October 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Lucent WaveLAN PC Cards? (fwd)
by William F. Maton 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

FYI, for the folks developing the driver for Linux. wfms ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:36:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox <alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: "William F. Maton" <wmaton(a)enterprise.ic.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Lucent WaveLAN PC Cards? (fwd) > FYI, for anyone developing or wanting to include that driner in the > kernel. The driver author just needs to submit a GPL driver when and if they are happy about the quality and want to. Doesn't matter if they are a giant corporation or an individual

1 0

FWIW, Sprint outage
by Jeff Mcadams 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Don't know if its a fiber cut, or what, but Sprint has at least a DS3 down in Wilksboro (sp?) Illinois, took out two of our private T1's with them...running from Louisville to Cincinnati and Louisville to Nashville...doncha just love telco routing? Anyway...no ETR yet...don't even know what the actual problem is, whether its a fiber cut, or equipment dying, or what. So, anyway...not a lot of information here, but that's what I have. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm(a)iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456

1 0

Re: CISCO Easter Egg
by Richard Irving 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

I have a better one.... On 11.2.16.P, just put an INARP on a loopback VC (The one that pings local) on an ATM subinterface. (Don't *even* ask...) *NO* need for deception. :( :(

1 0

None
by monitor＠millenium.com 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

10/29/98 Y2K Solution! 8 Pine Circle Dr., Silicon Valley, Calif. OTC Company "TCFG" 21 st. Century Frontier Group has through several members of their administrative research department leaked vital information about their companies efforts. Everyone was tight lipped and interviews were refused, and through un-named sources we have learned that the technology and software solution are in the process of being patented! In over 1640 trials, using various data systems the use of the new technology and software solved the Y2K problem 100% of the time. This small publicly traded company "TCFG" which is just 3 years old is through various sources now negotiating with the "Big Boys"! "TCFG" the letters to look for!

1 0

Re: CISCO Easter Egg
by John Mammen 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

I have used this command to test HSA(High System Availability) with 2 RSPs in 7500s. You can specify the type of crash you want to simulate and the box reboots and comes back up on the second rsp (that was the original slave). -----Original Message----- From: Martin, Christian <CMartin(a)mercury.balink.com> To: 'Roeland M.J. Meyer' <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> Cc: 'Sean M. Doran' <smd(a)clock.org>; 'horke(a)regio.net' <horke(a)regio.net>; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 7:37 AM Subject: RE: CISCO Easter Egg > > >I don't condone this, however I fail to see how this is dishonest on >Cisco's part. I fail to even see the use of this command; hence the >inquiry. You have to reload the router either way to upgrade software, >right? So, you can issue the command via a reload, or you can "test >crash." The only difference is that the router displays "System >restarted via reload" or "System restarted via memory parity error at >0x67393028", or something. So, what do you use this for? To 'prove' >to your boss that you didn't f*&k up? "It wasn't my fault, the router >crashed. See?" I could see this being used on a production box, where >an operator foolishly does a 'debug ip packet detail' on an edge box >with a rapidly aging cache, the messages kill the console, and he needs >to save his arse. So, he reloads the box via power on, the runs a "test >crash", so when the boss asked why they lost Orlando for 30 minutes, he >can say, "I dunno, router crashed. Look." > >Chris > > >> >> 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. >> >> At 05:52 AM 10/29/98 -0500, Martin, Christian wrote: >> >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 >> > >> >> >> >> This was put in to allow a small handful of engineers in >> >> various companies >> >> to load new software into boxes outside the maintenance windows >> >> imposed upon them by misguided but fanatical operations management. >> >> >> >> This particular feature saved the Internet on several occasions. >> >> >> >> Sean. >> >> >> > >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) >> e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer(a)mhsc.com >> Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com >> Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer >> Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ >> ___________________________________________ >> I bet the human brain is a kludge. >> -- Marvin Minsky >> >>

1 0

RE: CISCO Easter Egg
by Martin, Christian 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

I don't condone this, however I fail to see how this is dishonest on Cisco's part. I fail to even see the use of this command; hence the inquiry. You have to reload the router either way to upgrade software, right? So, you can issue the command via a reload, or you can "test crash." The only difference is that the router displays "System restarted via reload" or "System restarted via memory parity error at 0x67393028", or something. So, what do you use this for? To 'prove' to your boss that you didn't f*&k up? "It wasn't my fault, the router crashed. See?" I could see this being used on a production box, where an operator foolishly does a 'debug ip packet detail' on an edge box with a rapidly aging cache, the messages kill the console, and he needs to save his arse. So, he reloads the box via power on, the runs a "test crash", so when the boss asked why they lost Orlando for 30 minutes, he can say, "I dunno, router crashed. Look." Chris > > 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. > > At 05:52 AM 10/29/98 -0500, Martin, Christian wrote: > >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 > > > >> > >> This was put in to allow a small handful of engineers in > >> various companies > >> to load new software into boxes outside the maintenance windows > >> imposed upon them by misguided but fanatical operations management. > >> > >> This particular feature saved the Internet on several occasions. > >> > >> Sean. > >> > > > > ___________________________________________________ > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer(a)mhsc.com > Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com > Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ > ___________________________________________ > I bet the human brain is a kludge. > -- Marvin Minsky > >

1 0

Re: Linux Router KIT
by Tony Li 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

> > What kind of interface do you want ? You have async (multiport > > async), sync, ethernet, fddi and now atm is coming. BTW, do you get > > arcnet with cisco ? :-) > > HSSI? ATM is doable today. There are multiple HSSI vendors out there: http://www.lanmedia.com/products.htm http://www.sdlcomm.com/ > > Define lots. You want full BGP table in a PC router ? Why :) ? The bandwidth through a router is not necessarily directly related to the amount of routing information that one needs to support. For example, one can easily imagine a multi-homed site that buys transit from multiple backbones. While no single backbone is deserving of very high bandwidth, the need to maintain a full routing table for optimal return path routing could be quite high. Tony

1 0

RE: Despamming wholesale dialup
by Sean Wade 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

I was actually thinking about this issue a little bit ago. I thought about the access list bit and thought that to be more of a kludge than a solution. What I thought that might be a better solution was more of a transparent mail-proxy setup. I know that may not be the correct term, but the idea and concept is the same. all port 25 requests go to a main relay/deliver server. No matter what. It puts the burden of relays on the provider instead of innocent (albeit ignorant for not locking down their servers) victims. Let me know what you guys think. --Sean wade(a)bigger.net

1 0

Re: Lucent WaveLAN PC Cards?
by Brandon Ross 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

I attended the Atlanta Linux Showcase last weekend and attended a talk about 802.11 cards for Linux. I took the liberty of forwarding Brent's question on to the speaker for that talk and he asked me to forward the following response back to the list. The web site he references is http://www.absoval.com --- In response to Brent Sweeney's question.... There _is_ a driver that has been tested using the Harris PRISM reference design. This is an 802.11 Direct Sequence WLAN card. Two vendors currently using this design are Intalk (http://www.intalk.com) and Bay Networks (be careful with Bay, I think they're still selling older non-802.11 cards too). I haven't had the opportunity to directly test these cards, but the driver _should_ work. On our website, I'll be posting the latest code, instructions, and some information on compatibility between cards and firmware. Hopefully, that'll be up later today or tomorrow. Thanks for the interest! Mark > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:32:02 -0500 (EST) > From: Brent Sweeny <sweeny(a)pine.ucs.indiana.edu> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Lucent WaveLAN PC Cards? > > and on the subject of 802.11 wireless, does anyone know of 802.11 PCCards > with drivers for Linux? We haven't been able to find any.

1 0

ISP and multicast
by Manolo Sola 28 Oct '98

28 Oct '98

In the IETF working groups and mailing lists related with multicast and in IETF meetings as well people talk about ISPs' requierements for multicast but nobody states clearly which those requierments are. As it is considered that ISPs' opinion on this matter is essential to the development of multicast proposals, could somebody address the questions I have appended bellow or give some pointers to a place where I can find some relevant information regarding this topic ?. Thanks in advance. What do ISPs think about an internet multicast architecture based on running a multicast protocol inside a domain and a different multicast protocol to forward traffic among domains ? What do ISPs think about an internet multicast architecture based on running the same protocol intra and inter domains ? Do ISPs think that any of the current multicast proposals solve they needs ? Where do current proposals fail ? -- Manolo

1 0