- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Verio Peering Question
by smd＠clock.org 03 Oct '01

03 Oct '01

| So how is this supposed to work? For instance, I get a /27 and an AS | number, and I want to multihome. But nobody will listen to my | announcements. This is not a workable solution. So you call up noc(a)foobar.net and offer them $x to listen to and propagate your announcement, and perhaps to act as your agent in transactions with other networks around the world. Or, you could negotiate 1-on-1 with every network who doesn't give you free (or agent-negotiated) access by default. This imposes cost on you because you are consuming an AS number and introducing an unaggregated and unaggregatable prefix into these networks' routing systems. | Multihomers generally announce just a single route and there are less than | 25k AS numbers so the majority of routes is NOT from multihomers so it | seems somewhat harsh to effectively forbid multihoming. Not all multihoming requires the introduction of unaggregated and unaggregatable prefixes. | Is there really no way | we can all agree on a filtering policy that keeps the routing table in | check but still leaves some room for responsible multihoming? Given the vehemence with which some people argue that filtering is a bad idea in the first place, the answer is clearly "no". A better question is, can tools and information be put together to mitigate the problems multihomers may face as network operators try to deal with expanding tables, in the _absence_ of interprovider cooperation? Sean.

4 5

Re: Verio Peering Question
by smd＠clock.org 03 Oct '01

03 Oct '01

| Oh, and that scales really well.</sarcasm> The solution to this is very simple: aggregate. Sean.

3 2

route-server.cerf.net
by Dan Hollis 03 Oct '01

03 Oct '01

Looks like its broken? -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

3 3

RE: Verio Peering Question
by smd＠clock.org 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

| While I certainly support the idea of usable micro allocations, and have | voiced my support on various ARIN mailing lists for it, it should be | remembered that the same folks who generally espouse restrictive filtering | policies are also those who voice the greatest opposition to a realistic | micro allocation policy. Their argument normally underscores the somewhat | facetious issue of routing table size. In hopes of correcting this somewhat, let me say that not only am I a strong supporter of filtering, I have also suggested fairly seriously to some registry-types that it is fair to allocate individual /32s as necessary to contain address consumption. That is, the registries are correctly focusing on that resource-management, and should spend energies on reclaiming wasted space (hello MIT!) rather than on managing multiple scarce resources. ISPs can and will filter or otherwise penalize users of long and/or flappy prefixes as dynamicism forces them to do so. Since filtering can become REALLY aggressive if and as necessary, nobody should worry that ISPs will be so overwhelmed that the RIRs have to help out with this problem. | Ad hominem attacks against individuals [are bad] But but it's open season on "folks" who make "facetious" arguments? Sean.

5 4

Traffic Shape or Rate Limit
by Christopher J. Wolff 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Hello, I'm wondering what the list's opinions are on Traffic-Shaping vs. Rate-Limit for DIA customers (Frac DS3, for example). From what I've read, Traffic Shaping is a better option since it doesn't drop packets. Just curious as to what the opinions are. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, VP, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com email:chris@bblabs.com phone:520.622.4338 x234

8 10

well, that failed miserably (route-views.oregon-ix.net)
by David Meyer 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Apparently zebra bgpd has problems with 60+ ebgp multihop peers. I will try to debug it tomorrow (the cisco is running there now). Sorry about the inconvenience. Dave

1 0

route-views.oregon-ix.net will be down for a few minutes
by David Meyer 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Folks, I'll be cutting route-views.oregon-ix.net over to the new box in a few minutes. In theory this should only take a few minutes. Thanks Joel Jaeggli and Jon Miyake for all their help with this. Thanks, Dave

1 0

OT: Wanted, a few testers
by Eric Germann 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Looking for a few people to make a test voice call for me. Seem to have call routing problems and want far and wide test points. Contact me unicast and I will send the information. Thanks Eric

1 0

Re: RE: Three months until circuits repaired
by Frank Coluccio 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Our local ISP's T circuits are still down hard in the South Street Seaport, and our POTS phone lines have been forwarded to a number of newly created cellular accounts. > I have 14 circuits down to 140 West CO. > > shawn. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Coluccio [mailto:fcoluccio@dticonsulting.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:22 AM > To: sean(a)donelan.com > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Three months until circuits repaired > > > > All, earlier I stated that the West Street C.O. next to the WTC would very > likely > be gutted, entirely. In a modified approach it now appears that four floors > of > the building will continue to support limited carrier system and switching > operations, while the remainder of the building is done anew. Once done, the > four > floors that are now still operational will be treated similarly. No time-to- > completion date has been given yet. > > -FAC > > > > > > > How many people still have circuits outside of New York City > > down? I've heard Worldcom is telling people they won't have > > everything repaired before December 31. Is this similar for > > all carriers? > > > > > > > >

2 1

SNMPv3 deployment survey
by RJ Atkinson 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

In order to advance SNMPv3 from Draft Standard to Full Standard, a deployment summary needs to be created for IETF purposes. If anyone here has any deployment of SNMPv3 (whether or not you actually enable the crypto bits) as different from SNMPv2c or SNMPv1, it would be most appreciated if you'd drop me a unicast reply with roughly this data: Organisation Name: Organisation Contact Person: name & email is ideal Which SNMPv3-capable products are deployed: Both boxes being managed (e.g. Brand X router, Brand Y switch) & the SNMP manager (e.g. UCD SNMP, OpenView with SNMPv3 plug-in, etc) If possible, some notion of the scale of the deployment (e.g. limited, internal corporate only, in production ISP network, field trial with plan to go production on <date>) If there are issues with giving the above level of detail because of company policy on proprietary/confidential information, then please send me an email with whatever you are allowed to say. The more specific answers will be more helpful, but we'll take anything we can get. Again, please send me UNICAST replies, not to the list. If there is broad interest, I am happy to summarise back to the list in a few weeks. Thanks, Ran rja(a)inet.org

1 0