- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?
by Frank Coluccio 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

There's not much left to interpretation and preferences here, aside from the choice of medium to be used. I should also add that some of the advice that has been posted in this thread, as well-meaning and thoughtful as it has been, has been downright dangerous to follow. If one is going to run copper cable between buildings, or outdoors, in general, in lieu of the better alternatives of fiber or wireless, then there are local and national electrical, fire and safety codes in effect that spell out what you must do, enforceable under the penalty of law. And while certain of those precautions have been spelled out upstream in piecemeal fashion, none thus far has been entirely accurate or complete. Yes, when running copper between buildings, lightning arresters/circuit - i.e., protection - are a must, but they must be placed within a couple of feet of the building point of entry, or POE. Think about it. Does it make great sense to protect a cable from surges deep within the interior of a building if the cable traverses vast distances on premises unprotected between the point of entry and the terminal point. Therefore, the stipulation of performing grounding, bonding and surge protections at the point where the cable enters the building (in potentially at addition points, elsewhere, when required). Also, if the copper cable is "armored" with a corrugated steal jacket, as many outside plant cables are, then the shielding (the armor) must also be "bonded" to earth ground at the POE, as well. So the issue becomes one not only of grounding, but bonding, as well. And while I'm on that subject, be aware that many FIBER OPTIC cables designed for inter-building/outside plant use are also armored and must be treated in the same manner. BICSI (Building Industries Consulting Systems International) www.bicsi.org does a good job of rolling up all of the relevant standards, as do a number of other sources. For some good coverage of safety, grounding and bonding principles and techniques see the following Structured Cabling Supplement reference by Panduit (taken from the Cisco CCNA Networking Academy Program) http://www.tecmiami.com/cisco/extra/CCNA1_CS_1_en.pdf Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile

1 0

Re: LA power outage?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

It's also interesting to note that, at least by some estimates, the brief power outage in L.A. yesterday took down more networks than Hurrucane Katrina: http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170702966 Of course, So. California is pretty "network-dense", but what does that say about the level of seriousness that network operators place on their "uptime"? - ferg -- Steve Sobol <sjsobol(a)JustThe.net> wrote: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:21:59 -0000, "Reeves, Rob" said: > >>We've been told by our field tech in LA that One Wilshire had lost power >>for a bit, but it is now restored. I don't know the duration of the >>outage, but our equipment there is on DC and did not go down. > > > So - who in LA is going to be telling Santa they want a new data-center sized > diesel UPS genset for Christmas? ;) More like, "which manager is telling Santa they want a new, clue-imbued employee for Christmas?" I'm not too close to the story and I don't live in Los Angeles (I live and work 55-65 miles northeast of downtown), but it seems to me that the problem could have been avoided with a little more caution on the part of the person who cut the wires. -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol(a)JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

6 5

Re: Computer systems blamed for feeble hurricane response?
by Mike Tancsa 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

At 05:10 PM 13/09/2005, kent crispin wrote: >Port 587? Not everyone implements that. You would make a large part of the internet unreachable via email vinyl# telnet mx2.mail.yahoo.com 587 Trying 67.28.114.36... telnet: connect to address 67.28.114.36: Connection refused Trying 4.79.181.13... ---Mike

2 2

Computer systems blamed for feeble hurricane response?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

This is the first I've heard of this... Via The Inquirer: [snip] REPORTERS at the Wall Street Journal said they have seen documents which show that a swift response by the US federal government to Hurricane Katrina was hampered because FEMA computer servers crashed. Michael Brown, FEMA's head, resigned yesterday after being recalled by the Department of Homeland Security to Washington DC. Attempts by agencies to spur the Federal Emergency Management Agency into urgent action were met with bouncing emails, the Journal said. It quoted a Department of Health official as saying every email it had sent to FEMA staff bounced. "They need a better internet provider during disasters," the Journal quoted her or him as saying. A number of US agencies made desperate calls to the Department of Homeland Security and to Congresswomen and men, the article claimed. [Subscription required.] The newspaper did not say which computer systems FEMA uses. [snip] http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26125 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

14 19

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

On 12-sep-2005, at 4:55, Matthew Petach wrote: > > And no, multiple IP addresses is not good enough. > What requirements do you have that are fundamentally incompatible > with using multiple addresses? > How would a default-free content provider with 1000+ peering sessions > be handled? Would they be treated as an ISP, even though they have no > downstreams, and get PI space? There are a few corner cases that fall through the cracks in today's policies. A content network like you describe would be one, a transit ISP with customers that all have their own addresses would be another: where would they get the IPv6 addresses to number their routers? However, the number of such networks is so incredibly small that whatever happens to them is completely insignificant with regard to scalability. Still, we need a decent policy for these cases, and JUST these cases but not random people who'd also like a /32. > Or would you expect them to get prefixes from every peer they have, > and configure several hundred IP addresses on each server? Getting address space from a peer doesn't make much sense. But 99.999% of all content networks have 1 or more ISPs that they can get address space from and then announce to any peers. > I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of > the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the > IPv6 arena. Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I don't know if this makes a difference. The whole point of IPv6 is that we have a technology that will allow our networks to grow for decades to come. Importing IPv4 mistakes defeats the purpose. > ACLs are already enough of a hassle with one > IP address per host. Ok, let's see... which is more important to keep the internet running, a routing table that fits in our routers, or acl monkeys that get to go home at 5?

12 18

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Jason Schiller 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

on Sat Sep 10 03:39:59 2005 Christopher L. Morrow writes > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > > > [Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?] > > > > perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :) The most basic question is if there will be a problem if we solve the multihoming question in the traditional IPv4 way? And if so, should we solve the problem by throwing hardware at it and hoping that when it becomes a problem the hardware will be sufficiently advanced to be able to solve it? We can solve the multihoming question in the traditional IPv4 way, de-aggregation. We can argue if that means give end sites a /32, or allow provider independent /48s, but the fact of the matter is a prefix whatever size creates routing state. The sheer size of the IPv6 space allows for lots of routing state. On the other side, if you remove the routing state then you have a trade off where the information you previously attained through routing state must now be detected in the forwarding plane. We are seeing this now with respect to how end systems detect an outage. draft-ietf-shim6-reach-detect-00.txt The problem as I see it is that the IETF community is focused on the protocol design, how end hosts signal shim6 capabilities, and failure detection. They are not focused on operational requirements such as 1. The ability to inter-AS traffic engineering polices 2. To be able to configure and manage inter-AS traffic engineering polices at the network level and not on each individual host 3. The need for transit ASes to leverage traffic engineering. This is evident by the fact that the language in RFC-3582 that attempted to document traffic engineering requirements was down graded to .goals. in order to get adopted. The problem as I see it, is that there are only a few providers making this claim that these requirements are indeed requirements and need to be solved before there will be wide spread adoption of IPv6. Most people involved in IETF either don.t care about multihoming, feel that simple fail-over will solve the problem for 90% of the Internet, or only are concerned with things that affect the protocol, and they believe multihoming isn.t one of them. The process to define how these things work will be done in the IETF, in the shim6 working group... if this might be important to you, perhaps you will want to join the discussion and make your rerquirements/views/issues well known now, before the protocol is specified. ___Jason

1 0

Re: LA power outage?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

"william(at)elan.net" <william(a)elan.net> wrote: >I think there is a difference as to network going down for 3 hours >and network going down for 3 months... > Semantics. :-) >BTW - care to speculate what will happen if cat5 hurricane hits LA? :) >Or maybe we should be thinking of 8+ earthquake .... No -- I wouldn't want to be accused of instigating an off-topic thread. ,-) - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

RE: mail service with no mx (was - Re: Computer systems blamed for feeble hurricane response?)
by Hannigan, Martin 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

> > > >Application layer firewalls have existed for at least 6 years. > > > Make that 15.... Socks, fwtk (before it went commercial) to name a few. -M<

1 0

RE: LA power outage?
by Reeves, Rob 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

We've been told by our field tech in LA that One Wilshire had lost power for a bit, but it is now restored. I don't know the duration of the outage, but our equipment there is on DC and did not go down. -Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ashe Canvar Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:08 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: LA power outage? My equiment at 1200 W. 7th Street is unreachable. Can anyone confirm if one wilshire is affected ? -ashe On 9/12/05, brett watson <brett(a)the-watsons.org> wrote: > > > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > there's also a blurb on yahoo news of an outage > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050912/ap_on_re_us/la_power_outage > > AM radio news is reporting a "wrong cable cut" by the department of > water and power folks... they're saying "no ties to terrorism"... > > > -b

4 3

rate limiting bandwidth
by Micah McNelly 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Does anyone have any recommendations concerning hardware rate limiting solutions with extensive API's? I remember packeteer from back in the day and have been looking at some of their newer solutions that have XML API's. Comments? Alternatives? I would appreciate any feedback that can be provided. Thanks, /m "I bet the human brain is a kludge." - Marvin Minsky

2 1