From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 02:28:23AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:26:06AM +0300, Emilian Ursu wrote:
> > >
> > > I see its completely down and several others are starting
> > > to have problems.
>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:26:06AM +0300, Emilian Ursu wrote:
>
> I see its completely down and several others are starting
> to have problems.
> Anyone knows whats up ?
They're giving out master ticket #'s of 1429209 1429184 and 1429189
depending on who you talk to apparently (though I don't t
Because of the number of misconceptions of my idea presented, I'm posting
this to the list. Those uninterested, feel free to ignore. Those
interested,
feel free to follow up with me directly. After this, I will not be
continuing
this on the list unless there is significant interest from mult
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 02:28:23AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:26:06AM +0300, Emilian Ursu wrote:
> >
> > I see its completely down and several others are starting
> > to have problems.
> > Anyone knows whats up ?
>
> I think everyone sees them completely
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:26:06AM +0300, Emilian Ursu wrote:
>
> I see its completely down and several others are starting
> to have problems.
> Anyone knows whats up ?
I think everyone sees them completely down across the board (even mpls
transport services), been that way for about 30 mins n
I see its completely down and several others are starting
to have problems.
Anyone knows whats up ?
Thanks
--On October 20, 2005 9:32:44 PM +0100 Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
If companies that made
vulnerable OSs were held liable for the damage caused
by those vulnerabilities, you would rapidly see $$
make a BIG difference in the security quality of
OS Software.
H
Not saying this is what others do, but you can certainly use that
criteria (via a route-map) to control whether a route is prefered by a
peer over two identical (in all other aspects) paths.
DJ
Peter Boothe wrote:
What makes you mark routes as ORIGIN: IGP vs ORIGIN: EGP?
I just checked ou
What makes you mark routes as ORIGIN: IGP vs ORIGIN: EGP?
I just checked out the latest routeviews snapshot to see what the origins
of various routes were set to. The command line
$ bzcat oix-full-snapshot-latest.dat.bz2 | sed -e 's/.* //' | sort \
| uniq -c | sort -nk1
Gave me a bunch of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thinking out loud.
I guess some sort of trust model would help similar to what nsp-sec has
in place (not sure its current state).
It could be nice if there was some sort of a consensus among this
consortium to distribute executive health metrics wit
On Oct 20, 2005, at 2:07 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Is 7018 preferring 19094 over 701 regardless of
AS-PATH length?
the convention is that, if 19094 is a customer of
7018, then it will always prefer it.
and it was confirmed that this is the case for the
prefix in question
And this is a good
psg.com:/usr/home/randy> for i in 189.0.0.1 189.128.0.1 190.0.0.1 190.128.0.1;
do ping -c 5 $i; done
PING 189.0.0.1 (189.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 189.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=220.296 ms
64 bytes from 189.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=219.952 ms
64 bytes from 189.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Owen DeLong) wrote:
> Why wouldn't rewriting work? The "encapsulation" you show below
> is little different from the rewrite I propose.
Except that it conserves the original addressing information,
which I believe to be important.
> First, let's
> start with something that l
Hi,
There was some packet filters based on ip destination/source address
in between the machines. It should be all working now.
Thanks for all feedbacks.
Ricardo Patara
--
L A C N I C
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 09:29:49AM -0200, Ricardo Patara wrote:
|
| Hello,
| Commenting myself, there is
Owen DeLong wrote:
> If companies that made> vulnerable OSs were held liable for the damage caused> by those vulnerabilities, you would rapidly see $$> make a BIG difference in the security quality of> OS Software.
How would that work for free/open source OSs/software? Who exactly would be held li
Owen DeLong wrote:
A customer with a prefix assigned from this chunk has to connect with an
ISP who has
* a Very Large Multihoming (to handle scaling concerns) router somewhere
in its network that peers to other ISP Very Large Multihoming routers.
ISP operating a VLMrouter to offer multiho
--On October 20, 2005 2:31:39 PM -0400 "Howard, W. Lee"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Imagine instead, a world where Routing Location Identifiers
>> are not coupled to End System Identifiers and Interdomain
>> routing (AS-AS routing) occurred based on Routing Location
>> Identifier, and only
> Mind you, it would help if some of the anti-abuse groups
> would band together under some umbrella organization that
> ISPs could join. Botnet researchers, SPAM fighters, etc.
> That way there could be some sort of good housekeeping
> seal of approval that ISPs can use to competitive advantage
>
Same here from multiple networks on the west coast & some on the east.
See the routes in the table though.
--
Bill Sehmel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 1-206-242-2743
Systems Support, HopOne Internet Corp. SEA2 NOC
Bandwidth & full range of carrier/web host colo + networking
services: http://www.ho
My results match Randy's. I looked at these blocks from several
networks (ATT, Cogent, PSI, XO, Comcast). All have the routes
showing. ICMP Echo packets do not come back via any of them. Either
the machines aren't listening, the echos are being blocked, or
there's widespread blockage.
Trace
> Rewriting would IMHO not work easily, but encapsulation would.
> Admittedly, this idea has occurred and lead to MPLS
> implementations (which are weak at interconnecting ISPs anyway).
>
Why wouldn't rewriting work? The "encapsulation" you show below
is little different from the rewrite I propos
> A customer with a prefix assigned from this chunk has to connect with an
> ISP who has
>
> * a Very Large Multihoming (to handle scaling concerns) router somewhere
> in its network that peers to other ISP Very Large Multihoming routers.
>
> ISP operating a VLMrouter to offer multihoming servi
On Oct 20, 2005, at 5:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/ron/ronweb/#code
(Part of my thesis work,
Hehe, google for "vixie ifdefault".
Paul's use of Squid is mentioned in this NANOG
posting:
http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9702/msg00431.html
Here are
>>> Is 7018 preferring 19094 over 701 regardless of
>>> AS-PATH length?
>> the convention is that, if 19094 is a customer of
>> 7018, then it will always prefer it.
and it was confirmed that this is the case for the
prefix in question
> And this is a good reason not to cross "tiers" of your
> tr
On Oct 20, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Is 7018 preferring 19094 over 701 regardless of
AS-PATH length?
the convention is that, if 19094 is a customer of
7018, then it will always prefer it.
And this is a good reason not to cross "tiers" of your transit
providers. Either have
Same from here. I get to brasil telecom then nothing. Routes are in
the table...
Chris
Randy Bush wrote:
Commenting myself, there is an machine in the first address of
each the announced blocks. Just in the case someone want to
ping/traceroute. (189.0.0.1, 189.128.0.1, 190.0.0.1, 190.128.
Hi.
How long did you wait to see your block come back during
testing? I've seen it take > 60 seconds in some cases.
For redundancy with non PI IP space, It's generally only
important that the ISP you are getting the IP block from can
see both routes, and that it sees it at the same level of
loc
Sprint's not playing nice. All of my upstreams appear to dump it to sprint at
some point and I get:
10 sl-bb22-orl-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.130) [AS 1239] 64 msec 68
msec 72 msec
11 sl-st20-mia-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.56) [AS 1239] 84 msec 84 msec
84 msec
12 sl-brazi-1-0.sp
> Commenting myself, there is an machine in the first address of
> each the announced blocks. Just in the case someone want to
> ping/traceroute. (189.0.0.1, 189.128.0.1, 190.0.0.1, 190.128.0.1)
> I forgot to mention this before.
from a quite competent dsl provider in hawai`i
roam.psg.com:/usr/
On 10/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mind you, it would help if some of the anti-abuse groups
> would band together under some umbrella organization that
> ISPs could join. Botnet researchers, SPAM fighters, etc.
The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG) and the
Anti-Phi
> RSA Europe 2005 ISPs must be made liable for viruses and other bad
> network traffic, Bruce Schneier, security guru and founder and CTO of
> Counterpane Internet Security, told The Register yesterday.
Are local town councils responsible for crack dealers
and crack users when that activity takes
I wasn't thinking in terms of automatic monitoring, that would open up
a can of worms security wise.
Just looking at some way of getting the manual reporting (that is still
taking place to the FCC) back in the (semi?)public domain. Due to
terrorism concerns, that information is no longer availab
Bruce Schneier seems to think so...
//
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/19/schneier_talks_law/
By John Oates in Vienna
19th October 2005
RSA Europe 2005 ISPs must be made liable for viruses and other bad
network traffic, Bruce Schneier, security guru and founder and CTO of
Counterpane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Li) wrote:
> Please expect that your idea has been discussed before. We're an old
> bunch. ;-)
I've just answered on a mail from Owen, so maybe you get the feeling of
"oh, we discarded that long ago" when you read it.
Please tell me ;-)
Elmar.
--
"Begehe nur nicht
I wanted to answer on this, because I thought along the same lines.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Owen DeLong) wrote:
> For example:
>
> Host A connected to ISP X then ISP Y to ISP Z which
> provides service to Host B.
>
> Today, A, X, Y, Z all need to know how to reach B.
>
> If we separated the RLI fr
This is what I meant by suggesting that source routing was an original
attempt at a seperation from routing/locating and endpoint identifiers.
You can replace the concept of "source routing" in below with mpls TE,
l2tpv3 or any other suitable encapsulation mechanism.
The concept is that the
Hello,
Commenting myself, there is an machine in the first address of
each the announced blocks. Just in the case someone want to
ping/traceroute. (189.0.0.1, 189.128.0.1, 190.0.0.1, 190.128.0.1)
I forgot to mention this before.
Ricardo Patara
--
L A C N I C
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:02:24
> > http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/ron/ronweb/#code
> >
> > (Part of my thesis work,
>
> Hehe, google for "vixie ifdefault".
Paul's use of Squid is mentioned in this NANOG
posting:
http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9702/msg00431.html
Here are the notes from the SF NANOG presentation:
http:
A few questions that might help narrow down the problem you were seeing:
How exactly did you test the fail over?
How much time did you wait for things to stabilize before deciding the
fail-over did not work and turning the second connection back on?
How is your outbound routing setup? Defa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kyaw Khine) wrote:
> I opened ticket with both 701 and 19094 when we did
> failover 2 weeks ago. Both 701 and 19094 insist that
> they just take the route and send it out to the rest
> of the world.
I do see the prefix via both 701 and 19094 (heavily prepended)
here in Frankfu
> Is 7018 preferring 19094 over 701 regardless of
> AS-PATH length?
the convention is that, if 19094 is a customer of
7018, then it will always prefer it.
randy
41 matches
Mail list logo
