- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Natural Gas Generator manufacturer opinions? (might be off topic?)
by Jeffrey Wheat 19 Aug '03

19 Aug '03

I'd be interested in this information as well. Thanks, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Drew Weaver [mailto:drew.weaver@thenap.com] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:21 AM To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: Natural Gas Generator manufacturer opinions? (might be off topic?) Hi, we're looking to purchase our 3rd natural gas generator and need some opinions about the different manufacturers, off-list is fine if you like. Thanks, -Drew --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003

1 0

BGP route tracking.
by Mark Segal 19 Aug '03

19 Aug '03

Anybody watching the bgp routing table.. I see about 5,000 less routes than usual. Anybody know a good pointer.. (im just getting bored waiting for us to run out of fuel) Regards, Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Network Planning FCI Broadband Tel: 905-284-4070 Fax: 416-987-4701 http://www.fcibroadband.com Futureway Communications Inc. is now FCI Broadband

6 8

RE: Did Sean Gorman's maps show the cascading vulnerability in Oh io?
by St. Clair, James 19 Aug '03

19 Aug '03

>Capacity isn't the problem. The problem is that there aren't enough lines >between the providers and consumers to carry the current volume. >Eric A. Hall Exactly, and everyone on this list should realize this exists in EVERY utility. A quote from CNN.com, Money section: "However, the wireless telecom sector has many problems. Most carriers are faced with large debt loads. And because of intense competition (there are six major carriers nationwide) they are resorting to price wars to attract new subscribers. All that means that it has been difficult for the carriers to upgrade their networks to handle more calls and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. "It will be years before wireless carriers are at a level where they can handle the type of volume that landlines can," said Allan Tumolillo,chief operating officer of Probe Group, a telecom research firm." So, wireless failed to guarantee service because they lacked the economic incentive to do so, which meant people couldn't call during a blackout caused because Power wasn't economically incentivized to do so either.

4 3

AT&T US Network Slowdown?
by Paul Jasa 19 Aug '03

19 Aug '03

Dear Nanogers, Is anyone aware of a "slowdown" issue throughout the US AT&T network since 8/18 at around 4pm which is causing a lot of internet circuits (including DSL) to be inaccessible and/or appear down from the outside world? AT&T says this has been escalated to "Level 4" with no ETA and affecting the whole country. I am seeing this problem in the San Francisco area. Just wondering if anyone else is experiencing anything that would confirm AT&T's claim, and fishing for more info about the possible cause and ETA. Thanks! Paul ====================================== Paul Jasa Network Engineer ======================================

2 1

does anyone here have any background information on netside?
by Paul Vixie 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

this kind of thing has been going on for years. seems mitch just can't stop. does anyone have contact information on their investors, suppliers, or peers? [sa:i386] host 208.143.160.41 41.160.143.208.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer max1-160-41.netside.net re: attached

1 0

Re: Did Sean Gorman's maps show the cascading vulnerability in Oh io?
by sgorman1＠gmu.edu 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

Wait... I am Sean Gorman ;-) - although no others apply ----- Original Message ----- From: Omachonu Ogali <nanog(a)missnglnk.com> Date: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:11 pm Subject: Re: Did Sean Gorman's maps show the cascading vulnerability in Oh io? > > And here we all go again, talking about something we have no clue > about. In case you have forgotten, I would like to remind you all > of certain things (in no particular order). > > You ARE NOT: > a) electric utilities > b) independent system operators > c) utility workers who actually climb poles > d) excavators > e) the 'call before you dig' service > f) library curators > g) large wireless carriers > h) the united states government > i) sean gorman > j) terrorists > k) generator manufacturers > l) any of the people dead due to the blackout > m) transmission lines > n) circuit breakers > o) transformers > p) regulators > q) power plant operators > r) the north american energy reliability council > s) members of the north american energy reliability council > t) in charge of dispersing lightning > u) the canadian government > v) control board logic > w) active energy traders > x) senior-level execs at energy companies > y) the lake erie loop > z) the loch ness monster > > You ARE: > a) network engineers > b) network administrators > c) network technicians > d) system administrators > e) (insert any other random network related title here) > f) END USERS OF THE U.S. POWER INFRASTRUCTURE > > Have a happy angst-filled low-voltage day. > >

1 0

MPLS ICMP Extensions
by Leo Bicknell 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

I wanted to get some other opinions on some new features that have appeared in recent code from the popular vendors. It appears there is a new draft, a copy of which can be found at http://www.watersprings.org/links/mlr/id/draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-01.txt that allows MPLS enabled boxes to return some additonal information in a traceroute packet. That's all well and good, and I can see how that might be amazingly useful to someone running an MPLS network, however, it seems to expose data much further than the local network. Here's a random example from a traceroute I recently performed (on a Juniper): traceroute wcg.net [snip] 11 hrndva1wcx3-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.95.117) 91.935 ms 102.652 ms 92.960 ms MPLS Label=13198 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1 12 hrndva1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.95.77) 92.593 ms 92.785 ms 93.119 ms MPLS Label=12676 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1 13 nycmny2wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.240.45) 93.273 ms 93.121 ms 93.067 ms MPLS Label=12632 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1 14 nycmny2wcx3-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.87.78) 104.755 ms 91.949 ms 92.169 ms MPLS Label=12672 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1 15 chcgil1wcx3-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.240.37) 92.021 ms 91.737 ms 91.684 ms MPLS Label=12592 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1 16 chcgil1wcx3-pos5-0.wcg.net (64.200.210.114) 175.907 ms 278.144 ms 203.763 ms MPLS Label=12695 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1 17 chcgil1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.103.73) 93.286 ms 93.230 ms 93.593 ms MPLS Label=13506 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1 18 stlsmo3wcf1-atm.wcg.net (64.200.210.158) 92.780 ms 92.344 ms 92.596 ms It appears both Cisco and Juniper support this new feature. The question I quickly asked both vendors is how do you turn this behavior off, so the traceroutes appear as they did before this feature was introduced. The answer, apparently, is you don't. You can either disable TTL processing on your MPLS tunnels (in effect disabling traceroute), or you can have it output all this extra information. The response I'm getting so far from each vendor is they believe this are the right two options to offer. Thus, my post here. I think there are more people out there who would like to not expose their MPLS labels, Class of Service info, or anything else this feature can provide (because, I don't know all of what it can display), but still allow traceroute to work normally. If I'm off in the deep end, please tell me so, if not, please tell your vendor rep you'd like the "icmp no mpls info" knob. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

4 3

Did Sean Gorman's maps show the cascading vulnerability in Ohio?
by Sean Donelan 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

So, the US Government wants to classify Sean Gorman's student project. The question is did Mr. Gorman's maps divulge the vulnerability in the East Coast power grid that resulted in the blackouts this week? Would it be better to know about these vulnerabilities, and do something about them; or is it better to keep them secret until they fail in a catastrophic way?

11 14

nanog traceroute (was Re: MPLS ICMP Extensions)
by haesu＠towardex.com 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

See attached -hc -- Sincerely, Haesu C. TowardEX Technologies, Inc. WWW: http://www.towardex.com E-mail: haesu(a)towardex.com Cell: (978) 394-2867

1 0

yipes! in 401
by alex＠yuriev.com 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

Hello, Have anyone taking IP from yipes at 401 North Broad in PHL seen any interesting "issues" with them over last two weeks? Please reply off the list. Oh, and if anyone from Yipes and Williams feels like explaining how they can stuff what it claims to be a gige on traceroutes into what behaves like an non-overloaded ATM OC3 (or hightly overloaded ATM OC-12) where Yipes is connecting to Williams, I would be all ears... Thanks, Alex

1 0