Re: Curious question on hop identity...
i'm sure someone knows -exactly- what those two hops are, but they may not be willing to say. http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200605/msg00250.html might be an explaination for the paranoid. --bill On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 07:24:52AM +, Fergie wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This may be far afield insofar as topic fodder, but I am curious if anyone knows exactly what these two hops [9] [10] below, actually are? [snip] [...] 5 165 ms 161 ms 183 ms 10g-9-1-ur04.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net [68.87. 192.49] 6 155 ms 156 ms 149 ms 10g-7-1-ur03.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net [68.87. 192.41] 7 ** 163 ms 10g-9-1-ar01.sfsutro.ca.sfba.comcast.net [68.87. 192.37] 8 161 ms 157 ms * 68.87.226.130 9 169 ms 185 ms 171 ms 12.116.90.17 10 197 ms 198 ms 196 ms 12.122.114.66 11 157 ms 169 ms 175 ms ggr3-ge110.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.82.169] 12 145 ms 149 ms 148 ms 192.205.33.82 13 182 ms 196 ms 209 ms ae-2-54.bbr2.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.123.97] 14 344 ms 332 ms 339 ms as-0-0.mp2.Stockholm1.Level3.net [4.68.128.70] 15 330 ms 343 ms 390 ms ge-1-1.car2.Stockholm1.Level3.net [4.68.96.226] [...] [snip] I have asked SBC/ATT folks and received no reply at all... Cheers, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.1 (Build 1557) wj8DBQFFgPw+q1pz9mNUZTMRAiFEAJ9y481aCutAqVuQrLcMPa3iC6SoXwCgigNC ZE+BBNraVc4VMlUKfyzYNJg= =34zg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Curious question on hop identity...
ATT's 'internet free' mpls core? randy ___ sent from a handheld, so even more terse than usual :-)
Anyone know of a meaningful way to reach teleglobe?
thanks, -Drew
Need BGP clueful contact at Global Crossing
If there are any BGP clueful contacts at Global Crossing listening (or if someone listening wants to forward this to them :-), I would appreciate your getting in touch. ___ /| /| /| \Michael A. Patton, President [EMAIL PROTECTED] / | / | /_|__/MAP Network Engineering http://MAP-NE.com / |/ |/ | Network Infrastructure design: Routing, DNS, more
RE: Anyone know of a meaningful way to reach teleglobe?
Meaningful? Compose a love sonnet; flowers, chocolates, teddy bears? Seriously: www.peeringdb.com. -- Randy. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:11 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Anyone know of a meaningful way to reach teleglobe? thanks, -Drew
Clueful Comcast.net Contact Needed
Can someone clueful from comcast.net contact me offlist please? Getting through the outer defenses is proving difficult. :-( Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Need BGP clueful contact at Global Crossing
On 14 Dec 2006 09:47:46 -0500, Michael A. Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there are any BGP clueful contacts at Global Crossing listening (or if someone listening wants to forward this to them :-), I would appreciate your getting in touch. Out of curiousity, why do you think anyone here on NANOG would be willing to bother the clueful contacts they know at provider (X) based on an email like this? It's absolutely content-free. Now, if you included examples of BGP announcements that were being leaked that shouldn't be, or prefixes of yours that they were accidentally hijacking, or traceroutes going from San Jose to Paris and then back to Palo Alto within their network, or some other level of operationally interesting content, then it's much more likely the issue would be passed along either via forwarding the email, or, if the issue was sufficiently interesting, via a more immediate channel (cell phone/IM/IRC/smoke signal/INOC-DBA phone/etc). But as it currently stands, my view of Global Crossing's network doesn't show any problems worth contacting them about, so I'm unlikely to pass along your request. For all I know, you might really be a terrorist out to collapse their infrastructure by sleep depriving their backbone engineers night after night with inane requests until their REM-deprived brains fat-finger the router configs into oblivion. And that just wouldn't be good. So. How about trying again, but with relevant content that indicates an operational issue with their network, and then we can pass that along to the right folks who can look into it. Thanks! Matt (not now, nor ever have been affiliated with 3549, in case there's any possibility of confusion)
RE: Need BGP clueful contact at Global Crossing
On 14 Dec 2006 09:47:46 -0500, Michael A. Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there are any BGP clueful contacts at Global Crossing listening (or if someone listening wants to forward this to them :-), I would appreciate your getting in touch. Out of curiousity, why do you think anyone here on NANOG would be willing to bother the clueful contacts they know at provider (X) based on an email like this? It's absolutely content-free. Having been on both sides of an issue like this one, I'd much rather see polite requests like the original requestor, rather than a 10 page dump on why provider X is severely borked. Good netiquette, seems to me.
Re: Need BGP clueful contact at Global Crossing
On 12/14/06, Lasher, Donn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having been on both sides of an issue like this one, I'd much rather see polite requests like the original requestor, rather than a 10 page dump on why provider X is severely borked. Good netiquette, seems to me. so NANOG becomes a paging service with no vetting process? if you need people to tap their contacts because you've exhausted every other avenue, you're gonna have to at least explain, if not prove, why you need someone else on this list to go out of their way to put you in contact with someone (grammarians can hit me in a private email for that sentence). and who knows, in the process of reading that 10 page dump, perhaps someone on the list can not only point out the real problem to you - but put you incontact with an even more appropriate contact. seems more efficient for everyone involved, to me.
Re: Curious question on hop identity...
Bah, Humbug. Optical taps don't decrement TTLs or generate ICMP packets. San Francisco Bay Area cable modem networks have transitioned from @Home to ATT Broadband to Comcast, so there is probably all sorts of expedient things done to keep it working through those transitions and IP addresses and IN-ADDR.ARPA files don't always align with how routers were divided up when companies buy/sell/exchange networks. There are probably still networks in NCR/Lucent/Olivette/ATT that have odd IP addresses from various mergers and splits over the years. Occam's razor suggests those two hops are two routers in San Francisco connecting Comcast regional network to the ATT common IP backbone for transit to ATT's peering connections with other Internet backbones. Besides, why do you believe the text in an in-addr.arpa record? Or why do you think the absence of an in-addr.arpa record is meaningful? On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm sure someone knows -exactly- what those two hops are, but they may not be willing to say. http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200605/msg00250.html might be an explaination for the paranoid. On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 07:24:52AM +, Fergie wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This may be far afield insofar as topic fodder, but I am curious if anyone knows exactly what these two hops [9] [10] below, actually are? [snip] [...] 5 165 ms 161 ms 183 ms 10g-9-1-ur04.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net [68.87. 192.49] 6 155 ms 156 ms 149 ms 10g-7-1-ur03.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net [68.87. 192.41] 7 ** 163 ms 10g-9-1-ar01.sfsutro.ca.sfba.comcast.net [68.87. 192.37] 8 161 ms 157 ms * 68.87.226.130 9 169 ms 185 ms 171 ms 12.116.90.17 10 197 ms 198 ms 196 ms 12.122.114.66 11 157 ms 169 ms 175 ms ggr3-ge110.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.82.169] 12 145 ms 149 ms 148 ms 192.205.33.82 13 182 ms 196 ms 209 ms ae-2-54.bbr2.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.123.97] 14 344 ms 332 ms 339 ms as-0-0.mp2.Stockholm1.Level3.net [4.68.128.70] 15 330 ms 343 ms 390 ms ge-1-1.car2.Stockholm1.Level3.net [4.68.96.226] [...] [snip] I have asked SBC/ATT folks and received no reply at all... Cheers, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.1 (Build 1557) wj8DBQFFgPw+q1pz9mNUZTMRAiFEAJ9y481aCutAqVuQrLcMPa3iC6SoXwCgigNC ZE+BBNraVc4VMlUKfyzYNJg= =34zg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Curious question on hop identity...
Besides, why do you believe the text in an in-addr.arpa record? Or why do you think the absence of an in-addr.arpa record is meaningful? 'cause i am a trusting sort... i tend to believe the DNS. even more so when i can validate the signed replys... the absence of DNS entries (forward or reverse) leads me to beleive that address literals are still a useful attribute... (although I find it tough to justify using octal representations) --bill
Re: Clueful Comcast.net Contact Needed
Can someone clueful from comcast.net contact me offlist please? Getting through the outer defenses is proving difficult. :-( Do we need some kind of tutorial on how to get through outer defenses and make contact with clueful NOC personnel? The Rockford Files is available on DVD now if you want some general tips... --Michael Dillon
Re: Curious question on hop identity...
Besides, why do you believe the text in an in-addr.arpa record? Or why do you think the absence of an in-addr.arpa record is meaningful? Back in the old days, say 10 years ago, you could run a network by the seat of your pants using rules of thumb about interpretation of in-addr.arpa records. And you could be quite successful at running a network using such techniques because everybody else was doing pretty much the same thing. Because of this uniformity, you could make a lot of intelligent guesses and resolve problems. However, I think times have changed, there is no longer uniformity among the people making technical decisions about Internet networks and many rules of thumb don't work any more even though they are still out there in network operator folklore. In fact, most people making network architectural decisions about Internet networks don't participate in NANOG any more. Most people making network operational decisions also do not participate in NANOG anymore. It's not just that many people have left NANOG behind, but a lot of newcomers to the industry over the past few years have not joined NANOG because they don't get why it is relevant to them. Not that I'm complaining about the message quoted above. It is a great example of the useful information that one can find in this mailing list. I wish there were more messages like this one, i.e. people sharing info rather than complaints and pleas for help. --Michael Dillon
nanog revelancy to newcomers [was Re: Curious question on hop identity...]
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In fact, most people making network architectural
: decisions about Internet networks don't participate
: in NANOG any more. Most people making network
: operational decisions also do not participate
: in NANOG anymore. It's not just that many
: people have left NANOG behind, but a lot of
: newcomers to the industry over the past few
: years have not joined NANOG because they don't
: get why it is relevant to them.
rant
I just have to add to this. I have worked with quite a few CC{IE, NP, SP, ...}
types lately that've been given lead positions and high responsibilities.
(Hell, some have .sigs that look like the dictionary. They're very good at
passing cert tests.) Many don't want to know about UNIX and Open Source
Software. I don't mean not use it in production, but don't want to know
anything about it at all. They don't want to know how the internals of any of
it works. They want to design by book regurgitation and operate by
point-and-click. They don't think about things organically or as the Big
Picture, rather they have a very narrow point of view. It's a change of
personality type behind this. Do the least amount of work for the most amount
of money. It's not geek-excitement that drives them. It's a crazy world when
CCxx certs are considered more valuable than EE or Comp Sci degrees. :-(
/rant
Perhaps use more shiny, colorful and less detailed presentations with a lot of
pointy-clicky stuff... ;-)
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Curious question on hop identity...
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:19:14 +
Besides, why do you believe the text in an in-addr.arpa record? Or why
do
you think the absence of an in-addr.arpa record is meaningful?
Back in the old days, say 10 years ago, you
could run a network by the seat of your pants
using rules of thumb about interpretation of
in-addr.arpa records. And you could be quite
successful at running a network using such techniques
because everybody else was doing pretty much the
same thing. Because of this uniformity, you could make
a lot of intelligent guesses and resolve problems.
However, I think times have changed, there is no
longer uniformity among the people making technical
decisions about Internet networks and many rules
of thumb don't work any more even though they are
still out there in network operator folklore.
In fact, most people making network architectural
decisions about Internet networks don't participate
in NANOG any more. Most people making network operational
decisions also do not participate in NANOG anymore.
It's not just that many people have left NANOG behind,
but a lot of newcomers to the industry over the past
few years have not joined NANOG because they don't
get why it is relevant to them.
Not that I'm complaining about the message quoted above.
It is a great example of the useful information that one
can find in this mailing list. I wish there were more
messages like this one, i.e. people sharing info rather
than complaints and pleas for help.
--Michael Dillon
RE: Curious question on hop identity...
I'm pretty new to the networking world. While I don't run a huge and complex network in a service provider market. We're just an enterprise network. I have read a lot of useful info about networking from the nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the designers and such at larger companies and I mention NANOG most of them brush it off and say The NANOG people are the past and what they have to say doesn't matter anymore. That's the general feel I get from others when it concerns NANOG. Joseph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Curious question on hop identity... Besides, why do you believe the text in an in-addr.arpa record? Or why do you think the absence of an in-addr.arpa record is meaningful? Back in the old days, say 10 years ago, you could run a network by the seat of your pants using rules of thumb about interpretation of in-addr.arpa records. And you could be quite successful at running a network using such techniques because everybody else was doing pretty much the same thing. Because of this uniformity, you could make a lot of intelligent guesses and resolve problems. However, I think times have changed, there is no longer uniformity among the people making technical decisions about Internet networks and many rules of thumb don't work any more even though they are still out there in network operator folklore. In fact, most people making network architectural decisions about Internet networks don't participate in NANOG any more. Most people making network operational decisions also do not participate in NANOG anymore. It's not just that many people have left NANOG behind, but a lot of newcomers to the industry over the past few years have not joined NANOG because they don't get why it is relevant to them. Not that I'm complaining about the message quoted above. It is a great example of the useful information that one can find in this mailing list. I wish there were more messages like this one, i.e. people sharing info rather than complaints and pleas for help. --Michael Dillon
RE: Curious question on hop identity...
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the designers and such at larger companies and I mention NANOG most of them brush it off and say The NANOG people are the past and what they have to say doesn't matter anymore. That's the general feel I get from others when it concerns NANOG. Did they say who they felt 'the present' folks are? scott ps. feel free to move it to nanog-futures if that's a better place for this discussion --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Joseph Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Curious question on hop identity... Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:10:51 -0800 I'm pretty new to the networking world. While I don't run a huge and complex network in a service provider market. We're just an enterprise network. I have read a lot of useful info about networking from the nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the designers and such at larger companies and I mention NANOG most of them brush it off and say The NANOG people are the past and what they have to say doesn't matter anymore. That's the general feel I get from others when it concerns NANOG. Joseph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Curious question on hop identity... Besides, why do you believe the text in an in-addr.arpa record? Or why do you think the absence of an in-addr.arpa record is meaningful? Back in the old days, say 10 years ago, you could run a network by the seat of your pants using rules of thumb about interpretation of in-addr.arpa records. And you could be quite successful at running a network using such techniques because everybody else was doing pretty much the same thing. Because of this uniformity, you could make a lot of intelligent guesses and resolve problems. However, I think times have changed, there is no longer uniformity among the people making technical decisions about Internet networks and many rules of thumb don't work any more even though they are still out there in network operator folklore. In fact, most people making network architectural decisions about Internet networks don't participate in NANOG any more. Most people making network operational decisions also do not participate in NANOG anymore. It's not just that many people have left NANOG behind, but a lot of newcomers to the industry over the past few years have not joined NANOG because they don't get why it is relevant to them. Not that I'm complaining about the message quoted above. It is a great example of the useful information that one can find in this mailing list. I wish there were more messages like this one, i.e. people sharing info rather than complaints and pleas for help. --Michael Dillon
Re: Curious question on hop identity...
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Jackson) [Fri 15 Dec 2006, 00:11 CET]: I'm pretty new to the networking world. While I don't run a huge and complex network in a service provider market. We're just an enterprise network. I have read a lot of useful info about networking from the nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the designers and such at larger companies and I mention NANOG most of them brush it off and say The NANOG people are the past and what they have to say doesn't matter anymore. That's the general feel I get from others when it concerns NANOG. Sounds like a strong and well-made argument. Instead of coming up with responses to individual points your detractors are making, wipe them off the table in one fell swoop by declaring its proponents out of touch. I wish I was unscrupulous enough to get away with it too... -- Niels.
Re: nanog revelancy to newcomers [was Re: Curious question on hop identity...]
Scott Weeks wrote:
rant
I just have to add to this. I have worked with quite a few CC{IE, NP, SP, ...}
types lately that've been given lead positions and high responsibilities.
(Hell, some have .sigs that look like the dictionary. They're very good at
passing cert tests.) Many don't want to know about UNIX and Open Source
Software. I don't mean not use it in production, but don't want to know
anything about it at all. They don't want to know how the internals of any of
it works. They want to design by book regurgitation and operate by
point-and-click. They don't think about things organically or as the Big
Picture, rather they have a very narrow point of view. It's a change of
personality type behind this. Do the least amount of work for the most amount
of money. It's not geek-excitement that drives them. It's a crazy world when
CCxx certs are considered more valuable than EE or Comp Sci degrees. :-(
/rant
s/CC/MS*\/CC/g
s/EE or /real world experience or EE and /
/ Mat
Re: Bogon Filter - Please check for 77/8 78/8 79/8
Hi, or LDAP could be used ... I was wondering when this would show up... :-) If IANA and the RIRs would step up to the plate and provide an authoritative data source identifying which address ranges have been issued for use on the Internet then bogon lists would not be needed at all. ... IANA would be the authoritative source for stuff like RFC 1918 address ranges and other non-RIR ranges. IANA has a project along these lines at the earliest stage of development (that is, we're trying to figure out if this is a good idea and if so, the best way to implement it). I'd be interested in hearing opinions (either publicly or privately) as to what IANA should do here. One wonders whether it might not be more effective in the long run to sue ICANN/IANA rather than suing completewhois.com. Sigh. What is the IOS command to disable lawyers again? Rgds, -drc
Re: Bogon Filter - Please check for 77/8 78/8 79/8
On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:50 PM, David Conrad wrote: IANA has a project along these lines at the earliest stage of development (that is, we're trying to figure out if this is a good idea and if so, the best way to implement it). I'd be interested in hearing opinions (either publicly or privately) as to what IANA should do here. Are IANA considering operating a BGP routeserver infrastructure? What about LDAP and other mechanisms? --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice All battles are perpetual. -- Milton Friedman
Re: Need BGP clueful contact at Global Crossing
On 12/14/06, Lasher, Donn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14 Dec 2006 09:47:46 -0500, Michael A. Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there are any BGP clueful contacts at Global Crossing listening (or if someone listening wants to forward this to them :-), I would appreciate your getting in touch. Out of curiousity, why do you think anyone here on NANOG would be willing to bother the clueful contacts they know at provider (X) based on an email like this? It's absolutely content-free. Having been on both sides of an issue like this one, I'd much rather see polite requests like the original requestor, rather than a 10 page dump on why provider X is severely borked. Good netiquette, seems to me. 10 page dump is excessive; but a one or two line I'm seeing bad advertisements from AS at the following peering location goes a long way to explain what the need and urgency is around the issue.
Re: Bogon Filter - Please check for 77/8 78/8 79/8
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] One wonders whether it might not be more effective in the long run to sue ICANN/IANA rather than suing completewhois.com. Sigh. What is the IOS command to disable lawyers again? - Haven't used cisco since 2001, but in JUNOS it's: RE0 configure RE0# delete system processes lawyers RE0# commit comment no lawyers allowed RE0# exit RE0 exit :-) scott
RE: Curious question on hop identity...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Niels Bakker Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 3:31 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Curious question on hop identity... * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Jackson) [Fri 15 Dec 2006, 00:11 CET]: I'm pretty new to the networking world. While I don't run a huge and complex network in a service provider market. We're just an enterprise network. I have read a lot of useful info about networking from the nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the designers and such at larger companies and I mention NANOG most of them brush it off and say The NANOG people are the past and what they have to say doesn't matter anymore. That's the general feel I get from others when it concerns NANOG. Sounds like a strong and well-made argument. Instead of coming up with responses to individual points your detractors are making, wipe them off the table in one fell swoop by declaring its proponents out of touch. I wish I was unscrupulous enough to get away with it too... -- Niels. I didn't say I listened to them.
