October 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Heads up, and tell the banana eaters...
by Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Another flare headed our way... Event #49 - 28 October 2003 Issued: 16:30 UTC, 28 October 2003 SOURCE EVENT Class X17.2 Flare in Region 486 at 11:10 UTC on 28 October 2003 Type II: 1250 km/sec Estimated LASCO-derived Plane of Sky Velocity: 2125 km/sec ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL OF SHOCK AT EARTH Estimated Impact Window: 00:00 UTC on 29 October to 21:00 UTC on 29 October Preferred Predicted Impact Time: 08:00 UTC, 29 October 2003 (3 am EST on 29 October) Estimated Shock Strength (0=Weakest, 9=Strongest): 9 Predicted Behavior of IMF at Shock Impact At Shock Impact, the Interplanetary Magnetic Field is predicted to initially turn: SOUTHWARD IMPORTANT TIME OF ARRIVAL NOTICE FOR NORTH AMERICANS The preferred time of arrival is ***TONIGHT***, TUESDAY NIGHT (before you go to bed that night) near or after 3 am Eastern Standard Time). That's 2 am Central Standard Time on TONIGHT. That's 1 am Mountain Standard Time on TONIGHT. That's MIDNIGHT Pacific Standard Time on TONIGHT. EXPECT RESIDUAL ACTIVITY (LESS INTENSE) TOMMORROW NIGHT (WEDNESDAY, 29 OCT) AS WELL ! EVENT #49 NOTES: This is the most energetic Earthward-directed event of the solar cycle. SEVERE to MAJOR geomagnetic storming is expected to abruptly commence following the arrival of the shock front from this flare. This flare was associated with a Ground-Level Event. It was also associated with very high energy protons at greater than 100 MeV (which are still climbing, over 5 hours after the event began). A magnetic crochet was observed over the daylit sections of the ionosphere. An exceptionally intense shortwave fadeout and polar cap absorption event are in progress. There are reports this event was observed in white-light. Intense radio bursts were associated with this event across the spectrum. The type II shock velocity is not representative of the observed velocity of this CME. The observed velocity as determined by SOHO was 2125 km/sec. This event has the potential to produce the strongest geomagnetic storm since 1989. Auroral activity could become visible into the deep low latitude regions. This one is worth driving a good long distance over to find clear skies. It has better potential to produce low-latitude aurora than almost any other event observed in the past decade. Keep in mind that it is also possible the disturbance may not be nearly as geoeffective as many would like. It all depends on the character of the magnetic fields imbedded within the coronal mass ejection. However, we believe it will either be very large, or only modestly large in terms of its capacity to produce disturbed geomagnetic and auroral activity. We do not expect this disturbance to be small. These predictions may be based on preliminary data and may be revised without warning. The predictions should not be used as a definitive indication of CME impact times or strengths and may frequently be in error. The proprietary methods used to estimate shock impact times are under continual development. Caution is advised.

1 0

RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Kuhtz, Christian 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

> >> Does anybody honestly think companies will commit the > capex needed to > >> implement IPv6? > > > William Leibzon wrote: > > Not without additional benefits. > > I agree, and they're all gone now. To my deepest regrets, > IPv6 has become nothing more than IPv4 with more bits (it's > actually worse than IPv4 as of today). Excuse my rambling and what some may consider heresy even :), but.. One question to ask is whether IPv6's approach is the right one, furthering a particular way of doing things rather than really reinventing itself. Do I really need global awareness of address space? Why isn't address space a tool, services is what you're really after, and why not build an infrastructure centered around context of a service rather than reachability of an address? If we're going thru all this trouble in providing support for it, why not make it a more revolutionary approach? Is it really realistic to have some of the features in IPv6 employed in the way they are designed? The debate around NAT in IPv6 circles clearly show that there's an (more or less) academic desire to expose every address on the planet to every other. Is that truly required by way of the way IPv4/v6 work today? There are very convincing arguments to be made to say that this isn't desirable and that I don't particularly want everybody to get to every address (and once you accept that unrestricted, 100% reachability of every globally assigned address is unrealistic, many of the arguments behind the need for vast address space go away..). I really don't necessarily care what somebody's address is, if or if not it gets translated, as long as reachability exists.. So, as long as I can make the service work, what does it matter? Per hop architectures do seem to work nicely. The addressing allocation debate and that we to this date do not have a fully functional and working 'multihoming address space to multiple providers' approach that matches reality is another problem to be solved. And notions that try to explain the need for multihoming away rather than admitting that strictly hierarchical address space may be a dead end path and that a new solution is needed, are disturbing to me. Both of the last points are real issues, IMHO, not just rambling. And, no, I don't have a solution to instantiate right now and here, but I do have some ideas as to what I would or would not like to see included in a solution. I'm not saying IPv6 is dead, but I think a leap, rather than an incremental improvement may be needed. Unless somebody actually does come up with an IPv6 killer app... My $.02, Christian ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.61"

2 1

Summary: EU and AP colo
by just me 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Many thanks to the dozens of folks who took time to offer me advice on coloing in the Asia-Pacific and EU. I've had recommendations to look at the following providers: hong kong: pbase.net, at&t singapore: singtel, at&t korea: kidc japan: jpix Joe and Bill recommeded the PAIX. Not a bad idea from a cost and logistics view, but our focus is on locating a POP to minimize query/response times for clients in that region. UK: telecomplete, merula, telehouse, telecity, redbus, at&t Now, to return you to the end-to-end discussion at hand.. (thanks, Christian..) matto --mghali(a)snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Flowers on the razor wire/I know you're here/We are few/And far between/I was thinking about her skin/Love is a many splintered thing/Don't be afraid now/Just walk on in. #include <disclaim.h>

1 0

RE: NOAA warning for rf communications
by Graham, Darel R. 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Need more info go here http://www.spaceweather.com/ it has a embeded link that explains affects on communications too. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Scott Granados Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:32 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: Roy; Chris Yarnell; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: NOAA warning for rf communications Just to add, it seems that I over extended the hf band the cut off as was correctly pointed out was 30 mhz I believe. And if anything since friday the vhf band seems improved, 2 meters has been quite good. I'd say that I have not noticed any disruption although I've heard tell of disruptions in the gps network I haven't experienced them personally. On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Owen DeLong wrote: > > It means HF in the traditional sense of the word. The cellphone issue > is due to the use of satellite links to many cells. There is no reason > to believe that line of sight (LOS) communications VHF and above are > likely to be impacted by these events as long as they are not depending > on ionospheric propogation. > > HF depends on ionospheric bounce. Satellites depend on the signals > being able to penetrate the ionosphere. Both of these will be > effected. Terrestrial microwave and VHF line of site, 802.11, > 2.4GHz cordless phones and the like do not. > > Owen > KB6MER > > > --On Friday, October 24, 2003 9:31 AM -0700 Scott Granados > <scott(a)wworks.net> wrote: > > > > > Wouldn't 2.4 ghz fall in that range or does hf mean hf in the classical > > sense of something on the scale of 3 to 49 mhz or so. > > > > > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Roy wrote: > > > >> > >> According to the notice > >> > >> "Satellite and other spacecraft operations, power systems, high > >> frequency communications, and navigation systems may experience > >> disruptions over this two-week period." > >> > >> I think you will find that 802.11b and other terrestrial microwave LOS > >> links don't meet any of those criteria and should be unaffected. Some > >> small increase in the noise level may be detected. > >> > >> Chris Yarnell wrote: > >> > >> > my office experienced 802.11b weirdness (sudden bouts of 0% signal for > >> > no apparent reason) earlier this week. i'm fully expecting more > >> > tomorrow. :) > >> > > >> > > >> >> There is a high likelihood that things like 802.11, licensed and > >> >> unlicensed microwave links, and certainly satellite links will sustain > >> >> interference over the next few days. I assume that everyone on the > >> >> list is both aware, and prepared ;-) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >

1 0

Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

> > Yes, because IPv6 is merely and incremental improvement, not a grand > > elegant solution to world hunger like ATM. Look at how we managed the > > incremental step of adding MPLS to our IPv4 networks. It was fairly > > painless because it uses the same boxes, the same people and the same > > management systems. And over time, the pain of doing MPLS is reduced > > because the bugs get worked out. > > Yes, but did MPLS require different ASICs? In some cases, yes. Cisco Catalyst 6500 with Sup2/MSFC2/PFC2 cannot do MPLS by itself, while 6500 with Sup720 can. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings
by Fred Baker 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

At 11:13 AM 10/23/2003, Sean Donelan wrote: >How many other ISPs intend to follow AOL's practice and use their >connection support software to fix the defaults on their customer's >Windows computers? Interesting question from several angles. Here's the flip side. Our corporate IT department likes to magically download software and configuration changes to us without telling us, which occasionally has the effect of having someone in the middle of a presentation to a customer have something pop up and say "I have installed new software on your laptop, because you need it and it is good for you. Click here to reboot." um, ... timing is everything, right? Personally, I don't ask my ISP or my IT department to randomly change the configuration of my computer. I am very happy for them to suggest changes, but *if* I agree, *I* want to install them when it is convenient for *me*, not when it is convenient for *them*. That said, this particular configuration change is an improvement...

1 0

Korea Telecom Contacts?
by just me 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

I'm trying to find some KT contacts. Email to the sales contacts on their web pages are vanishing, and we'd really like to colo. Any contact info would be appreciated. thanx! matto --mghali(a)snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Flowers on the razor wire/I know you're here/We are few/And far between/I was thinking about her skin/Love is a many splintered thing/Don't be afraid now/Just walk on in. #include <disclaim.h>

4 8

SoCal fires
by Andy Grosser 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

First, I hope everyone is doing OK out there. I experienced a good deal of the surreality of CA's complex ecosystem when I lived there a while back, and I know things can be pretty scary. Secondly, anyone have any outage-related news for network traffic in San Diego, San Bernardino, Ventura, Orange, or LA counties? Peace, and water, Andy --- Andy Grosser, CCNP andy(a)meniscus.org ---

5 5

RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Michel Py 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

>> Does anybody honestly think companies will commit the capex >> needed to implement IPv6? > William Leibzon wrote: > Not without additional benefits. I agree, and they're all gone now. To my deepest regrets, IPv6 has become nothing more than IPv4 with more bits (it's actually worse than IPv4 as of today). > We need either applications that are working a lot better at > ipv6 or we may yet have to see ipv4 space ran out before it > becomes clear to everybody that ipv6 is a must. Besides, IPv4 will never run out; as pointed out to me recently, it will simply become more expensive as it becomes rarer, and large and/or wealthy corporation in developed countries will likely always be able to afford it. Note, I'm not saying this is good, all I'm saying is that's just the way it is. Michel.

2 1

RE: ISPs' willingness to take action
by Adam Hall 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

Brian.. I would agree with you that sometimes, you can't offer "filtered pipe" services to everyone and expect the same general acceptance of the product across the board. However, how much liability should a business take-on when abuse@ accounts are filling up daily because hundreds of customers not keeping up with Windows Update? We put in filters our WAN a few months back when everyone was feeling the wraths of the various Windows exploit of the week. Still today, we make no exceptions to this rule. We've even lost a few customers in the process, I'm sure. My issue is that in most cases (minus a few exceptions, of course) service providers are bombarded with complaints from customers that a) don't know how to change the default Exchange ports away from 135/139 or the security risk in broadcasting 135/139 to the world, b) didn't think they should have to worry about it (even as they were broadcasting from infected servers and machines on their network), or c) have a textbook MCSE, crash-course CCNA network administrator/consultant didn't really have an understanding of what was going on or how they should respond to it. Personally, I'm beginning to feel doubt that the technology industry will be able to maintain the level of competence and respect that we all need and deserve to have. I can't imagine what the health care industry would be like if ignorance was embraced as well as it seems to be in the technology industry. -Adam >Problem is, some applications, like Outlook for example (if I remember correctly), like to >use the 135, 137, 139 and others to connect to the Exchange server. You block them, and >it will start to croak. You have a lot of home users not using a VPN to connect to their > office exchange servers. I used to do this myself at times. >When you sell a service to someone, and neglect to mention you block certain incoming >ports, especially to a possible business user or home user trying to access their office, >you put yourself in a really bad position. >> By the way, can anybody explain to me a legitimate use for port >> 135/137 traffic across the Internet, like it's somebody's private LAN? >> Seems to me anybody who still thinks that's legitimate is living in the past. >> So, the big question: why don't ISPs do more of this? Are they afraid >> of client reaction? Doesn't wash, for me: most clients would be >> highly grateful, and all it really takes for the remainder is fair >> warning. Cost? >> Again, you can judge for yourselves how low the fruit you choose to >> pick; the biggest gains have the best ROI. >> Happy clients, liberated bandwidth, faster servers -- what's to loose?

3 2