- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: [WAY OT]: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering po int speed publicly available?]
by rwcrowe＠comcast.net 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

I use to work for a growing .com before it went down. One project was to move the company from 5 or 6 suites in an executive campus to a newly built building about 10 miles down the road. Our IT team oversaw the construction of the datacenter from soup to nuts. We went through the whole drill over test patch panels and drops and made sure everthing worked. The only thing we didnt have to do (until the day we moved the servers over) was to look under the newly constructed raised floor. Well, long story short, we started moving the servers over and pulling up tiles to run the cables for them and behold we found a 12-pack and a half frozen pizza. Apparently the some of the workers had decided during the construction to put some beer and food under the floor to keep it cold and forgot about it. :) -- rwcrowe(a)comcast.net -------------- Original message -------------- > > Not really a "WTF" on my part, but... > > Many years ago I was hand tracing a cable in a data center due to the usual > lack of docs and ensuing spaghetti factory. Said cable went under the three > foot raised floor, so I dove in. I'd been going for a while and was getting > concerned that I'd accidentally gotten hold of the wrong cable, so I called > back to my co-worker to give it a tug. No response. I decided to come up > for air and try again. I had crawled under two equipment rows and into the > operator area and I can only imagine what that operator thought was > happening when I just popped up through the floor next to her. Judging by > the yelp and the look I got it was probably not good. Still gives me a > chuckle thinking about it. > > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:43 AM > To: Leo Bicknell > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed > publicly available?] > > > On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:46:49 EDT, Leo Bicknell said: > > > Everyone running their cable wherever they want with no controls, and > > abandoning it all in place makes a huge mess, and is one way to think > > about it. > > While clearing out the space that eventually ended up being repurposed for a > supercomputer, we encountered a small run of Ethernet Classic - the > thickwire stuff. We never did figure out how or why it got there (I doubt > that anybody stashed it down there just for storage stretched straight out, > with 3 vampire taps still attached), as the location in question was still > cow pasture when we decided that all new cable would be thinwire (and we > certainly had plenty of THAT under the floor, buried under all the cat-5...) > And we're a small enough shop with low enough personnel turnover that > rounding up *all* the possible co-conspirators and getting somebody to admit > "Ahh... now there's a story attached to that wire..." usually doesn't take > more than 3 or 4 pitchers of Guinness... ;) > > Which almost begs the question - what's the oddest "WTF??" anybody's willing > to admit finding under a raised floor, or up in a ceiling or cable chase or > similar location? (Feel free to change names to protect the guilty if need > be....:) > > > > > ************************************************************** > This message, including any attachments, contains confidential information > intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact sender immediately by reply > e-mail and destroy all copies. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, > copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on > it, is strictly prohibited. > TIAA-CREF > ************************************************************** >

1 0

Relationship between DNS requests and server's CPU load
by Joe Shen 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

Hi, I want to know, is there any research or analysis on relationship between DNS server load ( e.g. CPU load, Memory utilized) and incoming DNS resolution requests ? Besides those research on name system architecture and cache policy, is there any guideline on planing or optimizing domain name service system ? thanks in advance. Joe Cool Things Happen When Mac Users Meet! Join the community in Boston this July: www.macworldexpo.com

1 0

Relationship between DNS requests and server's CPU load
by Joe Shen 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

Hi, I want to know, is there any research or analysis on relationship between DNS server load ( e.g. CPU load, Memory utilized) and incoming DNS resolution requests ? Besides those research on name system architecture and cache policy, is there any guideline on planing or optimizing domain name service system ? thanks in advance. Joe ---- Cool Things Happen When Mac Users Meet! Join the community in Boston this July: www.macworldexpo.com

1 0

RE: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet over RPR)
by Michael Smith 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sam: We're using the Cisco ML cards in the 15454's. The inbound port from the switch is just a .1Q trunk. The ML cards do the Q-in-Q encapsulation of all frames coming inbound, although this is just one configuration scenario that happened to work well for our application. These particular cards can take any frame up to 9000 bytes, so pre-encapsulated traffic types such a Q-in-Q or MPLS frames are no problem. We have not seen any issues with encapsulated types, but of course, your mileage may vary. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Stickland [mailto:sam_ml@spacething.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:28 AM > To: Michael Smith > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: RE: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet > over RPR) > > Thanks for the reply. Pretty much everyone has told me that it's > vendor specific, although the implementation mentioned below sounds > nice. Any chance of naming that vendor? > > One question about this, the Q-in-Q tunnelling would have to take > place on the switch connected to the ring - what happens if the > packet has already been placed in a dot1Q tunnel? I haven't really > worked much with dot1Q tunneling - are their any know problems with > extra tags? (aside from MTU issues, but I imagine most rings will > support at least 9bytes) > > Sam > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Michael Smith wrote: > > > Hello: > > > > I think this is pretty provider-specific. However, we are doing > > this right now with a particular vendor using their flavor of > > RPR. The ring uses Q in Q tunneling in the core and all switches > > communicate directly to one another using .1Q encapsulated > > frames. > > > > Mike > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > > > Behalf > > Of > > > sam_ml(a)spacething.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:50 AM > > > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > > > Subject: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet > > > over > > RPR) > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is probably a fairly simply question, I'm probably just > > > not quite groking the layers involved here. > > > > > > If I had the following setup: > > > > > > Endstation A -- Switch A === RPR Ring === Switch B -- > > > Endstation B > > > > > > could there be a VLAN setup such that Endstations A and B are > > > both in > > it, > > > and can communicate as if they are on the same LAN segment? > > > (And I > > mean > > > natively. ie. not using an MPLS VPN). ie. Will the switches > > > involved tranlate the different framing formats in use? Is this > > > vendor > > dependent? > > > > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQOwTjZzgx7Y34AxGEQITygCfVnf2TwHWTM2RKIOlwpWxv2CCop8AoMxK tLDj65xi20rBuWtR6to8uMDq =JWVZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet over RPR)
by Michael Smith 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

Hello: I think this is pretty provider-specific. However, we are doing this right now with a particular vendor using their flavor of RPR. The ring uses Q in Q tunneling in the core and all switches communicate directly to one another using .1Q encapsulated frames. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > sam_ml(a)spacething.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:50 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet over RPR) > > > Hi, > > This is probably a fairly simply question, I'm probably just not quite > groking the layers involved here. > > If I had the following setup: > > Endstation A -- Switch A === RPR Ring === Switch B -- Endstation B > > could there be a VLAN setup such that Endstations A and B are both in it, > and can communicate as if they are on the same LAN segment? (And I mean > natively. ie. not using an MPLS VPN). ie. Will the switches involved > tranlate the different framing formats in use? Is this vendor dependent? > > Sam >

3 4

Proxy scanning for spam
by Christopher J. Wolff 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

Hello, If I have a network segment connected to a BGP peer, is there a way that I can hang a box of some kind off of that segment that will sniff out and block malicious/spam email before it hits the customers? Regards, Christopher J. Wolff VP CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com

4 6

China deploys Internet protocol version 9 network
by John Obi 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

Hello, Have you heard of IPv9? or it was IPv8? China's Internet technology Ipv9,which being compatible with IPv4 and IPv6,has been formally adapted and popularized into the civil and commercial sector. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/05/content_1572719.htm Thanks, -J __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

8 7

[Fwd: 2.65 Gbits/s will become available for sale to/from India on FLAG]
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

http://www.myiris.com/newsCentre/storyShow.php?fileR=20040706134414002&secI… VSNL, Flag sign agreement for sale of existing capacity Source: IRIS (06 July 2004) FLAG Telecom and VSNL (Q, N,C,F)* today announced that the companies have reached agreement on 4 May 2004 for the sale of 17 STM-1s of capacity on the FLAG Europe Asia (FEA) cable system into/from India. Under the terms of this agreement, six STM-1 westward and 11 STM-1 eastward will become available immediately to the marketplace along with additional capacity that may become available because of grooming and/or changes in existing contracts within the design capacity (10Gbit/s) of the FEA cable system. With the signing of this Agreement FLAG Telecom and VSNL have settled the differences amicably to the extent of issue of access for existing capacity available under C&MA for sale on FEA Cable System. Additionally, VSNL has reduced its landing station access charges per STM-1 by 25% and FLAG has agreed to the allocation of five STM-1s to VSNL at a non-discriminatory price. Following the signing of this new access Agreement on 4 May 2004, the initial 17 STM-1s are immediately available for activation on the FLAG Europe Asia cable system. By virtue of this agreement, an additional bandwidth capacity of about 2.65 Gbits/s will become available for sale to/from India.

1 0

.mil routing issues
by Brad Gould 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

Does anyone know any useful contacts for .mil? I have what looks to be filter issue with them, being some, but not all, of 203.122.192.0/18 not being able to access some sites (www.usmc.mil for one). Its a reasonable "new" IP range allocation. I've got no reply from the few email addresses I have sent requests to. Thanks Brad -- Brad Gould, Network Engineer Internode PO Box 284, Rundle Mall 5000 Level 3, 132 Grenfell Street, Adelaide 5000 P: 08 8228 2999 F: 08 8235 6999 bradley(a)internode.com.au; http://www.internode.on.net/

2 1

BGP Setup
by Bubba Parker 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

OK, I've got one DS3 from one provider, and a T1 from another. My DS3 comes into router A, and the T1 into router B. Both routers are accessible via ethernet and have both 10.0.0.x IPs and static ones from a provider. I've got a full BGP feed from each provider on each router, and I have the two routers setup in a peer group to receive each others routes from the two providers. I'm running quagga for BGP, so, for example, if I do a "show ip bgp x.x.x.x" it'll show both paths to it from each provider, just like on a Cisco router. My question is, how do I get routers on the same local lan as these two routers to utilize the "best" path found from BGP? And I also want to configure these two routers to be a redundant link, so local lan boxes will always have connectivity, should one provider go down, but I'm not sure how to configure that. Can someone explain what needs to be done for me to accomplish this? Thanks. -- Bubba Parker sysadmin(a)citynetwireless.net CityNet LLC http://www.citynetinfo.com/

2 1