- Test - lists.nanog.org

Adeklphia update
by blitz 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

Adelphia announced price increases today.... 90 cents a month for cable TV, bringing the package to about $39. a month in Buffalo, and $41. outside. Also they increased the "powerlink" cablemodem $2.00 a month. (this is the second increase this year)

6 5

D.C. area based ISP's unite
by Irwin Lazar 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

FYI: o ISPs Form DC-based Organization To Battle Large Telecom Firms Washington, DC -- About 200 Internet service providers (ISPs) from around the country have formed a new organization based in Washington DC that will battle against what they call "monopolistic local telephone companies" regarding the future deployment of broadband. The new DC-based organization, called The BroadNet Alliance, plans to lobby the federal government on behalf of smaller ISPs. "How America chooses to deploy broadband is one of the most central policy issues of our time. Though there are many voices on the traditional long distance, cable and local telephone sides, the country's independent broadband providers have lacked a clear voice in the debate," said Maura Colleton, Executive Director of BroadNet. http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=Cpq6WqbWbrenuvtaYoq&FQ

2 1

RE: remember the "diameter of the internet"?
by Martin, Christian 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

>Regarding the diameter of the Internet - I'm still trying to >figure out >why the hell anyone would want to have "edge" routers (instead of dumb >TDMs) if not for inability of IOS to support large numbers of virtual >interfaces. Same story goes for "clusters" of backbone routers. When ANY router becomes as reliable as a dumb TDM device, then maybe we can begin collapsing the POP topology. However, the very nature of the Internet almost prevents this reliability from being achieved (having a shared control and data plane seems to be the primary culprit). There are routers out there today that can single-handedly replace entire POPs at a fraction of the rack, power, and operational cost. Hasn't happened, tho. I don't like wasting ports for redundant n^2 or log(n^2) interconnect either, but router and reliability mix like oil and water... My 2c. -chris > >--vadim > >On 18 Jun 2002, Jeff Harper wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 12:34, brett watson wrote: >> >> > no, just lamenting the passing of an era. an era where we >engineers >> > cooperated, and "just fixed" the problems as they occured. > and we didn't >> > do things like this. >> >> Keep in mind the reason why the era passed. During that >era, you had >> top level, blue sky engineers. Now the field has been >saturated by a >> lot of less than desirable "engineers" out there (not >calling you one >> at >> all) that ruined it for us all... >> >> >> >> >

5 5

Re: ATTBI refuses to do reverse DNS?
by Jared Mauch 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

And it will continue to work that way. That is the quality work of the people who spend many man-hours putting together such a system that is robust enough that when i decide that when you send me e-mail (not via a list) from a host that has no reverse dns, i can easily flag that for further scrutiny. What you are missing here is that, while yes, you can send e-mail from root(a)[1.2.3.4] to people, they may say "hmm, e-mail from an ip address is not typical of the people that i communicate with", and therefore treat it differntly. just like policy-routing but for your mailbox. it is a good reflection of provider clue(tm). even if they have rev-192.168.0.1.example.com. as their reverse dns, it's slightly more responsible (imho) than nothing/nxdomain. - jared On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 05:48:29PM -0700, Patrick Thomas wrote: > > Hi - what if I don't _want_ a domain name ? Last time I checked all of > the standard Internet protocols worked just fine with just an IP - thank > you for imposing your own sense of expediency and "convenience" on me and > then arbitrarily breaking the network for me when I choose not to > participate. > > --PT > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 04:54:54PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > > > > > Thus spake "Stephen Griffin" <stephen.griffin(a)rcn.com> > > > > The lack of clue tends to be on the providing in-addr side of > > > > things. I think it is a great thing to refuse connections from > > > > ips without in-addr, in the same way it is great to refuse mail > > > > from domains that don't provide postmaster addresses. > > > > > > On first reading, I thought that was sarcasm. Now I realize you're serious. > > > > I've found that filtering out mail from > > people that have no reverse dns tends to typically point to > > a) open-relays, b) spam, c) lack of working abuse/postmaster. > > > > > > It is a means through which one can influence the laziness of > > > > others. Simply disregarding what others do, only legitimizes > > > > the laziness, and continues us along the road of everyone > > > > doing the absolute minimum. > > > > ... > > > > You neglect to include the option of the customer changing > > > > to an ISP that provides in-addr. > > > > > > So, if you ran Amazon.com, you wouldn't accept money from customers of clueless > > > ISPs? > > > > You can't do it on the store side, but you can do it on the > > residental customer side, or at least give those messages a higher > > level of attention in any overall spam score for a message. > > > > > Sadly, even that level of coercion wouldn't be anywhere near enough to motivate > > > most ISPs. And your (non-)customers will be caught in the crossfire. > > > > Anyone that sends e-mail to me from a host/server with no reverse > > dns I will not see. It is not rejected w/ 400/500 series code > > as I know some people do. it goes to it's own 'spam' folder. > > > > I have found that some companies (american express) for > > example can not seem to make their systems have reverse dns, and > > they suffer from the lack of a working postmaster/hostmaster > > address too. > > > > It just means i read that folder once every few days and > > periodically send e-mail to people i know that have hit the filter > > or other legit folks. > > > > - jared > > > > -- > > Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared(a)puck.nether.net > > clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. > > > -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared(a)puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.

1 0

remember the "diameter of the internet"?
by brett watson 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

i sit behind cox-cable service at home, and in troubleshooting why my connectivity is *so* horrible, i find the following traceroute. does anyone do any sane routing anymore? does diameter matter (we used to talk about it a long, long while ago). i guess i'm just old and crusty but this seems to violate so many natural laws. i find in more random testing that i seem to be a minimum of 15 hops from anything, and it's not just the # of hops, it's the *paths* i travel. bouncing between two cities several times, on several different provider networks, from one border to the other. wow. -b traceroute www.caida.org 1 10.113.128.1 30 unavailable 2 68.2.6.25 10 ip68-2-6-25.ph.ph.cox.net 3 68.2.0.26 40 ip68-2-0-26.ph.ph.cox.net 4 68.2.0.18 50 ip68-2-0-18.ph.ph.cox.net 5 68.2.0.10 20 ip68-2-0-10.ph.ph.cox.net 6 68.2.0.70 10 ip68-2-0-70.ph.ph.cox.net 7 68.2.14.13 10 chnddsrc02-gew0303.rd.ph.cox.net 8 68.1.0.168 20 chndbbrc02-pos0101.rd.ph.cox.net 9 68.1.0.146 30 dllsbbrc01-pos0102.rd.dl.cox.net 10 12.119.145.125 40 unavailable 11 12.123.17.54 30 gbr6-p30.dlstx.ip.att.net 12 12.122.5.86 51 gbr4-p90.dlstx.ip.att.net 13 12.122.2.114 80 gbr2-p30.kszmo.ip.att.net 14 12.122.1.93 50 gbr1-p60.kszmo.ip.att.net 15 12.122.2.42 70 gbr4-p40.sl9mo.ip.att.net 16 12.122.2.205 60 gbr3-p40.cgcil.ip.att.net 17 12.123.5.145 60 ggr1-p360.cgcil.ip.att.net 18 207.88.50.253 90 unavailable 19 64.220.0.189 80 ge5-3-1.RAR1.Chicago-IL.us.xo.net 20 65.106.1.86 70 p0-0-0-0.RAR2.Chicago-IL.us.xo.net 21 65.106.0.34 60 p1-0-0.RAR1.Dallas-TX.us.xo.net 22 65.106.0.14 120 p6-0-0.RAR2.LA-CA.us.xo.net 23 64.220.0.99 80 ge1-0.dist1.lax-ca.us.xo.net 24 206.111.14.238 211 a2-0d2.dist1.sdg-ca.us.xo.net 25 209.31.222.150 80 unavailable 26 198.17.46.56 140 pinot.sdsc.edu 27 192.172.226.123 91 cider.caida.org

12 18

NANOG meeting stats
by Susan Harris 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Greetings - here's some info about the last NANOG meeting. ================================================================= NANOG 25 June 9-11 Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada Host: Group Telecom Total Attendees: 509 (up from 425 at NANOG24) Speakers: 39 (3 panels) Countries represented: 17 Wireless card loans: 52 Typical # of ethernet users: 33 Largest simultaneous # of wireless users: 400 Concurrent multicast viewers: ~20 to 30 Unique multicast viewers: ~50 to 100 Concurrent RealMedia viewers: up to 85 Multicast broadcast: University of Oregon, Cisco Squid, DNS, DHCP: Packet Pushers Meeting coordination: Merit Sponsors: Avici, Extreme, Group Telecom, Juniper, OPNET, Pluris, Redback, Riverstone, RouteScience

1 0

Off-topic - 802.1Q
by Jeff Oliver 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Sorry for the off-topic request, but can anyone point me to a copy of the 802.1Q spec? Jeff -- Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...... -- Jeffrey L. Oliver Email: jeff.oliver(a)uleth.ca Network Analyst Web: http://telecom.uleth.ca Telecommunications Unit The University of Lethbridge Cell: 403.315.4461 4401 University Drive Lethbridge, Alberta Tel: 403.329.5162 Canada, T1K3M4 Fax: 403.382.7108 --

3 2

RE: ATTBI refuses to do reverse DNS?
by Rowland, Alan D 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

As an ATTBI customer at home (only [reasonably priced] high speed available in the area), the recent network/service changes being rolled out have a high negative pressure coefficient. Haven't tried FTP lately, will have to see if it still works on 'my' network tonight! I do know their USENET feed has gotten 'interesting' in the last week. Lots of 'there is no such group' with lots of new, mainly full of 'local' spam groups and significant numbers of 'no new articles' for days in normally high traffic hierarchies. Almost seems like their services are now being admin'd in China or something. Just my 2¢. The delete key is your friend. -Al -----Original Message----- From: Lou Katz [mailto:lou@metron.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:31 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: ATTBI refuses to do reverse DNS? A client of mine just discovered that he could no longer do ftp transfers to my machine. His IP address had changed to one in 12.240.20 and there is no reverse DNS for that block. His previous assignment was in a totally different block which did have reverse DNS. Calls to ATTBI got the answer that they are not obligated to provide reverse DNS and have no plans to do so. My servers refuse connections when there is no reverse lookup. Is this common? -- I suppose I could set up a bogus reverse for him, but, feh... -=[L]=-

1 0

ConfigMaker Beta
by jim bruer 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

I send you this file for your advice. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

4 4

Re: remember the "diameter of the internet"?
by Mathew Lodge 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

At 07:28 PM 6/18/2002 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >Path is one of the last things to be checked > >BGP first checks all kinds of network admin defined things such as local >prefs etc which ought to be properly set by the admins to ensure traffic >is going the best way (which should include local interconnects rather >than last resort transits). Then all things being well BGP can make >choices on path! So, you're advocating that the admin do all of the optimization manually for all destinations by setting preferences? Mathew >On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Mathew Lodge wrote: > > > > > At 01:33 PM 6/18/2002 -0400, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote: > > >Are you asking _why_ there are so many hops between yourself and the guy > > >across town? > > > > He's not, but answer is that BGP's key metric is AS path length. This can > > have very little to do with the optimality (expressed as efficient use of > > resources) of the actual packet path. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mathew > > > > > > > > > > >Jane > > > > > >brett watson wrote: > > > > > > > > i sit behind cox-cable service at home, and in troubleshooting why my > > > > connectivity is *so* horrible, i find the following traceroute. does > > > > anyone do any sane routing anymore? does diameter matter (we used > to talk > > > > about it a long, long while ago). i guess i'm just old and crusty > but this > > > > seems to violate so many natural laws. > > > > > > > > i find in more random testing that i seem to be a minimum of 15 > hops from > > > > anything, and it's not just the # of hops, it's the *paths* i travel. > > > > bouncing between two cities several times, on several different > provider > > > > networks, from one border to the other. > > > > > > > > wow. > > > > > > > > -b > > > > > > > > traceroute www.caida.org > > > > > > > > 1 10.113.128.1 30 unavailable > > > > 2 68.2.6.25 10 ip68-2-6-25.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 3 68.2.0.26 40 ip68-2-0-26.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 4 68.2.0.18 50 ip68-2-0-18.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 5 68.2.0.10 20 ip68-2-0-10.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 6 68.2.0.70 10 ip68-2-0-70.ph.ph.cox.net > > > > 7 68.2.14.13 10 chnddsrc02-gew0303.rd.ph.cox.net > > > > 8 68.1.0.168 20 chndbbrc02-pos0101.rd.ph.cox.net > > > > 9 68.1.0.146 30 dllsbbrc01-pos0102.rd.dl.cox.net > > > > 10 12.119.145.125 40 unavailable > > > > 11 12.123.17.54 30 gbr6-p30.dlstx.ip.att.net > > > > 12 12.122.5.86 51 gbr4-p90.dlstx.ip.att.net > > > > 13 12.122.2.114 80 gbr2-p30.kszmo.ip.att.net > > > > 14 12.122.1.93 50 gbr1-p60.kszmo.ip.att.net > > > > 15 12.122.2.42 70 gbr4-p40.sl9mo.ip.att.net > > > > 16 12.122.2.205 60 gbr3-p40.cgcil.ip.att.net > > > > 17 12.123.5.145 60 ggr1-p360.cgcil.ip.att.net > > > > 18 207.88.50.253 90 unavailable > > > > 19 64.220.0.189 80 ge5-3-1.RAR1.Chicago-IL.us.xo.net > > > > 20 65.106.1.86 70 p0-0-0-0.RAR2.Chicago-IL.us.xo.net > > > > 21 65.106.0.34 60 p1-0-0.RAR1.Dallas-TX.us.xo.net > > > > 22 65.106.0.14 120 p6-0-0.RAR2.LA-CA.us.xo.net > > > > 23 64.220.0.99 80 ge1-0.dist1.lax-ca.us.xo.net > > > > 24 206.111.14.238 211 a2-0d2.dist1.sdg-ca.us.xo.net > > > > 25 209.31.222.150 80 unavailable > > > > 26 198.17.46.56 140 pinot.sdsc.edu > > > > 27 192.172.226.123 91 cider.caida.org > > > > | Mathew Lodge | mathew(a)cplane.com | | Director, Product Management | Ph: +1 408 789 4068 | | CPLANE, Inc. | http://www.cplane.com |

3 3