- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Redback contact needed
by sowens＠epik.net 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

I got some names. Thanks to all that responded. Shane -----Original Message----- From: sowens(a)epik.net [mailto:sowens@epik.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 4:58 PM To: nanog(a)merit.net Subject: OT: Redback contact needed Does anyone know an escalation contact for Redback's TAC? Shane Owens Sr Manager IP/IT Engineering and Network Control Center EPIK Communications desk: 407-472-8291 Sowens<at>epik<dot>net

1 0

OT: Redback contact needed
by sowens＠epik.net 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

Does anyone know an escalation contact for Redback's TAC? Shane Owens Sr Manager IP/IT Engineering and Network Control Center EPIK Communications desk: 407-472-8291 Sowens<at>epik<dot>net

1 0

RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
by Joel Perez 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

I have a Level-3 OC-3 in Miami. So far they have proved to be more stable than my other 2 upstreams. Never had a problem with their helpdesk either! Regards, ---------------------------------------------- Joel Perez <jperez(a)ntera.net> | IP Engineer http://www.ntera.net/ | Ntera 305.914.3412 >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Rick Ernst [mailto:erond@legendz.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:33 PM >>To: nanog(a)merit.edu >>Subject: Tier-1 without their own backbone? >> >> >> >>We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac >>OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with >><provider> because they don't have their own backbone. >> >>Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this >>just >>something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, >>Sprint, >>and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ? >> >>One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad >>on >>reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also >>realize >>that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) >> >>Thanks, >>Rick >>

1 0

relays.osirusoft.com
by Richard Welty 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

although this has to do with spam, i think folks will agree that there's operational content here: relays.osirusoft.com is down, it's history, stop using it. it is currently returning 127.0.0.2 for everything, so if you're using it, you won't receive this, but at least those who don't use it will know what to say when the issue comes up. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty(a)averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

6 7

RE: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear?
by JC Dill 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

>At 11:19 AM 8/27/2003, Matthew Zito wrote: > >I was wondering if anyone could provide any advice or suggestions on >shipping heavy/bulky equipment (~300 pounds, about a half-rack worth of >gear) on short notice cross-country? We're obviously looking to minimize >cost, but realistically it can't be in transit for more than two days. Is the problem moving them ASAP or moving them with the least delay while in transit? If you have enough time to buy airplane tickets at a reasonable rate it can often be more cost effective to fly someone to pull the gear and fly with the boxes. I pulled and moved a rack full of servers in and out of colos quite a few times, flying out with new equipment and bringing the old equipment back, or flying out with empty boxes and packing the equipment in the right boxes (with the right foam inserts etc.) and bringing them back. You can save quite a bit by not having to pay "remote hands" at the other end to pull and pack the gear. I believe that most airlines allow you 3 items of checked luggage up to 70 lbs at no additional charge. Extra checked items were ~$50 per box, and occasionally ~$50 extra if the box is overweight. I had a carry-on for my personal needs (clothes, laptop). If you need a rental car, get an SUV and get one where the rear deck "folds down flat". The largest passenger SUVs (like a Lincoln or Ford) sometimes have a rear seat that sits on top of the rear deck and can NOT be removed, check this when making reservations as it's a big PITA to put boxes in and over this lump. I highly recommend a Durango instead. Every time I shipped boxes instead of flew with them there were shipping delays. *Especially* when going thru international boundaries. When I took boxes with me thru customs as checked luggage, no delays. If the computers you need to move are going to or from the west coast, I'm available if you want to hire someone to do this, if you can't spare a person to fly. Email off-list. HTH jc

1 0

RE: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear?
by Jim Deleskie 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

I've shipped LOTS of heavy datacenter gear via FedEX cross countryb4 without problems as well. -Jim -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Jain [mailto:deepak@ai.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:08 PM To: Matthew Zito; Nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear? We've shipped (using Fedex International Freight) 300+lb pallets of Sun gear without any untoward delays or problems. Multiple times. The pricing was excellent and the service (once they knew freight was involved) was fine. I think bad experiences with fedex have more to do with the statistical probability of a problem occurring over x million deliveries rather than a problem with the vendor itself. Deepak Jain AiNET > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Matthew Zito > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:19 PM > To: Nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear? > > > > > Hello, > > I was wondering if anyone could provide any advice or suggestions on > shipping heavy/bulky equipment (~300 pounds, about a half-rack worth of > gear) on short notice cross-country? We're obviously looking to minimize > cost, but realistically it can't be in transit for more than two > days. Are > there any companies or methods people would recommend? Thanks in advance > for the help. > > Thanks again, > Matt > > -- > Matthew Zito > GridApp Systems > Email: mzito(a)gridapp.com > Cell: 646-220-3551 > Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 > http://www.gridapp.com > > >

1 0

RE: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear?
by Temkin, David 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

FWIW we've had FedEx destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of gear in transit (all shipped with full insurance and properly packed). They're extremely slow to pay their insurance claims on large amounts, as well. This has happened to us at least 5 times so far - cross-country, cross-state, and international. Choose carefully. -----Original Message----- From: N. Richard Solis [mailto:nrsolis@aol.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:27 PM To: Matthew Zito Cc: Nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear? FedEx will be your best bet. Trust me. You COULD do a counter to counter shipment via an airline cargo desk. That MIGHT be cheaper but you will still have to transport it from your spot to their pickup and back again on the other side. Rail is not an option because it is across country. Ground/Highway is not an option because it is across country. Your only choice is by air. Use FedEx. Life is short. -Richard Matthew Zito wrote: > > > Hello, > > I was wondering if anyone could provide any advice or suggestions on > shipping heavy/bulky equipment (~300 pounds, about a half-rack worth of > gear) on short notice cross-country? We're obviously looking to minimize > cost, but realistically it can't be in transit for more than two > days. Are > there any companies or methods people would recommend? Thanks in advance > for the help. > > Thanks again, > Matt > > -- > Matthew Zito > GridApp Systems > Email: mzito(a)gridapp.com > Cell: 646-220-3551 > Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 > http://www.gridapp.com > >

2 1

Attn: Operators - BGP-4 MIB issues
by Jeffrey Haas 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

Greetings, I'm serving as the editor of the current BGP-4 MIB. We're trying to push the MIB through standards. Last call has been issued. The MIB, as currently documented includes the following four objects: bgpPeerInUpdates bgpPeerOutUpdates bgpPeerInTotalMessages bgpPeerOutTotalMessages Each of these objects has the following clause, and has had it for some time: : This object should be initialized to zero (0) when the connection : is established. This is, for at least two major implementations, not the observed behavior. What is your expectations for these objects in the MIB. The MIB in question is at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib-11.txt Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Note also: The BGP Traps have changed. This may affect your SNMP monitoring stations. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies

1 0

Blocking ports
by Wesley Vaux 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

Has anyone that works for/ owns an isp blocked any ports regarding this new/old virus threat? Wes Vaux, CCNA, CCDA Network Security Engineer, 9000 Regency Pkwy Ste 500 Cary, NC 27511 t 919.463.6782 f 919.463.1290 Global Knowledge Experts Teaching Experts http://www.globalknowledge.com

1 0

RE: Max TNT ping thing
by Ejay Hire 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

Here is a summary of our experiences with the bug. Last Thursday, A TNTs with years of uptime rebooted. No cause was apparent, and nothing relevant happened in the logs. On Friday, It happened to a different TNT. This occurred with increasing frequency over the weekend, and we didn't get a lot of sleep. We tried using a filter in the tnt to block port 135 and 4444 to no avail, and then tried a filter to block ICMP in the tnt also to no avail. Next, we removed the tnt filters and tried rate-limiting ICMP to the TNT's. That didn't work. Next we removed the rate-limit and applied the Cisco-supplied anti-nachi route-map to the upstream interfaces facing the Tnt's. This significantly reduced the problem, but we were still rebooting every 12 hours or so. Disabling route-caching on the TNT stopped the rebooting problem, but we were seeing 40% packet loss on one of the TNTs. (Note, both TNT's have a Ds-3 of PRI's, and use the TNT-SL-E10-100 four port Ethernet cards) The packet loss was only affecting one TNT, and we discovered that it was running 9.0.6 while the unaffected box was running 9.0.9. Upgrading the box to 9.0.9 fixed the packet loss issue. We are currently up and haven't had any blips in 24 hours. (knock on wood.) -Ejay -----Original Message----- From: Andy Walden [mailto:andy@tigerteam.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:35 AM To: Geo. Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Max TNT ping thing On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Geo. wrote: > > Someone on this list had mentioned a network card for the Max TNT that made > it immune to the nachia worm ping issue. > > Is that the 4 port (3 ethernet, 1 fast ether) card or the single port card > with the dongle thing or something else? It turns out this was a bogus solution. Since the load was lower afterwards, my tech thought it had been fixed. We tried limiting the size of the route cache as someone had recommended, as well as applying all of the filters without relief. This morning I had them just disable the route cache to see what happens. I will post the results. We did end up buying a support contract from Lucent after they said they had a fix and would tell us what it was after we paid them. They just supplied the filter. At this point, they have exactly zero clue as to what to do next. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp

2 1