- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
by Jon Allen Boone 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

smd(a)clock.org writes: > Oh, but alas, the fatal disease IPv4 users are faced with, namely the > failure of the global routing system to cope with increasingly complex > and increasingly dynamic network topology, is not cured by > IPv6-Morphine, it is EXACERBATED by it. Sean, What do you think the solution is? Or, at least, in which direction does it lie? -Jon -------------------------------------------------- Jon 'tex' Boone (610) 466-0477 tex(a)delamancha.org http://delamancha.org --------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
by smd＠clock.org 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

Marshall Eubanks asks: | What about wireless IP? Isn't everyone supposed to be forced to adopt IPv6 | once billions of mobile units start using it ? So, the problem here is that the very smart doctors of the IETF observe a number of people complaining about hunger pangs, because they cannot get the number of ROUTABLE addresses that they want. Enter IPv6, the Morphine of the Internet. The bright side is that, like morphine, it makes the patient much less hungry, but there are unpleasant side-effects, and no added nutrition. It also distracts one from real problems by introducing an euphoric "solution" to a migraine headache. Sure, you can have all the addresses you can ever want, and more, but the fact is that they are not ROUTABLE addresses. A 128-bit number is no more useful than a 32-bit number if nobody can use it to contact you. The unfortunate thing about IPv6-Morphine is that like any narcotic one sees things in a dreamy, rosy state, tinted with denial. Those good doctors took away my pain, so they can take away any future pain too. Oh, but alas, the fatal disease IPv4 users are faced with, namely the failure of the global routing system to cope with increasingly complex and increasingly dynamic network topology, is not cured by IPv6-Morphine, it is EXACERBATED by it. Like many narcotics junkies, the wireless folks are simply of the belief that the dealers are their friends. Sean.

1 0

Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
by smd＠clock.org 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

If I charge a customer more for IPv6 connectivity than for IPv4 connectivity, to offset the costs of dealing with ships-in-the-night routing (deploying it, training everyone to understand it), do you think my entire customer base is going to transition over to IPv6? Ask yourself, as an ISP, how much more you are willing to pay your transit providers for IPv4 + IPv6 transit, and how you are going to get the money for that and for the deployment/retraining costs. Then ask yourself, as an ISP, what benefit you get from IPv6. My answers: not a chance, none, and zero, respectively. Sean.

10 16

AT&T connectivity (was RE: UUnet Kansas City/Denver )
by Sean Donelan 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

AT&T Worldnet reports a problem near Columbia, Missouri. I don't know how much shared fiber or right of way UUNET and ATT have in the area. Apparently I'm still on the blacklist at WCOM since they won't talk to me. "Adam Korab" <adam(a)inetnebr.com> writes: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 07:21:15PM -0500, Bryan Heitman wrote: > > UU is claiming a fiber cut, however we utilize all local > > carriers with > > numerous circuits which are all running fine. > > > Thank you Bryan. Do you use AT&T? I was thinking that AT&T > might be the "carrier" UUnet was referring to, and as I > udnerstand, they > were also having pretty major problems.

1 0

RE: UUnet Kansas City/Denver
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

My upstream is Cerf.NET, whom is apparently now owned by AT&T. They are absorbing the CERF.NET backbone into AT&T. I have been having sporadic connectivity for the past three weeks. Apparently, the feast isn't going quite as smoothly as planned. I expect sporadic major outages for the remainder of the year, from this bunch. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Heitman [mailto:bryanh@communitech.net] > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 5:37 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: UUnet Kansas City/Denver > > > > Yes Erik we use AT&T, however that is for only local > circuits. We don't > have any long haul with them which is probably why we're not > seeing any > problems... > > If I had to guess I would say that Kingdom City is in AT&Ts path that > connects KC and St. Louis. As it is about in the center of the state > directly east of KC. > > Best, > > > > Bryan Heitman, Vice-President > CommuniTech.Net, Inc. - (800) WEB-HOST > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Korab" <adam(a)inetnebr.com> > To: "Bryan Heitman" <bryanh(a)communitech.net> > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 7:29 PM > Subject: Re: UUnet Kansas City/Denver > > > > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 07:21:15PM -0500, Bryan Heitman wrote: > > > UU is claiming a fiber cut, however we utilize all local > carriers with > > > numerous circuits which are all running fine. > > > > Thank you Bryan. Do you use AT&T? I was thinking that AT&T > > might be the "carrier" UUnet was referring to, and as I > udnerstand, they > > were also having pretty major problems. > > > > --Adam > > -- > > Adam Korab System Administration > > Internet Nebraska (402) 434-8680 x 110 > > > > RFC 882 put the dot in .com, not Sun Microsystems > >

1 0

Re: UUnet Kansas City/Denver
by Bryan Heitman 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

Yes Erik we use AT&T, however that is for only local circuits. We don't have any long haul with them which is probably why we're not seeing any problems... If I had to guess I would say that Kingdom City is in AT&Ts path that connects KC and St. Louis. As it is about in the center of the state directly east of KC. Best, Bryan Heitman, Vice-President CommuniTech.Net, Inc. - (800) WEB-HOST ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Korab" <adam(a)inetnebr.com> To: "Bryan Heitman" <bryanh(a)communitech.net> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 7:29 PM Subject: Re: UUnet Kansas City/Denver > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 07:21:15PM -0500, Bryan Heitman wrote: > > UU is claiming a fiber cut, however we utilize all local carriers with > > numerous circuits which are all running fine. > > Thank you Bryan. Do you use AT&T? I was thinking that AT&T > might be the "carrier" UUnet was referring to, and as I udnerstand, they > were also having pretty major problems. > > --Adam > -- > Adam Korab System Administration > Internet Nebraska (402) 434-8680 x 110 > > RFC 882 put the dot in .com, not Sun Microsystems

1 0

UUnet Kansas City/Denver
by Adam Korab 10 Sep '00

10 Sep '00

My T1s to UUnet's Kansas City POP began having routing trouble this afternoon about 3:00pm central time. The lines are up, but no data is passing through them. A sh ip bgp sum reports that only 563 prefixes are coming through, as opposed to the normal 70k-80k. www.noc.uu.net is terribly vague about the trouble, and I can't get through to anyone on their tech support line; does anyone have a ticket number, ETR, or other information about this problem? Thanks. --Adam -- Adam Korab System Administration Internet Nebraska (402) 434-8680 x 110 RFC 882 put the dot in .com, not Sun Microsystems

2 1

Concentric Problems?
by Robert L. Harris 09 Sep '00

09 Sep '00

I'm having some very weird problems with my iDSL. The DSLAM says there's nothing wrong with the line, there are no errors on either end, but I ping timeout and can't even traceroute through it when it goes down. Concentric says there's nothing wrong even though they did finally see the problem the other day. Their solution was to replace my iDSL router and close the ticket and the problem isn't gone. 2 Questions: 1) Anyone know any useful phone #'s at concentric? The help desk insists that the ONLY way to call anyone there is to go through the 800 number, which has a 30-90 wait and not even managers have a direct extension. Everyone stands by this BS. 2) Anyone have any suggestions on things to look at? My Robert :wq! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert L. Harris | Micros~1 : Senior System Engineer | For when quality, reliability at RnD Consulting | and security just aren't \_ that important! DISCLAIMER: These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. FYI: perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'

1 0

Re: Worldcom fiber outage
by Sean Donelan 09 Sep '00

09 Sep '00

MFS circuits have been coming back online in the last hour (about 6pm PDT) in the San Francisco bay area. Nasa Ames seems to be back in service for most peering. The location of the cut was identified as 30 miles south of San Francisco. I'm not sure who swapped fiber with whom, and who is sharing right of ways with others. I've heard both Qwest and MFS/Worldcom as the actual owner of the fiber right of way in question. I don't know the legal owner of the fiber, or if it really matters whether its the carrier's own fiber or their circuits are running in someone else's innerduct when the circuit goes down. Interactive week covers some of the reason why this cut may have affected things more than normal. The bay bridge fiber had a scheduled maintenance window, and was out of service, when the cut occured. http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2626180,00.html Circuit grooming occurs more than carriers admit. When was the last time you checked your DLR? Although there is no evidence cuts happen more often when your redundent link is out of service, they're the ones everyone remembers.

1 0

Re: Wisconsin fiber cut
by Keith Woodworth 09 Sep '00

09 Sep '00

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, missnglnk wrote: >>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Keith Woodworth wrote: >> >>> Is this what you do all day Sean? Track fiber cuts over N.A.? >>> :) >> >>When you work for a major backbone, you should know what's down and >>affecting your network instead of answering questions with "I dunno >>what's wrong in Wisconsin." Acutally I forgot to add that yes you are right. I had a few customers call and say that certain sites were awful slow today and I was able to at least relate to them that certain network outages might be the cause.

1 0