- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: [Fwd:] Nvidia NICs with duplicate mac addresses
by Christopher LILJENSTOLPE 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh, it's the truth - trust me. There was an Interop show (back when it really was an Interoperability event) that was made quite enjoyable for the network staff by that set of NIC cards.... Chris On 05 Sep 2008, at 07.53, Scott Berkman wrote: > This reminds me of a story I was told a while back that there was a > batch > of 3com NIC's that all went out with the same MAC from the factory. I > never found out if that was a rumor/urban legend or the truth. Anyone > know firsthand or have an article about that? > > -Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs@seastrom.com] > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:33 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: [Fwd:] Nvidia NICs with duplicate mac addresses > > > Forwarded to NANOG in the interests of wider awareness... having been > there and torn out my already scarce hair, duplicate MAC addresses can > really mess up your day... > > --- > > Just when you thought this couldn't happen any more... > > Copying from a different email list... > > mac address 04:4b:80:80:80:03, was showing up in multiple places > across the network. I googled the mac address and discovered that > other people are having the same issue with this mac address. Below > are some links describing the problem: > > http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=22148 > http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-73469.html > > > I just wanted everyone to know about this problem in case you run > across similar slow "connectivity" issues. I believe the network card > is made by NVIDIA. > > > > - --- 李柯睿 Check my PGP key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB67593B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJIxd6iAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/TAUH/0zG2RUi2oJ3oNaPO0yNoz73 noV7ql2NVpJNtaJz8kmaeoZamE5pSVgJ1byj/wSknPimeAFdDUny+ZmPqSO8b0N4 E1Pqh9O5MegxVAZ2FjjTCLv9TvJ8mnH+l3pDPebqps43PGTyBfa6alZjceadMWDj NyPfS9yrne7JM6zaZt6mgBvfPc93ZXdaB77N4SteKRbplB+5FbzPzzE2HnEiY46E qxYbZHt9vT/6f9cyPZmH7AGjqnbNBaCMb/dXEWKn1LqkTWRUdhfbKTUUvvtUYvGJ tiT6EI4r8z/IlsCn9+APSA5mnsMDm8dI1/j48ogsgW/RumL2BBi9CEalJO4CHPo= =77sL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation
by Boyd, Benjamin R 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

>-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Francis [mailto:francis@cs.cornell.edu] >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 2:31 PM >To: Ricardo Oliveira; nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: RE: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation > > >This thread begs an interesting question: what is the right >amount of granularity for load balance? Folks here are saying >that one-entry-per-AS is too course...an AS wants to influence >load on incoming links, and so it needs multiple entries. > >On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that we need hundreds >of entries per AS, or even dozens. So I'm curious...if we >could wave a magic wand and control the exact number of >entries any AS needs to advertise, what would folks consider >to be roughly the right number of entries? > >Thanks, > >PF > Although hard to imagine, I would think that flexibility would be desired for those willing to implement/manage it. *************************************************************************************** The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Windstream requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or its attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else.

1 0

Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
by Scott Weeks 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

--- ge(a)linuxbox.org wrote: On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: > > --- ge(a)linuxbox.org wrote: > > Well, perhaps you can share any information with us on a legitimate client > you have? > ---------------------------------- > > Now why do you have to go there? Just to fan the flames for fun and profit? :-( I haven't seen any flames, I've seen them claim they cleaned up, instead of pointing out all their other bad clients, I am asking for a good one. Should be easy enough to manufacture. ------------------------------------- Stop. Please. scott

4 4

InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
by InterCage - Russ 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Hello Everyone, Good morning. Seeing the activity in regards to our company here at NANOG, I believe this is the most reasonable and responsible place to respond to the current issues on our network. We hope to obtain non-bias opinion's and good honest and truthful information from the users here. Being that there are much larger operators here then us, what kind of insight can you give to the issues that have arisen? We've near completely removed (completion monday 09/08/08) Hostfresh from our network. 2 of their /24's have been removed: 58.65.238.0/24 dropped 58.65.239.0/24 dropped The machine's they leased from us have been canceled. What do you suggest for the next move? Thank you for your time. Have a great day. --- Russell M. InterCage, Inc.

5 6

Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
by Scott Weeks 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

My apologies everyone, I shouldn't have said that. I'm done. scott --- surfer(a)mauigateway.com wrote: --- jpleger(a)gmail.com wrote: I am sure if I looked into it more I could find some exploits related to the sites. ------------------------------------- "Why software piracy might actually be good for companies." Folks should clean their own house before pointing fingers at others... --------------------------------------

1 0

Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
by Scott Weeks 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

--- ge(a)linuxbox.org wrote: Well, perhaps you can share any information with us on a legitimate client you have? ---------------------------------- Now why do you have to go there? Just to fan the flames for fun and profit? :-( scott

3 2

Bandcon (apparently?) no longer providing service to Atrivo / Intercage
by Gadi Evron 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Update, Monday, Sept 8, 12:00 p.m. ET: Todd Braning, vice president of BandCon, just e-mailed me to say that BandCon also has stopped providing connectivity to Atrivo/Intercage. From his e-mail: "Intercage, a new customer, was connected to the BandCon Network for total of about a week. Oncewe recognized and issue with Intercage, BandCon took immediate action and terminated services. We are no longer providing services to AS27595. This can be confirmed here." http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=27595&view=2.0 >From the Washington Post article again. Added "apparently" in the subject line to avoid BGP surprises again. WV FIBER is cutting them off on Thursday. I am starting a pool to see which of their ready-made ASs they will move to. Gadi.

1 0

NTT/ChinaTelCom troubleshooting
by Andrew Staples 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Our connectivity from the US to ChinaTelCom has been in the toilet for 2 months. The Olympics are over, and I'm assured by my Shanghai contacts that The Great Firewall of China has been relaxed, yet the problem remains. Local loops on each end test fine to other localized ip space. Symptoms include large-email delivery delays/failures, large file transfer failures. Firewalls and VPNs have been reviewed, NOCS have been contacted. Fingerpointing is raging at its finest. US endpoint is AS7358 Transit is AS2914 CN endpoint is AS4134 If there is anyone from those three networks who can help us figure out why large packets are dropping on transmits from the US to CN, I would really appreciate an off-list reply. Heck, I'll take any replies from anyone that might have some inside information or similar experiences, or give me some ideas on the best way to do some external black-hole router/mtu munging detective work on these networks. Thanks, Andrew

1 0

[funsec] Security Fix: Updates on Atrivo/Intercage (fwd)
by Gadi Evron 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:17:29 GMT From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawg(a)netzero.net> To: funsec(a)linuxbox.org Subject: [funsec] Security Fix: Updates on Atrivo/Intercage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brian Krebs add some late updates to his "Security Fix" article from Friday 5 September 2008: [snip] Update, Sunday, Sept. 7, 8:02 p.m.: I spoke today with Randy Epstein, president of WVFiber and co-founder of Host.net, which acquired WVFiber just six weeks ago. Epstein said after reading reports from Security Fix, Hostexploit.com, Spamhaus.org and others about cyber crime activities at Atrivo, WVFiber has decided to drop Atrivo as a customer. WVFiber plans to stop providing upstream connectivity to Atrivo by Wednesday or Thursday at the latest, Epstein said. That would leave Atrivo with just a single upstream provider -- Bandcon. Update, Sunday, Sept. 7, 9:15 p.m.: nLayer Communications, a company that owns a significant slice of the Internet addresses used by Atrivo/Intercage, is demanding that Atrivo vacate the space and return the addresses by Sept 30. "Atrivo/Intercage has not been a direct customer of nLayer Communications since December 2007, but they still have some legacy reallocations from our IP space," wrote nLayer co-founder Richard A. Steenbergen, in an e-mail to Security Fix. "Since they are no longer a customer, we require that they return our non-portable IP space, and have given them a deadline of September 30th to do so. If the IP space is not returned by that point, we will follow standard procedure to reclaim it, including null routing the space, and sending cease and desist letters to any network who still transits it without our permission." According to Steenbergen, Atrivo/Intercage must return roughly 7,400 IP addresses. [snip] Ref: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/09/scam-heavy_us_isp_grow s_more_i.html FYI, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIxKdMq1pz9mNUZTMRAnLcAKCRgGjZrgwr5xCmFFXPV/a0xUAlVwCaAkPL nHo38nvc5azHws2QPhshAvY= =zWoJ -----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/ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

1 0

RE: 10GE CWDM
by Robert Boyle 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

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

5 5