October 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Equinix, AboveNet, Broadwing?
by woody＠zocalo.net 09 Oct '01

09 Oct '01

Equinix doesn't sell transit, unless they've had a sudden and drastic change of business model. ----Original Message---- From: Timothy Brown <timothy.brown(a)pobox.com.pager.zocalo.net> Subject: Equinix, AboveNet, Broadwing? Can those of you with equipment in the above facilities that are also using those providers for transit please contact me privately? I have a few questions. Tim

2 1

FBI warning to infrastructure owners
by Sean Donelan 09 Oct '01

09 Oct '01

According to news reports Attorney General Ashcroft, the FBI issued warnings to law enforcement agencies, corporate security officers and private-sector Information Sharing and Analysis Centers this week. As some of you may know, the Internet is not currently covered by any ISAC. So you may not receive these warnings. It is up to the private sector if, and under what terms, they want to participate in any information sharing activity.

2 3

Equinix, AboveNet, Broadwing?
by Timothy Brown 09 Oct '01

09 Oct '01

Can those of you with equipment in the above facilities that are also using those providers for transit please contact me privately? I have a few questions. Tim

1 0

wanted: 'beacon' hosts ?
by Peter Galbavy 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

I don't really know what to ask for or who, so redirection is welcome. I am setting up some monitoring from within our AS to a handful of sites scattered around the UK and the rest of the world. Now, I get annoyed when someone reads the same file off my web server evey five minutes, so I am not going to do it to anyone else without permission. Can anyone help (reciprocally would be fine) by providing permission to use ICMP Echo and HTTP GET requests against something on their network (that is well connected and reliable) so that I can build SLA-targetted averages for performance and packet loss ? I *DO NOT* want to get involved in buying this data from anyone please. I am very happy to provide this service in return, or even just for the sake of it without anything back. What I evisage is the 5-miutely 'GET'ing of a 20k-ish text file from a web server and a group of 5 ICMP Echos at about the same intervals... PS I know this is NANOG, but I am even more interested in hearing from UK and European networks. PPS If people are willing to offer this as a 'public' service, I will happily summarise back to the list and/or build a web site with details. Peter

8 11

INFORMATION FEEDS
by Kelly J. Cooper 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

What information feeds are the most useful to your NOC? To your Analysts? To your Engineers? To your Customers? Do you want them to see outage reports on the MAEs? Fiber cut reports from certain telcos/fiber providers? (If so, which ones?) Maintenance reports on NAPs? Maintenance plans from peers? Ticket-based updates from your upstreams/transit providers/peers regarding outages? Changes to registrar databases? Maintenance announcements on the root servers? Outages or degradation in availability for popular web sites? All of the above? None of the above? Many other subjects? (If so, which ones?) Thanks, Kelly J. (Not talking about Security just yet...) -- Kelly J. Cooper - Security Engineer GENUITY - Main # - 800-632-7638 3 Van de Graaff Drive - Fax - 781-262-2744 Burlington, MA 01803 - http://www.genuity.net

1 0

RE: The Gorgon's Knot. Was: Re: Verio Peering Question
by smd＠clock.org 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

| But, we all do, or we aren't talking BGP. The requirements here are not that | large. A Cisco 2651 with 128mb is a valid BGP speaker, these days. That's a | cheap router, indeed. And, router memory is dirt cheap. BGP is based on TCP and thus has the fun property that a big set of changes will pile up in front of a connection to a peer that is slow at processing inbound announcements & withdrawals. The slower you are at processing updates, the more likely you are to be out of sync with reality in such a way that you will begin to notice that you are forwarding some packets the wrong direction into loops or black holes. The slower you are, the greater the backlog you have to chug through to catch up, making you busier for longer periods, which in turn leads to greater backlogs. Slow down too much and the other side will help you out by resetting the session. We've seen this in the past - it's caused MASSIVE outages affecting nearly EVERYONE for hours at a time. Or you can say "smd is protecting his own personal interests" and carry on arguing the equivalent of "ANYBODY can build a modern router using a sufficient amount of ROM" which simply underlines the point that dynamic global routing is an expensive luxury that many people have gotten used to. | The common good is | promoted by allowing these folks to multihome, which would be effectively | prohibited if all networks implimented verio-style filter policies. Think of it as a catalyst for more experimentation with alternative ways of multihoming without the use of BGP. There are several which exist now, and several which are being discussed in multi6 which could be made to exist now without universal software changes. Some brainstorming could result in several other approaches, more or less generalized, but what's the point when the normal cheap-seeming thing to do is to announce CIDR holes to the world? | The number of folks who multihome is large and growing. We should support | this by promoting relatively open filtering policies and allowing /24s to be | truly, globally routable. I think we should encourage people to introduce individual /32s into the network and flap them around a bit, to force some issues which have been avoided becauase first Sprint and then Verio have been willing to take a bunch of negative PR in the act of self-protection (which has the side-effect of protecting alot of people who generate the negative PR, and everyone else). Sean.

8 11

Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover
by Paul Vixie 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

> I suppose it's easy to feel that way when you're not the one being censored. As before, you presume much. Randy has rejected articles from me before on the grounds that they were off-topic. Upon reflection, I had to agree w/ him. (And I'm still waiting for Sue to tell me to stop contributing to this thread, on the same basis, and I will agree with her, too.) > > Remember, if you wanted to start a nam3dr0pp3rs@ list someplace else and > > post introductions to it on ietf@ and namedroppers@, noone could stop you. > > That's incorrect. The moderator could stop me. On the grounds that the creation of an alternative mailing list was off-topic? That would be quite a spectacle. Please do it, I'd like to see the results. > Also, it wouldn't matter if I made my own list, because any list I > created would not be the official list of the DNSEXT working group. So your beef is with IETF process (sanctioning restricted forums) rather than with the restrictedness of the forum? You think the IETF has some kind of monopoly on discussions of DNS's fine points and that because of this we ought to continue debating those fine points on other lists, like this one? > I was merely pointing out that the namedroppers list is not exactly the open > forum that you purported it to be. I posted a link to a web page (above) in > support of this claim. You have not yet refuted anything that is published > on that page. You've got THAT right, at least.

3 2

GBLX NOC?
by E.B. Dreger 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

GBLX NOC, anyone? The toll-free and regular numbers that I have are both inoperational. 800.541.9888 "outside the calling area" 602.416.7187 "cannot be completed as dialed" Someone { who knows a working GBLX NOC number | at GBLX } please contact me privately. TIA, Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> To: blacklist(a)brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.

3 2

RE: staffing guidelines
by Ron Snyder 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

Here are two links that my boss sent to me-- he created a spreadsheet that uses the formulas described there. The spreadsheet tells me that I need 27 people (22 more than I currently have). http://www.aztea.org/resources/whitepaper/staffing.htm http://techguide.merit.edu/formula.htm I found the formulas to be "too heavily" weighted for hardware, and not heavily weighted enough for software (but it's a starting point). -ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:16 AM > To: Murphy, Brennan > Cc: 'Dave O'Shea'; Irwin Lazar; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: staffing guidelines > > > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 07:27:56PM -0500, Murphy, Brennan wrote: > > I am interested more in how many *engineers* are needed on > 200, 500, 2000 > > device > > networks, where "device" means routers, switches and any > servers that > > support > > the routers/switches such as HP Openview, Sniffers or ACS servers, > > ...Firewalls, etc. > > That's rather like asking how many cars a mechanic can service. > At Jiffy Lube it's 100's a day. At Ford it's 10's a day. At the > Ferrari shop it might be one a day. Race teams might devote several > mechanics to one car for days at a time. > > I can invision networks of 2000 devices that one engineer runs, > and networks of 200 devices that require 2000 engineers. There is > very little to link the number of devices to the number of people > needed to run them. The time people spend is dominated by rate of > change, rate of failure, scope of work, redundancy of design, and > the level of support you want to offer. The time spent installing > devices, or upgrading them is rather small in most networks. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org > Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 > Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org >

1 0

Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover
by Gregory Hicks 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:14:47 -0700 > From: Adam McKenna <adam-nanog(a)flounder.net> > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 12:34:45PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > > Most mailing lists I am on seem to get by fine without overt > > > moderation - including this one. [...snip...] > You've conveniently failed to address the issue where the list > moderator of namedroppers took it upon himself to edit the > content of posts before forwarding them to the list. You know, as the former editor/moderator of the Info-IBMPC Digest list for a fair number of years, and not having subscribed to the namedroppers list, I frequently edited the content of postings (if only to make them more readable and/or to tone down rantings), rejected others (sometimes with an explanation of how to make it more suitable for publication, sometimes without one. Usually with an explanation though...) Sometimes I ran the changes by the submitter, sometimes not... Depended on how much 'editing' I had to do. > > > > Prefiltering to suit *any* one individuals opinion of what > > > is or isn't on topic seems highly suspect for any list, and > > > unacceptable on a list supposedly to define policy. > > > > so in order for a policy-defining forum to be considered > > representative, it must be open to all posts on all topics > > from all parties at all times? that does not match not my > > intuition on the matter. > > This is a straw man. The messages that were sent clearly fell > within the list's charter, yet they were rejected and/or edited > by the moderator for what appear to be entirely personal reasons. The moderator (editor, in my case) really has the final call on what gets posted and what doesn't... Sorry, but them's the rules. In any case, this is straying a bit afield of the charter for nanog... Regards, Gregory Hicks --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3479 San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: ghicks(a)cadence.com "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

2 1