- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: ISP Filter Policies--Effect is what?
by Kevin Gannon 08 May '01

08 May '01

><snip> >Site BGP Advertisement to ISP >Amsterdam 169.61.201.0/24 AMSISP >Austin 169.61.111.0/24 Genuity & Internap >SanFran 169.61.119.0/24 Genuity & Internap >Tokyo 169.61.202.0/24 TOKISP >Sydney 169.61.156.0/24 SYDISP > >1. Since Verio says they would not accept /24 nets drawn from Class B space, >I assume this means that they don't insert a /16 into their tables so that >the /24 nets appear to Verio customers as unreachable. In this case, a >design >that wants to extend connectivity to verio customers (and any >other ISP with similar policies) must include a /16 advertisement from at >least >one of the sites. > >2. Suppose a customer of a Verio-like ISP, wishes to go to ftp. foo.org. DNS >returns 169.61.201.155 (in amsterdam, see above). Verio passes the traffic >to the neighbor it received the /16 advertisement from. At this point, the >best thing that could happen >is if that neighbor has the /16 and /24 networks in its route table, right? >That >means, a path exists for that user to the amsterdam server and the only >problem >with routing to Amsterdam is that Verio possibly handed the traffic to a >sub-optimal >neighbor. Am I understanding this issue correctly? Yes the logic seems clean , also another situation which might happen is that Verio peers with ISP x and ISP x doesnt have a specific /24 route they will follow a static to somewhere. You want to be careful that the somewhere knows about the /24. This could easily happen if Verio peers with the ISP that is nearer and an ISP that also peers with this ISP. So verio might decide hey the "longer" path is better and the packet gets into the "longer" ISP and it wont have a /24 so it will follow the /16. Maybe if you could tell use who owns the addresses and how big the original block is ? A whois points to a swiss bank is this correct ? >I'm new to BGP. I've tried to get a handle on this issue on my own and by >working with Genuity, Internap and Cisco. No disrespect to those companies >but >each of them had this vague memory of Verio's policy but couldnt really tell >me >in plain language how it might affect the above scenario. Obviously, I >wasn't talking >to chief engineers. Someone from the CCIE mailing list suggested I browse >the archives of this list, which I did. But I didnt find a clear enough >answer to my questions--perhaps because they are too basic to be discussed >here or I'm not good at using this lists archive search engine. >Either way, any guidance on the above scenario is greatly appreciated. > >-BM *********************************IMPORTANT NOTICE****************************** All e-mails for technical support must be cc'd to support(a)lancomms.ie. This ensures that the call is logged with the support desk and the case is actively tracked which speeds up the response you will receive. If you have an urgent problem you _must_ contact the support desk directly on 01-4093030. *****************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by Paul Vixie 08 May '01

08 May '01

albert(a)waller.net (Albert Meyer) writes: > Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to > find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the > playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back > then, I doubt that CW can now. ... I am completely fascinated by your assessment (that UUNet didn't pull it off).

11 12

RE: black hat .cn networks
by Paul Lantinga 08 May '01

08 May '01

> On Tue, May 08, 2001, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > So, how about we get imput as to the best English-Japanese > > translation service online, and then *cough* attempt to > > standardise on contacting chinese networks this way? Why not decide on a workable message and have it translated by a competent Chinese translator first? Something such as the following: Dear <Abusive Autonomous System>, The following unsolicited email apears either to have originated on and/or traversed your network, or to have come from a client of yours. If you simply have an open mail relay, please fix it. Please look into this. (and give us our plane back!) Regards, <insert_name> Aside from the plane crack, you get the idea. Do a little work up front for the Big5/SJIS encoding. Think about it, those that deal with abuse(a)yourhardworkingcompany.net are often either overhead or are trying to deal with spam while also doing a fulltime job. Translating email mesages is a pain and most people would rather not bother. So, any takers to translate the above message, or some other appropriate message, into Chinese and/or Korean and post it somewhere publicly available?[1] off to ride my flying pig, Paul LANtinga -- again, my opinions (even if they are wrong;) [1] the paranoid cells in my brain tell me that this would be a perfect opportunity for a real chinese attacker to burn us by posting something in Chinese that was inflammatory and the like.

3 2

Cisco DS3 performance specifications
by Bill Thomas 08 May '01

08 May '01

To any and all in earshot, I am engaged in setting up a sytems level test lab for the purposes of measuring among other items, DS3 performance and interoperability between Cisco 12000 series and several new and emerging edge switch devices. In order to set a baseline for performance expectations, I am attempting to gather historical data on earlier testing. The nasty rumor I am hearing is that Cisco DS3 interfaces at best deliver 50 - 60 % throughput. This is supposedly attributed to the way they apply their Traffic Shaping and Policing at the port level. I need to obtain documentation that either validates this, or presents the correct information. Many of the edge devices involved in the testing, support high levels of throughput even at the channelized subrate. An increased need to buffer the data, to compensate for a potential mismatch in bandwidth capabilities, would just add to the latency and sour the testing. Any and all information is valued and appreciated.

2 1

Re: black hat .cn networks
by Dan Hollis 08 May '01

08 May '01

On Tue, 8 May 2001, neil d. quiogue wrote: > Well there may be a myriad of reasons on why the admins of those ISPs do not > respond: > 1. abuse/postmaster goes to some mailbox no one reads like root which > contains a bunch of other messages. > 2. Language issue has been mentioned and it's a valid one. I don't think > many admins are aware of those translators. > 3. They don't know how to handle such cases. > 4. They don't care? Ive sent abuse mails to other asian countries (japan, taiwan, korea) with the same possible list of excuses and at least ive got some (poor) response, compared to a big fat zero from mainland china. Has anyone on this list *ever* received *any* response to abuse mails to mainland chinese networks? Other than bounces... -Dan

2 1

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 08 May '01

08 May '01

> > > call AT&T/MediaOne/TCI, AOL/Time Warner, Adelphia, or Charter "small > > > entrepreneurs." These guys engage in monopoly tactics that rank right up > > > there with those of the ILECs. > > > > 1) You quoted me out of context. 2) Do you have a point? Obviously the > > above are not small entrepreneurs. But then, I never said they were. > > A very simple one: we are not seeing much in the way of serious > competition, and HR1542 will simply make things worse. Couldn't agree with you more. I also long for the days when I was in an academic environment with folk capable of closely reading text. You have attributed to me opinions I don't have and knocked down a straw man. Zero progress made. good luck, fletcher

1 0

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by Paul Vixie 08 May '01

08 May '01

peter(a)dataloss.nl (Peter van Dijk) writes: > I do still think UUnet is in a downward spiral, just like C&W. Strong > peering policies are not good for the Internet. Well, before I returned to PAIX, I was CTO of MFN. MFN had bought Abovenet, and I learnt to respect strong peering policies. Abovenet's peering policy was, and as far as I know still is, very "strong". It's strongly _open_, which means it's different from the purported C&W policy being discussed here this week. But while different it is still "strong". I think what you were looking to say above is that "*closed* peering policies are not good for the Internet." Probably noone will *publically* disagree with such sentiments. Not on nanog, anyway.

1 0

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 08 May '01

08 May '01

> > BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be > > aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and > > the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which > > was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable > > network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed > > a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more > > arguably a public resource. > > Except that most of today's cable systems were built while municipalities > could, and did, grant exclusive franchises. Overbuilding an incumbant > cable operator is as expensive and risky as becoming a CLEC - probably the > reason that neither CLECs nor cable overbuilders are showing much > commercial success. If you can't tell the legal difference between the above cases, I recommend you stay out of this discussion. > As to "small entrepreneurs" - that may have once been true, but I wouldn't > call AT&T/MediaOne/TCI, AOL/Time Warner, Adelphia, or Charter "small > entrepreneurs." These guys engage in monopoly tactics that rank right up > there with those of the ILECs. 1) You quoted me out of context. 2) Do you have a point? Obviously the above are not small entrepreneurs. But then, I never said they were. good luck, fletcher

4 5

RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Roeland Meyer 07 May '01

07 May '01

> From: Fletcher E Kittredge [mailto:fkittred@dargo.gwi.net] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:32 AM > > > Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" > agreements, with many > > municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a > regulated monopoly. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > municipalities Okay, so we know I can't touch-type and have lexdysic fingers. I would think that this is well-known by now. I'm a programmer fercrisake! I would think that the average reader here has a better parser than g++. > > Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets. > > Roland, about which country are you holding this discussion? I am > located in the US and thought you were talking about the US. > > If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements? > Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles > and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a > modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked > other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video. Falcon Cable ... Morgan Hill, CA ... to name one of many. Livermore CA... for another. San Jose .... and the list goes on... > Don't get me wrong, I am *very* much in favor of open access, have a > good business selling IP over cable plant and would love to do it over > Adlephia/TWAOL/AT&T plant, I just hate to see yet another bit 'o BS > propagated. I tried, in 1993, to drop a satellite head-end into a retirement trailer^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmobilehome park. This was all private property. The deal was a co-op where ech resident pays a monthly fee to the owners of the park and we ran co-ax to feed all the residents, on a cost-recovery basis. Upfront capitalization was amortised over 3 years. City council got wind of it and threatened the park's owner with cancellation of their operating permits becasue such a plant put the city at risk of violating their exclusive franchise agreement with Falcon Cable, for cable TV provisioning. This caused me to do some research into this. Yes, these exclusive contracts still exist today as part of the cable franchise system. I should also tell you that I worked for PacificBell Broadband, until 1997, where this also became an issue. The LA beachhead was largely stone-walled becasue of this. > BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be > aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and > the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which > was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable > network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed > a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more > arguably a public resource. Rights of way were granted, to cable operators, on a city-by-city basis, all based on exclusive franchise agreements, nation-wide. At that time, all they were pumping down those pipes were analog video. Now, that they are pumping digital data streams, those contracts have not changed. What is significantly different is that the telcos have no such exclusivity, per city. This is not competition, it is market lock-out. Each cable operator has a proprietary exclusive market lock on the city of operation. Many of these contracts were bought by, what is now AT&T, when they bought all those cable operators. Cable systems, plants, and rights of way, were specifically excluded from regulatory effects and ignored by the 1996 telecom act. Cable operators are unregulated local monopolies.

4 3

RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by Barrows, Jeff 07 May '01

07 May '01

>>>> From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:peter@dataloss.nl] > > Unet is, for example, one of the few (if not the only) ISP in The > Netherlands that charges for *peering* (no, not transit, just > peering). > I suspect [but don't know, as I don't work for UUNET anymore] that you are confusing 'paid peering' with the transit product, when configured to exchange only a specific subset of the possible routes. The real difference is this: Do you get a different price /PER MB/ for getting only a subset of routes as opposed to getting full routes from them? If you are still unsure, just ask UUNET if they consider you a peer or a customer-- they'll tell you. Hint: If you send them money, you are a customer. Many, many, many, [a whole bunch of] customers of major networks pay full transit prices from upstream transit providers, and only elect to receive [or use] that upstream providers' customer routes. The smallest networks out there can configure their boxes to do this, and it doesn't mean that they are a paid peer of any given network. It just means that they are deciding where to send their traffic. I know some providers offer a lower-priced peering-routes-only product. I don't think such a UUNET product exists. Perhaps the sales person led you to believe that it was paid peering, or the person you heard this from didn't convey it to you correctly? (I don't mean to imply that UUNET sales folks would do this, just that most large sales teams tend to get a few folks that cloud product definitions from time to time.) It is good to see that various larger providers (i.e., Genuity's AS1 Express [paid-peering] product) are offering this service. I am curious as to how they feel it is affecting their revenue, as it has the potential to get a lot of customers to convert from full-price transit to a cheaper price for a subset of routes, or lead to a cannibalization of some of their largest customers. Presumably, one could limit the set of customers that qualified for such a product to some smaller subset that was of interest. It would seem more fitting for networks that are less-peered to offer such a product, as they can pass some savings on to customers that don't require them to pay for traffic to go off-net via their costly upstream transit links. For networks that are essentially fully peered, the economics of offering such a product aren't as clear to me. I am interested in hearing thoughts on this topic offline. - jsb P.S. Again, I don't work for UUNET, and don't intend to speak for them or discuss anything proprietary to UUNET.

1 0