- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: What's wrong with provisioning tools?
by Daniska Tomas 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

bob, i was more interested in something emulating a vt100 that one could eventually plug to a console port and chat with the box... from someone's post sooner in this thread it seemed that someone is using it out there... i like the idea of "talking" with the box while let's say driving a car... e.g. vocollect does something close to this but it's more an in-building solution than an over-the-phone stuff http://www.vocollect.com/sitehtml/products/talkman01.php maybe it would be worth making some mediation to pstn and a proxy app which could ssh the boxes :) -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Bradlee [mailto:Bob@BRADLEE.ORG] > Sent: 13. júna 2002 16:29 > To: Daniska Tomas > Subject: RE: What's wrong with provisioning tools? > > > I have a client HTTP://www.CORRS.ORG using several > speech-synthesis terminals, > they even have a brail printer on the network. > I donate my eyes to them from time to time, but they get > along very well on their own. > > Bob > > > --Original Message Text--- > From: Daniska Tomas > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:15:23 +0200 > > Message by the way - those speech-synthesis terminals were a > just joke or is anyone really using them? :)) >

1 0

RE: What's wrong with provisioning tools?
by Daniska Tomas 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

by the way - those speech-synthesis terminals were a just joke or is anyone really using them? :)) -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first. -----Original Message----- From: Mathew Lodge [mailto:mathew@cplane.com] Sent: 12. júna 2002 23:25 To: David Daley; nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu Subject: Re: What's wrong with provisioning tools? David, Almost all of what you're talking about is network device configuration file management -- there are several solutions out there today that do this. The rest is template-based configuration provisioning tools, which typically have no operational model of the network -- so it should be no surprise that they generate the wrong configurations. So there are two questions: The first is why aren't operators using even simple config management tools (Is every single one lacking somehow, or is it operational intertia?) The more interesting one, IMHO, concerns operational complexity. It seems that complexity is really what makes it hard to operate an IP network -- even with highly skilled engineers -- and is also the barrier to writing useful network provisioning and configuration software. What abstractions would make it easier to understand the network and hence figure out the right configuration changes to make, so software wouldn't generate config changes that are broken? Regards, Mathew At 01:38 PM 6/12/2002 -0400, David Daley wrote: A couple of times during NANOG25, from the floor and from the podium, it was identified that the tools available for managing networks were garbage. I was surprised to hear that even real basics, such as change control and configuration management, weren't widely adopted. There definitely seemed to be an acceptance (and perhaps this is only true at some carriers) that many problems facing providers today are as a result of a dearth of decent tools to configure 'best common practices' into the routers - and as a result of this, the 'problems' with the networks were not with the h/w and/or the protocols they support, but with the people, and their lack of experience and/or ability to properly configure the boxes. A couple of comments that I heard over the last few days: 1) User interfaces are horrible and counter intuitive - I want 'xyz' out of my GUI 2) Systems blindly apply bad configurations to routers - they should be able to do 'some' verification before crashing my network - and can't roll back after they wreck things 3) Change control either doesn't exist, isn't usable, or isn't granular enough 4) There isn't anything to track non sanctioned changes to the network (i.e.: hacker induced re-configurations) I would very much like to hear about "specific" needs for (provisioning) tools that would satisfy your needs - needs that are either being poorly met to today, or not at all. In the hopes of preventing a vendor-bash extravaganza, I would suggest as a point of reference, that the NMS recommendations presented by Avi Freedman during the conference ("Industry/Government Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment: Background and Recommendations". Of the recommendations pertinent to network management, many refer to future-features. As an additional attempt to constraint the discussion, I would recommend that the needs identified be realistic (i.e.: supportable on current equipment, the cost of the solution would be less than the cost of the problem, etc). Cheers, David - David Daley +1.905.922.6560 (global) daley(a)montagueriver.com www.montagueriver.com <http://www.montagueriver.com/> Montague River Networks Inc.

1 0

RE: GigEth regenerators
by Daniska Tomas 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

to correct: imcnetworks don't specify, transmode does 3r oeo regeneration -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first. > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniska Tomas > Sent: 13. júna 2002 14:30 > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: GigEth regenerators > > > > a brief summary of responses up to now: > > - there are several vendors making some kind of sx-to-zx gbe > converters (they call it gbe extenders), which gives an > equivalent of a device with a zx gbic. these vendors include > jdsu, luxn, extreme etc. > > - two companies were found making gbe optical regenerators - > imcnetworks and transmode > > - other solution is to try with edfa > > > > mikael: which exact gbic did you use? > > i was comparing cisco-reselled gbics and their cwdm gbics > seem to be more than 10dB better on power budget... anybody > tried this in real life? > > > thanks again > > -- > > Tomas Daniska > systems engineer > Tronet Computer Networks > Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia > tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 > > A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the > fuse by blowing first. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se] > > Sent: 12. júna 2002 17:48 > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: GigEth regenerators > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Daniska Tomas wrote: > > > > > but for gigeth in this case - we need to connect two sites > > about 200km > > > apart over dark fiber > > > > Check out the 7020 from Transmode > > <http://www.transmode.se/products/sing_dual.htm> > > > > Btw, my personal best so far is 150km over dark fiber using a > > extra long > > haul GBIC, 32dB loss over the fiber and it worked perfectly. > > Only tested > > it for 10 minutes, but there were no CRC errors during that time. > > > > +4dB output from the GGBIC, now we have to worry to not > look into the > > laser :) > > > > -- > > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se > > > > >

1 0

Getting a list of RADB objects
by Mike Leber 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

While we are on the subject... Is there a way to get a list of objects registered with your maintainer handle other than web interface? In the past we used the web interface to clean up manually from time to time. We've automated most of the rest of the tasks related to the RADB, I'd like to automate clean up too. We could use LWP, was just wondering if there is a way to do this from the command line. Mike. +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

Off Topic: ISP's in Pakistan?
by Mitchell, Dan 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

Hi all, I have a customer that is located in Pakistan and is looking for a reasonably priced connectivity option. He says he currently has a "16kbps (CIR) Frame Relay link to AT&T's global FR cloud" and is paying (gasp!) $1550 per month for it. Their last-mile link is Spread Spectrum radio. He also tells me that 48kbps-CIR means paying (cringe!) $4440/month. I know the NA in "NANOG" does not quite cover Pakistan, but if anyone has a contact over there that might be able to assist, please respond to me privately. Thanks, Dan Dan Mitchell Internet Systems Engineer - Boston AllegianceInternet / Hosting.com 781.478.1857 Direct Line dan.mitchell(a)hosting.com

2 1

Fwd: [802.3ae] P802.3ae has been approved by Revcom
by dave o'leary 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

Just a quick follow-up message for my presentation at NANOG yesterday. The 10Gb Ethernet standard is ratified per below. dave >Subject: [802.3ae] P802.3ae has been approved by Revcom >Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:38:42 -0700 >From: "Jonathan Thatcher" <Jonathan.Thatcher(a)worldwidepackets.com> >To: "HSSG Reflector (E-mail)" <stds-802-3-hssg(a)ieee.org> >Cc: "802. 3@Ieee. Org (E-mail)" <stds-802-3(a)ieee.org> > >The note below says it all. > >My profound thanks to all who have participated and especially those that >have dedicated much of their life during the last three+ years to a rather >magnificent piece of work. I sincerely hope that you and your companies >will benefit greatly from this standard. Humanity at large certainly will. > >I could fill volumes with accolades. Instead, let me simply say two >things. I have been honored to have worked with such a great group; I >appreciate the raw intelligence; the mutual respect; the dignity; and the >integrity represented in our Task Force; I have never worked with, and >doubt I will ever again work with a better class of people. > >During the last 3 years, I have received a significant number of >compliments regarding my work as chair. I have attempted to graciously >accept these. But, I have always known, and attempted to make it clear, >that my effort was not and is not of primary consequence. The credit truly >belongs to you. This isn't some insincere attempt at humility. It is, >simply, the truth. > >Congratulations, Well Done, > >Jonathan Thatcher >Soon-to-be IEEE P802.3ae X-Chair > >| -----Original Message----- >| From: a.ortiz(a)ieee.org [mailto:a.ortiz@ieee.org] >| Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:21 AM >| To: Booth, Bradley >| Cc: david_law(a)eur.3com.com; Jonathan Thatcher >| Subject: RE: D4.2 ballot cycle...++CONGRATULATIONS++ >| >| >| Brad/Jonathan and David: >| >| CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF YOU!!!!!! >| >| P802.3ae has been approved by Revcom >| >| Regards, >| >| Angela Ortiz >| Program Manager - Technical Program Development >| __________________________ >| IEEE Standards, 445 Hoes Lane, >| Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 USA >| Telephone: 1732-562-3809 >< Fax: 1732-562-1571 >| E-m: a.ortiz(a)ieee.org >< www.standards.ieee.org >| >| FOSTERING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION >| >|

1 0

RE: How many protocols...
by Mansey, Jon 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

Imagine the sceanrio, customer calls ISP, " hey I cant connect to my work VPN through your connection", ISP, "Ahah, you need our business service, not the $20/m home user service, let me put you through to a business service sales person who'll be happy to take your $50/m, then you'll be able to work from home" > -----Original Message----- > From: Crist J. Clark [mailto:crist.clark@attbi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:34 PM > To: Stephen Sprunk > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: How many protocols... > > > > Stephen Sprunk wrote, > > Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <mb(a)ozaba.cx> > > > I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp > and icmp. It > > > should be all ip protocols. > > > > > > There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't > care what > > > the ipheader->protocol field is set to. > > > > There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters protocol 50 > > (IPsec ESP). Does that mean they're really not an ISP? > > If they are an ISP they are an aggressively clueless ISP. Why > on Earth would you block ESP? Some strange marketing ploy to > charge more to allow people to use VPNs? Ever heard of > transport mode? Does it actually cost them more to move ESP > packets than TCP/UDP/ICMP packets? Are they under some > mistaken impression ESP would be a bandwidth hog? Do they > block GRE (protocol 47)? Do they block Checkpoint's FWZ > (protocol 94)? Or any of the other zillion VPN protocols > (some which ride over TCP and UDP too)? > > Exactly which ISP does this? They deserve some public > humiliation for doing something that breathtakingly stupid to > their customers. > -- > Crist J. Clark | cjclark(a)alum.mit.edu > | cjclark(a)jhu.edu > http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc(a)freebsd.org >

1 0

Re: How many protocols...
by Crist J. Clark 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

Stephen Sprunk wrote, > Thus spake "Magnus Boden" <mb(a)ozaba.cx> > > I wouldn't call it an isp if they only allowed tcp, udp and icmp. > > It should be all ip protocols. > > > > There can be a maximum of 256 of them. The isp shouldn't care what > > the ipheader->protocol field is set to. > > There is at least one ISP here in the US that filters protocol 50 (IPsec ESP). > Does that mean they're really not an ISP? If they are an ISP they are an aggressively clueless ISP. Why on Earth would you block ESP? Some strange marketing ploy to charge more to allow people to use VPNs? Ever heard of transport mode? Does it actually cost them more to move ESP packets than TCP/UDP/ICMP packets? Are they under some mistaken impression ESP would be a bandwidth hog? Do they block GRE (protocol 47)? Do they block Checkpoint's FWZ (protocol 94)? Or any of the other zillion VPN protocols (some which ride over TCP and UDP too)? Exactly which ISP does this? They deserve some public humiliation for doing something that breathtakingly stupid to their customers. -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark(a)alum.mit.edu | cjclark(a)jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc(a)freebsd.org

1 0

Re: What's wrong with provisioning tools?
by Scott Weeks 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

Bill Woodcock wrote: David Daley wrote: :> I would very much like to hear about "specific" needs for :> (provisioning) tools that would satisfy your needs : : : http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ops-operator-req-mgmt-02.txt I can't help but laugh at this worst case scenario. And I'm almost positive it's input from the NANOG participants and not the "Area Directors of Operations and Management" participants. Best-case is a group of programmers working alone in a fully-stocked lab environment with a testbed network of known and contained parameters and no time pressure. Worst case is a junior operator in the field, crouched in front of a rack of unidentified and undocumented equipment in a hot, dark, noisy machine room, with senior management yelling in both ears about thousands of customers out of service, and only a VT100 serial terminal at hand. Worst-case is far more common than best-case. *heh* :-) :-) scott

1 0

GigEth regenerators
by Daniska Tomas 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

hi folks, is anybody aware of an optical long-haul gigabit ethernet regenerator box? anything like Cisco Optical Regenerator (COR) OC-48 STM-16 Bi-directional Regenerator http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/pcat/oc48__l2.htm but for gigeth in this case - we need to connect two sites about 200km apart over dark fiber thanks -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.

3 2