- Test - lists.nanog.org

BGP Community Attribute Support
by Joe Abley 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Quick poll: does any operator here currently use a router which does not support setting BGP community attributes, does not permit community attributes to be matched exactly when doing ingress/egress route filtering, or does not permit wildcard matches on the last two octets (e.g. "permit 1234:*")? If any of those statements apply to a BGP implementation you have used, could you let me know? Off-list is fine. I can summarise the results if there is interest. Joe

2 2

OT: verizon paging modem numbers
by Roy Hockett 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Does anyone using verizon paging service via digital celphone know the number for their modems to send pages. Their sales people want use to use email, what's new, but as you know we need pages when the network is down, not up. Thanks, -Roy

7 6

SWM ISO empirical operational data...
by Barrows, Jeff 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

smart-operator-folk - I am trying to determine the top-500ish source and destination ASes on the Net today, as measured by the aggregate amount of either ingress or egress traffic. Ideally, I'd have data that was granular enough to be broken down by geographical regions as well. There just isn't useful public data out there that is extensive enough, relevant, or complete. There are lists of "top 50 web sites in the UK", "top 10 most popular sites", and "15 top financial sites", and such, but I couldn't find anything useful that was based on true traffic analysis, or wasn't skewed by incomplete views. Netflow data from various sources is proving to be the most useful, but I need more views. If anyone has any [Netflow or Netflow-like] top-speaker information that they would be willing to share, I'd very much appreciate it-- please drop me a note offline. Also, if you currently operate a network or site that is a major source of traffic, (audio|video streaming, file sharing, software distribution, etc.) and wouldn't mind taking some time to chat with me about your traffic characteristics, I'd appreciate it-- please drop me a note offline. As a last note, [for those international folks following this NA list] I am very interested in your views on the makeup of your traffic to content providers in the U.S., as it compares to content traffic in your own region. ...again, drop me a note offline. Thanks all, - jsb

1 0

Mbone access
by Eddie Parra 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Anyone, I am not very familiar with Multicasting technologies, but how can I get access to the Mbone? My DSL provider does not allow Mbone access. Is there anyway I can get a DVMRP tunnel to my Cisco 2611 router at home from someone? I have a static IP. Please let me know! Thanks! -Eddie

3 4

Sprint hosed...routing breakdown in Chicago
by jlewis＠lewis.org 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Traceroutes to lots of destinations (MSN is the one we're getting the most complaints about) die like this. I've got an open ticket with Sprint, but due to their support people playing telephone, the ticket description has degraded into meaningless garbage and I got a voice mail back from their NOC saying they don't understand what our problem is. Meanwhile, I'm sitting here on permenant hold trying to get to talk to someone with a clue in their NOC. traceroute to 206.253.194.65 (206.253.194.65), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 border1-fast0-0.Gainesville.atlantic.net (209.208.0.1) 2.237 ms 1.878 ms 1.109 ms 2 border1-s1-0-2-0.orldflwcom.atlantic.net (209.208.2.105) 22.004 ms orldflwcom-br-1-s1-0-5-0 (209.208.2.217) 20.816 ms border1-s1-0-2-0.orldflwcom.atlantic.net (209.208.2.105) 27.330 ms 3 sl-gw8-orl-3-0-TS11.sprintlink.net (144.232.154.21) 16.851 ms 31.717 ms 17.374 ms 4 sl-bb21-orl-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.2.233) 17.299 ms 15.614 ms 15.876 ms 5 144.232.18.201 (144.232.18.201) 38.620 ms 37.844 ms 30.519 ms 6 sl-bb20-atl-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.12.145) 30.850 ms 33.735 ms 23.784 ms 7 sl-bb20-atl-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.134) 41.988 ms 42.959 ms 38.364 ms 8 sl-bb22-chi-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.26.49) 38.592 ms 38.411 ms 39.822 ms 9 * * * 10 *Icmp checksum is wrong *Icmp checksum is wrong * 11 * -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis(a)lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

2 2

Contact for Firstworld Communications
by Karyn Ulriksen 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

If anybody knows a number for FirstWorld Communications security, I would appreciate it. I have a Denial of Service situation, I would like to get addressed as soon as possible. I've been waiting on hold for quite a while now... 8( Thanx in advance. Karyn

1 0

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: Monday evening, the 26th of March, Verisign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for a.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set serving com/net/org. The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.41.3.101 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.36.144.133 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 203.181.106.5 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 208.206.240.5 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 213.177.194.5 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 207.200.81.69 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 202.153.114.101 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the old and new IP's for a.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel for enough time to accommodate the zones TTL's. -------------------------------------- Brad Verd Operations Manager Resolution Systems Verisign Global Registry Services Email - bverd(a)verisign.com ---------------------------------------

1 0

Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
by Patrick Corliss 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

On Fri Mar 16 08:48:04 2001, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman(a)civicnet.org> wrote: > For the Internet to work, at least with currently accepted DNS standards, > everyone has to use the same root servers. Otherwise things can rapidly > degenerate into chaos. The whole point of law and due process is that > a duly authorized somebody has to have the authority to insist that > everyone use the same root servers. Sorry, Miles, it's not true. It's just ICANN FUD. Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's chief policy officer, has said that potential problems exist for users with any of the several alternative root or domain systems on the market. He argues: "The Internet works because of common protocols. The DNS protocol depends for its reliability and trustworthiness on the principle of authoritative uniqueness, which requires the use of a single root." He added "Anything else creates the potential for conflicts." Read carefully, Andrew McLaughlin is saying there's a need for uniqueness as otherwise the same name will resolve in different ways. He is arguing, like you, that the *only* way to resolve the problem is with a unique (read "ICANN") root. Of course, ICANN's claim to be the one and only authority over the internet allows them to get away with introducing a new dot BIZ knowing it is causing a collision. But, in answer to your point, Karl Auerbach has described how multiple roots work as follows: "What I would say to the House Commerce Committee were I invited to testify" by Karl Auerbach. <snip> 2. Multiple Roots are "a good thing" http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots It wasn't that many years ago in the United States when there was one big, monolithic telephone company. It was taken as gospel by many that the stability of the telephone network depended on there being one unified, monolithic telephone company. We've seen through that. Today we have a flourishing competitive telephone system filled with all kinds of commercial and technical offerings that were inconceivable during the days of "Ma Bell". We routinely use directory services in a multiplicity of forms -- telephone books published by local telephone companies or entrepreneurs, 411 services in various shapes and forms, web pages, or even on CD-ROMs (indeed a well known Supreme Court case involved a telephone directory published on CD-ROM). These telephone directories are not published by any unified authority, there is no regulatory body sitting over them. And we as consumers are not damaged or harmed by this. And the telephone system continues to work just fine. Yet, on the Internet there are those who wail and gnash their teeth at the thought that the Domain Name System, the Internet's "white pages" might have multiple points of entry. Indeed, the whole series of documents from NTIA -- including the Green and White Papers -- and the existence of ICANN is founded on the notion that there is but one root system for the Domain Name System. I assert that those nay-sayers are wrong. I assert that just like the telephone system can have multiple publishers of telephone directory services, the Internet can have multiple roots to the Domain Name System. There is no doubt that as a purely technical matter, the Internet can have multiple root systems for the DNS. It has had these for years. The question is whether to recognize the value and use of multiple root systems and not foreclose them. Let's get a bit more specific. When I say "multiple root systems", I mean a regime in which you, or I, or anybody can set up a set of computers to serve as a suite of root servers for the DNS. In other words, you, or I, or anybody could establish a group of computers to operate in parallel with, and not necessarily in administrative coordination with, the legacy A-L.root-servers.net computers now operated by NSI, IANA, ICANN and others. >From a technical point of view all that a root server group does is to give its users a way to find the DNS servers that handle the various Top Level Domains (TLDs). The root servers do not themselves answer queries about what names are inside the various TLDs. Those questions are passed on to the TLD servers themselves. That is a subtle point and a point that is often lost when discussing the DNS. It bears repeating -- all that a root server does is to answer queries about how to find a server handling a TLD named in the query. In other words, a root server only answers queries such as "Where do I find a server that contains the list of names in .com?". Now that we know that root servers and root server systems are nothing more than the doorway through which one enters the Domain System, we can ask this question: What happens when we begin to think of the Domain Name System not as an intrinsic core service of the Internet, but rather as an elective service that can be offered by many providers and among which customers and user select based on the packages offered by the providers? I'll give you a preview of the answer: We end up with a stable Internet with no loss of reachability. We get a system of competitive root operators who make business decisions about what TLDs they want to incorporate into their "inventory". We get rid of questions about "how many TLDs should be created?". We don't need complicated ICANN-like quasi-governmental agencies overseeing the DNS and the Internet. And we end up with a means for communities of users to fine tune the view of the Internet Landscape that they want to allow into their communities. So, you should be asking yourselves, how does this Nirvana come about? Imagine each operator of a root server system as a store. The shelves contain the store's inventory. In this case the inventory consists of TLDs that the root server system knows about. Thus, a user of a root server system will perceive a Domain Name name space composed of the TLDs in the store (the root server system) that that user has elected to use. Now, I should mention, that when I say "user has elected to use", I don't really usually mean the end-user directly. In most cases, the end-user will have delegated the choice to that user's ISP or to his or her organizational information manager. Of course, the technically inclined, such as myself, will tend to make the choice for ourselves. How does a root server operator select the inventory of TLDs that it wishes to offer? The answer is "whatever satisfies the needs and demands of the operator's customer base." If we look at this through the eyes of a businessman operating a root server system, we realize that there are two elements that the customers will care about: TLD coverage and value added services. As a general rule, customers of a root server system will act much like subscribers to a cable TV system -- they will want as many TLDs (or as many channels) as they can get. This will drive the root server system operators to include as many viable TLDs as they can into their inventory. The net result of all the root system operators following this strategy will be that they all attempt to trump one another by each including more TLDs. The end of this is that all root server operators will incorporate all viable TLDs. The benefit of this is that the domain names of all people and organizations who have registrations in these TLDs will be essentially universally resolvable no matter which root server system us being used. I've used the phrase "viable TLDs" to describe those which are of a character that most reasonable root system operators would feel that they could incorporate that TLD into their inventory without undue risk of problems. It is easiest to define "viable TLDs" by listing what kind of TLDs would be non-viable. TLDs that are being contested are not very viable. Thus, if two or more claimants were offering different versions of a TLD named ".foo", it would be unlikely that any root system operator would add any version of ".foo" to the inventory. This tends to remove the issue of TLD ownership from the current ICANN regulatory framework and place it where it belongs -- in the traditional give and take world of business and open market economics. Since all root server systems will tend to eventually incorporate all viable TLDs into their inventory, value added services will tend to become the differentiating factor between root server systems. One might well ask how a root server system can offer value added services? It does seem an odd concept at first, but then again, a few years ago, the notion of value added long distance telephone services was an odd concept. An example of a value added service would be that of filtration -- A root server system operator may offer a service in which customers who use that root will be able to have the responses cleaned of any answers that are sources of pornographic material. This could be a valuable tool for communities that wish to tailor their view of the Internet Landscape according to their own community standards. And it is a mechanism which allows any member to opt out of the community, and its restrictions, simply by selecting another root server operator. Yes, there are other ways to achieve the same kind of filtering, but who are we to say which methods are the most viable? Indeed, we should be careful not to dismiss, or worse to foreclose, an area of Internet entrepreneurship simply because we don't see the immediate value. I'd like to finish this discussion about multiple roots with a few observations. Multiple root systems add to the stability of the internet by removing a dependence on a single root system for the Domain Name System. Multiple root systems eliminate the need to face questions such as "what new gTLDs should be added" - multiple root systems permit the marketplace to provide the answer. Multiple root systems provide means for inventors and entrepreneurs to create new ways of packaging DNS servers. And I've suggested one such extension that could add a new means for individuals or communities to shield themselves from the tidal wave of questionable material on the Internet. So, why have multiple root systems not evolved? One of the reasons is that the existing system has so far worked reasonably well, so there has been little pressure. But there is a very strong secondary reason -- those who have advocated or established a multiple root system have been shunned by the technical community. But the biggest reason why it hasn't happened is that ever since the NTIA process started, the idea that there could be multiple roots has been swept aside with an administrative flick of the wrist and an offhand repetition of the stale legend: "oh that would never comport with network stability". <snip>

13 14

Re: Clear Channel on a T1
by Ron Buchalski 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Good point, Phil. I believe that the modern T1 spec states that a maximum or 45 zeros can be sent before the CSU will inject a '1'. I don't have a spec handy to verify it. Of course, with B8ZS, you'll never approach this long string of zeros on the line, so it's a moot point. B8ZS replaces eight zeros with 4/4 ones/zeros, in a known bipolar violation pattern. This will insure that ones' density is met on the line, and the circuit endpoints can replace the injected ones with eight zeros and restore the bit patterns of the modified DS0s. It's also the source of grief when a telco provisions one segment of a T1 circuit without B8ZS. When this non-B8ZS segment sees too many zeros, ones will be injected in the stream, corrupting the data. Of course, this NEVER happens anymore...right? ;-) -rb >From: Phillip Vandry <vandry(a)TZoNE.ORG> >To: "Ron Buchalski" <rbuchals(a)hotmail.com> >CC: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Clear Channel on a T1 >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:04:46 -0500 (EST) > > >Please correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm not _that_ certain of this) but >I think you still need the 1's density to maintain timing even in the >absence of repeaters. If you have a whole bunch of zero bits in a row the >voltage on the line will remain 0 for the length of the series. You get no >indication of when one bit ends and another starts. If the string of zeroes >is very long, the receiver might miscount the number of 0 bits that the >sequence represents (more than intended if its clock is running faster than >the sender's, less than intended otherwise). You don't have this problem >with a long string of 1 bits because the voltage transitioning from + to - >or back at every bit boundary. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

4 3

RE: dsl providers that will route /24
by Jason Lixfeld 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Right, and even though I haven't seen any personally, I'm sure there are atypical deployments out there somewhere :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Sobol [mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net] > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:56 AM > To: Jason Lixfeld > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: dsl providers that will route /24 > > > > Jason Lixfeld wrote: > > > Are we talking business grade DSL or Resi grade DSL? > > Residential DSL is typically a bridged solution, meaning you don't > even get to use a router... which renders the answer to this > question a > moot point... > > -- > Steven J. Sobol/CTO/JustThe.net LLC | > sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net > SAY IT LOUD: I'M GEEK AND I'M PROUD! | 888.480.4NET (4638) > 216.619.2NET (2638) > http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net | http://ClevelandProductions.com > http://JustThe.net | Powered by Linux, pizza, Coke, Cuervo, > and cheap beer. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > This email server is running an evaluation copy of the > MailShield anti- > spam software. Please contact your email administrator if you have any > questions about this message. MailShield product info: www.mailshield.com .

1 0