- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
by Frank Scalzo 14 Jul '02

14 Jul '02

What vendor by default does not take action on no-export??? Certainly cisco and juniper both honor it by default. To get back to the original question of 63/9 being announced it can be entertaining to watch for other fishy routes to show up in the routing table, like 63/8. I know of at least one outage caused because someone advertised a route like that. The underlying problem, is that there are no good widely deployed solutions for controlling what the large backbones inject into the routing table at peering points. A large tier 1 deaggregates towards another bad things happen. It would be nice if there was a supportable way to only allow one isp to advertise appropriate routes to another. The IRR stuff is a neat idea but I dont think many ISPs trust it enough to use it to build ACLs. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Stuart [mailto:stuart@tech.org] Sent: Sat 7/13/2002 7:00 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: Paul Schultz Subject: Re: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom > I'm wondering how many folks out there choose not to honor this > community and why. If anyone on the list chooses not to I'd be > interested to hear (either on-list or off) the reasonings behind it. Please also respond if you weren't aware that you have to explicitly implement the policy of honoring no-export - while the community vaue is "well-known," the policy is not built-in.

3 3

No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
by Phil Rosenthal 14 Jul '02

14 Jul '02

BGP routing table entry for 63.0.0.0/9, version 7001923 Paths: (5 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to peer-groups: customer Advertised to non peer-group peers: 209.123.37.30 701 157.130.9.141 (metric 65024) from 209.123.11.10 (209.123.12.59) Origin IGP, localpref 300, valid, internal, best Community: 8001:666 8001:701 701 157.130.9.141 (metric 65024) from 209.123.11.245 (209.123.12.59) Origin IGP, localpref 300, valid, internal Community: 8001:666 8001:701 8001 7911 3561 701 64.200.86.149 from 64.200.86.149 (64.200.87.10) Origin IGP, localpref 200, valid, external Community: 8001:666 8001:7911 7911 3561 701, (received-only) 64.200.86.149 from 64.200.86.149 (64.200.87.10) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 15036 16631 174 701 209.123.37.30 from 209.123.37.30 (209.123.132.181) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 8001:666 8001:16631 15036:0 15036:666 15036:16631 16631:1000 From: http://eng.nac.net/lookingglass/nyc.html Bgp: 63.0.0.0 Uunet has been announcing this for more than 2 days now. (not sure when since I cleared my bgp tables 2 days ago). --Phil

8 16

KPNQwest to be shut down ?
by Andre Chapuis 14 Jul '02

14 Jul '02

http://www.cbronline.com/cbr.nsf/latestnews/3D7D494A2E3C728A80256BF4001084B… 07/12/2002 Curtain Being Drawn on KPNQwest Network The future of the KPNQwest network looks bleak, after the Customer Support KPNQwest foundation decided to withdraw its support for the operation from 23.00 hours tonight. The foundation was co-founded by Dutch carrier KPN NV to enable the bankrupt network to continue operating while possible buyers were found. Yesterday KPN said that much of the network had already been sold off and customers had found alternative options. Consequently, traffic had dropped and "the foundation sees no reason to continue supporting the network." Dutch incumbent KPN added that "the receivers and banks have still not responded positively to KPN's offer to take over the remaining sections of rings 1,2 and 3 in of the KPNQwest network in Northwestern Europe". KPN added that as far as it was aware, its offer was the only concrete one. It said, "whether the Foundation's decision to stop support of the network leads to its closure depends on the receivers and the banks." --------------------- André Chapuis IP+ Engineering Swisscom Ltd Genfergasse 14 3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 chapuis(a)ip-plus.net CCIE #6023 ---------------------

3 2

Re: Paying for delivery of packets (was about Sprint Peering, and Importance of Content)
by JC Dill 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

On 11:31 AM 7/11/02, E.B. Dreger wrote: > >JD> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:01 -0700 >JD> From: JC Dill > > >JD> It is my opinion that eventually the Internet will be mostly >JD> funded by those who send packets, and will be mostly free for >JD> those receiving said packets, much in the way that 800 >JD> numbers are funded in the telephone system. In order for >JD> that to work, we will need a settlement system. I predict >JD> that something like this will start happening before >JD> 12/2005. > >Agreed, except is any fancy settlement really needed? I predict >asymmetric pricing. The problem with asymmetric pricing is that the cost of passing the packets is equally born by both ends. Take 2 networks that peer, one with mostly content, one with mostly eyeballs. The content providers pay a higher price *per MB* for bandwidth to their provider than the end user does, but both networks have equal costs in transiting the packets from the server to the end user. >>From a political standpoint, it's easier to get a business to pay >an extra <x> per month to deliver their content than it is to get >Joe Public to pay an extra $10/mo for premium access. Joe's ISP needs to pay for fat pipes to get the data (from wherever Joe's ISP peers with the content provider's network) to Joe's eyeballs. That cost has to be borne by someone. Either Joe pays an equally high rate (per MB) for incoming packets as the content provider pays for sending them, or the content provider pays and there are settlements between the content provider's network and the Joe's network. My premise is that in the end, content providers want to send lots of packets more than end users want to pay to receive them. Joe is not willing to pay an equally high rate to get the packets that content providers are willing to pay to send them. Thus, settlements. >I think 12/2005 is conservative. Industry fallout begins >settling, and we see interesting tactics from "new breed" >upstarts run by laid-off engineers with a bit of money and a >bunch of clue. Beginning of 2005, significant presence by the >end of the year. I was hedging my bet. :-) I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it much sooner, even by the end of 2002. jc

4 4

OT - Importance of Content
by Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL) 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

I was wondering the importance of content to IP providers. Is it feasible to go after a lot of hosting companies and such as a business model and greatly skew your traffic ratios to hopefully reach a critical mass. I would think at some point you would have so much content that people would start to come to you for peering or to purchase access to get to that content which would cause a reduction in overall transit costs, but what would that critical mass be and how valid is that thought? Opinions? Shane Owens

7 7

Buffett bailout of WorldCom raises questions of influence
by Scott Francis 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

http://www.usatoday.com/money/columns/maney.htm An interesting history, especially for those of us (like myself) that didn't experience it first-hand. I've often wondered what would happen if MSFT gained control (in name or in fact) of any significant piece of the backbone ... -- -= Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net =- GPG key CB33CCA7 has been revoked; I am now 5537F527 illum oportet crescere me autem minui

5 5

Re: Question regarding web hosting ip addressing
by Scott Francis 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 08:25:25AM -0400, kramert(a)mlrnoc.navy.mil said: > Odd. I've run multiple "https:" sites on one IP. The browser > will complain about the certificate but you can always have And therein lies the problem. :) The last web host work I did had a few bottom-lines rules, and one of them was do not confuse the end-users, because that tends to either create support calls (whee) or send them to competitors. > a different certificate for each site while using one IP address. > (Correct me if I'm wrong!) According to http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/name-based.html (thanks Gerald), name-based hosting cannot be used with SSL due to the nature of the SSL protocol. > - Tim -- -= Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net =- GPG key CB33CCA7 has been revoked; I am now 5537F527 illum oportet crescere me autem minui

4 3

Re: Notes on the Internet for Bell Heads
by Martin J. Levy 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Sean, My vote goes for... How to build an Internet Service Company From A to Z... All you need to know to plan, build and market an Internet service company. Tips and tricks from the inside. Charles H. Burke July '96 ISBN: 0-935563-02-4 And I quote... > Coffee Maker - Coffee is an necessary as HTML to the aspiring ISP. > ... > I highly recommend the Bunn-Omatic corporation for excellent high > performance coffee makers. > ... It's a classic! As for driving in the UK and US... I have explained the value of roundabouts to many, many Americans and they still don't get it. Being British, but living in the US... I just don't get why they are not used here. You will have to put up with the face that Bell-heads and Net-heads just doing things differently and not understanding why the other side prefers an opposite method! Martin ---------------- At 03:09 PM 7/11/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: >Has anyone written the equivalent of the old Bell Systems Notes on the >Network for the Internet? A couple of books come close, Hueston's ISP >Survival Guide and Cisco's ISP Essentials. But there doesn't seem to >be anything that helps Bell heads understand what switching, routing >or signaling means on the Internet. There are a lot of words which are >spelled alike, but mean very different things in the Bell world and the >Internet world. > >I've been thinking of it like driving in England or the USA. We drive >on different sides of the road. Its safe until you get someone who >doesn't know the rules of the road driving on the other side of the >Atlantic. So how do you explain the rules of the Internet road to someone >used to driving on the telephone system?

4 3

RE: OT: MTA. (Was) RE: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in A TT a ttachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
by Rowland, Alan D 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Actually, it's Outlook XP running on Win2000 Workstation. Hey, I did post plain text... <satire> Do you always judge people by their clothes/skin color? ;0 </satire> Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Thomas [mailto:root@utility.clubscholarship.com] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:10 AM To: Rowland, Alan D Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: OT: MTA. (Was) RE: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT a ttachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message > Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept. I seriously doubt anyone clicking away with outlook running on XP posing on a technical list has any idea where the above comes from and what it refers to.

1 0

RE: CA Power
by Rowland, Alan D 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

I'm a little late to this discussion but the first stage two alert (two days ago?) resulted from a large power plant going off-line for "unspecified reasons" to quote the spokesperson. Does make you go hmmm... -Al Rowland Just my 2¢, feel free to use your delete key. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan@fugawi.net] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 3:42 PM To: Gary E. Miller Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: CA Power At 03:03 PM 7/11/2002 -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote: >Yo Martin! > >If there is plenty of power in CA then howcum there was a "stage 2" >alert yesterday and a "market alert today"? Today's "projected demand" >equaled "available resources" today If demand played out as expected >there would have been big trouble in CA today. A lot of data surrounding the Enron collapse suggests that power traders artificially manipulated CA's power market, and also suggests that a lot of the previous summers warnings of power problems were also artificially created. All over the country, building of "extra" capacity has slowed. Some due to new sources that came online, some due to the fact that a decrease in power was realized as a result of the falloff in the economy. Could it be that CA is experiencing a normal surge in power utilization and the warning is part of a normal cycle? Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

2 1