Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >-- "Marc Sachs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595&v=4&view=2.0 > >My only concern here is that by the publicity this issue continues >to receive, these activities will just move else where, like >scurrying cockroaches (like what happened with AS40989). > [some elided] I guess my effort to evoke commentary on NANOG failed. My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.? Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial carpet. Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about? - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIu6xHq1pz9mNUZTMRAo1gAKCT0QCc65W1z8C5gsegsm6zBWDDCwCeLKac 7nVL8XmqOZiFfD18hFSFL/M= =8pXG -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: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said: > My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you > suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing > to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.? > > Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed > here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial > carpet. > > Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care > about? If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their P2P filesharing traffic, spam traffic, and so on? Serious question, that - how many long-haul providers would be in serious trouble if all the spam and filesharing suddenly stopped and only legitimate traffic travelled through their pipes? pgp2Y7Spf0UeJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- "Marc Sachs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595&v=4&view=2.0 My only concern here is that by the publicity this issue continues to receive, these activities will just move else where, like scurrying cockroaches (like what happened with AS40989). [some elided] I guess my effort to evoke commentary on NANOG failed. My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.? Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial carpet. Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about? NANOG is on vacation. Wait one more day. :) - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIu6xHq1pz9mNUZTMRAo1gAKCT0QCc65W1z8C5gsegsm6zBWDDCwCeLKac 7nVL8XmqOZiFfD18hFSFL/M= =8pXG -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: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:36:47AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Serious question, that - how many long-haul providers would be in serious > trouble if all the spam and filesharing suddenly stopped and only legitimate > traffic travelled through their pipes? define "legitimate" --bill
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage
* > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:36:47AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Serious question, that - how many long-haul providers would be in serious >> trouble if all the spam and filesharing suddenly stopped and only legitimate >> traffic travelled through their pipes? > > define "legitimate" Traffic in accordance with their AUP. -- Florian Weimer<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 08-09-01 à 10:48, Paul Ferguson a écrit : My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.? As mentioned in private email, I think where there is *evidence* of *criminal* activity, show this to a judge, get the judge to order ARIN to revoke the ASN/netblock, the traffic then becomes bogon and can/ should be filtered. If there can be a legal procedure established for this it may even be able to be done quickly in specific instances. Of course a parallel procedure would be necessary for each bit of the ROW.. - -w - -- William Waites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.irl.styx.org/ +49 30 8894 9942 CD70 0498 8AE4 36EA 1CD7 281C 427A 3F36 2130 E9F5 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAki7vTwACgkQQno/NiEw6fXGVQCgqMoZNjIp5pfPracBrNfFo61g dN8AoKi+f6H7iWgNrG/OIL8yG6WmmTw1 =roam -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008, William Waites wrote: > As mentioned in private email, I think where there is *evidence* of > *criminal* activity, show this to a judge, get the judge to order ARIN > to revoke the ASN/netblock, the traffic then becomes bogon and can/ > should be filtered. Oh come on, how quickly would that migrate to enforcing copyright infringement? Or if you're especially evil, used by larger companies to bully smaller companies out of precious IPv4 space? I reckon having your IPv4 space revoked for more than a few hours would upset most if not all small players. Please find an alternative method of tidying up the trash and don't stir that nest of hornets. Adrian
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Adrian Chadd wrote: On Mon, Sep 01, 2008, William Waites wrote: As mentioned in private email, I think where there is *evidence* of *criminal* activity, show this to a judge, get the judge to order ARIN to revoke the ASN/netblock, the traffic then becomes bogon and can/ should be filtered. Proving criminal activity is for law enforcement. Maintaining our networks against DDoS and our customers against being massively compromised, now that's something else. If a layer had become _that_bad_ I don't want them communicating with me, and if I am their peer, I don't want to peer with them. It's an individual choice by each provider, and we can lok at them in any light we like. Oh come on, how quickly would that migrate to enforcing copyright Copyright is a legal issue which does not trouble our networks, so if you get a legal paper asking you to do so, it's a whole other business. Don't muddy the water. The issue is complicated enough as it is: do we want such dirty providers to massively compromise the Internet, our customers, or through us? Different answers from different people. If law enforcement was capable of doing the job, we wouldn't have had to discuss this. infringement? Or if you're especially evil, used by larger companies to bully smaller companies out of precious IPv4 space? I reckon having your IPv4 space revoked for more than a few hours would upset most if not all small players. Please find an alternative method of tidying up the trash and don't stir that nest of hornets. Adrian
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 08-09-01 à 12:18, Adrian Chadd a écrit : Oh come on, how quickly would that migrate to enforcing copyright infringement? Or if you're especially evil, used by larger companies to bully smaller companies out of precious IPv4 space? With appropriate controls. For example that the entity in question exists entirely or substantially for illegal purposes. Illegal does not mean "in violation of an agreement", rather "against the law". And such an action should not be possible for a private person to bring. Please find an alternative method of tidying up the trash and don't stir that nest of hornets. Workeable suggestions? So far I've seen, * organized shunning * BGP blacklists Cheers, - -w - -- William Waites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.irl.styx.org/ +49 30 8894 9942 CD70 0498 8AE4 36EA 1CD7 281C 427A 3F36 2130 E9F5 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAki7xI8ACgkQQno/NiEw6fXvfgCeO4X0qbRg05VPCMC4jesmvFMd dRAAniTVdxJEVx6ecR+C1Br2INpYJ2pe =6zQj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, William Waites wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 08-09-01 à 12:18, Adrian Chadd a écrit : Oh come on, how quickly would that migrate to enforcing copyright infringement? Or if you're especially evil, used by larger companies to bully smaller companies out of precious IPv4 space? With appropriate controls. For example that the entity in question exists entirely or substantially for illegal purposes. Illegal does not mean "in violation of an agreement", rather "against the law". And such an action should not be possible for a private person to bring. Please find an alternative method of tidying up the trash and don't stir that nest of hornets. Workeable suggestions? So far I've seen, * organized shunning * BGP blacklists I can see the "don't be the Internet's firewall" bunch jumping up and out of their seats, spilling their coffees. How dare you destroy so many keyboards? :) Cheers, - -w - -- William Waites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.irl.styx.org/ +49 30 8894 9942 CD70 0498 8AE4 36EA 1CD7 281C 427A 3F36 2130 E9F5 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAki7xI8ACgkQQno/NiEw6fXvfgCeO4X0qbRg05VPCMC4jesmvFMd dRAAniTVdxJEVx6ecR+C1Br2INpYJ2pe =6zQj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 08-09-01 à 12:34, Gadi Evron a écrit : Workeable suggestions? So far I've seen, * organized shunning * BGP blacklists I can see the "don't be the Internet's firewall" bunch jumping up and out of their seats, spilling their coffees. How dare you destroy so many keyboards? I didn't mean to imply that either of those was actually workeable ;) - -w - -- William Waites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.irl.styx.org/ +49 30 8894 9942 CD70 0498 8AE4 36EA 1CD7 281C 427A 3F36 2130 E9F5 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAki7xyYACgkQQno/NiEw6fVbjACgx+BrvXakg1X5e2DEzJ2feqdi KGcAn1a7R2CrEmvw755UVRv0lhztz8tU =Ibnk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions
The S series runs the same FTOS as the C and E series, as of a number of months ago. The only exception is the 2410, ie all 10G ports L2 only. -jim On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Greg VILLAIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Another thing to note (as near as I can tell, this applies to all >> vendors). All line cards will function >> only at the lowest common denominator line card CAM level. >> >> IOW, if you have single, dual, and quad-cam cards in your F10 chassis, >> they'll all act like >> single-CAM cards. >> >> Owen > > > I'd have to second that. This is a very annoying fact, that you will find > mentioned nowhere. > What I also used to dislike is the lack of verbosity of 'show features' - > but that was back a year ago. > Btw, you absolutely want to avoid the S series, the CLI is a pain, and is > not the same as the E or C series, and lacks many features. > Price/10G port is interesting though, but not as much as with Arastra, if > that's switching you're into. (never tested any such kits though...) > My own 2 cents. > > Greg VILLAIN > > >
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said: Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about? If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their P2P filesharing traffic, spam traffic, and so on? What is your price for cocaine?
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:21:24 CDT, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." said: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said: > > >> Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care > >> about? > > > > If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your > > incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their P2P > > filesharing > > traffic, spam traffic, and so on? > > What is your price for cocaine? No, seriously.. If, as some estimates have it, 80% of the traffic is P2P, and as other estimates have it, 90% of that is copyright-infringing, then if that traffic disappears, anybody who was selling transit for that traffic is going to take a *big* revenue hit. And similarly, if you're selling transit to somebody who's then (eventually) reselling a pipe to Atrivio/Intercage or the RBN, turning that somebody off because they won't turn off the bad guys is going to make a dent in the bottom line. I think it's very disingenuous to pretend that there have been *no* providers that haven't said to themselves "We're selling to scum, but it pays the bills, and we'd be in bankruptcy court otherwise..." The fact that bad guys don't seem to have *any* trouble getting connectivity once they finally *do* get kicked off a provider is proof enough that: a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. pgp4ldQPvNmcQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. > b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines "scum". Consider the following cases, which I will assert are not very far-fetched: (a) China labels Falun Gong as "scum" and demands that international ISPs not carry it if they want to do business in China (b) Russia labels critics of Putin and Medvedev as "scum" and demands that international ISPs bar their traffic if they want to do business in Russia (c) Saudi Arabia denounces Internet pornographers as "scum" and demands that ISPs bar their traffic if they want their countries to be able to purchase oil (c) France and Germany label EBay as "scum" for not barring sales of Nazi memorabilia and demands that international ISPs not carry it if they want to do business in the EU (d) The RIAA and MPAA label file-sharers as "scum" and deny combined TV/ISP companies (cable ISPs, Verizon FIOS, etc.) access to any *broadcast* content if the ISP side doesn't crack down on file-sharing. These are slightly far-fetched, but only slightly. I have a nice real-world example that I need to verify is public first, but it's directly on this point. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines "scum". Who defines "scum" when you get the email announcing a solution to your most urgent sexual problems? Who defines "scum" when the guy shows up at your office with a lot of the world's finest wrist watches for sale at unbelievably low prices? Who defines "scum" when you get the pallet of toner nobody remembers ordering? Who defines "scum" when the seedy character you never met before shows up to take your daughter out?
Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions
Sort of... There are still some notable differences in behavior. Owen On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:47 AM, jim deleskie wrote: The S series runs the same FTOS as the C and E series, as of a number of months ago. The only exception is the 2410, ie all 10G ports L2 only. -jim On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Greg VILLAIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Another thing to note (as near as I can tell, this applies to all vendors). All line cards will function only at the lowest common denominator line card CAM level. IOW, if you have single, dual, and quad-cam cards in your F10 chassis, they'll all act like single-CAM cards. Owen I'd have to second that. This is a very annoying fact, that you will find mentioned nowhere. What I also used to dislike is the lack of verbosity of 'show features' - but that was back a year ago. Btw, you absolutely want to avoid the S series, the CLI is a pain, and is not the same as the E or C series, and lacks many features. Price/10G port is interesting though, but not as much as with Arastra, if that's switching you're into. (never tested any such kits though...) My own 2 cents. Greg VILLAIN
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:33:21 EDT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said: > On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. > > b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. > > I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines > "scum". Consider the following cases, which I will assert are not very > far-fetched: For the sake of discussion, I was calling "scum" "any entity that your morals say you shouldn't accept money from, but your accountant says you should" What that makes your accountant... is another discussion entirely :) However, I *do* agree with the problem of "scum with politico-economic leverage" pgp6WAK3yxLYD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Paul Ferguson") writes:
> My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should
> do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal
> activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.?
depending on what you mean by "we", the immortal words of many MAPS
lawsuits spring to mind here: "illegal conspiracy" and "prospective
economic advantage." simply put, if a bunch of like-minded folks want to
get together and decide that a given ISP is behaving badly and all decide
to deny peering and transit to that ISP, then you should all first divorce
your husband or wife after putting all joint assets in his or her name.
> Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed
> here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial
> carpet.
>
> Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about?
the great unsolved problem in every network is "other people's networks".
whether that's networks who won't peer with you, or networks who drop your
customers' packets either because of shaping or overcommit, or networks who
sell service to people you hate and then run a crappy abuse desk, it's all
one thing: OPN: Other People's Networks. OPN's are an unmanageable risk to
all of us. netops people generally sweep OPNs under the rug, yes.
--
Paul Vixie
RE: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag
Any discussion on this or any other public list about joint action could be
portrayed as conspiracy. As Paul said, set your financial and carreer
affairs in order before doing so.
Better for each company's netops to quietly blacklist IPs/netblocks/ASNs as
they each see fit. If the traffic coming/going to there is truly garbage,
then customers won't complain. If there are valid concerns, then operators
can work with their customers individiually.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post:
Atrivo/Intercag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Paul Ferguson") writes:
> My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should
> do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal
> activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.?
depending on what you mean by "we", the immortal words of many MAPS
lawsuits spring to mind here: "illegal conspiracy" and "prospective
economic advantage." simply put, if a bunch of like-minded folks want to
get together and decide that a given ISP is behaving badly and all decide
to deny peering and transit to that ISP, then you should all first divorce
your husband or wife after putting all joint assets in his or her name.
> Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed
> here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial
> carpet.
>
> Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about?
the great unsolved problem in every network is "other people's networks".
whether that's networks who won't peer with you, or networks who drop your
customers' packets either because of shaping or overcommit, or networks who
sell service to people you hate and then run a crappy abuse desk, it's all
one thing: OPN: Other People's Networks. OPN's are an unmanageable risk to
all of us. netops people generally sweep OPNs under the rug, yes.
--
Paul Vixie
BGP Scalability Simulation
Hi I am trying to simulate BGP for scalability testing. I have few queries. 1) What sort of topology I should try out ? 2) What parameters should I test? I am trying to simulate it in ns-2 and i would appreciate reply from you guys. Regards MAK
RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercage, why are we peering with the American RBN?
Guess I need to look in more detail, but doesn't looking at that show that CHINANET has about half the rouge network infections of the overall network. Sounds like if you don't do business with China, putting in a blackhole on AS4134 (and maybe 4837 and 4812) would knock out the majority of the trouble sites. Heck, and maybe I am in the dark ages, I didn't realize google was providing that much connectivity, why the heck do they have so many infected machines. Unless I am just reading that stuff wrong, guess I need to take my time and go through it. I am not in the wholesale bandwidth game anymore, but I have sure suffered my share of DDoS attacks, and am all for any intelligent things I can do to help eliminate such future issues.. --- Howard Leadmon > -Original Message- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:38 PM > To: Gadi Evron > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercage, why are we peering with > the American RBN? > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. On a different note, why is anyone still accepting their route > > announcements? I know some among us re-route RBN traffic to protect > users. > > Do you see this as a valid solution for your networks? > > > > What ASNs belong to Atrivo, anyway? > > The ASNs you ask about - as per the report - are on pages 4..8 of > http://hostexploit.com/downloads/Atrivo%20white%20paper%20082808ac.pdf
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, why are we peering with the American RBN?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. >> b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. > >I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines >"scum". Consider the following cases, which I will assert are not very >far-fetched: > I can certainly see how the definition of "scum" could be hijacked to fit any particular political agenda, too. For the particular purposes I referred to earlier, the definition would be: "Continuing to allow criminal activity to occur within your network." "Criminal activity" is easily definable by laws which state that malicious, willful, and concerted attempts to perpetrate financial theft, fraud, and unauthorized computer tampering are illegal. But with all the ensuing discussion, it would appear that this is a matter in which ISPs defer, and a matter best addressed by law enforcement. - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIvEXpq1pz9mNUZTMRAhRNAJ9nzEVp3PCAoQKFKltQFRwh3yLpwACg0gRO EnWO3Y4YQ/Z+F52z5il6Pdg= =cMVa -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: BGP Scalability Simulation
Topology and setup of these kinds of tests largely depend on whether you are testing iBGP or eBGP. In my experience, eBGP testing is fairly straight forward as you are almost always testing reconvergence of the BGP next-hop. iBGP testing scenarios on the other hand can be quite a bit more complex as you may also be testing the reconvergence of the underlying IGP if the BGP next-hop remains unchanged. Can you describe your testing goals and environment in a bit more detail? Stefan Fouant Principal Network Engineer NeuStar, Inc. - http://www.neustar.biz GPG Key ID: 0xB5E3803D - Original Message - From: Moazzam Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Mon Sep 01 15:37:19 2008 Subject: BGP Scalability Simulation Hi I am trying to simulate BGP for scalability testing. I have few queries. 1) What sort of topology I should try out ? 2) What parameters should I test? I am trying to simulate it in ns-2 and i would appreciate reply from you guys. Regards MAK
Re: BGP Scalability Simulation
Thanks Stefan for your reply. Basically the goal of this testing is to study the BGP scalability issues in the internet sometime in future lets say 10 years from now and try to find out what problems it could face . I am trying to use ns2 as my simulation environment. Can you suggest how I can set up the envrionment for this kind of study and what parameters should I try to caputre. Regards MAK On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Fouant, Stefan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Topology and setup of these kinds of tests largely depend on whether you > are testing iBGP or eBGP. In my experience, eBGP testing is fairly straight > forward as you are almost always testing reconvergence of the BGP next-hop. > iBGP testing scenarios on the other hand can be quite a bit more complex as > you may also be testing the reconvergence of the underlying IGP if the BGP > next-hop remains unchanged. Can you describe your testing goals and > environment in a bit more detail? > > Stefan Fouant > Principal Network Engineer > NeuStar, Inc. - http://www.neustar.biz > GPG Key ID: 0xB5E3803D > > > - Original Message - > From: Moazzam Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Mon Sep 01 15:37:19 2008 > Subject: BGP Scalability Simulation > > Hi > > I am trying to simulate BGP for scalability testing. I have few queries. > > > 1) What sort of topology I should try out ? > > 2) What parameters should I test? > > I am trying to simulate it in ns-2 and i would appreciate reply from you > guys. > > Regards > > MAK >
RE: 10GE CWDM
At 12:03 AM 8/31/2008, you wrote: Currently it is my understanding the 10 Gbps signals are carried on 4 x 2.5 Gbps signals that are compatible with existing CWDM and DWDM equipment. There are 40 Gbps DWDM systems and 10 Gbps lasers on 100 Gbps and greater capacity systems. I agree with Alex's comments that to have 10 Gbps on a CWDM system is to have a CWDM system of at least 40 to 100 Gbps and that is very expensive today. The only affordable CWDM 10G system I have seen although I haven't used it yet is a single 10G band at 1310 or 1550 with 8 additional 2.5G bands around it. I haven't seen any 4 band 10G CWDM boxes with XFPs for less than $5000 yet, but I would expect them in the next year or two - I'm hoping anyway. I'm out of the country at the moment and access is a bit too slow to look it up easily now. If you need the manufacturer, let me know and I'll look it up when I return. -Robert Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
RE: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag
Paul Vixie said on 9/1/08 "OPN's are an unmanageable risk to all of us. Netops people generally sweep OPNs under the rug, yes." I agree completely, but how do we begin to address this problem? Words are not enough, we need some action and that action, whatever it may be will make the public network a better place for all of us. Divorcing my wife after 6 hours in the car with a newborn and a 4 day visit with my in-laws has a very real appeal to it. Hmmm... most sincerely, Richard Golodner
RE: 10GE CWDM
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Robert Boyle wrote: > At 12:03 AM 8/31/2008, you wrote: > >Currently it is my understanding the 10 Gbps signals are carried on > >4 x 2.5 Gbps signals that are compatible with existing CWDM and DWDM > >equipment. There are 40 Gbps DWDM systems and 10 Gbps lasers on 100 > >Gbps and greater capacity systems. I agree with Alex's comments that > >to have 10 Gbps on a CWDM system is to have a CWDM system of at > >least 40 to 100 Gbps and that is very expensive today. > > The only affordable CWDM 10G system I have seen although I haven't used > it yet is a single 10G band at 1310 or 1550 with 8 additional 2.5G bands > around it. I haven't seen any 4 band 10G CWDM boxes with XFPs for less > than $5000 yet, but I would expect them in the next year or two - I'm > hoping anyway. I'm out of the country at the moment and access is a bit > too slow to look it up easily now. If you need the manufacturer, let me > know and I'll look it up when I return. Depending how cheap and ghetto you want to get, there's also possibility of doing WDM on 1310/1300. I have custom-manufactured splitters filtering 1307nm +-2nm - and any given LR XFP [*1] will be either within that band or outside [*2]. Test a bunch of them, split them into two groups, use on the "tested" wavelength. Bunch of friends&family are using this technology in production. This gives you an ability to do 20G with very cheap optics. [*1] Except ones with very temperature dependent wavelength - mark them as "warms up to 1300" and use if you don't care that your links will take about 5 minutes to "warm up" and come up. :) [*2] Any LX4 Xenpak would be "outside" of the band as well, and you can use LX4 concurrently with LR. There are some more ghetto fabulous things you can do, described in http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/presenter-pdfs/pilosov.pdf ;) -alex
