- Test - lists.nanog.org

Phone ouages grow more severe
by Sean Donelan 10 Nov '05

10 Nov '05

Networks Are Taking Longer To Repair Despite Focus On Boosting Reliability By JESSE DRUCKER and AMY SCHATZ Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL November 10, 2005; Page B10 Despite a new focus on strengthening traditional U.S. telecommunications systems to withstand terrorism and natural disasters, telephone-network outages have grown more severe and are lasting longer to repair. [...] In the past four years, the median duration of an outage was 3.3 hours -- "significantly higher" than the 2.86 hours it took to restore operations during the first eight years data were tracked, according to the report. The severity of the outages -- which takes into account several factors, including the number of customers affected -- has also jumped over the past four years. [...]

1 0

RE: Comments or suggestions required Internap FCP 500 vs. OER
by Mulrooney, Patrick 10 Nov '05

10 Nov '05

drew.weaver(a)thenap.com may have said: > We're looking at possibly purchasing a Internap FCP500, everything > I hear about these boxes is good. We are simultaneously trying to You should also look at the Avaya CNA product (their Routescience acquisition). http://tinyurl.com/d7saf -patrick

1 0

RE: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses
by Ben Butler 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

*********************** Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall. ***********-*********** Hi, This should sort you out. no keepalive spanning-tree bpdufilter enable Kind Regards Ben -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Simon Brilus Sent: 09 November 2005 10:40 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses *********************** Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall. ***********-*********** Hi , We are unable to resolve a problem with our peering exchange connection and would like any assistance. Our peering setup is a follows: - Our peering exchange connection goes into switch A - Switch A has a dark fibre connection to switch B, which is in a different PoP - Our peering router is connected to switch B We use spanning tree across our network to allow the VLANs connectivity across our network. The peering exchange has an MoU that only 1 MAC address should be visible on their switch. However they see 2 MAC addresses on our port. - MAC address of Peering router - MAC address of the port they are connected to on switch A Is there any way to prevent switch A from presenting the interface MAC address? Or is this a symptom of spanning tree that cannot be stopped? Your input will be most welcome. The config on switch A is as follows: interface GigabitEthernet0/5 description Peering Link switchport access vlan 148 switchport mode access speed nonegotiate storm-control broadcast level 5.00 no cdp enable spanning-tree portfast spanning-tree bpdufilter enable spanning-tree guard root Regards Simon Brilus

3 2

Re: classful routes redux
by Henk Uijterwaal 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

At 11:57 07/11/2005, Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: > > What about those that are assigned and used but not [currently] visible > > on the public Internet [i.e., are on other internets]? > >Indeed! > >On Henk's slide number 5 he states: > >"Each AS wants to be able to send traffic to any other AS" > >This is NOT true. Many ASes explicitly do *NOT* >want to send traffic to any other AS. They only want >to send traffic to customers, vendors or business >partners of some sort. You are right, but this was not the point I was trying to make on this slide. The point I was trying to make is: A site is assigned an AS if it has a network that is connected to the global Internet and wants to send traffic somewhere. (If not, why bother to get an AS?) One of the rules in the policies is that the AS is returned when the need disappears. So, very naively, I'd think that for each assigned AS there is at least one path announcing the address space in that AS to somebody else. I immediately agree that there are cases where an AS does not want to send traffic to another AS, or prefers not to use a path even though it is available. I also agree that there are cases where a network is not visible at all on the Internet and a private AS cannot be used. However, I do not believe that these cases account for 1/3 of the AS out there. Henk > In other words, there are many >so-called extranets which are basically internets >built using exactly the same technology as the Internet >however with more restrictive interconnect policies. > >One way to visualize this is to imagine the Internet >as a cloud. At the core of the cloud are the core >providers and at the edge of the cloud are the end >user organizations, many of which appear to be >singly homed. However, hidden behind this edge is >a thin layer which represents a private internet. >It also connects many networks but it does *NOT* >exchange traffic with the public Internet. All the >networks connected to these private internets are >also connected to the public Internet but they >implement strict traffic separation policies >internally. In some cases, this is an air gap but >these days it is often a bunch of firewalls. > >In the 24/7 connected world of the 21st century >there is a lot of growth in these internets that >wrap around the Internet but don't exchange vital >fluids with it. > >--Michael Dillon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine)

5 8

Hotmail contact
by Erik Sundberg 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

Hello trying to contact a hotmail postmaster admin... Can some one contact me off list or if any one has the number could you email it to me. All of the contact info at the below link is out of date and doesn't work. I get peoples personal cell phone numbers and the good old disconnected number message http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?hotmail Thanks Erik =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Erik Sundberg sunder(a)appscorp.net Network Engineer Apps Communications 10470 West 164th Place Orland Park, IL 60467 http://www.appscorp.net Phone: 708.403.9200 x228 Fax: 708.873.1310 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

1 0

New improved Linux-foo(l) Worm noise
by J. Oquendo 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/07/linux_worm/ I wonder how long will it be before someone takes the time to create a massive automated backbone targeting worm. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://mo.fscker.com :: Obscurity through Insecurity "How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster?" Joseph McCarthy "America's Retreat from Victory"

4 4

Re: New improved Linux-foo(l) Worm noise
by Gregory Hicks 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 01:15:06 +0000 > From: n3td3v <xploitable(a)gmail.com> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: New improved Linux-foo(l) Worm noise > > > Hehehe, where has Fergie been lately? I kind of miss his online media > article updates. Moved to another list. Everyone 'dumped' on the updates... > On 11/8/05, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: > > > > are you really an alias for fergie? > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
by Roy S. Rapoport 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:03:32PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > How do the operators/engineers explain to 'management', or whomever asks, > the 'training issues' that always crop up when more than one vendor are > proposed? Has anyone had good luck with this arguement? (my answer is sort > of along the lines of: "Its just a router, no matter the vendor and they > all have command-line help" but that's not always recieved well :) ) > > Just curious as I'm sure there are folks stuck in an all vendor X shop who > look over the electronic fence and see vendor Y with 'so much better' or > 'so much faster' or 'so much more blinkly lighty'... and try to have their > management agree to purchasing new devices :) It really depends on your management. Good management will either understand your arguments and support them or be non-technical enough that they'll let you make the technical decision because that's what they're paying you a lot of money to do. Back in 1999, I was the director of IT Engineering for Macromedia. We were putting up a new colo location at Exodus (the story of our relationship with them is worthy of another rant), and had purchased something on the order of $500K of Cisco equipment to provision it -- two Cisco 7513s and two Cisco 6009s. Forgive me, but I can't reliably tell you why we chose those specific models (six years ago!) -- but we needed to be able to sustaing gigabit bandwidth and our Cisco VAR, in combination with the Cisco district sales droids, said "get this!" The provisioning took a while, during which time the equipment gathered a bit of dust. Getting close to the installation date, our technical staff (including me) took Exodus' technical staff to lunch during which they said "Cisco ?! Ha! They're a piece of crap. You should look at Foundry." We talked about it in more details, and left lunch persuaded we should look at Foundry. The next 2-3 weeks were interesting. Amusingly, our salesrep at a Cisco VAR had left earlier to go join Foundry, so we already knew someone there. We had him come in and discuss their product line, got some references from him and talked to them (they were glowing), and priced out the competing platform. We then told Cisco that we were goig to go with Foundry. Amusingly, A) They did not deny their equipment could actually not sustain gigabit speeds; B) An Exoduds SVP called my CIO to let him know that the engineer I spoke with had 'over-communicated', that Exodus and Cisco had a strong partnership, and that in no way would they actually recommend going with someone else. Yeah, OK. We spent about 25%-40%, I believe, of the Cisco price on the two BigIron 8Ks we got. We had to deal with some minor training issues, obviously, and there were some things we were counting on being able to do that they weren't able to do at the time -- I still remember the meeting where the Foundry sales rep came in and said "I talked to my CEO about this feature you need; we can't do it right now, but it's scheduled to be put in in about 8 weeks. Meanwhile, we've gotten an OK to loan you this other equipment that will let you do what you need." In the end, though, the transition was remarkably smooth on a technical basis. Up until this time we were a Cisco-only shop for any purchased equipment (I'm making this subtle distinction because we still had to manage a bunch of shared-media 10-baseT hubs in some of our older locations. Don't get me started). Making the decision to go with Foundry required me to go to my boss and have a grand total of one informal meeting with him that largely consisted of "hey, I'm thinking of going with Foundry for the new colo. If they work, I might start considering them for Corp use also. They're cheaper, faster, and promise better service, and so far I see them delivering on this." Of course, I also promised that we'd be able to return the Cisco 7513s (we repurposed the 6009s) -- and that's when Cisco started pissing us off with an insane "no, wait, you've got to return it to the VAR ... But the VAR needs our approval!" game. It was about 6 weeks of conference calls with Cisco and our VAR and some meetings; apparently, the big issue was that we had unpacked the routers and, much like Best Buy, Cisco required us to return the equipment with all the original packaging. I suggested that maybe, since we were looking at about $150K of equipment, we could actually pay for replacement packaging, but no deal. Note that at the time we were OK with just a credit -- we knew we were going to spend more money on Cisco (at the time) anyway. Long story short, one day my Foundry salesrep and his SE were visiting and noticed I was pissed off. I told them about this issue I was having with Cisco, and on the spot he offered to do a trade-in -- he'd give me my full spent cost on the Ciscos for the 7513s as credit toward any Foundry equipment. The day after, I rented a van and took the two 7513s to Foundry's facilities, and dropped them off at shipping and receiving, where I got some curious looks. That evening, when we called the Cisco district manager and told him "don't worry about it -- we gave them to Foundry for a credit," both my boss and I enjoyed the resulting shock and dismay. So sometimes, moving away from being a one-vendor shop can be relatively painless. Other than Cisco trying desperately to hold on to their exclusivity in this case, we didn't really have too many problems. The key was mutual trust within my organization, and the ability of each layer in it -- my network engineers, me, my boss, my CIO -- to trust the other layers and let them do their job*. -roy * No IT story is complete without an unhappy ending. A management shakeup resulted in the replacement of the CIO, who ended up replacing management with his own people. My replacement was a Cisco guy and they ended up ripping out perfectly functioning Foundry equipment to put Cisco back in there. Of course by then it wasn't my problem anymore, but I got to hear the grumblings from my guys over beers.

1 0

new improved name service?
by Randy Bush 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

and, it seems, you need a new improved nameservice as well A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: sil(a)politrix.org It appears that the DNS operator for politrix.org has installed an invalid MX record with an IP address instead of a domain name on the right hand side. randy

1 0

Re: BGP terminology question
by James Aldridge 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

NetSecGuy wrote: > I understand AS3333 is RIS itself, is this some kind of misconfig on their > end? It seems to be announcing it's entire table every 5 minutes. This > started late Friday and ended a few hours ago. FYI, AS3333 is the RIPE NCC's production AS; the RIS project uses AS12654. There seems to be a difference between the behaviours of Cisco and Juniper routers when encountering the RIS's default keepalive value of 0. Cisco routers (and Zebra/Quagga boxes) seem to operate quite happily without keepalive processing while Junipers seem to tear down and restart the session after the holdtime expires -- result: 170,000 or so additional updates every holdtime-and-a-bit seconds. [Aside: shouldn't the session be refused at startup if a mutually agreeable keepalive value can't be negotiated rather than being allowed to flap like this?] This problem seems to occur when any RIS peer migrates from Cisco to Juniper. The only difference this time is that both ASes are operated by (different groups within) the RIPE NCC. James

2 1