- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet (fwd)
by blitz 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Methinks they'll try the Russian SORM model. Since this country is hell bent on establishing a police-state, this seems logical. Why not use the one thats been developed? http://www.libertarium.ru/eng/sorm/ > > > > :[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared > > :with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes > > :will you need to make? What will they cost? Who will pay?]

1 0

Re: White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet
by batz 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Ted Hardie wrote: :"exchange point routing tables" seems to assume that the exchange :point operator is operating at Layer 3. The most popular exchanges at :the moment (PAIX, LINX, EQIX) seem to be layer 2 (GigE) or layer 1 :(fiber strung from cage to cage, you run what you want over same). My mistake, but I was just using routing tables as an example of how the redirection could be done on layer 3. It's important that the layer 3 traffic be redirected so that full sessions can be captured, instead of simply sniffing a span port and hoping that you get everything. >From the perspective of gathering evidence, they just record enough to get a warrant to sieze the machine of the suspect, and all the physical evidence will be there. For example, IDS logs have varying levels of reliability, but their value is that they pinpoint and coroberate the source of physical evidence in the event of an incident. Asymmetric routes cause problems for IDS's that just watch a span port or use a tap, as sessions get lost and alerts can't be correlated as easily. The idea being that a sensor sees a trigger, it alerts, and either the source gets staticly routed to a tunnel interface, or, depending on capacity and where the sensor is located, it just routes the traffics source network through the monitoring network. It's like diverting part of a stream. From what we have been seeing in the papers, it isn't the data collection that is the difficult part anyway, it's the administrative overhead and knowledge management that needs all the resources. When people criticize these plans, they tend to attack the challenges of data collection. I think the technical challenges that data collection poses are overblown and serve as kind of a red herring that diverts attention from the larger ethical (non-operational) problems of data aggregation and response. -- batz

1 0

18.0.0.0/8
by jcvaraillon 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Hi, Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is now reachable. I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and 18.0.0.0/8 was not in their routing table. Is it related to a major problem? Regards, Christophe

3 3

Re: White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet (fwd)
by Richard Irving 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Freud, your slip is showing ? :P "Robert E. Seastrom" wrote: > Richard Irving <rirving(a)onecall.net> writes: > > In analogy: We can adjust the flows of the Hoover > > (remember him ?) Damn, we cannot however stop to count > "damn" is an expletive, "dam" is a noun. :) > ---rob

1 0

Re: 18.0.0.0/8
by Matt Braun 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

A large utility outage followed by failures in secondary systems caused power problems in MIT's POP. My understanding is service has been restored. Matt From: "jcvaraillon" <jcvaraillon(a)dolnet.gr> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:02:40 +0200 Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing(a)merit.edu Hi, Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is now = reachable. I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and 18.0.0.0/8 = was not in their routing table. Is it related to a major problem? Regards, Christophe

1 0

RE: 18.0.0.0/8
by Charles Youse 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Care to elaborate? -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@isc.org] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:12 PM To: jcvaraillon Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: 18.0.0.0/8 On Friday, Dec 20, 2002, at 13:02 Canada/Eastern, jcvaraillon wrote: > 4Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is now > reachable. > > I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and > 18.0.0.0/8 was not in their routing table. > > Is it related to a major problem? Yes. Not enough people understand RFC1918. Joe

1 0

Re: 18.0.0.0/8
by Dave Israel 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

On 12/20/2002 at 13:11:56 -0500, Joe Abley said: > > > On Friday, Dec 20, 2002, at 13:02 Canada/Eastern, jcvaraillon wrote: > > > 4Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is now > > reachable. > > > > I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and > > 18.0.0.0/8 was not in their routing table. > > > > Is it related to a major problem? > > Yes. Not enough people understand RFC1918. Including me, apparently, since RFC1918 makes no mention of 18/8. And including MIT, probably, since that's their /8. Unless somebody between MIT and the outside world screwed up something involving RFC1918, and you're just being cryptic?

1 0

RE: Using link congestion to control routing updates
by Ejay Hire 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Finally, I found it. If you diddle the K values for EIGRP, you can make it consider reliability, load, and delay statistics when populating a route to the route table. The default behavior is bandwidth and delay. ---Quote---http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/103/eigrp1.html EIGRP uses these scaled values to determine the total metric to the network: metric = [K1 * bandwidth + (K2 * bandwidth) / (256 - load) + K3 * delay] * [K5 / (reliability + K4)] Note: These K values should be used after careful planning. Mismatched K values prevent a neighbor relationship from being built, which can cause your network to fail to converge. The default values for K are: K1 = 1 K2 = 0 K3 = 1 K4 = 0 K5 = 0 ---Quote---http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/sw/iosswrel/ps18 28/products_command_reference_chapter09186a00800ca5a9.html#xtocid14 COMMAND SUMMARY. metric weights (Enhanced IGRP) To allow the tuning of the IGRP or Enhanced IGRP metric calculations, use the metric weights router configuration command. To reset the values to their defaults, use the no form of this command. metric weights tos k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 no metric weights Syntax Description tos Type of service. Currently, it must always be zero. k1-k5 Constants that convert an IGRP or enhanced IGRP metric vector into a scalar quantity. ---End Quotes--- Note: If you are going to do this and you also work with BGP, you need to take measures to prevent route-flapping. One option would be to redistribute from EIGRP to BGP and use Summary-address / aggregate-only / next hop self to force only the summary route to be propagated and sustained in the event of an IGP route change. Here's how that works. Internet---EdgeRouter---InternalRouters. Prefix is 192.168.0.0/16 Edgerouter is configured with Summary-address / aggregate-only / next hop selffor the whole 192.168.0.0/16 netblock. As long as it has any route in that netblock then the summary route will be advertised with edgerouter as the next-hop. Any Changes in the IGP topology will not be echoed externally. Remember the Carpenters rule, Measure twice and cut once. For us that's test twice and then deploy. -Ejay -----Original Message----- From: Anders Lowinger [mailto:anders.lowinger@xelerated.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:58 AM To: Stephen Sprunk Cc: Ejay Hire; David Scott Olverson; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Using link congestion to control routing updates Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Opposite problem -- he wants to delay routing updates if the link is full. > EIGRP by default won't use more than 25/50% (I forget) of link bw, for > instance, but I'm not aware of any intentional features in other IGPs to do > this. Both OSPF and ISIS in Cisco's have pacing, ie they will not flood LSAs/LSPs over a certain configurable limit. Not sure about other platforms.. -A

2 1

RE: Using link congestion to control routing updates
by Ejay Hire 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

IIRC, and I may be wrong, either IS-IS or CLNS (can't remember which) can look at congestion, and EIGRP can look at load if you tweak the K parameters. -Ejay -----Original Message----- From: David Scott Olverson [mailto:olverson@fas.harvard.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:10 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Using link congestion to control routing updates Hello all, I was wondering if anyone was aware of a way to use the congestion of a network link to control the routing update. For example if I have a very small link that gets congested, I may want the router to withhold a routing update until link congestion falls below a certain threshold like 60% of bandwidth. Is anyone aware of anything like this available today or a technique that might accomplish something similar? You can contact me off list if this topic isn't germane. Thanks for your help, Dave Olverson

6 5

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

This report has been generated at Fri Dec 20 21:48:05 2002 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 13-12-02 116860 84869 14-12-02 117040 84854 15-12-02 117512 84906 16-12-02 117508 84871 17-12-02 117485 84596 18-12-02 116531 84555 19-12-02 116615 84511 20-12-02 116819 84486 AS Summary 14204 Number of ASes in routing system 5600 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1622 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS701 : ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 73048064 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 20Dec02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 116934 84523 32411 27.7% All ASes AS3908 1167 685 482 41.3% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. AS701 1622 1205 417 25.7% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS7018 1425 1029 396 27.8% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS18566 393 5 388 98.7% COVAD Covad Communications AS7843 624 279 345 55.3% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS4323 530 187 343 64.7% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS1221 1152 835 317 27.5% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS6197 453 149 304 67.1% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS6347 359 85 274 76.3% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS1239 948 676 272 28.7% SPRINTLINK Sprint AS4355 403 132 271 67.2% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS22927 289 22 267 92.4% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA AS7046 579 313 266 45.9% UUNET-CUSTOMER UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS705 431 192 239 55.5% ASN-ALTERNET UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4814 249 15 234 94.0% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China Telecom (Group) AS1 664 441 223 33.6% GNTY-1 Genuity AS6198 421 201 220 52.3% BATI-MIA BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS17676 230 29 201 87.4% GIGAINFRA XTAGE CORPORATION AS22291 226 29 197 87.2% CHARTER-LA Charter Communications AS690 513 319 194 37.8% MERIT-AS-27 Merit Network Inc. AS6140 314 121 193 61.5% IMPSAT-USA ImpSat AS4134 293 106 187 63.8% ERX-CHINALINK Data Communications Bureau AS4151 323 141 182 56.3% USDA-1 USDA AS209 519 338 181 34.9% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS852 622 442 180 28.9% ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications AS2048 262 88 174 66.4% LANET-1 State of Louisiana AS6327 184 33 151 82.1% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink Limited AS2386 370 225 145 39.2% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS17557 315 173 142 45.1% PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan Telecom AS2686 225 87 138 61.3% AS2686 AT&T Global Network Services - EMEA Total 16105 8582 7523 46.7% Top 30 total Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)lists.apnic.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0