- Test - lists.nanog.org

C&W Move
by Moe Allen 16 Oct '02

16 Oct '02

We are in that C&W group and C&W is telling us we have to sign the contract by Friday the 18th. We were only notified Last Friday. I get concerned when things happen this quick without a lot of backup information. thanks Morris Allen VidcomNet, Inc.

2 1

Bandwidth Suppliers
by Moe Allen 16 Oct '02

16 Oct '02

Could anyone give me any feed back on "New Edge Networks" as for as supplying T1 bandwidth to ISP's. They are trying to sell me some additional bandwidth and I want to find out anything I can about them. Loading, Routing how they handle BGP, just the normal stuff. Oh yea, anything on tech support would be nice... Any comments will be appreciated. thanks Morris Allen VidcomNet, Inc.

1 0

research use of aggregator field
by Randy Bush 16 Oct '02

16 Oct '02

does anybody see pitfalls, i.e. net.damage, if we used an aggregator to mark some funny stuff in an announcement? i.e. there is a prefix being announced that we would like to occasionally 'dye' with kinky values in the aggregator attribute. can you see possible damage to others? [ consultation with a few protocol folk came up with no damage cases. but we thought it would be nice to check with ops folk too ] randy

1 0

sprint passes uu?
by Richard A Steenbergen 16 Oct '02

16 Oct '02

I don't know if anyone cares or is keeping track, but it seems that Sprint has now passed UU in number of customer routes (or at least, routes sent to peers). x.x.x.x 4 1239 2396636 438162 61442761 0 0 9w3d 47637 x.x.x.x 4 701 3768775 499186 61442761 0 0 1w5d 45410 Looks like UU routes have been steadily falling, dunno if they aggregated (hah!) or just lost customers due to, well, you know. But by the metrics people/reporters have been using to declare UU "half the internet", it looks like they're now #2. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

7 9

Input requested for second edition of "Firewalls and Internet Security"
by Steve Bellovin 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

We've just about finished the draft manuscript for the second edition of "Firewalls and Internet Security" (this time by Bill Cheswick, Steve Bellovin, and Avi Rubin). Given the tremendous change in the market (including both the prevalence of commercial firewalls and widespread easy access to open source software), we're dropping the appendix that lists useful free software; we're replacing it by a list of important sources to monitor for word on new holes, major patches, etc. (We'll put up a draft table of contents on the book's web site some time this weekend.) So -- what are your favorite mailing lists, web sites, etc., for keeping your systems and networks secure? (To answer the obvious question: we don't yet know precisely when the new book will appear on the shelves. A lot depends on how much rewriting we'll have to do in response to the technical reviews. But some time in the spring looks to be a pretty good bet.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

1 0

Draft agenda for Eugene
by Susan Harris 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

Draft Agenda: NANOG 26 Oct. 27-29, Eugene, Oregon ARIN X: Oct. 30-Nov. 1 http://ww1.arin.net/ARIN-X/ SUNDAY TUTORIALS 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Managing IP Networks with Free Software Level: Intermediate Stephen Stuart, ISC 1:30 - 3:00 p.m BGP Troubleshooting Techniques Level: Introductory/Intermediate Philip Smith, Cisco 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. BREAK 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. ISP Security - Real World Techniques II Barry Raveendran Greene, Cisco Kevin Houle, CERT 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. BGP Troubleshooting (cont'd.) 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. DINNER BREAK 7:30 - 9:00 p.m. IPv6 Basics Level: Introductory Tony Hain, Cisco Monday, October 28 ================== 9:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions Lucy L. Lynch, Univ. of Oregon Dave Meyer, Sprint/UO John Curran, ARIN Board Chair Susan Harris, Merit 9:20 a.m. Update on the National Strategy for Cyberspace Security Marc Sachs, Office of Cyberspace Security 10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:30 a.m. How to Own the Internet in Your Spare Time Stuart Staniford, Silicon Defense Vern Paxson, ICSI/ICIR Nicholas Weaver, UC Berkeley 11:15 p.m. Operational Feedback to IP Equipment Vendors Vijay Gill, AOL Time Warner 12:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:30 p.m. Route Flap Damping: Harmful? Randy Bush, IIJ Tim Griffin, AT&T Research 2:00 p.m. Carrier-Class Availability for IP Networks Sanjay Kalra, Juniper 2:30 p.m. Traffic Characteristics and Network Planning Thomas Telkamp, Global Crossing 2:50 p.m. Fast Reroute - A High Availability Addition to MPLS Shankar Rao & Sohel Ahmed, Qwest Richard Southern, Juniper 3:20 p.m. BREAK 3:35 p.m. Panel: Services, Complexity, and the Internet: What Direction? Dave Meyer, Sprint, moderator Randy Bush, IIJ Vijay Gill, AOL Time Warner Lixia Zhang, UCLA Dave Ward, Cisco Thomas Telkamp, Global Crossing 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Beer 'n Gear Monday Evening BOFs =================== 7:30-9:00 p.m. Toolmaker BOF Stephen Stuart, ISC, moderator 9:00-10:30 p.m. ISP Security BOF I Barry Raveendran Greene, Cisco Merike Kaeo, merike.com, moderators Tuesday, October 29 =================== 9:00 a.m. IPv6 Impressions: ARIN Update and Routing Table Overview Cathy Wittbrodt, Packet Design 9:45 a.m. Experiences With Developing, Testing, Planning, and Operating IPv6-Enabled Nameservers Paul Vixie, ISC 10:05 a.m. Commercial IPv6 Deployment by ISPs in Japan J. Hagino, IIJ/KAME 10:25 a.m. BREAK 10:40 a.m. Panel: Trends in Measurement and Monitoring of Internet Backbones Dave Meyer, Sprint/University of Oregon, moderator Chris Martin, Verizon Christophe Diot, Sprintlabs Jennifer Rexford, AT&T Research Mujahid Khan, Sprint Tony Tauber, Genuity 12:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:30 p.m. OC48 (and Above) Flow Sampling: Mice, Elephants and Needles in Haystacks Craig Labovitz, Scott Ikel-Johnson, Rob Malan, Michael Bailey, Arbor Networks 2:00 p.m. Scriptroute: A Public Internet Measurement Facility Neil Spring, David Wetherall, & Tom Anderson, Dept. of CSE, University of Washington 2:20 p.m. Panel: Persistent Route Oscillation - Issues and Solutions Sue Hares, NextHop, moderator Enke Chen, Redback 3:15 p.m. BREAK 3:30 p.m. Observation and Analysis of BGP Behavior under Stress Lan Wang, UCLA; Dan Pei, UCLA; Randy Bush, AT&T; Xiaoliang Zhao, Daniel Massey & Allison Mankin, USC/ISI; Felix Wu, UC Davis; Lixia Zhang, UCLA 4:00 p.m. Toward Lowering the Load on DNS Root Nameservers Duane Wessels, The Measurement Factory/ CAIDA 4:30 p.m. New Services From the RIPE NCC Henk Uijterwaal, RIPE-NCC 4:50 p.m. Adjourn Meeting web site: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0210/

1 0

BTN-network
by Darrell Carley 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

All, I hope that this is an acceptable discussion. I am curious if anyone has worked with or may have any comments about BTN's service. Is this the company formerly known as CAIS/Ardent? I am a network engineer for a web-hosting/small ISP, and considering them as one of our providers. Any opinions and comments appreciated. Feel free to contact me off list @ darrell(a)natnet.com. Thank you, Darrell C. National Net

2 1

Re: [Re: the cost of carrying routes]
by Joshua Smith 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

Ratul Mahajan <ratul(a)cs.washington.edu> wrote: > > > i have related question to ron's (a bit hypothetical but interesting > nonetheless). > > if isps charged for bgp announcements, would the number of announcements > that shouldn't be made (e.g., those due to configuration errors and poor > operational practices) go down? > > -- ratul they could probably make some good money if they also charged for 'leaky' networks - however, i think the sentiment amongst their customers would not be favorable (you charge for misconfigurations? some nerve you have) it is probably one of those long term goals that you will almost never be able to convince the powers-that-be of undertaking. i know i am having a very difficult time convincing management that our network needs some help - although after several recent, fairly successful attacks, they are starting to listen. joshua > > -------------- > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Ron da Silva wrote: > > > > > > > Some ISPs charge for actual bits carried (peak usage, actual count, > > whatever) in addition to or instead of per port/circuit charges. > > > > Do any ISPs charge based on the number of announcements a customer > > advertises? > > > > If downstream advertisements became mainly smaller prefixes (say /24) > > that were not aggregatable by you as their upstream ISP, would you > > answer the above question differently? > > > > -ron > > > "Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence." - Stephen Hawking -

1 0

the cost of carrying routes
by Ron da Silva 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

Some ISPs charge for actual bits carried (peak usage, actual count, whatever) in addition to or instead of per port/circuit charges. Do any ISPs charge based on the number of announcements a customer advertises? If downstream advertisements became mainly smaller prefixes (say /24) that were not aggregatable by you as their upstream ISP, would you answer the above question differently? -ron

3 2

RE: the cost of carrying routes
by Charles Youse 14 Oct '02

14 Oct '02

I think you're confusing commercial peering agreements with providing customers the ability to advertise their routes via BGP. Two different issues. C. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff S Wheeler [mailto:jsw@five-elements.com] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:11 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: ron(a)aol.net Subject: Re: the cost of carrying routes Ron, Many carriers require that you advertise a certain minimum number of routes to them over your peering sessions, or they will not peer with you. This suggests that those carriers see routes carried as a point of value, rather than or in addition to one of cost. I have seen 5,000 routes as a minimum used by more than one transit-less carrier. Is this really an operational value perception at these carriers, or is it simply a means of creating a barrier-to-peering? Are fewer, shorter prefixes seen as more valuable than longer ones, e.g. swamp /24s? Is a University or other entity with a legacy /16 more or less valuable as a peer than a growing ISP with a few /20s, and presumably more eyeballs and/or content behind them? -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw(a)five-elements.com> On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 16:47, Ron da Silva wrote: *snip* > Do any ISPs charge based on the number of announcements a customer > advertises? > > If downstream advertisements became mainly smaller prefixes (say /24) > that were not aggregatable by you as their upstream ISP, would you > answer the above question differently?

1 0