July 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet over RPR)
by Michael Smith 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sam: We're using the Cisco ML cards in the 15454's. The inbound port from the switch is just a .1Q trunk. The ML cards do the Q-in-Q encapsulation of all frames coming inbound, although this is just one configuration scenario that happened to work well for our application. These particular cards can take any frame up to 9000 bytes, so pre-encapsulated traffic types such a Q-in-Q or MPLS frames are no problem. We have not seen any issues with encapsulated types, but of course, your mileage may vary. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Stickland [mailto:sam_ml@spacething.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:28 AM > To: Michael Smith > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: RE: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet > over RPR) > > Thanks for the reply. Pretty much everyone has told me that it's > vendor specific, although the implementation mentioned below sounds > nice. Any chance of naming that vendor? > > One question about this, the Q-in-Q tunnelling would have to take > place on the switch connected to the ring - what happens if the > packet has already been placed in a dot1Q tunnel? I haven't really > worked much with dot1Q tunneling - are their any know problems with > extra tags? (aside from MTU issues, but I imagine most rings will > support at least 9bytes) > > Sam > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Michael Smith wrote: > > > Hello: > > > > I think this is pretty provider-specific. However, we are doing > > this right now with a particular vendor using their flavor of > > RPR. The ring uses Q in Q tunneling in the core and all switches > > communicate directly to one another using .1Q encapsulated > > frames. > > > > Mike > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > > > Behalf > > Of > > > sam_ml(a)spacething.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:50 AM > > > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > > > Subject: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet > > > over > > RPR) > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is probably a fairly simply question, I'm probably just > > > not quite groking the layers involved here. > > > > > > If I had the following setup: > > > > > > Endstation A -- Switch A === RPR Ring === Switch B -- > > > Endstation B > > > > > > could there be a VLAN setup such that Endstations A and B are > > > both in > > it, > > > and can communicate as if they are on the same LAN segment? > > > (And I > > mean > > > natively. ie. not using an MPLS VPN). ie. Will the switches > > > involved tranlate the different framing formats in use? Is this > > > vendor > > dependent? > > > > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQOwTjZzgx7Y34AxGEQITygCfVnf2TwHWTM2RKIOlwpWxv2CCop8AoMxK tLDj65xi20rBuWtR6to8uMDq =JWVZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet over RPR)
by Michael Smith 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

Hello: I think this is pretty provider-specific. However, we are doing this right now with a particular vendor using their flavor of RPR. The ring uses Q in Q tunneling in the core and all switches communicate directly to one another using .1Q encapsulated frames. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > sam_ml(a)spacething.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:50 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: 802.17 RPR and L2 Ethernet interoperablity (Ethernet over RPR) > > > Hi, > > This is probably a fairly simply question, I'm probably just not quite > groking the layers involved here. > > If I had the following setup: > > Endstation A -- Switch A === RPR Ring === Switch B -- Endstation B > > could there be a VLAN setup such that Endstations A and B are both in it, > and can communicate as if they are on the same LAN segment? (And I mean > natively. ie. not using an MPLS VPN). ie. Will the switches involved > tranlate the different framing formats in use? Is this vendor dependent? > > Sam >

3 4

Proxy scanning for spam
by Christopher J. Wolff 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

Hello, If I have a network segment connected to a BGP peer, is there a way that I can hang a box of some kind off of that segment that will sniff out and block malicious/spam email before it hits the customers? Regards, Christopher J. Wolff VP CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com

4 6

China deploys Internet protocol version 9 network
by John Obi 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

Hello, Have you heard of IPv9? or it was IPv8? China's Internet technology Ipv9,which being compatible with IPv4 and IPv6,has been formally adapted and popularized into the civil and commercial sector. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/05/content_1572719.htm Thanks, -J __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

8 7

[Fwd: 2.65 Gbits/s will become available for sale to/from India on FLAG]
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 07 Jul '04

07 Jul '04

http://www.myiris.com/newsCentre/storyShow.php?fileR=20040706134414002&secI… VSNL, Flag sign agreement for sale of existing capacity Source: IRIS (06 July 2004) FLAG Telecom and VSNL (Q, N,C,F)* today announced that the companies have reached agreement on 4 May 2004 for the sale of 17 STM-1s of capacity on the FLAG Europe Asia (FEA) cable system into/from India. Under the terms of this agreement, six STM-1 westward and 11 STM-1 eastward will become available immediately to the marketplace along with additional capacity that may become available because of grooming and/or changes in existing contracts within the design capacity (10Gbit/s) of the FEA cable system. With the signing of this Agreement FLAG Telecom and VSNL have settled the differences amicably to the extent of issue of access for existing capacity available under C&MA for sale on FEA Cable System. Additionally, VSNL has reduced its landing station access charges per STM-1 by 25% and FLAG has agreed to the allocation of five STM-1s to VSNL at a non-discriminatory price. Following the signing of this new access Agreement on 4 May 2004, the initial 17 STM-1s are immediately available for activation on the FLAG Europe Asia cable system. By virtue of this agreement, an additional bandwidth capacity of about 2.65 Gbits/s will become available for sale to/from India.

1 0

.mil routing issues
by Brad Gould 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Does anyone know any useful contacts for .mil? I have what looks to be filter issue with them, being some, but not all, of 203.122.192.0/18 not being able to access some sites (www.usmc.mil for one). Its a reasonable "new" IP range allocation. I've got no reply from the few email addresses I have sent requests to. Thanks Brad -- Brad Gould, Network Engineer Internode PO Box 284, Rundle Mall 5000 Level 3, 132 Grenfell Street, Adelaide 5000 P: 08 8228 2999 F: 08 8235 6999 bradley(a)internode.com.au; http://www.internode.on.net/

2 1

BGP Setup
by Bubba Parker 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

OK, I've got one DS3 from one provider, and a T1 from another. My DS3 comes into router A, and the T1 into router B. Both routers are accessible via ethernet and have both 10.0.0.x IPs and static ones from a provider. I've got a full BGP feed from each provider on each router, and I have the two routers setup in a peer group to receive each others routes from the two providers. I'm running quagga for BGP, so, for example, if I do a "show ip bgp x.x.x.x" it'll show both paths to it from each provider, just like on a Cisco router. My question is, how do I get routers on the same local lan as these two routers to utilize the "best" path found from BGP? And I also want to configure these two routers to be a redundant link, so local lan boxes will always have connectivity, should one provider go down, but I'm not sure how to configure that. Can someone explain what needs to be done for me to accomplish this? Thanks. -- Bubba Parker sysadmin(a)citynetwireless.net CityNet LLC http://www.citynetinfo.com/

2 1

RE: Quick circuit question.
by Hannigan, Martin 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Just to be accurate, DS is digital service cross connect i.e. dsx1 panel, dsx3 panel, etc. Typically a ds0 cross connect is referred to as "ds0 wire frame" since it's muxed up to ds1's via DSX1 bays. A DSX panel is basically a piece of dumb equipment, sometimes fitted with led port tracers(useful)that you can configure in interconnect, one card, or cross connect, two card, modes for testing both sides, good add move, drop capability, etc. -M -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan(a)verisign.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Edward B. Dreger > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 6:55 PM > To: ''nanog(a)merit.edu'' > Subject: RE: Quick circuit question. > > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:45:44 -0500 > > From: frank@dti... > > > Finally, "dsx" does not stand for full duplex, as someone > > DSx = DS0/DS1/DS3 (using "x" as wildcard). Not to be confused > with uppercase "X". > > > Eddy > -- > EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ > A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ > Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building > Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national > Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita > _________________________________________________________________ > DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: > davidc(a)brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq(a)intc.net -*- sam(a)everquick.net > Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. >

1 0

Quick circuit question.
by Drew Weaver 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

We have 1 DS-3, that if we get close to 45Mbps IN/OUT the other direction will be completely unusable. We have another DS3, that we have seen doing 45Mbps IN, and 15Mbps Out at the same time. This is going to sound dumb, but is duplex a consideration with lines of these types? I thought you could do either 45Mbps in, 45Mbps out, or a mix of both, not 45Mbps In, and 45Mbps out at the same time (90mbps).. I couldn't find this exact info on the net anywhere. -Drew

6 11

RE: Quick circuit question.
by frank＠dticonsulting.com 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Two observations concerning the quick circuit question. First, yes, T3s are definitely full duplex in nature. The only time anything common is used is when the same strand of fiber is used in a WDM mode, with one lambda supporting the east-west direction, while another lambda supports the west- east direction. But even here, there is no interaction taking place between the two paths. Secondly, if the line is suspected as being the cause of a problem, tests should be performed in the absence of end user data, simply to eliminate the line or tag it as the problem. Testing should take place using bit-error test sets that employ quasi-random and other forms of continuous data streams, instead. In this manner no questions can arise as to ack-nacks or circumstances surrounding download- upload conflicts and windowing considerations. Finally, "dsx" does not stand for full duplex, as someone mentioned. "FDX" stands for full duplex. DSX-n is an abbreviation that stands for Digital Cross-Connect at the n level, which should not to be confused with the electronic time-slot- interchange kinds of disgital cross-connects, known also as DACSes, but rather the physical patch panel type of cross-connects we're all familiar with. A DSX-1 is a twisted pair demarcation point for a DS-1 or T1 line. A DSX-3 is a digital cross-connect for a DS-3 or T3. Etc. Frank On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:21 , 'Williams, Jeff' <jwilliams3(a)tiaa-cref.org> sent: > >You might find what you're looking for at >acterna.com/global/technical_resources/index_gbl.html > >They're the result of the TTC/ WWG merger. > >Jeff > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [owner-nanog(a)merit.edu','','','')">owner- nanog(a)merit.edu] On Behalf Of >Scott Weeks >Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:13 PM >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Quick circuit question. > > > > > >On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Drew Weaver wrote: > >: We have 1 DS-3, that if we get close to 45Mbps IN/OUT the >other >: direction will be completely unusable. We have another DS3, that we have >: seen doing 45Mbps IN, and 15Mbps Out at the same time. This is going to >: sound dumb, but is duplex a consideration with lines of these types? I >: thought you could do either 45Mbps in, 45Mbps out, or a mix of both, not >: 45Mbps In, and 45Mbps out at the same time (90mbps).. >: >: I couldn't find this exact info on the net anywhere. > > > >Anyone happen to know of where TTC's online library went a few years ago >after they merged with someone? (I've forgotten whom) There was a great >deal on T1s, T3s, etc. I have hard copies at home, but it'd sure be nice to >get some online copies, if they still exist. > >scott > > >This message, including any attachments, contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. >TIAA-CREF >

2 1