- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
by Vadim Antonov 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

That would be a lot of fun. I always had nice laughs looking at measurement techniques so prevalent in the respective publications. --vadim From: Peter Ford <peterf(a)microsoft.com> Another pragmatic solution is to call the editors of comm week, network world, data communications and suggest that they might get a lot of mileage writing a story comparing and contrasting the performance of ISPs. They do this for routers, bridges, FR services so they can probably find a respectable consulting/measurement group to collect information. Some of this could be live empirical data and some of this could be survey. cheers, peter

3 3

Re: Who has implemented source-IP-address filtering?
by DAVE NORDLUND 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:48:12 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alexis Rosen <alexis(a)panix.com> > Subject: Who has implemented source-IP-address filtering? > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > No doubt this will come up in Ann Arbor, and I'm about to put up a web page > about the SYN attack and the aftermath, so I'd like anyone who is now doing > filtering of customer packets for spoofed IPs to send me a note. If you > have a plan in the works to do so but haven't yet, I'd like to hear about > that too. > > So far I know that these companies are filtering: > Panix > Net Access > Compuserve > Erol's Kansas Research and Education Network (KANREN) is starting. However, we have some multihome BGP4 things to do first. > > Someone from ANS (not Curtis) told me that he thought ANS was doing it, but > he wasn't sure and would get back to me. > > I've heard back from a few more significant players, mostly very encouraging > stuff, but I am respecting people's requests not to announce anything > publically yet. > > Send me a note if you're doing filtering. If you've done so sometime in the > last six weeks and I've forgotten you, I apologize, but things here have > been pretty insane... > > /a > > --- > Alexis Rosen Owner/Sysadmin, > PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC. > alexis(a)panix.com > Dave Nordlund d-nordlund(a)ukans.edu University of Kansas 913/864-0450 Computing Services FAX 913/864-0485 Lawrence, KS 66045 KANREN

1 0

Re; Windows/NT and inverse subnetting
by Hank Nussbacher 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

FYI. Hank -------------forwarded message------------ >I have to apologize for the lack of clarity since I was getting the >reports from customers. The problem is NOT in setting a prefix mask. >The problem is with inverse for subnets. From the install notes of >Windows/NT (DNS and Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) dated May 12, 1996 (page >28), under the section 'Configuring Reverse Lookup' the doc says, and >I quote: > >??? I haven't a clue. I think there is a bug??? > >end quote. First of all, from the date this would have been the NT4 *beta2* release notes, not the final release. Please ask your customer what the final release notes say -- I assume they are cleaned up somewhat. Secondly, having looked into this a bit what I've found is that there is a limitation in the DNS Administrator -- the GUI tool that front-ends our DNS server -- where you can't enter a value in reverse DNS corresponding to the smaller subnet. However, we read BIND-compatible files and if you enter the right values in the ASCII file then it works fine (according to the developer who wrote it, anyway :-). So you're really no worse off with NT than with UNIX, you only loose the ability to use the nice GUI admin if you need this feature. We'll fix the admin UI in the next NT release. Thanks. Mark Ryland Developer Relations Group Microsoft Corporation markry(a)microsoft.com

1 0

Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
by John Curran 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

At 20:38 10/22/96, Gordon Cook wrote: >John, you say there is no benefit to be gained by large providers using >anything other than private inter-connects. may i refine that question >slightly and ask: benefit **to whom?** to the large provider? If the >question of benefit is limited in this manner, i'd guess that your >statement is quite correct. Gordon, It's not a question of large or small; it's a question of traffic volume. Creating multi-provider interconnects makes sense, right up until the aggregation pushes the technology into a higher-cost or higher-risk category. It's hard enough getting stable high-speed equipment; intentionally bringing multiple high-speed traffic flows together when you can easily do a mesh of private interconnects makes little sense. >When you get big enough, you to can connect to the internet at the very >apex as demarcated by major naps in the us and soon in asia and europe. > >*BUT* here is my question. Don't private interconnects essentially >provide a new apex for the internet? One that pushes interconnects at the >major exchange points down a level. >... >now you may say that from a competitive point of view this makes no >difference. perhaps. But what if the big four no longer see the need to >upgrade their bandwidth INTO and OUT OF exchange points? For relatively small traffic volumes, the shared interconnects work fine. Upgrading the bandwidth INTO and OUT of these points is definitely happening, but there's often a higher payoff in taking a major flow off the public interconnects into a private interconnect. Providers do have good reason to upgrade their public interconnects but principally after this phase of major traffic migration to private interconnects has been completed. /John

1 0

Re: Cisco Memory.
by Greg Ketell 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

Actually it is not on CCO due to potential legal issues (we list unapproved as well as approved and that made our lawyers squeamish). However, you can call the TAC and give them your info (router model, existing RAM) and they can then look up the info on the internal TAC webserver and give you the appropriate authorized list. Before I was made painfully aware of the legal issues I posted the list to inet-access if anyone wants to dig through the archives (it was only about 2 months ago). GK At 07:22 AM 10/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 09:17 PM 10/21/96 -0700, Craig A. Huegen wrote: > >> >>There is a list of third-party RAM that Cisco approves, and this list is >>available on CCO *somewhere*. I don't remember where, though; Paul >>Ferguson is really good at remembering where this stuff is, though. >> > >I poked around for a few minutes without finding the 'approved alternate >vendor list', but I recall that its there *somewhere*. > >- paul > > >

1 0

Re: AADS outage
by Jeffrey S. Curtis 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

Joseph Klein writes: }The AADS outage started (for some) about 23:30 GMT and ended about }02:45 GMT. For us, it started at 2140Z, and as you indicate, everything came back up around 0245Z. I still have one BGP session down, though... ... and as I typed that, I got a call from AADS. Everything looked clean through the NAP, so odds are that this last remaining problem is on the other provider's end. } Did the outage at AADS have a major impact on the other }meet points? I know we dumped a bunch of traffic on MAE-East }and MAE-West. The graphs from the AADS Web page (http://nap.aads.net/~nap-stat) show that the switch tends to average about 100Mbps aggregate load over hourly sampling intervals, if that gives you any insight. Jeff -- Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager Argonne National Laboratory | Email: curtis(a)anl.gov 9700 South Cass Avenue, ECT-221 | Voice: 630/252-1789 Argonne, IL 60439 | Fax: 630/252-9689

1 0

Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
by Sean Donelan 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

>While there is no difference from a technology perspective, >there's also no benefit to be gained by interconnecting large >networks at a public (as opposed to private) interconnects. The benefit is about the same as aggregating traffic through a backbone circuit versus having separate circuits connecting each traffic source and destination. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

AADS outage
by Joseph T. Klein 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

The AADS outage started (for some) about 23:30 GMT and ended about 02:45 GMT. Did the outage at AADS have a major impact on the other meet points? I know we dumped a bunch of traffic on MAE-East and MAE-West. -- /*Joseph T. Klein * Keep Cool, but Don't Freeze * NAP.NET, LLC * * phone +1 414 747-8747 * - Hellman's Mayonnaise * http://www.nap.net */

1 0

RE: The Curse (was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates)
by Chris A. Icide 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

---------- Further proof that the NANOG mailing list is cursed. All this talk about whether it's better to have one big NAP or lots of little NAPs, and just to prove the point, the AADS NAP in Chicago has to blow up. Well, I'm all for one BIG MONSTER NAP so that when it dies, then all of my competitors all die too. :) Oh, BTW, at least the NAP didn't take the long trip while everyone was on their way to NANOG. Oh, and anyone know anything about ATM Signalling? I was playing with my chicago border switch, and truned on signalling toward Ameritech, and I got some cool stuff back and then nothing <evil grin> Chris

1 0

The Curse (was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates)
by Jeffrey S. Curtis 22 Oct '96

22 Oct '96

Further proof that the NANOG mailing list is cursed. All this talk about whether it's better to have one big NAP or lots of little NAPs, and just to prove the point, the AADS NAP in Chicago has to blow up. (We're currently at an hour and a half since all of my BGP sessions reset; Ameritech tells me they're closing in on the problem with the switch and should be back up Real Soon Now (tm)...) Jeff -- Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager Argonne National Laboratory | Email: curtis(a)anl.gov 9700 South Cass Avenue, ECT-221 | Voice: 630/252-1789 Argonne, IL 60439 | Fax: 630/252-9689

1 0