- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Tier-2 information sharing
by Sean Donelan 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

Instead of trying to get Tier 1 providers to improve their inter-provider communications, why not ignore them? There are thousands of "customers" of all the major networks who notice problems with the major transit networks all the time. How about setting up a way for those customers of various network providers to pass along information about the trouble tickets they are opening with their providers. Rather than re-publishing the trouble tickets, summarize just the facts and inform the tier-2 providers which contributed tickets what the tier-1 providers told other people with the same problem. The customer's names would be sanitized, but the names of the Tier-1 providers (who don't participate) would be included in the summary of the facts. Facts aren't copyrighted. Since the government (i.e. FCC, FBI, etc) are also customers of the Tier-1's, they would also be eligible to participate and receive the summary. Is this a way to break the logjam?

1 0

Planning for community-built networks
by Pete Kruckenberg 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

I'm curious how much grass-roots last-mile efforts like community-funded networks are being factored into near-future network planning. In the two months I've been at my new job (network architect for Utah Education Network), I've been amazed at how much infrastructure activity is going on very quietly within communities. A lot of this is motivated by frustration with the lack of commercial infrastructure investment except in the most lucrative business areas, and a realization that there is not (and may never be) a business case to invest beyond those areas. Also relates to http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/26/0446240.shtml In Utah (which not be representative) I'm aware of 12-15 such projects that are either under construction or will be completed in the next 1-3 years. These projects are running GigE to schools and govt, 10/100Mb Ethernet to homes and businesses. Community networks differ from traditional MANs in at least two ways: they are oriented towards wide-scale connectivity, usually of underserved areas (where MANs typically service dense business areas); and they appear to have more momentum in under-served geographies (ie non-NFL cities, and rural areas). In Utah, only 2 or 3 of the projects are urban, most are in communities on the urban fringe and in rural areas. Beyond driving the need for more bandwidth, especially in areas that don't have large pipes to the Net, these projects have the potential to make fundamental changes in the importance of local infrastructure. The biggest change may be to show that Geography Does Matter more than we think. The applications these networks will be used for are not just eBay and Amazon, it's video conferencing, community meetings, video on-demand, education, telemedicine, and many more important ones unimagined today. At least half the projects I'm aware of are looking for a local interconnect (ie Community Internet Exchange / Regional Exchange Point) to hand off traffic to other community, educational and commercial networks in the area. The national-level networks peer at such a course granularity that the majority of community network applications (video conferencing, video-on-demand, education, telemedicine) would fail for latency and performance reasons unless everyone connected to the same backbone. And there's your day's course in community networks. ;) Again, curious if anyone is seeing this on their radar and considering it in near- or long-term infrastructure planning. Pete.

1 0

liscensed wireless net service delivery
by J Harris 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

I am using both 100MB and OC-3 systems from Triton Network Systems to connect buildings, with excellent results and reliability. The inhibitor for most companies is acquiring usage rights from spectrum license holders. TNS is beginning to offer a package deal including both the wireless units and license rights for one monthly lease rate, or purchase. Either way, you can't beat the convenience, patching a 100FX into each site. I believe the availability covers much of the U.S. Let me know if you want more info off-line. -Jim -----Original Message----- From: Jayson Mays [mailto:airwavemaster@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:15 PM To: Nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: liscensed wireless net service delivery Is anyone using licensed wireless (100MB or OC-3) for corporate service delivery? Who's system and how satisfied are you? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

RE: jumbo frames
by John Fraizer 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

We only have jumbo frames enabled on router<->router links. The GigE ports facing the aggregation switches runs standard 1500 MTU. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Paul Lantinga wrote: > well, actually, I haven't had any for, oh, 5 years. Anyhow, what I was > getting at was what kind of price you pay performancewise for mtuX <--> > mtuY? Isn't there some penalty you pay in the conversion of jumbo to > normal? > > Years ago I ran a network that was all fddi with 4k mtu in the core and to > all the servers Everthing else ran ethernet and thus didn't get the > advantage of the big packets. > > -Paul. >

2 1

Re: Why? Because ICANN
by John Fraizer 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

I think it's experiencing the /. effect. [nanog@Overkill nanog]$ traceroute www.paradigm.nu 1 CORE-0-GE-3-1000M.CMH.ENTERZONE.NET (66.35.65.1) 2.847 ms 0.818 ms 0.887 ms 2 core1-FE1.Columbus.fnsi.net (209.115.93.129) [6259] 2.110 ms 1.774 ms 1.902 ms 3 border1-atm1-1-0-2.Chicago.fnsi.net (216.29.101.46) [6259] 40.817 ms 24.073 ms 12.248 ms 4 aads.cw.net (206.220.243.12) 21.258 ms 14.528 ms 13.564 ms 5 corerouter1.WillowSprings.cw.net (204.70.9.135) [3561] 14.598 ms 14.494 ms 16.626 ms 6 acr1-loopback.Chicagochd.cw.net (208.172.2.61) [3561] 14.461 ms 13.466 ms 14.597 ms 7 acr2-loopback.NewYorknyr.cw.net (206.24.194.62) [3561] 30.372 ms 30.098 ms 30.307 ms 8 savvis.NewYorknyr.cw.net (206.24.193.146) [3561] 26.389 ms 28.131 ms 31.131 ms 9 connectcom-1.usphla.savvis.net (64.241.148.62) [6347] 389.497 ms * 460.616 ms 10 sdweaver.com (64.242.242.56) [6347] 421.626 ms 390.159 ms * Note below that the DNS servers listed as authoritative weren't even serving up the zone previously. > >Funny, it doesn't work. > > > > > >Domain: paradigm.nu > >ID: 35184 > >Status: Active > >Created: 04-Mar-1999 > >Modified: 14-Jan-2001 > >Expires: 04-Mar-2004 > > > >Name servers: > > DNS.CCWEBHOST.COM 209.207.168.30 > > DNS2.CCWEBHOST.COM 208.155.67.49 > > > > > > > > >www.paradigm.nu > >Server: dns2.ccwebhost.com > >Address: 64.242.243.2 > > > >*** dns2.ccwebhost.com can't find www.paradigm.nu: Non-existent host/domain > > > server 209.207.168.30 > >Default Server: [209.207.168.30] > >Address: 209.207.168.30 > > > > > www.paradigm.nu > >Server: [209.207.168.30] > >Address: 209.207.168.30 > > > >*** [209.207.168.30] can't find www.paradigm.nu: No response from server > > > > I did finally get through and it is definately worth the wait. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

2 1

liscensed wireless net service delivery
by Jayson Mays 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

Is anyone using licensed wireless (100MB or OC-3) for corporate service delivery? Whos system and how satisfied are you? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

jumbo frames
by Randy Bush 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

is anyone using jumbo frames? randy

9 11

New prefix. (fwd)
by Sabri Berisha 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

ROFL Domain name: reinder.nl (second domain) Organisation: Domain For Web B.V. Entrada 305 1096 ED AMSTERDAM Administrative Contact: M.P. Bevelander -- /* Sabri Berisha CCNA,BOFH,+iO O.O Business Internet Trends * Join HAL!!: www.HAL2001.org ____oOo_U_oOo____ http://www.bit.nl/~sabri * ____________________________________________, +31 318648688 318643334 * DDoS: http://misterpoll.com/3517731598.html L_______________________ */ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Return-Path: <owner-tech-l(a)AMS-IX.NET> Received: from localhost (bofh [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.bit.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3Q9D4c04077 for <sabri@localhost>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:13:04 +0200 Received: from pomo.bit.nl [213.136.0.96] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.5.0) for sabri@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:13:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from listserv-mail.surfnet.nl (listserv-mail.surfnet.nl [192.87.5.141]) by linux.bit.nl (8.8.7/NOSPAM) with ESMTP id LAA03910; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:27 +0200 Received: from listserv-mail (listserv-mail.surfnet.nl) by listserv-mail.surfnet.nl (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.01CB1D5A(a)listserv-mail.surfnet.nl>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:26 +0200 Received: from NIC.SURFNET.NL by NIC.SURFNET.NL (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 1664209 for tech-l(a)NIC.SURFNET.NL; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:25 +0200 Received: from survis.surfnet.nl (192.87.108.3) by nic.surfnet.nl (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.FFD5FD2E(a)nic.surfnet.nl>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:10:48 +0200 Received: from smtp.bevelander.nl ([213.207.0.4]) by survis.surfnet.nl with ESMTP (exPP) for tech-l(a)ams-ix.net id 14shnT-0000ED-00; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:10:47 +0200 Received: from beveland-tjkdtz.bevelander.nl (laptop.reinder.nl [213.207.32.35]) by smtp.bevelander.nl (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3Q9AfO04766 for <tech-l(a)ams-ix.net>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:10:41 +0200 X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010426111230.0200c298(a)s01.bevelander.nl> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:18:07 +0200 Reply-To: "AMS-IX Discussion list for technical issues." <tech-l(a)AMS-IX.NET> Sender: "AMS-IX Discussion list for technical issues." <tech-l(a)AMS-IX.NET> From: "Bevelander Noc." <noc(a)BEVELANDER.NL> Subject: New prefix. Comments: To: Ams-ix tech list <tech-l(a)ams-ix.net> To: tech-l(a)AMS-IX.NET X-UIDL: c+b"!_Oj"!3M0"!c5'#! Dear Peers/Colleagues, We will start to announce a new prefix: AS13197 192.168.0.0/16 Please update your filters. Thanks, Reinder van Amerongen, Junior. System/Network Adminstrator and Senior Cabling consultant. Bevelander Internet Services.

1 0

RE: jumbo frames
by John Fraizer 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

Paul, We don't have any FDDI interfaces so, I have no experience at all with them. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Paul Lantinga wrote: > Do you see any of the overhead akin to the > fddi <--> ethernet boxes where the fddi's >4000mtu would get fragmented into > the <1500mtu space of ethernet? > > I ask as my experience with jumbo frames over GE is a series with a limit > approaching zero. ;) > > thanks, Paul LANtinga > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Fraizer [mailto:nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:10 PM > > To: Tony Hain > > Cc: Randy Bush; nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: RE: jumbo frames > > > > > > > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Tony Hain wrote: > > > > > John Fraizer wrote: > > > > > > > We do on router-router links internally. > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partially because I can. Partially because there seems to be a > > performance increase when you start stuffing the pipe. > > > > --- > > John Fraizer > > EnterZone, Inc > > > > > > > --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

1 0

RE: Custom Wireless Solution
by Mike Schoenecker 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

-----Original Message----- From: Lincoln Dale [mailto:ltd@interlink.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:11 AM To: Mohan Sundar Cc: Dominic J. Eidson; Wojtek Zlobicki; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Custom Wireless Solution At 11:57 PM 22/04/2001 -0700, Mohan Sundar wrote: >How secure is this connection? Does 802.11 >provide security implicitly? 802.11b has some degree of inherent security. one can apply WEP (Wireless Equivalency Protocol) to encryption the data, but even that has been shown to be vulnerable (http://www.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu/isaac/wep-faq.html) there are a few alternatives that can be used to make it more secure: [1] deploy a setup whereby one has per-user dynamically-changing WEP keys. details on how one vendor can do this are at: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/witc/ao350ap/prodlit/1281_pp.htm details on how to actually configure it is at: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo_350/accsspts/a p350scg/ap350ch3.htm#xtocid586920 [2] don't trust the link layer, and encrypt everything you send. this could be as simplistic as adding MAC-address filters to your access-points and building a tunnel of some kind (eg. IPsec, or even as simplistic as SSH port-forwarding). if one is prone to be paranoia, using both [1] and [2] probably makes sense. cheers, lincoln.

3 2