- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: :)
by Sean Doran 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

John Curran writes in reply to Enke Chen: | >Sorry, it was a joke (read ":-)") in replying to the original | >question "what kind link it is". Doing OC12 between routers | >is still a dream today ... | | Mea culpe... I mistook it for "marketing announcement" | (i.e. tied to reality only in theory... ;-) Oh, tish and tosh. Think of it as an opportunity to announce the OC24c connections between Sprintlink and BBN Planet. Sean.

2 1

Re: Hey, anyone who wanna help improve the net stability?
by Erik-Jan Bos 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

Geoff, > You were plotting the size of the routing table at very tight > intervals (1 hour or so as I recall) - are these graphs online > somewhere? Every hour on the hour I take a sample. The latest and greatest graph can be found at (sorry, no gif or jpeg available currently): ftp://ftp.nic.surfnet.nl/surfnet/net-management/ip/nets.ps Please note the flat-line at the end of the graph: Due to a reconfig of the router I take the samples from during my holidays I am missing some data points :-(. But the last sample points that are in there are well above 40000. __ Erik-Jan.

1 0

Re: Hey, anyone who wanna help improve the net stability?
by Peter Kline 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

Now that net99 is assimilated (with the exception of one city), AGIS will begin cleaning up its announcements, as well as implementing access-list 112 inbound. We'll publish the dates and details soon. Peter At 02:51 PM 9/5/96 DST, you wrote: > > >Hey all! > >We are approaching 40K routes, and this seems to make IBGP in networks >with rich external connectivity pretty unhappy. > >Without pointing fingers, there are some 9K prefixes that could be >removed by proper aggregation/reconfiguration. > >ICM-Stockholm-2#sh ip bgp summ >BGP table version is 526856, main routing table version 526856 >39321 network entries (300167/309954 paths) using 13491704 bytes of memory > > >I suggest that everyon go look at what they can do, as we are all >loosers with the currect situation. > >--Peter > > _____________________________________________________________________ Peter Kline | 313-730-5151 AGIS - Internet Backbone Services | _Lucem Diffundo_ Post-Traumatic Success Disorder+ | ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// You can pretend to care, but you can't pretend to be there.

1 0

Re: Hey, anyone who wanna help improve the net stability?
by Paul Ferguson 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

At 03:04 PM 9/5/96 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >Then apparently I have misunderstood what the swamp was/is. I thought it >was just an unaggregated area and didn't understand why. Is there text >somewhere that explains very clearly the swamp and the policies attached >there to? > Gordon, The Swamp is 192/8. The unnaggregated /24 allocations in The Swamp is called The Toxic Waste Dump [TWD]. Also see: http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier/whose_routes - paul

1 0

Re: customers and web servers and level one naps
by matthew＠scruz.net 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

From: Avi Freedman <freedman(a)netaxs.com> ... > I'd like to know the answer to this (re: PAIX. No other exchange that I > know of gives IPs for use by non-routers that aren't RA machines). ... But that doesn't stop people from attaching hosts into the NAP infrastructure. I pointed this out on the mae-west list a few weeks ago. There are quite a few providers at mae-west who plug the NetEdge at their end into a FDDI ring which has multiple IP subnets on it, one of them the NAP addresses, and another for their local boxes. Since the NetEdge is a filtering bridge, it seems like it would isolate the traffic, but it DOESN'T STOP BROADCAST TRAFFIC. So you get lots of CDP packets, rwhod packets, RIP packets, internal ARP requests, and who knows what else floating around the entire exchange point. All you need to do is send a single ping to 255.255.255.255 via your NAP interface to see just how widespread this has become. Discussion on the mae-west list basically came down to "no, this shouldn't be how people build their networks" but I don't see any changes: (note that some stuff might be missed because not every ping reply gets back) Stuff in other address spaces: Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw3.netcom.net (163.179.51.16), 44 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw13.netcom.net (163.179.51.14), 304 ms Reply to request 0 from nntp.mainstreet.net (205.137.63.53), 56 ms Reply to request 0 from sc01-gw1.mainstreet.net (207.5.0.2), 52 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw7.netcom.net (163.179.51.7), 48 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw2.netcom.net (163.179.51.3), 48 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw6.netcom.net (163.179.51.6), 48 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw4.netcom.net (163.179.51.4), 48 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.51.13), 48 ms Reply to request 0 from sc01-gw2.mainstreet.net (207.5.0.4), 48 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw10.netcom.net (163.179.51.10), 48 ms Reply to request 0 from news8.agis.net (205.137.63.52), 48 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw9.netcom.net (163.179.51.9), 44 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw8.netcom.net (163.179.51.8), 44 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw5.netcom.net (163.179.51.5), 44 ms Reply to request 0 from scl-ca-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.51.15), 44 ms Reply to request 0 from news4.agis.net (205.137.63.51), 44 ms Equipment that can't reply properly to broadcasts: Reply to request 0 from 255.255.255.255, 4 ms Reply to request 0 from 255.255.255.255, 1 ms Reply to request 0 from 255.255.255.255, 72 ms Reply to request 0 from 255.255.255.255, 4 ms -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

2 1

Re: :)
by John Curran 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

At 9:32 9/5/96, Enke Chen wrote: >Sorry, it was a joke (read ":-)") in replying to the original >question "what kind link it is". Doing OC12 between routers >is still a dream today ... Mea culpe... I mistook it for "marketing announcement" (i.e. tied to reality only in theory... ;-) /John

2 1

Re: Hey, anyone who wanna help improve the net stability?
by matthew＠scruz.net 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

Original message <Pine.SUN.3.94.960905145324.10907T-100000(a)unix1.netaxs.com> From: Gordon Cook <cook(a)netaxs.com> Date: Sep 5, 15:04 Subject: Re: Hey, anyone who wanna help improve the net stability? ... > > Of the class cs from the swamp how many are now being routed at the > defaultless core? HOW MANY ADDITIONAL CLASS Cs FROM THE SWAMP ARE THERE > FOR WHICH THE OWNERS COULD DEMAND ROUTING? ... Exactly as many class C's as are not yet being routed, minus those which have been voluntarily returned. I believe the return statistics have been made available to nanog before, so perhaps the keeper of them could do this calculation. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

1 0

Re: :)
by John Curran 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

At 15:41 9/4/96, Enke Chen wrote: >The direct interconnection between MCI and Sprint is in >the Chicago area rather than in Denver. The connection >speed is OC12 rather than DS3 :-) Hmm... Do the routers at both ends actually think it's OC12? /John

4 3

Re: Agenda for next NANOG
by Brett D. Watson 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

i think this is somewhat related busy naps and overloaded interconnects and i'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this kind of thing. i've noticed in debugging on my border router at mae west (the only place i actually looked at this) there is a lot of broadcast traffic that shouldn't even be propogated at a nap, such as: Sep 5 09:07:02.424: UDP: rcvd src=205.137.63.52(513), dst=255.255.255.255(513), length=68^M Sep 5 09:07:02.424: UDP: rcvd src=205.137.63.52(513), dst=255.255.255.255(513), length=68^M this is a unix box i'm guessing trying to get information via whod on the fddi ring at mae west. i've logged a large number of these broadcasts this evening, all within milliseconds of each other. seems to me we (collectively) don't want/need to see this type of traffic floating around when we're trying to push real customer traffic through the interconnects. or how about broadcasting bootp/tftp requests across the ring? i've logged an equally large number of these tonight: Sep 5 09:06:12.735: UDP: rcvd src=0.0.0.0(68), dst=255.255.255.255(67 ), length= 308^M Sep 5 09:06:12.735: BOOTP: opcode 1 from host 0.0.0.0 on Fddi10/0, 64508 secs, and even better: Sep 5 09:20:16.714: UDP: rcvd src=163.179.51.7(65044),dst=255.255.255 .255(69), length=29 is someone trying to pull a config (any config) via tftp from whomever happens to have one? this kind of traffic just seems very wasteful and unneeded at the naps. i can't see that this is even useful to the folks doing it. more traffic clogging up the pipes. -brett

1 0

:)
by Christian Nielsen 05 Sep '96

05 Sep '96

I guess sometimes they don't like to tell us what kind of link they have. 4 core1-fddi-1.Denver.mci.net (204.70.3.113) 208 ms 29 ms 19 ms 5 somerouter.sprintlink.net (206.157.77.90) 84 ms 90 ms * 6 somerouter.sprintlink.net (206.157.77.90) 86 ms 88 ms 88 ms 7 * sl-chi-6-F0/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.50.6) 168 ms 92 ms Christian

5 4