October 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Global Switch?
by Tim 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

Hi folks, Anyone familiar with Global Switch? They appear to have recently acquired the assets of colo.com - and possibly other facilities as well. I'm trying to decide whether to keep my assets at colo.com/Global Switch or to transfer elsewhere. Thanks, Tim

1 0

RE: staffing guidelines
by Murphy, Brennan 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

How many more did you ned for config and support? Suppose too that your network was global, covering EMEA, APAC and North America. 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. Anybody dare to take the number of devices on their network and divide by the number of network support staff you have? Shouldnt there be a paper from Gartner or Giga on this topic? Can anyone reference one? -----Original Message----- From: Dave O'Shea [mailto:doshea@telentente.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:24 PM To: Irwin Lazar; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: staffing guidelines I'm sure it varies greatly based on the type of work that's being done, but my experience with another company led me to think that one set of eyes could handle up to about 200-300 devices, purely for monitoring and outage management. Configuration and support was another matter. (When I say devices I mean routers, servers, and manageable switches) To get at a 24x7 figure, I generally multiplied by about 4 or 5 (taking into account shifts, vacations, weekends, etc.) So, for about, say, 1,000 manageable devices, I would expect to need about 16-20 people. The curve improves significantly as you grow and get to use more sophisticated problem isolation methods and tools. -----Original Message----- From: Irwin Lazar Sent: Thu 2001-10-04 14:26 To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Cc: Subject: staffing guidelines Is anyone aware of guidelines for IT staffing that are freely available on the web? In particular, I'm looking for guidelines as to the number of staff required to support "N" amount of routers, servers, users, etc. Any links are appreciated. Thanks in advance, Irwin

2 1

Cisco 12400 / Engine 3
by Deron J. Ringen 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

Greeting, Has anyone done testing with the Cisco 12400 and/or the engine 3 line cards? If so are you willing to share your experiences off-line? Thanks, Deron Ringen

1 0

traffic classification mechanisms
by Robert Pezick 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

This query is part of a marketing survey on the utility of today's QoS features. All input would be appreciated. The question addresses the real-world utility of the basic edge traffic aggregation/QoS mechanisms that vendors provide these days, in particular if and how often operators actually use them. A common function in today's edge equipment is the classification of packets based on layer 2, layer 3, and layer 4 packet header fields. In particular, classification based on - layer 2: MAC addresses, ethertype, etc - layer 3: source IP, dest IP, ToS, protocol - layer 4: TCP/UDP source/destination port The edge equipment will generally classify traffic into flows based on these characteristics and then perform some policing and/or marking functions on that stream. 1) Do you use these facilities? rarely, somewhat, often? 2) Are there particular classification methods out of the standard list that you use more often then others? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. - Rob

1 0

Re: staffing guidelines
by Gregory Hicks 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

> From: Irwin Lazar <ILazar(a)tbg.com> > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:26:47 -0600 > > Is anyone aware of guidelines for IT staffing that are freely available on > the web? In particular, I'm looking for guidelines as to the number of > staff required to support "N" amount of routers, servers, users, etc. Any > links are appreciated. I have not seen any 'guidelines', but I have always figured (roughly) on 100-150x/IT staffer... (100-150 users/routers/machines/whatever...) Much more than that and people start getting overworked... For a time, I was responsible for 400+ users and 800+ machines and was a bit over-worked... I 'negotiated' for ("I either get some help, or I'm looking for a different employer.") and got two assistants to assist with the workload... The staffing level really depends on the level of support desired/agreed upon, users expectations, machine types, et al... 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 You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.

1 0

RE: staffing guidelines
by Dave O'Shea 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

I'm sure it varies greatly based on the type of work that's being done, but my experience with another company led me to think that one set of eyes could handle up to about 200-300 devices, purely for monitoring and outage management. Configuration and support was another matter. (When I say devices I mean routers, servers, and manageable switches) To get at a 24x7 figure, I generally multiplied by about 4 or 5 (taking into account shifts, vacations, weekends, etc.) So, for about, say, 1,000 manageable devices, I would expect to need about 16-20 people. The curve improves significantly as you grow and get to use more sophisticated problem isolation methods and tools. -----Original Message----- From: Irwin Lazar Sent: Thu 2001-10-04 14:26 To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Cc: Subject: staffing guidelines Is anyone aware of guidelines for IT staffing that are freely available on the web? In particular, I'm looking for guidelines as to the number of staff required to support "N" amount of routers, servers, users, etc. Any links are appreciated. Thanks in advance, Irwin

1 0

staffing guidelines
by Irwin Lazar 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

Is anyone aware of guidelines for IT staffing that are freely available on the web? In particular, I'm looking for guidelines as to the number of staff required to support "N" amount of routers, servers, users, etc. Any links are appreciated. Thanks in advance, Irwin

1 0

who doesn't aggregate?
by R.P. Aditya 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

Below is a list of the top 20 origin ASes in terms of advertising prefixes smaller than the registry allocations in a particular prefix range. Although the total number of "extra" routes represented by these top 20 is a small percentage of the global tables, these are many of the entities that would have the most routers to upgrade as the number of prefixes grows...one imagines it would be in their best self-interest to clean up shop and aggregate better esp since they are also comprise the few that run default-free...(funny, I don't see 2914 in that list *grin*) smd, you should hit these guys up first for your prefix-maint fund. Thanks to pfs(a)cisco.com for including this in his stats (and if you have complaints about being publically shamed, blame me for urging him to include it in his reports). Adi ----- Forwarded message from Routing Analysis <cscora(a)dev.apnic.net> ----- From: Routing Analysis <cscora(a)dev.apnic.net> Message-Id: <200110041804.EAA04271(a)dev.apnic.net> Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 04:04:58 +1000 (EST) This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net [...snip...] Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 1221 1469 1616 Telstra Pty Ltd 701 1434 2256 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 3908 868 1143 Supernet, Inc. 7046 634 810 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 702 603 890 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 7018 561 1065 AT&T 690 511 514 Merit Network 4293 443 457 Cable & Wireless USA 3967 436 616 Exodus Communication 1 422 877 BBN Planet 1239 421 757 Sprint 209 400 562 Qwest 2764 366 412 connect.com.au pty ltd 705 348 399 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 703 327 398 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 5106 319 338 Ameritech Advanced Data Servi 4151 300 342 USDA 11371 299 310 Rhythms NetConnections 4323 294 352 Time Warner Communications, I 2548 280 389 Business Internet, Inc. ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

RE: No more MMDS fixed wireless networks?
by Christopher J. Wolff 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

Here's the web page I found that details Sprint Broadband's issue... http://www.eprairie.com/news/viewnews.asp?newsletterID=3009&page=1 Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, VP, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com email:chris@bblabs.com phone:520.622.4338 x234

1 0

Re: Carnivore alternative
by Eliot Lear 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

Hank, Indeed when the FBI visited with NANOG in Washington D.C., the guy stated pretty plainly that if you didn't want to use Carnivore you didn't have to. You merely needed to provide the information listed in the warrant. Now I'm not a provider, and I can't verify what he said, but that is what he said. On the other hand, what assurance is there that there is no trap door in NetWitness. What one might do is place filters on the port that connects such devices so as to limit the intercept to information that could be conceivably covered by the warrant. I've heard from some ISPs that they would rather the FBI not even tell them who the target is, for fear of the information leaking. Strange legal jungle we live in. Comments? (So, Ran, got both barrels loaded, yet? ;-) Eliot ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hank Nussbacher" <hank(a)att.net.il> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: Carnivore alternative > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21992.html > > Hank >

2 1