On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:04 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
Well, a prefix hijack either means a router has been pwned, as I
suggested,
or a router is (as Governor Tarkin put it) "far too trusting" of
its peers.
And anyhow, I was speaking of BGP flaps in the context of botnets
- has anybody
seen a
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
...
Who thinks it would be a "good idea" to have a knob such that ICMP
error messages are always source from a certain IP address on a router?
...
I've sometimes thought it would be useful when
Times have changed,
My experience has been recently that ISP's and ASP's have dramatically
malnourished their first level support staff which in turn has created a
resentful and lazy second teir. I am sick of the "It must be your
network/cabling/CPE" attitude that I am getting from some teir 1
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 02:51:21AM +, Fergie wrote:
>
> So, I'm wondering: What happens when you have a traceroute tool
> that shows you MPLS-lableled hops, too? :-)
>
> http://momo.lcs.mit.edu/traceroute/index.php
>
> The best (?) of both worls, but I digress...
That doesn't show any mor
At 10:29 PM 9/25/2006, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> ...
> > Who thinks it would be a "good idea" to have a knob such that ICMP
> > error messages are always source from a certain IP a
Ah, but there's the rub...
ISPs who are "discreet" in how they wish their infrastructure to
be "viewed" will continue to engineer methods in which portions
are not visible to the public at-large.
Somehow, I don't think that will ever go away, so trying to tilt
at windmils w.r.t. (paraphrased) "
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Fergie wrote:
> Chris,
>
> So, I'm wondering: What happens when you have a traceroute tool
> that shows you MPLS-lableled hops, too? :-)
>
:) depends on the network I guess... I'm not sure it's going to tell you
anything about hops hidden by mpls lsp's that don't decrement t
Chris,
So, I'm wondering: What happens when you have a traceroute tool
that shows you MPLS-lableled hops, too? :-)
http://momo.lcs.mit.edu/traceroute/index.php
The best (?) of both worls, but I digress...
- ferg
-- "Chris L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
What's interesting is
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> ...
> > Who thinks it would be a "good idea" to have a knob such that ICMP
> > error messages are always source from a certain IP address on a router?
> ...
>
>
> I've sometimes th
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
...
> Who thinks it would be a "good idea" to have a knob such that ICMP
> error messages are always source from a certain IP address on a router?
...
I've sometimes thought it would be useful when I wanted to hide a route.
Bu
Can someone from comcast contact me off list please ?
Thanks,
Ansh Kanwar
Lead Network Engineer
--
Citrix Online (AS16815)
5385 Hollister Avenue
Santa Barbara, CA 93111 USA
--
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 08:45:49PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
>
> At 9:22 AM -0400 9/25/06, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >
> >Who thinks it would be a "good idea" to have a knob such that ICMP error
> >messages are always source from a certain IP address on a router?
>
> It certainly would beat t
At 9:22 AM -0400 9/25/06, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>Who thinks it would be a "good idea" to have a knob such that ICMP error
>messages are always source from a certain IP address on a router?
It certainly would beat the alternative of no response at all,
but one would hope it wouldn't become
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 04:33:18PM -0700, David Temkin wrote:
>
> C and J both already have a similar feature, however I'm not sure
> whether or not they apply to ICMP. They both support PBR for locally
> originated packets - which, should include if the thought process is
> correct, ICMP. Perh
On Sep 25, 2006, at 5:40 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:
ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface
used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet. Th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:31 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore
> Subject: Re: New router feature - icmp error source-interface
> [was: icmp rpf]
>
>
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:
>
> >ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface
> >used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet. Thus giving an
> >interface an address is implic
On Sep 25, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Berkman, Scott wrote:
Might this not be a bad idea if the router has interfaces on multiple,
separate paths? Such a case may be where one customer or set of
traffic
routes over a link to ISP A, and other traffic over a link to ISP
B, and
not all related addres
Might this not be a bad idea if the router has interfaces on multiple,
separate paths? Such a case may be where one customer or set of traffic
routes over a link to ISP A, and other traffic over a link to ISP B, and
not all related addresses are portable. In that case the loopback
address for th
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:22:34 -0400
"Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:
>
> > ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface
> > used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet. Thus giving an
> > interface a
On Sep 25, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Mark Kent wrote:
Jared Mauch wrote:
I would hope they're doing it for more than just ICMP packets.
yes, loose RPF, but I just care about ICMP.
I would argue should be, or is a current best practice.
OK, so I must have missed the memo :-)
It's been all the r
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Mark Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I think this is an important point to make because of my interaction
with small.net. When I pointed out the timeouts they said that it was
because they don't announce the router IP addresses, which
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:01:31 -0700 (PDT), Gregory Hicks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:39:51PM +, Fergie wrote:
> > > Hmmm. It wouldn't have anything to do with prime numbers, now would
> > > it? :-)
> >
> >
> > Well, yes, but there are an infinite numb
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Fred Baker wrote:
> no; what OS and what applications are you using? Anything particularly
> unusual?
Everything is custom. Cisco crust on top, mystery meat on the bottom. (Not
to be confused with 'deviled ham.' It's all held together with a couple of
Perl brand farm fresh
Once upon a time, Mark Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think this is an important point to make because of my interaction
> with small.net. When I pointed out the timeouts they said that it was
> because they don't announce the router IP addresses, which is true but
> not the whole story. I m
no; what OS and what applications are you using? Anything
particularly unusual?
On Sep 25, 2006, at 8:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Well, if anyone wants to add more to it, there are quite a few
prominent 'noggers still to cast.
Can
In response to this:
> Mark Smith wrote:
> >> The non-announcers, because they're also breaking PMTUD.
>
> Really? How?
Mark Smith replied with two paragraphs, but it's not 100% clear to me
that he got the reason why I asked. I asked because his initial statement
boiled down to "numbering o
Jared Mauch wrote:
>> I would hope they're doing it for more than just ICMP packets.
yes, loose RPF, but I just care about ICMP.
>> I would argue should be, or is a current best practice.
OK, so I must have missed the memo :-)
Who among AS1239, AS701, AS3356, AS7018, AS209 does loose RPF
(not
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>
> Well, if anyone wants to add more to it, there are quite a few
> prominent 'noggers still to cast.
>
Can I be at the bottom of each thread, for when it really gets into wanker
territory? Thanks.
- billn
We have a GE link to another SP and bridge a single VLAN ID to connect
multiple hosts on each side. We'd like to increase the BW between the
two networks, but the other provider cannot support upgrading to 10GE.
What are the issues w/ running 802.3ad LACP between two separately
managed netw
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:
ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface
used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet. Thus giving an
interface an address is implicitly giving that interface the ability
to source p
Well, if anyone wants to add more to it, there are quite a few
prominent 'noggers still to cast.
J. Oquendo rambled incoherently, saying in relevant part:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Especially as I'm not aware of any Network Operator worth their salt that
doesn't have regular contact with their support call centers.
Regular contact? As in finding the name of someone who actually has a c
On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:
ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface
used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet. Thus giving an
interface an address is implicitly giving that interface the
ability to source packets with that address to pot
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 02:59:50PM -0700, Mark Kent wrote:
>
> A smaller North American network provider, with a modest North
> American backbone, numbers their internal routers on public IP space
> that they do not announce to the world.
>
> One of the largest North American network providers f
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006, Ian Mason wrote:
> Filtering ICMP is always dangerous. If you are going to do it you
> *must* understand the consequences both to yourself and to others,
> and also understand the consequences in both normal situations and
> all possible failure modes. (If I had a penn
[ Quotations have been reordered for clarity in the reply ]
On 24 Sep 2006, at 22:59, Mark Kent wrote:
If so, which of these two nets is unreasonable in their actions/
policies?
I don't think either are *unreasonable* in what they've done. Both
actions are prima facie reasonable but have
Concur. Nanog has been an on-going education in essentially all
aspects of internetworking, routing, data centres, security,
spam/malware/abuse. Long may it stay that way. I'd argue that the
fuzziness is probably a reflection of the ever-broadening role of
IT/telco/netops people and ideas in curr
> The non-announcers, because they're also breaking PMTUD.
If you're not sure what benefits PMTUD gives,
you might want to review this page:
http://www.psc.edu/~mathis/MTU/index.html
--Michael Dillon
> One of the biggest issues with the list as I've seen from time to
> time from my perspective, is the definition of "operations". So on a
> quick breakdown of the logical definition of NANOG, I derive
> "Operations of the North American Network". The problem with this
> stems from far too many
Hi Mark,
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Mark Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
> >> The non-announcers, because they're also breaking PMTUD.
>
> Really? How? Remember, we're not talking about RFC1918 space,
> where there is a BCP that says we should filter it at
41 matches
Mail list logo
