- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: AS path length?
by Brett D. Watson 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

this is the longest i could find on such short notice: * 192.107.51.0 192.41.177.140 128 80 0 690 1128 1128 5400 13 7 5441 5445 5446 i we have quite a lot of 192.* address with this as path. -brett > > And now for something completly different. > > What is the longest AS path that people see? > > > -- > --bill

2 1

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Paul Ferguson 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

At 09:09 AM 3/18/96 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > >BTW, there are 'rumours' floating around that China wants a couple of A's or >so... > There is also a train of thought that China should simply use RFC-1918 addressing and some type of network address translation, since they control explicit points of entry & exit to the global Internet from/to the country, and are determined to isolate themselves from the remainder of the Internet community anyway. But I digress. - paul

2 1

RE: NET99 sabotages IGC's routes NOW: The facts
by Ted Linnenkamp 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

New mail package, forgot new sig. Thanks, Ted L. *** Speaking solely for myself unless otherwise noted *** >---------- >From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] >Sent: Monday, March 18, 1996 5:03 PM >To: Ted Linnenkamp >Cc: 'Peter Kline, Sr. Network Engineer'; 'David ``Joel Katz'' >Schwartz'; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >Subject: RE: NET99 sabotages IGC's routes NOW: The facts > >On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Ted Linnenkamp wrote: > >> Please take this crap off of nanog. Resolve your pissing match somewhere >> else. >> >> Thanks in advance, > >Aren't you supposed to insert a disclaimer here about the opinions of >Microsoft? Or are these actually official opinions? :-) > > >Michael Dillon Voice: >+1-604-546-8022 >Memra Software Inc. Fax: >+1-604-546-3049 >http://www.memra.com E-mail: >michael(a)memra.com > >

1 0

RE: NET99 sabotages IGC's routes NOW: The facts
by Ted Linnenkamp 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

Please take this crap off of nanog. Resolve your pissing match somewhere else. Thanks in advance, Ted L. >

2 1

AS path length?
by bmanning＠isi.edu 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

And now for something completly different. What is the longest AS path that people see? -- --bill

1 0

MCI/MAE-East/PSI losses unacceptable
by William Allen Simpson 18 Mar '96

18 Mar '96

What is going on out at MAE-East? From Michigan, I'm seeing a tremendous loss there, all day (since 10 am) between mae-east-plusplus.Washington.mci.net. and mae-east.psi.net. It is completely impossible to POP3 my email. SUNOS just times out the TCP connection after about 10KB in 1/2 hour. Pinging every 2 seconds for over 20 minutes: Recording Mon Mar 18 22:27:16 GMT 192.41.177.245 sent rcvd % rtt avg mdev max min 390 199 51 532 480 73 1185 291 391 200 51 317 460 96 1185 291 392 201 51 411 454 84 1185 291 396 202 51 453 454 63 1185 291 Recording Mon Mar 18 22:26:54 GMT 204.70.74.102 sent rcvd % rtt avg mdev max min 328 261 80 253 265 25 520 219 330 262 79 238 262 26 520 219 332 263 79 251 261 22 520 219 333 264 79 249 260 20 520 219 Of course, there is a 20% loss on MCI net alone. Seems to be after West Orange. 8: 204.70.2.81 core-fddi-0.Chicago.mci.net. (271 ms) (203 ms) (452 ms) 9: 204.70.1.94 core1-hssi-2.NorthRoyalton.mci.net. (216 ms) (209 ms) (232 ms) 10: 204.70.1.102 core1-hssi-3.WestOrange.mci.net. (226 ms) (273 ms) (214 ms) 11: 204.70.1.106 core2-hssi-2.Washington.mci.net. (243 ms) (379 ms) (240 ms) 12: 204.70.74.52 borderx1-fddi-1.Washington.mci.net. (325 ms) (281 ms) (250 ms) 13: 204.70.74.102 mae-east-plusplus.Washington.mci.net. (251 ms) *** (284 ms) 14: *** *** 192.41.177.245 mae-east.psi.net. (363 ms) Whatever happened to the Chicago NAP? What can we do to fix this problem? WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

1 0

Addr: NET99 sabotages IGC's routes
by rwoundy＠vnet.IBM.COM 18 Mar '96

18 Mar '96

*** Resending note of 03/18/96 12:43 Folks, May I inject some list-relevant discussion to this cat-fight? >> Fortunately, MCI was able to reconfigure our access lists at their >>router to allow us to broadcast competing more specific routes for each >>individual class C in the CIDR block. Thus (more or less) restoring IGC's >>net connectivity. >More specifics aren't competing. They take precedence. Sometimes it's >better to be silent and thought dumb... I don't care to choose sides in this dispute. But as a consequence of this dispute, the size of the standard default-free route tables has grown as a result of the IGC/MCI de-aggregation of routes. This is a bad thing, right? Looking at IBM/Advantis's router at MAE-East, for example, I see 205.198/16 from (AS3830), 205.198.244/22 from (AS3561 AS5799), and 205.198.244/24 from (AS3561 AS5799). AS3830 == Net99, AS3561 == MCI, and AS5799 == IGC. Seems like the rest of the Internet is the long-term victim here... -- Richard Woundy, (not speaking for) IBM

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Robert Moskowitz 18 Mar '96

18 Mar '96

At 10:51 AM 3/15/96 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >Gordon: > >>Just a small quibble David: when you say "the IANA" decided, it gives >>the impression that an august group of people like the IESG took action. > >I certainly would not intend to, nor do I think I did, give the >impression that a group like the IESG took action. One of the >advantages (and arguable disadvantages) of the current registry system >is a lack of bureaucratic overhead of the type you thought I was >implying. > >>In reality "the IANA" is but a SINGLE person - John Postel. > >Actually, it is 2 people, Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds. However, >note that the IANA is responsible to the IAB in the great Internet >organzation chart in the sky. > >>If some >>people are upset I suspect it might be because the power to make such a >>decision is vested in the hands of ONE person rather than in a group. > >My impression is that people are concerned that an organization with >no track record and no customers (at this time) was able to obtain a >highly coveted large block of space. Further, some people are >concerned with the allocation of a subnet of a class A where an >equivalently sized block in the class C space would have seemed >appropriate. As I seem to recall, the @Home proposal (at least what I saw of it after the fact) was for a potential 50 Million addresses. This definitely puts it out of the range of a registry decision and moved it to IANA. Those of us that were in the middle of the IPng address size debate had predicted a request like this and have not supprise of the outcome. BTW, there are 'rumours' floating around that China wants a couple of A's or so... Robert Moskowitz Chrysler Corporation (810) 758-8212

1 0

NET99 sabotages IGC's routes
by Joel Katz 17 Mar '96

17 Mar '96

IGC (Internet Gateway Connections, an ISP in Florida that was multihomed between NET99 and MCI) just had an unexpected outage lasting in excess of an hour. This outage was deliberately engineered by AGIS/NET99. First, a little history: IGC's first 'Net T1 was to NET99. Instead of connecting us directly to their backbone (as we had expected) they connected us to Netrunner (one of our competitors). Netrunner/NET99 only has a single T1 out of Miami (to Atlanta) and as a result, our throughput was awful and we obtained an additional T1 to MCI. A few days ago, someone at Netrunner got upset with someone at NET99/AGIS and shut off _our_ service. For some reason (we strongly suspect a configuration error at NET99) our traffic failed to reroute over our MCI T1 for several hours. (They have a habit of broadcasting static routes to route around outages, thus completely screwing their multi-homed customers.) We asked AGIS for a one month refund to compensate us for our losses due to the sabotage. Instead, they issued us a _one_day_ credit. We got upset, both with the ability of our T to pass traffic, with NET99's continual routing problems, with NET99's backbone being disassembled from under us, and with NET99/AGIS's continual delays in migrating us to the AGIS network. We asked them to discontinue our service. They did. They also deliberately and maliciously began broadcasting more specific routes for the individual class C networks in our CIDR block. (We confirmed this with MCI.) When I spoke to AGIS about the outage, they told me I had to speak with Randy Epstein. Randy Epstein is the person at IGC who made the decision to discontinue our AGIS/NET99 service. I contacted MCI again and they contacted AGIS/NET99 with the ultimate threat being for MCI to stop carrying AGIS' traffic if they would not cease broadcasting the bogus routes. Shortly after being contacted by MCI, AGIS/NET99 stopped announcing the bogus routes to MCI, but continued advertising these routes to their other peers at the NAPs. Fortunately, MCI was able to reconfigure our access lists at their router to allow us to broadcast competing more specific routes for each individual class C in the CIDR block. Thus (more or less) restoring IGC's net connectivity. NET99's deliberate, malicious actions are contrary to the very spirit of the Internet. They resulted in DALnet (the third largest IRC network) being split to ribbons, depriving 2,500 people of the ability to converse with each other and cutting off DALnet's security and access control system which is hosted here. Please excuse me if this is not the appropriate forum for discussing this event. David Schwartz Director of Network Services Internet Gateway Connections (954)-430-3030

5 4

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Fleming 17 Mar '96

17 Mar '96

On Sunday, March 17, 1996 5:56 AM, Ronald Barron Yokubaitis[SMTP:rony@texas.net] wrote: @On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Barry Shein wrote: @ @> @> @> Would you claim there have been no anti-monopoly or anti-trust actions @> ever (successfully) prosecuted under Taft-Hartley? Or that @> Taft-Hartley itself is just entirely the product of deluded morons? @ @ @Howdy...........Taft-Hartley is Labor Legislation *not* Anti-Trust. Are you @referring to the Clayton Act? Sherman Antitrust laws?......Ron @ @ @ @Ronald Barron Yokubaitis A Texas NetWorking, Inc. @Texas Networking Inc. B TOTAL INTERNET SOLUTIONS @San Antonio 210-272 8111 5 $9.95 Internet Access @Austin 512-472 2532 L e-mail info(a)texas.net @ J http://www.texas.net @_.. . ._ _... ..... ._.. ._ _ _ ._ _... ..... ._.. ._ _ _ _._ @ @ @ I think that RICO (spelling) has the most teeth... Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0