- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

What is the going rate for a dark fiber mile in the NE?
by Fletcher E Kittredge 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

I am looking for a rough sense of current price per mile in the Northeast, USA region for one strand of fiber on an inter-city run of 50 miles or so. Yes, I know that prices tend to be all over the map, because I have received quotations all over map. However, I would be interested in other's recent experiences. The price I am particularly interested in is the one time, up-front, IRU price (Irrevocable Right to Use.) Please respond to me privately. If anyone is interested, I will summarize the replies. regards, fletcher

1 0

so... you want to get to www.ep.net?
by Bill Manning 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

You can hit the web site using its (current) IP address of 198.32.4.33 -- --bill

1 0

ep.net being filtered
by Bill Manning 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

The nameservers for ep.net were being hammered by ddos yesterday and so we asked our upstream carriers to route traffic to nul0 for a bit to see if the perps would slow down (the servers were fine, but consumption of multiple 100bt links was not to fair to the carriers... :) As sleepy Bill sez... take some rest and things ought to be better in the morning. :} -- --bill

1 0

RE: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable withthe extent to which luck..')
by Dave O'Shea 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

If you look to the left of the display, you'll see an arrangement of traditional mechanical instruments, as backups. (Actually, even high-end business jets and commercial craft have them too). Belt-and-suspenders thinking might not have originated in the aviation field, but the lack of it is far more fatal there than in ISP-land. :-) obNANOGcontent: Assuming that Murphy is always lurking just around the corner is about the best planning method I've come across. -----Original Message----- From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:gem@rellim.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 4:57 PM To: Joseph T. Klein Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable withthe extent to which luck..') Yo Joseph! On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Joseph T. Klein wrote: > Since software, in theory, can't cause physical danger, I suspect > the shrink wrap license makes Microsoft immune to any liability. ROTFL! What about the WinNT powered flight control systems from Avidyne? NT blue screens when you are in the clouds and death is usually shortly follow. Shrink wrap license or not, the first time this happens expect M$ to show up in court. RGDS GARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem(a)rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

1 0

Re: 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..'
by Marshall Eubanks 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

> > >>> > How many of us here run anything less than SSH and even allow telnetd to >>> > live on any of our hosts? Hey, we have had to do without SSH in more than one CISCO IOS build in the last 6 months in 12.1 / 12.2. This always made me feel very nervous. Regards Marshall Eubanks >>> >>> Here? Probably not all that many. >> >>[bill's password slide from the Scottsdale NANOG] >>suggests that many (most?) of the NANOG attendees are shipping passwords >>around in the clear (not necessarily all telnet, but indicative of a >>mindset). > >The system with that data on it is off right now, but my recollection was >that the top three offenders were (in no particular order) > >- cleartext POP >- cleartext IMAP >- http:// (mostly people reading their email via Exchange). > >Note that the final slide that I put up at the end of the meeting (with >something like 150 passwords on it) had one of my passwords too >(my Vindigo password, if anyone wants to change what cities I have >configured =), so even people who are aware of the issues sometimes >still send cleartext passwords. > > Bill > Marshall Eubanks tme(a)21rst-century.com

3 2

Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent...
by herb＠tomobiki.urusei.net 26 Jul '01

26 Jul '01

LBolton(a)geiger.com wrote: > Your analogy is flawed. > > The question is, should Firestone be responsible for someone going around > slashing the tires? No they shouldn't. No, but they should be held accountable for not making a product that will last as long as expected (warrented) or that acts in a manner that causes harm to a user who is not abusing the product (constantly blowing out at speeds considered "normal" like 65). > Then why should Microsoft or any other software manufacturer be responsible > for the damage done by third parties? Why not? 3rd parties (script kiddies) are no different than rocks on the road: They are there; you can't get rid of them; they cause damage; and products should be made with them in mind... > You could make the argument that Microsoft should have designed more > security into their products to prevent security breaches of this nature, > but you could also argue that Firestone should make their tires out of > kevlar to prevent people from slashing them. Firestone (and most all other) tires *are* made with kevlar to give them puncture resistance... They and other manufactures want to make tires that will last x amount of miles or time on the road. They provide treadwear ratings so you can compair against other makes and models. And there are a jillion different tire makers out there that make products of compairable quality that all can work with each other as well so you don't have to buy 5 tires of the same make/model... And there is a standard system for fitting tires onto rims. > We shouldn't hold the software manufacturers responsible, unless they > willingly and knowingly left the security flaw in place. We should hold > the programmers that release malicious code responsible. If Microsoft (and other OS makers) had the same quality standards as tire makers, we would see up-times of 3 to 10 years. (Or however long it takes to use a computer to the equivilant amount of putting 100000 miles on a tire...) Oh, wait--VMS and UNIX boxes have already been known to stay up for that long... =) Should people sue all makers of screw, nails, and other puncturing devices for selling things that can screw up tires? /herb

1 0

RE: Peering, Large ISPs, and You
by Daniel Golding 25 Jul '01

25 Jul '01

See my comments below... > -----Original Message----- > From: David Barak [mailto:thegameiam@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 1:14 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Cc: dan(a)netrail.net; jeblinton(a)corp.earthlink.net; > peeringresistance(a)yahoo.com > Subject: Peering, Large ISPs, and You > > > I'll interleave my comments. > > Quoth Daniel Golding: > > >The large ISPs have finally started to work together, > >to potentially exclude > >smaller providers. That isn't good. > > are you arguing that the situation of the past several > years does NOT exclude smaller providers? Most of the > really big ISPs (you know who you are) rely primarily > on private peering already. How exactly does this > change matters? > Smaller providers have certainly felt the squeeze. This changes matters because previously the big players were working seperately, with distinct sets of rules. From my reading of these comments, it looks like they are starting to work together, and plan jointly. If this is true (and at least one non-anonymous poster has seemed to confirm it), than thats bad. > >Certain colo facilities are being choosen. Others are > >not. This has a major > >business impact on the ones who aren't choosen. > > s 'are being'/'had been' and you'll see that this is > not only nothing new, it's nothing which is > particularly undesireable. In fact, you can look at > this as colo-competition - those colo spaces which > provide services which the really big ISPs want will > get their business. > Yes. But previously, all these ISPs made independent decisions, which encouraged competition. If all of them jointly choose a single player in a certain market, thats bad for competition. That has NOT happened previously. > >Earthlink is a huge consumer of transit bandwidth, so > >it would seem to be in > >your shareholder's best interest to keep competition > >high, and thus keep > >prices low. > > True. So tell me this: how will providers reducing > their costs on settlement-free interconnections cause > overall costs to rise? If anything, this period of > severe cost-sensitivity should drive the really big > ISPs to pay very close attention to pricing, in an > attempt to maintain and maximize revenue. > There are numerous examples of this in real life. The best one if the airline industry. At any rate, once the pricing variability is taken out of the transit game, syncing of pricing will happen. There seems to be a hope that this will supress pricing. This may happen, although it is difficult to see how transit can be delivered, at a profit, for lower prices. But be careful to see the other side of the coin - it makes price increases much easier. > -David Barak > "Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?" - Juvenal > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ > - Dan

3 2

RE: 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck ..'
by Roeland Meyer 25 Jul '01

25 Jul '01

> From: David Shaw [mailto:dshaw@jabberwocky.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:06 PM > This is the part I disagree with. Given my example (needing to > connect from a public machine while traveling), I cannot trust the > local terminal. <Boogle> You don't travel with a laptop?!?! ... wow.

2 1

Re: SONET UPSR questions
by Dave Israel 25 Jul '01

25 Jul '01

On 7/25/2001 at 11:25:55 -0700, Rishi Grover said: > > Hi, > > I don't know if this is the right forum No. It isn't. A simple google search would have turned up: http://www.g3m.com/applications/OpticalFiberNetworks.pdf A careful reading of the secion on UPSR would have answered most of your questions. A little thought on how telco circuits work would have answered the rest. -- Dave Israel Senior Manager, IP Backbone Intermedia Business Internet

1 0

SONET UPSR questions
by Rishi Grover 25 Jul '01

25 Jul '01

Hi, I don't know if this is the right forum but if someone could shed some light on the following questions, I would really appreciate that. I have read the standards but did not get a clear understanding on the following: 1) Given a SONET ring with UPSR, is it required that all working paths be in one direction (clockwise or anticlockwise) and all protected paths be in the opposite direction? Can I provision some working paths to be clockwise and some to be counterclockwise? I couldn't find anything in the standards that says that this is not allowed. If this can be done, what are the merits/demerits of this approach? 2) In UPSR, when provisioning a working path, my understanding is that it is not "required" to provision the protected path as well. i.e. One can provision only unprotected paths in a UPSR configuration. Is this correct? 3) Given a deployment of 4 node UPSR configuration A, B, C, D. Say I provision a working path in clockwise direction from node A to D. Say I am using timeslot 'x' for this path. Is timeslot 'x' also reserved in the clockwise direction from D to A? What is the rational behind reserving this timeslot 'x' from D to A? Thanks, Rishi

1 0