- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

3 2

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

|> From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com] |> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 12:19 AM |> |> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 11:49:43PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote: |> > Please define who needs to be multi-homed and who doesn't. |> |> Please reread my original post. |> |> This is NOT about multi-homing. This is about microallocations. Erhem ... can I refer you to the subject line?

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

|> From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com] |> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:38 PM |> |> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:57:29PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote: |> > BTW, randy's position is rather strange, coming from |> someone that used to |> > support the FidoNet community, by being the FTSC chair. |> |> Correct me if I'm wrong, since it's been a few years, |> but FidoNet address aggregate quite nicely, don't they? Yes, but the packets were rather large (messages) and they did per-hop routing. Some nets practiced heavy redundant links (Colorado Springs), depending on the dup-killer to strain out the cruft. Least-cost routing takes on a whole new meaning there.

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

|> From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] |> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:06 PM |> |> > If I am paying for those routes then I have a contractual |> > right. If you |> > don't want my redundant feed, and the route advertisements |> > that go with it, then don't take my money. |> |> > Please detail the exact costs of a, BGP inserted, routing |> > table entry. Is |> > it, maybe, 50 cents? Now, how much are you getting for a DS1 |> > link? What does that cost, exactly, considering that an |> > outfit capable of setting up |> > multi-homing are probably the folks that your techs never |> > hear from, but once a year? That appears to be a margin that |> > is far above keystone. How greedy do you want to be? |> |> The point you're missing is that the important issue is |> not whether or not |> your ISP will carry and advertise your routes, since you are |> paying them to. So far, we're on-track... |> The important point is whether or not anyone else will carry |> your route. |> There's no reason for a RIR to make a microallocation just so you can |> advertise it to your ISP. If the advertisement was purely between |> contracually bound parties, the block could be part of a |> provider's larger |> block and there would be no difference. The only reason for a |> microallocation is to get a party with whom you do not have |> a contract to |> accept a route that they would not otherwise accept. This is a lot like derivatives. Only in this case, the upstream cost is part of your COGs. You pay your upstream to take those table entries, as part of your contract with them. As is customary, the cost is forwarded down to the actual user(yes Virginia, it does flow down-hill), in the form of fees for that contracted service. You *are* selling services above your COGs, aren't you? You do factor your upstream costs into your COGs, don't you? |> Why else would a multihomer want a microallocation? Why |> not just use a chunk of a provider's IP space? The only answers are: |> |> 1) We don't want to be held hostage by a provider. (No |> good, not a technical justification.) *>boogle<* For the life of me, I don't understand why not. Part of the current collapse involves serious business instabilities. I maintain that those instabilities seriously weaken any chance of recovery. If a business can't get a trustworthy connection, or fabricate one by multi-homing existing connections then they will stop relying on those connections at all. ALL of us lose when general business decides that the Internet isn't ready for prime-time. The collapse will continue for a long time. I lose customers, you lose customers, we ALL lose customers. I was just informed that one of excite@home's creditors just demanded $50M of their money back by Friday. I don't like walking through the Valley of eDeath, do you? I certainly don't like living there. |> 2) We want others to accept our smaller routes. (Why |> not do it by contract?) I *am* talking about doing it by contract and this isn't a technical argument either.

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

|> From: Steve Noble [mailto:snoble@sonn.com] |> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 5:16 PM |> |> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 04:51:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: |> > > Now on the other hand by saying "and if it's smaller |> then a /20 you will |> > > be filtered" you cause undue pressure on people to |> "spin" their designs in |> > > ways to show that they can use a /20 and get the |> allocation from ARIN |> > > directly. |> > |> > you mean not use nat? should i be broken-hearted? |> |> NAT?!? You are obviously not understanding the point I was |> attempting |> to make. |> |> The point was that companies may not need more then a /24 to |> put their |> entire site on, yet may be pushed to say they have more in order to |> acquire a /20 from ARIN, just to be globally visable. and randy's point is that the easiest way to do that, without lying through your teeth, is to *not* use NAT, thereby increasing your visible foot-print by the size of your NAT'd space. |> If you were in a position where you did NOT have your own |> previously allocated |> swamp/b/a space, you wanted to multihome to a few different providers |> in such a way that you were globally reachable no matter who |> went offline |> and you only needed a /24 or less, what would you do? Avoid *any* technology that makes more efficient use of my address space. Then I'd generate additional redundant services (legitimate and opertional, just not used much) to fatten up the foot-print. About 25 Linux boxen, implemented on BookPCs, ought to do the trick for a /19. Personally, I have yet to be pushed to such a solution, but I've thought about it and I'm not the only one. If the rules are set such that I have to do something like that, or fold the company, I would do it in a heart-beat. There is a limit to what I will sacrifice on the alter of "community spirit".

3 2

RE: RouteScience?
by John Leddy 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

Peter, It has been a few days, but I did want to respond to your last post. The initial PathControl product is designed to address the egress decisions of a multihomed enterprise. Many of the first product features were driven by this set of customer configurations. The NO_EXPORT attribute is an example of something that can be done in many enterprises but will not be possible in most ISP applications. The goal was to do everything possible to make it unlikely that bad configurations could leak our performance routes. We are in discussion with ISPs who wish to deploy this technology in their own networks. The constraints in that environment are rather different, and we are addressing features to deal with the added complexities of peering, downstream AS's, national/international geographies, internal link congestion, etc. We look forward to being able to discuss our ISP release on this list, once that time comes. We will be publishing more technical information about the product over time. John Leddy RouteScience > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Peter Francis > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:53 PM > To: Sean Finn > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Routescience? > > > > >Christoper, > > > > no, the PathControl device does *not* adjust outgoing > >advertisements in any way; all prefixes that we repeat > >carry the NO_EXPORT attribute. > > And if the ISP using your box has downstream BGP customers in > different ASes? > > The NO_EXPORT tag really serves no purpose here because any ISP > that would be avertising your bozxes routes to its upstreams > already has a much bigger problem. > > The NO_EXPORT tag just makes it more complicated to get the > "better paths" to the ISPs BGP customers. > > Adding unnecessary locks just to make something sound "safe" is > usually a surefire way cause a disaster when a slightly-clued > person clears the tag to get the routes to downstreams and > suddenly discovers they are announcing your boxes routes to the world. > > Do you guys have a white paper on all this? > > Peter > > > > >cheers -- Sean > > > > > >"Christopher A. Woodfield" wrote: > >> > >> Can/will the box adjust inbound route selection via the use of > prepending > >> and/or provider communities? > >> > >> -C > >> > >> > Once more, we do not cause the stub AS's own advertisement > of themselves > >> > to change. We specifically avoid touching locally > originated prefixes. > >> > If the ISP is currently accepting any of the routes PathControl is > >> > designed to change, then the AS is not stub, it's transit. Hopefully > >> > this clarifies an important issue. > >> > > >> > (Referring back to Paul Vixie's point, we have found that careful > >> > optimization of a single outbound step has very substantial > payoffs in > >> > terms of the end to end, bidirectional performance. The > figures quoted > >> > on our web page and in the press release refer to this: end to end > >> > application speedup caused solely by outbound route selection!) > >> > > >> > Mike > >> > >> -- > >> --------------------------- > >> Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil(a)semihuman.com > >> > >> PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B

1 0

DNS Parser
by Deepak Jain 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

Since IP allocations have been such a hot topic lately, I thought I'd ask this -- Does anyone know of a simple script that will go through a list of BIND primary files, or more and output a list of output like this: secondlevel.domain --> address thirdlevel.secondlevel.domain --> address and so on for several thousand domain files. We acquired a company that never kept their reverses up to date and need a simple way of building them to keep track of their IP utilizations. There is probably one written in perl out there somewhere, I'd appreciate a pointer. Thanks, Deepak Jain AiNET

3 2

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Marshall Eubanks 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

> >On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 03:11:39PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: >> please look at slides 11 and 15 of >> >> <http://psg.com/~randy/010809.ptomaine.pdf> >> >> the /24s of small multihomers is half the routing table (see geoff's data) >> and is growing radially (if you are silly enough not to filter that stuff). > >Does anyone have a graph of the number of allocated AS numbers? I >ask because in a perfect world each AS would originate 1 prefix >only, as they got enough address space in their first alloaction >to service them forever. In that case growth of the AS table would >be the growth of the routing table. There are a number of such plots - we have one at http://www.multicasttech.com/status/asn.plot.gif - see http://www.multicasttech.com/status/ for explanation - and there are ones at Telstra -see http://www.telstra.net/gih/papers/ipj/4-1-bgp.pdf and http://www.telstra.net/ops/bgp/pc3/bgp-as-count.html By all indications, the growth in both active AS and BGP prefixes has slowed since the market collapse. There are currently ~ 11,000 active AS and ~ 104,000 prefixes, so each ASN has on average about 9 and 1/2 prefix blocks. Regards Marshall Eubanks > >The real world would never work like that of course, but it is an >absolute lower bound on the table size, I think. I do believe we >can get much closer to this world with address space sizes like >those available in IPv6, however it's not clear to me that people >are really trying to think that way. > >-- >Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org >Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 >Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org > > Marshall Eubanks tme(a)21rst-century.com

2 1

RE: CR2 question
by Joe Blanchard 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

Todd, Same here. Doesn't look like the 20th cut off date applies. As I stated before, perhaps a default.ida file with an advertisement would at least generate revnue? lol.. such is life. -Joe -----Original Message----- From: Todd Suiter [mailto:todd@s4r.com] Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 1:34 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: CR2 question Folks, Its been almost a month, and my IDS is still picking up several hundred CodeRed 2 attacks a day. Is anyone else seeing this same level of continued activity of this worm? I personally am somewhat at a loss as to how to contact people who are affected, as automated broadcasts to people, in my opinion, are NOT the way to go. BUT, going through several hundred IPs, a day, and trying to find someone at those organizations to speak to is A LOT of work. Any ideas? Thanks! todd

1 0