- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: The Gorgon's Knot. Was: Re: Verio Peering Question
by smd＠clock.org 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

| But, we all do, or we aren't talking BGP. The requirements here are not that | large. A Cisco 2651 with 128mb is a valid BGP speaker, these days. That's a | cheap router, indeed. And, router memory is dirt cheap. BGP is based on TCP and thus has the fun property that a big set of changes will pile up in front of a connection to a peer that is slow at processing inbound announcements & withdrawals. The slower you are at processing updates, the more likely you are to be out of sync with reality in such a way that you will begin to notice that you are forwarding some packets the wrong direction into loops or black holes. The slower you are, the greater the backlog you have to chug through to catch up, making you busier for longer periods, which in turn leads to greater backlogs. Slow down too much and the other side will help you out by resetting the session. We've seen this in the past - it's caused MASSIVE outages affecting nearly EVERYONE for hours at a time. Or you can say "smd is protecting his own personal interests" and carry on arguing the equivalent of "ANYBODY can build a modern router using a sufficient amount of ROM" which simply underlines the point that dynamic global routing is an expensive luxury that many people have gotten used to. | The common good is | promoted by allowing these folks to multihome, which would be effectively | prohibited if all networks implimented verio-style filter policies. Think of it as a catalyst for more experimentation with alternative ways of multihoming without the use of BGP. There are several which exist now, and several which are being discussed in multi6 which could be made to exist now without universal software changes. Some brainstorming could result in several other approaches, more or less generalized, but what's the point when the normal cheap-seeming thing to do is to announce CIDR holes to the world? | The number of folks who multihome is large and growing. We should support | this by promoting relatively open filtering policies and allowing /24s to be | truly, globally routable. I think we should encourage people to introduce individual /32s into the network and flap them around a bit, to force some issues which have been avoided becauase first Sprint and then Verio have been willing to take a bunch of negative PR in the act of self-protection (which has the side-effect of protecting alot of people who generate the negative PR, and everyone else). Sean.

8 11

Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover
by Paul Vixie 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

> I suppose it's easy to feel that way when you're not the one being censored. As before, you presume much. Randy has rejected articles from me before on the grounds that they were off-topic. Upon reflection, I had to agree w/ him. (And I'm still waiting for Sue to tell me to stop contributing to this thread, on the same basis, and I will agree with her, too.) > > Remember, if you wanted to start a nam3dr0pp3rs@ list someplace else and > > post introductions to it on ietf@ and namedroppers@, noone could stop you. > > That's incorrect. The moderator could stop me. On the grounds that the creation of an alternative mailing list was off-topic? That would be quite a spectacle. Please do it, I'd like to see the results. > Also, it wouldn't matter if I made my own list, because any list I > created would not be the official list of the DNSEXT working group. So your beef is with IETF process (sanctioning restricted forums) rather than with the restrictedness of the forum? You think the IETF has some kind of monopoly on discussions of DNS's fine points and that because of this we ought to continue debating those fine points on other lists, like this one? > I was merely pointing out that the namedroppers list is not exactly the open > forum that you purported it to be. I posted a link to a web page (above) in > support of this claim. You have not yet refuted anything that is published > on that page. You've got THAT right, at least.

3 2

GBLX NOC?
by E.B. Dreger 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

GBLX NOC, anyone? The toll-free and regular numbers that I have are both inoperational. 800.541.9888 "outside the calling area" 602.416.7187 "cannot be completed as dialed" Someone { who knows a working GBLX NOC number | at GBLX } please contact me privately. TIA, Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> To: blacklist(a)brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.

3 2

RE: staffing guidelines
by Ron Snyder 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

Here are two links that my boss sent to me-- he created a spreadsheet that uses the formulas described there. The spreadsheet tells me that I need 27 people (22 more than I currently have). http://www.aztea.org/resources/whitepaper/staffing.htm http://techguide.merit.edu/formula.htm I found the formulas to be "too heavily" weighted for hardware, and not heavily weighted enough for software (but it's a starting point). -ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:16 AM > To: Murphy, Brennan > Cc: 'Dave O'Shea'; Irwin Lazar; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: staffing guidelines > > > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 07:27:56PM -0500, Murphy, Brennan wrote: > > I am interested more in how many *engineers* are needed on > 200, 500, 2000 > > device > > networks, where "device" means routers, switches and any > servers that > > support > > the routers/switches such as HP Openview, Sniffers or ACS servers, > > ...Firewalls, etc. > > That's rather like asking how many cars a mechanic can service. > At Jiffy Lube it's 100's a day. At Ford it's 10's a day. At the > Ferrari shop it might be one a day. Race teams might devote several > mechanics to one car for days at a time. > > I can invision networks of 2000 devices that one engineer runs, > and networks of 200 devices that require 2000 engineers. There is > very little to link the number of devices to the number of people > needed to run them. The time people spend is dominated by rate of > change, rate of failure, scope of work, redundancy of design, and > the level of support you want to offer. The time spent installing > devices, or upgrading them is rather small in most networks. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org > Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 > Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org >

1 0

Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover
by Gregory Hicks 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:14:47 -0700 > From: Adam McKenna <adam-nanog(a)flounder.net> > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 12:34:45PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > > Most mailing lists I am on seem to get by fine without overt > > > moderation - including this one. [...snip...] > You've conveniently failed to address the issue where the list > moderator of namedroppers took it upon himself to edit the > content of posts before forwarding them to the list. You know, as the former editor/moderator of the Info-IBMPC Digest list for a fair number of years, and not having subscribed to the namedroppers list, I frequently edited the content of postings (if only to make them more readable and/or to tone down rantings), rejected others (sometimes with an explanation of how to make it more suitable for publication, sometimes without one. Usually with an explanation though...) Sometimes I ran the changes by the submitter, sometimes not... Depended on how much 'editing' I had to do. > > > > Prefiltering to suit *any* one individuals opinion of what > > > is or isn't on topic seems highly suspect for any list, and > > > unacceptable on a list supposedly to define policy. > > > > so in order for a policy-defining forum to be considered > > representative, it must be open to all posts on all topics > > from all parties at all times? that does not match not my > > intuition on the matter. > > This is a straw man. The messages that were sent clearly fell > within the list's charter, yet they were rejected and/or edited > by the moderator for what appear to be entirely personal reasons. The moderator (editor, in my case) really has the final call on what gets posted and what doesn't... Sorry, but them's the rules. In any case, this is straying a bit afield of the charter for nanog... Regards, Gregory Hicks --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3479 San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: ghicks(a)cadence.com "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

2 1

Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover
by Paul Vixie 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

> You've conveniently failed to address the issue where the list moderator > of namedroppers took it upon himself to edit the content of posts before > forwarding them to the list. I'm ignoring that claim, yes. I'm not sure how "convenient" it is for me. > ... The messages that were sent clearly fell within the list's charter, > yet they were rejected and/or edited by the moderator for what appear to > be entirely personal reasons. Randy can be hard to take sometimes (unlike, say, me) but I completely trust his judgement as to what is, and is not, topical for the namedroppers@ list. Remember, if you wanted to start a nam3dr0pp3rs@ list someplace else and post introductions to it on ietf@ and namedroppers@, noone could stop you. So if you or anyone else is thinking of claiming to be experiencing censorship, I hope you've got evidence of prior restraint to back that claim up. Your iron, your lists, your rules. Go for it. Best of luck, and all that.

3 2

BGP noise tonight?
by cowie＠renesys.com 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

Say, our alarms went off tonight when we saw a roughly tenfold spike in BGP prefix announcement and withdrawal rates at RIPE's rrc00 and rrc03 collection points in Amsterdam. The trouble started around 20:00 GMT, hit its peak by about 21:00 GMT, and has trailed off slowly since then. Looking at the worst-behaved prefixes and AS paths led me to put in a call to the tech support center of an unnamed Major Provider, who confirmed that there had been a major BGP event but would provide no specifics. So, what's going on out there in the NOCs tonight? Inquiring minds want to know. --jim

4 3

Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover
by Paul Vixie 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

> Most mailing lists I am on seem to get by fine without overt > moderation - including this one. you have your facts wrong. the operators of this mailing list are perfectly capable of sending private mail to people like me who keep posting off-topic drivel like the message i am now typing. > Most moderated lists I am on seem to get by with thread killing - an > argument is allowed to run for a few posts, then the moderator posts that > he is officially killing the thread, and further posts on that will be > rejected (and should be taken to email). sure. namedroppers(a)ops.ietf.org works that way, as an example of one such. > Prefiltering to suit *any* one individuals opinion of what is or isn't on > topic seems highly suspect for any list, and unacceptable on a list > supposedly to define policy. so in order for a policy-defining forum to be considered representative, it must be open to all posts on all topics from all parties at all times? that does not match not my intuition on the matter. > Note I have never read the list in question, so am arguing on general > principles here, not this specific instance..... perhaps a parallel list > setup (with $listname and $listname-filtered) could be set up with posts > making it to the second list only with moderator approval? i'm sure that if one were set up it would be used by many people. (not me.)

3 2

Re: brainstorms (Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover)
by E.B. Dreger 07 Oct '01

07 Oct '01

> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 22:52:05 -0400 > From: dsr(a)akamai.com > > If heavily enough distributed, congestion should be highly > > localized... if present at all. Let's assume that a "basic > > server" can service 10 Mbps of traffic. Install servers in > > various points, a la Akamai... any traffic sinks here ever manage > > to overload your Akamai boxen? If so, how often compared to a > > random traffic source. > > Please don't start attacking your local Akamai box to prove > this, though. Brute-force is so inelegant. !!! My intended point was that Akamaized sites are less likely to be overloaded than non-Akamaized sites. Traffic spikes from incidents such as the release of the Starr report and the bombings last month have demonstrated this. Given enough hosting points, overloading becomes rare; I used Akamai as a real-life example. Given that overloading is rare, we can focus on failover, and worry less about load-balancing. Given that we need only to focus on failover, the problem (and hopefully the solution) becomes much simpler. I'd hope that the average NANOG reader knows better than to try any "let's see how much traffic before this breaks" stupidity... Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> To: blacklist(a)brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.

2 1

Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover
by Paul Vixie 07 Oct '01

07 Oct '01

> The really neat thing is that you can do this with any nameserver. Install > N nameservers and connect each of them to one of your ISPs. These > nameservers are all masters, and all contain different data. If you have several nameservers all pretending to be masters for some zone but offering different responses based on IP locality, predictive performance, or any other criteria, then the name for this is: "broken."

10 9