March 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

FW: IP Generation program/devices
by Stephan Chayer 18 Mar '98

18 Mar '98

You might take a look on NetXray made by Cinco Networks that is now Network General that is now Network Associates... Ask Victor Amashta: victora(a)ngc.com www.ngc.com or www.nai.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Lou Dupont > Sent: 18 mars, 1998 16:02 > To: Stephan Chayer > Subject: FW: IP Generation program/devices > > > > ---------- > From: Lewis Eatherton[SMTP:eathertl@segasoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 12:39 PM > To: David J. Schmidt; Michael F Sullivan > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: IP Generation program/devices > > Also, you might want to take a look at Anvil, from Mightnight > Networks. > Its a very nice tool that runs on various Unix flavors and will test > just > about any part of the RFC on what ever protocols you order... > > At 11:25 PM 3/17/98 -0800, David J. Schmidt wrote: > >On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Michael F Sullivan wrote: > > > >> To do some load testing, we need a "tool" (h/w device and/or s/w) > to > generate > >> a programmable amount of IP traffic on a segment (say 32Mbps on a > fast > enet > >> segment or fddi ring) and a way to measure it (w/ hopefully > something > cheaper > >> than a sniffer). Anyone have suggestions on what to use? > >> > >> Thanks > > > >For the high end try Netcom Systems SmartBits. > > > >Their systems can hold various interface cards (from 10-20 per > chasis) and > >you can run up to 4 chassis in a stack. > > > >We are using them to fully stress test our Gigabit Bridge/Router and > I've > >been running tests with 24 gigabit cards into our device and we're > also > >using their 10/100mb cards to test our 10/100mb cards. > > > >The software can generate various IP frames from templates or you can > use > >a raw packet editor. > > > >NOT cheap! But it can generate and receive/trigger/count at full > speed if > >that's what you need. > > > >David.Schmidt(a)ior.com Packet Engines, Inc. (509)922-9190 > >Spokane, Washington http://www.packetengines.com/ > > > > > > > Lewis Eatherton > Network Architect > SegaSoft, Inc > 650.654.2318 >

1 0

NANOG 13 Dates June 7-9
by William B. Norton 18 Mar '98

18 Mar '98

Hi all - FYI - We just locked in the Hyatt in Dearborn, Michigan for NANOG 13 on the dates June 7-9. Final paperwork will be completed by the end of the week and we should have the NANOG web pages updated at that time. BTW - from a quick look at the airfares, a Saturday night stayover will save you beaucoup dollars. The Hyatt Regency is centrally located to a variety of activities including Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum, so there should be lots to do Saturday. We'll send out an announcement when the new web pages are up. Cheers - Bill -------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (734) 764-9430 (New Area Code)

1 0

Re: IP Generation program/devices
by Lewis Eatherton 18 Mar '98

18 Mar '98

Also, you might want to take a look at Anvil, from Mightnight Networks. Its a very nice tool that runs on various Unix flavors and will test just about any part of the RFC on what ever protocols you order... At 11:25 PM 3/17/98 -0800, David J. Schmidt wrote: >On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Michael F Sullivan wrote: > >> To do some load testing, we need a "tool" (h/w device and/or s/w) to generate >> a programmable amount of IP traffic on a segment (say 32Mbps on a fast enet >> segment or fddi ring) and a way to measure it (w/ hopefully something cheaper >> than a sniffer). Anyone have suggestions on what to use? >> >> Thanks > >For the high end try Netcom Systems SmartBits. > >Their systems can hold various interface cards (from 10-20 per chasis) and >you can run up to 4 chassis in a stack. > >We are using them to fully stress test our Gigabit Bridge/Router and I've >been running tests with 24 gigabit cards into our device and we're also >using their 10/100mb cards to test our 10/100mb cards. > >The software can generate various IP frames from templates or you can use >a raw packet editor. > >NOT cheap! But it can generate and receive/trigger/count at full speed if >that's what you need. > >David.Schmidt(a)ior.com Packet Engines, Inc. (509)922-9190 >Spokane, Washington http://www.packetengines.com/ > > > Lewis Eatherton Network Architect SegaSoft, Inc 650.654.2318

1 0

IP Generation program/devices
by mfjs＠attmail.com 18 Mar '98

18 Mar '98

To do some load testing, we need a "tool" (h/w device and/or s/w) to generate a programmable amount of IP traffic on a segment (say 32Mbps on a fast enet segment or fddi ring) and a way to measure it (w/ hopefully something cheaper than a sniffer). Anyone have suggestions on what to use? Thanks

4 3

infrastructure fund
by Bob Broedel 18 Mar '98

18 Mar '98

Subject: NSF PR 98-17: NSF AND NSI END INTERNET INTELLECTUAL : INFRASTRUCTURE FUND PORTION OF DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION FEES http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/pr9817.htm ================================================ March 16, 1998 NSF PR 98-17 Media contact: Beth Gaston (703) 306-1070/egaston(a)nsf.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NSF AND NSI END INTERNET INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUND PORTION OF DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION FEES The National Science Foundation (NSF) and Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) today announced the end of the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund portion of domain name registration charges. As a result, the annual fee for domain name registration, which has been $50 since fees were imposed in 1995, will decline to $35, reducing the cost of domain name registration by 30 percent. The change will be effective April 1, 1998. The Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund was created to offset government funding for the preservation and enhancement of the intellectual infrastructure of the Internet. More than $45.5 million has been deposited into the fund to date. On March 12, the cooperative agreement between NSF and NSI was amended to stop contribution to the fund consistent with recommendations in the Clinton Administration draft discussion paper, "DNS Management Proposed Rule and Request for Public Comment (Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses)" -- commonly referred to as the "green paper." March 31 marks the end of the originally defined operational period in the agreement between NSF and NSI. Given the amount of the fund, NSF no longer believes it necessary to continue charging a percentage of the registration fee for the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's intellectual infrastructure. NSF has indicated that registration services for the Internet are now a self-sustaining activity and are beyond the mission of the agency which is to support science and engineering research and education. NSF does not intend to renew or recompete any agreement for registration services. Domain name registration is the process by which an alpha character string (e.g., nsf.gov) -- by which people navigate the Internet -- becomes associated with the twelve-digit Internet Protocol (IP) number which computers on the network actually use to locate and communicate with each other. In 1993, the National Science Foundation awarded a five-year cooperative agreement to Network Solutions, Inc. for registration services. Network Solutions is currently responsible for registration services for four top level domains: .edu for institutions of higher learning; .org for non-profit organizations; .net for network service providers; and .com for commercial organizations (the fastest growing realm). In 1997, the General Services Administration assumed responsibility for registration in the .gov domain, which is reserved for U.S. federal agencies. Fees for domain name registration services began in September 1995, as the demand for Internet registration became largely (97 percent) commercial and grew by orders of magnitude, exceeding NSF's ability to fund the registration. The NSF authorized NSI to begin charging a fee for domain name registration and set aside 30% for the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. No money from the fund has yet been spent. The future administration of domain name registration, particularly regarding generic top level domains (such as .com) which are not linked to any country code (such as .us,) is the subject of the Clinton Administration draft discussion paper. -NSF- Editors: Information about the fund and amounts deposited can be found at: http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html The Clinton Administration draft discussion paper, "DNS Management Proposed Rule and Request for Public Comment (Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses)" can be found at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov Bob Broedel, Engineer TEL 850-644-6840 Meteorology Dept, 404 Love Bldg. E-M bro(a)huey.met.fsu.edu FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, Tallahassee FL 32306-4520 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Free the internet2 lists from the Good Old Boys! --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Floating an idea...
by Karl Denninger 18 Mar '98

18 Mar '98

Hi folks, What say all of you to the following idea: Block at the entry/peer router level all packets from networks which are shown to be "Smurf friendly" - that is, those network numbers and/or blocks which are smurf amplifiers (have directed broadcasts enabled)? I was thinking of something similar to the RBL, but that doesn't quite do it; a pull-down route to a sink doesn't do you any good, since what you're after is the *source* address. Now I know this may be entirely impractical for some folks, if for no other reason than CPU resources in those gateways. But this kind of thing would certainly send a message to those open amplifier networks in a big hurry. Think of it as an "attractive nuisance" problem (and fix). - -- Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

1 0

cisco MIP input/output rates
by Fancy Feast 17 Mar '98

17 Mar '98

Could someone running non-geek code with a 7500 series router and a MIP please verify that their XX second input/output rates are functional? I am seeing that it doesn't work at all running geeks code. Thanks, Alex

1 0

Anyone from @home out there?
by dougd＠mail.airmail.net 17 Mar '98

17 Mar '98

Sorry to spray the list, the usual methods have not met with much success. I am trying to reach an actual network engineer from @home.net that can work with me to resolve connectivity our mutual customers are having with their network and ours. Thanks

1 0

Re: Good morning, AOL
by Adam Rothschild 17 Mar '98

17 Mar '98

My hope is that someone from AOL (netops?) is lurking, and will pass it along. Though I do not want this to become an AOL bashing war, I doubt A, B, or C will generate the response desired... :) Regards, Adam On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Peter Clark wrote: > I dobt AOL has any of their TOS people reading Nanog. > > I'd either A) mail postmaster, abuse, and tos(a)aol.com, B) sign on to AOL > and send a screen to TOS, or C) call AOL's 800 number and be ignored just > like the last time I tried to report someone. > > Just my 0x02c >

1 0

Good morning, AOL
by Adam Rothschild 17 Mar '98

17 Mar '98

Could someone from America Online's TOS department please drop me a note, ASAP? Thanks, Adam

1 0