- Test - lists.nanog.org

Strangeness at MAE-East
by Chris A. Icide 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

I seem to have lost connectivity across MAE-East to a group of peers. It appears to have come back at about 1:00PM Eastern time. I've attached some snippets from our BGP table, anyone know what may have happened, and what is common to these peers that dropped thier sessions? Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State [snip] 192.41.177.65 4 6205 32618 72819 2428592 0 0 07:48:39 192.41.177.73 4 6082 16026 56940 2428592 0 0 07:47:15 192.41.177.75 4 3951 48247 56693 2428593 0 0 1w4d [snip] 192.41.177.113 4 3549 16133 56706 2428593 0 0 1w3d 192.41.177.117 4 6079 16245 56869 2428593 0 0 07:47:49 192.41.177.118 4 6196 16160 56661 2428593 0 0 6d16h 192.41.177.122 4 1299 17874 56841 2428593 0 0 3d07h 192.41.177.132 4 3257 16163 57035 2428593 0 0 07:47:45 192.41.177.147 4 3847 18249 56666 2428593 0 0 2d20h [snip] 192.41.177.160 4 3407 48456 56732 2428593 0 0 4d09h 192.41.177.166 4 2885 20740 56618 2428593 0 0 07:47:28 192.41.177.169 4 2885 20599 56815 2428593 0 0 1d07h [snip] 192.41.177.182 4 5683 18340 56875 2428593 0 0 4d08h 192.41.177.183 4 5683 18370 57018 2428593 0 0 07:47:47 192.41.177.192 4 2548 41322 52346 2428593 0 0 2d12h [snip] 192.41.177.210 4 2551 21995 56687 2428593 0 0 1w4d 192.41.177.215 4 5413 165794 58802 2428593 0 0 07:47:51 192.41.177.228 4 4006 16269 56949 2428593 0 0 1d21h [snip] 192.41.177.242 4 1239 184562 56686 2428593 0 0 1w4d 192.41.177.245 4 174 57149 57069 2428593 0 0 07:47:29 NOTE the 07:47:XX. All appear to have dropped at the same time. Hrm, one CWIX router stayed up, one went down. CWIX, what is the difference? Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C.

2 1

http://www.3com.com/nsc/501302.html
by Bradley Dunn 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

I stumbled across the above URL. I think it might be a valuable resource to add to http://www.ra.net/isp.html. It covers IP addressing, subnetting (including VLSM), why CIDR is good, etc. It even has some exercises at the end so you can test your knowledge. :) -BD

1 0

Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
by Peter Lothberg 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

> "MAE London" is called the LINX and the T3s have been thrown over. "MAE Stockholm" is called Stockholm D-GIX, and there are links from STM-1/oc3c to 64K... --Peter

1 0

Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
by Peter Lothberg 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

> I would say that if transatlantic lines are mostly ordered and paid for by > European companies that you are probably correct. But part of the reason > is that European government run PTT's charge horrendously high rates for > international circuits. It's more expensive to install and operate a fiber in an ocean than along the railway-tracks. Regardless of tariffs, 4000 miles of transatlantic OC-48 is more expensive than 4000 miles of land-line OC-48. So, if both sides agrees on the 'benefit ratio' add the costs and divide the sum according to the ratio. -Peter (Sorry to repeat myself..)

1 0

Re: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP
by Ken Lam 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

At 07:36 PM 10/26/96 -0400, Avi Freedman wrote: >Of course, I was half-joking, but why only one Gigaswitch? Why not two, >for redundancy, as is implemented at Pennsauken? > >With a backup FDDI ring? >And I assume, spare power supplies and processors? I assume that there are adequate rat traps and rodent bait supplies :) -k --- Ken Lam lam(a)awod.com Integrated Technical Systems Systems, Networks, and Internet Solutions -- Defining Technology Today "'Plug and Play' was only applicable to the original ATARI(tm)"

2 1

RE: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP
by Vadim Antonov 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

Chris A. Icide <chris(a)nap.net> wrote: >I heard that there is an abandoned Nuclear Power Plant >construction site... Well, reinforced buildings do not help against a pair of morons with an axe and a truck with Montana plates. There's no way to protect all cables going out. Fortunately, there is an easy answer, and that is "geographical diversity". Helps a lot against earthquakes, hurricanes, cabin dwellers and other natural disasters. --vadim

2 1

RE: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP
by Chris A. Icide 27 Oct '96

27 Oct '96

I heard that there is an abandoned Nuclear Power Plant construction site with a fully completed conatainment building. I've seen the films of the testing they do for those things, and one of the tests was tossing an F-4 at the thing at about 600 knots or so. It left some black marks on the side. The site is called "Marble Hill" I'm not exactly sure where it is, but it's in the south east states somewhere. Perhaps you might think about acquiring space inside there. I also know the WPPS (Washington Public Power System, I think) was building a couple of plants that they gave up on after about 90% complete. You could also open a meet point up there somewhere! These were pretty close to Seattle. I'm sure that there are quite a few more unfinished plants around the country. In fact, I think they used one of these buildings to film one of those underwater movies. But then again, we run into the Cisco humidity problem. Chris A. Icide Nap.Net, L.L.C. ---------- > From: Ken Lam > To: Avi Freedman; nathan(a)netrail.net (Nathan Stratton) > Cc: freedman(a)netaxs.com; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP > Date: Saturday, October 26, 1996 7:44 PM > > At 07:36 PM 10/26/96 -0400, Avi Freedman wrote: > > >Of course, I was half-joking, but why only one Gigaswitch? Why not two, > >for redundancy, as is implemented at Pennsauken? > > > >With a backup FDDI ring? > >And I assume, spare power supplies and processors? > > I assume that there are adequate rat traps and rodent bait supplies :) > > -k > > > --- > Ken Lam lam(a)awod.com > Integrated Technical Systems > Systems, Networks, and Internet Solutions -- Defining Technology Today > "'Plug and Play' was only applicable to the original ATARI(tm)" > >

1 0

Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings
by Vadim Antonov 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

Robert Laughlin wrote: >I am trying to feel sorry for the poor burdened Large ISP.....:) You really shouldn't. No more than for Safeway which won't buy your homegrown tomatoes. For them, those tomatoes simply do not worth the effort -- evern if you give them for free. That's a business decision. It's like everywhere. I see no point in whining about it. I tried to explain reasoning behind those decisions -- not that i have any sympathy for big business or any stake in large ISPs. --vadim

1 0

Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings
by Vadim Antonov 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

Zachary DeAquila <zachary(a)zachs.place.org> wrote: >Hrm. Does it matter if the small ISP already has transit with someone else? >In such a case, peering does nothing but shorten the path from SmallISP to >BigISP in order to no longer make it go through SmallISPs transit provider. Yes, but then from the point of view of large ISP the peering is of zero value. You see, it has to deliver packets to IXP anyway. OTOH, the load on routers, bloated configurations and engineering resources to support the additional peering are quite real. --vadim

3 2

Re: BigISP<-->SmallISP peerings
by Vadim Antonov 26 Oct '96

26 Oct '96

>> Yes, but then from the point of view of large ISP the peering is of zero >> value. You see, it has to deliver packets to IXP anyway. OTOH, the >> load on routers, bloated configurations and engineering resources to >> support the additional peering are quite real. >Not quite zero - if you have direct Small/Big vs Small/Transit/Big, >then you bypass any potential problems with Transit. > --asp(a)partan.com (Andrew Partan) Well, but then you get problems with Small being sloppy with what they announce. Transit is large and supposedly is clueful enough (and have resources to develop tools) to ensure some sanity of routing information. Overall, the balance of problems is still zero; but the risk that your other business will be harmed is less in case of transit. --vadim

1 0