- Test - lists.nanog.org

Geektools SuperWhois update (re: Internic)
by Rodney Joffe 04 Dec '99

04 Dec '99

As you by now know, as of two hours ago (Dec 1, EST) Network Solutions changed their whois to "the new form". NSI being their normal secretive selves, it appears that their new whois servers are not giving out the "correct" information. They show the authoritative whois server for their registrar as rs.internic.net, which, of course, shows the same info as crsnic. $ whois geektools.com(a)rs.internic.net [rs.internic.net] Whois Server Version 1.1 Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: GEEKTOOLS.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: rs.internic.net Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.ULTRADNS.NET Name Server: NS2.ULTRADNS.NET >>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 30 Nov 99 00:40:30 EST <<< The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and Registrars. It appears that whois.networksolutions.com does give the detailed whois data. We can't tell if this is an oversight, or on purpose. None-the-less... We've updated geektools superwhois (both the GUI at www.geektools.com and the command line proxy at whois.geektools.com) to use whois.networksolutions.com when appropriate. This 'breaks' the normal operation of SuperWhois which correctly looks at crsnic first, then the referred server. In this case, crsnic also says rs.internic.net. We'll watch the bouncing ball, and when crsnic starts giving the correct answer (whether whois.networksolutions.com or another) we'll undo the hack. The source tarballs are updated also, showing version 2.2.2. If NSI pulls something else strange, we'll release 2.2.2a pronto. -- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"

2 2

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Vadim Antonov 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

Tony Li wrote: > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for annoucements > and quit this arbitrary filtering? Great idea, but charges should apply to _peers_, not customers. Charging customers for announces prefixes merely creates an incentive for backbone operators to announce more routes and, correspondingly, collect more money. --vadim

2 1

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Dec 3 12:00:01 PST 1999 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 03Dec99 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 261199 67449 271199 67441 281199 67471 291199 67421 301199 67403 011299 67418 021299 67533 031299 67454 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 64.4.64.0/19 from AS7398 *** Bogus 64.6.32.0/20 from AS13740 *** Bogus 64.6.64.0/20 from AS10726 *** Bogus 219.91.160.0/22 from AS7742 *** Bogus 219.91.164.0/23 from AS7742 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 6165 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 3283 (1798 cidr, 1485 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 637 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 974 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 03Dec99 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS271 383 141 242 63.2% BCnet Backbone AS7046 386 250 136 35.2% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS2609 126 11 115 91.3% EUnet-TN AS1221 633 519 114 18.0% TELSTRA-AS AS9269 130 28 102 78.5% Hong Kong CTI AS9706 112 11 101 90.2% Pusan Metropolitan City Office of AS7657 267 170 97 36.3% The Internet Group Limited AS1653 129 38 91 70.5% SUNET Swedish University Network AS7545 147 59 88 59.9% TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS174 565 479 86 15.2% Performance Systems International AS4293 227 142 85 37.4% Internal ASN for C&W AS7496 123 40 83 67.5% Power Up AS577 262 182 80 30.5% Bell Canada Backbone AS3749 136 62 74 54.4% TECNET AS4200 179 109 70 39.1% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS3602 314 246 68 21.7% Sprint Canada Inc. AS816 255 196 59 23.1% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS4) AS705 137 78 59 43.1% ALTERNET-AS AS4740 349 291 58 16.6% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS209 334 279 55 16.5% Qwest Communications AS684 92 46 46 50.0% Manitoba Regional Network Backbon AS701 974 931 43 4.4% Alternet AS9304 58 18 40 69.0% Hutchcity AS1 519 479 40 7.7% GTE Internetworking AS6528 45 7 38 84.4% WORLD-LYNX AS8013 135 99 36 26.7% PSINET-CA AS549 205 169 36 17.6% ONet Backbone AS4755 105 69 36 34.3% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS7568 50 15 35 70.0% C.S. Communications Co., Ltd. AS3737 99 66 33 33.3% PenTeleData Inc. (ASN-PTD) For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

RE: AT&T Worldnet problem
by Sean Donelan 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

Additional information from the AT&T web site about Wednesday's Worldnet problem. >An Apology... And an Explanation. > >On December 1, 1999, there was an outage that affected AT&T WorldNet Service >members. First I would like to apologize for any inconvenience this may have >caused, and second, I'd like to explain what happened. > >This problem was not caused by AT&T's network. However, it did affect our >system, and our members. Another Internet Service Provider made a network >change that caused the public Internet to have incorrect information on how to >reach AT&T WorldNet servers. As a result AT&T WorldNet customers could not >browse the Internet, and mail from other Internet Service Providers to AT&T >WorldNet members was delayed. AT&T engineers worked to isolate the problem and >provided a work around to restore service by 4:30 p.m. In addition, AT&T >notified the other Internet Service Provider, who in turn corrected their >configuration. The smooth operation of the entire Internet depends on accurate >information and cooperation from all Internet Service Providers. This reflects >the distributed nature of the Internet and its design characteristics. > >AT&T WorldNet Service continually works to improve its service. In fact, based >on a recent study by Solomon Wolff Associates, AT&T WorldNet Service was rated >as having the highest level of customer satisfaction among the five largest >Internet Service Providers. > >Again, you have our sincerest apologies for yesterday's outage. Please be >assured that we are working to prevent this kind of an interruption in the >future. > >Thank you for being an AT&T WorldNet Service customer. > >Ed Chatlos >AT&T WorldNet® Service Vice President & General Manager

2 1

OT(semi) backhoes in space
by Alex Pilosov 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991203/sc/mars_sidebar_2.html Let's hope that martians don't have any buried fiber... -- Alex Pilosov | http://www.acecape.com/dsl Acecape, Inc. | AceDSL:The best ADSL in Bell Atlantic area 325 W 38 St. Suite 1005 | (Stealth Marketing Works! :) New York, NY 10018 |

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Howard C. Berkowitz 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

>> > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for >> > annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering? >> >>thanks geoff. :-) >> >>and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8 >>disaster? ahhh, when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check >>would have bounced! >> >>randy > > >When people talk about charging for announcements, it seems as if >there is an assumption that any time a new announcement shows up, it >should be advertised and a charge made for that advertising. Does >the problem simplify, however, if the orientation isn't quite so >real-time? > >What if "problem" long route entries in routing registries had an >additional, digitally signed, flag that said "the originator will >accept charges for this long prefix?" Providers would generate path >filters that permitted advertisements that would generate revenue, >but not others. Since the deaggregated 129/8 would not have been >registered, filters wouldn't have passed it. > >Obviously, there has to be some mechanism, TBD, for actually >settling the charges. > >Also, we would need to guard against cybersquatters that set up >routers just to collect advertising charges. My hunch would be that >squatting is less a problem here, given the need to qualify for an >AS and go through the capital expense of setting up an AS that meets >registry requirements.

1 0

RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

> It's a PITA and not the cleanest of methods, but until all the backbones > quit filtering /24s it's what we have to do. The other alternative (and > we've considered it) is to obtain a much larger space directly from ARIN and > burn the unused space. So which is worse for the net, a table full of /24s or a table full of /19s and no address space left? The hope is registry policy will stop people from getting /19s. Hope doesn't scale. brandon

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Danny McPherson 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

> Uhh, maximum-prefix is used for the maximum number OF prefixes from a > neighbour Uhh, yeah. Which is what I believe Alex R. was referring to when initially suggesting other methods by which one could control the large numbers of prefixes advertised by some large peers, large numbers of prefixes that cannot be accommodated by today's routers and prefix filters. -danny

1 0

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
by Danny McPherson 03 Dec '99

03 Dec '99

> > > There are ways to get around this (as-path filtering, maximum-paths, etc) > > > that aren't as nazi as one would hope, but will prevent stupidity and > > > provide sanity checking. > > > > Maximum paths deals primarily with ibgp > > Well, thats patently wrong. I don't know how else to respond to this. It's actually "maximum-prefix" in Cisco parlance, perhaps this introduced the confusion. As for Verio's policy of filtering based on registry allocations, I know of several other providers that implement it as well, and have for quite a while. -danny

1 0

BGP recordings
by Sean Donelan 02 Dec '99

02 Dec '99

Besides the Route Tracker at IPMA/Merit, does anyone else record the BGP announcements they hear?

1 0