Great outage of 1997 - Does anyone recall?

Chaim Rieger chaim.rieger at gmail.com
Sun Feb 22 01:26:13 CST 2009


Back on list

I doubt you will get skewered, I promise to read it
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: neal rauhauser <nrauhauser at gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:24:08 
To: <chaim.rieger at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Great outage of 1997 - Does anyone recall?


 Oh, you guys will skewer me for it :-)  Shall I post the text here so it
gets vetted first?



On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:21 AM, <chaim.rieger at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do post a link when its up.
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: neal rauhauser <nrauhauser at gmail.com>
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:11:16
> To: Patrick W. Gilmore<patrick at ianai.net>
> Cc: NANOG list<nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Great outage of 1997 - Does anyone recall?
>
>
>  Well, I hope I'm not butchering the story up too badly - got an 800 word
> piece going up Monday on The Cutting Edge News and I'm doing something more
> lengthly and bloggy tonight for DailyKos, whilst hanging around abusing one
> of our spare 7507s with various new IOS versions.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net
> >wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> >  Does anyone have the full story on this?
> >>>>
> >>> <http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1997-04/msg00444.html>
> >>>
> >>
> >> bottom line:
> >>  o do not redistribute bgp into igp
> >>  o do not redistribute dynamic igp into bgp
> >>  o filter your peers and customers
> >>
> >
> > And don't put all your most important infrastructure stuff (e.g. name
> > server, mail server, shell host, etc.) in the first /24 of your
> /<shorter>
> > allocation.
> >
> > The biggest problem with 7007 was not that it announced a bunch of
> > prefixes.  It is that 7007 announced _classful_ prefix (it had been
> filtered
> > through RIP, remember?) with AS_PATH of ^7007$.  This means if you had a
> > 194.1.0.0/16, you saw 194.1.0.0/24 from 7007, which is more specific.
>  Why
> > this is bad is left as an exercise to the reader.
> >
> > And, of course, the problem persisted after the router in question was
> > actually unplugged - not powered up or attached to any fibers/cables.
>  Thank
> > you Sprint for running beta code. :)
> >
> > --
> > TTFN,
> > patrick
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> mailto:Neal at layer3arts.com //
> GoogleTalk: nrauhauser at gmail.com
> IM: nealrauhauser
>



-- 
mailto:Neal at layer3arts.com //
GoogleTalk: nrauhauser at gmail.com
IM: nealrauhauser



More information about the NANOG mailing list