- Test - lists.nanog.org

Xo or TWT contacts?
by Drew Weaver 13 Dec '03

13 Dec '03

Anyone around I've tried all normal channels without avail, need network techs for either. -Drew

1 0

Opinion on riverhead's DDOS mitigation system?
by Drew Weaver 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

Has anyone seen this gear in action? Or does anyone have any better solutions? -Drew

1 0

Looking for an ATT.net (Worldnet) contact
by Dan Ellis 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

Greetings... Sorry to post another "looking for a contact" e-mail, but ATT Worldnet has mail blocked a large broadband ISP's mail servers with no response to their abuse contact and no contact at time of blocking. If you are from Worldnet.ATT.net, please contact me. Thanks in advance. --Dan -- Daniel Ellis, CTO, PenTeleData (610)826-9293 "The only way to predict the future is to invent it." --Alan Kay

1 0

Re: In need of help from Comcast
by Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

Kenneth Budd expressed his frustration about not being able to reach Comcast's blacklist management people by email because his site was blacklisted. It's not the first time that somebody's had that problem with some ISP. For ISPs, it's important to make sure that abuse@ and similar NOC addresses don't block incoming mail. (Similarly, spam filters can make it difficult to submit spam complaints...) But for people who are stuck when trying to reach addresses like that, remember that free or cheap email providers are widely available, so go get a Yahoo address if you're in an hurry, or spend the $20/month for an email address with some other provider so you've got an alternative. Sure, it looks funny to have "Big-ISP-1-admin(a)Big-ISP-2.net", and more dubious to have "Big-ISP-1-admin(a)yahoo.com", but go ahead... Bill Stewart

3 2

survey on BGP damping
by Beichuan Zhang 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

Hi, We are conducting a survey of BGP damping deployment and would greatly appreciate if you could take a few minutes to answer the following questions. There are a number of interesting results and various recommendations for damping settings. However, we have found only limited information on who does(does not) deploy damping and what parameter settings are selected in practice. If you are willing to participate, please send replies directly to us. We will collect the results (removing any private information regarding specific sites) and post the results to the list. Thanks! --- beichuan (1) Does your AS have BGP route flap damping turned on? * Yes * No (please skip to comments) (2) What damping parameters do you use? * Cisco Default * Juniper Default * RIPE recommendation * Customized (3) On which links do you enable damping? * To customers only * To providers * To peers * All the above (4) Comments Please tell us more such as: What kind of network are you managing (any specific names will be removed in the published study)? Why (why not) do you enable damping? If you enable damping, why did you choose your current parameters? Has your site seen specific problems that were prevented by damping (or caused by damping)? We welcome any other comments you feel are relevant. Thanks!

1 0

route-views up at PAIX (Palo Alto)
by David Meyer 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

Folks, We are now up and running at the PAIX (Palo Alto) and would like to invite folks at the PAIX to peer with with Route-Views. Please contact us at help(a)routeviews.org if you would like contribute your view. Thanks, The Route-Views Team

1 0

Re: Anyone from NeuLeve.bizl listening?
by Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

I can see a couple of obvious approaches for getting Neulevel's attention - Their web site lists two Registry Relationship Managers, one with popup contact info Ivor Sequeira - Senior Manager, European, African, and Middle Eastern Regions 571-434-5776 ivor.sequeira(a)neulevel.biz (That appears to be +1-571-434-5776 ...) - Their whois entry for neulevel.biz lists +1.5714345757 as their phone number, fax +1.5714345758, and snailmail address list. http://www.whois.biz/whois.cgi?TLD=biz&WHOIS_QUERY=neulevel.biz&TYPE=DOMAIN… - They've got a snailmail address, you've got a lawyer and Fedex, they've got a Nasty Letter.... Since the requests to use your DNS server were bogus, you could probably file a John Doe suit and do discovery on Neulevel, but a Nasty Letter is probably enough. - They've got an online trademark dispute process. It's got pointers to ICANN dispute resolution mechanisms, which are more likely to get their attention than random email. Their entry point is stopsupport(a)neulevel.biz Normally, if somebody registers that annoying-little-spammer.com has nameserver 1.2.3.4, you'd be using this to complain that you own the name annoying-little-spammer.com, but you could try using it to complain that you own 1.2.3.4, and maybe even contend that since the registrant falsely listed you as the nameserver for the domain, that it's theft of service and you ought to be awarded ownership of the name. - You might also drop a note to ICANN about the lack of a phone number on their web site and the lack of email responsiveness. - Personally I like the suggestion that someone had that you start serving DNS for the fake names, either pointing to 127.0.0.3 or to a CNAME pointing to Annoying-spammers-forged-their-DNS-again.com, which is some disposable address block on which you run a web site and stub email server explaining that it's not your fault.

4 3

In need of help from Comcast
by Ken Budd 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm trying to find someone from Comcast who can deal with a blacklist issue? I notified you last week stating that we were put on your blacklist and requested to be taken off with an explanation of why this action was taken. I received a reply email giving no explanation but that we would be taken off within 72 hours. It's been well over 72 hours and the problem still persists. I have tried calling received no help. And now I can't email you. Why? Because we've has been blacklisted. Thank you. ______________________________________________ Kenneth Budd | 702 Main Ave Data Systems Engineer | Moorhead, MN 56560 702 Communications | phone# 218.284.5702 ~~CCNA - MCSE~~ | Fax# 218.284.5746 http://www.702com.net ______________________________________________ "I'd rather try and fail, than do nothing and succeed" - Robert Schuller -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBP9ngpP1D1N+hTR4dEQJkDACg43FGmQLk/vOFgddLloQBIV5fJ84An2pM 45FpbhA/f8QryUZeKvyY4Lnc =BC7G -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

AS Path Loops in practice ?
by Jaideep Chandrashekar 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

Hi. Apologies if this posting is off topic. I'd observed some loops in the AS Paths as seen by the Route-Views routeserver. In one particular snapshot -- about 2% of the paths involved such loops. Here are some examples.....(taken from route-views). 11608 2914 1239 12064 22773 12064 11836 1221 4637 1239 12064 22773 12064 11836 1224 38 7228 1239 12064 22773 12064 11836 1239 12064 22773 12064 1239 12064 22773 12064 11836 19092 3356 1299 766 288 766 3356 1299 766 288 766 4181 3356 1299 766 288 766 6079 3356 1299 766 288 766 8220 1 3356 701 668 5058 48 3356 RFC 1771 has the following to say: ----------------------------- 9.3 Route Selection Criteria Generally speaking, additional rules for comparing routes among several alternatives are outside the scope of this document. There are two exceptions: - If the local AS appears in the AS path of the new route being considered, then that new route cannot be viewed as better than any other route. If such a route were ever used, a routing loop would result. ------------------------------ So it seems to me that these paths violate the BGP spec. Can anybody comment about whether these paths are in fact valid. Are these used in specific settings by ISP's. Most of these loops are of length < 3, but there are also some that are really long (5-6). Looking closely at the shorter paths, I get the feeling that these loops are intentional, perhaps to acheive some traffic engineering goal. Note that we tried to traceroute along some of these loops, and in almost all the cases, there was no forwarding loop (so probably not a flaky route). What sort of situations would warrant these AS Path loops. From my understanding of the BGP decision process - routes that contain the current AS in the path are automatically excluded from the path selection process. Is this correct ? Any comments would be helpful. thanks. -jaideep

9 13

John Sidgmore
by Aviva Garrett 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57933-2003Dec11.html John W. Sidgmore, 52, an executive whose company became the world's largest Internet access provider and who later presided over WorldCom Inc. as its bankruptcy case turned into the biggest in U.S. history, died Dec. 11 of complications of acute pancreatitis. ---------------------- Aviva Garrett Juniper Networks, Inc. (408) 745-2077

1 0