- Test - lists.nanog.org

BGP and MULTI-HOMING tutorial
by Avi Freedman 10 Apr '97

10 Apr '97

I've posted a BGP and MULTI-HOMING tutorial I just wrote. It was going to be a Boardwatch column, but it turned out a bit too long and too advanced for that. Please take a look at http://www.netaxs.com/~freedman/bgp.html and share comments and thoughts... It's about 89k so I won't post it full-text to the list. Unfortunately it's just Part 1 of maybe 10 parts that can and probably will be written about routing in the next few months. Please keep comments redirected to inet-access and NOT to nanog. Here's a table of contents: BGP A WARNING PREREQUISITES BGP ROUTING: INTERNAL (INTERIOR) AND EXTERNAL SO WHY IS BGP INTERESTING? BEING "CONNECTED" TO THE INTERNET HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE FOR SPEAKING BGP PEERING SESSIONS AND ASNs: PART I WHAT DO YOU DO WITH BGP? PEERING SESSIONS eBGP vs. iBGP BGP AND THE SINGLE-HOMED AS-PATHS AS-PATH LENGTH AND BGP ROUTE SELECTION AS-PATH ACCESS LISTS (FILTERS) ENTERING, MODIFYING, AND DELETING as-path access-lists BGP METRICS (ATTRIBUTES) AND ROUTE SELECTION: INTRODUCTION BGP PATH SELECTION PROCESS ACCORDING TO CISCO BGP ATTRIBUTE TYPES EGP vs. IGP WHAT IS ROUTE FLAP AND WHY IS IT BAD? WHAT TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN CONFIGURING BGP BGP AND PEERING INTERNET CONNECTIVITY WITHOUT BGP BGP AND THE SINGLE-HOMED BGP AND THE MULTI-HOMED MULTI-HOMING AND LOAD-BALANCING HOW TO ANNOUNCE YOUR NETWORKS BEING ADVERTISED BY MULTIPLE PROVIDERS WITHOUT PI-SPACE CONTROLLING OUTGOING DATA FLOW: "FULL ROUTING" CONTROLLING OUTGOING DATA FLOW: "PARTIAL ROUTING": "CUSTOMER ROUTES ONLY" SO WHAT'S TO BE DONE? AS-PATH PADDING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THANKS TO TO BE DONE Sidebars Sidebar on Cisco BGP commands Sidebar on next-hop-self Sidebar on Outgoing Data Flow Control Without BGP Thanks, Avi

1 0

Re: Ad Hoc, eDNS, AlterNIC and the bunch - what did IAHC press release say?
by Gregory Hersh 10 Apr '97

10 Apr '97

Here is quotation from IAHC press release (http://www.iahc.org/press-MoU.html) INTERNET NAMING PLAN SIGNED: ADDITIONAL ENDORSEMENTS SCHEDULED FOR GENEVA MEETING AT THE END OF APRIL WASHINGTON, DC, April 8, 1997 -- Internet governance has taken a major step forward, with the authorizing signatures applied to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which enhances administration and management of the Internet's domain name system. The document is part of a plan developed by the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), a group of Internet experts formed to consider issues brought on by the rapid growth of the Internet, that calls for the creation of additional top level names and the formation of a structure to allow competing companies to register Internet names. Initial signers of the documents establishing the new system are the Internet ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the Internet Society (ISOC), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International Trademark Association (INTA). They will be joined by representatives from industry, government, and other organizations who have indicated their intent to sign and participate. Three major corporations, Digital Equipment Corporation, MCI, and UUNET are among the early endorsers of the plan. According to Heidi Heiden, a senior executive with UUNET, "We are endorsing the IAHC plan because it successfully addresses key issues and concerns and was created by responsible parties with strong credentials. It is of utmost importance to us to see the Internet evolve as a stable and secure network that continues to expand without being fragmented." [snip]

1 0

Not to be alarmist...
by Todd Graham Lewis 10 Apr '97

10 Apr '97

but has anyone else noticed that AOL's mail servers have been down for, ohh, two days now? Does this count as a "severe outage"? __ Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises tlewis(a)mindspring.com

4 3

Re: Not to be alarmist...
by Richard Colella 10 Apr '97

10 Apr '97

FYI, folks here are aware of this problem and are working on it. Mail does continue to work, but at somewhat reduced capacity. --Richard On Apr 9, 3:15pm, Richard Colella wrote: > Subject: Re: Not to be alarmist... > TOdd, > > Could you be more specific? I've been getting mail in and out of > AOL just fine, both via aol.com and via aol.net. > > --Richard > > > On Apr 9, 2:59pm, Todd Graham Lewis wrote: > > Subject: Not to be alarmist... > > but has anyone else noticed that AOL's mail servers have been down for, > > ohh, two days now? Does this count as a "severe outage"? > > > > __ > > Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises tlewis(a)mindspring.com > >-- End of excerpt from Todd Graham Lewis > > > > -- >-- End of excerpt from Richard Colella --

2 1

Route servers at MAE-W
by Jim Van Baalen 09 Apr '97

09 Apr '97

Our router has not been able to establish a session with either of the route servers at MAE-W since 1:36PM PDT. It is on the AMES side of the MAE. Are we the only ones seeing this problem? Jim

2 1

Re: SNMP probers
by Daniel McRobb 09 Apr '97

09 Apr '97

> Randy, > > >What do folk do about persistent SNMP probers? I.e. j random clueless sites > >which keep querying one's backbone router(s). E.g. this morning I get the > >NOC shift change report with the folk hammering on our routers as if we were > >stupid enough to use 'public' as the community string. > > The problem isn't so much stupid people as stupid default settings on some > network tools. A lot of software exists for the "enterprise" network > market. Apparently, the designers of this software don't realize that most > enterprise IP networks touch the larger, fully connected Internet. The > default settings on half a dozen products I've personally used default to > trying to discover the entire Internet on startup. > > I learned this the hard way a few years back. Every night before going > home, I'd re-boot a network monitoring station, which would crash during the > night. The station was crashing somewhere in the middle of the discovery of > net 18. After the third or fourth attempt at discovering net 18, I got a > phone call from MIT, and realized why my network monitoring station was > crashing. (whoops) > > Things got really interesting when I called up the manufacturer. I asked > them to please help me stop this software discovery process. Took me half > an hour of explaining to convince them that discovering the entire Internet > wasn't in the best interest of their customers. Took a new version to > really stop this "feature". > > >So every day some poor NOC person has to search these folk down with the > >great tools we have, send email, get told they're nazi idiots, ... > > > >So what do folk do about this? > > Educate, then assassinate. > > > Seriously, I think some education is needed for the proliferating > manufacturers of lower end IP management tools. All of a sudden, there are > a lot of IP monitoring products out there. Most all of our customers are > running some sort of tool to check the status of their LAN workstations, > etc. We've been having to educate almost every new customer lately. > > Maybe denying some TCP socket at the border router level would stop a lot of > this? > > Regards, > > Bill I wouldn't really blame this on the NMS vendors as much as the lack of standardized topology information in standard MIBs. The NMS products use the brute-force method for a reason... there's little else available (there's nothing available in many products; MIB-II is (unfortunately) often the only thing you can really count on across products. Its sort of like a discussion here a few months ago about how useless traceroute can be (though I really would not like to open up that discussion here again). I do agree that you can throttle it so it doesn't run amok, and users shouldn't need to run it often (unless their own network's topology is changing a lot). Daniel ~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Not to be alarmist...
by Jason Fesler 09 Apr '97

09 Apr '97

At 02:59 PM 4/9/97 -0400, Todd Graham Lewis wrote: >but has anyone else noticed that AOL's mail servers have been down for, >ohh, two days now? Does this count as a "severe outage"? I'm having to make special runs in order to get AOL delivered. I'm doing a sendmail -qRaol.com every 30 minutes right now. I'm still getting a handful of 4-hour warnings, but many are getting through. -- Jason Fesler jfesler(a)calweb.com 'whois jf319' | "Time is an illusion; Admin, CalWeb Internet Services www.calweb.com | lunchtime, doubly so." Junk email returned in bulk; 1 cc to your postmaster | -Ford Prefect in HHGTTG Junk mail probs? http://www.gigo.com/junkmail.htm | by Douglas Adams

1 0

Re: Not to be alarmist...
by Richard Colella 09 Apr '97

09 Apr '97

TOdd, Could you be more specific? I've been getting mail in and out of AOL just fine, both via aol.com and via aol.net. --Richard On Apr 9, 2:59pm, Todd Graham Lewis wrote: > Subject: Not to be alarmist... > but has anyone else noticed that AOL's mail servers have been down for, > ohh, two days now? Does this count as a "severe outage"? > > __ > Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises tlewis(a)mindspring.com >-- End of excerpt from Todd Graham Lewis --

4 3

Re: Not to be alarmist...
by Len Rose 09 Apr '97

09 Apr '97

Some of their servers are working, though we still see tremendous backlogs.. This is what I heard from Michael Truman: # begin inclusion From: "Mike T." <pmd7(a)aol.net> Sender: pmd7(a)zipcode.atg.aol.com To: Len Rose <len(a)netsys.com> Subject: Re: Test On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Len Rose wrote: > > What the hell happened to your mail servers? > Len, We were having some problems with them yesterday, but they're working today. Thanks fot taking the time to tell us about it. Thanks, Have a good one, ********************************************************************* *Michael Truman postmaster(a)aol.net *Assistant Postmaster pmd7(a)aol.net *America Online, Inc. *Postmaster Services--Internet Development and Outreach Technology ******************************************************************* # end included At 02:59 PM 4/9/97 -0400, Todd Graham Lewis wrote: >but has anyone else noticed that AOL's mail servers have been down for, >ohh, two days now? Does this count as a "severe outage"? > >__ >Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises tlewis(a)mindspring.com > > len(a)netsys.com http://www.netsys.com

1 0

Re: SNMP probers
by Bill McCauley 09 Apr '97

09 Apr '97

Randy, >What do folk do about persistent SNMP probers? I.e. j random clueless sites >which keep querying one's backbone router(s). E.g. this morning I get the >NOC shift change report with the folk hammering on our routers as if we were >stupid enough to use 'public' as the community string. The problem isn't so much stupid people as stupid default settings on some network tools. A lot of software exists for the "enterprise" network market. Apparently, the designers of this software don't realize that most enterprise IP networks touch the larger, fully connected Internet. The default settings on half a dozen products I've personally used default to trying to discover the entire Internet on startup. I learned this the hard way a few years back. Every night before going home, I'd re-boot a network monitoring station, which would crash during the night. The station was crashing somewhere in the middle of the discovery of net 18. After the third or fourth attempt at discovering net 18, I got a phone call from MIT, and realized why my network monitoring station was crashing. (whoops) Things got really interesting when I called up the manufacturer. I asked them to please help me stop this software discovery process. Took me half an hour of explaining to convince them that discovering the entire Internet wasn't in the best interest of their customers. Took a new version to really stop this "feature". >So every day some poor NOC person has to search these folk down with the >great tools we have, send email, get told they're nazi idiots, ... > >So what do folk do about this? Educate, then assassinate. Seriously, I think some education is needed for the proliferating manufacturers of lower end IP management tools. All of a sudden, there are a lot of IP monitoring products out there. Most all of our customers are running some sort of tool to check the status of their LAN workstations, etc. We've been having to educate almost every new customer lately. Maybe denying some TCP socket at the border router level would stop a lot of this? Regards, Bill

1 0