- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Alteon Responses
by K.Graham 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Thank you everyone for your responses. I did not anticipate the number of great pieces of information. Now to go digging through it all. Many thanks Kim Graham

1 0

FW: Next Hop Attribute
by Charles Smith 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

re-posted for broader audience: My apologies if this has been discussed recently... Is there a collective wisdom as to why the BGP RFC makes the statements that it does about the BGP next hop attribute? Specifically: (From RFC 1771): "A BGP speaker must never advertise an address of a peer to that peer as a NEXT_HOP, for a route that the speaker is originating. A BGP speaker must never install a route with itself as the next hop. When a BGP speaker advertises the route to a BGP speaker located in its own autonomous system, the advertising speaker shall not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute associated with the route. When a BGP speaker receives the route via an internal link, it may forward packets to the NEXT_HOP address if the address contained in the attribute is on a common subnet with the local and remote BGP speakers." At routers that have EBGP session injecting routes into its own AS on Cisco routers we set the next-hop-self attribute to eliminate synchronization issues, but I'm curious as to why the RFC made these requirements in the first place? Thank you for any brain cycles spent on this. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

anyone having trouble reaching ICANN site?
by Stephen Kowalchuk 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Can't get there from here. Anyone else having the same problem? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Kowalchuk skowalchuk(a)diamonex.com Diamonex, Incorporated ...learning cannot be controlled; it is out of control by design. Learning emerges spontaneously, it proceeds in an individualistic and unpredictable way, and it achieves its goal in its own good time. Once triggered, [it] will not stop--unless it is hijacked by conditioning. -- Roger Fouts --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Content Injection Appliance
by Irwin Lazar 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

I think that you are referring to the Nortel/Alteon product line. http://www.nortelnetworks.com/solutions/mahs/hosting/idc/net_host.html These devices have the potential to make the Internet look a lot more like cable delivery networks - e.g. Time Warner Cable forces Disney to pay to allow TWC's cable modem customers to access Disney web content. UUNET strikes an agreement with CNN that blocks access to FOX, NBC and other news sites, etc. It also could kill the web banner advertising industry as these devices allow ISPs to replace banner ads on a web site with ads inserted by the ISP. Even worse, web surfers might be forced to watch a 30 second commercial for every ten minutes that they surf. The privacy issues alone could generate enough discussion to write a book (or two). It almost looks as if we'll move to a model where free, unimpeded access to the net is going to cost a whole lot more than $21.95 per month. Irwin -----Original Message----- From: shane [mailto:shane@bratnet.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:43 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Content Injection Appliance I need someones help, I saw a product at ISPCON Fall in CA. And the product allowed me to have it operate on my core routers and watch web traffic and allow me to "Inject" a "pop-up add" or a service anouncement. I have been searching my ISPCON "stuff" I collected and I can't find it, and it is driving me crazy. What I want to do is set up this box to watch web traffic, and when a new user logs in it checks to see "for example" if he has new mail on our mail-server, and pop-up a little window on his/her screen alerting them about this. But I don't want to make the user be required to use our home page as the start page. Can anyone tell me the name of this product, I am already aware of FrontPorch and their product would work, but they require me to allow them to to advertising to my customers, I don't want that. shane brath TDS.NET Internet Services shane(a)bratnet.net

2 1

RADIUS info for traveling users ...
by Mohan Sundar 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Hi, A Service Provider, having several POPs, I presume will be using at least one RADIUS server that is associated to each POP, and are usually colocated at the POP, along with the RAS, aggregation and other IP service devices. And the IP address assigned for a subscriber dialing up from one location is assigned by the corresponding RADIUS server, after authentication. If this is the case, how is this subscriber provided service like internet connectivity, when he travels to another part of US? Will the RADIUS server info be available to all the POPs of the Service Provider? How are the current ISPs doing this? To take it further, when policies are associated with this subscriber that are based on IP address, how is that handled when the subscriber travels? Your input on this will be greatly appreciated. thanks. Mohan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

2 1

RE: dsl providers that will route /24
by Roeland Meyer 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 3:38 PM > Fine with me, I don't care. (But think long and hard before > coercing your > customers into an arrangement you yourself couldn't live with.) I think that this is a good general rule, that many tend to lose sight of. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

1 0

RE: MBone access
by Bill Nickless 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:30 PM 3/27/2001 -0500, Martin, Christian wrote: >One of the things that appears to be a major impediment to large-scale >deployment is the lack of SA transitivity, which is limited by MSDP's RPF >rules. Therefore, the Internet needs a dense mesh of MSDP peerings to allow >any-to-any connectivity. As of now, this is not the case. SSM will fix >this. > >regards, >chris Two responses, not mutually exclusive: - The Internet already has a "dense mesh" of BGP peerings. All the pieces are in place from the major router vendors to turn on MSDP and PIM-SM at the same places; it seems to me that it's just a matter of doing it. - Come on over to the IETF MSDP working group. In Minneapolis I presented an I-D that would avoid the RPF rules. However, in the MSDP working group there is very strong resistance to dropping the RPF rules, because then you can't build an "MSDP traceroute". My personal response to that is something along the lines of 'there is no "DNS traceroute" but DNS works just fine anyway, and you just use other mechanisms to debug it.' It was agreed in Minneapolis that building an RPF-free MSDP would be deferred until the current MSDP reaches standard status, and then we would build MSDPv2 without RPF rules if we thought it was needed. === Bill Nickless http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless +1 630 252 7390 PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7 nickless(a)mcs.anl.gov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQCVAwUBOsJkF6wgm7ipJDXBAQGIWwP/ZjtGv/fA1I17v2GQD/jeW2zWzBgj9z30 ZsgOi6xUBfKFHvzaB+NMSP+CYAiv9jXhusR1MHeH/+vSDEP5Z5wSYNF39/uEC1zd kLA0WGyIF/+zm7VXMsxdx4iwb+iSVhaTbIA+TYcgsQzigNnWbfWpnB43EvNDp6Xb x7tjGssZkAY= =nsmd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: MBone access
by Bill Nickless 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:23 PM 3/27/2001 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: > Should someone do a presentation @ NANOG on how to configure >multicast in the pim-sm,msdp,mbgp days? Also, with ssm there >is almost no configuration that will be required other than >turning on pim (and mbgp.. no msdp is needed). The week before NANOG I've agreed to do just such a tutorial at the next Internet2 meeting. If there's interest I would be happy to run the same tutorial at NANOG the following week. === Bill Nickless http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless +1 630 252 7390 PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7 nickless(a)mcs.anl.gov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQCVAwUBOsJjIKwgm7ipJDXBAQHxdgP/dmv5DUaAswclI0M53Zc3YXo813/rIh0S gg8q3xs0qypSz7xnid4uHL3UBvCwQA3Nqi51DUNJmtbOo3gsB+93CEOoHlJL4ETj vaRe6cCi1H5xCa452Bp9S37js3QJxTiIkR545Laf4E9sQ+rXqBD0rI0xXIIRJ+ue jF6mJGH80m4= =BymP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Looking for a T-1 loop in Antigua
by Justin A. Kraft 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

I have a connection opportunity in Antigua, but I need to find a provider who would be able to provide a clear channel T1 from Ft. Lauderdale to Antigua. Any suggestions? Justin A. Kraft Sales Engineer PRIMUS Managed Hosting Solutions (781) 586-6141

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

> From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:46 PM > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mathew Butler wrote: > If it is machines communicating there's no need to do any > mnemonics. In > fact, it is still humans communicating, with the aid of the machines. > > So... we have two design constraints: > > 1) people need to be able to locate and revisit somethings in > the network > > 2) any meaningful hierarchial labeling of the real world is quite > impossible, and runs into problems of scaling, adversity, and > entrenched notions of ownership. > My proposal is to create a special hierarchy (similar to > tpc.int) which > can _only_ be used to register numeric "names" on first-come > first-served > basis. The "current" DNS then can go down in flames, for all i care. > Actually, I think this is inevitable, since some day someone > will find a > way to win a lawsuit against the whatever central naming authority is. > > Anyone who thinks numeric IDs do not work when "better" > alphanumeric IDs > are possible needs to take a look at the ICQ. It is _very_ > successful in > case you didn't notice. And so is telephony. Two points, ICQ has an address manager add-on and my contact manager makes it so I don't have to memorize phone numbers. I scroll down select and talk. New SprintPCS systems even eliminate that, you speak the name and it dials for you. Suddenly, you get into your 40's and there is more to remember than you want to work at. I'm sure you know what I mean. What about that number that you absolutely have to have, every six months? I just hacked a print server because I couldn't remember the passwd, that was last used over three years ago. I don't even know my insurance agent's name, but when someone wrecks my car, I absolutely HAVE to have his number. Long-term human memory is much better at names than numbers and is MUCH better at general class names than specific identifiers. It has to do with refresh rates, just like DRAM. > fact: for the majority of world population ASCII strings are only > marginally better than numbers in being "mnemonic" - and it > is much easier > to pronounce numbers in a native language. Okay, so you would propose yet another layer of virtualization? Let us count the layers we have already; 1) Layer 2 to IP, used by switches and the like. Services are divorced from IP addrs. Where you route is not where you think you are routing. 2) NAT, Site virtualization. You could renumber the underlayment of the NAT'd space and the outside world will never know ... 3) Straight IP virtualization, used by resonate and F5, as well as local directors, the answering host need never be the same host twice. 4) DNS, separates you from the IP addr layer altogether. If you put design dates on each of those you will probably find that they are pretty much developed in the order I listed. Each case was to implement a technical solution to a policy issue, in a futile attempt to build technical barricades between the technologist and the politicians. Give it up, you will be assimilated. You have been in retreat for years. You just didn't realize it. Vadim, you're an analyst too, how many layers of abstraction can we have before the system becomes unusable, unwieldy, non-performing, and more difficult to maintain than the tower of Babel? Speaking of which, your other point about ASCII names is also moot, with iDNS. The real answer was to stop the incursion of trademark crowd into the DNS. You can thank Dave Crocker, Kent Crispin, and their IAHC for that smooth move. Now if you think that they'd stop just because you have retreated behind yet another layer of abstraction, you are indeed naieve. They will come and hunt you out. The inclusive root zone efforts, like that of the ORSC and PacRoot, are actually trying to keep the root intact. We saw the probability of outfits like new.net, years ago. We also recognised what it meant. We spoke the warnings, we spoke them again at the Nov00 ICANN meeting in MDR. However, what really triggered the race was when the ICANN BoD assigned the BIZ TLD, knowing full well that the Atlantic Root had been registering domains there for years. That told the new.net folks that it is okay to create conflicting delegations. After all, the ICANN is doing it ... why can't they? There is no law that regulates that. There's a lot of other stuff behind that, but, I think that you get the point.

10 12