- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Datacenter electrical/genset
by Drew Weaver 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

I think maybe the reason you are being flamed is because generally people put in charge with the design/roll out of a data center environment should already know something about the logistics of such a project. Whether it is power, network, or pretty much any aspect of it for that matter. Also it can be fairly hard to determine the power requirements of a location without specific information, and the lack of said information probably frustrated people. Just a little editorial on why you may be getting flamed. -Drew -----Original Message----- From: Dan Lockwood [mailto:dlockwood@coe.shastalink.k12.ca.us] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 2:17 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Datacenter electrical/genset To throw some water on the flames that I have been receiving, I will be posting a summary of everyone's good information this weekend when I get time. It is my intention to make that information available to the community. Calling me names is childish and unnecessary. Again, thanks to those that took the time to participate. Dan Lockwood Microsoft Certified Professional CompTIA Network+ Certified Cisco Certified Network Associate

1 0

Datacenter electrical/genset
by Dan Lockwood 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

To throw some water on the flames that I have been receiving, I will be posting a summary of everyone's good information this weekend when I get time. It is my intention to make that information available to the community. Calling me names is childish and unnecessary. Again, thanks to those that took the time to participate. Dan Lockwood Microsoft Certified Professional CompTIA Network+ Certified Cisco Certified Network Associate

2 1

Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
by Mike Bernico 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

All, I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort to offer a Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone. Our network is currently not MPLS enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each technology. If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one of these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion. Thanks Mike Martini VPN Pro ---- Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services like L3 VPNs and TE Con --- Enabling MPLS is a huge change Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us to new and interesting bugs and stability issues L2TPv3 VPN Pro --- Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change Con ---- Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think) Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers.

2 1

Anyone lit with Verizon in PHL
by alex＠yuriev.com 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

G'd afternoon, Can anyone with ability to do an emergency turnup of a DS1 in Philadelphia get in touch with me off-list? Thanks, Alex

1 0

RE: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
by McBurnett, Jim 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Mike, I am not sure if this helps or not, or the # of VPN's, But have you considered Cisco's GRE tunneling? This will allow multi-protocol also.. Do a Search for DMVPN on the Cisco site.. This is a brand new feature... Later, Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Bernico [mailto:mbernico@illinois.net] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:25 PM > To: David Bigge; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS > > > > Thanks for your advice David. Your point is very well received. > > One of the design requirements for our VPN solution will be > the ability > to allow customers to use non-IP protocols. I don't think RFC2547bis > will work for this. However if we do go the MPLS route then > RFC2547bis > will be available as a product as well as Layer 2 VPNs. That's > definitely a benefit. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Bigge [mailto:david.bigge@giftofsite.com] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:56 AM > To: Mike Bernico; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS > > Mike, > > An unsupported standard might as well not be a standard. I would lean > towards the most openly supported standard- MPLS. Along with not > letting > one vendor bend you over the barrel, this openess also flushes out any > problems for a more stable long-term network. > > You don't talk about 2547bis VPNs. Are you considering that also? > > We use a competitor of Cisco's equipment so I am biased. > > My 2 cent. > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Bernico" <mbernico(a)illinois.net> > To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:13 AM > Subject: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS > > > > > > All, > > > > I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort > to offer a > > Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone. Our network is currently not > MPLS > > enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each > > technology. If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one > of > > these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion. > > > > Thanks > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > Martini VPN > > > > Pro > > ---- > > Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish > > Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services > like > > L3 VPNs and TE > > > > > > Con > > --- > > Enabling MPLS is a huge change > > Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us > to new and > > interesting bugs and stability issues > > > > > > > > L2TPv3 VPN > > > > Pro > > --- > > Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change > > > > > > Con > > ---- > > Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think) > > Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers. > > > > > >

1 0

RE: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
by Mike Bernico 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Thanks for your advice David. Your point is very well received. One of the design requirements for our VPN solution will be the ability to allow customers to use non-IP protocols. I don't think RFC2547bis will work for this. However if we do go the MPLS route then RFC2547bis will be available as a product as well as Layer 2 VPNs. That's definitely a benefit. -----Original Message----- From: David Bigge [mailto:david.bigge@giftofsite.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:56 AM To: Mike Bernico; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS Mike, An unsupported standard might as well not be a standard. I would lean towards the most openly supported standard- MPLS. Along with not letting one vendor bend you over the barrel, this openess also flushes out any problems for a more stable long-term network. You don't talk about 2547bis VPNs. Are you considering that also? We use a competitor of Cisco's equipment so I am biased. My 2 cent. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Bernico" <mbernico(a)illinois.net> To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:13 AM Subject: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS > > All, > > I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort to offer a > Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone. Our network is currently not MPLS > enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each > technology. If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one of > these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion. > > Thanks > > Mike > > > > Martini VPN > > Pro > ---- > Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish > Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services like > L3 VPNs and TE > > > Con > --- > Enabling MPLS is a huge change > Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us to new and > interesting bugs and stability issues > > > > L2TPv3 VPN > > Pro > --- > Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change > > > Con > ---- > Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think) > Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers. > >

1 0

Datacenter electric/genset THANKS!
by Dan Lockwood 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

I wanted to throw out a big THANK YOU to everyone that has responded. You have surfaced some issues which we would never have considered and will undoubtedly help us to avoid some big mistakes. Thanks again! Dan Lockwood Microsoft Certified Professional CompTIA Network+ Certified Cisco Certified Network Associate

1 0

New IANA IPv4 allocations and bogon updates
by Stephen Gill 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

[ Apologies to those who have received this post in other fora. ] The numerous Team Cymru bogon projects have been updated to reflect the following IANA allocation on April 04, 2003: 201/8 Apr 03 LACNIC (whois.lacnic.net) IANA allocations change over time, so please check regularly to ensure you have the latest filters if you are not using the bogon BGP feed(s). We do announce updates to the bogon projects to the FIRST community, as well as on lists such as NANOG, isp-routing, isp-security, isp-bgp, cisco-nsp, and bogon-announce. We can not stress this point strongly enough - these allocations change. If you do not adjust your filters, you will be unable to access perhaps large portions of the Internet. Worse yet, you may end up blocking access for people who transit through you. Please do not blindly apply any filters or blocks to your network without carefully considering the ramifications of doing so. As a point of reference, the master Bogon Reference Page can be found here: http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/index.html A quick summary of the documents and projects that have been updated include the following: HTTP The Bogon List The Text Bogon List, Unaggregated The Text Bogon List, Aggregated Secure BIND Template Secure IOS Template (Cisco) Secure BGP Template (Cisco) Secure JUNOS Template (Juniper) Secure JUNOS BGP Template (Juniper) Ingress Prefix Filter Templates, Loose and Strict (Cisco) Ingress Prefix Filter Template, Loose and Strict (Juniper) BGP Bogon route-server * RADb fltr-unallocated fltr-martian fltr-bogons DNS Bogon (bogons.cymru.com) zone Monitoring Bogon prefix monitoring * All of the bogon peers have received the appropriate BGP prefix updates. Please feel free to contact Team Cymru with any comments, questions, or concerns. Thanks! Steve, for Team Cymru. [http://www.cymru.com/About/teamcymru.html] -- Stephen Gill gillsr(a)cymru.com

1 0

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

This report has been generated at Fri Apr 4 21:45:29 2003 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 29-03-03 121022 86344 30-03-03 121098 86444 30-03-03 121192 86322 31-03-03 121111 86222 01-04-03 121043 86425 02-04-03 121298 86692 03-04-03 121290 86674 04-04-03 121205 86508 AS Summary 14872 Number of ASes in routing system 5874 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1557 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS701 : ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. 73080832 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 04Apr03 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 121023 86497 34526 28.5% All ASes AS4151 612 75 537 87.7% USDA-1 USDA AS18566 516 12 504 97.7% COVAD Covad Communications AS701 1557 1113 444 28.5% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS7843 621 189 432 69.6% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS3908 956 529 427 44.7% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. AS7018 1349 958 391 29.0% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS4323 565 181 384 68.0% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS7132 727 409 318 43.7% SBIS-AS SBC Internet Services - Southwest AS1221 1108 811 297 26.8% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS1239 960 679 281 29.3% SPRINTLINK Sprint AS22927 295 14 281 95.3% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA AS6198 460 185 275 59.8% BATI-MIA BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS6197 475 202 273 57.5% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS4355 380 110 270 71.1% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS705 459 203 256 55.8% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4814 269 15 254 94.4% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China Telecom (Group) AS2386 499 277 222 44.5% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS17676 235 28 207 88.1% GIGAINFRA XTAGE CORPORATION AS27364 266 65 201 75.6% ACS-INTERNET Armstrong Cable Services AS11305 340 146 194 57.1% INTERLAND-NET1 Interland Incorporated AS22773 202 8 194 96.0% CCINET-2 Cox Communications Inc. Atlanta AS209 523 337 186 35.6% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS690 502 318 184 36.7% MERIT-AS-27 Merit Network Inc. AS22291 240 60 180 75.0% CHARTER-LA Charter Communications AS3561 515 338 177 34.4% CWUSA Cable & Wireless USA AS2048 258 87 171 66.3% LANET-1 State of Louisiana AS6347 368 201 167 45.4% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS1 639 483 156 24.4% GNTY-1 Genuity AS6327 190 34 156 82.1% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink Limited AS6140 295 152 143 48.5% IMPSAT-USA ImpSat Total 16381 8219 8162 49.8% Top 30 total Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)apops.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0

Al Jazeera Akamized
by Sean Donelan 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Is this confidence, or waving a red cape in front of the bull? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2906503.stm Fingers crossed that it is back up and running properly in the next few days," Newsroom coordinator Susie Sirri told BBC News Online. "We don't anticipate farther hacking as we have put in enough security barriers," she added. > dig www.aljazeera.net ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> www.aljazeera.net ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 9, ADDITIONAL: 9 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; www.aljazeera.net, type = A, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.aljazeera.net. 15M IN CNAME aljazeera.net.edgesuite.net. aljazeera.net.edgesuite.net. 6H IN CNAME a1151.g.akamai.net. a1151.g.akamai.net. 20S IN A 207.239.159.80 a1151.g.akamai.net. 20S IN A 207.239.159.79 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: g.akamai.net. 30M IN NS n3g.akamai.net. g.akamai.net. 45M IN NS n4g.akamai.net. g.akamai.net. 30M IN NS n6g.akamai.net. g.akamai.net. 30M IN NS n5g.akamai.net. g.akamai.net. 30M IN NS n0g.akamai.net. g.akamai.net. 30M IN NS n7g.akamai.net. g.akamai.net. 45M IN NS n1g.akamai.net. g.akamai.net. 1H IN NS n2g.akamai.net. g.akamai.net. 30M IN NS n8g.akamai.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: n3g.akamai.net. 30M IN A 207.239.159.76 n4g.akamai.net. 45M IN A 207.239.159.83 n6g.akamai.net. 30M IN A 63.209.213.117 n5g.akamai.net. 30M IN A 207.239.159.66 n0g.akamai.net. 30M IN A 207.239.159.66 n7g.akamai.net. 45M IN A 207.239.159.68 n1g.akamai.net. 45M IN A 207.239.159.68 n2g.akamai.net. 1H IN A 207.239.159.75 n8g.akamai.net. 30M IN A 207.239.159.76 ;; Total query time: 646 msec ;; FROM: clifden to SERVER: default -- 127.0.0.1 ;; WHEN: Tue Apr 1 18:29:58 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 35 rcvd: 457 >

1 1