This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jul 5 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:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Chris Beggy wrote:
> > Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
>
> Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
>
> -Dan
I really really shouldn't do this to myself but...
Our UUNet invoice has been correct every month since the T1 circuit was
i
Sean made some good points: the +6hr disruption is a far reach without
serious physical damage.--Nearly as good a point as Eric's hallarious
abstraction--
Disgruntled employees, script kiddies, and all but the most diabolical
hate-group are only going to cost a moderate amount of cash in SLA
vio
At 08:47 PM 7/5/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I have not been at one company, not one, service provider or otherwise that
>has not had major WCOM billing issues. No matter how large or small we
>were.
In dealing with them in one form or another since 1994 when I started
Tellurian Networks (Garden Ne
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Dave Stewart wrote:
> At 08:42 PM 7/5/2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
> I heard once that there was, but I think it's actually an urban legend.
I haven't been... yet ;>
Reminds me of motorcycles - there's two
At 08:42 PM 7/5/2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
>Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
I heard once that there was, but I think it's actually an urban legend.
I have not been at one company, not one, service provider or otherwise that
has not had major WCOM billing issues. No matter how large or small we
were.
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris Beggy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Frid
Sean Donelan wrote:
> Disrupting the Internet is a matter of scale and time.
Quick show of hands. How many of you recently-laid-off engineers have
automated router-pampering scripts still running on your old
workstations, which nobody at your ex-employer knows about? How many of
you still
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Chris Beggy wrote:
> Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
I don't understand many of the cyber-scare articles. If I was cynical,
and I thought we had a clever government, I would say it was all a
diversionary tactic to distract attackers from the more vulnerable
infrastructures.
Disrupting the Internet is a matter of scale and time. It is fairly
triv
Wcom's overbilling will be investigated:
http://www.ctnow.com/business/hc-worldcomcover0704.artjul04.story?coll=hc%2Dheadlines%2Dbusiness
Chris
msg03355/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> > Or, are you saying that an anycast host has to be a router running BGP ?
>
> No, typically they run OSPF.
Perhaps a little further explanation may help Marshall... think: a *nix
box running zebra, connected to a router.
> > This works for DNS, but not for
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Doesnt announcing the same routing prefix into BGP from multiple locations do
> the same thing without needing a new range or enhancement in IGMP etc ?
Correct. That's _all anycast is_. Nothing tricky here. At all.
> Or, are you saying that an anycast host has to be a router running BGP ?
No, typically they run OSPF.
> So if it goes down, so would the service and the announcements?
Correct. If a device wants to witdraw itself from a service pool, it
withdraws the host route associated with that
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
> http://www.cisco.com/public/cons/isp/essentials/ip-anycast-cmetz-03.pdf
Yes, this document correctly described IPv4 anycast. It somewhat
overstates the severity of the issue with TCP and the dynamicism of the
underlying network topo
> ... beyond that, security and anycast don't mix well without the data
> being authenticated, e.g. dnssec.
i won't disagree. anycast's cost:benefit analysis is compellingly against
its use in most situations. root name service may be one of them. now, if
the ops community can figure out a wa
SW> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:50:24 +0100
SW> From: Simon Waters
SW> I think the gtld-servers.net are the target for a globally
SW> disruptive and prolonged DDoS. Servers doing reverse lookup
SW> might also be targets in more specialised attacks, as their
SW> disruption would be continent wide
> Now that we've seen enough years of experience from Genuity.orig,
> UltraDNS, Nominum, AS112, and {F,K}.root-servers.net, we're seriously
> talking about using anycast for the root server system.
without dnssec, how do we differentiate this from a routing attack
on the roots?
the as112 anycas
ME> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 12:28:46 -0400
ME> From: Marshall Eubanks
ME> Let's go through this a little.
ME>
ME> Let's say that you and I are running the foo service in
ME> anycast. You announce the foo IP address (say in a /24)
ME> behind your AS, I announce the same /24 behind my AS. Now, if
> From: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Tancsa) writes:
>
> > ... Still, I think the softest targets are the root name
> servers. I was
> > glad to hear at the Toronto NANOG meeting that this was
> being looked into
> > from a routing perspective. Not sure what is
Dear Rodney;
Thanks for the info.
Rodney Joffe wrote:
> Marshall,
>
> First, I hope you don't mind that I cut all the additional cc's. I don't
> think any of the folks really needed extra copies ;-)
>
> Now...
>
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:36:49 +0100 (BST)
>> "
Marshall,
First, I hope you don't mind that I cut all the additional cc's. I don't
think any of the folks really needed extra copies ;-)
Now...
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:36:49 +0100 (BST)
> "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Doesnt announcing the s
> Ok, here is my master plan to take down the Internet. First, we
> will spend two weeks writing up several hundred seemingly simple,
> short questions and innane statements regarding ORBS, filtering
> RFC1918 space, Peering, and all of Nanog's other favorite topics.
> Then, we'll start posting
:: Said in my best Dr. Evil voice ::
Ok, here is my master plan to take down the Internet. First, we will spend
two weeks writing up several hundred seemingly simple, short questions
and innane statements regarding ORBS, filtering RFC1918 space, Peering, and
all of Nanog's other favorite top
ME> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:05:44 -0400
ME> From: Marshall Eubanks
ME> - it's static - no failover. If AS 701 and AS 1239 are both
ME> announcing a route to foo, and your preferred route is
ME> "through" AS701, and the AS701 foo goes down, then you do not
ME> automatically switch over to the
Uhm it seems to me people are trying to make this whole AS112-thing sound more
complex than it really is...
We use the BGP anycast-method in our backbone, and have been doing so for a
long time. Basically, we have multiple caching DNS-servers scattered around
our network, but all of them use
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> > Is this the anycast based on MSDP ?
>
> Anycast, not multicast.
>
> -Bill
>
>
But the only IPv4 anycast
that I kno
> But the only IPv4 anycast
> that I know of does use MSDP :
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-anycast-rp-08.txt
> Is there a different proposal ? What's the RFC / I-D name ?
You seem to be confusing anycast with something complicated. It's not a
protocol,
28 matches
Mail list logo
