May 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

回复: Strange result while ping serial interface
by Yu Ning 10 May '00

10 May '00

Hi, But it's obviously inefficient. Is it due to some inability of PPP ? Or can you tell what reason makes the packets a round trip ? Since the router should have the information of its local interface, why should it always send packets out, the get it back ? regards, Yu Ning -----Original Message----- From: Dumb Kid <dumbkid0(a)yahoo.com> To: Yu Ning <yuning(a)cndata.com>; nanog-post <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Strange result while ping serial interface >Yeah , it's normal. The packet actually travels to the >other end of the router over the serial and back. >That's why the response time is doubled. > > > >--- Yu Ning <yuning(a)cndata.com> wrote: >> >> Hi nanog, >> >> Strange thing happens everyday. When I were >> troubleshooting yestoday, >> I found a ping to my local serial interface (no >> matter it's 155M POS, >> or 2M Serial interface) takes nearly twice delay >> compared with a ping >> to the remote side of the serial interrface ! When I >> trace to my local >> serial interface, I got the first hop to the remote >> end, then second >> hop back to my local interface ! >> >> For example, 202.97.2.1 is local serial interface, >> while 2.2 is remote >> side. A trace on 2.1 to 2.1 first go to 2.2, then >> back to 2.1. And this >> situation can be verified on both side. >> >> Have you ever seen this situation ? Is it due to our >> misconfiguration? >> or it's sheerly a mis-display of result in Cisco box >> (can't believe it) >> >> The background is: we're using ISIS as IGP, and >> utilized level-1/2 link. >> >> thanks for any input. >> >> regards, >> >> Yu Ning >> ------------------------------------------- >> (Mr.) Yu(2) Ning(2) >> ChinaNet Backbone Operation >> Networking Dep.,Datacom Bureau >> China Telecom.,Beijing(100088),P.R.C >> +86-10-66418121/66418122/66418123(fax) >> ------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > >===== > >-- >D.U.M.B.K.I.D. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com/ >

1 0

OT: Foolish question but we have too many differing opinions...
by Rich Sena 10 May '00

10 May '00

Now it's common concensus here at the farm that you get billed at the higher capacity either inbound or outbound on a WAN connection however we seem to havbe a disagreement here as to what the theorhetical capacity of the specific connection is... Say for example on a T1 is it 1544 Mbps inbound AND outbound or an aggregate? And for that matter what about a DS3 or other ATM's (OC3+ etc...) any comments appreciated... As always reply to my stupidity off-list and if enough ppl harass me I will sumize...) -- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras(a)poppa.thick.net

1 0

UUNET outage in Palo Alto
by Garlic 10 May '00

10 May '00

There seems to be a significant outage in the UUNET network at their Palo Alto POP. Their status pages and telephone messages are not showing this.

7 6

RE: Born identity?
by Foley, Grant 10 May '00

10 May '00

Woof. > -----Original Message----- > From: Roeland Meyer (E-mail) [SMTP:rmeyer@mhsc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 6:38 PM > To: 'Susan R. Harris'; 'Garlic' > Cc: 'nanog-support(a)merit.edu' > Subject: Born identity? > > > On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog ... > - The Far Side > > > Susan R. Harris: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 3:53 PM > > > > Greetings - we'd like to ask that you use your real name and > > email address when posting to the nanog list, rather than an alias. > > > Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. Phone: > > >

1 0

Re: Born identity?
by Walter Prue 10 May '00

10 May '00

In America everyone is intitled to an opinion. However you are not entitled to a professional opinion. --paraphrased from memory from I believe "Elements of Networking Style" Michael Padlipsky > > On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog ... > - The Far Side > > > Susan R. Harris: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 3:53 PM > > > > Greetings - we'd like to ask that you use your real name and > > email address when posting to the nanog list, rather than an alias. > > > Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. Phone: > > > > >

1 0

Re: UUNET outage in Palo Alto
by wolfgang＠whnet.com 10 May '00

10 May '00

> Actually Garlic's might have something interesting in them. And many of us do know who garlic(a)garlic.com is since he's been using the address for a long time. (reliable!) -- Wolfgang Henke WH Networks

1 0

Outage summary May 9 2000
by Sean Donelan 10 May '00

10 May '00

GTE DSL outage California and Washington ALS fiber cut Santa Clara, multiple providers affected MediaOne fiber cut Atlanta ComEd power outage Chicago, 268,000 affected Portugal power outage, southern half of country affected including Lisbon

1 0

Re: UUNET outage in Palo Alto
by Danny McPherson 10 May '00

10 May '00

While I certainly understand your point John, I definitely understand Susan's. This leads back to the discussion a few weeks ago regarding "damage control" and the like. Think about it. If [foo] posted and said [insert_company_here] sucks but [company] had no idea who foo was, or why they were telling a few thousand potential customers that they sucked, well, I can understand [company] having a problem with that. Especially if foo@domainname was actually a competietor, or for some reason they believed foo may be. I could even understand [company] telling the Merit folks that they had a real problem with it, and strongly suggesting they see that it doesn't happen again. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, just sharing an observation. -danny > > Some of us don't have the luxury of living under the veil of academia and > as such, use "alternate" email accounts when posting information that > while ON-TOPIC and of OPERATIONAL use, may cause significant political > fallout. > > It might not fit the AUP. So be it. It was significantly above the > typical S:N ratio for the list and as such, I believe that YOU are out of > line in chastising the individual in question. > > If you don't like my particular opinion on the subject, please take it up > with those in my company who have the powers to make my job go away. >

2 1

Re: Optical Crossconnects and IP
by Tony Li 10 May '00

10 May '00

> PS I keep wondering why people keep reinventing virtual circuits. A key observation here is that the point of an optical cross connect is to provide a real circuit, not a virtual one. An optical cross connect, functioning along with IP routing and an intelligent traffic management system can be used to dynamically place bandwidth where it is needed, when it is needed. The optical plane provides an active provisioning fabric, allowing the network to be more efficient. And a more efficient network makes for a more profitable ISP. I don't see optical cross connects as an opposition to IP technology. Rather, it provides one of the key means of automating the network that is sorely needed. A much better question to ask is: can IP routing possibly survive its projected growth curve without the enabling technology that a flexible optical fabic provides? Yours in dissent, Tony p.s. Just in case there's any confusion out there, I'm still the world's biggest proponent of IP routing. I just don't assume that we know everything about networking already. I hope that it can be made better.

4 4

Re: Virus Update
by Eric A. Hall 09 May '00

09 May '00

> Is Outlook Express immune to this or does it execute VB script too? If you have VBS installed (Windows Scripting Host) and you execute the attachment you will be in big trouble. This applies to all Windows mailers, whether it be Eudora or Communicator or whatever. AFAIK, the only mailer that automatically executes VBS is Outlook. The real culprit here is the power that Microsoft apps (Outlook in particular) give to VB Script. On the one hand, it's nice that Microsoft gives companies workflow management capabilities over e-mail through the use of a generic scripting service (VBS lets you do some pretty neat things with client-side scripting). On the other hand, this is way too much power to be providing to an Internet-connected user base. The Java sandbox model is much more appropriate for that specific context, given that the basic (non-NT) Windows PC doesn't have any concept of system security. Even JavaScript is much less harmful, but that's mostly because it has a failry limited command structure, not because its inherently "more secure." I think that Microsoft really needs to evaluate their security model for mail in general. The simplest approach would be to do Zones like they have for Web content, where mails from certain sites are "trusted" and mails from other sites have varying degrees of distrust. Determining "trust" with e-mail is hard though. Do I "trust" somebody in my Address Book, even though that's where most of these viruses are coming from? Maybe users should disable whatever Scripting Host services they have installed. This isn't entirely possible since a lot of Microsoft apps and services depend on Windows Scripting Host in order for them to even function (the Windows Update service requires it, for example). Obviously not everybody can do this. Firewall filters that cull VBS attachments are another option, but of course the same problems show up with EXE attachments (or with LNK attachments as we saw with Eudora last week). AppleScript attachments for Mac users could easily be just as deadly given the access they have. The only reason they're relatively safe is that nobody wants to waste time writing scripts that only affect 10% of the user base. And of course, any of the Unix mailers will gladly accept malicious attachments too, so as a platform it's certainly no safer (although if you're running a limited-rights account you won't be able to do as much damage by running an untested attachment than if you run a highly privileged account; I'm sure nobody here does that, right?). It's just very hard to make e-mail secure, unless you're doing virus scans on every message at every way-station. In the meantime, don't open unknown attachments, and don't run Outlook. -- Eric A. Hall ehall(a)ehsco.com +1-650-685-0557 http://www.ehsco.com

10 13