59% of dweebs suffer from 'False Authority Syndrome (Re: If you have nothing to hide)
(warning, not for the humor impaired) In the interest of spewing even more non-op traffic on this list, see 59% of dweebs suffer from 'False Authority Syndrome at http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=501page=4 and make sure you listen to the mp3 version, it's so much better than the written words. (it's hilarious actually) It's particularly apt for these so-called-experts spreading all the FUD trying to turn a national tragedy into either shameless self promotion (Hello everyone who attended Defcon), or who want to use that as an agenda to take over the internet.. (yeah, right turn an M$ computer security expert into a White House security expert, hahahah) Len
Re: If you have nothing to hide
Tickle me contradicted, my apologies for doubting whomever it was (it is late, and I'm too tired and lazy to check) dragon - No apologies needed.. Gerardo Gregory - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:51 PM Subject: Re: If you have nothing to hide See section 3.2.1.8c of RFC 1122: snip processing). This recorded route will be reversed and used to form a return source route for reply datagrams (see discussion of IP Options in Section 4). When a snip --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (Firewalls book) Tickle me contradicted, my apologies for doubting whomever it was (it is late, and I'm too tired and lazy to check)
Re: your mail
Once upon a time, JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 02:42 PM 8/8/02, Scott Granados wrote: Do people really almost get fired for what they write here? Sometimes, it's not almost. Just 3 months ago: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-05/msg00208.html Which was followed up with: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-05/msg00219.html and I don't see any further discussion on that particular topic (I'll make the same disclaimer as the sender of the second message: I don't know one way or the other what might have happened or not happened or which sender is correct). Any other references to this kind of thing happening? -- Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: Network inventory and configuration tracking tools
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Sean Donelan wrote: How about an operations oriented question. What is the current preferences amoung network operators for network inventory and configuration management tools? Not so much status monitoring (up, down) but other stuff network operator wants to know like circuit IDs (how many IDs can a circuit have?), network contacts, design layout reports (layer 1/2/3), what's supposed to be connected to that port? The stuff you can't get out of the box itself. Most ISPs seem to end up with a combination of homegrown systems, opensource, and commercial products. The commercial integrated systems have lots of stuff, and according to the vendors can do anything including splice fiber. We ended up in large part developing our own tools in-house. One is an SQL database to store and link network elements (routers, interfaces/ports, circuits, IP addresses, contacts, etc) with hooks into other internal databases and other outward-facing applications, such as our rwhois server. Another is a tool that polls our network devices once every few hours and backs up their configuration into an RCS filestore so we have journaling capabilities. We do use some commercial tools, but those are mainly for customer presentation (VitalSuite) and up/down reporting and event correlation (Netcool). jms
Re: RFC 2870's applicability (Re: Deaggregating foremergency purposes)
At 1:23 AM + 2002/08/08, Paul Vixie wrote: When I tell USG how I feel, they seem to ignore me. Your mileage may vary. True enough. But their machines could always be removed from the list of known root servers, and I don't think that there's much they could do about it. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++): a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
Re: Re: Network inventory and configuration tracking tools
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Sean Donelan wrote: How about an operations oriented question. What is the current preferences amoung network operators for network inventory and configuration management tools? Not so much status monitoring (up, down) but other stuff network operator wants to know like circuit IDs (how many IDs can a circuit have?), network contacts, design layout reports (layer 1/2/3), what's supposed to be connected to that port? The stuff you can't get out of the box itself. Most ISPs seem to end up with a combination of homegrown systems, opensource, and commercial products. The commercial integrated systems have lots of stuff, and according to the vendors can do anything including splice fiber. We ended up in large part developing our own tools in-house. One is an SQL database to store and link network elements (routers, interfaces/ports, circuits, IP addresses, contacts, etc) with hooks into other internal databases and other outward-facing applications, such as our rwhois server. Another is a tool that polls our network devices once every few hours and backs up their configuration into an RCS filestore so we have journaling capabilities. We do use some commercial tools, but those are mainly for customer presentation (VitalSuite) and up/down reporting and event correlation (Netcool). jms jms, your message highlights the extent to which various systems with different missions in life come to interact with one another - 0R NOT. To wit, event correlation, network performance, line and port configs inventory, etc. What I've not seen here spoken about much (if at all) has been the link between billing systems and all of the above. I recently undertook to reconcile billing discrepancies for a business unit in a large corporate account (a very large intl bank with 132 pops around the globe), and I found that there was no linkage between their *multiple,* internal bill-back systems (which naturally factored in markups to leased line costs that are paid by IT) and the circuit inventory systems. This has to be an issue with BBPs and ISPs, too, I'd imagine, if accurate and up to date billing is an interest. The manual processes that I had to endure in tallying the live circuit charges, and separating those charges from those being assessed for the dead wood pile were quite unbelievable in this day and age.
Re: your mail
Hi Brian, I know other people have posted about this, re almost getting fired. Many companies now are adopting new rules regarding employee's posting on listserves. The policy here is that employees must get another address through aol or yahoo or some other free mailserve if they want to participate in listserve discussion. The reason is spam, supposedly. My boss knows I post here, and he doesn't care that I use my work mail address. I'm smart enough to deal with spam myself. (at least he thinks so ;) The point is, that there are many companies now, at least in the Wash metro area, that are requiring employees to use an alternate mail address for any listserves they participate in. Hope this sheds more light on the subject. Jane Brian Wallingford wrote: Perhaps it's time to bar posting privileges from those who insist on remaining entirely anonymous? I doubt that anyone who has anything substantive to offer would need to use a hushmail/yahoo/etc. return address. The initial posts from Bandy, Vaul, et al were mildly amusing at first, but the novelty wore out very quickly. cheers, Darl Kenninger Sorry, but Wrian Ballingford just didn't have a good ring, so I needed to improvise. On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : : :On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: : : What would be useful in all this discussion would be if someone gives a : list of good root servers to put in my named.boot. : i.e. generally fast response time and no blocking prefixes : :What would be even more useful would be if you read up on how BIND works. : :As long as you have one reachable root server in your hint zone you'll end up :with them all in your cache. : :- Dalph Roncaster : :Communicate in total privacy. :Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 : :Looking for a good deal on a domain name? http://www.hush.com/partners/offers.cgi?id=domainpeople : :
Re: your mail
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:22:58AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 02:42 PM 8/8/02, Scott Granados wrote: Do people really almost get fired for what they write here? Sometimes, it's not almost. Just 3 months ago: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-05/msg00208.html Which was followed up with: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-05/msg00219.html and I don't see any further discussion on that particular topic (I'll make the same disclaimer as the sender of the second message: I don't know one way or the other what might have happened or not happened or which sender is correct). Any other references to this kind of thing happening? As the sender of the second message - it was a caution that people should investigate, not a statement that it didn't happen. All of the evidence I could gather indicate that it did, in fact, happen in at least some form. At the very least, other employees (whom I have know for years) said that he was gone, as of the date in question. They were not told the cause (as would be expected in most companies). Granted, believeing this means you'd have to trust *my* legwork. Or do your own. However, the 'almost' case certainly can't be argued. Just check the archives for the number of folks who've posted at the end of some thread about being 'asked to stop'. -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Re: your mail
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote: Hi Brian, I know other people have posted about this, re almost getting fired. Many companies now are adopting new rules regarding employee's posting on listserves. The policy here is that employees must get another address through aol or yahoo or some other free mailserve if they want to participate in listserve discussion. And then there are some companies who are now making their employees sign I will not make any public postings to any internet or other public forum while I am employed by x, where such posting is not of a strictly personal nature. Literally any posting to any forum that cannot be absolutely described as personal is grounds for immediate dismissal. Things are getting rough out there. First it was SLAPP suits, and now they just build it into your contract. Of course, if you sign, then I guess you've got it coming, but still... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
Hello, Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay based exchange in your analysis? Regards, nenad Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:11 -0700 (PDT) From: William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? Hi again - A couple points (based on some interactions with folks privately). This is not an ATM is bad, or general ATM-bashing paper. It simply applies the same Peering Analysis that ISPs are applying to determine if and when IXes make sense. With the transit prices and transport prices dropping, this is a reasonable question, worthy of greater analysis than well, ATM is expensive so ATM is bad. To give you a flavor, given a set of assumptions, OC-3 (155Mbps) transport into an ATM-based IX has an Effective Peering Range (where peering across them is cheaper than transit) of 75-90Mbps, while given the same assumptions, Fast Ethernet-based IXes also at OC-3 have an Effective Peering Range of 40-70Mbps. The Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange for this ATM solution is $122/Mbps while FastE is $80/Mbps. At higher capacity the interconnect analysis is more dramatic: Given the relatively high price point of transport and port cost, the Effective Peering Range for ATM/OC-12 Peering is a narrow 236Mbps to 375Mbps with a Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange of $69/Mbps. The GigE/OC-12 equivalent range is 109Mbps-466Mbps with a Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange of $25/Mbps. What was unexpected in this analysis was the Effective Peering Range Gap. When an ISP upgrades the ATM OC-3 to OC-12, the gap between the Effective Peering Bandwidth of the OC-3 (90Mbps) and the Peering Breakeven Point (the point at which the Peering Costs are totally offset by the cost savings of peering vs. transit) at 208Mbps is huge. This 118Mbps gap is where an ISP should rationally prefer to purchase transit until 208Mbps can be sent in peering relationships over the ATM fabric, and only then upgrade the peering connection to OC-12! There is also an Ethernet EPR Gap but it is only about 40 Mbps, and once at the GigE/OC-12 capacity, it gets you an Effective Peering Range up to 475Mbps. In any case, this is the analysis that the paper walks through, and since the spreadsheets are in the paper, one can muck around with the assumptions and cost points, key of which are: 1) ATM OC-3 Port Cost $8000/mo, ATM OC-3 Circuit Cost $3000/mo, ATM OC-12 Port Cost $17000/mo, ATM OC-12 Circuit Cost $8000/mo 2) FastE Port Rack Space $2500/mo, OC-3 Circuit $3500/mo, GigE Port Rack Price$5000/mo, OC-12 Circuit $7000/mo 3) Transit Price: if you peer at OC-3, you probably pay $125/Mbps, peer at OC-12,$110/Mbps 4) ATM Overhead (aka cell tax): 20% 5) Assumption that ISP upgrade capacity when avg utilization 75% Effective Peering BW Let me know if you violently object to any of these data points. These are culled from a lot of conversations in the field. The rest of the paper is simply plugging these data points into the equations and analyzing the results. Bill At 04:36 PM 8/7/2002 -0700, William B. Norton wrote: Hi all - I've been working with a number of ISPs on a research paper that builds on the previous peering research papers (Internet Service Providers and Peering, A Business Case for Peering, The Art of Peering, Interconnection Strategies for ISPs, etc.) that applies the Peering Modelling tools in a comparison of ATM and Ethernet-based Internet Exchanges. Both of these IXes are compared against each other and against the cost of buying transit. The paper applies recent price quotes for transport and transit, costs for ATM and Ethernet-based IX participation, to answer the question: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? I'd like to speak with additional ISP Peering Coordinators and Network Architects (preferable ones that have experience with peering across both ATM and Ethenet-based IXes) to walk through this paper and help me check that I have the technical and business details right. I would need about 20 minutes or so on the phone to walk you through the paper, the financial models, the cost points, and get feedback on the conclusions...preferably sometime in the next couple weeks. If you are a Peering Coordinator I think you will find at least a couple of findings in this research *very* interesting. In any case, if you can help, please send me an e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and let me know when we could chat. Thanks - Bill PS - As with any these Peering White Papers, this white paper will be freely available once enough folks have walked through it and verify that we have things right. -- Abstract --- During the NSFNET
Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
Personally, I don't believe that ATM is 'bad' for shared-fabric exchange point. I mean, it works, and solves several problems quite easy: a) it's easily distributed via SONET services to folks who are not next to the ATM switch, b) it makes interconnection between networks safer (ie, not dealing with broadcast issues on a ethernet nap), c) virtual PI connections are easily accomplished, d) there are varying degrees of interconnection speed (agreeably, less important), All of the above are true of frame relay as well, which has the additional benefit of not being funamentally incompatible with data networking. :-) e) it allows for things other than IP, or packet-based traffic to be exchanged (a la Verizons' video-portal service) (agreeably, again, less important). Ah, yes, I agree with this entirely. If you're building a voice exchange, rather than a data exchange, ATM is excellent technology. I believe Vinnie can give us some personal experience on this front. -Bill
Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay based exchange in your analysis? I don't have much insight into Frame Relay-based Internet Exchange Points ;-) The majority of IXes around the world are ethernet-based, with some legacy FDDI and a few ATM IXes. It is in these areas that I have done the most data collection. The same analysis could be applied to peering across WANs and MANs as compared with buying transit though. It might be interesting provided I can get some market prices for transport and ports. Why look at ATM? Right now almost everyone I am speaking with is seeing massive drops in transit and transport prices, even below the points I quoted, but with no comparable price drop in ATM ports or transport into an ATM cloud. These forces lead to a point where a connection to an ATM IX makes no sense (from a strictly financial standpoint). I have another 10 folks to walk through the paper to make sure I'm not missing anything in the analysis, and I'll post to the list when the paper is available. If you are interested I'd love to walk you through it to get your take. One point a couple other folks brought up during the review (paraphrasing) You can't talk about a 20% ATM cell tax on the ATM-based IX side without counting the HDLC Framing Overhead (4%) for the OC-x circuit into an ethernet-based IX. Since the Effective Peering Bandwidth is the max peering that can be done across the peering infrastructure, this is a good point and has now been factored into the model and analysis. Bill
Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
It appears that for analysis purposes one has to separate access from switching. How much payload one brings to the exchange depends on port speed and protocol overhead. In that light, Frame Relay can bring similar amount of payload as Ethernet (comparable overhead) and preserve good properties of ATM (traffic flow separation). Regards, nenad p.s. both juniper 160 and cisco gsr can handle oc-48 frame relay, and they don't seem to be frame relay switches Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Nenad Trifunovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay based exchange in your analysis? I don't have much insight into Frame Relay-based Internet Exchange Points ;-) The majority of IXes around the world are ethernet-based, with some legacy FDDI and a few ATM IXes. It is in these areas that I have done the most data collection. The same analysis could be applied to peering across WANs and MANs as compared with buying transit though. It might be interesting provided I can get some market prices for transport and ports. Why look at ATM? Right now almost everyone I am speaking with is seeing massive drops in transit and transport prices, even below the points I quoted, but with no comparable price drop in ATM ports or transport into an ATM cloud. These forces lead to a point where a connection to an ATM IX makes no sense (from a strictly financial standpoint). I have another 10 folks to walk through the paper to make sure I'm not missing anything in the analysis, and I'll post to the list when the paper is available. If you are interested I'd love to walk you through it to get your take. One point a couple other folks brought up during the review (paraphrasing) You can't talk about a 20% ATM cell tax on the ATM-based IX side without counting the HDLC Framing Overhead (4%) for the OC-x circuit into an ethernet-based IX. Since the Effective Peering Bandwidth is the max peering that can be done across the peering infrastructure, this is a good point and has now been factored into the model and analysis. Bill
Re: your mail
Don't forget general kookery where you make a customer mad, a usenet poster, or some other irrational personality and they contact your employer to detail everything they know about you like posting to rec.cannabis, soc.motss, etc. It's interferring in a business relationship, but most of 'em don't care. I'm all for anonymity -- even here. On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Joel Baker wrote: On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:22:58AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 02:42 PM 8/8/02, Scott Granados wrote: Do people really almost get fired for what they write here? Sometimes, it's not almost. Just 3 months ago: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-05/msg00208.html Which was followed up with: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-05/msg00219.html and I don't see any further discussion on that particular topic (I'll make the same disclaimer as the sender of the second message: I don't know one way or the other what might have happened or not happened or which sender is correct). Any other references to this kind of thing happening? As the sender of the second message - it was a caution that people should investigate, not a statement that it didn't happen. All of the evidence I could gather indicate that it did, in fact, happen in at least some form. At the very least, other employees (whom I have know for years) said that he was gone, as of the date in question. They were not told the cause (as would be expected in most companies). Granted, believeing this means you'd have to trust *my* legwork. Or do your own. However, the 'almost' case certainly can't be argued. Just check the archives for the number of folks who've posted at the end of some thread about being 'asked to stop'. -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not? That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea if the guy on the other end died until the BGP timer expires. FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI) Pete
Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, William B. Norton wrote: One point a couple other folks brought up during the review (paraphrasing) You can't talk about a 20% ATM cell tax on the ATM-based IX side without counting the HDLC Framing Overhead (4%) for the OC-x circuit into an ethernet-based IX. Since the Effective Peering Bandwidth is the max peering that can be done across the peering infrastructure, this is a good point and has now been factored into the model and analysis. Most exchange point users terminate their exchange connections on core routers in each geographic area so they don't experience any additional overhead than what they would already have for their core network links. Even after arbitrarily adding 4% conservative overhead to the gige case, gige is still way more cost effective. Mike. +--- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C ---+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?)
BGP keepalive/hold timers are configurable even down to granularity of link or PVC level keepalives, but for session stability reasons, it appears that most ISPs at GigE exchanges choose not to tweak them down from the defaults. IIRC, Juniper is 30/90 and Cisco is 60/180. My gut feel was that even something like 10/30 would be reasonable, but nobody seems compelled that this is much of an issue. Cheers, -Lane -Original Message- From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:07 PM To: Mikael Abrahamsson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not? That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea if the guy on the other end died until the BGP timer expires. FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI) Pete
Fwd: WorldCom Fraud News: Man these thieves just don't quit..
OOps..our looting figures have been revised upwards... WorldCom Investor News: WorldCom Announces Additional Changes To Reported Income For Prior Periods. CLINTON, Miss., August 8, 2002 - WorldCom, Inc. today announced that its ongoing internal review of its financial statements has discovered an additional $3.3 billion in improperly reported earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for 1999, 2000, 2001 and first quarter 2002. View full press release at http://www1.worldcom.com/global/about/news/news.xml?newsid=4111mode=longlang=en.
Re: your mail
Absolutely..the corporate culture are whores, and not to be trusted...protect yourselves, use a throw-away email addy.. At 17:16 8/9/02 -0400, you wrote: Don't forget general kookery where you make a customer mad, a usenet poster, or some other irrational personality and they contact your employer to detail everything they know about you like posting to rec.cannabis, soc.motss, etc. It's interferring in a business relationship, but most of 'em don't care. I'm all for anonymity -- even here.
Re: your mail
Many companies now are adopting new rules regarding employee's posting on listserves. The policy here is that employees must get another address through aol or yahoo or some other free mailserve if they want There's only 6 of us.. but thanks to this discussion, we have implemented a company policy about participating in listserve using company e-mail addresses (note I am using my personal one here though.. just cuts down noise from my critical email address): HTS Policy for listserves and personal e-mail using work related addresses: 1. Before asking ANY technical questions, make sure you have RTFM and done a decent search on Google FIRST. 2. If you communicate something that implies you have done something that may be illegal or questionable, even in jest, we will not post bail. 3. Please use a seperate address (it can be on our domain) for non time-sensitive materials (most listserv's).
Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not? That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea if the guy on the other end died until the BGP timer expires. FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI) Adding complexity to a system increases its cost but not nec'ily its value. Consider the question: how often do you expect endpoint liveness to matter? If the connection fabric between your routers has an MTBF best measured in hours or days, then you've got bigger problems than you'll solve with LMI. If on the other hand the MTBF is best measured in months or years, then when it does fail the failure is likely to be *in* the extra complexity you added. -- Paul Vixie
The Cidr Report
This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Aug 9 23:00:01 PDT 2002 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report-region.html for the regional version of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/autnums.html for a complete list of autonomous system number to name mappings as used by the CIDR-Report. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the Top 30 players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amount of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to GX Networks for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to CIDR Report [EMAIL PROTECTED]. -- CIDR REPORT for 09Aug02 0) General Status Table History - DatePrefixes 020802 112557 030802 112425 040802 112467 050802 112471 060802 112574 070802 112311 080802 112696 090802 112833 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes - AS Summary -- Number of ASes in routing system: 13412 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 8157 (4598 cidr, 3559 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 710 announced by AS3908 Largest number of classful routes: 1210 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 09Aug02 --- ASnumNetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1090 836 254 23.3% Telstra Pty Ltd AS701 1210 970 240 19.8% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS17557 295 101 194 65.8% Pakistan Telecom AS6595 223 55 168 75.3% DoD Education Activity Network As AS852546 405 141 25.8% Telus Advanced Communications AS16473 196 75 121 61.7% Bell South AS7018 798 680 118 14.8% ATT AS4151 238 143 95 39.9% USDA AS19632 995 94 94.9% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS12302 120 27 93 77.5% MobiFon S.A. AS7303 159 68 91 57.2% Telecom Argentina Stet-France Tel AS16814 105 20 85 81.0% NSS, S.A. AS226171 88 83 48.5% Los Nettos AS1239 500 418 82 16.4% Sprint AS1 457 382 75 16.4% GENUITY AS7046 293 219 74 25.3% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS577267 193 74 27.7% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS2048 178 104 74 41.6% State of Louisiana AS4755 200 129 71 35.5% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS4323 411 340 71 17.3% Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS2149 327 257 70 21.4% Performance Systems, Inc. AS724222 159 63 28.4% DLA Systems Automation Center AS4293 246 185 61 24.8% Cable Wireless USA AS3464 165 104 61 37.0% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS19834 644 60 93.8% NetForce, Inc. AS10620 85 25 60 70.6% TVCABLE BOGOTA AS949886 29 57 66.3% BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. AS5515 243 186 57 23.5% Sonera Finland Autonomous System AS16758 636 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS3908 286 230 56 19.6% Supernet, Inc. Total 554004265012750 23.0% For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see
