June 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Real-Time Mitigation of Denial of Service Attacks Now Available With AT&T
by nanog 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

> ----- Forwarded message from Eric Kuhnke <eric(a)fnordsystems.com> ----- > > Major providers such as Sprint and UUNet have had null route communities > available for quite some time... Unless I am mistaken? Which AT&T does *not* have, unless I cannot find the correct person to enlighten me. (NOC, sales team, implementation teams, customer care and lifecycle teams- all either scratch their head and say "what? why would someone want that?" or just say "no.") Someone, please prove me wrong. I would love to have this rather simple and quite common (these days) functionality in all of my upstreams. Yes, AT&T is the only one (out of 4 major providers we use) that cannot seem to implement this. Of course, I wonder if it will ever come now (assuming they will charge for their whiz-bang Arbor solution...) bill

1 0

RE: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
by Michael Smith 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Hello Eric: You can issue the following command in the 3550 series that takes care of that issue. However, your mileage may vary. :-) No errdisable detect cause gbic-invalid Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > Eric Kuhnke > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 2:06 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device > > > Be warned that you can't use non-Cisco CWDM SFPs or GBICs in a cisco > switch or router... There is a PROM code in the cisco-sold units that > is identified by IOS. Plug in a non-cisco SFP/GBIC and it will shut > down the port. (This was discussed about 9 months ago on nanog-l, it > should be in the archives). > > Does anyone actually buy the $3500 CWDM SFPs? That's a $3300 profit > margin for Cisco... > > Scott McGrath wrote: > > > > > Finisar also has CWDM optics in both the SFP and GBIC form factor and > they > > are quite a bit less expensive than the Cisco solution and they do have > a > > 16 lambda passive OADM as well as the 4 and 8 lambda models. > > > > Scott C. McGrath > > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Erik Haagsman wrote: > > > > > >>What you could try is use the Cisco CWDM-MUX-4 and it's pluggable optics > >>that can be fit into any GBIC 802.3z compliant slot. It's just an OADM > >>with 4 or 8 wavelengths that delivers GigE to any box with pluggable > >>GBICs provided you use the right optics and it's quite a bit cheaper > >>than using ONS stuff. That said, CWDM doesn't get you much further than > >>80 kilometres, above that DWDM is your only option, and a hell of a lot > >>more expensive. > >> > >>Cheers, > >> > >>-- > >>--- > >>Erik Haagsman > >>Network Architect > >>We Dare BV > >>tel: +31(0)10 7507008 > >>fax:+31(0)10 7507005 > >>http://www.we-dare.nl > >> > >> > >>On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 17:30, Michael Smith wrote: > >> > >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>>Hash: SHA1 > >>> > >>>Hello All: > >>> > >>>I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for > >>>providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of > >>>fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than > >>>putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE > >>>circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future > >>>growth. > >>> > >>>If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to > >>>hear about it. > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>> > >>>Mike > >>> > >>>- -- > >>>Michael K. Smith NoaNet > >>>206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) > >>>mksmith(a)noanet.net http://www.noanet.net > >>> > >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>>Version: PGP 8.0.3 > >>> > >>>iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx > >>>41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p > >>>=hDVT > >>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > >> > > > > >

1 0

RE: Cable networks RE: best effort has economic problems, maybe OT
by frank＠dticonsulting.com 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

>>So what's the cable HFC Achilles heel? As an observer, only, here.... ;) ... for one thing, investment is one of HFC's weaknesses as it relates to alternative transmission techniques in the broadband space, as witnessed by Rainmaker Technologies' early out. And while Narad's team may tell you that (and here I'm now getting this part second hand) they can customize a downstream mesh or ring for reliability and failover purposes, the reality is that most of these will go in as linear spurs off the local neigborhood block amplifier or thereabouts in an unprotected manner. And then there are the intrinsic capacity constraints imposed by coaxial's distance-attenuation characteristic, facing a ceiling far lower than that of optical fiber. I've been impressed with some of the other MSO-related endeavors, however, where they've implemented native fiber rings - sans coax - for GigE and SONET applications to industrial/corporate parks and educational campuses, going head to head with the ILEC. Cablevision's Lightpath division comes to mind here, as do several of COX' and Comcast's metro entrees. But these, of course, are not based on some RF exorcism device. Instead, they are standard fare, comparable to what MFN/Abovenet or the local ILEC would install. I suppose that the Narad approach works for limited numbers of corporate type accounts on the same segment, maybe even more than I could envisage. I couldn't tell you exactly how well it would scale. Frank On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:47 , 'Christopher J. Wolff' chris(a)bblabs.com> sent: > >All of these are great observations. So what's the cable HFC Achilles heel? > >-----Original Message----- >From: frank(a)dticonsulting.com [frank(a)dticonsulting.com','','','')">frank(a)dticonsulting.com] >Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 12:58 PM >To: nanog(a)merit.edu; ''Christopher J. Wolff''; frank(a)dticonsulting.com >Subject: Re: [url correction] Cable networks RE: best effort has economic >problems, maybe OT > >Correcting a previous url error on my part. > >Narad's site is at: > > http://www.naradnetworks.com > > >Sorry 'bout that, folks. > >Frank > >On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:30 , frank(a)dticonsulting.com> sent: > >> >>Agree, this is a great discussion, akin to a recent Cook Report accounting >of >best >>effort considerations. Several startups (now going into year two) have >addressed >>the cable-HF/C constraints you've mentioned. You may be interested in >perusing >>these two: >> >>http://www.narad.com >> >>Another, Rainmaker Technologies... >> >>http://www.rainmakertechnologies.com >> >>.... appears to have fallen on hard times while seeking later round >funding. Not >>sure of their disposition at this time, but doing googles on their name >reveal >>some good articles on their approach to using wavelets to improve bit gain >over >>black coax/fiber systems to homes and businesses. >> >>Metcalfe has financial backing hooks and input into Narad, and Mark E. >Laubach of >>COM21 fame (ATM over HF/C) heads up (headed up?) Rainmaker's technical >pursuits. >> >>[[As an aside, I'm finding increased interest in corporate parks >(especially >those >>that are boondocks-bound) where MSO fiber-based offerings are being >seriously >>considered for WAN access, both of the type discussed above and enterprise- >>tailored rings coming off local head-ends.]] >> >>Frank >> >> >>On Sun, 30 May 2004 08:47 , 'Christopher J. Wolff' chris(a)bblabs.com> sent: >> >>> >>>Folks, >>> >>>This is a great discussion. I'm interested in understanding these types >of >>>limitations in the context of HFC cable networks. In my opinion, HDTV >>>channel bandwidth (30mhz?) , increased demand for voip, and growing demand >>>for IP connectivity is going to stress the cable network model as well, >>>forcing cable operators to convert everything to IP before going out >across >>>the wire. Any input is appreciated. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Christopher >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >

1 0

botnets world and the FBI
by John Obi 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Hello, I found this important article, maybe it's the time to have the FBI to work in the e-crime more and more. http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040506/ZNYT05/405060… Thanks, -J __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

6 6

OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
by Michael Smith 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello All: I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future growth. If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to hear about it. Thanks, Mike - -- Michael K. Smith NoaNet 206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) mksmith(a)noanet.net http://www.noanet.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx 41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p =hDVT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

RE: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
by Church, Chuck 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

You need to check the switches to make sure they support the xWDM GBICs though. The older Cisco switches don't support them. Last time I checked, 3500XLs didn't support them, but 3550s did... Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Wam!Net Government Services - Design & Implementation Team 13665 Dulles Technology Dr. Ste 250 Herndon, VA 20171 Office: 703-480-2569 Cell: 703-819-3495 cchurch(a)wamnetgov.com PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=cchurch%40wamnetgov. com -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Erik Haagsman Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:49 AM To: Michael Smith Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device What you could try is use the Cisco CWDM-MUX-4 and it's pluggable optics that can be fit into any GBIC 802.3z compliant slot. It's just an OADM with 4 or 8 wavelengths that delivers GigE to any box with pluggable GBICs provided you use the right optics and it's quite a bit cheaper than using ONS stuff. That said, CWDM doesn't get you much further than 80 kilometres, above that DWDM is your only option, and a hell of a lot more expensive. Cheers, -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV tel: +31(0)10 7507008 fax:+31(0)10 7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 17:30, Michael Smith wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello All: > > I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for > providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of > fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than > putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE > circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future > growth. > > If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to > hear about it. > > Thanks, > > Mike > > - -- > Michael K. Smith NoaNet > 206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) > mksmith(a)noanet.net http://www.noanet.net > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 8.0.3 > > iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx > 41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p > =hDVT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: a small note for the Internet archives
by Peter Lothberg 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

> > 2.5/40Gb.. only 6.25% usage.. you sure you needed to spend the money upgrading > > from your OC192? :) > did peter really spend anything for his oc-192? :) If it's a free upgrade > why pass it up? This is not to the house, it's inside Sprintlink shipping real live traffic. -P

2 1

Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

> I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for > providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of > fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than > putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE > circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future > growth. If you only need two GigE circuits, the least expensive solution is probably standard LX/LH GBICs and passive splitter/combiners. Available from several vendors, for instance http://www.mrv.com/product/MRV-FD-SPLTCMB/ Disclaimer: I have no practical experience with this product. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

2 1

DC Service Providers...
by Ben Crosby 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, Please could any DC service providers with a POP physically close to Connecticut and Florida NW contact me off-list if they are able to offer temoprary (i.e. 1 month) public internet connectivity at DS-3 or 100Mbps. Thanks, Ben. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3 Comment: "" iQA/AwUBQLyWdkNm3F1O6YPWEQLZbACgi9qtyptV8UcRUPJRMyvz8YfwkJkAnRnO 5vr64jw3Czd93VOqfHCtnplg =vE9n -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: a small note for the Internet archives
by Hank Nussbacher 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

> RP/0/RP0/CPU0:sl-bb-stk#sh int pos 0/1/0/0 > POS0/1/0/0 is up, line protocol is up > Hardware is Packet over SONET > Description: To sl-bbh-sj POS0/2/0/0 OC768 to SL-BB-SJC > Internet address is 144.232.8.30/30 > MTU 4474 bytes, BW 39813120 Kbit You would think by now Cisco would have: int pos0/1/0/0 band 40 show-as-Gbit or band 40000 show-as-Mbit :-) -Hank

1 0