- Test - lists.nanog.org

[Henk.Steenman@ams-ix.net: NOTIFICATION: KPNQWEST disconnection]
by Peter van Dijk 28 Jun '02

28 Jun '02

FYI. ----- Forwarded message from Henk Steenman <Henk.Steenman(a)ams-ix.net> ----- Subject: NOTIFICATION: KPNQWEST disconnection From: Henk Steenman <Henk.Steenman(a)ams-ix.net> To: AMS-IX Discussion list for technical issues <tech-l(a)ams-ix.net>, GRX Tech mailing list <grxtech(a)ams-ix.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:43:42 +0200 This is to inform you that KPNQWEST has been unable to further fulfill its financial obligations towards AMS-IX, despite their repeated promises to do so over the last couple of days. We have therefore decided that the KPNQWEST ports will be disabled (both on the Internet and the GRX VLANs) at 12.00AM CET today. To allow some further time for rearranging traffic, we will allow a single KPNQWEST port to remain in use for a few more days, i.e. until July 1st. This one remaining port will be: switch 4 port 6/5 IP 193.148.15.140 (Internet VLAN) In order to avoid large amounts of broadcast traffic created by ARP requests, we request all parties currently peering with KPNQWEST to shut down their peering sessions with KPNQWEST with other IP addresses than the above mentioned one. Kind Regards -- - Henk Henk Steenman tel: +31 205 141 711 Amsterdam Internet Exchange mobile: +31 651 312 774 http://www.ams-ix.net e-mail: Henk.Steenman(a)ams-ix.net _______________________________________________ tech-l mailing list tech-l(a)ams-ix.net http://melix.ams-ix.net/mailman/listinfo/tech-l ----- End forwarded message ----- Greetz, Peter -- MegaBIT - open air networking event - http://www.megabit.nl/

4 4

Sprint peering policy
by Ralph Doncaster 28 Jun '02

28 Jun '02

Someone was kind enough to forward me an outline of the peering policy they received from Sprint. It seems to be the toughest one I've seen - >=OC48 in 14 US cities, >=OC12 to Europe. To find out the traffic minimums and ratios it looks like an NDA is required... Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com

8 12

How do I log on while in flight?
by Scott Weeks 28 Jun '02

28 Jun '02

I was wondering if any of y'all could give me pointers to services I could use to log into a network during flight on a private airplane. For example a person is in flight cross-country and needs to do a videoconference, send email from his network to interested parties, or any of the normal things we do from the ground. Is this possible or would it interfere with the plane's other systems? scott

14 18

Savvis? 14:00 CDT change?
by Larry Rosenman 28 Jun '02

28 Jun '02

Around 14:00 CDT (GMT -0500), we noted most of our traffic ingress was through Savvis, not it's normal path. Turning down our BGP session with them, traffic returns to it's normal path. Anyone else seeing weird stuff from Savvis? -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(a)lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

1 1

FW: How do I log on while in flight?
by Jacob M Wilkens 28 Jun '02

28 Jun '02

This was very informative... not to mention interesting. (see below) -----Original Message----- From: John Fraizer [mailto:nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:01 PM To: Jacob M Wilkens Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: How do I log on while in flight? On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Jacob M Wilkens wrote: > > I'm fairly certain the cell networks won't crash - as demonstrated in some > calls made last fall. It's more like they won't be able to bill for the time > or keep track of your calls. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Scott Weeks > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 5:01 PM > To: Leigh Anne Chisholm > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: How do I log on while in flight? > > > I was mainly thinking of satellite systems, but failed to remember the > latency problems associated with them so the videoconferencing example > wouldn't work. (not enough coffee today... :) So for latency tolerent > apps does satellite work well when traveling at air speeds? If the > footprint doesn't cover the entire area traveled how well does hand off > from one 'cell' to another work? What do the big boys like the president > and corporate execs use? > > Also, that the cellular network could crash if cell phones are used at > altitude seems like a big security hole to me. > > scott > > Jacob, Since Sue H. has my posting privs nuked (since last fall), I can't post this to the entire list but, I can explain the reasoning behind not using cell phones on aircraft from the cellular carrier point of view. In a previous life, I was an engineer for a very large cellular carrier in the southern US. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with not being able to track the call or bill for the time. If the mobile and the MTSO (mobile telephone switching office) are able to agree on which site has the call during call initiation, the call can be established. If it is establisted, it is logged. Once it is logged, it can be billed. On the analog cell system, the cell site has one of more signaling channel and what is called a scanning receiver. In addition to these, there are regular channels. The signaling channel is used to initiate calls to/from the mobile. The MTSO keeps track of the LKA (last known area) of the mobile. When a call is placed to that mobile, the MTSO will send a message on the signaling channel of the cellsite that the mobile was last known to be in. This message says "mobileID #nnn-nnn-nnnn, I have a call for you. If you're there, TX on channel XXX with a SAT tone of YYY." The cellsite then listens on channel XXX for a carrier with a SAT tone of YYY. If it hears the mobile there, it then says "OK. I hear you there. Cause the mobile phone to ring and let the guy know he ha a call." The phone rings. If the user answers the call, it tells the cellsite over channel XXX, which in turn tells the MTSO. The MTSO then tells the cellsite, over the signaling channel, "OK. You listen on channel ZZZ for me with a SAT tone of QQQ. If you hear me, let me know over the signaling channel and we'll establish a two-way link and tie your call up." The "handoff" process is very similar. The MTSO is asking all of the surrounding cellsites to listen for you on channel XXX with a SAT tone of YYY and tell it how strong it hears you. When there is a cellsite that claims to hear you better than the site you're currently using, the whole "listen for me, I'll listen for you and we'll use these SAT tones to authenticate ourselfs" process goes on to hand your call off to the new cellsite. This is all fine and dandy and will work, although sub-optimum, with the mobile airborn. The problem comes from a process called "foreign carrier detect." If a cellsite hears someone on its scanning receiver, it reports this to the MTSO. The MTSO knows what calls it is tracking and which cellsites should be adjacent to and hearing those calls. If a cellsite is hearing a call that, by design, it should NOT be hearing, the MTSO will alarm for "foreign carrier detect" and shut that channel down on that cellsite. The reason is that the MTSO thinks that it is some "foreign carrier" that could cause problems for a REAL call. It doesn't want that so, it shuts that channel down with a FCD alarm to prevent it. Since the original analog system consisted of 600-so channels, divided equally between the A-wireless and B-wireline carriers, the systems were designed to share channels. It re-used channels throughout the network, only it did so at distances at which two cellsites using the same channels would not hear each other or each others client mobiles. Now, you put one of those mobiles in the air and not only can it hear every cellsite that is using the particular voice channel but, every scanning receiver at every cellsite in a network is most likely going to hear the airborne mobile and start a cascading foreign carrier detect shutdown of channels, network-wide. As the mobile is handed off from site to site, it is likely that it is going to use a different channel and then THAT channel gets put out of service because of a FCD alarm. To add to it, it is not system specific. Depending on the size of the MSA (metropolitin service area) or RSA (rural service area) footprint, there may be as many as 4 or 5 cellular network carriers effected in this cascading failure by a SINGLE airborne mobile. So, now you know one of the more UNKNOWN reasons why it is not legal to use a cell phone while airborne. It is a great way to DoS the network and the carriers, subscribers, and FCC don't want that. I would greatly appreciate it if you would post this to the list since, as I stated to begin with, I don't have post access to NANOG. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

1 0

RE: Sprint peering policy
by Patrick W. Gilmore 28 Jun '02

28 Jun '02

At 08:00 PM 6/27/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > >> Pick a strategy and run with it. Being a broadband provider in >> SE Canada, I suggest sniffing out public peering in NYC and CHI >> for a start. IIRC, Hotmail and Y! are at AADS and will peer with >> most anyone -- there's a good chunk of traffic. Now Akamaize >> your network if you haven't already. > >I'm already working on NYC. For Chicago an OC3 connection to AADS would >cost more than the long-haul back to Toronto. I also prefer ethernet >peering instead of ATM. Equinix looks like the best option in Chicago, >but most long-haul carriers are in 600 Federal and not 350 Cermak. > >As for Akamai, I've found very little of my traffic (<5%) is >Akamai. Akamai is at NYIIX anyway, so once I get into 25 Broadway I'd >peer with them. Mind if I ask how you got the traffic stats for Akamai? >-Ralph -- TTFN, patrick

2 1

RE: How do I log on while in flight?
by Irwin Lazar 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

see: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41177,00.html there are several reasons why cell phones aren't allowed to be used on planes, the above citation provides explanations. Irwin -----Original Message----- From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:lachisho@tnc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:54 PM To: Scott Weeks; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: How do I log on while in flight? The FCC prohibits communication using a cellular telephone while in an aircraft in US airspace. In Canada, I don't believe there is such a regulation. >From doing research on this topic earlier this year, I came across news articles that say that several aircraft manufacturers have tested the use of cellular telephones on aircraft systems and found no effects whatsoever. So why the FCC ruling? Likely it's because of the design of the cellular network - which from what I understand, is far more dense in the US than it is in Canada (which might be why the CRTC doesn't have such a prohibition). The problem is what happens when a cellular device is based above the cellular system antennae - there is an ability to connect to multiple systems simultaneously, and that's something the system wasn't designed to see happen. Additionally, there's the hand-off factor, of the negotiation process of what happens when you leave the range of one cellular tower and enter the range of another. In an aircraft, that happens at a rate greater than would be if the cellular phone were used in a car - so again, there's a problem there. The Airphone system found on commercial aircraft was designed to overcome these limitations - which is why they CAN be used onboard commercial aircraft systems. So, besides it being illegal, you run the risk of taking down your service provider's cellular network - and from what I've heard, this doesn't make them very happy. In summary - don't do it. -- Leigh Anne Chisholm Network Engineer Applied Design Networks > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Scott Weeks > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:11 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: How do I log on while in flight? > > I was wondering if any of y'all could give me pointers to services I could > use to log into a network during flight on a private airplane. For example > a person is in flight cross-country and needs to do a videoconference, > send email from his network to interested parties, or any of the normal > things we do from the ground. Is this possible or would it interfere with > the plane's other systems? > > scott

1 0

Re: ARIN IP allocation question
by Robert Tarrall 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

"Jeff Nelson" wrote: -> Small ISP or no, how far off are you from begin multi-homed? Growing pains Pretty far off. The reason we went with Viawest is that we're colo-ed in a very good facility (Level3's colo in downtown Denver) and Viawest is multi-homed through TouchAmerica, Level3, and Internap. Internap are themselves of course very well interconnected locally. Doing multihoming in-house wouldn't necessarily improve reliability; it'd just shift the failure point from Viawest's router to our own, meaning much more $$$ worth of router here and much more administrative load for me. I really doubt I can do a better job of running BGP than Internap, or even Viawest. -> leasing from ARIN is best for you. If you see continued growth, I would make -> the plunge and revel in the discoveries. Yup. Right now we've got a nice, steady, maintainable growth rate; unless our business model changes it'll be years before we need a /21. In reality a large and obvious "sea change" in the ISP business or in our business model would precede any need for a big block of addresses here. If things look like they're changing (or if it looks like Viawest and Level3 are both going under) I'll definitely be talking with ARIN; until then there should be no need. -> You can be allocated blocks from ARIN in a 2-3 week period of time; another -> provider bringing you a DS-3 (or whatever) could take 6+ depending on your -> location. One of the nice things about the Level3 colo (or any large colo, really) is that the slowest part of adding a DS-3 is the cross-connect. We got a DS-3 from XO a while back and XO's end was done in about 5 days. Took 3-4 weeks for Level3 to run the cross-connect, of course. -Robert Tarrall.- Unix System/Network Admin E.Central/Neighborhood Link

1 0

Re: ARIN IP allocation questionn
by Joel Baker 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

At the request of my employer, I will be making no further posts on this topic. Disclaimers are apparently insufficient, though I would politely remind everyone reading that I spoke on my behalf only, and not that of the company. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer(a)lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

1 0

Re: ARIN IP allocation questionn
by Joel Baker 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:56:26AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > >My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once > >they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock > >assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept through another > >change...) > > The guidelines have a strong preference for singly-homed networks to > use IP address space allocated to them from their upstreams. I can think > of no logical reason* an ISP would prefer their customers to go to ARIN > rather than deal with them. The global routing table is better off for it > as well, as the customer's /20 would be a new route, rather than being > included in their provider's presumably larger block. The assumption that the ISP has a larger block is not always a wise one to make. > On the other hand, I can think of many reasons a customer would prefer > to deal with ARIN than their upstream, assuming the meager cost wasn't a > factor and they don't mind polluting the global table a tad. Of course, > that's not really an operational issue. Most of the places I've worked would be charging them for the IP usage either way, since the ISP has to pay ARIN, eventually... > DS > > * The only reason I could possibly think of is if the ISP is afraid that > the large allocation will impact their future allocations because they > don't have the confidence or competence to extract a proper justification > from their customer and present/defend that justification to ARIN when > their next allocation comes up. But this wasn't the reason you were > thinking of, right? See above. Sometimes you have lots of IP space, but nothing *large*, due to business constraints. This often changes over time, but some of us don't have multiple legacy /16s from Back In The Day (and then again, some of us do - but not the 'us' I work for, anymore). Not under NDA, since all of it can be found by asking ARIN, of course. :) -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer(a)lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

3 2