March 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Increase in SMTP connections?
by J.D. Falk 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

Any large-ish mail-receiving sites[1] seeing an increase in SMTP connections this week? I'm not necessarially talking about messages here, just connections. If so, please contact me off-list. Thanks. -- J.D. Falk "be crazy dumbsaint of the mind" <jdfalk(a)cybernothing.org> -- Jack Kerouac [1] if you handle fewer than half a billion inbound messages daily, you ain't anywhere near large-ish by today's standards. sorry.

2 1

Re: Publish or (gulp) Perish
by sgorman1＠gmu.edu 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

One of the downsides of peer reviewed journals is that it takes an awfully long time from submission to publication - typically a minimum of a year. In a quick moving area like network operations this can be especially problematic. One great intermediary to this are pre-print archives, especially the Arxiv archive run jointly between Cornell and Los Alamos - http://arxiv.org/ . They have a big computer science section with lots of good stuff. Also as far as journals the new Internet Mathematics is good if a bit more academically geared than operational. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com Date: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:27 am Subject: Re: Publish or (gulp) Perish > > >> Powerpoints have a hard time matching the depth of a refereed > journal>> submission, because with the powerpoint, soundbites tend > to take > >> precedence over content. > > >Attention to sidebar on page 192 of the Columbia Accident > >Investigation Board report entitled "Engineering by Viewgraphs": > >http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL1/PART02.PDF > > Everybody who makes slide presentations should read this. > I know it has influenced me in trying to make my presentations > clearer and shorter and more precise. If you read nothing > else from the report, have a look at this slide reproduced > below as close as possible to the way it originally appeared > including line breaks and bulleted indentation: > > > Review Of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for Tile > Penetration > --------------------------------------------------- > > * The existing SOFI on tile test data used to create Crater > was reviewed along with STS-107 Southwest Research data > - Crater overpredicted penetration of tile coating > significantly > * Initial penetration to described by normal velocity > - Varies with volume/mass of projectile(e.g., 200ft/sec for > 3cu. In) > * Significant energy is required for the softer SOFI particle > to penetrate the relatively hard tile coating > - Test results do show that it is possible at sufficient mass > and velocity > * Conversely, once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause > significant damage > - Minor variations in total energy (above penetration level) > can cause significant tile damage > - Flight condition is significantly outside of test database > * Volume of ramp is 1920cu in vs 3 cu in for test > > The Columbia investigators zeroed in on the words "significant" > and "significantly" used 5 times on the slide with meanings varying > from "detectable in largely irrelevant calibration case study" > to "an amount of damage so that everyone dies" to "a difference > of 640-fold." None of these 5 usages appears to refer to the > technical meaning of "statistical significance." > > They also noted that the low resolution of a slide promotes > the use of compressed phrases like "Tile Penetration" whose > meaning can be ambiguous and usually is never defined. > > The slide alludes to the idea of damage to the tiles > but often avoids saying it directly referring to "penetration" > or "it" and using unclear sentence fragments. > > If you do want to see the original it is on page 95 of the > PDF file linked above. > > --Michael Dillon > > > > >

1 0

EOF, Amsterdam, May - Call for Presentations
by Daniel Karrenberg 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

[apologies for duplicates, hint: they have the same message-id] Hi Network Operations Folk, NOW is the time to consider making a presentation at the European Operators Forum (EOF) to be held during the 48th RIPE meeting in Amsterdam on Monday 3rd and Tuesday 4th of May 2004. We would like to have as many practical, hands-on presentations as possible this time. Remember: They do not have to be long. We prefer an stand-up interesting 10 minute presentation over a well prepared 90 minutes explanation of something not so interesting to operators. Find some information about presenting below and think about all those experiences this year that might be interesting to other operators. Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail at any time. Thanks Daniel -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information about the EOF and presenting there: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/eof.html Information about the meeting in general: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guidelines for submitting abstracts: We expect to finalise the program in shortly. We will get back to you then with scheduling details. In the meantime please provide the information below. We place special emphasis on the abstract which should contain references to related material already available if possible. Please send this to eof-coord at-sign ripe.net. - Author(s) - Speaker - (Working) Title - Abstract - Draft Presentation (if available) - Relation to other known work and/or presentations if known - Time Requested It would be helpful if the abstract was written such that potential attenders will learn what to expect from the presentation, i.e. "The presentation will describe our experiences with the Red Packet Washer (http://www.netdet.net/RPW/) We have been using the device for half a year now. It helps us deliver more hygienic datagrams to our customers and peers. We will discuss problems with packet discolouring as well as increased throughput to our upstreams due to decreased clogging by dirty micrograms. We will compare performance with the hand-scrubbing of packets which we used previously. Currently we are optimising device management and getting bugs resolved. We will strive to include the latest experiences in our report." is much better than "The presentation will describe the Red Packet Washer made by Network Detergents."

1 0

Re: Publish or (gulp) Perish
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

>> Powerpoints have a hard time matching the depth of a refereed journal >> submission, because with the powerpoint, soundbites tend to take >> precedence over content. >Attention to sidebar on page 192 of the Columbia Accident >Investigation Board report entitled "Engineering by Viewgraphs": >http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL1/PART02.PDF Everybody who makes slide presentations should read this. I know it has influenced me in trying to make my presentations clearer and shorter and more precise. If you read nothing else from the report, have a look at this slide reproduced below as close as possible to the way it originally appeared including line breaks and bulleted indentation: Review Of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for Tile Penetration --------------------------------------------------- * The existing SOFI on tile test data used to create Crater was reviewed along with STS-107 Southwest Research data - Crater overpredicted penetration of tile coating significantly * Initial penetration to described by normal velocity - Varies with volume/mass of projectile(e.g., 200ft/sec for 3cu. In) * Significant energy is required for the softer SOFI particle to penetrate the relatively hard tile coating - Test results do show that it is possible at sufficient mass and velocity * Conversely, once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause significant damage - Minor variations in total energy (above penetration level) can cause significant tile damage - Flight condition is significantly outside of test database * Volume of ramp is 1920cu in vs 3 cu in for test The Columbia investigators zeroed in on the words "significant" and "significantly" used 5 times on the slide with meanings varying from "detectable in largely irrelevant calibration case study" to "an amount of damage so that everyone dies" to "a difference of 640-fold." None of these 5 usages appears to refer to the technical meaning of "statistical significance." They also noted that the low resolution of a slide promotes the use of compressed phrases like "Tile Penetration" whose meaning can be ambiguous and usually is never defined. The slide alludes to the idea of damage to the tiles but often avoids saying it directly referring to "penetration" or "it" and using unclear sentence fragments. If you do want to see the original it is on page 95 of the PDF file linked above. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Publish or (gulp) Perish
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

>I'm leaving off "news" publications like Light Reading and Network World. >Any thoughts? Have NANOG powerpoint presentations made these sorts of >journals obsolete? :) My favorite journal is the NANOG slide presentations. They are nice abstracts of someone's work, much better than the traditional journal abstract, and they almost always contain a URL that takes you to the author's website where you can download full papers and see the author's other work. Then it's off to citeseer which has recently moved to http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ There I can track down references and work by co-authors. --Michael Dillon

3 2

Re: Publish or (gulp) Perish
by Randy Bush 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

[ mark had posting problems and asked me to post for him ] To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> From: Mark Allman <mallman(a)icir.org> Reply-To: mallman(a)icir.org cc: "Matthew F. Ringel" <ringel(a)net.tufts.edu>, nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Publish or (gulp) Perish We are soliciting papers for an upcoming workshop on network troubleshooting (to be co-located with ACM SIGCOMM this year). We'd **love** to create a bit of synergy between the operator and research communities. The PC has some nanog folk. I hope everyone will consider writing a short paper or proposing a poster to be presented. The deadline for registering papers is 4/8 (basically providing the names of the authors and a very short abstract). The submission deadline for papers is 4/15. The call for papers is at: http://www.icir.org/mallman/NetTs/ The submission site is not quite ready, but will be linked from the above when it is (next week sometime). If you have questions, please direct them to trouble04-chairs(a)icir.org (which hits myself and Jon Bennett). Thanks! allman -- Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

1 0

Broadwing opinions
by Steve Francis 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Anyone care to share opinions on broadwing as an upstream? Responsiveness/cluefulness of noc and how well they manage their infrastructure (in terms of good change management, etc.) would be good to know. Thanks

2 1

Knowledge tracking tools
by Steve Francis 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

What do people use for knowledgebases? I'm looking for a better (preferably open source) way to track change plans, event resolutions, etc. e.g. an easy way to dig up what the changes that occured on a system were for, who did them, etc. Obviously rancid et al shows us what changed when, but not the change plan that was responsbile or what problem it solved. Possibly adopting a new ticketing system as part of this, so if people have built such system on top of RT, etc, that would be good to know. Thanks

7 6

Informational Notice: AS3561 domain change
by James A. Farrar 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

As part of SAVVIS Communications continued integration of the assets of Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., Cable & Wireless Internet Services, Inc., and certain other U.S.-based affiliates, we will be re-branding the AS3561 network elements on 1 April 2004. The re-branding will be a DNS change from cw.net to savvis.net only. All hostnames will stay the same with the exception of the domain portion. This re-branding will only affect AS3561 network devices at this time. AS3561 will remain intact and continue to be operated as it is today. Future changes that may affect customer services and/or devices will be communicated in a different notification. We do not expect any impact to the network, as this is merely a name change. Any applications utilizing name-based resolution will need to be updated accordingly. Please contact ipnoc(a)savvis.net with any additional questions. Thanks, Savvis Network Operations

1 0

IRRToolset/RAToolset on Debian latest
by Bora Akyol 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Before I do the work to get this sw to compile with gcc3.3.3,etc. Has anyone done the work already to get it to compile, please contact me off-list. I am running the latest stable release of Debian and have tried multiple versions of RAToolset and/or IRRToolset without success. I have searched the archives for the tool without any satisfactory result. If no debian, I can also live with OS X version. Thanks in advance, Bora

1 1