- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Notes on the Internet for Bell Heads
by blitz 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

>Add into the mix the government is desprately seeking ways to >make the Internet "secure." No, "control the internet"...security only applies to THEM....and their "big brother' intents... >So many vendors are trying their darndest to >find a problem so they can sell a solution, even if that means creating >the problem in the first place. Hegelian principal in its essence....

1 0

Re: CA Power
by Martin Hannigan 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

At 03:03 PM 7/11/2002 -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote: >Yo Martin! > >If there is plenty of power in CA then howcum there was a "stage 2" alert >yesterday and a "market alert today"? Today's "projected demand" equaled >"available resources" today If demand played out as expected there >would have been big trouble in CA today. A lot of data surrounding the Enron collapse suggests that power traders artificially manipulated CA's power market, and also suggests that a lot of the previous summers warnings of power problems were also artificially created. All over the country, building of "extra" capacity has slowed. Some due to new sources that came online, some due to the fact that a decrease in power was realized as a result of the falloff in the economy. Could it be that CA is experiencing a normal surge in power utilization and the warning is part of a normal cycle? Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

2 1

CA Power
by Richard A Steenbergen 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Hrm looks like I beat Sean Donelan... http://www.caiso.com/awe/systemstatus.html http://www.caiso.com/outlook.html Is it time for a rolling blackout again? -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

8 7

Question regarding web hosting ip addressing
by Martin Hannigan 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

Folks, could use some pointers. I seem to remember from experience some years ago that if you were hosting multiple domains for web hosting in a shared environment that they needed to have individual IP numbers assigned specifically to the domain, all sharing the interface, so things like AOL browser, etc. would all work properly. Am I out of date on this, or is it still common practice to assign a single ip number to a single web hosted domain i.e. hme0/1.2.3.1/www.test1.com hme0/1.2.3.2/www.test2.com ...and so on and so forth? Specifics would be helpful i.e. certain browsers, applications, etc. Thanks. Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

4 3

Sprint multicast route list
by Pete Kruckenberg 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

I'm doing some analysis of who I might be able to reach via multicast through Sprint. Sadly, route-views multicast peering with Sprint is not working at the moment. I'd appreciate if someone could email me the output from "show ip mbgp neighbor <sprint peer> received-routes" or "show ip mbgp" from a Sprint multicast BGP session. Thanks. Pete.

3 4

Windows Media/RealPlayer monitoring?
by cw 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

Hi there folks. Just a quick question that has come up at my workplace. We are running some streaming services and have got a new proper server which is going into the main machine room as opposed to the old one which is sat in our building. One question that has been put forward is how to go about monitoring the streaming services to ensure that they are functional. We have tools available which can make sure that the machine is still up but so far we're only at the ideas stage with regards to monitoring the actual services. My question is simple. Is there anyone out there who is using, or has implemented a successful monitoring system for Windows Media Server and/or Real Server? If so, then how did you go about it? Cheers.

2 1

XO
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys? I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hype. Thanks for any help. Jane

5 6

ANN: Panoptis DoS detection tool version 0.1.1 is out
by Constantinos A. Kotsokalis 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

Hello, the latest version of Panoptis DoS/DDoS detection tool is out (version 0.1.1). A few fixes should make it more effective and stable. On another note, if you want to run it on FreeBSD all you have to do is compile Panoptis *and* the CommonC++ library with g++ 3.x (tested with 3.0.4). Earlier versions of g++ will break it. The same applies to GNU/Linux and (probably, have not tested it yet) Solaris. You can download it from: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/panoptis/panoptis-0.1.1.tar.gz Get it, test it, feed back :) Costas -- Constantinos A. Kotsokalis || ckotso(a)grnet.gr Greek Research and Technology Network Tel: +30 10 7474243 && Fax: +30 10 7474490

1 0

RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by David Sinn 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

Cynical/realist, it's a fine line. While p0rn does drive a lot of the utilization on the net, I doubt that the those content providers are going to be happy with sending their content un-protected across the net for anyone (paying or not) to see. So now you are into a encryption issue where you need to insure the receiving end can securely receive the encryption key and not share it. Not insurmountable, but not (that I'm aware of) possible with today's applications. The upshot is today's client applications need to grow to add these and other discussed features and functions to help the content providers. David -----Original Message----- From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:JOE@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:55 AM To: David Sinn Cc: bicknell(a)ufp.org; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Hi, >There is also a "cart and horse" issue here: Where is the pervasive >content? At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, I suspect the market driver for IP multicast will be what it often is for these sort of things: pr0n. My prediction? When one of the big adult hosting speciality companies starts IP multicasting free full length "cable cut" R-rated adult films in watchable MPEG1 quality, people will begin lobbying their ISP's for IP multicast support. Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in the popularity of events such as the Victoria Secret webcast, which reportedly drew more than a million viewers worldwide, even when streaming video was being done at postage-stamp-sized resolution. Of course, at the same time the pr0n channels get rolled out, there will also need to be something innocuous, like the "Field Hockey Channel" or the "Brand-New-Bands-Live!-From-Small-Clubs Channel" so that people will be able to use those less-embarassing content choices as their nominal interest when calling to request IP multicast support: "Um, hi, my friends who connect via ISP Foo up the street tell me that if you do something to your network I can get the, uh, Field Hockey channel via IC muteypast. I'm, uh, a real big field hockey fan, and I'd really love to be able to watch, uh, field hockey on my PC." >Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their >billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given >moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things >that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their >advertisers for. That's why they'll go ahead and use it as a tease/for the free publicity they'll get if they're the first ones to do it. People have spent a lot more on publicity stunts that would get a lot less coverage than this sort of thing would. >There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could >get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. Some IP multicast products *do* offer the ability to track viewership (albeit at the cost of some degradation to IP multicast's otherwise essentially perfect scalability). Cisco's StreamWatch is one example that comes to mind. Regards, Joe

8 8

Re: Readiness for IPV6
by Rizzo Frank 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

"Phil Rosenthal" wrote: > As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support IPV6 As far as I can tell, despite many feature requests to the contrary, Foundry barely supports IPV4. Your local Foundry sales ofice can offer you a more percise time-line on Foundry's planned support for Internet Protocol versions 4 and 6. Alif The Terrible wrote: > I am on the 6bone using a combination of 2600 and Zebras. Forge any checks to pay for those, Jerry? Frank Rizzo

4 3