- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: BGP Metrics
by Rusty Zickefoose 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My apologies, my question was apparently unclear. In the common situation where a downstream is allocated a sub-net from an upstream's super-block, and that downstream wishes to announce that sub-net to its neighbors, be those neighbors upstream, peer, or downstream of itself, or of the allocating upstream, the BGP algorithm does not appear to be equipped to handle the routing decision in an optimal manner. Thus far, I've encounter three methods of dealing with this situation. 1. Ignore routing aggregation - Everybody announces the sub-net. This works, but runs counter to a long standing goal of the community - reducing the size of the routing table. 2. Ignore the route announcement (netmask length) may work in some situations, but proves the point. 3. Local announcement only May be the result of 2 above, but again - proves the point. My question is, would the creation of a "multi-homed" flag in the BGP protocol be worth while discussing? I see this flag causing the algorithm to drop through the netmask test, and pick up at the metrics decision. Before persuing the question with the protocol folks, I thought I'd try to determine if there is enough interest in the capability to make it worth while. > > > > Hi all, > > I've occasionally noticed a requirement to disregard mask when > > determining preferred route in the BGP algorithm. Specifically, when > > a multi-homed customer wishes to announce both his delegated networks > > through both connections. The goal is to achieve true multi-homing, > > with out requiring the customer to get independent address space. Thus > > far, I've used various "miserable hacks". Has anyone else perceived a > > similar requirement? if so, has anything being done to get such a flag > > added? > > > > Or am I just missing the obvious? > > - -- Rusty Zickefoose | The most exciting phrase to hear in science, rusty(a)cw.net | the one that heralds new discoveries, is not | "Eureka!", but "That's funny ..." | -- Isaac Asimov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv Comment: Public key may be found at http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 iQCVAgUBNrYZNe4+ch/bGDylAQEWggP/cmvcOAg5gQd1oETTMBZu/j00RgQ2v1/M dmDayiIhZpVcNEiDnkoZlPh875Lw3Czo+8JlFXooHeznXyBt8YdZq1aXs4Xa62O5 jOrrh1gHPpiOxIT5Qi4356Nx77PHbGGjPD/LtWXU/oZWH6rsQhl1DWZSvBZyQdnd lpOb3PV5ths= =zw4l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by Dean Anderson 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

Nanog is not a proper forum for spam discussion or spam announcements. A bunch of us on all sides of the issue agreed on this. Use spam-l or one of the other lists. In response, I get my one shot: (thanks) This kind of monitoring is probably a direct violation of 18 USC 2511, as is a public announcement of the monitoring results. Indeed, at present, I'd say it appears to be the best example of an unauthorized 3rd party violation I've seen so far. (most [all previous] people don't admit details, but we know some do it). Unless of course you have authorization from norcal or all the recipients of those 2 million packets to monitor. Since norcal isn't your customer, I don't suppose you have any paper showing they gave you permission to collect and publish information about their traffic. Its too late to take back your post. Think first. --Dean At 05:15 PM 2/1/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Just a heads up- > >Down stream customer and end-user spammer norcal-systems.net via >layer9.net started spamming yesterday afternoon. At first I was >going to dismiss this and wait till Monday, but the complaints >came in at a constant and fast pace. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

7 7

How slow can the internet/it's servers be.
by Leo Bicknell 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

NOTE: The following is not a rant, but is purely for humor value. In a world record for slowness of something, I got confirmation today that my PGP key had been added to the InterNIC's key ring. Thinking it had been a while since I submitted the request, I went back and looked at my E-mail. I submitted the add request on October 17, 1998. So, never fear, ye you think your request has been black holed by the InterNIC machine. You too will get your request back, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day in the far, far, far distant future. As a network and server admin I _really_ want to know how you cause something to get held up for three months. I've made some major configuration blunders and the best I've been able to do is a couple of days. They have some tallented people over there. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

2 1

Pacbell NOC
by Jeffrey Haas 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

This is a general request for Pacbell Internet to add themselves to http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.html Reporting security incidents to the "policy" department because people at the general number don't know who to talk to is a bit silly. (Unless, of course, that is the correct address.) -- Jeffrey Haas "Denial of Spamming is not a crime." elezar(a)pfrc.org -- Russell Nelson <nelson(a)crynwr.com>

2 1

Re: recent update from ARIN
by Phil Howard 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

> This reminds me of something else I recently wondered though. According to > the ARIN rules that allow an ISP to qualify for a /19 that they have 18 > months to grow into, if the ISP fails to do so, the top half of that /19 can > be revoked. What means can/does ARIN use to prevent such an ISP from > continuing to announce the /19 rather than just a /20? Does/can ARIN > pressure the ISP's upstreams to filter the /19? Just double the size of your current announcement and see what happens. It might be considered a DoS incident. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* phil at intur.net * --

1 0

Re: Busy Connect
by William Allen Simpson 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

> From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> > > From: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol(a)nacs.net> > > Ameritech offers the same service, and I've only been charged for the times > > I've actually used the feature. If I hang up, I don't get charged. I have to > > believe BellSouth works the same way, although I could be wrong. > > > Ameritech doesn't offer it here in Michigan, so I don't know what > problems there are. > Well, I'll be damned! It's here today. Only 2 days ago, I got a normal busy signal here in Ann Arbor. Just now, I got a voiceover that said "Let repeat dialing call you back when this line is free. To activate, for 75 cents, press 3. No additional charge to repeat dialing customers. If you are calling from a rotary dial phone, please hang up and dial 1166." I could barely hear the busy signal in the background, but the modem didn't catch it. Good thing there isn't a 3 or a 1166 in my dialing sequence. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

4 3

ARIN lowered minimum IP allocation
by MAEMURA Akinori 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

Hi, there I'm not at NANOG15 but experiencing it through Web. I found in ARIN's slide, that they lowered their minimum IP allocation policy from /19 to /20. I wonder if ISPs like Sprint and AGIS have lowered their filtering policy as well. Does anyone have any idea around ? ----- MAEMURA Akinori Network Engineer, C&C Internet Service mesh, NEC Corporation, JAPAN maem(a)mesh.ad.jp, maemura(a)mms.mt.nec.co.jp

1 0

evening bof's
by Brett_Watson＠enron.net 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

does anyone know if bof's will be encoded for network playout? -brett

1 0

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by George Herbert 01 Feb '99

01 Feb '99

This posting, may perhaps not be a nanog charter violation, though the thread is highly borderline. Please don't shoot me. Ravi described a packet filter, not monitoring or intercept. Blocking traffic doesn't constitute unauthorized examination, intercept, or access of email. You are welcome to attempt to establish otherwise in a court case, Dean, but your interpretation appears completely inconsistent with existing case law, attorneys interpretations, and the intent of the statute. Again. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com I don't work for CRL, speak for it, or anything else.

1 0

RE: Cisco >224.0/3 problems..
by Martin, Christian 01 Feb '99

01 Feb '99

Did you try ip mroute? RES-RTR6(config)#ip mroute 224.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 Null0 RES-RTR6(config)#no ip mroute 224.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 Null0 RES-RTR6(config)#^Z RES-RTR6# Feb 1 17:53:56 EST: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by chris on consol e RES-RTR6# RES-RTR6#conf t Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. RES-RTR6(config)#no ip multicast-rou RES-RTR6(config)#ip mroute ? A.B.C.D Source address RES-RTR6(config)#ip mroute 224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 null 0 RES-RTR6(config)#ip multicast-rou RES-RTR6(config)#no ip mroute 224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 null0 RES-RTR6(config)#^Z RES-RTR6# > -----Original Message----- > From: James Rishaw [mailto:jamie@dilbert.ais.net] > Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 2:07 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Cisco >224.0/3 problems.. > > > Hello all, > > Ran into a problem, thought maybe someone else has run into this and > knows of a "fix", if this is intentional or what not. > > It seems that Cisco IOS has a problem dealing with addresses above > 224.0.0.0/3. > > This came up in an e-mail with Paul Vixie about MAPS RBL, > where I asked > him why 224+ wasn't filtered. The reply was: IOS ignores it. > GateD likes > it, IOS doesn't. > > I'm finding that IOS isn't propagating routes, etc., (nor > will it even > seem to *recognize*) address space above 224. > > To wit: > > > As a /3: > bordercore1.chi(config)#ip route 224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 Null0 > %Invalid destination prefix > > /8, close to the end of address space: > bordercore1.chi(config)#ip route 252.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 null0 > %Invalid destination prefix > > As a /24: > bordercore1.chi(config)#ip route 225.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 Null0 > %Invalid destination prefix > > bordercore1.chi(config)#ip route 230.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 Null0 > %Invalid destination prefix > > It's not Null0: > > bordercore1.chi(config)#ip route 234.128.230.123 255.255.255.255 h9/0 > %Invalid destination prefix > > bordercore1.chi(config)#ip route 241.102.34.93 > 255.255.255.255 atm4/0 > %Invalid destination prefix > > I know this is all "multicast" space, but considering > classless routing > and CIDR, shouldn't this space be usable and able to be manipulated ? > > -jamie > -- > jamie rishaw (efnet:gavroche) @ AIS / Exodus > "I want peace on earth and goodwill towards men." > "We are the United States Government. We don't do that sort > of thing." > --sneakers >

1 0