- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Customers down?
by Sean Donelan 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

On Fri, 31 December 1999, jlewis(a)lewis.org wrote: > I guess our customers aren't that silly. I did notice some big sites down > though. I tried to check a price with Tech Data earlier this evening and > found that www.techdata.com didn't exist. Traceroute to their > nameserver(s) > > techdata.com. 2D IN NS NS1.techdata.com. > techdata.com. 2D IN NS NS2.techdata.com. > NS1.techdata.com. 2D IN A 169.153.202.40 > NS2.techdata.com. 2D IN A 169.153.202.41 > > ends in a CW routing loop suggesting TD shut off their connection for the > evening. Putting your only name servers on the same subnet (unless Tech Data has VERY small subnets) isn't very smart no matter what day it is. Too many things can take down your one network. Instead of queueing mail, many mail programs will generate permanent errors and immediate bounces. Gun, Foot, Self.

5 4

Y2K
by Paul Ferguson 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

Well, here's to a major non-event. Cheers. Thank goodness. I chalk it up to a lot of hard work over the course of the past 5 years by a lot of people (some of coming very recently), and a smidgeon (well, maybe more than a smidgeon) of media hype. Again. In any event, let's hope everyone's Y2K is no more eventful than the last year. plop, - paul

4 4

Re: Curious thing in a Cisco router
by Sean Donelan 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

At 10:17 PM -0200 12/31/99, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote: >While monitoring GMT Y2K progression on a Cisco router, something curious >showed up: [...] >Notice the dot before the time; it was not appearing before, and even on the >first sample after GMT Y2K-rollover (local time is GMT -0200). It now shows >up on every 'show clock'. This doesn't seem to be a problem with cisco, but if you are synchronizing to certain NTP servers (i.e. usno or nist) they currently have reachability problems. So your cisco reports a "." that your ntp is unsynchronized. I haven't found out if the government networks are deliberately throttling traffic or if the links to the time servers are just congested. I have no idea why it started at almost exactly midnight UTC.

2 1

Re: Y2K bgp announcements
by Sean Donelan 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

On Sat, 01 January 2000, Ben Buxton wrote: > Looks like numerous networks went off the air over the year rollover > due to fear and the like, and this caused a significant drop in > the number of announcements: The precise numbers will vary depending where your BGP view is in the worldwide Internet. You are correct. There was a steady decline in both number of prefixes and number of asns in the 24 hours before Midnight. The global routing table shrunk by 1000 routes before the hour before Midnight EST. In that hour, another 600 routes withdrew. The routes remained stable at that level for 5 hours, and then began to climb back to normal levels. About 30 ASNs vanished prior to the rollover. >From my view, the decline actually started on December 24. But it isn't really noticable until the last 24 hours. Since the graph of practically anything about Internet always shows an increase, a decrease is an interesting change.

1 0

Correction: www.time.gov didn't make it?
by Sean Donelan 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

The report should read NIST was overwhelmed with traffic last night, and the ntp servers were so busy servicing requests they didn't have time to check their clocks. They set a "yellow flag" to indicate the time may be off. They still have a lot of traffic, and may continue to have problems.

1 0

Y2K bgp announcements
by Ben Buxton 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

Looks like numerous networks went off the air over the year rollover due to fear and the like, and this caused a significant drop in the number of announcements: http://www.cactii.net/stats/bgp.html This was a drop of about 1 or 2 thousand routes over the 24 hour period. :) -- BB - Random Network Person

1 0

Re: www.time.gov didn't make it?
by Sean Donelan 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

On Sat, 01 January 2000, Dave Neff wrote: > I used the nist program to synchronize time on 4 of my servers. All 4 of > these servers sometime during New Years evening changed the time to > December 31, 1909!!!! Servers not synchronzing with nist were fine. I > turned off the nist program and set the time manually and all was well. > It may have started midnight GMT, but I am not sure. My only Y2K glitch! > And I kept telling people, "We synchronize with NIST, so as long as they > are Y2K compliant we will be fine." I am not sure if the problem was with > NIST, or my version of the program the synchronized clocks, but I was > quite surprised. I'm still trying to track down what happened. The latest report is NIST had a [maybe Y2K] problem with their internal system to coordinate the servers. When the NTP servers lost contact with the clock source, they became unsynchronized. Many clients won't synchronize to a server with an unsynchronized clock. That doesn't completely explain why www.time.gov is not available. ------- End of forwarded message -------

1 0

Re: Y2K Funny
by Joe Shaw 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

Yes, I knew it was a faked. At first I believed it until I actually telnetted to port 80 and did a get and saw the HTTP/1.0 200 OK, the date, and the Last-Modified date. I still thought it was funny. -- Joseph W. Shaw - jshaw(a)insync.net Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am." On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Kaj J. Niemi wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 03:10 -0600, Joe Shaw wrote: > > > Yeah, I thought that was funny. I also got a laugh out of > > http://www.2600.com. > > Although funny, it is a prank. :-) > > > minuteman% telnet www.2600.com 80 > Trying 207.99.30.230... > Connected to www.2600.com. > Escape character is '^]'. > GET / HTTP/1.1 > Host: www.2600.com > > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 12:05:38 GMT > Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) > Last-Modified: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 23:30:25 GMT

1 0

Re: UK GMT roll over
by Robert Cannon 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

Hey, I'm a suit, and I am sitting here, listening to NPR Jazz coast to coast, in Wash DC, with not one hell of a lot to do. Who would a thought it? -B Who is Deeply Offended By Suit Bashing ------Original Message------ From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com To: Bill Becker <bbecker(a)iconn.net> Sent: January 1, 2000 5:31:57 AM GMT Subject: Re: UK GMT roll over > happen. My sole purpose for being here is so that the 'suits' who are > out whooping it up, can experience anxiety-free whooping. > > After midnight i get to dodge drunken revelers on my 33 mile trip home, > and tomorrow morning i'll get salt in the wounds when Randy unloads on me > for copying this to nanog. Hum, if Randy doesn't unload on you now, does that mean he's a closet "suit" out experiencing "anxiety-free whooping"? And don't be worried about 2038. www.y5b.com is the real threat. --bill 00:00:52 ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001

2 1

Re: remember the lesson of the sendsys bomb
by Leonard, Jason M. 01 Jan '00

01 Jan '00

Paul A Vixie wrote: > the lesson of the sendsys is that after a 24 or 36 hour period of > continuous wakefulness, sean and alan and the rest are going to have > to SLEEP. *that* will be the time when some perfectly normal event > like a route spew or heavy flap or genetic IOS defect will make itself > known, and *that* will be the time when Y2K finally kicks us all in the > head. not because of the date change, but because everybody stayed > awake too long and upset their normal vigilence. So far, caffeine seems Y2K compliant. 50 hours so far and I'm not the least bit paranoid, though after the 30th pot or so I decided that Mylanta makes a better creamer than skim milk. *sound of door closing* WHAT THE *#$& WAS THAT!? Oh...sorry. -Jason Who figures he's good until at least the third or the fourth before the bugs start crawling all over him. Operational content: Y2K+12h and all's well here at UUNET in Ohio.

1 0