OT: Anyone here know what's up with inet-access.net

[W.D.McKinney]

-Original Message-
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [mailto:127.0.0.1] 
Sent: None
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Delivery Status Notification

The original message was received at Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:24:25 -0800.

   - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: while talking to mqueue.netaxs.com; 554
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Relay access denied)

Reporting-MTA: dns; burger.akwireless.net
Arrival-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:24:25 -0800

Final-Recipient: rfc822; list@inet-access.net
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; while talking to mqueue.netaxs.com; 554 : Relay access denied
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:24:25 -0800

--- Begin Message ---
Just wondering if the list is still working?
-Dee

--- End Message ---

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

[Paul Vixie]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes:

>   My point is simply that the "your customers are getting more out of
> our network that our customers are" argument is bull. Your customers are
> paying you to carry their traffic over your network.

whenever you think you have a reasonable design, you can concept-test it for
the internet by asking, "what if six million people did this?"

i suspect that absent peering requirements, there would be a lot of WAN ISO-L2
and on-net ISO-L3 sold, a lot more ASN's on the hoof, and a bit less stability
in the BGP core.

since most of the transit ISO-L3 providers are also in the on-net ISO-L3 or
WAN ISO-L2 (or both) business, the end result would be the same people
getting paid the same amounts by the same other people, but called something
else than what we call it now.

maybe this would be better than "my network is bigger!", "no it ain't!", etc?
-- 
Paul Vixie

Re: LAX to NANOG 35 - bus/shuttle recommendations?

[Rodney Joffe]

On Oct 10, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Pete Templin wrote:



The Hilton website is suggesting a $13 far for bus service from LAX  
to NANOG 35 and $50 for taxi.  Any recommendations on where to find  
said bus service, and if reservations are necessary?




Supershuttle is best (http://www.supershuttle.com/htm/cities/lax.htm)  
- $16 each way. And Burbank airport is much closer, if you have the  
option.




--
Rodney Joffe
CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(R)

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Todd Vierling]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:

> I do not recommend using the public-root right now. I do warn
> because of obvious technical problems.

All you're doing is making the rest of us laugh uncontrollably as the
problems with the non-Internet "Public-Root" DNS servers keep stacking up.
The rest of us use actual *Internet* root DNS servers and will never see
these problems.

(I need to find my glasses, because that sign on the road ahead is hard to
read -- something about feeling droll?  Wait, that's not right)

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

LAX to NANOG 35 - bus/shuttle recommendations?

[Pete Templin]

The Hilton website is suggesting a $13 far for bus service from LAX to 
NANOG 35 and $50 for taxi.  Any recommendations on where to find said 
bus service, and if reservations are necessary?


See you in St. Loui^H^HLA!

pt

Cox Communications Contact Please

[Richard J. Sears]

Can someone from Cox Communications Security group contact me off list
please.


Thanks

**
Richard J. Sears
Vice President 
American Internet Services  

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.adnc.com

858.576.4272 - Phone
858.427.2401 - Fax
INOC-DBA - 6130


I fly because it releases my mind 
from the tyranny of petty things . . 


"Work like you don't need the money, love like you've
never been hurt and dance like you do when nobody's
watching."

Re: Operational impact of depeering

[Tom Vest]

On Oct 10, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:


Anti-Level(3)? The only fact in this was the route view
count, and even that could be wrong. Not a very fair
comparison, especially to make to regulatory people who
may not know better.


How in the world does this read as anti-Level3?
What precisely is unfair about the comparison?
Concrete suggestions about how to make a fairer comparison,  
independently, using public domain information, would be welcome.



AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition.
You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy  
for

them being old school. Cogent is not old school.


The implication I was making (maybe too subtly) was that counting  
this way involves some obvious error terms, one of which is age of  
allocation -- meaning specifically, address allocation policies in  
effect at the time that the relevant netblocks were allocated. Scale,  
a.k.a. host density might be another obvious one. What I meant to  
suggest was that this method might overstate Cogent's significance.


However I was wrong. I was thinking of the vintage 1991 PSI "Class A"  
that Cogent still routes. I should have said "both old networks,"  
given L3's two even older BBN "Class As." But if age tends to suggest  
a certain (freedom of) slack in utilization, then that would mean  
that the count actually overstates L3's operational significance. So,  
does that correction makes it less biased -- or more Anti-Level3?


TV

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

[William B. Norton]

Peering Ratios?

It is very timely that the upcoming NANOG Peering BOF X in Los Angeles
will have a debate on this very subject: Traffic Ratios - a valid
settlement metric or dinosaur from the dot.bomb past.

I'm sure the strongest arguments from these threads will be clearly
articulated (in a bullet point/summarized form I hope) during the
debate by the debaters. At the end of the day, as with most things
peering, the focus of this discussion is a meld of business and
technical interests. The heat we have witnessed is probably more
related to the friction of the business interests. We get very upset
about the notion of "fair" don't we.  Perhaps in the few structured
minutes of the Peering BOF debate we can objectively hear both sides
of this argument and provide a little light as well.

Defending Traffic Ratios as a valid peering prereq: Peter Cohen
Attacking Traffic Ratios as peering prereq: Richard Steenbergen

Should be good fun.

Bill

On 10/10/05, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes:
>
> > > I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
> > > expensive to receive traffic than to send it.
>
> > It is?  For everybody?  For always?  That's a BIG statement.  Can
> > you justify?
>
>In those cases where it in fact is and there's nothing you can do 
> about it,
> you need to accept it. You should not expect to be able to shift the burden
> of carrying your customers' traffic on your network to others. (The fact
> that you can sometimes bully or blackmail and get away with it doesn't
> justify it.)
>
> > > ...
> > > The question is whether the benefit to each side exceeds their cost.
>
> > Yea, verily.  But I don't think you'll find a one-cost-fits-all
> > model.  When
> > one person's costs are lower than another and they're doing
> > similar things,
> > it's often called "efficiency" or "competitiveness".  (Just as
> > one example.)
>
>I heartily agree.
>
>My point is simply that the "your customers are getting more out of our
> network that our customers are" argument is bull. Your customers are paying
> you to carry their traffic over your network.
>
>There can certainly be legitimate peering disputes about where to peer 
> and
> whether there are enough peering points. If someone wants you to peer with
> them at just one place, it would certainly be more cost-effective for you to
> reach them through a transit provider you meet in multiple places, for
> example. (You could definitely refuse settlement-free peering if it actually
> increases your costs to reach the peer.)
>
>I am not making the pie-in-the-sky argument that everyone should peer 
> with
> everyone else. I am specifically rejecting the argument that a traffic
> direction imbalance is grounds for rejecting settlement-free peering. If
> your customers want to receive traffic and receiving is more expensive, then
> that's what they're paying you for.
>
>Again, carrying *your* customers' traffic over *your* network is what
> *your* customers are paying *you* for. If your customers want more expensive
> traffic, you should bear that greater burden.
>
>A traffic direction imbalance is not reasonable grounds for rejecting 
> SFI.
> The direction your customers want their traffic to go is more valuable and
> it's okay if it costs more.
>
>DS
>
>
>


--
//
// William B. Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
// Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix
// GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635
// Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Jon Lewis]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:



I am sorry if you feel annoyed by this, but

c.public-root.com,  Cleveland, Ohio, USA,  IP 68.255.182.111
e.public-root.com,  Montreal, Quebec, Canada,  IP 216.138.219.83
f.public-root.com,  Terre Haute, Indiana, USA,  IP 66.15.237.185
g.public-root.com,  Chicago, Illinois, USA,  IP 199.5.157.131
h.public-root.com,  Des Moines, Iowa, USA,  64.198.89.245


Where they operate or how many alternative root's there are really 
doesn't matter.  Anyone nutty enough to rely on them gets what they have 
coming.


--
 Jon Lewis   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net| 
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

RE: Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent

[James Ashton]

Would love to see this report.

 This was a pretty wide reaching event and it would be nice to know the
more detailed extent of the full event.

James 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Chris Malayter
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:21 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent


Good Morning,

I would suggest to the PC for the LA NANOG that they invite Todd from 
Renesys to do a report on the affects of the Level3 depeering of 
Cogent.

I think this would be very informative.

Thanks,

-Chris

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Peter Dambier]

I am sorry if you feel annoyed by this, but

c.public-root.com,  Cleveland, Ohio, USA,  IP 68.255.182.111
e.public-root.com,  Montreal, Quebec, Canada,  IP 216.138.219.83
f.public-root.com,  Terre Haute, Indiana, USA,  IP 66.15.237.185
g.public-root.com,  Chicago, Illinois, USA,  IP 199.5.157.131
h.public-root.com,  Des Moines, Iowa, USA,  64.198.89.245

operate in north america, in your network. So do their customers.
It is you who will be annoyed if anything goes wrong because of
this misbehaviour.

I do not recommend using the public-root right now. I do warn
because of obvious technical problems.

I dont know what happens if '.' suddenly has a valid ip address.
I have not written windows. I dont know what Bill Gates does.
My linux did complain. That is how I did find it in the first
place.

And I know for shure '.' was not meant to have an ip address.

What can go wrong will go wrong. I have seen enough queries
for '.local' and for 'localhost' on the root-servers.

Jon Lewis wrote:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:


See with your own eyes:

; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @a.public-root.net


 ^^


;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18588
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 15, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;.  IN  ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
.   172800  IN  SOA a.public-root.net.


  ^


hostmaster.public-root.net.\
   2005101006 43200 3600 
1209600 14400

.   172800  IN  A   57.67.193.188



Who cares?  Please stop wasting NANOG bandwidth that could be better 
used debating peering/depeering with gibberish about fringe DNS systems.



Report this to NANOG and the IETF.  Make sure you send them a copy of my
response and the headers of this message.  I am holding UNIDT personally
responsible for this technical nightmare.



Make sure to also report when pigs fly and the aliens decide to publicly 
make contact.


Apologies to anyone already .procmailrc'ing Peter to /dev/null for 
sneaking this into your inbox.


Better /dev/null the rest of nanog too because I am afraid there will
raise issues because of this.

So, if you really dont care ...



--
 Jon Lewis   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net| _ 
http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_





--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:51:54 EDT, Jon Lewis said:

> Make sure to also report when pigs fly and the aliens decide to publicly 
> make contact.

RFC1925 sayeth:

   (3)  With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead.

Obviously, what Peter was reporting is the result of a DNS administrator
sitting under the flight path of Porcine Airlines flight 109


pgpIfeSFD2t5H.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent

[Ross Hosman]

I agree

--- Chris Malayter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Good Morning,
> 
> I would suggest to the PC for the LA NANOG that they
> invite Todd from 
> Renesys to do a report on the affects of the Level3
> depeering of 
> Cogent.
> 
> I think this would be very informative.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 






__ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

[David Schwartz]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes:

> > I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
> > expensive to receive traffic than to send it.

> It is?  For everybody?  For always?  That's a BIG statement.  Can
> you justify?

In those cases where it in fact is and there's nothing you can do about 
it,
you need to accept it. You should not expect to be able to shift the burden
of carrying your customers' traffic on your network to others. (The fact
that you can sometimes bully or blackmail and get away with it doesn't
justify it.)

> > ...
> > The question is whether the benefit to each side exceeds their cost.

> Yea, verily.  But I don't think you'll find a one-cost-fits-all
> model.  When
> one person's costs are lower than another and they're doing
> similar things,
> it's often called "efficiency" or "competitiveness".  (Just as
> one example.)

I heartily agree.

My point is simply that the "your customers are getting more out of our
network that our customers are" argument is bull. Your customers are paying
you to carry their traffic over your network.

There can certainly be legitimate peering disputes about where to peer 
and
whether there are enough peering points. If someone wants you to peer with
them at just one place, it would certainly be more cost-effective for you to
reach them through a transit provider you meet in multiple places, for
example. (You could definitely refuse settlement-free peering if it actually
increases your costs to reach the peer.)

I am not making the pie-in-the-sky argument that everyone should peer 
with
everyone else. I am specifically rejecting the argument that a traffic
direction imbalance is grounds for rejecting settlement-free peering. If
your customers want to receive traffic and receiving is more expensive, then
that's what they're paying you for.

Again, carrying *your* customers' traffic over *your* network is what
*your* customers are paying *you* for. If your customers want more expensive
traffic, you should bear that greater burden.

A traffic direction imbalance is not reasonable grounds for rejecting 
SFI.
The direction your customers want their traffic to go is more valuable and
it's okay if it costs more.

DS

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Peter]

Janet Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Having an A record for the root is one better than having an A
> record for, say, .edu. In other words, this shouldn't work:

The content at http://57.67.193.188/ made me wonder if they'd not in
fact put in a *wildcard* record in the root zone. It turns out that
they haven't, so there's still some more lack of DNS Clue that hasn't
yet been demonstrated.

-- 
My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
- a fed up BOFH in the Monastery

Renesys Routing Report of Level3/Cogent

[Chris Malayter]

Good Morning,

I would suggest to the PC for the LA NANOG that they invite Todd from 
Renesys to do a report on the affects of the Level3 depeering of 
Cogent.


I think this would be very informative.

Thanks,

-Chris

Re: Operational impact of depeering

[Robert E . Seastrom]

"Hannigan, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Peter R. wrote:
>> >
>> > On 10/1/05, Cogent's network (AS174 -- a very old network)  
>> > originated the equivalent of  1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the  
>> > "ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call  
>> > the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated  
>> > the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05%  
>> > at that point in time.
>
> AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition. 
> You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for
> them being old school. Cogent is not old school.

AS174 predates PSI; it was NYSERNet's AS.

The hows and whys of PSI retaining it when they were no longer under
exclusive contract to run NYSERNet (starting in 1992) probably boiled
down to who found it more painful to re-AS their network.  I'll leave
detailed commentary to people who were actually on the inside at the
time, if any of them still read nanog.  Cole?  Mitch?  :)

---Rob

I have an A record.

[J.D. Falk]

There are many like it, but this one is mine.


This is kind of a sideways remark about how silly the DNS
discussions on NANOG are.  Nobody's expressed a new opinion or
even made up a worthwhile new analogy on the topic since 1998!
Only the names have changed.  Furrfu.

-- 
J.D. Falk  a decade of cybernothing.org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   registered 24 June 1995

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Janet Sullivan]

Joe Blanchard wrote:

Hmm, B has the same one, and C has all the other Roots listed
as A records. Would/could this really cause any sort of an issue
though? 


Its not records like

a.public-root.net.  369 IN  A   205.189.71.2

that are the issue.  That's as it should be.  (Well... if you accept 
that public-root should be. ;-) )


This record, however, is not correct:

.   172800  IN  A   57.67.193.188


That is the root.

For those of you who need reminding on how DNS works...

.   the root
  / | \
 /  |  \
/   |   \
  .com .net .orgtop level domains
   | |
   | |
 yahoo  bgp4domain names
   |  |
   |  |
  wwwsea host (or subdomain)


The trailing dot is left out in day to day use when we use URLS like 
www.yahoo.com - however, its really www.yahoo.com. - note the dot on the 
end.  That's the root.


Having an A record for the root is one better than having an A record 
for, say, .edu.  In other words, this shouldn't work:


[aura.sea.bgp4.net] (ciscogeek)  nslookup . a.public-root.net
Server: a.public-root.net
Address:205.189.71.2#53

Name:   .
Address: 57.67.193.188


As for what issues it could cause, I'm not sure.  I can't think of any 
off hand, but who knows what poorly written application may not be 
expecting an A record for the root.


For most people though, it doesn't matter, because they aren't using 
public-root in the first place.


I now return you to the Cogent/Level3 thread.

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Jon Lewis]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:


See with your own eyes:

; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @a.public-root.net

 ^^


;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18588
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 15, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;.  IN  ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
.   172800  IN  SOA a.public-root.net.

  ^

hostmaster.public-root.net.\
   2005101006 43200 3600 1209600 
14400

.   172800  IN  A   57.67.193.188


Who cares?  Please stop wasting NANOG bandwidth that could be better used 
debating peering/depeering with gibberish about fringe DNS systems.



Report this to NANOG and the IETF.  Make sure you send them a copy of my
response and the headers of this message.  I am holding UNIDT personally
responsible for this technical nightmare.


Make sure to also report when pigs fly and the aliens decide to publicly 
make contact.


Apologies to anyone already .procmailrc'ing Peter to /dev/null for 
sneaking this into your inbox.


--
 Jon Lewis   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net| 
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Joe Blanchard]

Hmm, B has the same one, and C has all the other Roots listed
as A records. Would/could this really cause any sort of an issue
though? 

Regards,
-Joe Blanchard

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:

> 
> See with your own eyes:
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @a.public-root.net
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18588
> ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 15, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;.  IN  ANY
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> .   172800  IN  SOA a.public-root.net. 
> hostmaster.public-root.net.\
>  2005101006 43200 3600 
> 1209600 14400
> .   172800  IN  A   57.67.193.188
> .   172800  IN  NS  k.public-root.net.
> .   ...
> .   172800  IN  NS  j.public-root.net.
> 
> ;; Query time: 81 msec
> ;; SERVER: 205.189.71.2#53(a.public-root.net)
> ;; WHEN: Mon Oct 10 16:01:11 2005
> 
> 

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Janet Sullivan]

Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

i'm reading looking for your explanation but there isnt one.

and the A record is for what?


The A record is for "." (the DNS root).  Or at least "." as public-root 
sees it.



anyway its on a private dns server, the internet roots are fine so why worry? :)


It might impact people who have drunk enough of the public-root kool-aid 
to be using it instead of the ICANN root.  For everyone else, its just 
more evidence that alternative roots are usually a bad idea. ;-)

Re: Operational impact of depeering

[Todd Underwood]

> > It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the 
> > operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or 
> > contractual ramifications.
> 
> > Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review 
> > this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month?

in the past, we (renesys) have done reports on the impact on global
routing from various kinds of internet (and extra-internet) events,
like the 9121 leak of the full table last year, the 2003 blackouts in
the northeastern US, and the landfall of hurricane katrina.  

i've made a suggestion to the PC that we would be willing to do a
quick report on the (3)/Cogent situation, purely from a routing
perspective, if there is interest.  the idea would be to lay some
facts to the speculation from a routing perspective:

size/# of singly homed downstreams of each
apparent weight/utilization of the edge between them
timeline 
impact of the disconnection (what paths gained the most)

that sort of thing.  put some context to this as seen from a fairly
large peerset (we can mix in routeviews and ripe ris peers if
necessary, too). if nov 9 is a serious re-de-peering date, it might be
interesting to have some of these facts in evidence beforehand. 

is there interest in something like this for oct nanog?  are there
facts other than those mentioned above that people would like to see
reported on (and that can be seen from routing tables--we don't have
traffic data and most people who do won't give them up for public
viewing).

i don't want to waste time preparing it if people are over it already,
but would be happy to do something if there is interest.

todd

-- 
_
todd underwood
director of operations & security
renesys - interdomain intelligence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.renesys.com

Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Stephen J. Wilcox]

i'm reading looking for your explanation but there isnt one.

and the A record is for what?

anyway its on a private dns server, the internet roots are fine so why worry? :)

Steve

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:

> 
> See with your own eyes:
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @a.public-root.net
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18588
> ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 15, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;.  IN  ANY
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> .   172800  IN  SOA a.public-root.net. 
> hostmaster.public-root.net.\
>  2005101006 43200 3600 
> 1209600 14400
> .   172800  IN  A   57.67.193.188
> .   172800  IN  NS  k.public-root.net.
> .   ...
> .   172800  IN  NS  j.public-root.net.
> 
> ;; Query time: 81 msec
> ;; SERVER: 205.189.71.2#53(a.public-root.net)
> ;; WHEN: Mon Oct 10 16:01:11 2005
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Flags: 
> Delivered-To: GMX delivery to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2005 13:07:54 -
> Received: from LAIR.LIONPOST.NET (EHLO LAIR.LIONPOST.NET) [199.5.157.32]
>by mx0.gmx.net (mx072) with SMTP; 10 Oct 2005 15:07:54 +0200
> Received: from list.public-root.com ([199.5.157.32])
>   by LAIR.LIONPOST.NET with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EOx3o-ny-HQ
>   for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:47:20 -0400
> Received: from [206.254.45.93] (helo=ruby.cynikal.net ident=qmremote)
>   by LAIR.LIONPOST.NET with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EOx3n-nt-5J
>   for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:47:19 -0400
> Received: (qmail 9881 invoked by uid 1018); 10 Oct 2005 13:10:36 -
> Received: from localhost ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>   by localhost with SMTP; 10 Oct 2005 13:10:36 -
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Subject: [Pr-plan] BAD NEWS Re: IASON Root Domain Observatory (fwd)
> X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: 
> List-Unsubscribe: ,
>   
> List-Archive: 
> List-Post: 
> List-Help: 
> List-Subscribe: ,
>   
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found)
> X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam)
> X-GMX-UID: /QI4Y8R1eSEkOtTJ43QhaXN1IGRvb4Di
> 
> 
> Folks - got some bad news.  The Public-Root has aquired an A record - yup
> thats right - an A record.  Which see below.  Have tried to contact Paul
> Scheepers - our absent minded root operator - who now hovers very close to
> criminal conspiracy - to get him to fix this mistake.  Noone is at home at
> the inn.  Not good.  See appened message to Peter Dambier and our
> public-root associates.
> 
> I have no idea how a root will respond with an A record in it.  Should be
> interesting - but have no doubt a few things out in the wild have been
> broken.
> 
> regards
> joe
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:03:04 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IASON Root Domain Observatory
> 
> 
> Report this to NANOG and the IETF.  Make sure you send them a copy of my
> response and the headers of this message.  I am holding UNIDT personally
> responsible for this technical nightmare.
> 
> regards
> joe
> 
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:
> 
> > Kewl, '.' has got an A record :)
> >
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> @a.public-root.net . axfr
> > ;; global options:  printcmd
> > .   172800  IN  SOA a.public-root.net. 
> > hostmaster.public-root.net. 2005100906 43200 3600 1209600 14400
> > .   172800  IN  A   57.67.193.188
> > .   172800  IN  NS  a.public-root.net.
> 
> Joe Baptista, Official Public-Root Representative and Lobbyist to the
> United States Congress and Senate / Tel: +1 (202) 517-1593
> 
> Public-Root Disclosure Documents: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/
> Public-Root Discussion Forum: 
> http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Pr-plan mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://LAIR.LIONPOST.NET/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan
> 
> 
> 

Fwd: The Root has got an A record

[Peter Dambier]

See with your own eyes:

; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @a.public-root.net
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18588
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 15, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;.  IN  ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
.   172800  IN  SOA a.public-root.net. 
hostmaster.public-root.net.\
2005101006 43200 3600 1209600 
14400
.   172800  IN  A   57.67.193.188
.   172800  IN  NS  k.public-root.net.
.   ...
.   172800  IN  NS  j.public-root.net.

;; Query time: 81 msec
;; SERVER: 205.189.71.2#53(a.public-root.net)
;; WHEN: Mon Oct 10 16:01:11 2005


 Original Message 
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Flags: 
Delivered-To: GMX delivery to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2005 13:07:54 -
Received: from LAIR.LIONPOST.NET (EHLO LAIR.LIONPOST.NET) [199.5.157.32]
  by mx0.gmx.net (mx072) with SMTP; 10 Oct 2005 15:07:54 +0200
Received: from list.public-root.com ([199.5.157.32])
by LAIR.LIONPOST.NET with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EOx3o-ny-HQ
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:47:20 -0400
Received: from [206.254.45.93] (helo=ruby.cynikal.net ident=qmremote)
by LAIR.LIONPOST.NET with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EOx3n-nt-5J
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:47:19 -0400
Received: (qmail 9881 invoked by uid 1018); 10 Oct 2005 13:10:36 -
Received: from localhost ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by localhost with SMTP; 10 Oct 2005 13:10:36 -
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [Pr-plan] BAD NEWS Re: IASON Root Domain Observatory (fwd)
X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
Precedence: list
List-Id: 
List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: ,

Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found)
X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam)
X-GMX-UID: /QI4Y8R1eSEkOtTJ43QhaXN1IGRvb4Di


Folks - got some bad news.  The Public-Root has aquired an A record - yup
thats right - an A record.  Which see below.  Have tried to contact Paul
Scheepers - our absent minded root operator - who now hovers very close to
criminal conspiracy - to get him to fix this mistake.  Noone is at home at
the inn.  Not good.  See appened message to Peter Dambier and our
public-root associates.

I have no idea how a root will respond with an A record in it.  Should be
interesting - but have no doubt a few things out in the wild have been
broken.

regards
joe

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:03:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IASON Root Domain Observatory


Report this to NANOG and the IETF.  Make sure you send them a copy of my
response and the headers of this message.  I am holding UNIDT personally
responsible for this technical nightmare.

regards
joe

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:


Kewl, '.' has got an A record :)

; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> @a.public-root.net . axfr
;; global options:  printcmd
.   172800  IN  SOA a.public-root.net. 
hostmaster.public-root.net. 2005100906 43200 3600 1209600 14400
.   172800  IN  A   57.67.193.188
.   172800  IN  NS  a.public-root.net.


Joe Baptista, Official Public-Root Representative and Lobbyist to the
United States Congress and Senate / Tel: +1 (202) 517-1593

Public-Root Disclosure Documents: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/
Public-Root Discussion Forum: http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan



___
Pr-plan mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://LAIR.LIONPOST.NET/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan


--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason

RE: Operational impact of depeering

[Hannigan, Martin]

--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc.  (w) 703-948-7018
Network Engineer IV   Operations & Infrastructure
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Tom Vest
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:46 AM
> To: Nanog Mailing list
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Operational impact of depeering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 10, 2005, at 9:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >> It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the
> >> operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or
> >> contractual ramifications.
> >
> >
> >> Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review
> >> this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month?
> >
> > Aside from anything else, there is this interesting topic
> > on the agenda:
> > Abstract: NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering  
> > Networks
> > Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick,  
> > Sonic.net
> >
> > Seems to me that a discussion of traffic analysis could
> > handle a slide or two on actual impacts of this depeering.
> >
> > --Michael Dillon
> 
> Here's one way of looking at it:
> (copied below b/c the list is not publicly archived)
> 
> TV
> 
> > From: Tom Vest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: October 8, 2005 6:00:32 PM EDT
> > To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet  > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] [ misc fyi ] internet "peering" breaking  
> > down (fwd)
> >
> > Okay now that the flap is over and I have a few minutes to spare,  
> > I'll bite.
> >
> > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Peter R. wrote:
> >
> >> Your passionate response deserves a response:
> >>
> >> It's not very small indeed.
> >
> > Compared to what?
> >
> > On 10/1/05, Cogent's network (AS174 -- a very old network)  
> > originated the equivalent of  1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the  
> > "ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call  
> > the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated  
> > the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05%  
> > at that point in time.
> >
> > Note: numbers are derived from the Route Views archive:
> > http://archive.routeviews.org/oix-route-views/2005.10/oix-full- 
> > snapshot-2005-10-01-.dat.bz2.
> >
> > In an RFC 1930/2270 compliant world, 99% of networks downstream of  
> > either disputant have other, unaffected upstreams, so presumably  
> > they don't lose reachability to anyone.
> >
> > Maybe there are 1b Internet users worldwide, and maybe they are  
> > distributed roughly in proportion to the distribution of Internet  
> > production. So maybe 5% of the world population as 
> affected by the  
> > dispute -- roughly 5m users.
> >


Anti-Level(3)? The only fact in this was the route view
count, and even that could be wrong. Not a very fair
comparison, especially to make to regulatory people who
may not know better.

AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition. 
You fairly imply that Cogent is as old as PSI in garnering sympathy for
them being old school. Cogent is not old school.

-M<

Re: Operational impact of depeering

[Tom Vest]

On Oct 10, 2005, at 9:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the
operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or
contractual ramifications.




Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review
this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month?


Aside from anything else, there is this interesting topic
on the agenda:
Abstract: NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering  
Networks
Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick,  
Sonic.net


Seems to me that a discussion of traffic analysis could
handle a slide or two on actual impacts of this depeering.

--Michael Dillon


Here's one way of looking at it:
(copied below b/c the list is not publicly archived)

TV


From: Tom Vest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: October 8, 2005 6:00:32 PM EDT
To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] [ misc fyi ] internet "peering" breaking  
down (fwd)


Okay now that the flap is over and I have a few minutes to spare,  
I'll bite.


On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Peter R. wrote:


Your passionate response deserves a response:

It's not very small indeed.


Compared to what?

On 10/1/05, Cogent's network (AS174 -- a very old network)  
originated the equivalent of  1x /8 + 1x /9 -- that's 1.67% of the  
"ends" that constitute the global end-to-end network that we call  
the Internet. Same day/time, Level3's network (AS3356) originated  
the equivalent 2x /8 + 1x /9 -- or total Internet production 3.05%  
at that point in time.


Note: numbers are derived from the Route Views archive:
http://archive.routeviews.org/oix-route-views/2005.10/oix-full- 
snapshot-2005-10-01-.dat.bz2.


In an RFC 1930/2270 compliant world, 99% of networks downstream of  
either disputant have other, unaffected upstreams, so presumably  
they don't lose reachability to anyone.


Maybe there are 1b Internet users worldwide, and maybe they are  
distributed roughly in proportion to the distribution of Internet  
production. So maybe 5% of the world population was affected by the  
dispute -- roughly 5m users.


But affected how/how much? If every network end controlled by  
Cogent and L3 is no more and no less attractive than every other  
network end, then those 5m users are going to have real problems  
with roughly 5% of their Internet requirements. In the universe of  
end-to-end connections, roughly (0.0167 * 0.0205) potential links  
have been severed --  equivalent to 0.00034235 of the total. If you  
prefer, make the denominator US Internet production, which is about  
60% of the global total on any given recent day. Assume that every  
US citizen is a user, and cares only about US Internet resources,  
and you come up with roughly 8% of the national user base having  
trouble with 8% of their connectivity needs -- that's still one- 
tenth of one percent of the theoretical (US-US) connectivity total.


And now we know that the problem solved itself in about 48 hours.

Assume that this is excessively simplistic, because of course  
Cogent and L3 host much more important/active users and content,  
because there are lots of non-compliant single-homed networks that  
are also affected (assume also the non-compliant networks are not  
responsible for their failure to conform to expected use for an  
ASN). Assume it is unrealistic because some other RFC-compliant  
networks are multi-homed to tier-2 ISPs that themselves depend  
significantly on the two parties. Add your own caveats on top of  
the above; apply your own fudge factor to the numbers until you  
feel comfortable with them. How skeptical do you have to be, how  
different do you have to assume the Internet is, or L3 and Cogent  
are, in order to get to a point where this episode rises to a level  
of importance sufficient to demand a national or global regulatory  
solution?



Many ISPs are single-homed to either one or the other.


What such ISPs contribute to Internet production is either counted  
among the IP originated directly by AS 174 or AS3356 -- i.e., in  
the numbers I calculated above -- or they are multi-homed (per RFC  
1930), and were not stranded by the depeering -- or else they are  
out of compliance with the terms under which ASNs are now  
allocated, under which the broad architecture of the Internet is  
now interpreted and administered.


For instance, some Dial-up users of Alleron, purchased by Cogent,  
are stranded.


I don't understand what "stranded" could mean in this context.  
Cogent has many other direct connections to many networks other  
than Level3. Are you saying that the Cogent-controlled Alleron  
subscribers had some unique absolute dependency on connectivity  
with L3, or merely that they, like other Cogent customers, couldn't  
reach the (3.05%) share of global Internet resources that are  
directly controlled by L3?


A depeering between *peer* ISPs is not like a phone outage -- even  
u

Operational impact of depeering

[Michael . Dillon]

> It would be great if we could shift focus and think about the 
> operations impact of depeering vs. just the political and/or 
> contractual ramifications.

> Have there been any proposals put forth to the NANOG PC to review 
> this highly visible depeering at the NANOG meeting this month?

Aside from anything else, there is this interesting topic
on the agenda:
Abstract: NetFlow-based Traffic Analysis Techniques for Peering Networks 
Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, and Nathan Patrick, Sonic.net 

Seems to me that a discussion of traffic analysis could
handle a slide or two on actual impacts of this depeering.

--Michael Dillon

Re: Too much on Cogent and Level 3

[Michael . Dillon]

> I don't think anyone is learning anything new at this point.

On the contrary, I think that the number of people posting
with misconceptions demonstrates that many people *ARE*
learning something new at this point. Especially since
people who do have clue have stepped forth to try and clear
up these misconceptions.

This is really the only way to pass on knowledge to the next
generation given that Internet routing/peering is an arcane
subject which is not taught in universities. Hopefully people
realize that the mailing list only contains the freshman class
and they need to attend a few NANOG conferences to progress
further.

--Michael Dillon

Re: GigE Peering Router

[Patrick W . Gilmore]

On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:53 AM, James Ashton wrote:

 I would run from the 7206+NPE-G1 in this capacity. We have not had  
luck

actually getting a gig worth of traffic flowing through them. Great
small site router, but not much on the throughput side at all.


We are currently pushing 950+ Mbps through several 7301s.  (The 7301  
is essentially an NPE-G1 in a box by itself.)


This traffic is heavily outbound.  Several NAPs have the router, some  
with 100+ peers.  We do not have a lot of ACLs or other CPU-eating  
stuff in the config.


--
TTFN,
patrick





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On  
Behalf Of

Network Lists
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:40 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: GigE Peering Router



Hello,



I was looking for some opinions on Cisco vs. Foundry (specifically
Cisco's NPE-G1 vs a NetIron 4802). The application is mainly content
delivery - outbound heavy traffic with an emphasis on quality of
delivery.



Basically I'm looking at the 4802 because we're able to provision GigE
for all the providers, so we don't really need an architecture that  
can
support OC-type interfaces. The size is also attractive for some of  
our

smaller PoPs.



I'm also intereted in failover/hot-standby capabilities on the Foundry
as we have had much experience with them.



Best,



Lance

Re: Regulatory intervention

[Michael . Dillon]

> > Regulations also do not imply the involvement of governments.
> > It is possible for industries to self-regulate such as the
> > ARIN policies which are a product of the ARIN membership,
> > i.e. companies who use IP addresses in their networks.
> > 
> Mostly true.  However, ARIN policies are a product of both
> the ARIN membership and the IP using community at large.
> It is an important and good thing that the policy process is
> not limited to ARIN members.

I suppose the corollary to this in the world of network
peering is that it will be a good thing for end-users to
have some say in the peering agreements which are causing
some of them grief at present. Wise self-regulation of Internet
peering would find a way to incorporate the views of users
who, in the end, pay everyone's bills.

> If I had faith in any of the regulatory organizations that are likely
> to attempt to do this having half a clue about what they were attempting
> to regulate, I might be inclined to agree with you.

Self-regulation is still possible. Network operators meet regularly
in a number of venues such as MAAWG Messaging AntiAbuse Workking
Group http://www.maawg.org and our own beloved NANOG. It only takes
a bit of willpower and elbow grease to start up an industry association
with the aims of monitoring, regulating, improving and reporting on
Internet operator interconnects.

> Sure, but, the likelihood of any of the large ISPs agreeing to such a
> model is very close to zero, 

That's where people like the politicians, and the FCC come in.
When the end-users want to see change, they bother the politicians
and FCC who in turn threaten to impose regulation. The wisest
network operators see the writing on the wall and organize self
regulation as a preemptive strike.

Look at how commodities exchanges and stock exchanges publish the
detailed prices of transactions. Most people have this idea that
price data is "sensitive" and that one does not disclose the 
prices negotiated in contracts. But at the same time, the exchanges
are an accepted part of the business world.

Today we live in a world where peering agreements are "sensitive" 
and both parties are bound by NDAs. The result is that a lot of
garbage is hidden from public view and this garbage does have 
negative impacts on the end users who rely on the Internet as 
a mission critical component of their business plan. Get rid of
the secrecy and you will also get rid of the garbage.

--Michael Dillon