September 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Qwest Statement (was Re: information on 60 hudson / 140 west st ?)
by Frank Coluccio 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

As to be expected, there continues to be a certain amount [not too much, but enough to be disconcerting] of spin and coyness from some of the service providers, in general, despite the current circumstances demanding of full disclosure. For example, one of AT&T's spokespeople stated last week that there was no impact to AT&T's *Long Distance* Network. Nowhere in the same release, however, did they mention that their main NY City hub for AT&T/LNS (Local Network Services) was covered by rubble. Incidentally, our office in the South Street Seaport district and we are totally o.o.s. We just received power a little while ago from one of the many portable generators that were shipped in by ConEd. But we have no visible means of obtaining status for voice and data comms at this time, and of course, our 'Net services are linked via a West Street subscriber loops, which places us s.o.o.l. As an aside, I'm told that VZ has 'remote-ed,' through the use of fiber-remote nodes, some of their nxx switching entities to Pearl Street and Broad Street, in cases where users had dual-fed loop access in place as a part of their contingency plans for just this type of disaster. -FAC sean(a)donelan.com wrote: > > dan kelley writes: > > right. i think that info is form their site. they > > claim that they're working diligently to install new > > lines to circumvent 140 west. what i haven't heard > > (and couldn't get them to say) is when they think > > they'll have the first coulpe of OC-48s installed. > > I'm not sure why Qwest is being so closed-mouth about > the status of their network. Qwest told Network World > they had no damage to their network. > > http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0917attacks.html > "Qwest Communications and WorldCom say their networks > were not affected by the attacks." > > I'd think it would be remarkable that any major carrier > with service in New York City didn't experience some > impact this week. > > >

1 0

RE: Re[2]: telehouse - 25 broadway
by Hire, Ejay 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

Considering events, it could be: 1. Overloaded. 2. Clogged cooling/venting system. 3. Clogged Water filer -> Not unlikely if the unit sits unused for long periods of time. 4. Valves too tight. Who knew I could put that deisel mechanic knowledge to work again. -----Original Message----- From: David Lesher [mailto:wb8foz@nrk.com] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 3:31 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Re[2]: telehouse - 25 broadway Unnamed Administration sources reported that Sean Donelan said: > > > But I would like to point out, no one regularly runs their > generators for 48+ hours as part of a normal test. In addition, > most standby generators are fitted only for "limited" duration > runs. You should expect problems during any extended run of a > generator plant. I'm a bit surprised that 25 Broadway and > 32 Old Slip are the only ones we've heard about. > > Until I know a bit more about what happened, I can't say > whether any alternative design could have performed better. Hell yes. "Standby service" is a way different set of rating than "24x7"..... (I'm sorry to guess if it still overheats, a blown headgasket or cracked head are real possibilities...) -- 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

An Idea
by Grace, Terry 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

With all of the difficulties piecing together what occurred on the aircraft, a friend and I were throwing around some wild ideas. One that I thought had some merit was to have all instrumentation output, voice and even possibly video (flight deck and cabin) continuosly downlinked to ground stations or uplinked to satellites enroute. Yes, this would be a lot of data even with some type of encoding to reduce the volume and would be very costly to implement sonsidering the computing power alone required to correlate it in realtime, but considering that the information could saves lives, provide early warning to all sorts of troubles, etc, IMHO, worth it. Far fethced idea? Yes. Possible? I don't know. Get to know us http://www.thestar.com - Canada's largest daily newspaper online http://www.toronto.com - All you need to know about T.O. http://www.workopolis.com - Canada's biggest job site http://www.torontostartv.com - Webcasting & Production http://www.newinhomes.com - Ontario's Largest New Home & Condo Website http://www.waymoresports.com - Canada's most comprehensive sports site

4 4

American Flag Desktop
by Dennis Hartmann 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

Does anyone have a good American Flag graphic that can be used for a desktop? Something 1024x768 or bigger would be great. Thanks. Sincerely, Dennis J. Hartmann White Pine Consulting Global Knowledge-MPLS Course Director http://www.globalknowledge.com/training/course.asp?PageID=9&courseid=1571 dennisjhartmann(a)hotmail.com AOL IM: dennisjhartmann

6 5

Correction: 25 broadway and Abovenet equipment
by Sean Donelan 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

I'm not a customer of Telehouse, so I don't receive their customer notification bulletins directly. I rely on other peopel to pass along the information. Several folks have forwarded Telehouse updates to me, the ConEd generator was refueled yesterday and has been running since then. Work continues to fix the original generator. My error was due to my misunderstanding a note from Abovenet. Abovenet is just referring to their own equipment housed in Telehouse, which is still down. Once again the rest of 25 Broadway came back up yesterday. http://west-boot.mfnx.net/traffic/issues.txt

5 4

25 Broadway...
by Keith Woodworth 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

ok as I dont know but who/what is housed in 25 broadway in regards to equipment? If it goes down how serious an affect will it be?

14 16

Qwest Statement (was Re: information on 60 hudson / 140 west st ?)
by Sean Donelan 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

dan kelley writes: > right. i think that info is form their site. they > claim that they're working diligently to install new > lines to circumvent 140 west. what i haven't heard > (and couldn't get them to say) is when they think > they'll have the first coulpe of OC-48s installed. I'm not sure why Qwest is being so closed-mouth about the status of their network. Qwest told Network World they had no damage to their network. http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0917attacks.html "Qwest Communications and WorldCom say their networks were not affected by the attacks." I'd think it would be remarkable that any major carrier with service in New York City didn't experience some impact this week.

1 0

Re: More history (on meaning of Pearl Harbor) [OT]
by Dean Robb 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

At 03:09 AM 9/15/2001, Vadim Antonov wrote: >If whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn >hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American >involvement at all. The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was >Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all >fronts. Most Eastern Front action (although the 15th Air Force was helpful to the Russians with air support and Lend-Lease provided a great deal of Russian logistic vehicles), true. However, the North African campaign (Operation Torch, et al) and the Italian campaigns were conducted primarily by Americans. Of course, while the Normandy invasion and advance eastward were multi-national operations, the USA provided the vast majority of materiel, manpower, etc. Stalingrad is widely regarded as the turning point for Germany's *Russian* campaign. >US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from >occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany. It was >already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin). One wonders why Iosef Stalin was then so adamant that the other Allies MUST open a second front in France to sap German resources away from the Eastern Front? I must point out, too, that GEN Patton was poised to take Berlin well before the Russians arrived - but the political decision was made to allow the Red Army to take the city. > >From the point of view of saving Europe from communism it was a brilliant >move - wait for both sides to become exhausted before getting in. By that >time the Red Army had no resources to fight both desperate Nazi and Allied >Forces (Japanese were no threat at all to USSR because it was protected >by huge very sparsely inhabited landmass, so they could be safely >ignored for a while), and this is how the modern political map of Europe >came to be. I might point out that the Americans (and allies) had been fighting Germans in North Africa and Italy for quite some time - not "waiting to get in". Furthermore, to say that Russia was not concerned with Japan is a gross mis-statement. From 1938-1940 Russia and Japan fought a series of skirmishes and minor battles along the Mongolian border with Manchuria (then the Japanese province of Manchuko, captured from the Chinese). The Japanese incursions into Russian territory were troubling enough to Iosef Stalin that he sent Zhukov (THE Zhukov) to stop them. On Aug 20,1939 he did just that - wiping out the entire Japanese 23d Div of the Kwantung Army at the Battle of Khalkin-Gol in the world's first example of blitzkrieg (learned from the Germans who used it in Poland 33 days later). After destroying the Japanese forces all the way to the interior Manchurian border, Zhokov then loaded his tanks onto trains for a quick trip east. Waiting for Zhukov and his armor is why the Russians were two weeks behind the Germans in taking their chunk of Poland. Several divisions of men were left on the Mongolian border to ensure the sanctity of the Non-Aggression Pact signed on 16 Sep 1939. After the Japanese took Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, and wiped out the Russian Pacific Fleet, Russia *NEVER* took Japan lightly. In fact, modern Red China exists because of heavy Russian support to the People's Army in their fight against the Japanese; support intended to keep the Japanese from being a major threat to Russia. Russia didn't even declare war on the Japanese until 8 Aug 1945 - 2 days AFTER Hiroshima and the day before Nagasaki were A-bombed. >Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make >it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism. It didn't. My history books included all kinds of small details - like the 15th Air Force flying ground support missions from North Africa and Sicily to assist the Red Army. Like Lend-Lease which provided Russia with most of it's logistic vehicles and a significant number of tanks - not to mention war materiel. >To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see > > http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm ?? This does nothing to support your contentions... >And if you ever wondered why America dropped A-bomb on Japan - it was to >prevent imminent occupation of Japan by the Red Army. After Germany >capitulated the Soviet armies were quickly shipped eastward, and were >quickly advancing (this you can also see on the world political map, >especially if you compare pre-war and post-war boundaries). The only way >to prevent People's Republic of Japan was to scare s*t out of Japanese to >force them to capitulate to Americans. Again, note that Russia didn't declare war on Japan until 8 Aug 1945 - 6 days before Japan surrendered. Although Russia *DID* invade Manchuria after declaring war, the Japanese had already abandoned it. Furthermore, the Russians had NO naval capacity and no landing craft - were they going to swim to Tokyo from Mongolia? With the US on the Japanese doorstep? >The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference >from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth. What US >involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis. I think that the NDSP, Vichy French and Italian Fascisti would find fault with that statement. >No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet >Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler. Stalin was always suspicious of the other allies. The enemity of the US/USSR is a far larger issue than this. >Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel >they teach you as "history". "Fascist powers were doomed" because of >Pearl Harbor, sure. Until you check the figures and actually think for a >second or two. Sorry, "fellow American" - your viewpoint of history shows a strong disregard for the facts and figures - as well as a lack of thought. >PS If you want to know how _that_ is related to Sep 11, you may be > interested to know that Chechens were collaborating with Nazi; > which prompted Stalin to retaliate after the war with mass > deportations. They were allowed to return decade or so later, > having no love for Russians and the Allies in WWII. That's how > their militant leaders became natural allies with Middle-Eastern > terrorists, including (surprise) bin Laden. Somehow, the connection between Chechens not liking the US and the argument that the US was a minor player in WWII escapes me... Further discourse can be off-list - but I could not let this public gross mis-representation of history stand. Dean Robb www.PC-Easy-va.com On-site computer services Member, ICANN At Large

3 2

Re: Emergency Alert System TEST - This is only a TEST
by Sean Donelan 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

Marshall Eubanks writes: > Do you know if they are interested in webcasters and > other Internet news / entertainment services ? I made some inquiries in 1998, and found the people I contacted were emphatically *NOT* interested in using the Internet. It is hard to emphasis how much they were not interested. I started developing a protocol for using the Internet to deliver emergency alerts to people who were using their computer, but weren't watching the television or listening to the radio. http://dranet.dra.com/nerf.html Instead, every conversation seemed to turn into an inquisition about how I knew what I knew about the existing system. That was about the time I stopped working on it. The government people got too weird for me.

1 0

Re: Interactive map of WTC area
by Marshall Eubanks 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

> >http://www.wired.com/news/reuters/photos/images/nys14_2pm_reuters.swf > >-Hank What software does this need ? It fills my screen with junk. > > Marshall Eubanks tme(a)21rst-century.com

5 4