- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: L2/L3 Testing Vendors - Comments? Praise? Horror Stories?
by Tim Irwin 18 Oct '01

18 Oct '01

Thanks, but those products are not routers and switches... they TEST the capabilities of routers and switches. I'll try to remember that tidbit of using routers AND switches. It might come in handy one day... glad you pointed that one out. Have you considered the possibility of writing a white paper on that idea and sharing it with the group? I'm not an idiot. In the future, it might be good advice to not assume that just because you're not familiar with something you know more than someone else. > -----Original Message----- > From: Quibell, Marc [mailto:Marc.Quibell@icn.state.ia.us] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:37 AM > To: 'tim(a)eng.bellsouth.net'; NANOG > Subject: RE: L2/L3 Testing Vendors - Comments? Praise? Horror Stories? > > > Sounds like you need more of highend routers...None of those you mentioned > mean much to me, I would be looking more in the direction of Lucent, > Foundry, Riverstone, Cisco... > > And for big jobs use seperate products: Switches AND Routers. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Irwin [mailto:tim@eng.bellsouth.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:23 AM > To: NANOG > Subject: L2/L3 Testing Vendors - Comments? Praise? Horror Stories? > > > > Looking for comments/experiences/war stories on testing products, such as > Smartbits, Ixia, Adtech, Agilent, and Ganymede. > > Desired functionality: > L2: 10/100/1000 Ethernet, ATM, FR, POS, PPPoX session generation > L2.5: MPLS, MPLS-TE > L3: BGP, OSPF, RSVP, Diff-Serv > L4-7: closed-loop testing (i.e., effects of TCP windowing and > other types of > flow control), VoIP, streaming media, etc. > > Not entirely happy with current vendors... Smartbits seems ok for > L2, but L3 > sucks, often too cumbersome to be productive, and I found some > descrepancies > and reporting problems with Smartbits, which makes me not want to > trust it. > Agilent seems to be good at L3, but lacks L2 testing > capabilities. Ganymede > is good if you want to test application functionality. Past > experience with > Adtech was L2 only. No clue who makes anything decent to test MPLS, > although I believe Agilent does. > > Experience with the current vendor market is that they all have their > strengths, so you really need a mixture of products to do > adequate testing. > Just curious if others have similar experiences. Off-list replies > welcomed... > > Thanks, > Tim > > -- > Tim Irwin, Sr. Engineer > Architecture & Engineering > BellSouth.net, Inc. > e-mail: tim(a)eng.bellsouth.net > office: 678.441.7951 > > "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to > pause and reflect." -Mark Twain >

1 0

L2/L3 Testing Vendors - Comments? Praise? Horror Stories?
by Tim Irwin 18 Oct '01

18 Oct '01

Looking for comments/experiences/war stories on testing products, such as Smartbits, Ixia, Adtech, Agilent, and Ganymede. Desired functionality: L2: 10/100/1000 Ethernet, ATM, FR, POS, PPPoX session generation L2.5: MPLS, MPLS-TE L3: BGP, OSPF, RSVP, Diff-Serv L4-7: closed-loop testing (i.e., effects of TCP windowing and other types of flow control), VoIP, streaming media, etc. Not entirely happy with current vendors... Smartbits seems ok for L2, but L3 sucks, often too cumbersome to be productive, and I found some descrepancies and reporting problems with Smartbits, which makes me not want to trust it. Agilent seems to be good at L3, but lacks L2 testing capabilities. Ganymede is good if you want to test application functionality. Past experience with Adtech was L2 only. No clue who makes anything decent to test MPLS, although I believe Agilent does. Experience with the current vendor market is that they all have their strengths, so you really need a mixture of products to do adequate testing. Just curious if others have similar experiences. Off-list replies welcomed... Thanks, Tim -- Tim Irwin, Sr. Engineer Architecture & Engineering BellSouth.net, Inc. e-mail: tim(a)eng.bellsouth.net office: 678.441.7951 "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark Twain

1 0

Peering as a service
by Pete Kruckenberg 18 Oct '01

18 Oct '01

Looking for a service provider that provides peering infrastructure (the circuits, leased-back routers, co-location, etc) as a bundled service. This is to meet E-rate requirements for funding peering to an educational network. If said service provider is already E-rate registered, even better. Ideal service would just cover the infrastructure, according to my plans for peering locations, and wouldn't get in the way of my managing/growing the network, equipment, peering negotiations, etc. Recommendations and pointers appreciated. Pete.

1 0

[NEWS] FBI To Require ISPs To Reconfigure E-mail Systems (fwd)
by David Lesher 18 Oct '01

18 Oct '01

National Journal's Technology Daily PM Edition October 16, 2001 HEADLINE: PRIVACY: FBI To Require ISPs To Reconfigure E-mail Systems PHOENIX -- The FBI is in the process of finalizing technical guidelines that would require all Internet service providers (ISPS) to reconfigure their e-mail systems so they could be more easily accessible to law enforcers. The move, to be completed over the next two months, would cause ISPs to act as phone companies do to comply with a 1994 digital-wiretapping law. "They are in the process of developing a very detailed set of standards for how to make packet data" available to the FBI, said Stewart Baker, an attorney at Steptoe & Johnson who was formerly the chief counsel to the National Security Agency (NSA). The proposal is not a part of the anti-terrorism legislation currently before Congress because the agency is expected to argue that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) already grants it the authority to impose the requirement, Baker said. He added that some ISPs already meet the requirements. Baker, who frequently represents Internet companies being asked to conduct electronic surveillance for the FBI, made the revelation Tuesday in a panel discussion at the Agenda 2002 conference here on how the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are likely to affect the technology industry and civil liberties. He elaborated on the plan in an interview. Such a stance could result in considerable cost to many ISPs, and it would constitute a reversal of previous government policy, which held that ISPs are not subject to CALEA's requirements. But Baker also said "it has been a long-term goal of the FBI and is not just a reaction to Sept. 11." Mitchell Kapor, chairman of the Open Source Application Foundation and a founder of Lotus Development, also spoke on the panel. Kapor also started the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and has been a vocal advocate of Internet privacy. EFF played a significant role in the CALEA debate, and divisions over whether to support that law led to a split of the organization. "Under the cover of people's outrage [over the terrorist attacks] and desire for revenge, lots of things that have been defeated before have been brought back in [to the anti-terrorism legislation] without a demonstration that the lack of appropriate law is a problem," Kapor said in an interview. But on the whole, Kapor and Baker shared more common ground on the acceptability of new electronic surveillance than they had in the past, with both expressing the view that now is a time for calm reconsideration of positions rather than butting horns over the details of how civil liberties would be curtailed by an anti-terrorism bill. "I find myself more in the middle than I used to because my identity in life is not as a civil liberties advocate," Kapor said. "Part is being an American and a world citizen." Baker said it was entirely appropriate for the FBI to conduct far more surveillance. "What has changed [since Sept. 11] is the view of the technology community," Baker said. "I used to get calls like, 'How can I beat the NSA?'" said Baker. "Now, people call and say, 'I have this great idea that would help NSA,' or, 'I want to go volunteer and do outreach on behalf of the FBI or NSA.' There is a real change of people's view about who the bad guys are." . -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

7 6

Executive Order - Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Information Age
by Barry Raveendran Greene 18 Oct '01

18 Oct '01

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/print/20011016-12.html

1 0

Gov. Assistance.
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

> > HEADLINE: PRIVACY: FBI To Require ISPs To Reconfigure E-mail Systems > > > > PHOENIX -- The FBI is in the process of finalizing technical > > guidelines that would require all Internet service providers (ISPS) to > > reconfigure their e-mail systems so they could be more easily > > accessible to law enforcers. ... what a godsend. The FBI will finally define, once and for all, what is an ISP. Then all we have to do is think up other names for what the rest of us do. :) --bill

1 0

RE: [NEWS] FBI To Require ISPs To Reconfigure E-mail Systems (fwd )
by Matt Zito 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

Benjamin franklin said it, iirc. Matt -- Matthew J. Zito Systems Engineer Register.com, Inc., 11th Floor, 575 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10018 Ph: 212-798-9205 PGP Key Fingerprint: 4E AC E1 0B BE DD 7D BC D2 06 B2 B0 BF 55 68 99 > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Diffey [mailto:ldiffey@technologyforward.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:41 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: [NEWS] FBI To Require ISPs To Reconfigure E-mail > Systems (fwd) > > > > Let's consider the ramifications of this: > > The FBI steps up the monitoring of law abiding citizens and > great expense to > private industry. > > Criminals, terrorists and other evildoers think about and say, > "Hmmm......since the FBI might monitor the email that passes > through our > ISP, let's set up our own mail servers outside of our ISP and > communicate > directly over VPN's and encrypted P2P networks. Yeah that > should work. Or > gosh, let's use off shore email serves set up by our own > criminal networks > posing as legitimate businesses. Or let's set up an little > ISP and have > some out of band email servers who's traffic can't be spied on." > > "Those who would trade freedom for security will wind up with > neither." I > forget who said it and I don't feel like looking it up. > >

1 0

OpEd Security practices
by Sean Donelan 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

I read this OpEd piece today, and it captures many of the discussions I've had with people during the last month. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ucrr/20011013/cm/security_in_the_homeland_--_a… I highly recommend Charlie Schnabolk's book, Physical Security: Practices and Technology. Its one of several I've found very helpful in trying to understand security. Hiring ex-cops is one facet of security, but there is more to security than big guys with guns. In today's world you need a multi-disciplinary group handling security.

2 1

219/8 Additional IPv4 address range allocated to APNIC
by George Michaelson 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

[posted on behalf of Son Tran -ggm] ----------------------------------------------- Dear colleagues APNIC received the IPv4 address range 219/8 from IANA on 12 October 2001 and will now begin making allocations from this range. Please configure your routing filters accordingly. For more information on the resources administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html For information on the minimum allocation sizes within address ranges administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html For information on the minimum allocation sizes within address ranges administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html Kind regards Son APNIC Member Services Department -------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Communities
by Kevin Gannon 17 Oct '01

17 Oct '01

> > I've been thinking about other information that could be conveyed in > > communities. For instance, bandwidth, delay and packet loss. > And generate a route flap every time a link gets used more or less? > That would be suboptimal to say the least (the word `countereffective' > seems more applicable to me). Using dynamic data for this is not going to work in BGP, so this would have to be static information (hm, packet loss is not too static, hopefully). Static system-derived or configured information would already help a lot. You can then easily select the route with the highest potential bandwidth or the lowest speed-of-light delay, without the need to know a lot about the internals of a transit network. Introducing "metrics" like this like this is not contrary to BGP design philosophy: the way in which an AS selects the best route is not defined in the RFC and the length of the AS path is certainly not the best possible criterion. The processing along the way would be limited to a simple addition (delay), compare/replace (bandwidth) or multiplication (packet loss) without introducing anything SPF-like. I guess using static information for BW could be useful however surely in most peering situation only the "best" path is advertised and this selection is based on normal prefix lenght/BGP attributes so for 1:1 peers you are relying on there IGP metrics for the best "internal" path. So multi hop traffic engineering is not possible within others AS's ? I agree an automatic system (a bit like auto-tag in Cisco world) could be very useful for example in a trival situation where you have two peers to say AS701 and one is an OC12 and one is a DS3 and auto community on just the bandwidth would be useful, especially if there was added logic in the BGP decesion process. Of course for vendors who do not use the logic it is invisible. Regards, Kevin

3 2