RE: verio arrogance

["Daniel Golding" <dgolding () sockeye com>]

I think we are at the point where the vast majority of backbone routers can
handle 200K+ routes, at least in terms of memory. The interesting point we
are getting to, is that the most popular router in the world for multihoming
can't handle the routing table. I'm referring to the Cisco 3640, which has
largely supplanted the venerable 2501 as the low-end multihomer's edge
router of choice.

With a reasonable number of features turned on (i.e. SSH, netflow, CEF), the
3640 can't handle two full views anymore, due to it's limitation of 128MB.
While this may be a good thing for Cisco's sales numbers, in this winter of
financial discontent, I wonder how this is effecting the average customer,
and what is generally being installed to replace the 3640s.

- Daniel Golding

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> David Diaz
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:55 PM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: RE: verio arrogance
>
>
>
> Getting back to the more original thread.
>
> Is there any need to keep the routing table to a smaller size.  Since
> in theory, it creates suboptimal routing. And considering the new
> routers out there today should be able to handle it.  Considering
> verio is using junipers, and they pride themselves on handling a
> tremendously large table.  Why should we shoot for a 100,000 route
> table instead of 500,000 if it does not impact performance?
>
> I do understand that the 100,000 might be that actual 'installed best
> routes' and that the routers might in fact be dealing with a much
> larger route table.  That might be an issue.  But certainly 100,000-
> 500,000 installed routes, is that a problem for large backbones with
> high end routers?
>
> My only consideration might be the small multihomed ISPs with 2-3
> providers with full BGP feeds and cisco 4000s (256meg ram).  I saw
> one last week.  I might be concerned at that level.
>
> I'd love to hear feedback.  It would then justify filtering...or not.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> At 21:37 -0400 7/18/02, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> > How is it arrogant?
> > I read that as: a customer set up an exploitable FormMail.  Verio
> > received notice about it. Verio removed the FormMail in question. Verio
> > asked to be removed since they corrected the problem. Verio was ignored.
> >
> > Verio may have some problems with not terminating spammers, and I
> > believe this to be the truth -- I buy from verio, and Don't spam, and
> > whenever one of my clients spam, they get terminated for it.  I receive
> > plenty of spam from verio ips, and no matter how much I complain, it
> > never gets terminated.  This is probably a scenario of asking sales rep
> > "If I want to spam, but I pay more per meg -- Is this OK?"  and getting
> > a positive answer.
> >
> > That is why the NANAE people don't like verio.  But, nonetheless, I
> > don't think that putting verio's mailserver on a formmail list is
> > accomplishing anything good, since they fixed THAT problem...
> >
> > --Phil
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
> > Kai Schlichting
> > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:37 PM
> > To: nanog () merit edu
> > Cc: Kai Schlichting
> > Subject: Re: verio arrogance
> >
> >
> >
> > How's THIS for Verio arrogance, going to a whole new level:
> >
> > http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/verio-demand.ps
> >
> > Details were on the SPAM-L list Wed, 17 Jul 2002  15:51:05 EDT: Verio
> > threatens to sue Ron Guilmette over the IP 208.55.91.59 appearing on his
> > FormMail.pl open-proxy/formmail server DNSBL.
> >
> > And given the ever-increasing number of spammers now hopping onto Verio
> > tells me that Verio must be well down the spiral of death (spammers seem
> > to be attracted by NSP's going chapter 7/11, or who are getting close),
> > or else the dozen-or-so automated messages going to abuse () verio net
> > every week complaining about connections (real or attempted) to hosts
> > under my control, and originating from their spamming customers would
> > have shown any results over time.
> >
> > I don't need connectivity to 208.55.0.0/16. I really don't, and I have
> > not the slightest tolerance for litigious, small-minded,
> > panic-lawyer-dialling scum like this.
> >
> > /etc/mail$ grep 208.55 access.local
> > 208.55                  550 Access for FormMail spam and litigious scum
> > denied - XXXX Verio in their XXXXXXXX XXX - we block more than just
> > 208.55.91.59 - Spammers must die - see
> > http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/verio-demand.ps
> > /etc/mail$
> >
> > PS: I also have zero tolerance for Nadine-type spam-generating,
> > "single-opt-in",
> >   "87% permission-based" emailers nowadays: 2 bounces or a single mail
> > to a
> >    never-existing account, and all your /24's are off into gated.conf as
> > a
> >    next-hop route to 127.0.0.1. And no, they won't get around that by
> > advertising
> >    /25's.
> >
> > Good-bye route-prefix-filtering wars, and welcome to the war on spam,
> > where Null0'd /28's for filtering 'undesirables' just doesn't cut it any
> > more. Casualties like 10-15 bystanding rackspace.com customers with a
> > "Nadine- type" mailer in neighboring IP space be damned: "move your
> > servers into a different slum, cause da landlord's running down 'da
> > neighborhood".
> >
> > --
> > "Just say No" to Spam                                     Kai
> > Schlichting
> > New York, Palo Alto, You name it             Sophisticated Technical
> > Peon
> > Kai's SpamShield <tm> is FREE!
> > http://www.SpamShield.org
> > |
> > | |
> > LeasedLines-FrameRelay-IPLs-ISDN-PPP-Cisco-Consulting-VoiceFax-Data-Muxe
> > s
> > WorldWideWebAnything-Intranets-NetAdmin-UnixAdmin-Security-ReallyHardMat
> > h
>
> --
>
> David Diaz
> dave () smoton net [Email]
> pagedave () smoton net [Pager]
> Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons