August 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: wanted: wireless magic tricks
by Irwin Lazar 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

If you've got line of site you can look at the FSO-based solutions from companies such as Terabeam - www.terabeam.com Irwin ------ Irwin Lazar, Senior Consultant The Burton Group - www.tbg.com ilazar(a)tbg.com 703-742-9659 (office) 703-402-4119 (cell) "Driving Network Evolution" > -----Original Message----- > From: Cerqua, Toby [mailto:toby@platinumsystems.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:02 PM > To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Subject: wanted: wireless magic tricks > > > > hey all, > > we've got a client that wants some crazy stuff, and i need either > suggestions or confirmation that this is impossible/too expensive. > > client needs 45Mbps pushed over 20 miles... and he wants it > wireless. the > kicker is that they don't want a T3 because it is "too > expensive" and it > would take too long to get installed. it doesn't need to be > constant, but he > wants to move of 2.5GB within 45 minutes. this is in the > chicago area, if > that helps any. so, i don't know, satellite? > > - toby > ----------------------------------------------- > t(a)platinumsystems.net > http://www.platinumsystems.net >

1 0

RE: wanted: wireless magic tricks (fwd)
by Robert Mathews-ICICX 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

Toby: This was sent to me just a moment ago.. I am posting it for the sender -- to your benefit. Best. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:03:37 -1000 From: "LeBlanc, Jason" <Jml(a)ebay.com> To: 'Robert Mathews-ICICX' <mathews(a)CSATI.EDU> Subject: RE: wanted: wireless magic tricks (fwd) I can't post, but can you send this in: http://www.wmux.com/products/leasing.html Might be a good option.

1 0

Re: wanted: wireless magic tricks (fwd)
by Robert Mathews-ICICX 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Cerqua, Toby wrote: > hey all, > > we've got a client that wants some crazy stuff, and i need either > suggestions or confirmation that this is impossible/too expensive. > > client needs 45Mbps pushed over 20 miles... and he wants it wireless. the > kicker is that they don't want a T3 because it is "too expensive" and it > would take too long to get installed. it doesn't need to be constant, but he > wants to move of 2.5GB within 45 minutes. this is in the chicago area, if > that helps any. so, i don't know, satellite? > > - toby Toby: Quick and dirty answer... if they cannot stand the cost of a DS3, it is worth considering that satellite costs might not be 'that much' cheaper... of course, price point, serivce vendor investigations permitting. But, something to think about is line of sight Microwave.. you could potentially push the requisite sum of bits across such a link if you use a good Tx-Rx frequency and is weather (rain etc.) is not a large consideration. Here too you have to consider: is TERM/length of service need with the overall COST... frequency spectrum allocation and management issues in the area etc. But, as you suggest -- if your intent is to convince the client that this is not doable (impossible/too expensive as you put it), I am sure you can find enough reasons! :) Best.

1 0

RE: wanted: wireless magic tricks
by Roeland Meyer 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

|> From: Cerqua, Toby [mailto:toby@platinumsystems.net] |> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:02 AM |> |> hey all, |> |> we've got a client that wants some crazy stuff, and i need either |> suggestions or confirmation that this is impossible/too expensive. |> |> client needs 45Mbps pushed over 20 miles... and he wants it |> wireless. the |> kicker is that they don't want a T3 because it is "too |> expensive" and it |> would take too long to get installed. it doesn't need to be |> constant, but he |> wants to move of 2.5GB within 45 minutes. this is in the |> chicago area, if |> that helps any. so, i don't know, satellite? The expense part is arguable, but they may be correct about the lead-time. I'm seeing more than 6 months for provisioning here, for T3s. I hear similar numbers everywhere else. However, microwave towers take almost as long, and are even MORE expensive (the permits alone, might take that long and *then* you have to acquire the rights-of-way and build the towers<sigh>). Depending on frequency of occurance, it might be far cheaper to burn a DAT tape, or DVD-R, and drive it the 20 miles. You might want to consider doing this until the T3 gets installed. It all depends on what the transfer is worth (it looks like a data synchronization run). If is is a data-sync run then they might want to consider a lower-speed line and sync RDBMSs, such as with Oracle Replication Services (Assuming that it *is* RDBMS data and they *are* using Oracle [Sybase works too]). The bottom-line is that, they look like they have a systems architecture problem that they are trying to fix with a claw-hammer. Everything is possible. It is just that certain versions of "possible" cost more than others.

1 0

Re: wanted: wireless magic tricks
by BRA-SAO-Pucci,Persio 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

ps: it's not a U-Haul delay, but certainly 400ms + ;) Persio Pucci Analista Internetworking - Sao Paulo Impsat Comunicacoes Ltda. Tel: (55-11) 3444-6205 Fax: (55-11) 3444-6351 email: ppucci(a)impsat.net.br ----- Original Message ----- From: "BRA-SAO-Pucci,Persio" <ppucci(a)impsat.net.br> To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:21 PM Subject: Re: wanted: wireless magic tricks > Sattelite would do it. We had a 45Mb on a HSSI interface here and uesd to > work great, using a 9m diameter antenna. Now, the only thing would be the > cost for that... > > Persio Pucci > Analista Internetworking - Sao Paulo > > Impsat Comunicacoes Ltda. > Tel: (55-11) 3444-6205 > Fax: (55-11) 3444-6351 > email: ppucci(a)impsat.net.br > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Young, Jason" <Jason.Young(a)anheuser-busch.com> > To: "'Cerqua, Toby'" <toby(a)platinumsystems.net>; <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:13 PM > Subject: RE: wanted: wireless magic tricks > > > > > > > > cheap/fast/good. Pick two. > > > > I don't know that you can get that kind of speed from satellite. If you > could > > get that kind of range from point-to-point wireless at that speed, you'd > > certainly need a good line of sight. Do you have that? > > > > You should see if this data is reasonably compressible. Maybe your > bandwidth > > needs aren't as bad as you think. > > > > Jason Young > > CNS - Network Design, Anheuser-Busch > > (314)577-4597 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Cerqua, Toby [mailto:toby@platinumsystems.net] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:02 AM > > > To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > > > Subject: wanted: wireless magic tricks > > > > > > > > > > > > hey all, > > > > > > we've got a client that wants some crazy stuff, and i need either > > > suggestions or confirmation that this is impossible/too expensive. > > > > > > client needs 45Mbps pushed over 20 miles... and he wants it > > > wireless. the > > > kicker is that they don't want a T3 because it is "too > > > expensive" and it > > > would take too long to get installed. it doesn't need to be > > > constant, but he > > > wants to move of 2.5GB within 45 minutes. this is in the > > > chicago area, if > > > that helps any. so, i don't know, satellite? > > > > > > - toby > > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > t(a)platinumsystems.net > > > http://www.platinumsystems.net > > > > > >

1 0

www.icann.org changed IP address to a reserved block?
by Dani Roisman 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

I just recently noticed that we cannot get to www.icann.org. Granted, it's been a few weeks since I last tried. I'm seeing: www.icann.org has address 192.0.34.65, but have been filtering 192.0.0.0/16 le 32 from BGP updates for the longest time. ARIN shows: (RESERVED-2) RESERVED-192 192.0.0.0 - 192.0.255.255 ICANN c/o Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (NET-ICANN) ICANN 192.0.32.0 - 192.0.47.255 I thought RESERVED meant not in use on the public Internet? I guess in the mean time, I'm gonna drop the 192.0.0.0/16 le 32 filter. - Dani

3 3

Re: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting
by Johnny Eriksson 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

J.A. Terranson wrote: > The SPAM problem goes up and down to be sure, but you know what? PROCMAIL > is your friend. All you need to look for are the basics (ADV, Make Money, > etc) and you can instatly filter 90 percent of this trash into the > bitbucket. Oh, so it is OK to filter incoming mail if it contains ADV in the Subject: line? Why, then, is it not OK to filter on a list of IP addresses? --Johnny

7 9

CCNP Switching
by Andy Grosser 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

A little off-topic... Has anyone on the list recently taken the Cisco CCNP Switching 2.0 (640-504) exam? I'm taking it very soon and I'd like to get an idea of what to expect. I hear it's quite different from Switching 1.0. Please reply off-list to keep spam to a minimum. Thanks in advance, Andy

2 1

granitecanyon.com network unreachable?
by Bob K 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

The network that ns1.granitecanyon.com is on appears to be down; traceroutes die at ge-1-2-0.a01.enwdco01.us.ra.verio.net (129.250.26.147) . Anyone know what's going on with that? -- Bob <melange(a)yip.org> | Yes. I know. That is, indeed, *not* mayonnaise.

6 8

Net-block issues
by Roeland Meyer 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

In this text, I typo'd a cost issue; Net-block cost $1US/month/IP-address. A /24 will cost $256/month, minimum. |> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr] |> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:58 AM |> The rivers of comments has been sent out about domain |> names, there is a dangereous silence about IP numbers. It is with wry amusement that I have been following the MAPs debate, on NANOG, recently. Then you make this comment, it couldn't dove-tail more beautifully. Those that do not know what MAPs is, please review http://www.mail-abuse.org/. The fundimental function is to create blacklists used for various filtering of IP blocks. While this sounds innocuous on its face, MAPS has recently announced intention of charging for their service, in order to raise money for legal fees (they are under legal attack). Until now, Paul Vixie has been the main funder of MAPs. The problem is that MAPS was distributing the lists and there were many local copies, within places like EarthLink and AOL. As long as those copies are maintained by MAPS, this is not a serious problem. They have an efficient and timely distribution mechanism. The result of an net-block being listed in MAPS is that entire chunks of the Internet cannot reach that net-block. This is done at the provider level. The effects are global in that they over-ride ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC. The problem arises when there are stale entries in the black-list. In fact, the danger has always been, the issue of stale entries. The effect, given MAPS market-share, is that a net-block can be issued, to a new business, that may be perfectly useless and neither the ISP or the business knows about it until it is too late. I might point out that a similar problem can occur with DNs, so it is not entirely an PSO issue. There are now stale entries, in abundance, because many providers are still evaluating the new cost issues. Meanwhile, they have disconnected from the distro system and aren't having their black-lists updated. Ergo, they have stale entries. What this, in effect, does is to over-ride various registry policies. Names and net-blocks that are issued may not, in fact, be issued. Names are not a serious cost issue and they can, with some logistical difficulty, be re-issued. However, net-blocks cost over $1US/month (at the ISP level), or $2500/year from ARIN (the US registry), and they are not all that plentiful. The fundimental process disconnect here is that, IMHO, the various registries should be performing the MAPS function as part of their policy enforcement mechanism. This is not written into any of the registrar/registry agreements. If anything argues for a centralised systems approach, the MAPS functionality does. IMHO, this makes it an ICANN issue. Yes, this also politicizes it somewhat. No, some NANOG denizens won't like it and that is guaranteed. -- R O E L A N D M J M E Y E R Managing Director Morgan Hill Software Company t:01 925 373 3954 c:01 925 352 3615 f:01 925 373 9781

3 2