November 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: out-of-band network experiences
by Kevin Gannon 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

For our outof band management we do a number of things based the customer: 1. All sites must provide an ISDN dialin to a customer router giving us telnet access from a large central secured RAS. The NOC team telnet to the RAS and type ras>customer_name Conecting to 1.1.1.1 A very small number of staff can view the config of this RAS everyone else can just type "customer_name" they can not even look up these from the RAS. You either know the name or you get zip.Without this access the customers SLA for support calls is zip. They will get 4 hours HW swap only. 2. NOC Monitored customers we will use a diverse FR PVC this gives IP access to all the routers from behind layers of firewalls/secureid. We also use a Async link from our remote router to at least one Core routers console/aux. This is very useful for spotting things like power problems and crashed routers. All these sites will also include option 1 as the NOC team does *not* have direct IP access only telnet for SW upgrades a senior NOC manager has to be involved. 3. IPSec Tunnels , this is a new thing for us and its only starting to emerge and it is nearly always backed bu option 1. 4. Async modems attached to console/AUX ports this is managed in the same way as option 1. This is only used when ISDN is not an option for example for manage a lot of kit in remote telecoms shelves which do not support ISDN. 5. For the telecoms side we mostly depend on the inband signalling and some core SDH/ATM sites will have outofband using a combination of the above. In fact the last time I asked I was told they run X.25 pad,IP over X.25,IP over D channel,LAPD over timeslots,Async IP tunelling, CLNS over just about everything and 600 modems. The biggest problem by far is managing past your outofband port. I dont know how many customers are running 10.x.x.x so polling for stats using Openview became such a pain. We came up with another solution ;-). Regards, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: 05 November 2001 21:48 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: out-of-band network experiences On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Michael Chang wrote: > I would appreciate if you could share your experiences of settting up > out-of-band management networks especially large # 50 - 100+ sites. > Appreciate your experiences on the follwing and any other: Most providers rely on dialup async terminal/console port access as their out-of-band management network. It is generally a terminal server connected to the equipment console ports, with a dialup modem for external access. A few (very few) providers have a dedicated out-of-band management network. Generally a frame-relay circuit to a management hub/router connected to the async terminal server and low-speed (10 meg) ethernet port on some routers. One problem with high-end routers, it is either expensive (lost opportunity cost) or impossible to connect low-speed circuits to high-end routers. Non-facility based providers often purchase their out-of-band circuits from a different provider than their primary circuits. AT&T is a popular supplier for out-of-band management networks. AT&T may not be price/competitive for high-bandwidth circuits, but for 64k/128k frame-relay management links, it may make sense. Carrier/facility based providers tend to use their own facilities. Yep, facility based providers have cut their own facilities in the past, including one provider which took their own NOC off-line for most of a day.

1 0

Getting back to normal: Hurricane Michelle
by Sean Donelan 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

First, as always, the important information 5 people died in Cuba during Hurricane Michelle. Electric and telephone lines are still down in the western part of the island. Electric power was turned off by authorities before the storm. International telephone service has been restored, but reaching people in Cuba is still spotty. Internet service appears to be fuctional, but determining the true physical location of a host is always a guess. Hurricane Michelle missed most of South Florida and is moving away from the Bahamas.

1 0

RE: Confidential outage Saturday October 20 2001
by Sean Donelan 05 Nov '01

05 Nov '01

> So, did any customers of the unknown carrier notice an outage? > As several people pointed out, there was also an earlier confidential outage report on August 2 2001. The FCC website has been updated, and the previously "hidden" carrier name for both confidential outages appears to be Sprint. But the reports are still confidential. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Filings/Network_Outage/20… http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Filings/Network_Outage/20… Customers noticed several minor outages on October 20. But I couldn't figure out why Sprint would require confidential treatment for any of them. The confidential report back in August seems to indicate whatever the reason for confidentiality, it has nothing to do with post-September 11 environment.

1 0

RE: IP allocations...
by Borchers, Mark 05 Nov '01

05 Nov '01

My understanding of Rich's words "subdelegating internally" would be delegations for corporate lans, pop devices, dialup pools, and so forth, rather than customer assignments. Depending on which he meant, the two roles are very different. Having said that, we are migrating to QIP for everything. :-) > At 12:45 AM +0000 4/11/01, Joshua Goodall wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 07:24:29AM -0500, Rich Sena wrote: > > > >> What is everyone using for subdelegating IPv4 space > internally - looking > >> for an *ease of use* tool - something that would require > low maintenance > > > and can be delegated to entry-level NOC staff... > > > >I would be cautious about handing your address-space management to > >entry-level staff. It is more than a trivial bookkeeping function. > >Institute an auditing/sanity-check process. > > > I agree. It is not all that difficult to build such a system but > making sure the people using it properly understand what information > they need from the customer to ensure that the assignment is properly > justified is another matter. I don't think this is a task for entry > level NOC staff where churn might be high and understanding low. They > are probably also not that good at telling the customer no, they are > more interested in the customer going away (happy). > > Mark. > -- >

2 1

keyboard trays
by David Lesher 05 Nov '01

05 Nov '01

OK, facility builders.... Who makes rackmount keyboard trays/shelfs/whatever you call 'em. Not the ordinary slide out ones; but "scissor-jack" kind that you can swing out and change the height of.... Failing that, ones that don't height-adjust but not those sliding straight out. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

internet railroad (was Re: NY ranks #1 in Internet b/w)
by Lisa Lorenzin 05 Nov '01

05 Nov '01

randy wrote: > and we should not forget carl malamud's ds3 around the world in the > mid-90s. it was called park.org. not sure where to find info about > it on the net today. check out http://park.org/Cdrom/TheNot/Mail/NotRR/index.html for a few of the messages between the setup crew... neat stuff. :) lisa -- lisa lorenzin | lorenzin(a)1000plus.com | http://www.1000plus.com/lisa/ # find / -user your -name base -print | xargs chown us

1 0

NY ranks #1 in Internet b/w
by Hank Nussbacher 05 Nov '01

05 Nov '01

Perhaps Sept 11 was no coincidence and perhaps they knew of these numbers as well. -Hank http://www.totaltele.com/view.asp?ArticleID=45236&pub=tt&categoryid=626 New York is the Internet capital - TeleGeography By Total Telecom staff 30 October 2001 New York is the world's Internet capital in terms of bandwidth connectivity, according to Washington DC-based research group TeleGeography Inc. With almost 150 Gbps of region-to-region bandwidth connectivity, the Big Apple is hooked up to more than two-thirds of all interregional Internet capacity worldwide. London comes a long way second, with just over 85 Gbps. According to the TeleGeography report, Packet Geography 2002, New York has direct connections into 71 other countries, 10 more than London. The report ranks global Internet cities according to their roles as "interregional hub cities," measuring how much Internet capacity links them to other world regions. After NY and London, Amsterdam, Paris, and San Francisco complete the Internet global city top five. In all, five of the top 10 cities are in the U.S., four are in Europe, and one, Tokyo, is in Asia. Although Europe and Asia each have major hub locations, most Internet traffic between Asia and Europe still traverses U.S. coast-to-coast routes. Indeed, according to the report, 13 of the top 25 companies providing international Internet connections in the U.S. are based outside of North America. The Top 10 in full is: 1. New York (149,989.5 Mbps of Internet bandwidth) 2. London (85,518.7 Mbps) 3. Amsterdam (24,479.6 Mbps) 4. Paris (22,551.8 Mbps) 5. San Francisco (20,813.6 Mbps) 6. Tokyo (16,745.5 Mbps) 7. Washington DC (13,261.2 Mbps) 8. Miami (11,912.4 Mbps) 9. Los Angeles (11,227.0 Mbps) 10. Copenhagen (10,417.0 Mbps) Note: Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across international borders to Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas or equivalents. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2001. This report can be purchased through Total Telecom's 'Reports and Research' resource. Click here for more details.

19 26

Re: NY ranks #1 in Internet b/w
by Alex Rubenstein 04 Nov '01

04 Nov '01

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > 90,000 / 186,000 miles/sec = 483 milliseconds, which, or course, due to > > I'm afraid you're right. 240 ms is firmly burned into my mind, but this is > the ONE WAY delay. You said: > > > Over 300 ms for less than 10000 km (6000 miles) is not great. Even a good > > > satellite should be able to provide better round trip times... "round trip times" > > But, to make my point, Geosync orbit could never, ever be less than 483 > > milliseconds, ever. > > Well, actually there is a caveat: the distance to the satellite is never > exactly 22500 miles. Depending on whether the orbit is measured from the > surface of the earth (which is obviously the case for regular > non-geosynchronous satellites) or the center of the earth (which I think > is done with the 22500 mi figure) the satellite is either farther away or > closer, depending on the location of the observer and the orbit of the > satellite. The difference is substantial: up to 4000 miles. Negatory. Per my sources, geosync is 22,500 miles from mean sea level, or somehwat synonymously, from the surface of the earth. Agreed, there could be variations if the earth station is in the Alps, but even if it were on Mt. Everest at 29,035 feet (5.499 miles high), that would remove perhaps up to 21.996 miles from the round-trip path (thus assuming both earth stations are on Mt. Everest), which would remove 0.182 milliseconds from the RTT delay. Even with all the above content, this horse has just called me and asked me to stop beating him. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

1 0

Re: NY ranks #1 in Internet b/w
by Alex Rubenstein 04 Nov '01

04 Nov '01

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > 90,000 / 186,000 miles/sec = 483 milliseconds, which, or course, due to > > I'm afraid you're right. 240 ms is firmly burned into my mind, but this is > the ONE WAY delay. You said: > > > Over 300 ms for less than 10000 km (6000 miles) is not great. Even a good > > > satellite should be able to provide better round trip times... "round trip times" > > But, to make my point, Geosync orbit could never, ever be less than 483 > > milliseconds, ever. > > Well, actually there is a caveat: the distance to the satellite is never > exactly 22500 miles. Depending on whether the orbit is measured from the > surface of the earth (which is obviously the case for regular > non-geosynchronous satellites) or the center of the earth (which I think > is done with the 22500 mi figure) the satellite is either farther away or > closer, depending on the location of the observer and the orbit of the > satellite. The difference is substantial: up to 4000 miles. Negatory. Per my sources, geosync is 22,500 miles from mean sea level, or somehwat synonymously, from the surface of the earth. Agreed, there could be variations if the earth station is in the Alps, but even if it were on Mt. Everest at 29,035 feet (5.499 miles high), that would remove perhaps up to 21.996 miles from the round-trip path (thus assuming both earth stations are on Mt. Everest), which would remove 0.182 milliseconds from the RTT delay. Even with all the above content, this horse has just called me and asked me to stop beating him. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

1 0

IP allocations...
by Rich Sena 04 Nov '01

04 Nov '01

What is everyone using for subdelegating IPv4 space internally - looking for an *ease of use* tool - something that would require low maintenance and can be delegated to entry-level NOC staff... Please respond privately... -- Rich Sena - ras(a)thick.net ThickNET Consulting "On the way to understanding; you understand, and forget."

3 2