- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Real Media and M-Bone feeds
by shields＠msrl.com 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

In article <19991004174605.C8583(a)puck.nether.net>, Jared Mauch <jared(a)puck.Nether.net> wrote: > The Linux version does not work with recent versions of > the OS. Your favorite distribution should have patched around this coding error using a library preload, since Real doesn't seem to care enough.Fixes have been widely distributed for over a year. You could also use the G2 player. Real has made it hard to find, but it's helpfully packaged as an RPM, and Debian's development tree also has an installer package. http://www.real.com/products/player/linux.html -- Shields.

4 3

Re: Real Media and M-Bone feeds
by Sam Thomas 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 03:17:04PM -0700, Marc Merlin wrote: > On lun, oct 04, 1999 at 05:46:05 -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > > The Linux version does not work with recent versions of > > the OS. > > Not exactly true, there is a G2 player for linux out there: > http://www.real.com/products/player/linux.html oooooo, thanks!!!! runs beautifully under FreeBSD, too! :-) -- Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- Henry Spencer

1 0

RE: Real Media and M-Bone feeds
by Bora Akyol 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

Same here! Bora -----Original Message----- From: John Fraizer [mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net] Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 9:16 AM To: Jeff Haas Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Real Media and M-Bone feeds At 10:54 AM 10/4/99 -0400, you wrote: > >The Real media feed is now live and working. >A link can be found off the NANOG homepage. >http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9910/nanog.ram Not working...

8 9

Real Media and M-Bone feeds
by Jeff Haas 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

The Real media feed is now live and working. A link can be found off the NANOG homepage. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9910/nanog.ram The mbone feed is having some difficulties inside of Cable and Wireless. -- Jeffrey Haas - Merit RSng project - jeffhaas(a)merit.edu

5 4

outage
by Tatsuya Kawasaki 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

I can not reach postoffice.worldnet.att.net [204.127.5.22]. BGP table says: #sh ip bgp 204.127.5.22 % Network not in table AT&T WorldNet Services (NETBLK-ATTPLS2) 55 Corporate Drive Bridgewater, NJ 08807 US Netname: ATTPLS Netblock: 204.127.0.0 - 204.127.255.255 Maintainer: ATTW Any suggestion? Tatsuya /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Tatsuya Kawasaki KIVEX.com (Division of Allegiance Telecom) Unlock the Power of the Internet URL:www.KIVEX.com Phone 301.215.6777 Fax 301.215.5991 Affiliation given for identification not representation /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

1 0

pathchar
by Randy Bush 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

# pathchar <bleep> mtu limited to 1500 bytes at local host doing 32 probes at each of 45 sizes (64 to 1500 by 32) 0 130.128.46.113 (130.128.46.113) | 4.5 Mb/s, 896 us (4.45 ms) 1 130.128.44.1 (130.128.44.1) | 33 Mb/s, -148 us (4.52 ms), 2% dropped 2 nanog-gw.Montreal.Mlink.NET (209.41.155.209) | 1.1 Mb/s, 1.08 ms (17.3 ms), 2% dropped 3 TNT-Belmont.Montreal.Mlink.NET (209.41.155.29) | 84 Mb/s, 733 us (19.0 ms), +q 9.80 ms (103 KB), 3% dropped 4 S6-0-1.border.Montreal.Mlink.NET (209.41.155.49) | 10 Mb/s, 4.67 ms (29.5 ms), +q 11.8 ms (15.2 KB), 4% dropped 5 206.191.67.13 (206.191.67.13) | 14 Mb/s, 165 us (30.7 ms), +q 12.5 ms (21.4 KB), 6% dropped 6 206.191.64.133 (206.191.64.133) | 16 Mb/s, 0.97 ms (33.3 ms), +q 12.0 ms (24.1 KB), 6% dropped 7 206.191.80.138 (206.191.80.138) | ?? b/s, 7.02 ms (46.7 ms), 7% dropped 8 12.127.224.245 (12.127.224.245) | 7.7 Mb/s, -1676 us (44.9 ms), +q 16.7 ms (16.1 KB), 5% dropped 9 gbr1-a31s1.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.127.0.134)

2 1

Re: Multicast on wireless segment?
by Jared Mauch 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

(I'm not interested in it on the wireless network, I want it outside of the conference). - jared On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 07:02:32AM -0700, Stephen Stuart wrote: > > I am still not seeing any multicast sessions in sdr. > > Given the ability of multicast to really, really hurt the wireless > network, I hope it's not available. > > Stephen -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared(a)puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. END OF LINE |

3 3

Multicast on wireless segment?
by Andy McConnell 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

I was checking to see if multicast/mbone was running on the wireless LAN... No luck. Anyone else try and not have luck? -Andy -- Andy McConnell IP Operations Manager andym(a)ntt.net NTT America Network and IP Service Division +1 408 873 3757 真向練安堵龍 NTTアメリカIPオペレーション担当課長 Chaos reigns within. Reflect, repent, and reboot. Order shall return. -- Haiku by Suzie Wagner

3 2

[OFFTOPIC] NANOG poster address harvesting
by Aaron Hopkins 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - From the list of To: addresses on this spam, it appears as though someone is grabbing addresses from a NANOG archive, probably web-based. I'm not sure what can be done about this, but unfortunately it appears as though I was foolish to assume that I could post to NANOG from an e-mail address that I care about. Is there any chance of removing the addresses from the web archive? Or at least does Merit honor "X-archive: no" headers? Thanks, Aaron Hopkins aaron(a)cyberverse.com Chief Technical Officer, Cyberverse Inc. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Return-Path: <joaniekazemi(a)hotmail.com> Delivered-To: aaron(a)cyberverse.com Received: (qmail 14154 invoked from network); 3 Oct 1999 17:52:51 -0000 Received: from law2-f164.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (216.32.181.164) by brionne.cyberverse.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 1999 17:52:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 27667 invoked by uid 0); 3 Oct 1999 17:52:25 -0000 Message-ID: <19991003175225.27666.qmail(a)hotmail.com> Received: from 209.94.2.170 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 03 Oct 1999 10:52:25 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.94.2.170] From: "joanie kazemi" <joaniekazemi(a)hotmail.com> To: aaron(a)cyberverse.com, ahuja(a)merit.edu, AFFORDAB(a)UTINET.NET, abc(a)firehouse.net, alan(a)globalcenter.net, ahp(a)hilander.com, amb(a)gxn.net Subject: computer components pricelist Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 10:52:25 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_214345b_6c601ea1$4827d397" Attached for your consideration please find a computer components pricelist. You can reach me at 770-734-0090 for further information. Thank you! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBN/f160fJWHAEvsjBAQHqsAQAl+TCcFh3VC2xmqmq8WMb0Qowv0BJvwgL 4s8FNVU5dCNndWX2Q8jHjaVdByaIXEI1Jue72aLn0gwyTYkz+uMjbxlovuB+72m5 zUqZo8/vBnySkojuAJCjhqeM6TFx0GpJWHDYdYKOkfjTBwy9HBpopHojaZ+2vLl+ hPrZR/IPzn4= =FOpZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: "firewalls" at high speed -- resending
by Hank Nussbacher 03 Oct '99

03 Oct '99

Hopefully this gets thru this time since the last time I sent it (Sept 30) I received: <nanog(a)merit.edu>: Command died with status 2: "/private/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nanog -h merit.edu -s nanog-outgoing". Command output: Can't locate getopts.pl in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/local/perl-5.004_04/lib/sun4-solaris/5.00404 /usr/local/perl-5.004_04/lib /usr/local/perl-5.004_04/lib/site_perl/sun4-solaris /usr/local/perl-5.004_04/lib/site_perl .) at /private/majordomo-1.94.4/resend line 74. and no one from Merit has responded yet to my email. >Alex Rudnev observed, > >>Folks, why all you are saying about the Gigabit traffic for the firewall? >> >>Usially, firewall stand between intranet and internet, and it should >>proceed your upstream traffic, not more... And than, it's important to >>measure the throughput in packets/per_second, not in the gigabits... >> >>Everything other is true - I suggess no one good firewall can proceed >>gigabit traffic at all, and only a few specially designed boxes can >>proceed 100Mbit traffic. But just again - it's a rare case when you does >>have 100Mbit upstream link. Super Firewalls! http://www.data.com/issue/990521/firewalls.html Almost all hit 72Mb/sec or more whether NAT was disabled or enabled. To quote from the article: Once again we started with a baseline test. With no firewall on the test bed, we achieved TCP forwarding rates of 15.6 Mbyte/s over each four-minute run of the test scripts; this works out to nearly 125 Mbit/s. So why didnt we get the 200-Mbit/s theoretical maximum of a switched, full-duplex test bed? First and foremost, our measurements are taken at the application layer. Its likely that packet headers and the continuous opening and closing of SMTP connections took a bite out of the effective data rate. Second, clients offered lots of traffic that the rule sets expressly deniedso at least some of the time the wire was occupied carrying traffic that wouldnt be forwarded. Third, there may have been a firepower limitation in the amount of traffic our clients and servers could offer. We cant say for certain how much the degradation is due to application overhead, and how much to test platform limitations. I would think that 200Mb/sec is achievable with not much effort and perhaps the next testing round will prove it. -Hank

1 0