- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Ping flooding
by avg＠ncube.com 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

Sorry, i was unclear. It should read "forwarding return packets back to the original source". In other words -- assume that forwards and backwards paths are both crossing the same interface. That assumption is practically always valid for tail circuits. --vadim > That's once again a matter of defaults -- routers should _by > default_ discard all packets from interfaces which they won't > use for forwarding those packets back. Why? -- Jerry Anderson jerry(a)gi.net Principal Engineer (402) 436-3030 Implementation & Consulting http://www.gi.net/jerry Global Internet Network Services (formerly known as MIDnet)

2 1

Re: Ping flooding
by avg＠ncube.com 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

If you want to run large network you'd better think about tools to configure routers and maintain configurations. In my practice more than 70% of non-link related problems in corporate networks (and i've seen _lots_ of them) is due to unnecessary dynamic routing. Just watch some luser turing on RIP on his itty bitty terminal server or someting and causing the entire corporation to go banana. In public Internet, dynamic routing over tail links is downright antisocial. I hope i don't need to explain _that_. As an addendum to my remarks -- if you think you have complete knowledge of how you dynamically routed network behaves in case of various failures you're deceiving yourself. The distributed algorithms too often behave counterintuitively, and implementations often have subtle bugs. --vadim

1 0

Re: On another topic ... :-)
by William B. Norton 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

Hi! >PS, Mr. Metcalfe. Reports for the old reliable telephone system show >over the course of a year, a daily average of 30,000 US telephone customers >are out of service for five hours. Source please? Bill

1 0

Re: 10/8 announced ?
by Dave Morton 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

>> Hmm, is this just me , or... >> >> traceroute to 10.1.1.1 (10.1.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets >> 1 bigmac.netaxis.com (198.69.103.23) 214 ms 155 ms 209 ms > >... > >> >> bye,Kai >> ps: someone with access to a serious router show us this route, please... >> > >borderxx.hou.neo.net>sh ip bgp 10.0.0.0 >% Network not in table It seems our NOC did not have a filter in place although such was discussed but it seems nobody got around to actually installing it - sigh ! >I think serious providers will filter this one out :-) We do now - sorry about the mess folks. Dave > Scott >-- >smace(a)neosoft.com - KC5NUA - Scott Mace - Network Engineer - Neosoft Inc. >Any opinions expressed are mine. >

1 0

Re: On another topic ... :-)
by Sean Donelan 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

>Have you fully thought out what the implications are of this? >Currently the internet is not regulated. Any internet analogy of something >coming out of the FCC generally would require the internet to be >regulated.. which is something that should be though long and hard about >before jumping the gun.. The 'Internet' has been transitioning for 20 years from being owned and operated by the US government through several phases to a relatively deregulated international internetwork. But we're not completely free yet. What's this got to do with NANOG? Each section of the NSF 93-52 solicitation included an item similar to this: > o Propose and establish procedures to work with personnel > from other NAP Managers (if any), the RA, the vBNS > Provider, and regional and other attached networks to > resolve problems and to support end-to-end connectivity > and quality of service for network users Which is pretty cool because it gives us the US government's blessing to sit down with NAP managers, the RA, the vBNS, and most importantly, our competitors to do some things cooperatively. Gosh, it sounds like a NANOG meeting. On the other hand, the NAP managers, RA, vBNS have to report back to the US government how well they've completed their task, including how the procedures to resolve problems and support end-to-end connectivity and quality of service for network users work. And what does that have to do with the FCC? In the telephony world, the Network Operators Forum serves a similar function, and gets a similar blessing. I'm not suggesting the anyone Internet wants FCC regulations, but it can be instructive to look how other industries handled similar problems. The North American Electric Reliability Council <http://www.nerc.com/> (voluntarily formed after the 1967 northeast blackout) and the Alliance for Telephone Industry Solutions <http://www.atis.org/> had several battles between its members over problems which would sound familar (though not identical) to the typical NANOG meeting. Megawatts or gigabits, the management of dynamic interconnected networks is a challenge for everyone. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we could do a little research and maybe steal some of their ideas. I know the Internet has its own culture, and its own way of doing things. But the net has never been shy about taking good ideas that work, irregardless of their source. On the other hand, if NOF found some ideas don't work, we might avoid the ratholes they ran into. For example, I was a bit surprised to find the industry groups often favored greater reporting of outages than the government wanted. It seems the US government was worried reporting some outage information would give hints to the Soviets where to aim their missles to cause maximum disruption. And even though the FCC permits companies to report outages confidentially, most companies report the information publicly. Which gives me hope some of these same communication companies, different divisions, will participate in an Internet equivalent. One suggestion I found from reading the minutes of the eletric industry meetings, we might change the term from "outage" to "network disturbance." Yes, its an euphemism, like calling a nuclear reactor meltdown an "event." PS, Mr. Metcalfe. Reports for the old reliable telephone system show over the course of a year, a daily average of 30,000 US telephone customers are out of service for five hours. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: 10/8 announced ?
by Sean Doran 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

Mutter. We (Sprintlink) do not reject 1918 prefixes from ICM at this time, nor do we (ICM) filter them from announcements from EBONE. I'm sure that this will go away RSN with everyone involved feeling pretty sheepish. Sean. P.S.: >"If we don't have enough IP space, we'll just make >more..." Well, it *was* local use, since we weren't exporting the prefix to our external peers... ;>

1 0

Re: 10/8 announced ?
by Paul Ferguson 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

10/8 gets announced at least once a day by someone somewhere. Really. So what else is new? Smart providers explicitly filter RFC-1918 address space. ;-) - paul At 07:31 PM 7/10/96 -0500, Kai wrote: >Hmm, is this just me , or... > >traceroute to 10.1.1.1 (10.1.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 bigmac.netaxis.com (198.69.103.23) 214 ms 155 ms 209 ms > 2 aries.netaxis.com (198.69.103.1) 217 ms 155 ms 149 ms > 3 sl-dc-11-S1/2-T1.sprintlink.net (144.228.121.93) 187 ms 171 ms 159 ms > 4 sl-dc-6-F0/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.20.6) 307 ms 282 ms 289 ms > 5 sl-pen-1-H2/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.34) 167 ms 241 ms 179 ms > 6 icm-pen-2-F1/0.icp.net (144.228.60.101) 167 ms 241 ms 169 ms > 7 icm-pen-1-F0/0.icp.net (192.157.69.30) 1007 ms 171 ms 199 ms > 8 icm-dc-2-H0/0-T3.icp.net (198.67.131.17) 177 ms 184 ms 259 ms > 9 icm-dc-1-F0/0.icp.net (198.67.131.36) 176 ms 183 ms 179 ms >10 icm-ecrc-1-S0-1984k.icp.net (198.67.129.18) 287 ms 284 ms 279 ms >11 ECRC-RBS.ECRC.DE (193.23.5.97) 357 ms 267 ms 279 ms >12 Munich-EBS.EBONE.NET (194.112.80.218) 277 ms * 290 ms >13 ECRC-RBS.ECRC.DE (193.23.5.97) 406 ms 377 ms 379 ms >14 Munich-EBS.EBONE.NET (194.112.80.218) 337 ms 366 ms 319 ms > > >"If we don't have enough IP space, we'll just make more..." > >bye,Kai >ps: someone with access to a serious router show us this route, please... > >

2 1

Re: 10/8 announced ?
by kai＠netcom.com 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

Paul Ferguson wrote: > > 10/8 gets announced at least once a day by someone somewhere. Really. > > So what else is new? Smart providers explicitly filter RFC-1918 address > space. ;-) > > - paul Which means that Sean Doran....uhm....err....doesnt. *duck* :) bye,Kai

1 0

10/8 announced ?
by kai＠netcom.com 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

Hmm, is this just me , or... traceroute to 10.1.1.1 (10.1.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 bigmac.netaxis.com (198.69.103.23) 214 ms 155 ms 209 ms 2 aries.netaxis.com (198.69.103.1) 217 ms 155 ms 149 ms 3 sl-dc-11-S1/2-T1.sprintlink.net (144.228.121.93) 187 ms 171 ms 159 ms 4 sl-dc-6-F0/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.20.6) 307 ms 282 ms 289 ms 5 sl-pen-1-H2/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.34) 167 ms 241 ms 179 ms 6 icm-pen-2-F1/0.icp.net (144.228.60.101) 167 ms 241 ms 169 ms 7 icm-pen-1-F0/0.icp.net (192.157.69.30) 1007 ms 171 ms 199 ms 8 icm-dc-2-H0/0-T3.icp.net (198.67.131.17) 177 ms 184 ms 259 ms 9 icm-dc-1-F0/0.icp.net (198.67.131.36) 176 ms 183 ms 179 ms 10 icm-ecrc-1-S0-1984k.icp.net (198.67.129.18) 287 ms 284 ms 279 ms 11 ECRC-RBS.ECRC.DE (193.23.5.97) 357 ms 267 ms 279 ms 12 Munich-EBS.EBONE.NET (194.112.80.218) 277 ms * 290 ms 13 ECRC-RBS.ECRC.DE (193.23.5.97) 406 ms 377 ms 379 ms 14 Munich-EBS.EBONE.NET (194.112.80.218) 337 ms 366 ms 319 ms "If we don't have enough IP space, we'll just make more..." bye,Kai ps: someone with access to a serious router show us this route, please...

2 1

Re: 10/8 announced ? (fwd)
by Robert Bowman 11 Jul '96

11 Jul '96

Kai wanted this forwarded to the list, although it is exactly what Paul Ferguson has just stated ;) Rob Forwarded message: > From kai(a)netcom.com Wed Jul 10 18:26:17 1996 > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:26:16 -0500 > From: kai(a)netcom.com (Kai) > Message-Id: <199607110126.UAA22659(a)netcom19.netcom.com> > To: rob(a)exoserv.exodus.net > Subject: Re: 10/8 announced ? > > NANOG is the list read by the people who are a.) responsible for this > b.) will stop this. > > I would like to see you posting what you said to the list... > > bye,Kai > > > > What's exactly suprising or new about the fact that people are advertising > > reserved IP space? People leak /24s, IXP addresses, and all sorts of things > > out into cyberspace every day. > > > > Rob > > > > > > Hmm, is this just me , or... > > > > > > traceroute to 10.1.1.1 (10.1.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > > > 1 bigmac.netaxis.com (198.69.103.23) 214 ms 155 ms 209 ms > > > 2 aries.netaxis.com (198.69.103.1) 217 ms 155 ms 149 ms > > > 3 sl-dc-11-S1/2-T1.sprintlink.net (144.228.121.93) 187 ms 171 ms 159 ms > > > 4 sl-dc-6-F0/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.20.6) 307 ms 282 ms 289 ms > > > 5 sl-pen-1-H2/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.34) 167 ms 241 ms 179 ms > > > 6 icm-pen-2-F1/0.icp.net (144.228.60.101) 167 ms 241 ms 169 ms > > > 7 icm-pen-1-F0/0.icp.net (192.157.69.30) 1007 ms 171 ms 199 ms > > > 8 icm-dc-2-H0/0-T3.icp.net (198.67.131.17) 177 ms 184 ms 259 ms > > > 9 icm-dc-1-F0/0.icp.net (198.67.131.36) 176 ms 183 ms 179 ms > > > 10 icm-ecrc-1-S0-1984k.icp.net (198.67.129.18) 287 ms 284 ms 279 ms > > > 11 ECRC-RBS.ECRC.DE (193.23.5.97) 357 ms 267 ms 279 ms > > > 12 Munich-EBS.EBONE.NET (194.112.80.218) 277 ms * 290 ms > > > 13 ECRC-RBS.ECRC.DE (193.23.5.97) 406 ms 377 ms 379 ms > > > 14 Munich-EBS.EBONE.NET (194.112.80.218) 337 ms 366 ms 319 ms > > > > > > > > > "If we don't have enough IP space, we'll just make more..." > > > > > > bye,Kai > > > ps: someone with access to a serious router show us this route, please... > > > > > > > >

1 0