- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Warning about UltraDNS terms
by Sean Donelan 03 May '07

03 May '07

Although UltraDNS/Neustar gives month-to-month pricing, they actually have a 1 year term even if you cancel. So you may want to be aware of it in case you are just testing their service for a few months.

5 4

Slightly OT: datacenter cage providers in SF Bay Area?
by Mike Lyon 03 May '07

03 May '07

Anyone know of any vendors in the SF Bay Area that build out datacenter cages? Thanks, Mike

2 2

NANOG40 Updates
by Betty J. Burke 03 May '07

03 May '07

All:> Just a few updates and reminders to pass along to you! NANOG40 will take place Sunday, June 3 through Wednesday, June 6 at The Westin Bellevue in Bellevue, Washington. Agenda updates with links to the accepted presentations posted at: http://nanog.org/mtg-0706/topics.html Add your name to the Attendee List found at: http://nanog.org/mtg-0706/attendee.list.epl By completing your Registration at: https://www.nanog.org/registration/ Reminder, to receive the meeting NANOG group hotel rate, make your hotel reservation by May 11, 2007, http://nanog.org/mtg-0706/hotel.html As always, send along any NANOG40 suggestions and/or questions to, nanog-support(a)nanog.org Look forward to seeing everyone in June. All best. Betty Burke NANOG Project Manager

1 0

Open WiFi Access Point BCP's???
by Deepak Jain 03 May '07

03 May '07

Anyone have any recommendations for BCPs or software suggestions on running an open community-based access point (or network)? Think: an urban area where potentially lots of people could be popping on and off with little authentication. These seem to be pretty prevalent around Panera's and other things -- I just don't know what they are doing to manage (rather that prevent) P2P and Spam, etc uses. Pointers very appreciated!! Thanks, DJ

3 2

Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
by Scott Weeks 03 May '07

03 May '07

: Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him... Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak. scott --- ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com wrote: From: Ron da Silva <ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com> To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:21:17 -0400 Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...can anyone else here provide some insight into the reachability testing provided for this allocation given to Randy from ARIN? Thanks, -ron ------ Forwarded Message From: "da Silva, Ronald" <ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:14:52 -0400 To: <randy(a)psg.com> Conversation: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Subject: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Randy - I see...96.0.0.0/16 flagged for reachability testing, but we have allocations from 98.0.0.0/8 and seem to be educating folks like <omitted> and others to drop stale bogon filters...you see any issues with the 96/16 block? If not, it might be a false positive for the rest of the /6...perhaps folk were applying policies based on /8's instead of the /6... Thanks! -ron ------ End of Forwarded Message ----------------------------------------- This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

3 3

Re: cisco ios bug...?
by Scott Weeks 03 May '07

03 May '07

--- payam(a)bhsecurity.com wrote: From: Payam chiachi <payam(a)bhsecurity.com> : A bit off topic here but I was wondering if anyone else out there has : experienced the same thing as I have in regards to a layer3 gig switches : from cisco. You'll probably have better luck on the cisco-nsp list: puck.nether.net/cisco-nsp There're a lot of cisco experts there. scott

1 0

cisco ios bug...?
by Payam chiachi 02 May '07

02 May '07

Hey Guys, A bit off topic here but I was wondering if anyone else out there has experienced the same thing as I have in regards to a layer3 gig switches from cisco. Ive enabled unicast filtering on all access ports to protect against any mass outbound floods that could possibly saturate the trunks or even worst take down the network. Breakdown of what happens: Without warning the port goes into blocking mode...no snmp traps are generated, executing a 'showstorm-control unicast' shows the port to be in blocking mode and moving 4.6G pps Here is what ive tried: 1) removing the adjacent device from the ge3 switch - the port goes out of blocking mode and enters 'disconnected' 2) plugging the rj45 cable back in - the port immediately enters blocking mode and shows 4.6G pps <-- at this point there is no actual traffic being generated from the adjacent device connected to the ge3 (0 pps/ 0 bps) 3) manually shutdown the affected switch port and re-enable it - same results as #2 I have had the same issue come up a few times on both 12.1 and 12.2 IOS. When the issue first came up in my testbed, I was only sending udp and tcp syn traffic... no malformed packets or anything along those lines. The only way I have been able to clear this error is by performing a hard reload on the switch. Here is the switch / ios info... TestSwitch#show version Cisco IOS Software, C3550 Software (C3550-IPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.2(25)SEE1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-2006 by Cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Mon 22-May-06 08:08 by yenanh Image text-base: 0x00003000, data-base: 0x00DC0370 ROM: Bootstrap program is C3550 boot loader TestSwitch uptime is 6 days, 5 hours, 43 minutes System returned to ROM by power-on System restarted at 10:29:43 PDT Thu Apr 26 2007 System image file is "flash:c3550-ipservicesk9-mz.122-25.SEE1.bin" Any input on this issue would be greatly appreciated Much Thanks, Payam

1 0

Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
by Scott Weeks 02 May '07

02 May '07

--- ronald.dasilva(a)twcable.com wrote: On 5/2/07 2:58 PM, "Scott Weeks" <surfer(a)mauigateway.com> wrote: > I gotta admit it's a really big .sig that's utterly useless. It *IS* being > disseminated, distributed and copied and on a global basis. It's "unlawful" > in what country? No one's going to delete all copies. Blah, blah, blah... I'll happily send your question to my IT and legal folks. :-) ----------------------------------------------- Or use another email address which you have control over to shut up grumpy `ol guys like me or get your questions answered by others that filter out such nonsense... ;-) scott

1 0

Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
by Martin Hannigan 02 May '07

02 May '07

Scott Weeks said: >Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak. Most definately. He's said as much here on many occasions. Ron da Silva said: >Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...can anyone >else here provide some insight into the reachability testing provided for >this allocation given to Randy from ARIN? Maybe this is better: OrgNOCHandle: ARINN-ARIN OrgNOCName: ARIN NOC OrgNOCPhone: +1-703-227-9840 OrgNOCEmail: noc(a)arin.net -M<

1 0

Bandwidth Augmentation Triggers
by Jason Frisvold 01 May '07

01 May '07

Greetings, I'm working on a system to alert when a bandwidth augmentation is needed. I've looked at using both true averages and 95th percentile calculations. I'm wondering what everyone else uses for this purpose? We're talking about anything from a T1 to an OC-12 here. My guess is that the calculation needs to be slightly different based on the transport, but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks, -- Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold XenoPhage0(a)gmail.com http://blog.godshell.com

3 2