- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
by neil＠DOMINO.ORG 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

> It is not a joke - we had such scenario few years ago (it was 'gated vs > Cisco and WellFreet vs Cisco'). And such scenario make Juniper back-bone a > little dangerous (but I believe that JUNIPER debugged such problems long > ago, so it is not a case today). Yes this has happened a few times, also things like very long AS paths and address family interfaces would take GateD down alot. [I must confess to not have used Zebra] The fix for this that I deployed in GateD was to add large chunks of code to ignore anything that it didn't understand, some of these were complete botches but it stopped the gated.core's from appearing. Regards, Neil.

1 0

RE: /24s run amuck
by McBurnett, Jim 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

Ok, I am often outgunned and off target here. But I have to ask this: 1. If filtering is used, as suggested by someone, what happens to the small/mid-sized company that is multi-homed out of an ISP's /20 or larger block? In this case, I can see an ISP with a /20 bust that up to /21s smaller to accommodate this user. 2. Wasn't /24 filtering something that a few large ISP's did a few years ago and everyone complained? I don't have a reference here but I seem to remember some flack about that. 3. What happens in the case of a carrier that has given /24s to a downstream out of different blocks? I guess the real question is this: If X company can not be reached, how/who would you complain to? And would this be like the RR and AOL email filtering lists where we all complain, and this filtering is an effort by some to force others to clean up their act? Am I out in Left field? Jim

4 4

IP Subnet Management?
by Michael Wiacek 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

Hey everyone, I've been trying to come up with an algorithm to describe the assignment of IP subnets. I have something in a proof of concept form that will break a block of addresses into subnets at a user's request. The thing is that the assignments it makes are provably optimal. Within the limits you may place on an assignment, there will never be more than one empty subnet of any particular size. I am curious as to what other things I should try and put into this. Right now, if you request a /16 from a /8, the /16 is considered assigned and further changes within it are not possible. Would 'children' so to speak be useful for you? What would your ideas be? How have you tackled this problem? Feel free to respond off list if you'd like :-) Appreciate your time! Mike (sick of spreadsheets) Wiacek

3 2

RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
by Michel Py 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

> alex(a)pilosoft.com wrote: > o) lack of unified tools to configure and manage: > Each of those tools has varied degrees of documentation, > different configuration interface, vastly different > 'status' interface, different support mailing lists, etc. > It is much easier for a given organization to find a > cisco/juniper/etc expert than to find someone who's > experienced with Linux/FreeBSD network toolchain, and I > don't foresee that changing anytime soon. You summarized it very well. > There are linux and freebsd distributions that aim to > minimize the "OS" layer to suit router better. Linux > also has a filesystem that spreads writes across the > flash area, so you are not likely to write single block > 100000 times in your life. This is exactly where Cisco got their act together: they understand that what's above is exactly the kind of thing that many people are willing to pay more for in trade for not having to research the issue. In the end, time is money: each organization has a finite number of good techs; sometimes there is value in paying more for gear and have your senior techs available to deal with issues that are directly related to the business, instead of optimizing the OS filesystem so it does not wear out the flash. Michel.

1 0

RE: /24s run amuck
by Shawn Solomon 14 Jan '04

14 Jan '04

If you have had any experiences, good or bad, with Imagestream, please contact me off-list (or here). I would appreciate any or all of your collective input. Thank you, Shawn -- Shawn Solomon Senior Network Engineer / Systems Design IHETS / ITN 317.263.8875 ssolomon(a)ind.net fx317.263.8831 -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of jlewis(a)lewis.org Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:20 PM To: Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: /24s run amuck On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com wrote: > I stand corrected. The following page comparing Cisco and Imagestream > is quite interesting. > > http://www.imagestream.com/Cisco_Comparison.html > > How many of you would buy an Imagestream box to evaluate for > your next network buildout? I've been managing a couple of these for a customer for a couple of years. They work. The main problem I'd have with trying to use them on our network is a lack of certain features I'm either used to or totally dependent on in our ciscos. i.e. MPLSVPN (lack of it) would be a show stopper for us. The gated-public they come with lacks features...AFAIK there is no support for communities, prepending, etc. Their current software image does include zebra now, but last I looked it was not officially supported. For a relatively simple end-user BGP customer, it works fine. And the nice thing is it's PC-type hardware so if you need more RAM, just throw in another dimm. No worries about the global routing table growing and having to buy a bigger router because your year or two old one no longer supports enough memory to hold full routes. I suspect the CPUs are upgradable as well...but I've never actually touched the hardware...I've always worked on it remotely. OS-wise, it's a minimal Linux distribution with a menu interface (or you can drop to a shell) and there is a little space on the flash to add additional software if there something you want that they don't supply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis(a)lewis.org*| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

1 0

Peering BOF: Announcing The Great Debate
by William B. Norton 14 Jan '04

14 Jan '04

Hi all - Restrictive Peering Policies: The Great Debate ------------------------------------------------------------------- Monday Evening at the upcoming Peering BOF at NANOG 30 in Miami we are trying something new: at the beginning of the Peering BOF there will be "A Great Debate" on the topic of Restrictive Peering Policies. Taking the Pro: side is Vijay Gill who will argue "A Restrictive Peering Policy makes business sense." Taking the Con: side is Avi Freedman who will argue "Restrictive Peering Policies are counter productive." Note: The views presented do not necessarily represent the views of the individuals or their employers; the debaters have been coached to present the most compelling case possible given the following rough peering policy classifications and definitions: Open means that the entity will generally agree to peer with anyone in any single location with no prerequisites. Selective means that the entity will generally peer but there are some prerequisites (such as meeting in multiple Interconnect Regions, with a minimum traffic volume, not to exceed a certain In/Out traffic ratio, etc). The Peering Policy documents these prerequisites, which, once met, generally lead to peering. Restrictive means that the entity is generally not open to new peering. The Peering Policy documents extremely difficult to meet peering prerequisites, with the unstated purpose of denying peering. Peering is defined as a business relationship whereby two entities reciprocally and freely exchange access to each others customers. Transit is defined as a business relationship whereby one entity sells access to the *entire* Internet to another. There are of course variations of the above including Paid Peering (exchange of access to each others customers with some form of settlement) and Partial Transit (one entity sells access to part of the Internet, typically broader than just their customers). The format of the Debate: Coin Flip to decide who goes first Side A presents their position (3.5 minutes) Side B presents their position (3.5 minutes) Side A counters and/or reinforces their own position (3.5 minutes) Side B counters and/or reinforces their own position (3.5 minutes) Side A Summation (3.5 minutes) Side B Summation (3.5 minutes) The audience will vote "Who makes the more compelling case" to determine the winner of the debate. My hope is that this will focus the light on an issue that seems to have always caused a great deal more heat than light in the Peering Coordinator Community. Perhaps we will see that there are indeed reasonable and rational arguments on both sides of this debate. Following the debate will be Peering Personals, giving Peering Coordinators a chance to talk about their network, what they look for in a peer, why others should want to peer with them, etc. as per http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0402/norton.html This has proven to be an effective way of pulling together the community of Peering Coordinators, hopefully resulting in more peering sessions. I think you will find this debate and the Peering BOF highly entertaining and maybe even educational ;-) Cheers - Bill PS - If you are a Peering Coordinator and would like to take part in the Peering Personals, I have a handful of slots left. Please fill out the form at the URL above and send it to wbn(a)umich.edu. Thanks!

1 0

Contact from Google urgently needed
by Dave Temkin 14 Jan '04

14 Jan '04

If anyone on the list is employed by Google please contact me ASAP. I've sent emails to help(a)google.com and haven't gotten a response. There's nothing on the NOC list for Google. Thanks, -Dave

3 2

c1700 router
by Tracey Webb 14 Jan '04

14 Jan '04

Does anyone have data on the capacity of a c1700 using a T1 csu/dsu. I have a customer who backhauls several sites into a c1700. I suspect that it is or will soon reach capacity and should be upgraded. I need hard proof to that point. Tracey Webb Network Operations Cameron Communications, LLC 337-775-3097 Office 337-583-2097 tracey.webb(a)camtel.com GO LSU!!! GO DUKE !!!

2 1

Re: /24s run amuck
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 14 Jan '04

14 Jan '04

>Why vendors feel the need to design route >processors which are barely upgradable in RAM, not upgradable in >processing power, and at best 24-36 months behind the times of the >technology the Dell Interns are pushing for $499, is beyond me. It's called profit margins. The thing that surprises me is that there aren't any small vendors offering fairly generic routing boxes, i.e. Intel-based motherboard, lots of RAM, BSD/Linux base OS with Zebra for routing and some of the many PCI cards supporting T1 and DS3 circuits (not to forget GigE...). In most other industries that are dominated by a few large brand-name high-margin suppliers there are also several low-margin suppliers offering generic products with minimal handholding. Why don't we see this in the router business? --Michael Dillon

3 2

Sprint Netop contact?
by McBurnett, Jim 14 Jan '04

14 Jan '04

hi, I am seing root shell attempts and SNMP (Approx 1200 in an hour) sweeps coming from what appears to be a netops system at Sprint. If someone from there is online, Please drop me a line offlist... Thanks, Jim

1 0