- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 24 Feb '04

24 Feb '04

>Okay, they are lying here. That's a bit strong. If you had looked at the Paxfire website it doesn't take long to realize they are completely clueless. They are an Internet traffic broker but the traffic that they deal in is web page views which illustrates a certain level of technical cluelessness. But then when you read their "about" pages and see the long lists of trivial accomplishments of the principals in the company, you have to wonder about their business acumen as well. Let's face it, these guys just don't really understand what they are doing. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Proposal: De-boganising New Address Blocks
by Daniel Karrenberg 24 Feb '04

24 Feb '04

[Apologies for duplicate messages] This is of interet to all operators worldwide. Operators who do not participate in RIPE are invited to send comments and suggestions directly to the author. "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks" <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/deboganising-draft.html> Abstract "This document describes an improvement in the notification process about new blocks of address space being distributed by the RIRs. It is a draft at this stage and your comments are solicited. However to gain experience before finalising the procedures, the RIPE NCC will shortly start announcing the routes from 84/8 described in the document under "84/8 Pilot"."

1 0

FCC rulemaking for mandatory outage reporting
by Sean Donelan 24 Feb '04

24 Feb '04

Communication providers of all sizes, which may include Internet service providers, may want to review http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-30A1.pdf This is the FCC's notice of proposed rulemaking concerning communication provider outage reporting. The definitions are very expansive.

1 0

RE: BL of Compromised Hosts?
by Michel Py 24 Feb '04

24 Feb '04

>> Michel Py wrote: >> There is a regrouping of BGP feeds for various "questionable" >> hosts and networks around AS29467; > william(at)elan.net wrote: > That is actually not correct. The AS29467 will stay as being > used for BOGON and similar data. It is quite likely that other > ASNs would be used for other "questionable" hosts, possibly > one for various anti-spam lists and other for yet more > "questionable" hosts such as DoS sources, etc. My mistake, thanks for correcting me. > The draft is not about data sources the draft about the > changes that need to be done to the router software in > handing BGP that would actually allow for use of outside > BGP feed for filtering (or marking) routes Indeed. > The draft which was originally only for bogon filtering > during private discussions between authors it was changed > to be more general to be used for other situations, > unfortunetly it does still suffer from being too BOGON > specific and when draft was sent to IDR they immediately > complained about that too. Indeed; however after some face to face discussion and clarified by the presentation they did understand our intentions that the purpose was the mechanism and not the qualification of the bogon/bad sources. > It has been suggested that draft be rewritten and even > more be removed from it to be less bogon specific and > to only describe this kind of filtering in the concept > with non-specific examples if possible. Still on the table, although I would like have some beta code to grind prior to rewriting... The existing draft is not nearly as bad as the initial versions in terms of being tied to bogon filtering, but I agree that it would be better if it was more generic. Michel.

1 0

RE: Genu/L3 Major Outage
by Chris Ranch 24 Feb '04

24 Feb '04

Gotta love email latencies, where the gasp for help is heard after the problem goes away. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Chris Ranch Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:58 PM To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: Genu/L3 Major Outage Hello, Anyone know what's going on with GENU/L3's failure? I have an OC-3 in South Florida up/up, but bgp peer not responding. 17:00 EST. Thanks, Chris ---------------------------------------------- Chris Ranch Director of Network Architecture Affinity Internet, Inc. Office: +1 415 764 1091 ext. 3 Cell: +1 925 683 5823

5 4

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls
by Dr. Jeffrey Race 24 Feb '04

24 Feb '04

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:41:34 -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >Yup. This is the form I saw in the PRC, It's come to Thailand too: NIPA. Results in lots of puzzling hits, or you end up at Google if NIPA can't find anything. You also get this if there is a transient DNS lookup failure. Jeffrey Race

1 0

Re: possible L3 issues (more than LAX/SJC)
by J. Oquendo 24 Feb '04

24 Feb '04

Using their own looking glass (lg.level3.net) produces all sorts of route failures as well. Show Level 3 (Raleigh, NC) Traceroute to so-3-3-0.edge1.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.127.29) 1 ge-7-0-0.mpls1.Raleigh1.Level3.net (209.244.22.33) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 so-5-1-0.bbr1.Atlanta1.Level3.net (209.247.11.18) 8 msec 8 msec 8 msec 3 * * ge-10-0.hsa1.Atlanta1.Level3.net (64.159.1.246) !unreachable -- Show Level 3 (Hamburg, Germany) Traceroute to 64.159.1.246 1 ae-0-20.mp2.Hamburg1.Level3.net (195.122.140.202) 4 msec 20 msec 0 msec 2 so-0-0-0.mp2.London1.Level3.net (212.187.128.25) 16 msec 16 msec 28 msec 3 so-1-0-0.bbr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (212.187.128.153) 88 msec 88 msec 88 msec 4 so-0-2-0.bbr2.Atlanta1.Level3.net (64.159.1.1) 104 msec 116 msec 100 msec 5 ge-10-0.hsa1.Atlanta1.Level3.net (64.159.1.246) 104 msec * 100 msec /* I'm seeing packet loss at LAX and SJC both (seems to be one and then the other, back and forth). -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere */ =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x51F9D78D Fingerprint 2A48 BA18 1851 4C99 CA22 0619 DB63 F2F7 51F9 D78D http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x51F9D78D sil @ politrix . org http://www.politrix.org sil @ infiltrated . net http://www.infiltrated.net "Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone." -- Ayn Rand

1 0

possible L3 issues
by kwallace＠pcconnection.com 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ? - Keith

8 7

RE: possible L3 issues
by Ryburn, Justin 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

I have no definite answers but the rumors are a major CEF problem on their GSRs. Justin Ryburn Tier II Router Support XO Communications Phone: (314) 787-7876 E-mail: justin.ryburn(a)xo.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Ranch Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:00 PM To: 'kwallace(a)pcconnection.com'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: possible L3 issues Definite failures in South East US. I have a dead OC-3. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > kwallace(a)pcconnection.com > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:53 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: possible L3 issues > > > > anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ? > - Keith > >

1 0

RE: possible L3 issues
by Sean Crandall 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

Level3 is having problems in SJC and ATL right now and they are definitely aware of it. Any packets that I send to them die at their ipcolo switch in those two markets. Level3 in LAX, DFW, CHI, DC, NYC, SEA, DEN all seem to be running fine. -Sean MegaPath Networks > -----Original Message----- > From: kwallace(a)pcconnection.com [mailto:kwallace@pcconnection.com] > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:53 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: possible L3 issues > > > anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ? > - Keith > >

2 1