June 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
by Steven M. Bellovin 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

In message <200206061624.40230.dani(a)intelideas.com>, Daniel Concepcion writes: > >Yes Neil, > >It should be interesting to know the 'official' requirements/recommendations >for ccTLD's hosting >For example: diversity geographical, network needs, security needs, building >environment., etc > I don't know of any official requirements. But RFCs 2182 and 2870 offer good guidance. (Some of 2870 is root zone-specific, but most of it would apply to a ccTLD server.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

8 13

RE: Portable Fire Suppression
by Schleifer, Mark 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ] Greetings; ] ] I would like to protect an unattended server enclosure in a remote ] location with some variety of fire suppression device. I ] imagine that ] some enterprising soul has invented a fire extinguisher with a nozzle ] that opens at a preset temperature (i.e. exploding head). Depending on the area you want to cover, you may be able to use marine units (designed for boat engine compartments). KIDDE makes units that use FM200 or FE-241 starting at about $200 for 75 cubic feet and go up to 1100 cf. I found prices, etc at http://www.westmarine.com/ Good luck, - Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8 iQA/AwUBPQEBu+ze6cudrhHZEQJIagCbB/SJO5McZm6lT/hNIBlgnG8jp2UAn2Jh XRrGKNAUMNJp9f7sambDVYO2 =8lph -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Portable Fire Suppression
by Christopher J. Wolff 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

>From the first few responses I believe some clarification is in order...This specific 'unattended server enclosure' is sitting outside in the middle of the desert. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO Broadband Laboratories http://www.bblabs.com Greetings; I would like to protect an unattended server enclosure in a remote location with some variety of fire suppression device. I imagine that some enterprising soul has invented a fire extinguisher with a nozzle that opens at a preset temperature (i.e. exploding head). Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO Broadband Laboratories http://www.bblabs.com

2 1

RE: Portable Fire Suppression
by Cheung, Rick 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

Well, aren't fire extinguishers supposed to explode anyway upon high temperature? Rick Cheung NPI IT Wan Team, CCNP -----Original Message----- From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:chris@bblabs.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:00 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Portable Fire Suppression Greetings; I would like to protect an unattended server enclosure in a remote location with some variety of fire suppression device. I imagine that some enterprising soul has invented a fire extinguisher with a nozzle that opens at a preset temperature (i.e. exploding head). Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO Broadband Laboratories http://www.bblabs.com

1 0

Portable Fire Suppression
by Christopher J. Wolff 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

Greetings; I would like to protect an unattended server enclosure in a remote location with some variety of fire suppression device. I imagine that some enterprising soul has invented a fire extinguisher with a nozzle that opens at a preset temperature (i.e. exploding head). Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO Broadband Laboratories http://www.bblabs.com

1 0

Re: Bogon list
by Daniel Senie 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

At 05:26 AM 6/7/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote: > > > > > In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said: > > > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around > > > even more information is backwards. It should carry less. > > > If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses > > > and choose one of the approaches above to deal with questions > > > about why 1918 addresses result in "messy traceroutes." > > > > > > Fewer routes, less address consumption, tastes great, less filling. > > > > > > Sean. > > > > Do you: > > 1) Not believe in PMTU-D > >RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho.. Though many people either miss the point or don't care, RFC 1918 is also BCP 5. Last I checked, BCP stood for "Best Current Practice." So you've got a BCP document saying the addresses listed in RFC 1918 should not be present on the public network. So yes, filtering is required by RFC 1918, and so use of the private IP address blocks does break Path MTU discovery. Some folks find the private address space specified in RFC 1918 convenient, but ignore the stipulations on use contained in the same document. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts(a)senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com

2 1

Cisco quality
by Ralph Doncaster 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

For those saying Cisco is so great, it's still fucked up pretty bad. IOS 12.1 and later doesn't allow an MTU > 1460 on L2TP, while 12.0.7(T) works fine with a 1492 MTU that my PPPoE customers expect. Every rev I've tried from 12.0 and up has problems with CEF when using ISL VLAN sub-interfaces, and without CEF, mac-accounting is screwed up. Now if they charged 1/5th of what they do, I'd say you're getting reasonable value for your dollar... Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc.

8 7

NAS filed chp 11
by Christopher X. Candreva 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/020605/200206051047000419_1.html ========================================================== Chris Candreva -- chris(a)westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/

7 6

LINX-accredited certs
by Andy Harding 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

at the risk of re-igniting the formal- vs. cert-educated thread, I wonder whether anyone has seen the new (to me at least) LINX-accredited certs? http://www.linx.org/training/index.thtml http://www.s-nt.co.uk/ looks (to me) like an interesting concept - ie ISP-industry-oriented rather than vendor-specific - although I'm not sure it would get offered outside the UK it may be vendor-independant, but I'd put good money on the lab kit being vendor-c 2500s ;-) -andy

4 3

Re: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
by Arnold Nipper 07 Jun '02

07 Jun '02

Hallo Sabine, lange nichts gehoert ... On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:51:11AM +0200, Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote: > > > > At least each IXP member would have direct connectivity to such > > infrastructural services (DNS, NTP, WHOIS, NNTP??) and thereby their > > customers would benefit from it. > > I agree that IXPs would be very gould locations as they offer network > diversity, but there is one question still open and that is who will be the > one running the and monitoring the server. And we at DENIC have seen in the > last years an increasing demand in running the servics by ourself as only > then we have the complete control and information about statistics, network > attacks, performance ... > Keep it simple ... the IXPs (e.g. Euro-IX) could/should provide the basis. I.e. taking care for excellent colo, sufficient connectivity, one-stop-shop etc. Interested parties would install the services by themselves and would be responsible to run them. Parties could be CENTR, DE-NIC, ICANN, EUxxx and so on. I would like to know more about the CENTR sss iniative. Whom should I contact? Arnold -- Arnold Nipper Email: arnold.nipper(a)de-cix.net DE-CIX, The German Internet Exchange Mobile: +49 172 2650958

1 0