Yagli--if it's one message back from a vacation, that's annoying; but if it's a challenge for every mailing to the list, that's worthy of blockage. So, agreed, if it goes to the list, absolutely remove them. But even if it goes back to the sender, it does generate complaints to the mailing list administrators. Rob Seastrom agrees that it's a grey area, esp. on the vacation subject. About 5% nanog-post@ is the shadow mailing list that never gets traffic, but that governs whether you can post to the list or not. That way, any auto-responder won't be allowed to post to the list. Randy asks Joel to clarify the difference between vacation and bozo turing test. The vacation message is one-way, notification only. The Turing test is an arms race; the more widely used they are, the closer we get to the point where we start failing them. Also, some poorly handled systems have no hysteris dampening. Bill Woodcock again; in this region, we seem to be dilligent workers; in other regions, postings to lists result in deluge of autoresponders. Rob Seastrom notes that there's no stigma with this type of removal; you can rejoin immediately when you return from vacation. All that's being removed is a bot, not a person. When the removal happens, the person is ALWAYS notified of the removal, so they know to rejoin upon return. Martin Hannigan notes TMDA is clue factor; the vacation is more likely corporate policy. The removal is NOT just posting privileges, you are removed as a recipient as well, Rob Seastrom clarifies. Mike Hughes, LINX--no harm if you get kicked off, just read the archives. It's a temporary removal! Steve Gibbard--challenge/response replies usually indicates they're not getting the list mail in the first place. Martin Hannigan--what about making first incident warning, second offense is misdemeanor with removal? What was the most recent case? 2 and a half weeks ago, went to the whole list, and the admins were deluged with forwarded copies. Randy notes this is a network operators list, not a network idiots list. if you can't operate your mail client, you don't really belong on the list. Michael Loftis, ?, Discussion seems to center around Exchange users--but UNIX clients have similar issues, but the users are more clueful. What about honoring precendence settings on mail being sent through? Patrick Gilmore calls for vote and moving on--we're starting to beat a dead horse. The steering committee makes the change to the AUP, so they'll get the vote. List stats: January Stats (thanks, Merit!!) Posts to list 8039 Warnings: 2 Threads requiring intevention 2 Members with posting privileges removed 2 Bill Norton--can any light be shed on those two people who were removed? No, no, no. Patrick Gilmore--if you say no, it means we DO need an appeals process, as it means the process is closed and not transparent. Randy Bush, IIJ, Steering Committee. Trials in secret where the result/victims are not known, and causes are not known, are done in this society. (other than the president, who is NOT related to Randy). Randy feels the REASONS for people being banned needs to be made public; don't NAME them, but note the cause and process. RS notes that they'll be happy to divulge what information is required of them. If the steering committee believes that providing some information is appropriate, they will provide it. But without the framework and guidelines, they won't do it. Joe Provo--asks if they were clear abuse of AUP, or grey area. They were clear AUP abusers. Chris notes that when it's clear and removal happens, even if you don't say the name, everyone else will know who it is. But Bill Norton says that if everyone knows who it is, they've already been shamed, what additional shame is there in having their AUP violation listed? Chris declares it dead, until the steering committee directs the list admins to change their policy. Bill Norton finishes off with a call for more transparency in agreement with Randy--it's the lack of transparency that led to the evolution of last year. Randy notes direction WILL be provided. Steve Gibbard--when are the stats for? January 5th to February 5th, actually. He notes 2 was the same number that were removed during the 8 months he was on the team; so it seems the curve is growing rapidly. Joel Yagli--if you haven't noticed, there's not a lot of shame on the list; if you can't shame them into not deaggregating, how can you shame them into not posting?!! 8039 subscribers to the list, NOT posts in the month!!! Only 692 posts in the month. *whew*. Martin Hannigan, founder, former chair of the mailing list admins. In the first mailing list incarnation, they did not publish the names, but they did agree to publish the reason so it was open and fair. The reason for not posting the names was that the general agreement was there could be negative legal connotations to list them by name from the owners of the list; but listing AUP violations does not single out individuals. RS and Chris note they're in agreement, but won't take action until they have a framework from the steering committee, to ensure it is NOT an ad-hoc decision made by individuals on the list-admin team. Once that framework is forthcoming (Randy), the team will move forward in accordance with it. Martin Hannigan--we got here because we wanted the list to be more fair, more transparent, more open. He agrees with TMDA, doesn't agree with vacation, hopes that there will be clear guidance on it coming soon. Randy--how is this safer than transparency? RS notes transparency vs obscurity is one axis, framework and policy vs adhoceracy is a different, orthogonal axis. Chris just says he's not comfortable doing it until Merit says it's ok, since they have legal feet in the fire. Bill Woodcock asks for the next slide--it just says Questions, so we're already here. Jared notes much of the mailing list details aren't formalized, we should take this to the nanog-futures list to discuss openly. We can ask for some of these details to more proscriptively be put in the charter moving forward. Merit put together new charter, they left a lot of vagueness around the mailing list charter, as it was a hot topic, and there was already quite a bit of change happening on the group administration. They specifically left the void in the charter, so that the community could fill it in based on what their views and opinions were. Merit wants to support the list. Betty notes there is a desire to NOT single people out, but if the vote is to increase transparency by making information documented, Merit will be happy to support that effort by documenting the framework. Luis from Equinix; were the posts removed from the archives? No, there's no removal from the archive, you may go back and view them. Joel Yagli--ghost of usenet tends to show people for who they are, in spite of how they may have posted inappropriately in the past? (not sure what he meant). Mike Loftis, ModWest--we all think the list admins are doing a great job--we're not angry with any of them, we're just trying to hash out how best to handle this hot topic. On that note, we move on to the next topic on the Agenda. There's nothing scheduled to be next. Vince Fuller beat him up about something. He doesn't like the schedule change, they should be scheduled before or after so people who don't need to be tutored can skip them before or after. And never again on Valentine's day!! And not on Halloween either!! (ARIN!). With that, Randy calls the Community meeting to a close with some comment about stepping on hogs (poor innocent porcines!!) at 1903 hours Central Time.

1 0

nanog.org website - 403s?
by Mark Foster 12 Feb '06

12 Feb '06

Anyone else seeing 403's when trying to pull anything other than the index page from www.nanog.org?

4 4

Re: nanog.org website - 403s?
by Gregory Hicks 11 Feb '06

11 Feb '06

> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:29:43 -0700 > From: Michael Loftis <mloftis(a)wgops.com> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: nanog.org website - 403s? > > > > > --On February 11, 2006 10:09:42 PM +1300 Mark Foster <blakjak(a)blakjak.net> > wrote: > > > > > Anyone else seeing 403's when trying to pull anything other than the > > index page from www.nanog.org? > > Not everywhere but almost every single page yes. mailinglist.html still > works... > > someones FTP client or ssh/scp client set with wrong umask? :D All the ones that I tried I received "Forbidden You don't have permission to access ..." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | 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." - Benjamin Franklin "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton

1 0

The Groups.google thing and the dupe-delivery thing...
by Mark Foster 10 Feb '06

10 Feb '06

Thanks to all who emailed both on and offlist. I've been advised that there were definately multiple people from NANOG affected (aka 'subscribed')by the google groups thing and that Google were promptly been heads-upped by some kind soul on NANOG who have since zapped the group concerned into a fine powder. As for the dupe-delivery issue, Google have made contact and are looking into it now. It does appear based on feedback that it has been seen before, but infrequently. If anything else comes of it i'll feed back to the list if anyone would be interested. Regards Mark.

1 0

Google = Spam Source (was RE: Gmail weirdness?)
by Mark Foster 10 Feb '06

10 Feb '06

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Gary Wardell wrote: > Hi, > > I've seen one or two blogs that suggest gmail has a potential as a source for anonymous SPAM and other abuses. > > One said he blocks all gmail. > > I'd be interested as to what others think. > Well after I posted to NANOG about gmail I found myself randomly added to a 'Google Group' about hacking... The 'welcome' message is attatched below. Frankly this just smells of 'abuse black hole' and I woulda thought that Google would know better. - No request for authentication or confirmation of the subscription request _before_ the victim starts receiving mail traffic. - Attempts to use the unsubscription tool result in the need to create a login account. - The 'report as abuse' link presents you with a form, which I used... Interesting however that the form was under groups.google.co.in (obviously the domain the offender uses.) - I'm now stuck with a subscription I don't want and an unsubscribe mechanism that is unacceptable. Among other things the email address I use generally is not the same as the one I use for gmail purposes (yes, i hold an account, used infrequently) and I don't particularly want the two tied together. 1) Interested to know if anyone else on NANOG has noted this behavior, 2) If anyone from Google or Gmail is represented on NANOG you may like to take a serious look into this... likewise i'd appreciate hearing back (off list) to confirm i've been removed from the group below and that you're considering improving your subscription mechanics! Cheers Mark. harpreet1977(a)gmail.com has added you to the hackers a to z group with this message: Fed up with worms, viruses and hackers messing with your computer? Want to know how they do it? How to defend? How to fight back? "You take the blue pill and the story ends.... Take the red pill and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes," hackers-a-to-z(a)googlegroups.com Here is the group's description: Fed up with worms, viruses and hackers messing with your computer? Want to know how they do it? How to defend? How to fight back?"You take the blue pill and the story ends.... Take the red pill and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes". Group Manager :Harpreet Singh Ahluwalia ----------------------- Google Groups Information ---------------------- The owner of the group has set your subscription type as "Email", meaning that you'll receive a copy of every message posted to the group as they are posted. To view this group on the web, or edit your subscription, you will need to create a Google Account by going to: *url snipped* Visit this group on the web by using this URL: http://groups.google.co.in/group/hackers-a-to-z You can unsubscribe from this group using the following URL: *url snipped* -------------------- Information About This Message -------------------- If you feel that this message is abuse, please inform the Google Groups staff by using the URL below. *url snipped*

3 2

NOC contact at OLM?
by Kevin 10 Feb '06

10 Feb '06

Can anybody help me with a NOC or SOC contact for OLM? It appears OLM.Net is blocking all traffic from some/all of my employer's network space as it enters their network, including DNS lookup of domains hosted on fastdns.net and sylint.com. The last IP seen on traceroutes is 4.68.97.40 or other 4.68.97.X addresses. Thanks, Kevin Kadow (P.S. I've been on hold with their technical support line for the past forty minutes.)

7 10

Re: Issues between Comcast (ATT) and GLBX?
by Guy Tal 10 Feb '06

10 Feb '06

Drew, So you have a ticket open with GBLX and they said what exactly? Guy

1 0

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Table Analysis 10 Feb '06

10 Feb '06

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 11 Feb, 2006 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 181747 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 101113 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 88304 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 21484 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18665 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8867 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2819 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 71 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.5 Max AS path length visible: 22 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 5 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 12 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1493620896 Equivalent to 89 /8s, 6 /16s and 216 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 40.3 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 59.5 Percentage of available address space allocated: 67.8 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 88685 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 37966 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 16155 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 35732 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 17528 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2465 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 684 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 383 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 21 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 213088992 Equivalent to 12 /8s, 179 /16s and 122 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 66.6 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 121/8, 122/7, 124/7, 126/8, 202/7 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 95871 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 56558 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 75188 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 28398 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10507 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3936 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 969 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 17 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 287215360 Equivalent to 17 /8s, 30 /16s and 143 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 71.3 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/6, 68/7, 70/6, 74/7, 76/8, 198/7, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 35748 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 24070 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 32766 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 22090 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 7629 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3985 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1279 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 234152320 Equivalent to 13 /8s, 244 /16s and 225 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 69.8 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 80/5, 88/6, 188/8, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 10279 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3451 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 8459 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 5044 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 670 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 219 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 122 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.1 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 22 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 25382912 Equivalent to 1 /8s, 131 /16s and 80 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 37.8 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 189/8, 190/8, 200/7 AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 1874 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 879 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1247 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 883 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 146 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 43 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 23 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 14 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 3184896 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 48 /16s and 153 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 9.5 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 196/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4134 985 6480 204 CHINANET-BACKBONE 9583 853 109 15 Sify Limited 4766 710 3927 301 Korea Telecom (KIX) 1221 675 1428 474 Telstra Pty Ltd 4755 652 256 55 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 9498 528 211 73 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 7545 517 108 70 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 17488 514 31 7 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 17676 480 6949 104 Softbank BB Corp. 9443 411 94 85 Primus Telecommunications 4802 366 75 157 Wantree Development 2907 339 1763 316 SINET Japan 9929 335 218 50 China Netcom Corp. 18101 325 68 26 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet 17974 319 77 38 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 17557 311 25 161 Pakistan Telecom 7474 297 211 229 SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 4780 282 226 16 Digital United Inc. 9837 273 78 169 Powertel Ltd 9800 259 410 67 CHINA UNICOM ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7018 1475 6265 955 AT&T WorldNet Services 4323 1206 711 235 Time Warner Telecom 721 1022 21954 309 DLA Systems Automation Center 174 993 5788 938 Cogent Communications 6197 980 451 508 BellSouth Network Solutions, 19029 977 152 115 New Edge Networks 701 951 8064 790 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 18566 907 272 8 Covad Communications 2386 890 504 665 AT&T Data Communications Serv 1239 851 2790 611 Sprint 6198 695 455 240 BellSouth Network Solutions, 209 680 3606 536 Qwest 20115 664 566 355 Charter Communications 11492 628 81 12 Cable One 22773 627 1479 38 Cox Communications, Inc. 19262 620 1793 152 Verizon Global Networks 855 573 244 64 Canadian Research Network 852 572 1092 381 Telus Advanced Communications 19916 563 49 54 OLM LLC 3602 522 127 106 Sprint Canada, Inc. RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 702 588 1954 465 UUNET - Commercial IP service 3301 305 1071 290 TeliaNet Sweden 3352 301 1484 33 Ibernet, Internet Access Netw 3320 281 3477 235 Deutsche Telekom AG 8220 275 474 269 COLT Telecommunications 680 242 2025 239 DFN-IP service G-WiN 3246 229 487 219 Song Networks 8708 222 274 205 Romania Data Systems S.A. 6746 221 85 193 Dynamic Network Technologies, 9121 204 913 26 TTnet Autonomous System 1257 195 712 173 SWIPnet Swedish IP Network 3269 185 1925 70 TELECOM ITALIA 5515 177 840 125 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 786 173 1794 173 The JANET IP Service 3215 173 1422 84 France Telecom Transpac 8866 172 37 13 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 24863 168 38 9 LINKdotNET AS number 3300 166 171 94 AUCS Communications Services 5400 165 328 135 BT Ignite European Backbone 6830 163 733 34 UPC Distribution Services LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 575 1049 219 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 22047 383 142 10 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 11172 305 110 78 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 16814 295 18 7 NSS, S.A. 14117 184 11 6 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 7303 156 74 17 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 6147 154 126 22 Telefonica Del Peru 13999 136 84 10 Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. 11556 130 64 3 Cable-Wireless Panama 19169 123 8 30 Telconet 10481 121 48 8 Prima S.A. 21826 116 15 19 INTERCABLE 5639 112 12 9 Telecommunications Services o 6505 108 88 80 Global One Communicaoes Ltda 6503 101 147 72 AVANTEL, S.A. 18822 99 8 10 TELEFONICA MANQUEHUE 7315 96 6 3 Grupo Rey Moreno 25620 96 6 3 COTAS LTDA 11311 95 8 23 Sinectis S.A. 14522 95 12 8 SatNet S.A. AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3741 278 819 234 The Internet Solution 8452 155 60 7 TEDATA 5536 122 8 16 Internet Egypt Network 2018 117 298 103 Tertiary Education Network 15475 102 84 4 Nile Online 2905 74 155 67 The Internetworking Company o 6713 73 87 11 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 20928 58 16 2 Noor Advanced Technologies AS 24835 58 50 7 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 5713 38 166 34 Telkom SA Ltd 15706 31 8 3 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 33774 30 7 21 AS Number for Telecom Algeria 12455 28 6 5 Jambonet Autonomous system 23889 25 7 10 MAURITIUS TELECOM 8524 23 1 4 AUCEGYPT Autonomous System 16637 23 10 21 Johnnic e-Ventures 10798 22 1 13 Standard Bank of South Africa 8346 21 14 18 SONATEL-AS Autonomous System 21280 21 4 4 Swift Global Kenya Ltd.Is an 12258 17 3 11 Vodacom Internet Company Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4323 1206 971 Time Warner Telecom 18566 907 899 Covad Communications 19029 977 862 New Edge Networks 9583 853 838 Sify Limited 4134 985 781 CHINANET-BACKBONE 721 1022 713 DLA Systems Automation Center 11492 628 616 Cable One 4755 652 597 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 22773 627 589 Cox Communications, Inc. 855 573 509 Canadian Research Network 19916 563 509 OLM LLC 17488 514 507 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 5668 517 493 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 6197 980 472 BellSouth Network Solutions, 19262 620 468 Verizon Global Networks 6198 695 455 BellSouth Network Solutions, 9498 528 455 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 7545 517 447 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 7757 461 442 AT&T Broadband 3602 522 416 Sprint Canada, Inc. List of Unregistered ASNs (Global) ---------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65211 PRIVATE 125.64.3.0/24 4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE 65005 PRIVATE 159.153.148.0/22 24989 IX Europe Frankfurt 64811 PRIVATE 202.127.124.0/24 24405 Beijing CJWX Communi 65505 PRIVATE 206.252.200.192/27 8002 Stealth Communicatio 65518 PRIVATE 211.144.192.0/19 24421 * Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 132.0.0.0/10 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 137.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 158.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 192.43.230.0/24 7575 Australian Academic and Rease 192.44.0.0/24 5501 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft 192.44.0.0/19 702 UUNET - Commercial IP service 192.70.164.0/24 25689 National Research Council of 192.72.0.0/18 4780 Digital United Inc. 192.72.0.0/16 4780 Digital United Inc. 192.84.205.0/24 719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.119.135.0/24 270 NASA 192.172.0.0/19 721 DLA Systems Automation Center Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:18 /9:9 /10:8 /11:22 /12:87 /13:199 /14:349 /15:694 /16:8701 /17:3067 /18:5063 /19:11275 /20:12462 /21:10873 /22:13874 /23:15104 /24:98949 /25:343 /26:266 /27:201 /28:60 /29:25 /30:54 /31:3 /32:41 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 19029 899 977 New Edge Networks 18566 890 907 Covad Communications 6197 785 980 BellSouth Network Solutions, 7018 754 1475 AT&T WorldNet Services 9583 672 853 Sify Limited 2386 621 890 AT&T Data Communications Serv 11492 620 628 Cable One 4323 582 1206 Time Warner Telecom 6198 560 695 BellSouth Network Solutions, 19916 557 563 OLM LLC 4766 514 710 Korea Telecom (KIX) 855 445 573 Canadian Research Network 7757 443 461 AT&T Broadband 7011 423 492 Citizens Utilities 5668 403 517 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 702 372 588 UUNET - Commercial IP service 1239 371 851 Sprint 15270 341 370 PaeTec.net -a division of Pae 6517 340 367 Yipes Communications, Inc. 22773 328 627 Cox Communications, Inc. Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:3 8:42 12:1643 13:1 15:12 16:3 17:3 18:4 20:44 24:864 25:1 30:2 32:66 38:196 40:53 44:3 47:3 52:4 55:1 56:3 57:33 58:115 59:160 60:180 61:798 62:769 63:1895 64:3051 65:2257 66:3072 67:579 68:672 69:1434 70:308 71:51 72:622 73:23 74:5 80:757 81:576 82:507 83:360 84:344 85:422 86:289 87:166 88:21 89:22 124:12 125:266 128:148 129:173 130:107 131:314 132:32 133:7 134:146 135:46 136:169 137:60 138:187 139:85 140:388 141:133 142:414 143:144 144:224 145:39 146:307 147:136 148:321 149:186 150:114 151:73 152:62 153:103 154:6 155:186 156:95 157:121 158:158 159:180 160:88 161:68 162:218 163:142 164:174 165:203 166:147 167:236 168:473 169:140 170:317 171:12 190:30 192:5769 193:3363 194:2507 195:1765 196:759 198:3904 199:3258 200:4192 201:592 202:6442 203:6786 204:3882 205:2093 206:2434 207:2929 208:1993 209:3855 210:1939 211:813 212:1290 213:1446 214:332 215:40 216:4087 217:1152 218:238 219:135 220:635 221:341 222:149 End of report

1 0

Issues between Comcast (ATT) and GLBX?
by Drew Weaver 10 Feb '06

10 Feb '06

Anyone else notice any oddities? I've had about 20 complaints from Comcast customers whom host with us (and associated trace routes) showing that their traffic cannot correctly traverse ATT to get through Global Crossing to my network. Thanks, -Drew

1 0

Gmail weirdness?
by Mark Foster 10 Feb '06

10 Feb '06

Anyone noticed any odd behavior with gmail? Particularly in the last few weeks? Particularly, we're seeing gmail deliver multiple instances of a message from a gmail subscriber to a mailing list server... The following post gives as much info as i've been able to collate to date: http://www.linux.net.nz/pipermail/nzlug/2006-February/003398.html The problems were first observed by us week-before-last. At this stage i'm being forced to moderate any gmail-using-subscriber, it may be that we need to forbid gmail.com entirely. Gmails website didn't list any suitable NOC-type contact addresses, nor are there any on the NOC list site. The fact we're seeing discrete SMTP connections does make it look like the problem is definately related to the-other-end and at the minimum, some liason with an appropriate person at google/gmail would be great. Likewise if this is a 'known issue', someone please feel free to shoot me down as appropriate.... Thanks Mark Foster.

4 3