- Test - lists.nanog.org

CDN services offered
by Steve Glines 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

I have a demo of a DNS redirection system up and running at http://www.proximy.net I'd like to know what everyone(anyone) thinks about it? Thanks in advance, Cheers SG __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/

2 1

Virus warning, was: Re: All your NIC handles are belong to us
by Kai Schlichting 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

Hmm, my Norton AV/Win2000 just spit up a warning about the "W32.Badtrans.13312@mm" virus file being detected in the following mail - as a SETUP.pif attachment. Given that it quotes a 6-week old NANOG posting of mine, I am almost sure that I am not the only recipient. lightreading|agora|thorn copied FYI: you might want to give your user a phone call about this, in case he doesn't read his email on a regular basis or/and if he is blissfully unaware of what's transpiring on his machine. http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/cgi-bin/virauto.cgi?vid=28772 describes this as a MAPI worm that uses a few more filenames to disguise itself: Pics.ZIP.scr images.pif README.TXT.pif New_Napster_Site.DOC.scr news_doc.scr hamster.ZIP.scr YOU_are_FAT!.TXT.pif searchURL.scr SETUP.pif Card.pif Me_nude.AVI.pif Sorry_about_yesterday.DOC.pif s3msong.MP3.pif docs.scr Humor.TXT.pif fun.pif I guess Norton/Symantec can change the "wild" level from "low" to "medium" now. bye,Kai > Received: from oboe.agora.com ([199.221.118.30]) > by conti.nu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02337 > for <kai(a)pac-rim.net>; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:24:28 -0400 (EDT) > Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:24:28 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from maggie2 ([216.213.101.18]) by oboe.agora.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.977.9); > Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:20:34 -0400 > Message-ID: <019a01c0c813$43afc360$0c01a8c0(a)ltread.org> > From: "Marguerite Reardon" <reardon(a)lightreading.com> > To: <kai(a)pac-rim.net> > Subject: Re: Re: All your NIC handles are belong to us > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0197_01C0C7F1.BC7C91A0" > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 > Date: 18 Apr 2001 10:20:34 -0400 > X-UIDL: 55e8d6494df8edb047065b7e1c036c3b > 'Kai Schlichting' wrote: > ==== > - > - *knock knock* > - > - ALL YOUR NIC HANDLES ARE BELONG TO US. > - > - The mystery with posts going to nowhere has re-appeared. No bounces > - due to NANOG-post. No moderation notice. Nothing. > - Does Majordomo mind Subjects starting with "OT:" ? > - > - Feb 26 18:10:44 sonet sendmail[27445]: SAA27445: from=<kai(a)pac-rim.net>, size=2083, class=0, pri=32083, nrcpts=1, msgid=<6669287802.20010226180952(a)conti.nu>, bodytype=8BITMIME, proto=ESMTP, > relay=localhost.conti.nu [127.0.0.1] > ...' >> Take a look to the attachment.

5 4

Re: Virus warning, was: Re: All your NIC handles are belong to us
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

Yep... I received it too. My mailer treated it as strange-looking text, and it was harmlessly deleted. Oh the benefits of not running Whine-Doze. Owen > > > I can confirm at least 2 others (including myself) having received the message. > I sent off a note to Marguerite Reardon saying I neither have Windows, nor > do I run attachments from strangers. > > Mine was fun.pif, and was Windows executable. > > >

1 0

Virus in attachment
by SMcGrath＠dhhs.state.nh.us 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

I have received 1 with the me_naked.avi.pif It went into the trash bin Scott

4 3

Re: Virus warning, was: Re: All your NIC handles are belong to us
by Andrea Abrahamsen 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

I got it too. Mine was New_Napster_Site.DOC.scr. Andrea. At 08:16 04/18/01, you wrote: I can confirm at least 2 others (including myself) having received the message. I sent off a note to Marguerite Reardon saying I neither have Windows, nor do I run attachments from strangers. Mine was fun.pif, and was Windows executable.

1 0

SEMI-OT: NOCs and networking students
by Andrew Dorsett 17 Apr '01

17 Apr '01

Hey, I've been lurking for several months, reading and absorbing from the vast knowledge on this list. I got to admit that I have learned a lot about the innards of BGP and network operations. Plus I'm building my resource list of people who can answer questions. :) (I'm a college student, employee of an ISP and network guy, won some national awards for Internetworking) So if you have posted, thanks for the information, it's nice to actually learn something for a change....unlike in college.... Now here is my semi-ot post... I am also very involved in a Cisco Networking Academy in a high-school in Greensboro, NC. I helped push the program to what it is today, while I was a high school student. I am hoping that someone on this list would like to teach these kids some and offer field trip opportunities. Would anyone mind hosting a group of students to tour a NOC or a datacenter, somewhere in NC? I only know of C&W having a NOC in Raleigh, if I remember correctly. But I'm open to anything, and I'm sure they would be also. Thanks, Andrew --- <zerocool(a)netpath.net> http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate Development Assistant: Netpath/Stratonet, Inc. (http://www.netpath.net/) Email: dorsett(a)netpath.net "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself."

1 0

Re: "Cisco MPLS-based VPNs" & BGP Stability
by Robert Raszuk 17 Apr '01

17 Apr '01

Hi Dave, > It raises the question of whether or not you put your VPN's BGP routes on the > same peering infrastructure that you use for your EF traffic. First thx for your mail. Second reg your inter-as design let me explain a bit more what I meant by saying easily :). The most scalable soultion for inter-AS support of mpls-vpns you get by direct vpnv4 multihop sessions betwen peering ASs vpnv4 relfectors. So the vpnv4 prefix exchanges can be totally still separated from any ipv4 peerings. For this to work you need additionally: * exchange prefixes to your PEs next hops with labels between your ASs, * disable next hop insertion on the EBGP session from RRs. In this desgin you still don't need to have any intersection of vpnv4 and ipv4 routes. > Merging your isolated VPN environment with the Internet in any way could have Well maybe with an exception that for a small number of VPNs merging global Internet table with MPLS-VPNs customers on the same PEs does not reduce your ipv4 stability at all. So if you accept this the financial aspect of building isolated l3 vpns while maintaining the same level of ipv4 characteristics can be easily achived by adding one or few (depending on the number of vpn customer's routes) RRs. R. > Dave Siegel wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 02:04:48PM -0700, Robert Raszuk reportedly typed: > > Danny, > > > > > which clearly impacts unicast stuff as well. > > > > As a matter of fact a lot of today's mpls-vpn deployments use different > > set of relflector's hardware for vpnv4 routes plus are using default > > route for providing internet access for mpls-vpn customers so I don't > > really see how those SPs/ISPs would impact with mpls-vpns any ipv4 bgp > > Internet infrastructure or bgp stability. > > Indeed, the VPN infrastructure is a TE overlay on your MPLS network, and the > BGP information stays at the edge. This design does not, by itself, impact > the BGP stability of your (EF) Internet product. > > > Total AF isolation can be also > > easily achived even for inter-as mpls-vpns as well with correctly > > architected design. > > I wouldn't say "easily" acheived, but it does need to be correctly architected, > especially an inter-provider MPLS VPN. > > It raises the question of whether or not you put your VPN's BGP routes on the > same peering infrastructure that you use for your EF traffic. In a purely theoretical > world, perhaps this is trivial to establish QoS on network borders, and exchange > routes for EF class (Internet) along with your AF (business/VPN), but this might > not be so practical in reality, at least not today. > > In a purely isolated design, VPN routers on the VPN overlay mesh would be > designated as gateways to other providers, dedicated to AF, and dedicated to > interconnecting with other providers for VPNs only. Designing this is pretty easy, > but building this dedicated infrastructure for inter-provider VPN takes time, money, > business cases, and new contract negotiations. > > Merging your isolated VPN environment with the Internet in any way could have > disasterous effects on your ability to deliver on AF traffic garantees, even > with QoS enabled. > > At least for now, "don't cross the streams." > > Dave > > > R. > > > > > > > Danny McPherson wrote: > > > > > > I thought this might be of interest to folks here, it looks > > > strikingly similar to draft-behringer-mpls-security-00.txt, > > > which has uni-directionally discussed on the IETF's PPVPN > > > mailing list a while back. > > > > > > I think a more pragmatic approach could have actually been > > > useful, however, this would likely require a non-commissioned > > > perspective. IMO, things like "Hiding the Service Provider > > > Core Network" aren't very practical. > > > > > > I'd also like to get feedback on how folks see things like > > > MPLS/BGP VPNs impacting Internet route table stability and > > > convergence. After all, simply because it's not necessarily > > > envisioned (by some) to be deployed inter-domain, it does > > > make heavy use of BGP, which clearly impacts unicast stuff as > > > well. > > > > > > -danny > > > > > > ------- Forwarded Message > > > > > > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:08:01 -0400 > > > To: mpls-ops(a)mplsrc.com > > > From: Christopher Lewis <chrlewis(a)cisco.com> > > > Subject: Security on MPLS VPNs > > > > > > The Mier group released a report that showed MPLS VPNs offer the same level > > > of security that frame relay and ATM networks do. That report is available at > > > http://www.mier.com/reports/cisco/MPLS-VPNs.pdf > > > > > > - ------- > > > The MPLS-OPS Mailing List > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml > > > Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml > > > > > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > -- > Dave Siegel > These opinions may not necessarily reflect that of my employer > HOME 520-579-0450 dave at siegelie dot com > WORK 520-572-9041 dsiegel at gblx dot net > Director, Global IP Network Design, Global Crossing

1 0

"Cisco MPLS-based VPNs" & BGP Stability
by Danny McPherson 17 Apr '01

17 Apr '01

I thought this might be of interest to folks here, it looks strikingly similar to draft-behringer-mpls-security-00.txt, which has uni-directionally discussed on the IETF's PPVPN mailing list a while back. I think a more pragmatic approach could have actually been useful, however, this would likely require a non-commissioned perspective. IMO, things like "Hiding the Service Provider Core Network" aren't very practical. I'd also like to get feedback on how folks see things like MPLS/BGP VPNs impacting Internet route table stability and convergence. After all, simply because it's not necessarily envisioned (by some) to be deployed inter-domain, it does make heavy use of BGP, which clearly impacts unicast stuff as well. -danny ------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:08:01 -0400 To: mpls-ops(a)mplsrc.com From: Christopher Lewis <chrlewis(a)cisco.com> Subject: Security on MPLS VPNs The Mier group released a report that showed MPLS VPNs offer the same level of security that frame relay and ATM networks do. That report is available at http://www.mier.com/reports/cisco/MPLS-VPNs.pdf - ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

Anyone else experiencing major problems with Verizon in PA/NJ today?
by alex＠yuriev.com 17 Apr '01

17 Apr '01

Since about 11am we have had all of fast-packet based services flap dozens of time, and about 50 circuits that have Verizon tails from other carriers go into constant flap state. The Verizon's callcenters are clearly overloaded with some of the calls getting fast busy and hold-times close of over 1 hour... Worldcom is saying that there are some major problems at Wayne, PA switch center of Verizon that are causing it... Alex

1 0

RE: What is the number of a clueful Sales agent at C&W ?
by Dee McKinney 17 Apr '01

17 Apr '01

Assuming you are a man of faith, this requires divine intervention. First God would have to make one and place him near a phone. -----Original Message----- From: Mr. James W. Laferriere [mailto:babydr@baby-dragons.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:42 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: What is the number of a clueful Sales agent at C&W ? Hello All , Subject about says it all . One of my compadre's has been stuck to the phone with not one single clue from anyone that has answered . Fyi , Looking for oc-3 connectivity . Tia , JimL +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | babydr(a)baby-dragons.com | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | +----------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0