- Test - lists.nanog.org

Verizon experiencing routing issues?
by Darrell Carley 05 Aug '02

05 Aug '02

Is anyone aware of Verizon having any routing issues at this time? 13 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms A9-0-632.G-GSR1.MAD.verizon-gni.net [130.81.5.94] 14 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms P3-1-0.G-RTR1.MAD.verizon-gni.net [141.150.0.102] 15 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms 141.150.8.210 16 28 ms 23 ms 23 ms S9-0-0-17.G-RTR1.MAD.verizon-gni.net [141.150.8.209] 17 34 ms 27 ms 27 ms 141.150.8.210 18 26 ms 27 ms 26 ms S9-0-0-17.G-RTR1.MAD.verizon-gni.net [141.150.8.209] 19 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms 141.150.8.210 20 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms S9-0-0-17.G-RTR1.MAD.verizon-gni.net [141.150.8.209] 21 34 ms 33 ms 34 ms 141.150.8.210 22 33 ms 33 ms 33 ms S9-0-0-17.G-RTR1.MAD.verizon-gni.net [141.150.8.209] -- Darrell Carley National Data Centers Network Engineer

5 5

C&W Direction
by James Ferris 05 Aug '02

05 Aug '02

Has anyone heard what is going to happen with Cable and Wireless' services? I have service both IP and dedicated voice through C&W and it was my understanding that they were going to divest the voice portion and maintain/grow their IP related business. I cannot get a definitive answer from anyone over at C&W as to when I need to move my dedicated voice traffic to another carrier. I still have six months left on my contract but I'd like to do it as soon as possible just to make sure I'm covered - as well as my job. Is anyone going through this same scenario?

1 0

Re: NSPs filter?
by sal_sabella＠hushmail.com 05 Aug '02

05 Aug '02

Stephen Stuart wrote: > Let's say the customer operates some big enterprise network, runs > their infrastructure in RFC1918 space ("for security," hah) Like Abovenet's OOB right? Communicate in total privacy. Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Looking for a good deal on a domain name? http://www.hush.com/partners/offers.cgi?id=domainpeople

2 1

Contacting Richard Clarke, Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security
by Sean Donelan 05 Aug '02

05 Aug '02

Mr. Richard Clarke Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20500 202-456-1414 http://www.mccullagh.org/image/d30-18/richard-clarke-office-of-cyberspace-s…

1 0

If you have nothing to hide
by Sean Donelan 04 Aug '02

04 Aug '02

Mr. Clarke has been floating several trail ballons this week. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-947409.html "Software makers and Internet service providers must share the blame for the nation's vulnerable networks, President Bush's special adviser on cyberspace security said Wednesday." http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,73150,00.html "Why is it that companies have sold products that they know are insecure?" asked Richard Clarke, President Bush's chief cybersecurity adviser. "And why is it that people have bought them? We should all shut [wireless LANs] off until the technology gets better." While Mr. Clarke was identifying groups to blame for the current state of affairs, he seems to have left out the group which has historically blocked many security improvements. Gee, it seems like just last year the US Government had a policy of futzing with international standards development to block strong security (GSM), engaging in expensive legal investigations of people who wrote things like Pretty Good Privacy, prohibiting companies from exporting products with strong encryption, and generally making it a PITA for companies who wanted to make products which were more secure (forcing security research offshore or to Canada). Even attempts to include default encryption in IPv6 hit government policy roadblocks. Anyone who tried to make it more difficult to intercept communications was accused of helping child pornographers, criminals, terrorists and hackers. The refrain was if you have nothing to hide, ... It took decades of government policy to reach this point. Does Mr. Clarke's statement signal the end of the government's policy of maintaining the status quo? If we secure wireless communications, that means it will be possible for people to communicate without worrying (excesively) about evesdroppers. But that security improvement also means the government may not be able to listen in on those communications either. Has the FBI and NSA signed off on this apparent new policy of securing our networks? Finally, what role should network operators play in determining what content subscribers can have access, including "unsafe" content? "ISPs to step up Internet service providers also have to be more security conscious, Clarke said. By selling broadband connectivity to home users without making security a priority, telecommunications companies, cable providers and ISPs have not only opened the nation's homes to attack, but also created a host of computers with fast connections that have hardly any security." Public network operators are very security conscious, about the public network operators network. Should public network operators do things, common in private corporate networks, such as block access to Hotmail, Instant Messenger, Peer-to-peer file sharing, and other potentially risky activities? Should it be official government policy for public network operators to prohibit customers from running their own servers by blocking access with firewalls?

2 2

Cisco fixup for SMTP (Mail Guard)
by Shaun Bryant 04 Aug '02

04 Aug '02

I am currently working on a high volume mail project. The question came up whether or not the run Cisco's SMTP fixup protocol. I am looking for any experiences good or bad. Please respond off list Thanks Shaun Bryant ------------------------------------- Shaun Bryant E-Mail: sbryant(a)thepit.org **** The biggest problems happen when one of the little things that we take for granted stops working for a second **** They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. -------------------------------------

3 2

RE: Is the PAIX Palo Alto taking a dump?
by Lane Patterson 03 Aug '02

03 Aug '02

But LINX, Equinix, and other exchanges have been very stable on Foundry running both layer 2 and layer 3 code images. So I don't think all the blame falls on Foundry. I think a rigorous hardware/software support plan, aggressive management of vendor support, sufficient test lab, and conservative upgrade process are just as essential to stability. Of course what I really want for Xmas is a Force10 box ;-) Cheers, -Lane > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Granados [mailto:scott@graphidelix.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:12 PM > To: Peter van Dijk > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Is the PAIX Palo Alto taking a dump? > > > > Its extreme I believe. > > Black Diamonds? > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:03:12AM -0700, Stephen Stuart wrote: > > [snip] > > > They were; hopefully you mailed them and received an > answer to that > > > effect. A software fault took down one of the switches, > and the vendor > > > is being made aware of the problem they need to fix. > > > > Given all the trouble AMS-IX has with Foundry, I'd like to > know: what > > vendor is that? > > > > Greetz, Peter > > >

3 2

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 03 Aug '02

03 Aug '02

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Aug 2 23:00:00 PDT 2002 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report-region.html for the regional version of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/autnums.html for a complete list of autonomous system number to name mappings as used by the CIDR-Report. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amount of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to GX Networks for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to CIDR Report <cidr-report(a)cisco.com>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 02Aug02 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 260702 112031 270702 112241 280702 112472 290702 112259 300702 112104 310702 112424 010802 112379 020802 112557 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 13363 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 8134 (4583 cidr, 3551 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 717 announced by AS3908 Largest number of classful routes: 1212 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 02Aug02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1085 835 250 23.0% Telstra Pty Ltd AS701 1212 971 241 19.9% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS17557 289 96 193 66.8% Pakistan Telecom AS6595 230 58 172 74.8% DoD Education Activity Network As AS852 540 403 137 25.4% Telus Advanced Communications AS7018 809 682 127 15.7% AT&T AS16473 195 77 118 60.5% Bell South AS1239 516 419 97 18.8% Sprint AS4151 237 142 95 40.1% USDA AS19632 99 5 94 94.9% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS12302 120 27 93 77.5% MobiFon S.A. AS7303 163 71 92 56.4% Telecom Argentina Stet-France Tel AS16814 105 20 85 81.0% NSS, S.A. AS226 170 87 83 48.8% Los Nettos AS2048 178 103 75 42.1% State of Louisiana AS7046 294 220 74 25.2% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS577 266 192 74 27.8% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS4755 204 131 73 35.8% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS4323 410 339 71 17.3% Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS2149 327 257 70 21.4% Performance Systems, Inc. AS724 219 157 62 28.3% DLA Systems Automation Center AS4293 246 185 61 24.8% Cable & Wireless USA AS3464 163 103 60 36.8% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS19834 64 4 60 93.8% NetForce, Inc. AS10620 85 25 60 70.6% TVCABLE BOGOTA AS1 442 384 58 13.1% GENUITY AS5515 243 186 57 23.5% Sonera Finland Autonomous System AS209 312 255 57 18.3% Qwest AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS9498 85 29 56 65.9% BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. Total 55365 42608 12757 23.0% For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

RE: cw outage?
by Stanley, Jon 02 Aug '02

02 Aug '02

My home systems are unreachable going through 3561->13406. All showing history routes in my routers and everywhere via route-views. What's going on? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Lewinski [mailto:mike@rockynet.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:53 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: cw outage? --On Friday, August 02, 2002 1:36 PM -0700 Dan Hollis <goemon(a)anime.net> wrote: > > Did cw just take a huge dump? > > Does cw have a status page? No sign of troubles here (CO): $ traceroute www.cw.net traceroute to webserver.ie.cw.net (204.70.133.142), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 206.168.231.1 (206.168.231.1) 1.471 ms 1.546 ms 1.329 ms 2 CW-FE0-0.Rockynet.com (206.168.230.1) 1.10 ms 0.814 ms 0.858 ms 3 aar1-serial5-1-1-0.Denver.cw.net (208.172.167.21) 1.798 ms 2.133 ms 2.473 ms 4 acr1.Denver.cw.net (208.172.162.61) 2.148 ms 5.728 ms 2.583 ms 5 acr1-loopback.Restonrst.cw.net (206.24.178.61) 48.974 ms 55.911 ms 49.809 ms 6 ges1-ge-1-1.Restonrst.cw.net (206.24.179.2) 48.580 ms 48.835 ms 49.88 ms 7 pride.se.cw.net (204.71.79.254) 48.674 ms 48.562 ms 71.651 ms 8 204.71.79.229 (204.71.79.229) 52.708 ms 49.205 ms 48.654 ms 9 webserver.ie.cw.net (204.70.133.142) 51.535 ms 50.167 ms 49.304 ms 1w6d uptime on our session w/ 3561 (since we last reset BGP from our side) 111442 prefixes received. The MRTG graphs look completely normal here as well. Mike

2 1

cw outage?
by Dan Hollis 02 Aug '02

02 Aug '02

Did cw just take a huge dump? Does cw have a status page? -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

4 3