AS Leakage

Thu Apr 5 04:01:59 UTC 2001

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Darrin Walton wrote:

> 
>   |+ Did I say anything about requirements or anyone sharing employment history
>   |+ with me?  I simply restated a previous observation which is that many list
>   |+ participants post from someplace other than their work email address.
> 
> 	you whined, basically because you did not know where someone
> worked based on there email address.  Stop whining, and we won't have this
> problem.
> 

Excuse me?

Whined?

|Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
|From: John Fraizer <nanog at Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
|To: troy at clownhammer.org
|Cc: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen at nielsen.net>, Travis Pugh
|<tpugh at shore.net>, Nanog mailing list <nanog at merit.edu>
|Subject: Re: AS Leakage
|
|As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting
|from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment.
|
|Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about
|his having multiple paths into UU.  Please forgive me for assuming.  I
|also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table.
|
|
|---
|John Fraizer
|EnterZone, Inc

There is no whining.  I simply stated that I did not realize that the
individual worked for exodus and that had I known, there would have been
no question about his having multiple paths into UU.  As
in: "Wow. Sorry.  I didn't realize he worked for Exodus.  Obviously they
peer with 701 in multiple locations."

>   |+ I got bombarded with emails from people because they ASSUMED that I knew
>   |+ someone worked for 3967.  I didn't.
> 
> 	Your fault, for making it sound like you did.
> 

Where is it that I made it sound like I did?

>   |+ I propose that you treat me in the manner in which you expect to be
>   |+ treated.  That is all I propose.  The last time I checked, it wasn't 
>   |+ me who pissed in your cereal.
> 
> 	My first email was not one being pissy, or being rude.  Why is it
> you, who always tries to get people excited, and upset?  I say this,
> especially because of the paragraph:

Your first email was condecending and sarcasm laiden.  You don't consider
that being pissy or rude?

> 
>   |+ Did you bother reading the post prior to replying?  Is English not your
>   |+ primary language?  Is there some other reason why you don't understand
>   |+ "Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about
>   |+ his having multiple paths..."?
> 
> 	Your first question means nothing to me.  Its very pointless.
> 
> 	Your second question.  I already answered this.  Let me try again,
> maybe this time you will understand.
> 
> 	Do you honestly think, a company like Exodus would only have one
> path to 701?  Regardless of who said Exodus did, why would you not believe
> it?
> 

How many ways can I say "I didn't realize that Christian was
speaking about Exodus?

Follow along if you will.  

On Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Christian Nielsen <cnielsen at nielsen.net> posted:

"
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Travis Pugh wrote:

> I take transit from Qwest (209), and had to contact them directly and
> open a ticket several weeks ago to get them to stop leaking private
> ASNs into my tables.  They stopped leaking them to me, but apparently
> going the extra step and making sure the leak was filtered everywhere
> was too much to ask.

I have a question. Why do you allow Private ASNs into your network? We saw
this once and put in the filters. Same with RFC1918 IPs and default. We
dont care to listen to these from other networks so we filter. We saw 64/8
in our network, we filtered. We saw leaks from RESERVED-IANA blocks, so we
filtered. We saw providers leaking exchange point blocks, so we filtered.
we dont want to see _701_ from sprint or anyone except _701_, so we
filter. we do this for other large providers.

See a problem, filter.

Maybe I should start a company and publish filters since most companies
seem not to have real filters in their network :(

Christian"

To which I replied:

"That's strange.  Your 701 connection goes down and you've filtered any
backup route you had into them.  Good thinking."

To which troy at clownhammer.org replied with a list of Exodus<->UU links....

To which I replied:

"As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting
from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment.

Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about
his having multiple paths into UU.  Please forgive me for assuming.  I
also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table."

It's real simple.  I didn't realize that Christian was speaking as
Exodus when he used the word "We."  I stated this and cited another NANOG
post by Sean Doran from Tue,  3 Apr 2001 17:42:09 -0700 (PDT) where he
said:

"P.S.: Isn't it cool that none of us is using an address which in any
      way informs a person who didn't already know, who it is that we
      work for?"

I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus.
I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus.
I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus.

>   |+ As for paths into 701, we three.  All of them > DS3.
> 
> 	Quite funny, why do I not see 13944 behind 701?  (I mean, I could
> go 701 -> 6347 -> 13944, or 6259 -> 13944, but not 701 -> 13944).  Is
> something wrong on your side?
> 

Nothing wrong at all.  Congrats on working for a 6461.  We all know your
_employer_ has direct peering relationships with 701.  You're special.  
I'm proud of you.  Can I do anything else to boost your ego?  Probably
not.

I still like my path into www.uu.net better than yours:

 1  main.bungi.com (207.126.97.9)  1.84 ms  1.89 ms  1.67 ms
 2  above-gw1.above.net (207.126.96.249)  4.5 ms  3.90 ms  6.48 ms
 3  epe2-epe1-fe.sjc1.above.net (209.249.0.206)  11.9 ms  9.99 ms  9.30 ms
 4  main2-epe2-fe.sjc1.above.net (64.124.128.13)  6.91 ms  4.33 ms  5.40 ms
 5  core5-main2-oc12.sjc1.above.net (209.133.31.189)  3.77 ms  4.9 ms 6.10 ms
 6  core3-sjc1-oc48.sjc2.above.net (208.184.102.206)  4.9 ms  4.47 ms 4.14 ms
 7  iad1-sjc2-oc48.iad1.above.net (216.200.127.25)  72.5 ms  72.1 ms  72.1 ms
 8  core5-core1-oc48.iad1.above.net (208.185.0.146)  72.9 ms  73.8 ms 73.0 ms
 9  lga1-iad1-oc192.lga1.above.net (208.184.233.66)  76.8 ms  77.1 ms 76.8 ms
10  core2-lga1-oc192.lga2.above.net (208.185.0.250)  80.4 ms  76.6 ms  149 ms
11  core3-core2-oc48.lga2.above.net (216.200.127.170)  79.6 ms  76.4 ms 76.3 ms
12  uunet-abovenet-oc12.lga2.above.net (208.184.231.246)  121 ms  77.5 ms 77.3 ms
13  526.at-5-0-0.XR2.NYC8.ALTER.NET (152.63.23.78)  80.4 ms  78.7 ms  78.5 ms
14  182.at-2-0-0.TR2.NYC8.ALTER.NET (152.63.19.210)  78.0 ms  146 ms  78.0 ms
15  124.at-6-0-0.TR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.253)  120 ms  123 ms  123 ms
16  0.so-4-0-0.XR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.9.234)  121 ms  121 ms  120 ms
17  192.ATM7-0.SR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.81.125)  122 ms  121 ms  237 ms
18  *  *  *
19  loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.web.uu.net (198.5.128.20)  121 ms  121 ms 121 ms
20  loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.web.uu.net (198.5.128.20)  120 ms !U  *  121 ms !U

 1 CORE-0-GE-3-1000M.CMH.ENTERZONE.NET (66.35.65.1)  0.550 ms 0.683 ms 0.895 ms
 2 64.241.88.6 (64.241.88.6) [6347] 12.375 ms 12.864 ms 12.602 ms
 3 atm8-0-093.CR-2.uschcg.savvis.net (64.241.88.65) [6347] 13.240 ms 12.508 ms 12.480 ms
 4 500.POS2-1.GW6.CHI6.ALTER.NET (157.130.116.201) [701] 12.316 ms 13.141 ms 11.699 ms
 5 117.ATM2-0.XR1.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.209.170) [701] 12.331 ms 12.708 ms 12.619 ms
 6 191.at-1-1-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.242) [701] 13.622 ms 13.131 ms 12.654 ms
 7 106.at-6-1-0.TR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (146.188.142.33) [701] 64.484 ms 64.417 ms 63.480 ms
 8 0.so-4-0-0.XR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.9.226) [701] 63.511 ms 63.545 ms 64.432 ms
 9 193.ATM5-0.SR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.81.113) [701] 64.489 ms 64.268 ms 65.451 ms
10 * * *
11 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.web.uu.net (198.5.128.20) [11486] 63.762 ms 65.269 ms 65.466 ms
12 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.web.uu.net (198.5.128.20) [11486] 65.090 ms !X 65.451 ms

$host -l customer.alter.net | grep above
abovenet-tco1.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.38.138
abovenet-tco2.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.38.142
above2-t3-gw.customer.alter.net has address 137.39.252.34
above-gw.customer.alter.net has address 137.39.133.142
abovenet-pao1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.194.102
above.net-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.138.46
abovenet-tco-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.33.114
abovenet-pao2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.194.106
abovenetnyc-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.31.46
abovenetchi-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.111.90
abovenet-dca-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.37.254

Wow. Surely out of all those 701 circuits, you could have handed that traffic off to 701 prior to hauling it to New
York first.

I still bow to your obviously superior connectivity.  Your _EMPLOYER_ has
more peering agreements in place than _MY_ company has.  You win.

>   |+ Have a nice day Darrin.
> 
> 	having a great day, how about yourself?
> 

It's getting better by the second.

Now that we _hopefully_ both understand how the thread went, can we let
this drop?  Better yet.  You can say what you like.  I'm not replying any
further to you.

---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc