- Test - lists.nanog.org

Study cites 'Net backbone for slowing Web sites
by Hank Nussbacher 22 May '01

22 May '01

http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/2001/119957_05-07-2001.html Incidentally, the end of the article is FUBARed. As an unpaid service to Network World here is how the article ends: "They can look at the application and the platform and tell you where things should be because of the repetition of what they see." Mercury Interactive sells two Web site tesing services: Active-Watch for monitoring Web site performance over the Internet and Activetest for load-testing Web sites. Mercury Interactive's study was based on the firm's ActiveTest customers. Mercury: www-heva.mercuryinteractive.com -Hank

1 0

Stealth Blocking
by Dee McKinney 22 May '01

22 May '01

I didn't get a good look at this URL until after the BOF today. http://www.peacefire.org/stealth/group-statement.5-17-2001.html Wish I had :) W.D.McKinney (Dee) deem(a)wdm.com

2 1

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 21 May '01

21 May '01

> From: Bruce Campbell [mailto:bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:41 PM > > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote: > > > There is some (as yet unpublished) research data that says > ~20% of the > > queries currently going to the root servers are for invalid > TLDs (as setup > > by .private internal operators). Endorsing the use of > private domains will > > make this much worse. > > There was some mention (cue bill) at the last IETF about an > endorsement of > '.int' for internal networks by some insert-dns-clueless-company-here. > which of course sends (significant?) unwanted traffic towards the .int > nameservers. Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use of INT internally would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT TLD from the clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions it has been suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for internal use only. Let me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My personal preference is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The next question is; should this be an RFC? > A better step would be to thoroughly endorse .private or > similar, and have > the distributed root.hints file point it back to the local > nameserver, so > such dns traffic does not end up on the cruel and heartless internet. You gotta be careful here, to not point to a recursive server, for a non-recursive reference. > Of course, lack of clue when setting up internal networks will always > happen (such as allowing those queries out, or not setting up > a correct > private tree off your regular domain etc etc).

2 1

RE: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
by Dave Israel 21 May '01

21 May '01

Oops... I answered this privately, assuming NANOG at large would not be interested. The issue here is that Cisco will tend to add IGP routes to the default table, not the VPN table. Bad things ensue. I was actually referring to the CE interface address; peering with the CE's loopback is, IMHO, more trouble than its worth unless you have multiple connections on the same router. But as long as the address you are peering with is in the private routing table, you're fine, regardless of whether or not it is also in the default table. I cannot speak to the "most common;" I think it is too early to tell. But we are tending towards static routes (nice and stable, without the chance of the other guy breaking you) and BGP (which is already designed to handle trans-border communication.) I have not tried it, but I would assume the OSPF area "repair" toys would work nicely over this, if you want an IGP running across your CE routers. (I'm more of an ISIS guy than an OSPF guy... anybody know why this would blow up in your face?) -Dave On 5/19/2001 at 21:14:40 -0700, Elwin Eliazer said: > > Even i am interested in knowing the exact issue with > using IGPs? What is the most common CE-PE route > exchange behaviour now ... Static routes OR IGP OR > BGP?? > > Dave, are you referring the CE loopback address also > to be local? > > cheers, > Elwin. > > --- Alex Mondrus <alex.mondrus(a)ipoptical.com> wrote: > > Dave > > > > I also like the RFC2547bis. > > > > I would like to learn more about your painful > > experience with IGP in this > > context. Please elaborate a little bit more on this > > subject -> Dave Israel > > wrote "Besides, in at least one major current > > implementation, your IGP > > options are painfully limited." > > > > http://www.ipoptical.com > > > > Thanks in advance, Alex > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Israel > > [mailto:davei@biohazard.demon.digex.net] > > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:45 PM > > To: Elwin Eliazer > > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges > > ... > > > > > > > > On 5/18/2001 at 14:13:53 -0700, Elwin Eliazer said: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > RFC2547bis suggests the use of EBGP between > > > CE and PE routers; Is this a preferable model for > > > service providers and enterprise customers, when > > > compared to using IGP? > > > > Yes. BGP is designed for network borders. Besides, > > in at least one > > major current implementation, your IGP options are > > painfully limited. > > > > > Are there anyone who have deployed this? If so, > > > how is the EBGP peering setup if the CE router > > > is with a local (VPN) IP address? > > > > The BGP session lives in VPN space, the routes only > > exist in VPN > > routing tables. Your CE having a VPN address is > > really just the > > natural solution. > > > > -Dave > > > ===== > ------- > Elwin Stelzer Eliazer > Corona Networks > ------- > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ -- Dave Israel Senior Manager, IP Backbone Intermedia Business Internet

2 1

Nortel & 10Gig Ethernet 802.3ae
by Eric Hutchinson 21 May '01

21 May '01

NANOG Users, Nortel Networks Introduces 10-Gigabit Ethernet. http://www.nortelnetworks.com/corporate/news/newsreleases/2001b/05_09_010134 5_passport_8600.html (White Papers) http://www.nortelnetworks.com/products/library/collateral/87015.25-01-01.pdf

1 0

a question about BCP with BGP
by Smith, Richard 21 May '01

21 May '01

Hi All, Sorry to bother you all but I have a question that has many different answers and I would prefer an experts view rather than just mine. Overview, AS xyz (to protect the innocent) # xyz has many routes associated with it and these are places within the 'router bgp xyz' statement (1) # xyz also has PI address space for other companies (2) # xyz also provides transit for other companies with their own AS numbers (3) xyz run RR to the CPE that run EBGP for the none xyz PI -with AS number - (3) routes xyz only have 1 upstream - multiple router and connections to the other AS what I would like to know - and your opinions behind this - is it better to have an AS access path list (on our upstream conection) and then filter what you announce to xyz upstream or would you just pass the whole EBGP table to xyz upstream. xyz do filter what they acept from their customers - so reduced chance of getting a routing 'swamp' I would like to understand with the idea of route flapping, dampening etc. Richard Smith IP Network Services Manager Colt Telecom ********************************************************************** COLT Telecommunications Registered in England No. 2452736 Registered Office: Bishopsgate Court, 4 Norton Folgate, London E1 6DQ Tel. 020 7390 3900 This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual relationship between COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and you. Internet communications are not secure and therefore COLT does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any view or opinions expressed are those of the author. The message is intended for the addressee only and its contents and any attached files are strictly confidential. If you have received it in error, please telephone the number above. Thank you. **********************************************************************

1 0

bgp table history wanted
by Randy Bush 20 May '01

20 May '01

anyone have full bgp table dumps o taken in a consistent fashion, AND o from a fairly-large isp vantage point, AND o relatively unfiltered, AND o daily or weekly, AND o going back five (well, how about three?) or more years? randy

6 7

Re: bgp table history wanted
by troy＠clownhammer.org 20 May '01

20 May '01

additionally, id be interested in finding the following: o the delta tau on photorefractive effects from excessive raman amplification in optical circuits for the last 40 years (35 is acceptable) o home phone numbers for any member of the 80's pop group Bananarama. /t >anyone have full bgp table dumps > o taken in a consistent fashion, AND > o from a fairly-large isp vantage point, AND > o relatively unfiltered, AND > o daily or weekly, AND > o going back five (well, how about three?) or more years? > >randy http://www.clownhammer.org

1 0

RE: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
by Elwin Eliazer 20 May '01

20 May '01

Even i am interested in knowing the exact issue with using IGPs? What is the most common CE-PE route exchange behaviour now ... Static routes OR IGP OR BGP?? Dave, are you referring the CE loopback address also to be local? cheers, Elwin. --- Alex Mondrus <alex.mondrus(a)ipoptical.com> wrote: > Dave > > I also like the RFC2547bis. > > I would like to learn more about your painful > experience with IGP in this > context. Please elaborate a little bit more on this > subject -> Dave Israel > wrote "Besides, in at least one major current > implementation, your IGP > options are painfully limited." > > http://www.ipoptical.com > > Thanks in advance, Alex > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Israel > [mailto:davei@biohazard.demon.digex.net] > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:45 PM > To: Elwin Eliazer > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges > ... > > > > On 5/18/2001 at 14:13:53 -0700, Elwin Eliazer said: > > > > Hi, > > > > RFC2547bis suggests the use of EBGP between > > CE and PE routers; Is this a preferable model for > > service providers and enterprise customers, when > > compared to using IGP? > > Yes. BGP is designed for network borders. Besides, > in at least one > major current implementation, your IGP options are > painfully limited. > > > Are there anyone who have deployed this? If so, > > how is the EBGP peering setup if the CE router > > is with a local (VPN) IP address? > > The BGP session lives in VPN space, the routes only > exist in VPN > routing tables. Your CE having a VPN address is > really just the > natural solution. > > -Dave ===== ------- Elwin Stelzer Eliazer Corona Networks ------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/

1 0

NANOG 22 update
by Rodney Joffe 20 May '01

20 May '01

So, the wireless stuff is working in the forum area. We're waiting for some parts to arrive, after which we should have wireless working in the restaurant, bar, and lobby area by later this evening. DHCP should be running later this evening as well. An external hygain vertical for Aironet should be installed on the hotel Lobby roof by 10am Sunday, which should provide coverage to many rooms, the pool area, and some parts of Scottsdale ;-) The terminal room will not be active until 12:00 noon Sunday. -- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM)

1 0