- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Wirespeed 24-port L3 switches
by variable＠ednet.co.uk 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

Hi all, We're looking at L3 switches which have decent L3 packet forwarding performance (wirespeed if possible), a reasonable amount of L4 ACLs/ACEs (an average of at least 80 per port) and comes in a 24-port 10/100 port package with a couple of GBIC slots for uplinking to the core network. OSPF, but no BGP. We've looked at the Cisco 3550-24, but they seem to have "resource exhaustion" issues[1] if you create more than 8 SVI's (i.e. it goes back to software routing). Extreme 200 switches look OK, but are limited to about 1000 ACE[2] (averages 32 rules per port). Allied Telesyn's 8800/Rapier series currently only manage half that figure in hardware and don't support UDP/TCP port ranges in a single ACE[3]. Are our expectations of a 24-port switch too high? Would it be better to move over to higher density switches and put in large amounts of underfloor cabling in large installations and keep putting separate routers and switches into the smaller locations (<100 ports)? Or are L3 switches not a mature product and we should all stick to using switches for L2 and have L3+ dealt with by dedicated routers for the time being? Cheers, Rich [1] http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/145.html [2] http://www.extremenetworks.com/libraries/prodpdfs/products/summit200_24_48.… [3] They do support ranges, but a rule to cover a single range may require multiple ACEs.

2 1

Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

>No, they are not learning. At least this is not what their CEO says: http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?f=articles/2003/12/14c9995f-5557-4dc… After reading that article I got curious about who Overture is. A quick search on Google got me this article: http://www.internet-marketing-research.net/overture_click_fraud.php And in case you think that perhaps the Red Herring writer only used Overture's rates as an example, here's another article that confirms that Overture did have a deal with Verisign's Sitefinder project: http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3080071 Verisign and its CEO are looking slimier and slimier... Thankfully, it is highly unlikely that the .com boom will ever make a comeback. Marketing and advertising people and investors are beginning to understand what works and what doesn't on the Internet. I expect that Sitefinder will return but that a lot of browser software and ISPs will divert the misspelled URLs to a local spelling checker. Sitefinder version 2 will die a quick death because it won't get enough clicks and most of the ones that it does get will be nuisance clicks. --Michael Dillon

1 0

RE: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
by McBurnett, Jim 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

RFC 2182 Section 7 covers this as Randy Bush mentioned earlier.. If They do serial # updates, in a scripted manner or they just change the serial number to 40000000 let it propagate and then change to 1000000 something all will be fine... The RFC above explains it well, no need to repost here.... Jim > > ... and not as YYYYMMDDHHMMSS or any contracted version thereof! Right, but, the _OLD_ format is. Therefore, the old zone file prior to the conversion will be SN 2004020800 through 2004020901. After the change, the SN will be in the range 1076284800 through 1076371200 inclusive. This complete range is less than 2004020800, so, the serial number will, indeed, be going backwards at the time of the change. This should only matter to things doing automated zone transfers and a forced manual zone transfer should solve the problem. Presumably, the responsible TLD operators are being coordinated with to take the necessary steps. Anyone else doing zone transfers of COM and NET has now been warned and should take appropriate action. Owen

1 0

Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
by neil＠DOMINO.ORG 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

> There still is the issue of cost though. GSR line cards are not cheap. Hence my point about them not being an access router :-) > I would put 10mbps Ethernet and possibly DS3 in the same pool as E1/T1 > though; this still remains in the realm of things a 7500 does fine. I'm > not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. > However, free is music to my ears. 10meg ethernet yes, DS-3 depends on whether you own the telco side as well. Neil.

2 2

Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
by Frank Louwers 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:34:46PM +0000, Maarten Van Horenbeeck wrote: > Hi Frank, Dag Maarten, > > stuid question, but isn't 2004010101 (today) > 1076370400 (9 Feb 2004)? > > This doesn't apply here. It is perfectly possible to decrease the value > of your serial number without any consequences for the DNS slave/master > zone transfers, if you adhere to the procedures put forward in RFC 1912 > (section 3.1). The fact that the newly introduced serial is lower will > thus not have any consequences from this perspective. Yes, but we all know there are quite some non-compliant dns-servers out there. Do they want to break the largest zone for a few days for all non-compliant servers? Oh, wait, right, they don't care if they break stuff... Kind Regards, Frank Louwers -- Openminds bvba www.openminds.be Tweebruggenstraat 16 - 9000 Gent - Belgium

5 5

RE: Anyone alive at ep.net
by Malayter, Christopher 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

Bill, -I emailed both email addresses listed on the ep.net website contact information. -I have not as of this email received a response to my request or that email from you -Jeff's email bounces since it's an @ep.net and that seems to be rejecting all mail from both tdstelecom.com and fdfnet.net -I see no fax/phone contact information listed on the ep.net website. If you provide them, I will use them. -The webpage the IX gave me to register for IP space contained no phone/fax contact information. -I attempted to contact your INOC-DBA line, it was not active. So yes, really. Could you please provide me with what we are missing to receive allocation. Thanks, -Chris -----Original Message----- From: bill [mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:25 PM To: Christopher.Malayter(a)tdstelecom.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Anyone alive at ep.net > > > I've been awaiting allocation of an IP from an IX that is allocated by > ep.net. > > I've been recieving connection refused form the mailserver from several > domains for over a week. really? have you tried any other contact methods to get feedback from ep.net? telephone? fax? non-broadcast email? > If anyone from ep.net could email me with our allocation request, thanks are > in order. not enough information presented to act on your request. > > Thanks ahead of time, > > -Chris --bill

6 8

RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
by Michel Py 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

> Jon Lewis wrote: > Even comparing a VXR with NPE300 to a 7500 with RSP4 > and VIP2-50's, the 7206 will melt down and cease > functioning properly on traffic levels the 7500 > handles without breaking a sweat. Interestingly enough, the eBay prices reflect this: anything below an RSP4 or a VIP2-50 is useless junk good only for home or lab; recently bought a CX-EIP2 for $0.99 and a VIP2-40 for $50. CX-FSIPs and RSP2s go for peanuts too. However, a VIP2-50 or an RSP4 still go for 500 bucks a pop, which means they are still worthy of a production environment. As mentioned before, this is comparing apples and oranges anyway. Although this is overly simplified, the bottom line is that the NPE in a 7206 needs to do the job of the RSP _and_ 3 VIPs; no wonder why it will melt. Michel.

1 0

RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
by Michel Py 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

>> Christopher L. Morrow wrote: >> What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the >> 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, >> purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by >> 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing >> some other hardware that will be in support longer >> might pay out in the longer term? See below, I'm mostly talking about no throwing away what you already have; eBay is good for spares (a router sitting in a warehouse does not need software) and line cards, no more. Long-term support: as pointed out recently, I would be more comfortable with a 7500 without support vs. a 7600 with support as of today, the reason being I already know the tricks the 7500 is going to throw at me (mostly). > Drew Weaver wrote: > Well technically buying a used 7500 doesn't entitle you > to run IOS on it, so you need to re-license the Ebay > Special and that usually costs close to what a new 7500 > would cost. True, but I'm not talking about buying a new router on eBay, I'm talking about using what lots of us already have (a bunch of 7500s) that are already paid for and legally licensed. As you unrack some of the 7500s out of production, you take them out of smartnet but don't throw them away: you keep them as spares, which allows you to take the production 7500s out of the 4hour/365 smartnet to put them on support-only maintenance. That's what I call free (it's not exactly, but close): router paid for already and el-cheapo contract on it. > I've heard conflicting reports, is a 7206 faster > at packet switching than a 7507? Greatly depends what's inside it. Sure, if your 7507 has an RSP2 (which basically is a 3640 on a blade) and legacy (meaning, non-dcef) blades a 7206 will beat the crud out of it. However, a loaded 7206 with a low-end NPE can choke when the 7507 with an RSP16 and recent VIPs will sail smoothly. Michel.

2 1

Cox Dns Admins Needed
by nanog＠cfsdigital.com 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

Hello Need to speak to Cox Dns Admins if they can contact me off the list having dns cache issue with there system Fgravato(a)slingo.com frankie gravato senior network and systems admin Slingo Inc.

1 0

Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
by Maarten Van Horenbeeck 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

Hi Frank, Thanks for your reply. > Yes, but we all know there are quite some non-compliant dns-servers out > there. Do they want to break the largest zone for a few days for all > non-compliant servers? The serial should not be of any importance except to the .com & .net slave nameservers. To my knowledge, these are all managed by Verisign, so this should just be a purely internal operation. I really don't see the problems here most of you are referring to. > Oh, wait, right, they don't care if they break stuff... I believe they have a pretty good business case for keeping it in a working state. Best regards, Maarten -- Maarten Van Horenbeeck maarten(a)daemon.be

2 1