Re: Curious question on hop identity...
Joseph Jackson wrote: 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. Designers and such at larger companies indeed. Any specifics on which ones? /vijay
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 :-)
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: 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: 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.
Curious question on hop identity...
-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...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, 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? Wouldn't you like to know? -- Alex Pilosov| DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services President | [EMAIL PROTECTED]877-PILOSOFT x601 Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com
Re: Curious question on hop identity...
On 2006-12-14-02:24:52, Fergie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may be far afield insofar as topic fodder Not in the slightest. To the contrary, it's one of the more on-topic postings I've seen as of late, and I mean that with all sincerity. I am curious if anyone knows exactly what these two hops [9] [10] below, actually are? [...] 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 If I had to guess, I'd say 9 is a /30 (/31?) on Comcast's transit interface, and 10 is a backbone device of some sort. Suffice it to say, ATT doesn't consider maintaining accurate (or even inaccurate, for that matter) PTR records a priority. Some recent faves include: 6 ggr3-ge00.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.0.97) 1.538 ms 1.400 ms 1.422 ms 7 att-gw.dc.aol.com (192.205.32.2) 1.775 ms 1.816 ms 1.847 ms 8 0.ge-5-1-0.XL4.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.3.121) 1.701 ms 1.742 ms 14.988 ms 5 cw-gw.n54ny.ip.att.net (192.205.32.197) 0.648 ms 0.635 ms ggr3-p3122.n54ny.ip.att.net (192.205.33.117) 0.838 ms 6 tbr1-p012204.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.82.22) 1.596 ms 1.759 ms 1.466 ms 4 savvis-gw.cgcil02ck4.ip.att.net (208.175.10.94) [AS 3561] 56 msec 60 msec allegiance-gw.dlstx.ip.att.net (192.205.32.225) [AS 7018] 196 msec 5 tbr1-p014001.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.123.6.34) [AS 7018] 4 ggr2-p310.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.12.18) [AS 7018] 32 msec 16 msec 20 msec 5 att-gw.ashburn.eli.net (192.205.32.74) [AS 7018] 20 msec 20 msec 20 msec 6 0.so-2-0-0.XL1.SCL2.ALTER.NET (152.63.57.50) [AS 701] 20 msec 16 msec 16 msec -a
