- Test - lists.nanog.org

Exchange updates
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 04 Feb '97

04 Feb '97

Hi, Sorry for duplicates. Let me know if this is abusive of these lists and I'll stop sending this kind of data out. New: VIX - Vienna Internet Exchange SNNAP - Seattle Exchange Proposals: Embratel - PIR GT-ER - PIR Baltimore Dead: Cleveland ApricotIX (perhaps to live again!) http://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/naps.html -- --bill

1 0

NANOG Registration CLOSED
by Pam Ciesla 04 Feb '97

04 Feb '97

The attendee list has reached 500. Registration is CLOSED. \ Pam Ciesla

1 0

RE: Alpha test of MAE filtering capability
by Chris A. Icide 04 Feb '97

04 Feb '97

If full filtering (i.e. everything disallowed) we in place as the default, and each member had to provide a list of allowed points, and the members of the allowed points had to agree before the filters were installed, the model would be very similar to the ATM based NAPs. So far, the ATM based NAP's seem to work fairly well. *JMO* >All in all I see this as a huge complication in the underlying structure of the >Mae's. I would be detrimental to the interconnects if ISP's used filtering >as a general practice. It is a great feature to have as a way to stop an >abuse that has been detected and maybe even as a punishment for abusive >ISP's, but lets leave out the extra layer of complication unless it really >adds something to the network > >Scott Blandford >IBM Global Network Chris A. Icide

1 0

Re: Alpha test of MAE filtering capability
by ALAN DORN HETZEL JR 04 Feb '97

04 Feb '97

I don't think filters are a problem for third party routing as long as the third party routing is not done in secret. If I am sending you third party routes for someone, and you know it because I tell you I am and you agree to let me, then you can open your filters to the source port for those routes. Third party routes that are being done without the knowledge of the traffic target are a bad thing and shouldn't be done anyway... -Dorn >It's not that hard to write a script that temporarily points a static route >for an unregistered address at each of the machines at a meet point. By >tracerouting to that address you can detect if someone is pointing default at >you. > >The script does not have to be a very CPU intensive operation, and if it is >run once a day, it ought to provide a fairly good clue as to whether or not >someone is abusing your network. > >I would like to stay away from port filtering except as a last resort. I think >that there are far too many unforeseen problems and complications in debugging. >And for better or worse it would require the removal of all third party >routing which I would guess is pretty common at the Mae's. > >Scott Blandford >IBM Global Network

2 1

Re: ALpha test of MAE filtering capability
by ALAN DORN HETZEL JR 04 Feb '97

04 Feb '97

Certainly this data gives away *some* private information, but having that knowledge is often very useful when one discovers bizarre layer two problems. For instance, being able to ascertain that there is no packet loss from you to all devices on the same switch, and n% packet loss to all devices on another switch, without having to requests that MFS diagnose the apparent L3 problem, is very useful. Perhaps MFS could provide one unfiltered ping-responding device on each switch at a MAE? This would address diagnostic needs without requiring disclosure of other filtering issues. Besides, you can always tell who is reachable with a broadcast ping...

1 0

Re: Internet vs. Telephone company
by William Allen Simpson 04 Feb '97

04 Feb '97

> From: "Paul J. Zawada" <zawada(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu> > There are lots folks in the phone company who have no clue as to how the > Internet works. This is why none of them saw this Internet access thing > coming. (Not that I'm sure they could have done anything about it...) > They now have a network that is underengineered for the way it's being used > and they have to do something about it quick... The only means they know > of is to raise the price. > It's much worse than that. As some folks know, I'm part owner (I provided the hardware out of my spare equipment) of a very small ISP serving northern Mississippi. I don't live in northern Mississippi. There was no Internet service there from anybody else 3 years ago, and the only way we could afford to bring down a line from Chicago to a client was put up modems to share the cost with other local subscribers. Well, we have hundreds of subscribers now (I had no idea there were so many folks scattered about in such a rural area, we get a hundred more each month), and have been paying many thousand $ a year for the lines. You think that in 3 years Bell South might have noticed the need for more infrastructure? Particularly since they highlighted us in their monthly newsletter a year or so back? And that those $ would have been used for upgrading equipment? Well, no. They are still using a _mechanical_ switch, and have no plans to upgrade. They do not have enough lines into the business district for us to add 8 more modems to the pool (it was taking weeks to get existing lines turned on anyway). They refuse to let us co-locate in the CO (they cannot find an official policy, and thus cannot allow it). Giving them more money will not help the problem. And if any of you know someone to talk to in Atlanta to bypass the locals, I'd sure like to know. Thanks in advance! WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1

Great airfare ...
by Noam Freedman 03 Feb '97

03 Feb '97

Just a side note for those procrastinators flying from Chicago (like me). United has a special weekend fare for this weekend. Leave Saturday from Ohare, and return on Monday or Tuesday. Fare is $201 round trip. I believe a 3-day advance is required, but I would suggest running to your favorite travel agent like I did. I believe they have a ~$300 fare from Philadelphia leaving on Friday and returning Monday or Tuesday. - Noam

1 0

RE: Internet vs. Telephone company
by Kent W. England 03 Feb '97

03 Feb '97

At 05:28 PM 31-01-97 -0800, Bharat Ranjan wrote: > >Check out a product called 'Internet Thruway" that routes a call based >on the Called Number. The idea is for telcos to implement this product >as a back-end to their access network so calls being made to a Thruway >provider never reach the voice network. It is instead sent (via IP and >L2F) directly to the ISP's network. SBC is already committed to >deploying this in parts of Texas. > It's a partial solution and expensive to implement. The data calls still have to go through at least the first voice switch. But it would be nice to receive packets rather than switched circuits and avoid the cost of building so many dial POPs, if the price is right. --Kent ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks 1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400 Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com Technical Expertise for PacBell NAP and PacBell Internet Services

4 3

Advice and Directions to Grand Hyatt
by Kent W. England 03 Feb '97

03 Feb '97

At 08:28 PM 02-02-97 -0500, Paul Ferguson wrote: >For those like myself who found the directions to the NANOG >meeting at the San Francisco Grand Hyatt less than satisfactory >(like, take the shuttle) I found satisfactory information by >going to Map Quest [http://www.mapquest.com] > >ObSuggestion: It might also be a good idea to actually make >directions available. > >- paul > > > Let me try. I know I like to cut and paste driving directions from email into my Pilot. [Wish it had a backlight. :-) ] First, if you are flying in, I strongly recommend that you take the shuttle to the hotel and avoid renting a car. If you need to rent a car for a day, there are many car rental locations near the hotel. I often use Budget on Mason St, for example. There are a lot of attractions within walking distance of the hotel. Fisherman's Wharf is a bit of a hike, but you can try to take a cable car. A cab would cost about $6-7 from the hotel to Fisherman's Wharf. Chinatown is within easy walking distance, but I don't recommend the food. Plenty of good food downtown. Second, don't forget Oakland airport. There are shuttles from Oakland airport into the city, so Oakland is a good alternative depending on where you are coming from. Third, driving directions from the Penninsula downtown: Paul, take 101N past the San Francisco International airport. You have the choice of taking 101N to I-80 or you can take 280. If you take 101N to I-80, take the last exit before the Bay Bridge (Fourth St.) You will find yourself heading east toward the Bay on Bryant St. Stay to the left and turn left on Third. Follow Third north across Market St. about six blocks. (Market St is hard to cross, so if you find yourself on Market unable to turn left (north) toward downtown, just follow it down to the bay and go back up California, for example.) If you stayed on Third, you cross Market and find yourself on Kearny St. Go two blocks (north) to Sutter. Turn left on Sutter and go two blocks to Stockton. Turn left on Stockton and the hotel is the first building on your right. The hotel has valet parking, but no self parking lot. There are lots in the area. Grand Hyatt 345 Stockton St at Union Square --Kent ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks 1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400 Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com Technical Expertise for PacBell NAP and PacBell Internet Services

1 0

Re: Alpha test of MAE filtering capability
by Kent W. England 03 Feb '97

03 Feb '97

At 08:14 PM 30-01-97 -0600, Sean Donelan wrote: >>But any reasonable ISP realizes that by using the RADB servers is wonderful, >>but does not come close to preventing an: >>ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 <innocent ISP> > >Nor can the route servers tell when someone/something blocks packets >down at the layer 2 level. Since the route servers are now being paid >by the exchange point operators, maybe there is a chance the two could >be coordinated. Or at least checked for conflicts? > >-- >Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO > Affiliation given for identification not representation > > That is already an issue at the ATM NAPs, since traffic can't flow until PVCs are set-up between consenting peers. And we have had some problems in this area. So I think the answer is "Yes". --Kent ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks 1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400 Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com Technical Expertise for PacBell NAP and PacBell Internet Services

1 0