- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

OMB: No new money for IPv6 [Was: Re: Multi-6]
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Although I know you're speaking metaphorically, to top it off, see SUBJ: line. http://www.fcw.com/article90779-09-13-05-Web "Upgrade to v6 by 2008 -- no new money." - ferg -- Tony Li <tony.li(a)tony.li> wrote: Moore's Law has not, and does not apply to routers. Thus, costs are going up non-trivially. Tony -- "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: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?
by Hannigan, Martin 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

> > Anyone have recommendations (tested/practical is best :-)? > > The APC Protectnet PNET1 and PRM24 seem quite nice and not > too expensive -- > if they work....pros? cons? It sounds like you're either out of NEC, or, you are grounding them to waterpipe. I believe NEC calls for grounding via earth. You could strike some rod into the ground several feet deep, attach to the pipe with conductive screw+locknut+washer, and a proper gauge for distance cable. Theoretically, that should solve your problem. What did you electricians say? -M<

1 0

Katrina Recovery Post: techs looking for bandwidth in Bay St. Louis, MS
by Dave Curado 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Apologies in advance if this posting is not operational enough. I received a call from a friend who is part of a team who are putting together some wireless networks in the affected areas. They are in need of an internet connection, a link of any kind, in Bay St. Louis, MS. GPS = N 30 22.375", W 89 26.900" I was told they can use T1, bundled T1s, wet string, whatever... If you can supply connectivity to this location, please unicast mail to me and I will forward contact info. Thanks very much.

1 0

RE: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?
by Wallace Keith 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

I've had good luck with Oneac products, such as RJELP100. That being said, it's probably not a good idea to connect switches and/or pc's in different buildings with copper. I'd use fiber between buildings if at all possible . Differences in ground potential between buildings (especially during electrical storms) can not only wipe out a switch port or nic card, but could be lethal to the poor soul with one hand on a mouse and the other on some nearby grounded object... Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of R.P. Aditya Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:25 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations? I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting multiple buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have caused surges along one or more of the cables and burnt out switch ports. I would like to protect the switch ports -- there seem to be lots of products on the market. Anyone have recommendations (tested/practical is best :-)? The APC Protectnet PNET1 and PRM24 seem quite nice and not too expensive -- if they work....pros? cons? Thanks, Adi

1 0

On-topicness and FEMA's mail server
by Steve Gibbard 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Extensive troubleshooting of somebody else's mail server seems a bit off-topic for the NANOG list. That's the sort of thing that, once the problem has been pointed out, will need to be fixed by people internal to the organization that runs the mail server. -Steve NANOG list administration group

1 0

Re: Katrina Network Damage Report
by George William Herbert 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Todd Underwood wrote: > Sean Donelan wrote: >> Todd Underwood wrote: >> > the general idea is: take a large peerset sending you full >> > routes, keep every update forever, and take a reasonably long (at >> > least a month or two) time horizon. calculate a consensus view for >> > each prefix as to whether that prefix is reachable by some set of >> > those peers. an outaged prefix is one that used to be reachable that >> > not no longer is. in other words, one that has been withdrawn from >> > the full table by some sufficiently large number of peers. >> >> This describes a partioning, not necessarily an outage. > >can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure if Sean's thinking the same thing I am, but let me chime in with a nickel's worth of commentary. There are some inconsistent terms used in computer dependability research, but I prefer and use two key definitions: failure (something is offline) and outage (customer sees the service offline). Various redundancy can hide failures from customers and keep them from being true outages. Looking at the routing tables you see failures. If a prefix goes away completely and utterly, and is truly unreachable, then anyone trying to see it is going to see an outage. But you can have a lot of intermediate cases where routes are mostly down but not completely, or where parts of the net can see it but other parts can't due to the vagarities of route propogation and partial failures. And there are situations where the route is down but the service is still up. There are other network monitoring groups that do end to end connectivity tests from geographically distributed clients out to sample systems around the net. Some for research and some for hire for network monitoring. I think what they do is much closer to identifying true outages than your method. -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

13 29

need help regarding portmaster 2E as a dialin server
by Md. kamal Hossain 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Dear all I have portmaster 2E with 30 asyn port.I try to configure it as dialin server.But when i dial it can't authenticate. can anyone help regarding this configuration best of luck kamal -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

2 1

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Igor Gashinsky 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

:: > We also like that fact that we can change our :: > announcements so others can only use prefix X through transit provider Y :: > and not transit provider Z, unless transit provider Y goes away (those 2 :: > are obviously not the only uses of such policies, but are just examples). :: :: :: This also seems like it achievable via DNS hacks on your side. Again, :: this seems like it can be done locally. Wonderful.. so now we have to do routing in DNS, a protocol that's not exactly designed for rapid convergence (yes, neither is BGP, but it's a *lot* faster then DNS). Just brilliant. :: While I realize that the status quo is always the most comfortable, you :: should also recognize that the status quo is simply not sustainable from :: an architectural viewpoint. Thus, the charter of multi6/shim6 is to :: change the model into one that is sustainable, and the fact that certain :: features and functionality will be lost is an unfortunate necessity. While the status quo is not sustainable if growth continues for 4+ years, deciding to "fix" the problem by pretending that there was never a good reason for it in the first place, and moving it to a different place is not a very good architectural solution either. :: Well, I cannot disagree with you. However, this is the direction that :: the IETF has chosen after careful and lengthy discussions. Those of us :: who had alternative ideas have long since lost the battle and are :: resigned to the inevitable, of which shim6 seems like the best of a bad :: lot. And I hope this thread points out why more content isn't v6 enabled.. And no, I'm not saying that "the evil greedy bastards" did this on purpose, unfortunately, it's simply yet another example of things being created without operator involvement (and yes, we, the operators, are at fault for that). See you on shim6@. -igor

1 0

LA power outage?
by matthew zeier 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

I'm hearing rumors of a power outage in LA - any truth? I lost access to my gear up there and the NOC phone is fast busy. -- matthew zeier - "Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance." - Leonard Rubenstein

8 8

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Brandon Butterworth 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

> >> So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1? > > > Could be 4.1 or even 4.2. > > And therein lies the problem. My point, we don't know so some arbitrary or technology limits will have to do as there isn't financial reason to make something bigger > in any event, 32-bit AS > numbers allow for 4 billion ASes, not 4 million. Of course. So we know it's somewhere between 4G and current 20K. If the current policies apply then ASs may not increase greatly but prefixes will be lots less. Sounds like no problem for multi homing as we do now if nothing more acceptable is agreed. Otherwise people will just ignore V6 until it's too late V6 could have saved lots of upgrades for those about to hit the ~250K V4 limit of existing Ciscos > > If we need it then it will exist, if not then we won't be able to do > > that and will do something else instead > > That's not good engineering. It's what people do though, good engineering is pointless if it doesn't get used > we still have SOME time > to come up with new stuff that will make multihoming in IPv6 scale. As long as it doesn't involve pushing the problem onto the hosts, C & J don't always get it right, I'd hate to see 1M times more machines relying on M or L. brandon

1 0