January 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Anyone alive at ep.net
by Malayter, Christopher 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

Bill, -I emailed both email addresses listed on the ep.net website contact information. -I have not as of this email received a response to my request or that email from you -Jeff's email bounces since it's an @ep.net and that seems to be rejecting all mail from both tdstelecom.com and fdfnet.net -I see no fax/phone contact information listed on the ep.net website. If you provide them, I will use them. -The webpage the IX gave me to register for IP space contained no phone/fax contact information. -I attempted to contact your INOC-DBA line, it was not active. So yes, really. Could you please provide me with what we are missing to receive allocation. Thanks, -Chris -----Original Message----- From: bill [mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:25 PM To: Christopher.Malayter(a)tdstelecom.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Anyone alive at ep.net > > > I've been awaiting allocation of an IP from an IX that is allocated by > ep.net. > > I've been recieving connection refused form the mailserver from several > domains for over a week. really? have you tried any other contact methods to get feedback from ep.net? telephone? fax? non-broadcast email? > If anyone from ep.net could email me with our allocation request, thanks are > in order. not enough information presented to act on your request. > > Thanks ahead of time, > > -Chris --bill

6 8

RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
by Michel Py 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

> Jon Lewis wrote: > Even comparing a VXR with NPE300 to a 7500 with RSP4 > and VIP2-50's, the 7206 will melt down and cease > functioning properly on traffic levels the 7500 > handles without breaking a sweat. Interestingly enough, the eBay prices reflect this: anything below an RSP4 or a VIP2-50 is useless junk good only for home or lab; recently bought a CX-EIP2 for $0.99 and a VIP2-40 for $50. CX-FSIPs and RSP2s go for peanuts too. However, a VIP2-50 or an RSP4 still go for 500 bucks a pop, which means they are still worthy of a production environment. As mentioned before, this is comparing apples and oranges anyway. Although this is overly simplified, the bottom line is that the NPE in a 7206 needs to do the job of the RSP _and_ 3 VIPs; no wonder why it will melt. Michel.

1 0

RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
by Michel Py 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

>> Christopher L. Morrow wrote: >> What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the >> 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, >> purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by >> 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing >> some other hardware that will be in support longer >> might pay out in the longer term? See below, I'm mostly talking about no throwing away what you already have; eBay is good for spares (a router sitting in a warehouse does not need software) and line cards, no more. Long-term support: as pointed out recently, I would be more comfortable with a 7500 without support vs. a 7600 with support as of today, the reason being I already know the tricks the 7500 is going to throw at me (mostly). > Drew Weaver wrote: > Well technically buying a used 7500 doesn't entitle you > to run IOS on it, so you need to re-license the Ebay > Special and that usually costs close to what a new 7500 > would cost. True, but I'm not talking about buying a new router on eBay, I'm talking about using what lots of us already have (a bunch of 7500s) that are already paid for and legally licensed. As you unrack some of the 7500s out of production, you take them out of smartnet but don't throw them away: you keep them as spares, which allows you to take the production 7500s out of the 4hour/365 smartnet to put them on support-only maintenance. That's what I call free (it's not exactly, but close): router paid for already and el-cheapo contract on it. > I've heard conflicting reports, is a 7206 faster > at packet switching than a 7507? Greatly depends what's inside it. Sure, if your 7507 has an RSP2 (which basically is a 3640 on a blade) and legacy (meaning, non-dcef) blades a 7206 will beat the crud out of it. However, a loaded 7206 with a low-end NPE can choke when the 7507 with an RSP16 and recent VIPs will sail smoothly. Michel.

2 1

Cox Dns Admins Needed
by nanog＠cfsdigital.com 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

Hello Need to speak to Cox Dns Admins if they can contact me off the list having dns cache issue with there system Fgravato(a)slingo.com frankie gravato senior network and systems admin Slingo Inc.

1 0

Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
by Maarten Van Horenbeeck 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

Hi Frank, Thanks for your reply. > Yes, but we all know there are quite some non-compliant dns-servers out > there. Do they want to break the largest zone for a few days for all > non-compliant servers? The serial should not be of any importance except to the .com & .net slave nameservers. To my knowledge, these are all managed by Verisign, so this should just be a purely internal operation. I really don't see the problems here most of you are referring to. > Oh, wait, right, they don't care if they break stuff... I believe they have a pretty good business case for keeping it in a working state. Best regards, Maarten -- Maarten Van Horenbeeck maarten(a)daemon.be

2 1

Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
by Maarten Van Horenbeeck 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

Hi Frank, Thanks for your reply. > Yes, but we all know there are quite some non-compliant dns-servers out > there. Do they want to break the largest zone for a few days for all > non-compliant servers? The serial should not be of any importance except to the .com & .net slave nameservers. To my knowledge, these are all managed by Verisign, so this should just be a purely internal operation. I really don't see the problems here most of you are referring to. > Oh, wait, right, they don't care if they break stuff... I believe they have a pretty good business case for keeping it in a working state. Best regards, Maarten -- Maarten Van Horenbeeck maarten(a)daemon.be

1 0

RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
by Michel Py 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

>> Dan Armstrong wrote: >> GSRs are useless if you are doing any kind of >> aggregation. Their traffic shaping abilities >> are embarrassing. > Neil J. McRae > Historically yes, but no longer. The latest line of > GSR cards now give them much greater capability in > this area even though it was never designed as an > access box. There still is the issue of cost though. GSR line cards are not cheap. >> 7500 is the classic aggregator. They do the job >> quite well, actually. Based on cost right now, I >> would take 10 7500s over 1 7600 anyday. > If you are just aggregating E1/T1 then I'd agree, > but the minute you need DS-3/E3/STM-1/ATM/100BaseT/ > Gige aggregation then the 7600 is a far better > choice cost wise I would put 10mbps Ethernet and possibly DS3 in the same pool as E1/T1 though; this still remains in the realm of things a 7500 does fine. I'm not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. However, free is music to my ears. Michel.

5 4

RE: Anyone alive at ep.net
by Malayter, Christopher 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

For the record, that is simply NOT true: > From: hostmaster(a)ep.net > Date: December 30, 2003 11:30:57 AM CST > To: address-request(a)ep.net > Cc: mustang(a)fdfnet.net > Subject: nota.dal.net REGISTRATION TYPE (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete..:N > Site for connection........: NOTA > It was requested in 12/30/2003. Well past the 96 hour window. -Chris -----Original Message----- From: bill [mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:17 PM To: Christopher.Malayter(a)tdstelecom.com Cc: bmanning(a)karoshi.com; Christopher.Malayter(a)tdstelecom.com; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Anyone alive at ep.net > -----Original Message----- > From: bill [mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:25 PM > To: Christopher.Malayter(a)tdstelecom.com > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Anyone alive at ep.net > > > > I've been awaiting allocation of an IP from an IX that is allocated by > > ep.net. > > > > I've been recieving connection refused form the mailserver from several > > domains for over a week. > > --bill Ok for the NANOG folks. We found Christopher's request in the "questionable" spool, it was submitted less than 48 hours ago. The EP.NET turn time is listed at 96 hours. The gyrations on the EP.NET end are due to: - office relo - software upgrades (new OS) - spam mitigation processes His request will be processed in the normal window. There are still some issues w/ procmail/spamassasin tuning. --bill

1 0

Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
by Tom (UnitedLayer) 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Florian Weimer wrote: > Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote: > > Buying GSR's is probably the right replacement for 7500's if you want to > > stick with Cisco. > > But be careful when buying the linecards. Not all of them have > comparable forwarding performance to the 7500 if you do something else > than mere IP packet fowarding (e.g. ACLs or policy-based routing). Given that a GEIP in a 7500 can only do 200-300Mbps (packet load dependant), I hope the GSR can do better :) I have heard of instances where enabling inbound packet filtering or shaping on certain GigE cards would cause the cards to shutdown or reboot. I generally don't do shaping/etc on core gear, because its much easier to do it on my aggregation gear (2948G-L3/4908G-L3).

1 0

RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
by Jason Frisvold 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

Ours dropped about 70% ... And it's been steady ever since.. we've added a large number of modems since that time as well... Look into 'no cable-arp' as well ... Basically, it prevents arp broadcasts and that also had a major impact on the cpu utilization of our CMTS's.. Jason Frisvold Backbone Engineering Supervisor Penteledata > -----Original Message----- > From: Tarko Tikan [mailto:tarko@lanparty.ee] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:55 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! > > > hello! > > > The G1 processors, so far, have proven to be wonderful... We only have > > experience with them running in the 7200 uBR chassis, but they've shown > > a huge reduction in CPU utilization... > > what is huge reduction for you? we upgraded from npe-400 to npe-g1 on > ubr7200 and processor usage decreased 20-30%. And we are pushing about > 100Mbps traffic from GigE to cable and about 20-30Mbps from cable to GigE. > > -- > tarko

1 0