October 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

operational: cisco atm edge switches/devices
by Kevin Brown 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Greetings, I am looking for anyone who might have dealt with this in the past. I currently engineer an ATM network (in first phase of deployment). The main switches deployed are from Fore systems. The agencies that are going to connect have specified that all edge devices must be from Cisco. In preliminary provisioning stages (at which I was not a party to) it was decided that the 3900 and 2820 tkr and eth switches would be deployed with ATM uplink modules. Unfortunately, in the lab, I have found that neither switch is capable of defining multiple PVCs over a single PVP. Likewise the intention is to create multiple elans over these pvcs to allow agencies with multiple sites to extend their internal LANs to the remote sites. I have yet to come up with a doable solution. The optimal solution would be contained within a single chassis (preferrably with swapable LAN modules). If by chance the same device would be capable of doing some L3 (BGP) routing, that would also be a plus factor. Has anyone done this? Which devices? Got any technical documentation I might review?

1 0

RE: Priori?
by Dave Cooper 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Staples [SMTP:andrews@ltinet.net] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 1998 7:05 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Fw: Priori? Andrew wrote: >ELI, the proud owners of priori, munged things pretty good yesterday. Some Dave Cooper wrote: >Unfortunately, it came to our attention that it was going to take much longer >for Ameritech to move the circuit (alot longer actually). >Therefore we had to abruptly drop the connection to the NAP until this move is facilitated. David's post illuminates my error. It seems that it was not ELI's problem, but Ameritech's. By no means is ELI *blaming* Ameritech or anyone else for the outage to the customer on Priori's network (yes, there was only one customer left on the network and they have subsequently been moved over to our AS). I take responsibility for any customer outage, regardless of the reasons or causes that led to it. The integration of these two networks has been quite complicated. Dealing with almost every CLEC and LEC to move circuits, change VCs, delete VCs, move equipment, is quite a challenge when you want it done *yesterday*. Thankfully, we're almost done and I can hand over AS10303 to Justin and I can finally get some sleep. -dave eli engineering Apologies to all for the desultory comment. no problem..... Andrew

1 0

Re: Rootshell pages hacked
by Richard Steenbergen 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

>JR Mayberry wrote: >> >> Supposedly sendmail 8.9.1 is to blame, not ssh. >> http://www.sendmail.com/sendmail.8.9.1a.html > >MIME buffer overflows is *not* a sendmail problem. What made you say >this? I believe the sendmail 8.9.1 speculation comes from the fact that "thanks for 8.9.1" is mentioned on the hacked page twice. Of course they claim they were running qmail. Despite the rampant speculation about ssh-1.2.26 being responsible, it still seems preferable over ssh2 (which is LARGELY unfinished, and rivals even ircd and win98 for the convoluted code of the year award). On the more humorous side of things, It looks like someone at rootshell got fired. http://adimage.blm.net/rootshell/cnjob.gif =) -- Richard Steenbergen <humble(a)lightning.net> Data Innovations System Admin http://www.bitchx.com/~humble - humble@EFnet - PGP KeyID: 0x21581362 PGP Fingerprint: 7552 6AB2 B9C7 5A1B F1B6 8EA3 DFCF 793D 2158 1362 "Trespassers will be shot! Survivors will be shot again!"

1 0

Fw: Priori?
by Andrew Staples 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Andrew wrote: >ELI, the proud owners of priori, munged things pretty good yesterday. Some Dave Cooper wrote: >Unfortunately, it came to our attention that it was going to take much longer >for Ameritech to move the circuit (alot longer actually). >Therefore we had to abruptly drop the connection to the NAP until this move is facilitated. David's post illuminates my error. It seems that it was not ELI's problem, but Ameritech's. Apologies to all for the desultory comment. Andrew

1 0

Re: UU Net sales tactics? (fwd)
by Phil Howard 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Dan Hollis wrote: > The UUnet rep who called me was also insistent that UUnet had the best > technical support in the industry. I indicated to him that I had dealt > with UUnet tech support in the past and was _not_ impressed[1], and was > met with about 30 seconds of stunned silence. B) You weren't clear on this. Was this "30 seconds of stunned silence" on the part of the sales rep, or were you telling the sales rep about the "30 seconds of stunned silence" on the part of tech support? -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --

2 2

Re: Priori?
by Andrew Staples 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

-----Original Message----- From: Patrick Greenwell <patrick(a)namesecure.com> >On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, James Rishaw wrote: > >> OK, anyone know the scoop on Priori? >> >> Our BGP with them went down yesterday(?) some time. Nobody's answering >> e-mail, and three of the four listed numbers I've tried have been >> disconnected.. "www.priori.net" gives NXDOMAIN .. ? >> > >You're joking, right? Heh,,, ELI, the proud owners of priori, munged things pretty good yesterday. Some routers are still completely dead, i.e. not routing at all. I believe it started with the router in Chicago, and hosed everyone. They were notified by their customers of the problem, according to the customer. The solution was to transfer the customer from the priori backbone to eli's network. Andrew

1 0

RE: CISCO Easter Egg
by Sean M. Doran 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

| Not only interesting, but dishonest. Forcing a company to spend money on | false premise is tantamount to theft or conversion. That cisco gives them | the opportunity for doing so is aiding an abetting. Particularly so when | the upgrade cost adds to cisco's revenue. In other words, I sincerely hope | that you are joking. Yes, I'm a "suit" and only a part-time | operator/developer these days. I think you should apply for various open positions in operations management in several large telco-owned U.S.-based ISPs. There was no charge, btw, for moving from one beta to another beta when you had smartnet-style or per-chassis support contracts of the type all of the organizations involved had at the time. Sean.

1 0

RE: CISCO Easter Egg
by Sean M. Doran 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

| Sean, | | Why would they use this feature for that purpose? To fake a router | crash in order to load new software? Interesting way of "breaking the | rules." | | Chris Well, despite many strangenesses in my former company, operations never actually imposed a maintenance window along the lines of a competitor's "only Thursdays between midnight and four a.m. local time" which straitjacketed the people who were trying to build a network that would cope with the kind of growth it was undergoing at the time. So, one possibility was to wait for things to explode and then change the broken procedures, and the other possibility was load up new code in all routers in advance of the next maintenance window, and then if it became necessary, tactically crash ones that started suffering the worst problems. I don't think I ever actually used the knob, but I know at least two people who did. Sean.

1 0

Re: Linux Router KIT
by Sean M. Doran 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Phil Howard wrote: | It's also possible to get spare parts for PCs at 8 PM on Saturday. | Not true for Cisco. Huh? It's possible to get four-hour on-site intermediate engineering staff armed with a fully spared out replacement box and a connection to someone with a bigger clue at the TAC. Go talk to your Cisco sales team about services. Sean.

1 0

Priori ?
by jamie＠dilbert.ais.net 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

OK, anyone know the scoop on Priori? Our BGP with them went down yesterday(?) some time. Nobody's answering e-mail, and three of the four listed numbers I've tried have been disconnected.. "www.priori.net" gives NXDOMAIN .. ? -- jamie rishaw (efnet:gavroche) American Information Systems, Inc. Tel:312.425.7140, FAX:312.425.7240 -- Your silence will NOT protect you. -- "Did they just ask Don King to come to the lobby?!" - davidr

9 10