- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: BBN/GTEI
by Michael Dillon 21 Aug '98

21 Aug '98

On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Brian Wallingford wrote: > If you don't peer with or buy > transit from GTEI, sit back, shut up, and watch and learn (seriously - > WATCH and LEARN). This is seriously good advice. A lot of people have compared this to the UUNet peering flap but the two incidents couldn't be more different. In UUNet's case you had John Sidgemore, an economist, attempting to throw his weight around and push towards a paid peering scenario with a cartel at the core, all of this based solely on an economics viewpoint. But with BBN, there is a network engineering problem at the core of the issue, that of assymmetric traffic patterns. And BBN realizes that this sort of assymmetry will become more and more common in the future and that the industry needs to find some sort of hybrid peering/settlement mechanism that will work for both parties in an asymmetric arrangement. They are looking at things like what kind of methodology can be used to measure the traffic, what constitutes free balanced peering, how to charge for regional transit on traffic that exceeds the limits of balanced peering, and similar difficult issues. I believe that the reason we are not hearing many details is that there are NDAs in place about the specifics of the Exodus, AboveNet and CRL peering contracts. But sooner or later those companies will come to some sort of agreement and BBN will explain the rationale behind their thinking. We may not totally agree with that rationale, but I think we can all see that establishing peering between two specialty providers has to be handled a bit differently than between two full-service providers. And if BBN's ideas can be refined and accepted by the industry, then we will be in a better position because there will be an established methodology and pricing structure for an ISP to transition from full transit to full peering. I know from my experience with Priori that a lot of peering negotiations happen like an old-boys club cartel and if you ain't a member of the club, you can't get in. We need to change this so that there is an open process by which anyone can transition to being a peer based on an open and accepted methodology and pricing structure. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com

1 0

Re: intranet
by Hank Nussbacher 21 Aug '98

21 Aug '98

At 07:44 AM 8/20/98 PDT, Vince Fuller wrote: You might want to check out: Enabling Enterprise Multihoming with Cisco IOS Network Address Translation (NAT) http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/732/net_foundation/emios_wp.htm as well as: http://www.academ.com/nanog/feb1998/nat/index.html -Hank >> At 05:43 PM 8/18/98 +0800, william(a)pacific.net.ph wrote: >... >> >Proposed Solution: >> > >> >The 7010 router will be connected to the 2 ISPs. The 7010 will be upgraded >> >to an IOS that supports NAT; all IP address behind the 7010 will be treated >> >as internal IP addresses (to reduce reconfiguration). IP address subnets >> >from both ISPs will be NAT-mapped to internal IP addresses over the 7010, >> >including the DNS server and the mail server. >> > >> >The DNS will be configured to use their DNS as the primary name server. >> >The 2 ISPs' name servers will be used as secondary name servers. >> > >> >The mail server will be configured to have 2 IP address, one actual and one >> >virtual IP address using the network card. The DNS will have an MX 10 and >> >an MX 20, each pointing to one IP addresses for the network card. >> > >> > >> >Is this solution possible? Will it work? Did I forget anything? Any tips? >> >> That is one way to do it .. another and I think a BETTER way would be to >> only use 1 set of ip's ( a set that is "portable" ) and talk bgp with both >> providers. This way you can move the traffic in the most efficient way . If >> you take routes from both of em you may get a better path to site X from >> provider a and a better path to site Y from provider B . >> >> This way if provider a goes down the BGP will move trafic of the link that >> is still "GOOD" > >The NAT approach has the obvious advantage of being more "CIDR-friendly" >to the "global Internet". It is probably somewhat more complicated, but if >implemented correctly, it should provide reasonable redundancy and load- >sharing just like a "portable" address space solution. > > --Vince > >

1 0

MAE-East - Operational question
by Alex Bligh 21 Aug '98

21 Aug '98

Guys, Does anyone care about trying to get packet loss over MAE-East reduced any more? Some peers have quite heavy packet loss to them from where I'm sitting, and have done for a good while. It seems to me it's not a problem with my port, and I don't think I have head of line blocking problems, which means it's either a Gigaswitch problem, or their ports are simply full. Does anyone still hassle Worldcom and peers about this or have we lost hope of ever getting it fixed (i.e. people peer privately or hope other exchange points or a replacement will come along). -- Alex Bligh GX Networks (formerly Xara Networks)

3 2

Has anyone else besides me noticed lots of duplicated messages?
by Steven J. Sobol 20 Aug '98

20 Aug '98

A lot of mail messages sent from the NANOG list seem like they're being duplicated. Also, I'm getting several messages in my inbox. My procmailrc is supposed to throw anything marked "Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu" into my nanog folder... Wondering if anyone else has seen this happening... -- Steve Sobol, Cartel Member #1489 (tinc) Quote of the year: "If Bill [Gates] were tan, buffed and weighed 240 pounds, I bet people would dig IS." - Michael Cohn, COMPUTERWORLD Magazine, 8/3/98.

2 1

Re: MAE-East - Operational question
by Richard Irving 20 Aug '98

20 Aug '98

Communism, *NOT* marxism. Lets see: router> conf t router> int nanog 0 router> no ip directed-communism router> access-group 66 IN router>^z router> router> access-list 66 deny MARXISM router> access-list 66 deny _POLITICS_ router> access-list 66 deny POLITICAL_PARTIES router> access-list 66 permit PHILOSOPHY router> access-list 66 permit IDEAOLOGY router> And now I leave the remainder of this discussion to OFF NANOG. (and your local Poli-SCI PHD) This config doesn't seem to be helping my routing much.... But, in your defense, I am actually saying the opposite of what you *think*. (I am saying it *doesn't* work , but making a distinction between the ideology, and "supposed" implementations going by that name, that *fine grained* distinction *is* the point :( The depths of greed that *some* of humanity exhibit, being the fatal flaw for both plans. (FDDI&COMMUNISM) .) (Darn lasers!) foo wrote: > > Richard Irving wrote: > > *Pure* communism was a great ideaology! However, > > its failure, for the most part, was cited > > as "not accounting for human nature" > > as if. > > that's the most often heard, and most false statement > one can make about communism. > > try actually reading communist literature, and see if > you think marxism is such a great idealogy. > > -foo

1 0

Re: NANOG 14 & wbn Transition
by Sean Donelan 20 Aug '98

20 Aug '98

>wbn Transition >-------------- >I am leaving Merit at the end of the month. After 4 years of evening >classes while working full-time at Merit, I'm planning on taking a few >months off for a much needed vacation, and then move on to something else. Congrats. Welcome to the land of MBA's. May you go forth and earn lots of money :-) And maybe even have some fun. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

NANOG 14 & wbn Transition
by William B. Norton 20 Aug '98

20 Aug '98

Hi all - NANOG 14 will be held November 9-10 (with tutorials on the 8th) at the Atlanta Marriott Marquis 265 Peachtree Center Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 521-0000 (Voice) (404) 586-6098 (Fax) Be sure to mention the NANOG group when you register at the hotel; the group rate is $149/night. The NANOG 14 registration page is scheduled to go up Friday. wbn Transition -------------- I am leaving Merit at the end of the month. After 4 years of evening classes while working full-time at Merit, I'm planning on taking a few months off for a much needed vacation, and then move on to something else. Craig Labovitz has agreed to join Pam and Susan and run NANOG 14. (With respect to my other responsibilities, Sue Hares will be taking over Directorship of the RSNG Project, and Craig will be leading the community RADB/IRRD project.) All of us will be at IETF next week if you have any questions or concerns; I'll probably see you all there as I troll one last time for NANOG topics. As we enter September: Agenda proposals should be sent to labovit(a)merit.edu and srh(a)merit.edu, Logistics/Vendor Sponsorship questions should be sent to pam(a)merit.edu, Joke submissions (will still be greatly appreciated BTW) should still be sent to wbn(a)umich.edu ;-) You guys have made chairing NANOG the most fun part of my job at Merit. I want to thank you all and wish you the best! Cheers - Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton <wbn(a)umich.edu> 734.936.2656 (W) 734.662.0748 (H)

1 0

Re: intranet
by Vince Fuller 20 Aug '98

20 Aug '98

> At 05:43 PM 8/18/98 +0800, william(a)pacific.net.ph wrote: ... > >Proposed Solution: > > > >The 7010 router will be connected to the 2 ISPs. The 7010 will be upgraded > >to an IOS that supports NAT; all IP address behind the 7010 will be treated > >as internal IP addresses (to reduce reconfiguration). IP address subnets > >from both ISPs will be NAT-mapped to internal IP addresses over the 7010, > >including the DNS server and the mail server. > > > >The DNS will be configured to use their DNS as the primary name server. > >The 2 ISPs' name servers will be used as secondary name servers. > > > >The mail server will be configured to have 2 IP address, one actual and one > >virtual IP address using the network card. The DNS will have an MX 10 and > >an MX 20, each pointing to one IP addresses for the network card. > > > > > >Is this solution possible? Will it work? Did I forget anything? Any tips? > > That is one way to do it .. another and I think a BETTER way would be to > only use 1 set of ip's ( a set that is "portable" ) and talk bgp with both > providers. This way you can move the traffic in the most efficient way . If > you take routes from both of em you may get a better path to site X from > provider a and a better path to site Y from provider B . > > This way if provider a goes down the BGP will move trafic of the link that > is still "GOOD" The NAT approach has the obvious advantage of being more "CIDR-friendly" to the "global Internet". It is probably somewhat more complicated, but if implemented correctly, it should provide reasonable redundancy and load- sharing just like a "portable" address space solution. --Vince

1 0

ISP Route Filter Policies - please update http://www.nanog.org/fi lter.html
by Kummer, Joerg {PYN~Basel} 20 Aug '98

20 Aug '98

Please contribute to the list on http://www.nanog.org/filter.html by sending mail to mailto:www@www.merit.edu and this mailing list mailto:nanog@merit.edu I'd say the list should not only include hard facts like URLs to ISP publications, but also information like your personal experiences, known issues caused by publicly unconfirmed route filtering etc... Pointers to better sources of such information are also appreciated... thanks joerg P.S. Yes, I have (also) selfish reasons to ask for that...

1 0

BBN peering, a technical issue
by Jerry Scharf 20 Aug '98

20 Aug '98

Having waded through discussions of policy and definitions of transit, I thought I would try to make something more personally interesting out of this thread. Let's say I have coloA, a colo company who wants to go out of it's way to not screw the big carrier B. In fact, I want to move all the packets destined for B on my network as far as I can and then dump it an the peering point closest to B's final destination. They will do hot potato to me, but I want to do the opposite with them. Since we assume A and B are talking BGP, and B is doing it's job of not polluting the internet routing tables, there is most likely not going to be enough prefixes to make this work stock, MEDs or no. How does B send his POP level routing to A? (I make the assumption that the POP level is the closest correspondence to exchange connections.) Does this change if B is using BGP confederations or not? In this case, leaking is not a problem because A is a transit provider for no one and the filters eat all the routes, more specific or less. Are there any downsides to B giving this information to A? sorry, I'll try to keep the technical/operational issues to a minimum, jerry

2 1