Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Anne Marcel Roorda wrote: Having a support model in which anyone can call any NOC about a problem they're having does not scale very well. How about a model where any large (multiple OC12s) CUSTOMER can call a NOC about a problem they're having??? -- 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: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Sabri Berisha wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Anne Marcel Roorda wrote: Having a support model in which anyone can call any NOC about a problem they're having does not scale very well. What would work better/faster? my-noc - b0rken-noc or my-noc - my-upstream-noc - b0rken-noc-upstream-noc - b0rken-noc Work better for who? For you? Sure. For a any provider that needs to provide quality services to its customers and follow processes to do so, not a chance. The Big Picture is key here. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
In a message written on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 08:11:14AM -0600, Andy Walden wrote: What would work better/faster? my-noc - b0rken-noc or my-noc - my-upstream-noc - b0rken-noc-upstream-noc - b0rken-noc Work better for who? For you? Sure. For a any provider that needs to provide quality services to its customers and follow processes to do so, not a chance. The Big Picture is key here. Note that in both cases, b0rken-noc takes a single call, so their load is unchanged. The second case adds a call to both my-upstream-noc, and b0rken-noc-upstream-noc. It would seem going direct would put a lower load on NOC's in general, which presumably would let them spend more time on problems and provide better service. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote: Note that in both cases, b0rken-noc takes a single call, so their load is unchanged. The second case adds a call to both my-upstream-noc, and b0rken-noc-upstream-noc. It would seem going direct would put a lower load on NOC's in general, which presumably would let them spend more time on problems and provide better service. Where is the limit though? Once I open things up to non customers, and let any random person call me, without any sort of filters or controls, what keeps my best guys from troubleshooting someone's mistyped SMTP server in their mail client? Processes are put in place to scale and when they are disregarded, things generally end up worse in the long run. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:43:26 EST, Leo Bicknell said: my-noc - my-upstream-noc - b0rken-noc-upstream-noc - b0rken-noc It would seem going direct would put a lower load on NOC's in general, which presumably would let them spend more time on problems and provide better service. The difference being that if the call comes from b0rken-noc-upstream-noc, the guys at b0rken-noc have at least a snowball's chance of knowing the person calling and whether they have any kloo. If our NOC calls one of our upstreams and says hey, ASnnn is sending you bogons that you're forwarding to us, they tend to listen, and call the guys at ASnnn and tell them to cut it out. (Yes Leo, you know most of our NOC monkeys, so you know what the chances are they're right about something ;) On the other hand, if we call ASnnn directly, they have no way of knowing if we're us, or if we're some bunch that thinks it makes sense to hang an AS off a residential ADSL line... Now, if we had a PGP-ish web of clue, it would be different -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg00528/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
On 2002-03-29 at 09:45 -0600, Andy Walden wrote: It would seem going direct would put a lower load on NOC's in general, which presumably would let them spend more time on problems and provide better service. Where is the limit though? Once I open things up to non customers, and let any random person call me, without any sort of filters or controls, So apply filters and controls. Your NOC: Are you one of our customers or peers, sir/madam? Caller : Uhm, no ... Your NOC: Ah, I see. Then could I please have your registry handle for route maintenance, and which registry that belongs to? Accept peers, customers, or anyone who has clue sufficient to have a registry handle, preferably one listed as a maintainer for one end of whichever path they're complaining about. Verification probably isn't needed, as by that point in the conversation, the people who can't even configure their mail clients will have been weeded out. Clue filters. Gotta love 'em. -- I understand office diplomacy. I know to whom I should not admit what is technically possible.
RE: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
Title: RE: Help with bad announcement from UUnet I would generally agree that non-paying customers should not get top-shelf service, but when it is someone with clue calling (your people should be able to tell, they should be clueful to a degree) about an issue that is being sourced from your network, or transits your network, is it not an issue that you should be involved in anyway? Why wait for the call from your upstream when you can get a jump on the problem? James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE Systems Engineer The Presidio Corporation Yeah, I know, top-posting is frowned upon. I have other bad habits... -Original Message- From: fingers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 11:51 AM To: Leo Bicknell Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet Hi Note that in both cases, b0rken-noc takes a single call, so their load is unchanged. The second case adds a call to both my-upstream-noc, and b0rken-noc-upstream-noc. It would seem going direct would put a lower load on NOC's in general, which presumably would let them spend more time on problems and provide better service. surely a noc's first responsability is to direct customers? even if the other network experiencing the problem may affect said customer, the service is not just about connectivity, but also about trying to deal with calls in the best possible manner. if more time were spent on non-customers, a paying customer would end up losing out on that warm fuzzy feeling when his call is answered promptly, the person he speaks to actually listens, and his general experience interacting with the noc is something he doesn't walk away from feeling cheated. Regards --Rob
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
I've obviously caused a stir. Before I proceed, let me say I'm going to continue mentioning UU.net as I've had experience there... The responses to this list indicate this is a more widespread problem, so please don't take this as necessarily badmouthing uu.net. Let me first say EXACTLY what I was looking for. I'm multihomed. All I've wanted out of uu.net each time I've called is a traceroute and/or BGP output to determine which path my packets were heading back towards me on so *I* could get the problem fixed. I.E. to determine where the loss was really occuring and/or who was mis-announcing a prefix. In every case where I've tried to contact uu.net it's been obvious that as soon as traffic reaches their AS, everything goes to pot. Without being able to take a peek inside their network (via a traceroute or sh ip bgp) It's almost impossible to tell where the problem lies, since the problem is obviously with traffic getting back to my network. I agree with batz: On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, batz wrote: Because their network transits _most_ internet traffic and as a courtesy, they should provide some bare level of diagnostic services to the rest of the network. I can't think of a case where I've called the uu.net noc where I wanted more information than could have been queried through a standard looking glass (I.E. traceroute and BGP information). In fact, if uu.net provided a looking glass we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Without rambling much further I'll add this: Yes, I realize there are scaling issues. Yes, I do want to call my upstream to get it fixed. No, I don't expect uu.net to own the problem (unless of course it IS their problem). BUT I can't tell which of my upstreams is having the problem in order to call them without a BGP or traceroute from the provider we're having problems reaching. - Forrest W. Christian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) AC7DE -- The Innovation Machine Ltd. P.O. Box 5749 http://www.imach.com/Helena, MT 59604 Home of PacketFlux Technogies and BackupDNS.com (406)-442-6648 -- Protect your personal freedoms - visit http://www.lp.org/
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
After re-reading the following message I wanted to make sure I was clear that I am *not* currently having any connectivity problems with uu.net. It just happens often enough (and since it was brought up) that I wanted to find out what other people did to resolve this. I have recieved a couple of nice notes from people at uu.net offering to help in the future. I will be keeping those on file for future reference. I would like to say that my comments below still stand. I wouldn't have needed to contact the uunet NOC if a public looking glass was provided. On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:10:18 + (GMT) From: Forrest W. Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: batz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark E. Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet I've obviously caused a stir. Before I proceed, let me say I'm going to continue mentioning UU.net as I've had experience there... The responses to this list indicate this is a more widespread problem, so please don't take this as necessarily badmouthing uu.net. Let me first say EXACTLY what I was looking for. I'm multihomed. All I've wanted out of uu.net each time I've called is a traceroute and/or BGP output to determine which path my packets were heading back towards me on so *I* could get the problem fixed. I.E. to determine where the loss was really occuring and/or who was mis-announcing a prefix. In every case where I've tried to contact uu.net it's been obvious that as soon as traffic reaches their AS, everything goes to pot. Without being able to take a peek inside their network (via a traceroute or sh ip bgp) It's almost impossible to tell where the problem lies, since the problem is obviously with traffic getting back to my network. I agree with batz: On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, batz wrote: Because their network transits _most_ internet traffic and as a courtesy, they should provide some bare level of diagnostic services to the rest of the network. I can't think of a case where I've called the uu.net noc where I wanted more information than could have been queried through a standard looking glass (I.E. traceroute and BGP information). In fact, if uu.net provided a looking glass we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Without rambling much further I'll add this: Yes, I realize there are scaling issues. Yes, I do want to call my upstream to get it fixed. No, I don't expect uu.net to own the problem (unless of course it IS their problem). BUT I can't tell which of my upstreams is having the problem in order to call them without a BGP or traceroute from the provider we're having problems reaching. - Forrest W. Christian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) AC7DE -- The Innovation Machine Ltd. P.O. Box 5749 http://www.imach.com/Helena, MT 59604 Home of PacketFlux Technogies and BackupDNS.com (406)-442-6648 -- Protect your personal freedoms - visit http://www.lp.org/ - Forrest W. Christian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) AC7DE -- The Innovation Machine Ltd. P.O. Box 5749 http://www.imach.com/Helena, MT 59604 Home of PacketFlux Technogies and BackupDNS.com (406)-442-6648 -- Protect your personal freedoms - visit http://www.lp.org/
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 01:18:10PM +0100, Anne Marcel Roorda wrote: Having a support model in which anyone can call any NOC about a problem they're having does not scale very well. I felt justified in calling UUnet. I know the conversation had morphed by the time you made the above comment. However in my case UUnet was propagating an announcement that was stepping on one of ours; the owner of the netblock was there to say that he did not want that announcement being made; the UUnet customer making the announcement (who I would rather have dealt with) was apparently operating without a crew. Here was a conversation between directly affected parties. It came down to who was bothering who: was it UUnet bothering me by announcing my route, or was it me bothering them by asking them to stop? The model of I won't talk to anybody who isn't my customer is probably almost always right, but it does not work for every single situation. With that stand, you wouldn't have an abuse contact. Sometimes your actions directly affect somebody and you should be willing to deal with the consequences of that. While their initial reaction in my case was I can't talk to you, they did indeed reconsider and help out. Thanks again. It happened pretty much at the instant I asked for help here, which is the usual sort of kharma.. BTW as I mentioned when I contacted Genuity, they advised me to contact UUnet directly. So by inference at least one large carrier (Genuity) seems to feel that contacting them directly is appropriate. -mm- my once-per-year posting average is really blown now..
