- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: SNMP "Accounting" Software
by McNamara, Colin 11 Oct '05

11 Oct '05

I would recommend using Cacti for interface speed monitoring. It is available at www.cacti.net <http://www.cacti.net/> --Colin _____ From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:21 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: SNMP "Accounting" Software We need some fairly complex SNMP accounting software (data center) style stuff that can monitor cisco equipment for bandwidth utilization and generate reports based on 95th percentile and also perhaps even their actual bandwidth usage (how many gigs of transfer they use per month, day, week.. etc) Does anyone know of anything good that does anything like this? It needs to be reliable? Can be open source, we're using MRTG to track utilization but we need something that really handles "accounting" for us. Thanks, -Drew

2 1

Requesting P.I. Space from ARIN - latest issues?
by up＠3.am 11 Oct '05

11 Oct '05

After taking IP space from upstreams for years, I am on the verge of requesting PI space from ARIN, but after reviewing their guidelines, I have a couple of questions: 1) I meet the Multihoming requirement, which means I can get a block as small as a /22, which is about right for my needs. Are there still any concerns about networks (as Verio and Sprint have done in the past) filtering out longer prefixes, and if so, does it depend on whether it;s former class A, B, C or swamp space? I know when I got my current block from my upstream, I had to make sure I got swamp space, because the former class B block they initially allocated to me wouldn't have made it past Verio's filters at that time. 2) I currently have a /21 from an upstream, for which I met the requirements for when I got it, but since outsourcing the dialup, I am probably well below ARIN's guidelines for "efficient utilization" at this time. Would this cause a problem in my application, even though I am applying for a smaller block? Thanks in advance, James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up(a)3.am http://3.am =========================================================================

3 2

Problems
by Philip Lavine 11 Oct '05

11 Oct '05

I am having problems with people connecting from the East Coast to my AS 17021 via qwest AS 209 on the West Coast. How do I troubleshoot this? __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

OT: Anyone here know what's up with inet-access.net
by W.D.McKinney 11 Oct '05

11 Oct '05

-----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [mailto:127.0.0.1] Sent: None To: dee(a)akwireless.net Subject: Delivery Status Notification The original message was received at Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:24:25 -0800. ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <list(a)inet-access.net> (reason: while talking to mqueue.netaxs.com; 554 <list(a)inet-access.net>: Relay access denied)

2 1

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
by Schliesser, Benson 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

> I would think in NANOG that one would know the simple fact that 'The Complete > Internet' is complete and utter fiction, and does not exist. What does exist > is a complex, dynamic, even stochastic set of relationships between > autonomous networks, who can pick and choose their relationships at whim. Customers don't want to pay for a "stochastic set of relationships", they will pay for the "Internet" however. It's like paying for a telephone that could only call a subset of the world's telephone users. And the solution (assuming you wanted global reachability) was to buy multiple telephone services from different providers, but even then the reachability that those providers offered would change over time. Would you be happy to rely on telephone for critical business (or other) functions? Call me crazy if you'd like, but I tend to think that peering on the Internet is too important... -Benson --- Benson Schliesser (email) mailto:bensons@savvis.net I barely understand my own thoughts, much worse those of my betters. Thus, the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer. Ponder them at your own risk.

15 20

LAX to NANOG 35 - bus/shuttle recommendations?
by Pete Templin 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

The Hilton website is suggesting a $13 far for bus service from LAX to NANOG 35 and $50 for taxi. Any recommendations on where to find said bus service, and if reservations are necessary? See you in St. Loui^H^HLA! pt

2 1

Cox Communications Contact Please
by Richard J. Sears 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

Can someone from Cox Communications Security group contact me off list please. Thanks ****************************************** Richard J. Sears Vice President American Internet Services ---------------------------------------------------- rsears(a)adnc.com http://www.adnc.com ---------------------------------------------------- 858.576.4272 - Phone 858.427.2401 - Fax INOC-DBA - 6130 ---------------------------------------------------- I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . "Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt and dance like you do when nobody's watching."

1 0

RE: Operational impact of depeering
by Hannigan, Martin 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

-- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan(a)verisign.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Tom Vest > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:46 AM > To: Nanog Mailing list > Cc: Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com > Subject: Re: Operational impact of depeering > > > > > On Oct 10, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: > > >> It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the > >> operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or > >> contractual ramifications. > > > > > >> Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review > >> this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month? > > > > Aside from anything else, there is this interesting topic > > on the agenda: > > Abstract: NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering > > Networks > > Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick, > > Sonic.net > > > > Seems to me that a discussion of traffic analysis could > > handle a slide or two on actual impacts of this depeering. > > > > --Michael Dillon > > Here's one way of looking at it: > (copied below b/c the list is not publicly archived) > > TV > > > From: Tom Vest <tvest(a)pch.net> > > Date: October 8, 2005 6:00:32 PM EDT > > To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM- > > L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> > > Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] [ misc fyi ] internet "peering" breaking > > down (fwd) > > > > Okay now that the flap is over and I have a few minutes to spare, > > I'll bite. > > > > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Peter R. wrote: > > > >> Your passionate response deserves a response: > >> > >> It's not very small indeed. > > > > Compared to what? > > > > On 10/1/05, Cogent's network (AS174 -- a very old network) > > originated the equivalent of 1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the > > "ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call > > the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated > > the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05% > > at that point in time. > > > > Note: numbers are derived from the Route Views archive: > > http://archive.routeviews.org/oix-route-views/2005.10/oix-full- > > snapshot-2005-10-01-0000.dat.bz2. > > > > In an RFC 1930/2270 compliant world, 99% of networks downstream of > > either disputant have other, unaffected upstreams, so presumably > > they don't lose reachability to anyone. > > > > Maybe there are 1b Internet users worldwide, and maybe they are > > distributed roughly in proportion to the distribution of Internet > > production. So maybe 5% of the world population as > affected by the > > dispute -- roughly 5m users. > > Anti-Level(3)? The only fact in this was the route view count, and even that could be wrong. Not a very fair comparison, especially to make to regulatory people who may not know better. AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition. You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for them being old school. Cogent is not old school. -M<

3 2

RE: Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent
by James Ashton 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

Would love to see this report. This was a pretty wide reaching event and it would be nice to know the more detailed extent of the full event. James -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Malayter Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:21 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent Good Morning, I would suggest to the PC for the LA NANOG that they invite Todd from Renesys to do a report on the affects of the Level3 depeering of Cogent. I think this would be very informative. Thanks, -Chris

1 0

Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent
by Chris Malayter 10 Oct '05

10 Oct '05

Good Morning, I would suggest to the PC for the LA NANOG that they invite Todd from Renesys to do a report on the affects of the Level3 depeering of Cogent. I think this would be very informative. Thanks, -Chris

2 1