- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Casassa, Nathan 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

The scissor-jack you are referring to that comes with the 12016 also doubles as an excellent coffee table in our office... Nathan -----Original Message----- From: Shawn Solomon [mailto:ssolomon@ind.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:44 PM To: Matt; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Worst design decisions? The 12016 does have handles on the sides, but the documentation states not to use them for lifting purposes. Yeah, I laughed too, just before realizing that bear-hugging a 16 into position takes a bit of motivation. It is definitely one big hunk of iron (300+lbs on the shipping invoice), but I just couldn't understand why in the @%$$ useful handles weren't provided. On a side note, the scissor-jacks that came with them could lift a house. Heh. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps167/prod_installation_g uide09186a0080188f38.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Warning Do not attempt to lift the chassis with the handles on the back and sides of the chassis. These handles are not designed to support the weight of the chassis, and should be used only to steady and guide the chassis while it is being inserted into or removed from an equipment rack. To reduce the risk of damage to the chassis and serious bodily injury, do not use these handles to lift or support the chassis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- -----Original Message----- From: Matt [mailto:acheron@qwest.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:43 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Worst design decisions? Hello all, Was doing some upgrades on a UBR7246 (to a VXR), and I got to thinking about short sighted design considerations. I was curious if any of you had some pet peeves from a design perspective to rant about. I'll start with a couple. 1) Why did Cisco design the I/O controller on the 7246 with screws in the corner, which are very difficult to get at? And worse than that, why did they not include a cheap handle on the blank in this slot? 2) Why did Cisco not include side handles on the 12000 chassis? It's a heavy chassis, and I can imagine how many techs have thrown out their back moving that chassis around. I've got a couple others in my head from 3Com and a couple of others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. So, what do you think?

3 2

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Ron Snyder 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

> overdesigned rather than poorly designed. even if nobody > can use it, it's just an extraneous feature. an atm built > into the concrete that you'd have to stop short of and > get out of your car to use. now that would be poorly > designed. </lurk> Do you mean overdesigned in the sense that because that atm has features that wouldn't be needed in it's current location, that it shouldn't have those features? What about just making inventory tracking easier? (eg. "We have 32 ATMs that are all featurewise identical and they're all interchangeable" vs. "We have 22 ATMS with feature X and 10 w/o feature X") Now, to get it somewhat related to network stuff: s/atm/router/ s/features/capabilities/ s/location/network function/ <lurk>\

1 0

RE: routing issue?
by kwallace＠pcconnection.com 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

thanks to everyone who responded on/off list. The bad /24 announcement is now gone (pfm :) ) . Just seeing the /8 now. Keith Wallace Director, Telecommunications PC Connection Services kwallace@pcconnection dot com The information in this email, and subsequent attachments, may contain confidential information that is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This message or any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed or retained by any person without authorization from the above named sender. -----Original Message----- From: Wallace Keith Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:15 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: routing issue? Can anyone reach the 38.221.129/24 range? I'm seeing this announced as a /24 by L3, but looks like it should be a /8 from Cogent(PSI). Just looking for another viewpoint. tnx. Keith

1 0

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Shawn Jackson 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

It's usually a legal risk deferrer decision to buy the ATM casing with Braille. Someone pointed out that Drive-Ups and Walk-Ups are the same, which it true for the internals but not Drive-Ups casing and moldings, which are adjusted for the average eye level of a person in a car, plus recessed, tiled monitors, etc. Basically, it costs x,xxx.xx to get the casing with Braille, and legal risk is valued at xx,xxx.xx (i.e. someone suing them because it doesn't have Braille). Better safe then sorry in risk management. I wouldn't view this is a lapse in deign decision, more of an obscure design decision. Shawn Jackson Systems Administrator Horizon USA 1190 Trademark Dr #107 Reno NV 89521 www.horizonusa.com Email: sjackson(a)horizonusa.com Phone: (775) 858-2338 (800) 325-1199 x338 -----Original Message----- From: Damian Gerow [mailto:damian@sentex.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:34 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Worst design decisions? Thus spake Mike Donahue (mdonahue(a)WATG.com) [19/09/03 15:28]: > Hi.. I might have missed the post, but braille on drive through has zero to > do with a design mistake - it's practicality. The ATM manufacturer doesn't > put out a "drive-through" and "walk-up" model - it puts out one, and then > it's up to whomever to mount it. Simpler just to put braille on the kit and > ship, and not worry about it. But the bank, who chooses to mount the Braille-enabled machine as drive through, orders the Braille added, do they not? (As to whether or not this is a good idea, I'm keeping away from.)

2 1

routing issue?
by kwallace＠pcconnection.com 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Can anyone reach the 38.221.129/24 range? I'm seeing this announced as a /24 by L3, but looks like it should be a /8 from Cogent(PSI). Just looking for another viewpoint. tnx. Keith

2 1

RE: Worst design decisions?
by John Neiberger 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

>>>> Scott Granados <scott(a)wworks.net> 9/19/03 1:36:39 PM >>> > >Actually, not what I've heard. I have a contact at a large east coast >bank who told me they were charged extra for Braille per ATM. I had >assumed for years it was a case of build them all one way only to save >cost. But in fact this is not the case. > >At least for the type they use. Even if banks have to pay extra for Braille they're going to do it. Banks have a phobia regarding lawsuits or being written up during an audit. This phobia causes them to do things that don't necessarily make a lot of sense to normal people. Operationally speaking (sort of), any of you who work for banks and have had to sit through network audits performed by idiots know what I'm talking about. Sometimes these network audits are performed by clueless monkeys who make 'suggestions' that have no basis in reality or logic but we end up having to follow their recommendations for fear of being written up during the next audit! Insanity... John --

1 0

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Mike Donahue 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

>At 04:24 PM 9/18/2003, bmanning(a)karoshi.com wrote: >> The US Congress. >> "can you say ADA - sure you can" - Fred Rodgers >> >>> Who thought it was a good idea to put braille on the drive up atms? >While I don't know if the person in question was blind or not, I *have* seen someone use a >drive-up ATM from the back seat of a car. >jc Hi.. I might have missed the post, but braille on drive through has zero to do with a design mistake - it's practicality. The ATM manufacturer doesn't put out a "drive-through" and "walk-up" model - it puts out one, and then it's up to whomever to mount it. Simpler just to put braille on the kit and ship, and not worry about it. Mike

3 2

Costs of not testing an implementation
by Chan, Chung Ming 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Hi, I'm trying to gather some data to justify the needs of getting protocol conformance testing tools for testing out the products before deployment. Especially if there is any study on what is the cost of not doing enough testing before deployment and that cost comparing to the cost of getting the tools. If any of you can point me to any useful link, it will be great! Thanks in advance!

1 0

RE: Where to get an ASN certificate?
by Nine, Jason 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Thanks all for the info! -----Original Message----- From: Clinton Work [mailto:clinton@scripty.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:35 AM To: Nine, Jason Subject: Re: Where to get an ASN certificate? You have to apply to ARIN to get a AS number. www.arin.net ===================================== Clinton Work clinton(a)scripty.com Airdrie, AB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nine, Jason" <Jason.Nine(a)hdrinc.com> To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: 19 September, 2003 9:02 AM Subject: FW: Where to get an ASN certificate? We will need to run BGP here in the next few weeks, does anyone know where you apply for an ASN certificate? Thanks

1 0

RE: Interesting interaction between Blaster worm variants and Verisign DNS change
by Jeremy_Powell＠sbcss.k12.ca.us 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Not possible is a strong statement since it has happened twice so far. The assumption you are making is the assumption that I made, which is that the resolver would first try to lookup exactly what was requested, but that is not what it does for example, with the machines domain set to clementnt.com and the default Append Primary DNS suffix to lookups checked under thae advanced TCP/IP properties the result of an nslookup from the machine for www.apple.com is to lookup www.apple.com.clementnt.com which returns 64.94.110.11 because it does not exist. It does this before actually looking up what was typed. When I say it has happened twice, I mean that I have had 2 Blaster infected machines sending spoofed IP address request to 64.94.110.11 tcp port 80 containing the windowsupdate.com in the host portion of the html header. Removing blaster using virus tools eliminated this behavior. Jeremy Powell > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fw@deneb.enyo.de] > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:44 AM > To: Jeremy Powell > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Interesting interaction between Blaster worm variants and > Verisign DNS change > > > <Jeremy_Powell(a)sbcss.k12.ca.us> writes: > > > I think that an interesting interaction involving: > > > > 1) Blaster worm DDoS attack against windows update. > > 2) The default action of Windows 2000 and XP computers > > to automatically append the domain name under "Network > > Identification" or the suffix search list to DNS lookups. > > 3) The number of non-existent domains that exist in the > > above settings. > > 4) The change that Verisign made so that all non-existent > > domains resolve to 64.94.110.11 > > > > is the cause of the DDoS attack that Verisign is experiencing. > > This is not possible. There's a NS entry for windowsupdate.com, which > overrides the wildcard A record (in standard zone files, wildcard > records are suppressed as soon as an RR for the domain exists, even if > the types don't match). > _________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information may also be confidential and/or legally privileged. This transmission is sent for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction, or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail, send a copy to postmaster(a)sbcss.k12.ca.us and delete this message and its attachments, if any. E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC SS 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. Date Sent (d/m/yy): 19/9/2003 - Sender: Jeremy_Powell(a)sbcss.k12.ca.us

1 0