- Test - lists.nanog.org

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Feb 5 12:00:00 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is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes.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 05Feb99 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 290199 55694 300199 55734 310199 55712 010299 55847 020299 55793 030299 55899 040299 55881 050299 55641 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 4500 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 2232 (1187 cidr, 1045 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 353 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 881 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 05Feb99 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS271 386 140 246 63.7% BCnet Backbone AS2493 315 169 146 46.3% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS174 656 541 115 17.5% Performance Systems International AS11305 115 13 102 88.7% UNKNOWN AS3749 158 66 92 58.2% TECNET AS1267 111 30 81 73.0% IUNET-AS AS4755 152 72 80 52.6% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS4293 211 140 71 33.6% IMCI AS7046 273 207 66 24.2% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS4200 161 99 62 38.5% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS4740 389 328 61 15.7% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS1221 405 345 60 14.8% AARNET-AS AS701 881 825 56 6.4% Alternet AS1239 529 474 55 10.4% SprintLink Backbone AS7657 142 90 52 36.6% The Internet Group Limited AS72 89 37 52 58.4% Schlumberger Information Network AS7545 109 58 51 46.8% TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS10928 100 50 50 50.0% UNKNOWN AS7496 77 28 49 63.6% Power Up AS577 221 172 49 22.2% Bell Canada Backbone AS719 452 407 45 10.0% LANLINK autonomous system AS3221 84 42 42 50.0% EENet Autonomous System AS852 173 135 38 22.0% AGT Advance Communication AS803 72 36 36 50.0% SaskNet Backbone AS6897 64 28 36 56.2% Global-One Spain AS7745 39 4 35 89.7% BIGSKY-AS AS7122 112 77 35 31.2% MTS ADVANCED Network Policy AS6332 98 64 34 34.7% TELNOR AS2764 334 301 33 9.9% connect.com.au pty ltd AS4307 32 1 31 96.9% SVINET-1 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

NANOG 15 - Wacky Paparazzi Pics
by Craig A. Haney 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

URL-> http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15 Pics include: ------------- - SkyCache Gang http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15/jpg/19990202-11.jpg - Breaking into the Qwest NOC http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15/jpg/19990202-05.jpg - Microsoft attends NANOG, Port in progress http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15/jpg/19990202-27.jpg - Trialing the @HOME official download counter (non-caching) http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15/jpg/19990202-19.jpg - @HOME employee goes to Jail http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15/jpg/19990202-31.jpg - Sprint caught in the act of Private Peering with Microsoft http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15/jpg/19990202-34.jpg - SPRINT drives employees to loony farm http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15/jpg/19990202-30.jpg - Police Line-up in the Vault...who is guilty? http://seamless.kludge.net/nanog/15/jpg/19990202-33.jpg Enjoy.

1 0

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by Dean Anderson 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

At 11:45 AM 2/3/1999 -0800, Dan Hollis wrote: >On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Dean Anderson wrote: >> Unless of course the publicity is that Verio can't be trusted to keep >> private information private. Or that the publicity is that Verio thinks it >> can use any private information that passes through it to its own ends. > >Now we see Dean's true motives. It isnt legal issues at all, but rather >smear campaigns of people he doesnt agree with. Calling me pro-spam is a smear. Smearing is when you switch from argument to hateful or false labeling. Smearing attempts to avoid the issues by name calling. Privacy laws were passed that apply to Verio. They apply to everyone. They apply to you, too. Smear all you want. It doesn't change that. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3 2

Re: Data Collection and Statistics Analysis
by John Zollo 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Thanks for your feedback! The only problem is Concord is pretty expensive -- something like $100K I think. I should've specified that in my original post, along with the fact that the reason I need the percentile data is to be able to compute fees for bursts above a baseline amount of traffic. I'm not /that/ familiar with concord, but I don't think there's an easy way to integrate it with a billing system of some sort. Is there anything else you can think of? thanks! john On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, James Regovich wrote: > Concord Communications has Network Health that provides very comprehensive > analysis of networks, including frame and ATM. It's a pricey package, but > well worth it. > > You can get a sample analysis of your network at > http://www.concord.com/checkup.htm and a demo of the reports at > www.comcord.com/webdemo/start_here.htm > > This is the most detailed and comprehensive package I have seen. > > Jim Regovich > Sprint Internet Service Center > (703) 689-7049 > jamesr(a)sprint.net > > <For security, this message encoded using double-rot13> > > On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, John Zollo wrote: > > > > > I'm trying to find an application that will SNMP poll my routers > > and calculate statistics a little more complicated than the simple > > average in MRTG. For instance, other than a mean average, I'd like to > > see a break-up in percentiles -- especially the top percentiles. Does > > anyone have any suggestions of a program that will do this? By the way, > > I'd like to stick to UNIX for the polling and analysis platform. > > > > Thanks in advance for any help!!! > > John Zollo > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Data Collection and Statistics Analysis
by John Zollo 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

I'm trying to find an application that will SNMP poll my routers and calculate statistics a little more complicated than the simple average in MRTG. For instance, other than a mean average, I'd like to see a break-up in percentiles -- especially the top percentiles. Does anyone have any suggestions of a program that will do this? By the way, I'd like to stick to UNIX for the polling and analysis platform. Thanks in advance for any help!!! John Zollo

1 0

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

> Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't > charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by > anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case, > you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't > claim the abuse clause. > Spammer is _NOT_ authorized to send SPAM packets through my network. Spammer has no way to get to my network other than through networks which have signed an AUP/TOS which specifically precludes them from sending SPAM packets through my network for SPAMMER. As such, spammers SPAM packets are theft of service, and I have the property rights to block them. Owen

1 0

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

> Owen DeLong in private communication points up that he thinks that this > permission is transitive. That has the problem that it trivially obviates > all privacy. Every provider is automatically authorized, no one is not > authorized. Privacy is in the eyes of the provider. The ECPA was intended > to prevent communications providers from looking at things they shouldn't > and don't need to. So I'm not convinced. **thanks to Dean Robb, the > Attorneys manual says it must be "specifically authorized" > Apologies to the list for posting this, but I had to respond to this violation of my privacy and this slander. No, I didn't. I said that my AUP/TOS can create a transitive OBLIGATION to disclose on the part of the downstream providers. Further, I have repeatedly said that if the downstream providers can provide their service to spammers without violating my AUP/TOS, then there is no issue. However, if they deliver content to my network for transit which is in violation of my AUP/TOS, then I have the rights to defend my property from this theft of service. Owen

1 0

persistent smtp connectins
by michael 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Before anyone flames me I asked the moderators if this would be appropriate to post. The answer was "Sure". For several months we have experienced massive amounts of persistent smtp connections from a forged from address from various dialup accounts around the USA. With the help from one of these ISP's it was found to be a program that preports to scan various search engines, like four11, based upon a user supplied search criteria and generates a mail list. When a user would run this program is when we would see the smtp connections. Yet the user was unaware of this. In conversation with this user they were not aware of anything other than polling of these search engines and the generation of a mail list. I obtained a copy of the program and looked at the code. It has hundreds of domain names as well as the forged from address. A phone call to the distributor as well as the company that produces this program, they all say "all it does is query several search engines like four11". When I confronted them about the hundreds of domain names in their code and the forged from address they claimed ignorance. In conclusion, I have not run the program personaly and the above are my observations from looking at the code. For those of you who are interested in this fee free to email me and I will supply you with the url and program name. A hint to see if you or your users or your systems have been the victim of this program is a from address of savings.com in your sendmail logs.

1 0

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by Dean Anderson 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

At 04:48 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Dean Robb wrote: >This has been ssoooooooo hashed out here, with the general consensus being >that 18 USC 2511 was inapplicable to blocking email. It has been hashed out before. But the general consensus is not that 2511 is inapplicable. Initially, a number of people thought so. But they were wrong. 2511 was amended by Congress specifically to make it apply to email. How quickly some forget... >Also listed is the definition of "intercept", which is to acquire the >contents of a communication (blocking/filtering clearly fails here). You begin to aquire the packet as soon as the first bit of the version number is received. You are permitted to do things that are necessary incident to rendition of service. You can receive it into memory. You can route it. That doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. What you do needs to qualify as "necessary incident to rendition of service". Unless you are specifically authorized to do otherwise. >We >can also see that monitering to improve service or "...protection of the >rights or property of the carrier..." is specifically permitted. Yup. If you're at a NAP for example, and someone starts tunneling through your network to another NAP to get transit service without paying transit fees, you can stop 'em. >So, if >you're blocking email because you didn't give the spammer permission to use >your systems, you're legal. Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case, you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't claim the abuse clause. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3 2

Digital Bill of Rights? (Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats)
by Christopher Neill 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 01:35:44PM -0500, Bob Allisat wrote: > Christopher Neill <chris(a)verio.net> writes: > : > : <http://www.qual.net/support/aup.html> > : > : Our customer, let's call them "X", agrees to our policy. Our > : policy clearly states that their connection is at will, and > : can be terminated or restricted at any time by us. > : > : So there you have it, CYA. > > If every ISP has the same AUP then every citizen > is forced under duress by a cartel of interests > into violating their own human rights, freedom > of expression and civil liberties. So fuck your > Acceptable Policies! What we need is a Digital > Bill of Rights <http://fcn.net> to over-ride > these sinister commercial carte blanche policies > and protect us from bastards like Mr. Neill. >From the "Digital Bill of Rights": The right to uncensored, free, and uncontrolled communications to and from unmoderated, public areas. Define "public", please.

3 2