- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Problems with AT&T
by mohammed_al_sukkar＠maktoob.com 21 Mar '03

21 Mar '03

"Truman, Michelle, SALES Write >If you are experiencing drops or slow traces, only through the core, >there is an issue with excessive de-prioritization of ICMP control >message with a particular router type (vendcor) in the core. End to end >data flow has not seemed to be affected but trace and ping core >latencies are looking very wierd. I've been asking customers to use >trace only for path detail and to use end to end ping for any >performance data Problem happen for week and make troubleshoot difficult. Please call Avici Support for download the new Software. Other Carrier have upgrade already. _________________________________________________________ Share your artistic, creative and literary work on My Corner with many, many others! http://www.maktoob.com/

1 0

RE: Problems with AT&T
by Truman, Michelle, SALES 21 Mar '03

21 Mar '03

yeah, those are almost sure to be boxes of the vendor-type that is de-prioritizing icmp control messages to the max. That will be rememdied, but not sure exactly when. It does not affect actual data flow through the network. Just trace ttl-exceeded response (you can't ping those boxes anyway, so it doesn't matter, but they would be dropping those also). Michelle Michelle Truman CCIE # 8098 Principal Technical Consultant AT&T Solutions Center mailto:mtruman@att.com VO: 651-998-0949 w 612-376-5137 -----Original Message----- From: Brennan_Murphy(a)NAI.com [mailto:Brennan_Murphy@NAI.com] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 6:13 PM To: Truman, Michelle, SALES; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Problems with AT&T 12.123.196.10 12.123.17.30 12.122.10.74 Seems like one or all of those 3 boxes routinely drop ICMP packets. Still trying to determine if other traffic types are dropping as well. -----Original Message----- From: Truman, Michelle, SALES [mailto:mtruman@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:39 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Problems with AT&T If someone can identify what you are actually seeing, I'll check into it. If you are experiencing drops or slow traces, only through the core, there is an issue with excessive de-prioritization of ICMP control message with a particular router type (vendcor) in the core. End to end data flow has not seemed to be affected but trace and ping core latencies are looking very wierd. I've been asking customers to use trace only for path detail and to use end to end ping for any performance data. Yes, the core is MPLS enabled. Diffserv acted on only at the edges though. Michelle Michelle Truman CCIE # 8098 Principal Technical Consultant AT&T Solutions Center mailto:mtruman@att.com VO: 651-998-0949 w 612-376-5137 -----Original Message----- From: brett watson [mailto:brett@the-watsons.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:48 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Problems with AT&T On Wednesday, Mar 19, 2003, at 12:28 America/Phoenix, Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, German Martinez wrote: >> Anybody here seeing problems with AS7018 ? > > ... ... > If you report it to AT&T, they seem to get it fixed; but then > the problems re-appear a few days later. I'm guessing that packet size > is relevant, but I haven't spent much time trying to troubleshoot it. isn't at&t heavily MPLSed? maybe something to do with mpls tunnels, or diff-serv marking?

1 0

RE: Problems with AT&T
by Brennan_Murphy＠NAI.com 21 Mar '03

21 Mar '03

12.123.196.10 12.123.17.30 12.122.10.74 Seems like one or all of those 3 boxes routinely drop ICMP packets. Still trying to determine if other traffic types are dropping as well. -----Original Message----- From: Truman, Michelle, SALES [mailto:mtruman@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:39 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Problems with AT&T If someone can identify what you are actually seeing, I'll check into it. If you are experiencing drops or slow traces, only through the core, there is an issue with excessive de-prioritization of ICMP control message with a particular router type (vendcor) in the core. End to end data flow has not seemed to be affected but trace and ping core latencies are looking very wierd. I've been asking customers to use trace only for path detail and to use end to end ping for any performance data. Yes, the core is MPLS enabled. Diffserv acted on only at the edges though. Michelle Michelle Truman CCIE # 8098 Principal Technical Consultant AT&T Solutions Center mailto:mtruman@att.com VO: 651-998-0949 w 612-376-5137 -----Original Message----- From: brett watson [mailto:brett@the-watsons.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:48 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Problems with AT&T On Wednesday, Mar 19, 2003, at 12:28 America/Phoenix, Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, German Martinez wrote: >> Anybody here seeing problems with AS7018 ? > > ... ... > If you report it to AT&T, they seem to get it fixed; but then > the problems re-appear a few days later. I'm guessing that packet size > is relevant, but I haven't spent much time trying to troubleshoot it. isn't at&t heavily MPLSed? maybe something to do with mpls tunnels, or diff-serv marking?

1 0

June NANOG meeting
by Susan Harris 20 Mar '03

20 Mar '03

Greetings - NANOG 28 will be held June 1-3 at the Sheraton City Centre Hotel in Salt Lake City. Our hosts are the Utah Education Network and the University of Utah. Looking forward to seeing you, and details are here: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0306/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS NANOG 28 GENERAL SESSION TUTORIALS CASE STUDIES OPERATIONS RESEARCH POSTER SESSION June 1-3, 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) will hold its 28th meeting June 1-3, 2003, at the Sheraton City Centre Hotel in Salt Lake City. The meeting will be hosted by the Utah Education Network and the University of Utah. Registration opens April 7. NANOG conferences provide a forum for the coordination and dissemination of technical information related to large-scale (i.e., national/international) Internet backbone networking technologies and operational practices. Meetings are held three times each year, and include two days of short presentations, plus afternoon/evening tutorial sessions. The meetings are informal, with an emphasis on relevance to current backbone engineering practices. NANOG conferences draw over 450 participants, mainly consisting of engineering staff from national service providers, and members of the research and education community. For more information about NANOG meetings, schedules, and logistics, see: http://www.nanog.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS NANOG invites presentations on backbone engineering, coordination, and research topics. Presentations should highlight issues relating to technology already deployed or soon to be deployed in core Internet backbones and exchange points. Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present deployment experiences with the vendor's products. Network operators are invited to present case studies detailing their experiences with network planning and design, protocol implementation, provisioning, automation, useful tools, traffic engineering, troubleshooting, problems solved, and DoS. Researchers are invited to present short (10-minute) summaries of their work for operator feedback. Topics include routing, network performance, statistical measurement and analysis, and protocol development and implementation. Studies presented may be works in progress. Researchers from academia, government, and industry are encouraged to present. Previous NANOG meetings have included presentations on: - Backbone traffic engineering - Freely available configuration, management, and measurement tools - Impact of BGP dynamics on backbone traffic patterns - Route processor architecture - Inter-provider security and routing protocol authentication - Large-scale wireless deployment - Routing scalability in backbone infrastructures - Security issues for the Internet core - Routing policy specification and backbone router configuration - Building large-scale measurement infrastructure - Experience with differentiated services - Inter-domain multicast deployment - Backbone network failure analysis Tutorials have covered topics such as: - BGP troubleshooting techniques - ISP security: real world techniques - IPv6 deployment concepts - IP multicast technologies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW TO PRESENT Submit a detailed abstract or outline describing the presentation in email to nanog-support(a)nanog.org. The deadline for proposals is April 21, 2003. While the majority of speaking slots will be filled by April 21, a limited number of slots will be available after that date for topics that are exceptionally timely and important. Submissions will be reviewed by the NANOG Program Committee, and presenters will be notified of acceptance by May 5. Final drafts of presentation slides are due by May 21, and final versions May 28. NANOG also welcomes suggestions/recommendations for tutorials, panels, and other presentation topics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Co-lo best practices on IP allocations
by Daniel Abbey 20 Mar '03

20 Mar '03

Are there any suggestions/ideas on best practices when it comes to co-lo allocation of addresses to its customers? Is there any site that may have some pointers? The dilemma is whether to charge or no to charge separate for the IPs. Should it be a cause built into their overall contract? Any ideas?

5 4

Power outage: San Francisco Multimedia Gulch South of Market
by Sean Donelan 20 Mar '03

20 Mar '03

Folks are reporting that a utility power failure in San Francisco South of Market (Multimedia Gulch) is affecting some of the telcom co-lo buildings in the China Basin Landing area. There is a lot of construction going on in the area, so it may a construction issue. The roving protests in San Francisco have been along Market Street, which is several blocks away, and I doubt is related. The protesters have mostly been blocking traffic intersections in the financial district.

1 0

NY carrier neutral colo: what a maze...
by Steve Francis 20 Mar '03

20 Mar '03

Anyone have recommendations for carrier neutral colo space in NY? Looking for a place where we can cross-connect cheaply to most major carriers across the floor. I guess PAIX @ 111 8th, Telehouse @ 25 Broadway, and maybe S&D @ 111 8th come to mind. It's often difficult to figure out who's available across the floor or meet-me room, vs. who's in the building and thus 6mo & $10k away. Grrr... Thanks! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thorsten von Eicken Expertcity, Inc.

1 0

Initial network impacts post-US attack 3/19/03
by Sean Donelan 20 Mar '03

20 Mar '03

Some major new web sites such as CNN.COM, MSNBC.COM, etc have dropped most advertisements from their main web pages. CNN.COM has switched to its "breaking news" format with a truncated main page. I have not had any difficulty reaching any major US news web site. Matrix and Keynote public graphs show normal latency, drops, etc. BGP, ASN data sources show normal number of prefixes, announcements, withdrawals. AT&T and Cable&Wireless public network statistic pages show almost all major links within normal levels. However, tonight I am not able to reach the few Iraq servers I know about. The servers were reachable on Monday, but I wasn't keeping constant track of those servers. So I don't know when I could no longer reach them. This may just be normal network flakiness, the Iraqi networks aren't very reliable on a normal day.

4 4

Trend and analysis tools
by David Scott Olverson 20 Mar '03

20 Mar '03

Good afternoon, I was wondering what kind network trend and analysis tools people use out there to try and get a handle on overal network health? (bandwidth, etc.) Feel free to contact me off list if you like? Thanks, Dave Olverson

1 0

VU#464113 - TCP/IP implementations handle unusual flag combinations inconsistently
by Ian Finlay 20 Mar '03

20 Mar '03

Hello, This may be old news to many, but I wanted to follow-up to the message I sent last October on this subject: <http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-10/msg00519.html> We have now published information about this issue here: <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/464113> We also have a few reports of possible exploitation. If you have feedback, please send mail to cert(a)cert.org with VU#464113 in the subject header. Thanks to the NANOG community for prior feedback on this issue. Regards, Ian Ian Finlay Internet Systems Security Analyst - CERT/CC Operations Networked Systems Survivability Program =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CERT (R) Coordination Center Email: cert(a)cert.org Software Engineering Institute WWW: http://www.cert.org Carnegie Mellon University Hotline: +1-412-268-7090 Pittsburgh, PA USA 15213-3890 FAX: +1-412-268-6989 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

1 0