- Test - lists.nanog.org

A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
by Elwin Eliazer 18 May '01

18 May '01

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? 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? Your response would be appreciated. - Elwin. ===== ------- Elwin Stelzer Eliazer Corona Networks ------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/

1 0

IS anyone else seeing this.
by Advanced Hosting UNIX Admin Daniel Fairchild 18 May '01

18 May '01

Is anyone else seeing this. I work for a large web hosting company and for the last week we have customers in Europe and Saudi Arabia that cannot contact any of our sites every time we trace back to there IP we hang in new york at multiple backbone providers. TIA for any thing you can provide. -- Advanced Hosting UNIX Admin | Daniel Fairchild danielf(a)supportteam.net Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside.

2 2

ITR and Hospitality Suite [NOOP]
by Jay 18 May '01

18 May '01

About a 4 - 6 weeks ago the topic came up here about InternetTrafficReport.com being shut down by VA Linux / OSDN. Thus, I wanted to let people know about its revival. We have successfully acquired the site and all of its "components" from OSDN and are currently in the process of restoring it. Thus, by the end of the NANOG conference this weekend (hopefully sooner), www.internettrafficreport.com will be back up and fully functional again. This site is/was a potentially great resource for the community and certainly deserves to live on. Right now, our main concern is getting the site live again, thus initially, it will probably still have most of the OSDN information on there. In the near future this will get fixed, and we hope to open-source all of the back-end functionality and code of the site. Also during this weekend's NANOG meeting, we are hosting a hospitality suite in the hotel on both Sunday and Monday, following the days' planned events. Food, Beer, Swag, Quake Server, Geek Toys, Conversation. All attendees of NANOG are cordially invited. PLACE: Double Tree (same hotel as the conference) Room # 2120 DATE: Sunday, May 20th and Monday, May 21st TIME: After the days' planned events until the Quake server explodes or the sun comes up, whichever is first. :) -- ~Jay .. .. .. Jay Jacobson Chief Technology Officer .. .. Opnix, Inc. http://opnix.com .. .. .. .. Innovating Internet Intelligence .. .. ..

1 0

Re: Stability of the Internet?
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 18 May '01

18 May '01

Only stability I've seen affected is that of our legal/ip people and their budget brandon

2 1

RE: Stability of the Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 18 May '01

18 May '01

It was not a troll. Tim has been involved in ICANN issues for quite some time now. Specifically ICANN/DNSO. We now have targeted working groups that are looking at exactly this issue. Points have been raised and Tim simply seems to be trying to gather information. Since many/none of you do not seem to be involved there, he is asking here. Believe it or not, your input is desired. > -----Original Message----- > From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:wsimpson@greendragon.com] > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:02 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Stability of the Internet? > > > > Based on the email address, this was probably a troll. > > We're Sorry, but you can no longer log in via the > technologist.com hostname. > > Please log in at http://www.iname.com from now on. > > We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you. > Thank you for stopping by. > > Anyway, the fact that some of us now block BGP acceptance for the > new.net blocks, because it causes us support costs, would be an > argument that the Internet is less "stable". > > > "Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote: > > > > Yes, I was asking specifically about "stability" (with a > request that > > someone perhaps try to explain what that might mean other > than a term to > > scare people with) rather than "compatibility". BTW, I > don't think ".house" > > is a New.net TLD ;-) > > >

1 0

mobile.att.net MX meltdown
by Kai Schlichting 18 May '01

18 May '01

In case you, like me, have a large number of email->paging forwards in place for group-paging and other operational and commercial purposes and were suddenly surprised today by chunks of 300/minute warn/undeliverable msgs for @mobile.att.net addresses: Apparently their MX (mta01.cdpd.airdata.com) had a little meltdown a little while ago: from 12:18pm to 1:05p EDT, the MX refused connections entirely. Whoops, and now that I write this, both NS's are off the air as well. Should I hardcode my own MX entry into a local zone to overcome this? I am getting tired of 300 mail warnings every 15 minutes. Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. [rant mode on] Millions without working paging on their AT&T phones. For a little while. Not that it ever works terribly predictable when it's actually up either, but it's gotten better lately. Instead of paging delivery times ranging from 10s to 6hrs, it's only been 10s to 30m for me in recent months. With SMTP transport times over 1000's of pages consistently under one minute. AT&T reps: "It's the Internet's fault" A single-homed MX, even if there's a load-balancer there, and 2 nameservers, all in what appears to be the same announced /24 from a legacy McCaw AS, makes you think how much "importance" some incompetent beancounter at ATT WS has assigned to this loss-leader of a profit-center within their wireless range of products. Translate: because we give it to (nearly all?) our customers for free, we don't have to care about how well it works (the same could be said about their crappy, overloaded CDPD network, which is seemingly back-hauling every last CDPD frame in the country to washington state (via FR?) before de-capsulating it and letting those IP frames lose. Ever wondered about those 600ms ping times and 5 kbps effective transfer rates and why "free unlimited Internet" wouldn't entice you or me to ever pay for such a "performance" ? (let alone them charging you at a rate that would make every 900-number operator blush about the $/min flow. if you hook up your PC via a 'tethered' connection as described in the phone's manual, you'll discover after the next billing cycle that they've raped you for $0.05/KB, (e.g. up to $5.70/minute) conveniently hidden in the VERY small fine print on their website, for making use of their "free unlimited Internet". that is false and misleading advertising at the least, and outright bait&switch fraud at the worst - but hey, "very few customers are using this functionality", "there is no support for this type of operation", "I know nothing about this", "It's just in the manual because we couldn't tell Mitsubishi to remove it before printing them." You get the idea. Add to that that I am on my 3rd Mitsubishi T250 phone now ( in 10 months, I have stopped requesting new phones a while ago), the first one had ridiculously strong far-side echo for all my callers, and the latter 2 hang almost everytime you switch it into CDPD mode, except if you do it rather soon after power-cycling it (read: taking the battery out, due to the hang). And that was the early-adopter top-of-the-line model the most money could buy with AT&T last summer, gee. Why does the wireless data market not take off the way we thought it would, uh oh? boy, do I have news for my bosses, Omnisky, Aether, and Palm: lets get the hell out of this business. [rant mode off] -- "Just say No" to Spam Kai Schlichting New York, Palo Alto, You name it Sophisticated Technical Peon Kai's SpamShield <tm> is FREE! http://www.SpamShield.org | | LeasedLines-FrameRelay-IPLs-ISDN-PPP-Cisco-Consulting-VoiceFax-Data-Muxes WorldWideWebAnything-Intranets-NetAdmin-UnixAdmin-Security-ReallyHardMath

1 0

Re: Stability of the Internet?
by William Allen Simpson 18 May '01

18 May '01

I think you can put that down as _definitely_ a troll.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:02:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(a)earthlink.net> To: <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <langdell(a)technologist.com> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to technologist-com.mr.outblaze.com.: >>> RCPT To:<langdell(a)technologist.com> <<< 550 5.7.1 <langdell(a)technologist.com>... Relaying denied 550 <langdell(a)technologist.com>... User unknown

1 0

80/8, 81/8 Allocated to the RIPE NCC
by RIPE NCC Staff 18 May '01

18 May '01

Dear all, This is to inform you that the RIPE NCC has recently been allocated the CIDR blocks 80/8 and 81/8 by IANA. The RIPE NCC is currently starting to make allocations primarily from 80/8. The minimum allocation size made by the RIPE NCC in these address blocks is a /20. ** If you use prefix based filtering in your routers, please note this change ** This has been announced previously but may not have reached all affected parties. We sincerely apologise for this. For a complete list of all /8 address blocks, please refer to: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno +------------------------------------+ | Nurani Nimpuno | | Registration Services Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | +------------------------------------+

1 0

80/8, 81/8 Allocated to the RIPE NCC
by RIPE NCC Staff 18 May '01

18 May '01

Dear all, This is to inform you that the RIPE NCC has recently been allocated the CIDR blocks 80/8 and 81/8 by IANA. The RIPE NCC is currently starting to make allocations primarily from 80/8. The minimum allocation size made by the RIPE NCC in these address blocks is a /20. ** If you use prefix based filtering in your routers, please note this change ** This has been announced previously but may not have reached all affected parties. We sincerely apologise for this. For a complete list of all /8 address blocks, please refer to: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno

1 0

Tracking down hosts inside your network
by Devon True 17 May '01

17 May '01

All: We are using NetFlow on our Cisco equipment and running Caida's cflowd program to collect statistics. When I use the cflowd ARTS++ utility, artsnets, I get the SrcAdr as a /24 or smaller (e.g. /23, /22, etc). Is there anyway to get specific hosts (i.e. /32)? If not, anyone have any suggestions? We are trying to track down an IP address that is sending a lot of traffic. Please send replies off-list. ----- Devon True

1 0