April 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Foxnews / MSNBC Akamai issue?
by Brennan_Murphy＠NAI.com 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Was this ultimately an Akamai issue? Anyone else seeing DNS issues today? -----Original Message----- From: Adam Debus [mailto:nanog@delsol.net] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:40 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Foxnews / MSNBC Thanks everyone for your responses! Thanks, Adam Debus Linux Certified Professional, Linux Certified Administrator #447641 Network Administrator, ReachONE Internet adam(a)reachone.com

12 16

Abuse.cc ???
by McBurnett, Jim 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

I just made a number of abuse complaints to a provider and then after contacting the abuse #. I got told that they don't use abuse@ anymore. that abuse.cc is the new email address. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this against RFC current practice? I won't name the provider, and have email hostmaster@arin since they have the wrong abuse on their WHOIS.. Thanks, Jim

9 10

Re: An A record is an MX record and is a missing MX....
by Harald Koch 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Richard Irving had to walk into mine and say: > > Agreed, but nothing -requires- an MTA Agent have an MX record, in the first > place.... it is just a best CBP. Not having one means you don't comply > with ALL the RFC, but you are still RFC compliant. Not the same thing, FWIW. As part of continuing escalations in the war on spam, some MTAs are now refusing to *accept* mail when the sender's domain does not have MX records defined. Whether this is a *wise* decision is becoming unimportant; people are doing it. -- Harald Koch <chk(a)pobox.com>

1 0

RE: Datacenter electrical/genset
by Mike Damm 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

In all fairness, civil servants often get stuck with jobs that fall outside their realm of expertise, but need to get done none the less. Also remember that the budget of a public school is a little different from yours, and does not have the in-house resources of a telecom focused business. At least he was smart enough to know where to go for some help. He didn't ask anyone to design his power setup, or his cages. He simply asked for some insight to make sure the way his electrical engineer was doing things wouldn't cause more problems down the road. --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research & Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: miked(a)irwinresearch.com -----Original Message----- From: Drew Weaver [mailto:drew.weaver@thenap.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:11 PM To: 'Dan Lockwood'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Datacenter electrical/genset I think maybe the reason you are being flamed is because generally people put in charge with the design/roll out of a data center environment should already know something about the logistics of such a project. Whether it is power, network, or pretty much any aspect of it for that matter. Also it can be fairly hard to determine the power requirements of a location without specific information, and the lack of said information probably frustrated people. Just a little editorial on why you may be getting flamed. -Drew -----Original Message----- From: Dan Lockwood [mailto:dlockwood@coe.shastalink.k12.ca.us] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 2:17 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Datacenter electrical/genset To throw some water on the flames that I have been receiving, I will be posting a summary of everyone's good information this weekend when I get time. It is my intention to make that information available to the community. Calling me names is childish and unnecessary. Again, thanks to those that took the time to participate. Dan Lockwood Microsoft Certified Professional CompTIA Network+ Certified Cisco Certified Network Associate

1 0

201/8 Allocated by IANA to LACNIC
by John L Crain 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Hi Folks, This is a heads up to let you know that the IANA has alloacted the following range of IPv4 addresses to LACNIC. 201.0.0.0/8 A notation of the allocation has been made at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>. You may wish to adjust your filters accordingly. -- Best regards, John mailto:crain@iana.org

1 0

RE: Datacenter electrical/genset
by Drew Weaver 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

I think maybe the reason you are being flamed is because generally people put in charge with the design/roll out of a data center environment should already know something about the logistics of such a project. Whether it is power, network, or pretty much any aspect of it for that matter. Also it can be fairly hard to determine the power requirements of a location without specific information, and the lack of said information probably frustrated people. Just a little editorial on why you may be getting flamed. -Drew -----Original Message----- From: Dan Lockwood [mailto:dlockwood@coe.shastalink.k12.ca.us] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 2:17 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Datacenter electrical/genset To throw some water on the flames that I have been receiving, I will be posting a summary of everyone's good information this weekend when I get time. It is my intention to make that information available to the community. Calling me names is childish and unnecessary. Again, thanks to those that took the time to participate. Dan Lockwood Microsoft Certified Professional CompTIA Network+ Certified Cisco Certified Network Associate

1 0

Datacenter electrical/genset
by Dan Lockwood 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

To throw some water on the flames that I have been receiving, I will be posting a summary of everyone's good information this weekend when I get time. It is my intention to make that information available to the community. Calling me names is childish and unnecessary. Again, thanks to those that took the time to participate. Dan Lockwood Microsoft Certified Professional CompTIA Network+ Certified Cisco Certified Network Associate

2 1

Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
by Mike Bernico 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

All, I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort to offer a Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone. Our network is currently not MPLS enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each technology. If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one of these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion. Thanks Mike Martini VPN Pro ---- Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services like L3 VPNs and TE Con --- Enabling MPLS is a huge change Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us to new and interesting bugs and stability issues L2TPv3 VPN Pro --- Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change Con ---- Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think) Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers.

2 1

Anyone lit with Verizon in PHL
by alex＠yuriev.com 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

G'd afternoon, Can anyone with ability to do an emergency turnup of a DS1 in Philadelphia get in touch with me off-list? Thanks, Alex

1 0

RE: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
by McBurnett, Jim 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Mike, I am not sure if this helps or not, or the # of VPN's, But have you considered Cisco's GRE tunneling? This will allow multi-protocol also.. Do a Search for DMVPN on the Cisco site.. This is a brand new feature... Later, Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Bernico [mailto:mbernico@illinois.net] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:25 PM > To: David Bigge; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS > > > > Thanks for your advice David. Your point is very well received. > > One of the design requirements for our VPN solution will be > the ability > to allow customers to use non-IP protocols. I don't think RFC2547bis > will work for this. However if we do go the MPLS route then > RFC2547bis > will be available as a product as well as Layer 2 VPNs. That's > definitely a benefit. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Bigge [mailto:david.bigge@giftofsite.com] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:56 AM > To: Mike Bernico; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS > > Mike, > > An unsupported standard might as well not be a standard. I would lean > towards the most openly supported standard- MPLS. Along with not > letting > one vendor bend you over the barrel, this openess also flushes out any > problems for a more stable long-term network. > > You don't talk about 2547bis VPNs. Are you considering that also? > > We use a competitor of Cisco's equipment so I am biased. > > My 2 cent. > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Bernico" <mbernico(a)illinois.net> > To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:13 AM > Subject: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS > > > > > > All, > > > > I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort > to offer a > > Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone. Our network is currently not > MPLS > > enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each > > technology. If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one > of > > these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion. > > > > Thanks > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > Martini VPN > > > > Pro > > ---- > > Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish > > Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services > like > > L3 VPNs and TE > > > > > > Con > > --- > > Enabling MPLS is a huge change > > Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us > to new and > > interesting bugs and stability issues > > > > > > > > L2TPv3 VPN > > > > Pro > > --- > > Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change > > > > > > Con > > ---- > > Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think) > > Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers. > > > > > >

1 0