- Test - lists.nanog.org

Google contact
by Jeff Nelson 11 Dec '03

11 Dec '03

If someone from Google could contact me, I would appreciate it (or someone give up a good one). Thanks, -- Jeff Nelson Rackspace Managed Hosting Office: (210) 892 4025 x1601 GnuPG KeyID: 0x7DE7C4E0 @pgp.mit.edu AS Caretaker: 10532 15395 25897 27357 30099

1 0

RE: Authority
by Michel Py 11 Dec '03

11 Dec '03

> Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com > I may not agree with everything that William does > or how he goes about it, but I do think that his > approach is worthwhile. Indeed; I like the "economy of ideas" concept myself and in this case it might be the only valid initial approach, see below. > It gives us a chance to see a prototype of > something that could be either incorporated > into ARIN or commercialized in the future. Exactly. Besides, if ARIN or IANA were to start something like this out of the blue, they would likely get stalled by the few trolls that don't like the idea and what would scream about it, probably questioning the legitimacy of ARIN/IANA in the first place and other BS. OTOH, with William and Rob doing their thing on their own behalf only, should it be incorporated into something bigger later it would have acquired the legitimacy of being field-tested and approved prior to the "standardization" effort. Rob and William have my support, and it's not because they're my co-authors. They're my co-authors because they have ideas and work towards making them better. If someone does not like what they're doing, just don't look at it and don't use it. I do, because I find value in it, as do many other participants. Michel.

1 0

Authority
by Blaxthos 11 Dec '03

11 Dec '03

hello, i've been reading nanog-l/inet-access for many many years (just a shadow, i don't post). i am just curious... do you have any authority/commission from arin (or anyone else)? or is yours a rogue vigilante mission? does anyone ask you to undertake the battles you feel justified in engaging in? this is certainly not flame bait, but it is an honest question. you're very self-righteous, and although you may have valid points (i withold judgement) i really want to know what gives you the right/authority to say the things you say about others. /blaxthos

12 15

RE: MTU path discovery and IPSec
by cproctor＠epik.net 10 Dec '03

10 Dec '03

The problem is described pretty clearly at http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/56.html. The issue I have experienced is that fragmentation can lead to performance impacts that are unacceptable. I wish we could start a clue campaign informing people why ICMP should not be summarily dumped at the firewall. Chris Proctor EPIK Communications > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:39 AM > To: jgraun(a)comcast.net > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: MTU path discovery and IPSec > > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:05:39 GMT, jgraun(a)comcast.net said: > > > 1) I assume MTU path discovery has to been in enabled on > each router in the path in order for it work correctly?! > > Actually, no. All that's required is that: > > a) The router handle the case of a too-large packet with the > DF bit set by > sending back an ICMP 'Dest Unreachable - Frag Needed' packet. > I've never > actually encountered a router that didn't get this part > right. (Has anybody ever > seen a router botch this, *other* than a config error covered > in (b) below?) > > b) said ICMP makes it back to the originating machine. This > is where all the > operational breakage I've ever seen on PMTU Discovery comes > from. And in almost > all cases, one of two things is at fault. Either some > bonehead firewall admin > is "blocking all ICMP for security" (fixable by reconfiguring > the firewall to > let ICMP Frag Needed error messages through), or some > bonehead network provider > numbered their point-to-points from 1918 space and the ICMP > gets ingress/egress > filtered (this one is usually not fixable except with a baseball bat). > >

11 20

Re: Authority (fwd)
by Owen DeLong 10 Dec '03

10 Dec '03

I apologize for further troll feeding, but, I think this warrants some clarification... > I take issue with anyone who publicly accuses another entity of wrongdoing > beyond his scope of authority. > You can take issue, but, there is no scope of authority for accusations. Anyone can make an accusation against anyone else at any time. At least in the united States. It's part of what is known as free speech. > If people are speeding in my neighborhood, I can not go and take down > their pictures, personal information, license plate numbers, etc., post > them pupubliclyand accuse them of breaking the law (even if they did!). > That's liabel, and it is illegal (and wrong). It is no less wrong just > because it is up to the victim of the post to take corrective/punative > action in a civil forum (ie lawsuit). > Actually, you can. There is no law against it. The word you were looking for is Libel, not Liabel, and, for a claim to be libelous, it must meet the following criteria: 1. It must be published 2. It must be provably false 3. It must cause harm Legally, you can take pictures of anything in a public place and publish them. Legally, you can write down a license number observed in a public place. Further, unless the person can claim that your statement they were speeding is false by preponderance of the evidence, they are unlikely to succeed in suing you for libel. You can take issue with it all you want. Whether it is right or wrong to do so is a separate issue. However, it is most definitely _NOT_ illegal at least not under the libel laws. > The correct action would be to lobby the authorities (police in the > example, arin in this situation) to take enforcement measures, NOT to > demand that the "criminals" justify their actions to you (specifically > speaking to whom my email was originally addressed). There are fiscal and > legal ramifications to what is being done here. > I suggest you do some further study before making legal claims. What you have done here is merely demonstrate an ignorance of the law. I don't always agree with William, but, I haven't seen him do anything illegal yet. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.

1 0

4.5 magnitude earthquake in VA
by JC Dill 10 Dec '03

10 Dec '03

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/uscdbf.htm

2 1

RFC2544 Network Benchmark Testing
by Stephen Perciballi 10 Dec '03

10 Dec '03

Hi, Does anyone have or know of any open source software for RFC2544 testing? IXIA boxes are nice but I don't plan on buying one right now. All other tools I've looked at seem to be lacking in one way or another. They have been really good at flooding the link ~or~ setting frame sizes etc. Any help would be appreciated. -- Stephen (routerg) irc.dks.ca

1 0

Re: Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem v1.1
by William B. Norton 09 Dec '03

09 Dec '03

At 06:23 PM 12/5/2003 -0500, alex(a)pilosoft.com wrote: > > 1) The Cable companies are peering (with Tier 2s and each other) in a > > *big* way >That's probably why ATDN depeered ~20 networks over last few months, >while Comcast and Charter do not peer at all. I had not heard that. As for Comcast and Charter, I would add the word "yet." > > 2) The Large Network Savvy Content Companies are getting into peering in > > a *big* way >With transit bandwidth at 20k$/GE, and Equinix shared fabric now priced at >nearly half that, I don't see that many "content companies" peering all >that much. The phrase, "You get what you pay for" comes to mind. There is real difference between transit services IMHO. Also, you rarely use the full gigE in these types of arrangements, so you need to be a little careful doing the "simple math." Having said all that, the transit price pressures are certainly there and it does make the peering financial argument a little tougher. I've heard the argument that "Peering is better than transit. It ought to cost more." > > 3) The Large Network Savvy Content Companies are getting their content > > directly onto the Cable companies eyeball networks by peering > > relationships. >I wish. Well then you shall receive. The large guys do peer (Yahoo!, MSN, Google, EA, Sony Online, etc.) in a very big way. I expect too these guys are simply leading the charge - those content companies large enough to employ a network engineering staff that can do the math will be following as well. It is not only a financial motivation; peering provides greater control over routing and is often seen as a performance enhancing strategy. Folks like Yahoo! seem to emphasize the end-user performance improvements over the financial savings these days. >Out of big eyeball networks, only SBC has reasonably open policy, rest are >attempting to force "content networks" into paid peering arrangements >using restrictive ratio requirements Hmm. SBC has what I call a "Selective Peering" inclination; they will peer with you if you meet certain criteria. The cable companies are all different of course but generally seem to have migrated from a "No Peering" inclination (when @Home ran things for them the cable companies didn't peer) to an "Open Peering" inclination to reduce costs (and to deal with Kazaa traffic), to a "Selective Peering" inclination. I see this last step as an operations sanity motivation; peer with those who have at least 10M of traffic to exchange on a couple coasts. If you don't have that much traffic it may not be worth the time to configure the session, and when things break it may be more hassle than it is worth. The ones who are a bit different are the "Restrictive Peering Inclination" folks; those who have a peering policy articulated solely so they can say "No" with a reason. Rather than deal with the hassle of peering requests, some of these guys don't articulate their Peering Inclination in the form of a Peering Policy. "We have all the peering that we need" is the attitude, and, not to open a can of worms here, but it is a business rational attitude. Bill >-- >Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services >President | alex(a)pilosoft.com (800) 710-7031 >Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com

2 1

tracking down subnet announcement disappearing / dropping to a single provider
by Eric Kagan 09 Dec '03

09 Dec '03

I apologize if this is off-topic - I rarely post, mostly just monitor. I am not posting this to [nsp] or [isp-bgp] for I don't believe the following is a configuration problem on my side, but an operational one of a certain provider. I am not going to sling dirt or put actual names / ASN, etc for now. I want to list the problem and if it is relevent I can post more specific data or be contacted offlist with suggestions or from the provider. The problem is completely intermittent. 99% of the time everything works fine. I have begged the customer to get their ASP's ISP involved since I believe that is where the problem lies. They claim it is my problem since we connect to them.....(Don't want to start a war here...I know) I am Provider A and my customer cannot connect to an ASP through Provider X. The problem lasts for what seems to be exactly 10, 15 or 30 minute intervals. I am announcing my /19 broken up into multiple /22 and /21's. It is only 1 of the /22 that has the problem. One of my links is not going down and I do back backup routes through multiple providers. It took me almost a month to confirm the problem because they would call be *after* it happened and everything would look fine. I put some monitors on the destination site and it will never test bad since the monitors were on other subnets. They finally called me while it was occuring and I did confirm I could not reach the site from any of the IP's in that certain /22 subnet. So, my point and questions: Has anyone ever heard of such a problem ? I tried to search some archives and google - but I can't really figure out what to search on that won't result in 1000 + matches. Is there any function or problem that might exist for exactly 10, 15 or 30 minutes (i.e. BGP Flap, subnet block filter / ACL ?) over and over ? Should I contact provider X dircectly ? Will they work directly with me ? I believe my customers ASP opened a ticket with their ISP but with all the layers and short time frame of the issue I don't think it will get resolved quickly or easily. Responses online or offline welcome. If anyone wants more specific info posted to the forum (IP subnet blocks, Provider X, ASN, etc) please let me know. Thanks Eric Eric Kagan Commrail, Inc. dba Access Northeast support(a)axsne.com 978-562-4475

2 1

Re: Cisco GSR logging issue
by Richard Welty 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

just a quick note to say thanks to those who have responded, off list and on. i've got some useful stuff, but haven't had time to sort through and reply to everything. i'll likely be putting up a web site on "safe" ways to configure logging on various types of routers so that you can trap the data needed for AUP/TOS enforcement against proxy hijackers and other network abusers w/o accidentally bringing down your network. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty(a)averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

1 0