- Test - lists.nanog.org

Bogon list or Dshield.org type list
by alsato 29 Jul '02

29 Jul '02

Im wondering how many of you use Bogon Lists and http://www.dshield.org/top10.html type lists on your routers? Im curious to know if you are an ISP with customers or backbone provider or someone else? I have a feeling not many people use these on routers? Im wondering why or why not? Ive never used them on my routers although I work for a new isp/cable provider. Im thinking it would make my users happy to use them though. alsato

7 9

AS286 effectively no more..
by Huopio Kauto 29 Jul '02

29 Jul '02

Interesting how quietly one of the powerhouses in Europe has been shut down yesterday evening. Any notes on increased latency / routing issues wrt AS286 shutdown? --kauto Kauto Huopio - kauto.huopio(a)ficora.fi Information Security Adviser Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority / CERT-FI tel. +358-9-6966772, fax. +358-9-6966515 CERT-FI duty desk +358-9-6966510 - http://www.cert.fi

10 13

NIST & Wireless ...
by W.D.McKinney 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

NASA has had this out for over a year. http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Groups/Networks/Projects/Wireless/index.html /Dee -- W.D.McKinney (Dee) http://3519098920

2 1

verio arrogance
by Ralph Doncaster 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter It seems if I were one of their customers they would accept my 66.11.168/23 announcement and re-announce it to their peers, but they won't accept it from any of their peers. Announcing a covering /20 along with the regional more specifics I have will only serve to increase the size of the routing table for most backbones, and lead to sub optimal routing in some cases since I'm announcing the more specifics due to geographical diversity. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com

19 43

Understanding BGP misconfiguration
by Sean Donelan 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

A nice academic paper looking at the causes of BGP errors. They found configuration errors are pervasive, with 200-1200 prefixes experienceing problems due to misconfigurations every day. But they also found the Net is relatively robust, with only one in twenty-five misconfigurations affect connectivity. http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm2002/papers/bgpmisconfig.html

2 1

Re: routing table size
by Stephen J. Wilcox 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:04:02 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > >I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a > >/24 > >is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still > >thousands of /24 announcements) > > > >If a significant number of providers starting accepting any prefix then the > >others would need to follow (else they'd get no transit traffic as it will > >always prefer the most specific). This really would lead to route explosion! > > > >I guess the counter argument is that you'd still get the same number of > >announcements at longer prefixes as there are only lots of /24s as its the > >current shortest (if you catch my drift here). But I doubt it is quite that > >straight forward and there would be a growth in announcements.. > > > >Steve > > My point is simply that only those who felt the /32s were worth carrying > would carry them. And those who chose to announce them would have to factor > the effects of selective carrying into their decisions. But nobody would be > imposing any unwanted costs on anyone else. Yes, you said that before and my above comments still apply! > That's the difference. Nothing you can possibly do with a customer can > impose unwanted costs on you or the customer. If you don't want the costs, > don't do it. If the customer won't pay you the cost of doing it, don't do it. > it's only in the relationship between ISPs and non-customers that there's a > pollution and inequitable cost distribution issue. But it costs me nothing to accept my customers announcements.... ? > Practicing what you preach does not require treating fundamentally different > situations as the same. How is it different? The cash (customer) bit isnt relevant.. its how many providers allow it which is. Steve > > DS > > >

1 0

Re: routing table size
by Ralph Doncaster 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

> Off your network, your legal rights are pretty limited. I (and I'm sure > lots of other admins) block at the /24 boundry. Anything you announce > from /25 to /32 will be ignored on my network. Some providers choose to > block according to RIR allocation sizes. To me, that's not worth the > maintenance hassle. To them, it may mean the difference between having to > upgrade or replace large numbers of routers last year or sometime in the > next few years. I've never suggested accepting /25's thru /32's. I'm wondering if the people saying I should not de-aggregage my /20 actually practice what they preach and filter /24's and don't globally announce /24's from their customers. -Ralph

2 1

Whats wrong with Foundry Networks?
by Phil Rosenthal 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

I've seen on this list, and from many other places a generic hatred for Foundry -- with comments like "It's IP stack is just plain broken". Whenever I ask people for specific examples, I get none. Now, I have seen plenty of bugs in Foundry -- but all in all, I think Foundry BigIron is the best router you can get, given the price. I am now using BigIron 8000's to do most all of what I used to have 6509's doing, and I haven't regretted the decision to switch for one second (I did use a mix of foundry and Cisco before -- and regretted the decision to include Cisco at all) Anyone care to share why they feel Foundry is inferior? --Phil

1 0

routing table size
by Ralph Doncaster 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

If the size of the global routing table is really an important issue, why not start filtering /24 announcements? I have more of a legal right to use my /20 since I pay ARIN >$2K/yr for it, vs most /24 owners. Filtering /24s should cut the size of the global routing table back to 1998 levels. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com

4 3

BGP question... (SOT)
by Rich Sena 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

OK trying to get a BGP session up between a pair of CISCO routers and a NOKIA running Checkpoint. Coming across an issue I had with GateD where the NOKIA is choking on a version indentifier sent by the CISCO and reporting back a BGP-3 authentification failure for the OPEN message (it's interpreting the version ID as a authentification attempt... Any ideas? Please respond off list... -- Rich Sena - ras(a)thick.net ThickNET Consulting "On the way to understanding; you understand, and forget."

5 6