- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones
by Sean Donelan 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

On Sun, 10 June 2001, Joshua Goodall wrote: > > I have found that most sales reps don't know what multicast is, or why it > > is important to have. > > many network engineers glaze over at the mention of multicast. it > takes some serious grey matter work to fathom the entire subject. Essentially every major network operator has one network engineer who can set up multicast for customers. The problem is very few networks have figured out how to turn multicast into a commercial product. So if you don't find that one engineer, you are out of luck. Unicast streaming may be less efficient, but most providers can figure out how to charge for it and make it a supported product. Unfortunately some folks have confused multimedia with multicast. While I've seen many multimedia multicast applications, I haven't seen one which can't have its essential elements replicated by unicast streams. Is there a killer-ap for multicast?

3 2

RE: /24s run amuck again
by Philip Smith 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

Hi Richard, I was working on almost the same thing... :-) As from next Friday, my routing report will include the top 20 ASes which are announcing prefixes more specific than the registry minimum allocation (/20), more specific than a /24 from 192/8 space, more specific than a /16 from former B space, more specific than a /8 from former A space... A taster follows: Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Description 701 1584 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1221 1580 Telstra 705 1490 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 2764 866 connect.com.au pty ltd 3491 651 CAIS Internet 7046 623 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 690 502 Merit Network 4293 481 Cable & Wireless USA 18994 468 Global Crossing 7018 437 AT&T 15870 436 Global Center Frankfurt 1 429 BBN Planet 702 423 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1239 364 Sprint ICM-Inria 209 350 Qwest 5106 343 Ameritech Advanced Data Servi 3561 332 Cable & Wireless USA 18993 325 Global Crossing 11371 307 Rhythms NetConnections 4323 303 Time Warner Communications, I There is no attempt to measure aggregation - that's the job of the CIDR Report. This simply looks at the prefix announced and if it is outside the above limits, it is counted. Makes very interesting reading... philip -- At 13:53 08/06/2001 -0400, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: >On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 09:31:03AM -0700, Karyn Ulriksen wrote: > > > > I had a full /19 sliced and diced up into /24 until yesterday when I > > officially completed my data center migration. None appear in the list > > below. How recent is this information? > >Woops, I was running this against an old routing table. My appologies. > >I've updated the list to reflect a routing table taken this morning from >1720 (CERF) and 3967 (Exodus) transit. I'm still debugging the parser, so >it may not be 100% perfect, but the point remains the same. > >The url is the same: >http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/projects/ipaddr/24amuck.txt > >-- >Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras >PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

8 17

RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones
by Michael Whisenant 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

Most multicast backbone providers have links that show that they mBGP with peers and offer MSDP as well. This allows for the customer on one providers network to access a source on another providers network. Of course there are issues with the 5 bit overlap in multicast address space, but it does work. There are commercial companies that have registered/reserved particular addresses for their applications as well. While I think that today the amount of multicast traffic is low, it will continue to increase. On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Deepak Jain wrote: > > When multicast enabling a network, am I wrong in assuming that the routers > will only multicast to their direct, end-user connections and peers (like an > access router will only offer streams to its direct connections)? I am > trying to figure out what advantages multicast-enabling a backbone has when > the majority of customers are not multicast-peers of their upstream routers. >

1 0

PSI, NetZero contact?
by Charles Scott 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

Can anyone point me to PSI and NetZero contacts that can follow up on a customer abuse problem? I've been reporting abuse from this guy (Yukio - anyone else been dealing with this nut case?) time and time again and despite getting numerous notices back from PSI that they are "...taking the necessary steps...", they have yet to solve the problem. NetZero also doesn't seem to be doing anything on this. Chuck Scott Gaslight Media cscott(a)gaslightmedia.com

1 0

router failutes inside PacBell
by alex＠yuriev.com 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

Anyone knows any details? Alex

1 0

Re: /24s run amuck again
by Steven M. Bellovin 09 Jun '01

09 Jun '01

In message <5.1.0.14.2.20010609145116.021b5d00@popcorn>, John Starta writes: > >The link on the NANOG web site points to the wrong presentation. Perhaps >you would be so kind as to forward me a copy? http://www.research.att.com/~jrex/nanog/lost.html --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

1 0

POS OC48 interfaces using different wave length
by Vincent Gillet 09 Jun '01

09 Jun '01

Hello all, I am thinking about using different POS interfaces on dark-fibers. On one side, i already have POS-OC48-LR card (Cisco). This card use 1550 nm wave length. We would like to use a POS-OC48-SR (Cisco). This card use 1310 nm wave length. Are 1310 and 1550 optics comptatible ? If yes, i guess that there is impact on the power Budget available. How-Much ?! Some colleagues reported successful implementation with such config (Cisco POS OC48 Cards) It looks strange to me and i wonder if Juniper and Cisco POS OC48 would also work corretly in such environnement ... I guess that "official" answer from manufacturer would be : NO WAY :-) Some carriers may already tested such config ? Any feedback ? Thanks. V

10 10

Re: C&W peering
by Toby_Williams＠enron.net 09 Jun '01

09 Jun '01

What I find most interesting about all these disputes is that none of the major players appear to be even slightly interested in settled interconnection - like they have in the telephony world. Before you all flame me for mindless idealism :-) YES I know the gore is in the detail. YES it's a million miles from simple. The way I see it though, is that if there's a will there must be a way and there is clearly a will to change today's status quo. These top tier networks are relatively stable, they are large enough for deliberate manipulation of metrics to be operationally very sensitive/ cumbersome. There was a paper I saw ages ago: http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/cai/farnon.html that discussed some of the economics behind peering. Though it's a bit old now, many of it's arguments hold true (hence todays CW/PSI/MFN/UUNet conundrums). It also just begins to explore the possiblities (and difficulties) of billaterally settled peering. Though any system for performing this would need to be far more fair and robust than anything proposed in the paper, I perceive there to be a vast opportunity for this model of Interconnection - the gap between free peering and transit is too great to fit all relationships and the higher the financial stakes get, the more free interconnect relationships will be stressed. As a plus point there would be more cash flow (even without any net gain/loss), which seems to be flavour of the month with telco's at the moment. Maybe an independent third party would help here - like the clearinghouses/S&Ps of this world. Anyone got any cash they want to invest? (only kidding). The idea being that we get our own commercial regulator, rather than some .gov one. cheers Toby ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- std disclaimer about the above being my opinions only etc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 09 Jun '01

09 Jun '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 8 23:00:00 PDT 2001 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 08Jun01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 010601 102687 020601 102235 030601 102123 040601 102282 050601 102182 060601 102174 070601 102400 080601 102522 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 10948 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 6480 (3676 cidr, 2804 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 1185 announced by AS705 Largest number of classful routes: 1427 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 08Jun01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1390 1031 359 25.8% TELSTRA-AS AS1 599 540 59 9.8% GTE Internetworking AS1239 458 401 57 12.4% SprintLink Backbone AS13544 69 19 50 72.5% autonomous system number assigned AS11774 73 27 46 63.0% AS 11774 Object AS1267 68 26 42 61.8% Infostrada S.p.A. AS1237 96 54 42 43.8% KISTI AS12235 48 7 41 85.4% Cove Software Systems Inc AS12302 67 28 39 58.2% MobiFon S.A. AS10620 54 17 37 68.5% autonomous system number assigned AS13345 66 33 33 50.0% autonomous system number assigned AS11311 42 9 33 78.6% autonomous system number assigned AS12064 34 2 32 94.1% autonomous system number assigned AS11859 45 13 32 71.1% autonomous system number assigned AS12497 32 1 31 96.9% SA*Net Network - AS AS12067 32 1 31 96.9% autonomous system number assigned AS12062 34 3 31 91.2% autonomous system number assigned AS11606 43 12 31 72.1% autonomous system number assigned AS11418 45 16 29 64.4% autonomous system number assigned AS11371 75 47 28 37.3% Rhythms AS10733 35 7 28 80.0% Matrix Internet AS11507 80 53 27 33.8% TouchAmerica Montana AS10722 58 31 27 46.6% Aluminum Co. of America AS12709 32 6 26 81.2% Melita Cable Autonomous System AS12564 31 5 26 83.9% Bulgarian Government Autonomous S AS11781 31 5 26 83.9% autonomous system number assigned AS11686 119 93 26 21.8% Education Networks of America AS11367 31 5 26 83.9% autonomous system number assigned AS11170 28 3 25 89.3% autonomous system number assigned AS11139 70 45 25 35.7% Regional IP Network For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

What is going on at Ameritech/SBC?!
by Los, Ralph 08 Jun '01

08 Jun '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, From the home-office DSL question pool: What is going on with the Illinois & Ohio markets?! I have internet access, sort of. I can traceroute to some places, but more often than not, no. I can't get to any web pages, or anything...select sites (www.usps.com for example) works....but it's rare to find another working site. Can someone from SBC or an Engineer answer this? Ralph M. Los Asst. Vice-President, Internet Systems and Security EnvestNet Advisory Corp. rlos(a)envestnet.com (312) 827-3945 (direct) (312) 296-9003 (wireless w/voicemail) - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOyE3XHM6eMaR3AeZEQIBgwCfdscaTgoo/JGyHHcb3DwrBDfvGjQAoK6I wQRbeFBlfsa2916lw/Kr9wnF =B7Se - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOyE3anM6eMaR3AeZEQJPoQCeJTFz7szqvzUGALxW+kyyTTSqb8UAn3Ev KN9f3sQ84KziaSjIlLAsIV3J =+sXg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1