- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: inter-NOC communications (was:Re: Definition of Congestion)
by Paul Vixie 31 Jan '00

31 Jan '00

doleary(a)juniper.net ("dave o'leary") writes: > Attempts to "standardize" inter-NOC communication happened a couple of > times in the early 90's in the IETF, but it got too ugly, with too many > barriers (basically people not wanting to expose dirty laundry). I fear > that attempts to do so now when the providers are *really* competing with > each other (as opposed to back in the old daze when we were all > friends :-) will suffer the same fate, other than on a pairwise basis between > NOCs that cooperate well with each other anyway. as in, "i'm sorry, but there's no word for ``outage'' in our language." (feh.) -- Paul Vixie <vixie(a)mibh.net> SVP for Internet Services, MFNX M.I.B.H. Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.

1 0

Okay, stupid question...
by Bill Woodcock 30 Jan '00

30 Jan '00

...but where the heck do you go to register new .edu domains now? All the registrar/registry mess just talks about .com/.net/.org, and although NSI's web site refers to .edu registrations 294 times in their documentation, it's always with respect to the text form submissions, which they don't accept any more, and their retarded web interface doesn't appear to have any options for .edu registrations. Anybody have any pointers? -Bill

6 5

Re: External Events (was Re: www.etrade.com has no DNS A record !)
by Sean Donelan 29 Jan '00

29 Jan '00

On Sat, 29 January 2000, Alan Hannan wrote: > > I support John in his opinion that NANOG > is not an appropriate forum for real-time > outage reporting. Probably true. I've found the best real-time outage reporting for GlobalCenter is watching the Associated Press wire for stories about Yahoo.

1 0

External Events (was Re: www.etrade.com has no DNS A record !)
by Sean Donelan 29 Jan '00

29 Jan '00

On Tue, 25 January 2000, John Hawkinson wrote: > Is your goal to get the word out to network providers of people > who use E*TRADE? Do you really expect that many of them will > forward this announcement or make good use of it? Should > a message be sent to NANOG every time CNN, Netscape, or Yahoo > go down? > > Am I missing something here? [Like a sense of humor?] External events have an affect on network service and network operators. Why do most NOC's have one or more monitors tuned to CNN and the Weather channel all day and all night? Ok, I know the real reason, but what is the reason the sales people tell prospective clients? The question is really one of editorial policy and how significant is any individual event. I don't think there is really one answer which can cover everything. The Internet (RTM) worm affected only VAX and Sun computers, an estimated 10% of the Internet of the day. If you didn't use Sun or VAXen, it would have been an irrelevent event for you. When AOL forgot to put a GUARDIAN password on its domains, and there where changed to a tiny ISP, if you didn't use AOL it may have been irrelevent to you. When Cisco, Bay and GATED BGP implementations had a disagreement on whether ASNs could be repeated in an as-path, it may have been irrelevent to you if you used a different BGP implementation or router. Whether a particular NSI problem, an E*Trade problem, or an Ebay problem, or a Cisco CCO problem is really significant enough to talk about semi- publically is tough. It would be nice if each company was willing to make timely disclosures about problems. But as we've seen time and time again, companies would prefer to never to acknowledge they had any problem until it becomes impossible to ignore (e.g. Worldcom's 10 days of hell last summer).

5 4

Pre-Superbowl(tm) review
by Sean Donelan 29 Jan '00

29 Jan '00

What's happening? AT&T Global Network (aka former IBM) is having network problems. AT&T Local Services (aka former TCG) Los Angeles seems to be fubared. Multiple peers are reporting problems with Sprint. PSI is having problems in Atlanta. Mindspring killed part of their network. Did everyone come out of their Y2K network freezes this week, and are now catching up on a lot of deferred network upgrades and maintenance before Superbowl weekend?

4 3

Worldcom Fiber Cut Vernon, CA
by Tom 29 Jan '00

29 Jan '00

MCI Worldcom has a fiber cut in Vernon, CA, that is affecting 12 OC48's. Splicers are in route and there is no ETR. Cheers, Tom -------------------------------------------- T h o m a s K e i t e l t o m @ b o n z i . c o m ( n e t w o r k a d m i n i s t r a t o r ) -------------------------------------------- L i v e f r e e o r d i e -------------------------------------------- T h o m a s K e i t e l t o m @ b o n z i . c o m ( n e t w o r k a d m i n i s t r a t o r ) -------------------------------------------- L i v e f r e e o r d i e

1 0

Re: Pre-Superbowl(tm) review
by Sean Donelan 29 Jan '00

29 Jan '00

Folks sent me various reasons for the current string of problems. Several Denial of Service attacks in progress, which apparently affected several connections between networks. I've gotten conflicting stories from the providers on either side of those connections. GTEI/BBN made a BGP configuration error, messing up backbone routes for about 25 minutes. AT&T had a problem with ATM software, and is currently backing it out of their switches. I'm extremely confused by AGNS, ALS, and Worldnet descriptions of the problem. Whether it is a single problem affecting all of them or different problems. Mindspring had some kind of DNS problem, with the usual results. PSI had power and facility outages in different locations.

1 0

Re: Pre-Superbowl(tm) review
by Leonard, Jason M. 29 Jan '00

29 Jan '00

Nah. Our marketing department hired some crackers to gum up the works in order to increase the impact of our Superbowl{tm} advertising spots. Personally, I'm dubious about the populatity of these animated UUBOWL ads, but then that's probably why I'm not in marketing. -Jason

1 0

Re: Quest/Cerf peering
by Danny McPherson 29 Jan '00

29 Jan '00

While some may argue that Jeff's query is precisely what NANOG was created for, I'd argue that it's precisely what NOCs was created for. I'm quite certain someone from Qwest, and perhaps Cerfnet as well, will be following up with Jeff directly, if anyone else is truly concerned with this feel free to contact our NOC as well. Or, perhaps if someone from a company other than Qwest or Cerfnet has details regarding any problems that may exist directly between these networks, I'm sure our NOC would be interested in this as well. Note however, that it's noc(a)qwest.net, not noc(a)quest.net, which ^ ^ possibly may have led to at least some of the confusion ;-) -danny > Anybody seeing a problem with Quest/Cerfnet Peering? I can't hit some > servers that are colo'd at Quest when the routes pass through > Cerfnet? Routes die at what seems to be the quest/cerf peering > router. (I thought of the fact that they don't allow traceroute, and web > and dns won't get through either). Don't see any problems when going > through CWI or UUNet. > > Jeff > > -- > Jeffrey Meltzer meltzer(a)villageworld.com > Sr. Network Administrator http://www.meltzer.org > VillageWorld.com, Inc. (631) 218-9090 > >

1 0

Quest/Cerf peering
by Jeffrey Meltzer 29 Jan '00

29 Jan '00

Anybody seeing a problem with Quest/Cerfnet Peering? I can't hit some servers that are colo'd at Quest when the routes pass through Cerfnet? Routes die at what seems to be the quest/cerf peering router. (I thought of the fact that they don't allow traceroute, and web and dns won't get through either). Don't see any problems when going through CWI or UUNet. Jeff -- Jeffrey Meltzer meltzer(a)villageworld.com Sr. Network Administrator http://www.meltzer.org VillageWorld.com, Inc. (631) 218-9090

1 0