December 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Man Charged With Stealing Costner's Laptop
by fergdawg＠netzero.net 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

This story was sent to you by: Fergie -------------------- Man Charged With Stealing Costner's Laptop -------------------- By Associated Press December 15, 2005, 10:49 PM EST ASPEN, Colo. -- An internationally known hairstylist is due in court Monday to face felony charges in the theft of Kevin Costner's laptop computer, which had private photos of the actor's wedding. Pascal Bensimon, 44, surrendered to sheriff's officials this week after a 14-month investigation. He was released on $5,000 bond. The computer contained photos of Costner's Sept. 25, 2004, wedding to Christine Baumgartner, which took place at his Aspen-area ranch. Bensimon, who has a salon in Aspen, had been hired to style hair for some of the wedding guests. He told the Aspen Daily News that someone put drugs into his drink at the wedding, and that he never stole Costner's $1,500 Apple Powerbook or a digital camera. Bensimon, who was born in Morocco and raised in Israel and France, worked in salons in Paris, New York and Atlanta before moving to Aspen, according to the Aspen Times. Costner, 50, is a veteran of such films as "Bull Durham," "Field of Dreams" and "Dances with Wolves." His latest movie -- "Rumor Has It," co-starring Jennifer Aniston, Shirley MacLaine and Mark Ruffalo -- opens Christmas Day. Copyright (c) 2005, The Associated Press -------------------- This article originally appeared at: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-people-costner,0,5397… Visit Newsday online at http://www.newsday.com

1 0

RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

> > > Randy- > > I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. > > I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer > buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you can't guarantee you won't get a busy signal when you make a call. -M<

2 1

RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
by Schliesser, Benson 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

If the core is "well run" (not normally over-utilized) and the endpoints have adequate capacity, then you *can* guarantee the call. (where "guarantee" represents a quality *approaching* 100%, as defined in SLAs...) I assume we're not talking about poorly-run cores here. So what I think you're getting at is, when you don't control both endpoints (i.e., to ensure they have adequate capacity) then you can't make end-to-end guarantees. This is clearly true, in telephone networks as well as packet networks. But it doesn't lessen the value of QoS mechanisms. To reluctantly further the telephone analogy: If all 23 bearers on my PRI are busy I still might want to allow certain sources to complete calls to me, even if that means dropping an existing call. This is a local function that I can guarantee, which benefits end to end communication even if it doesn't guarantee it. And if I coordinate this local function at both endpoints then I'm back to my first statement, that you can guarantee end to end. Are you suggesting that QoS has no value unless it can do more than this? Or am I misunderstanding you? A more interesting question is how to make end-to-end guarantees between endpoints that are on different cores, assuming the endpoints themselves are under a common control. If the provider overrides customer QoS preferences, is this possible? Cheers, -Benson -----Original Message----- From: Hannigan, Martin [mailto:hannigan@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, 15 December, 2005 16:00 To: Schliesser, Benson; Randy Bush Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet] > > > Randy- > > I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. > > I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer > buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But isn't that the point. You can't guarantee delivery, just as you can't guarantee you won't get a busy signal when you make a call. -M<

1 0

RE: NAT Configuration for Dual WAN Router
by McLean Pickett 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Joe - Linux can do this, check out: http://www.lartc.org/ More specifically: http://www.lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html and http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes I am working on a redhat project that requires QoS over multiple VLAN's. I was reading up on tc and imq devices when I came across this information. Haven't tried this config, but it look like it should do what you want. McLean -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Joe Johnson Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:44 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: NAT Configuration for Dual WAN Router I've been trying over and over to figure this one out, but I'm just hitting the end of my wits. We have a remote office that can only get 768Kbps DSL, which they've not totally maxed out. So management's solution now is to buy a second DSL line, but they won't let me buy a dual WAN router (in case they add a 3rd DSL line). I've found some great articles on how to get the interfaces working with 2 default gateways (I used this: http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/answers/Networking/Spanning_Multiple _DSL s) and that is all running fine. It alternates every few minutes which WAN port is used when I traceroute yahoo.com (which is fine) and everything is connecting fine from the router. However, I can't figure out how to get NAT running on the server for the 2 WAN ports for clients inside the LAN. I can NAT to 1 DSL, but that is useless. What I am looking for is a tutorial in how to do this or a pointer to someone who can help. Anyone know of a resource for this? Joe Johnson joe(a)sendjoeanemail.com

1 0

Re: who's receiving comvalid/bgpsentinel spam? (Re: BGP )
by Scott Weeks 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

----- Original Message Follows ----- From: paul(a)vix.com To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: who's receiving comvalid/bgpsentinel spam? (Re: BGP ) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:04:16 +0000 > is anybody else receiving this spam when they advertise a > new AS nowadays? (i'm trying to figure out which whois > information is being policy-violated and who to complain > about, but if i'm the only one receiving it, i may JHD.) I got one also. AS36149 scott > re: > > # From: "Antony Gullusci" <gullusci(a)comvalid.com> > # To: <paul_vixie(a)isc.org> > # Subject: BGP > # Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:09:19 +0100 > # X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 > # > # Hi! I am Antony Gullusci from Comvalid, and I'd like to > give you some # additional information on Comvalid and > what we can do for you, regarding # BGP. > # > # In the past 10 years, our mother company Inrete has made > a good name # managing Autonomous System and BGP routers. > # > # Now Comvalid offers to the broader market the precious > internal tools that # Inrete developed in order to manage > the Autonomous System of its clients. # > # Since you manage a newly announced AS, we propose you > free of charge, the # use of our BGPsentinel service for > one month. # BGPsentinel operates in the following way: > # > # 1) constantly sniffs in different points the BGP traffic > between BGP router # receiving the full Internet mesh > # 2) extracts and stores all the data regarding the AS > numbers and NETs of # interest, and stores such data in a > database # 3) generates intelligent and context rich > alarms, on the base of the # detected and stored info > # 4) makes all the history pertaining the collected data > always available for # post-debug and forensic > # > # You will have a user & password to access the data > regarding you systems, # and will be able to define > specific alarms to be sent to you by mail, after # one > month the only thing we will ask you is to fill a short > survey about the # service with your opinion and your > advices. # > # If you are interest in having a better control on what > happens to your NETs # and ASes, just reply me back > confirming that you are interested in having # the > following AS and NET's : 24051 # 203.119.20.0/24 > # > # Checked by BGPsentinel > # > # Looking forward to hear from you! > # > # Antony Gullusci > # Email gullusci(a)comvalid.com > # > # BGPsentinel Web http://www.comvalid.com/?pag=bs > # __________________________________________ > # Comvalid USA > # 35 Corporate Drive > # Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 > # Tel +1 (781) 583-7565 > # http://www.comvalid.com > #

1 0

RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
by Schliesser, Benson 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Randy- I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that. I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But as ISPs we don't sell this. As a network operator, I do sell various kinds of point-to-point connections with fixed/guaranteed rates. But when I sell "Internet", or L3VPN, etc., I'm selling end-to-end packet-switched full-mesh connectivity. In this service, not all endpoints are equal and traffic patterns are not fixed. I.e., the service is flexible. "QoS" is about giving the customer control over what/how traffic gets treated/dropped. It's not false advertising. That said, if QoS controls are used to enforce the provider's preferences and not the customers' then I might agree with the false advertising label. If the result is to have anti-competitive effects then I might have some harsher labels for it, too. Cheers, -Benson -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 22:32 To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: Fergie; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet] > Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion > or is never "busy". s/never/when there are not multiple serious cuts/ would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get their money back? we're selling delivery of packets at some bandwidth. we should deliver it. otherwise, it's called false advertising. randy

1 0

RE: monitoring Huawei routers with Cacti.
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

> > Fellow Nanogers, > > In one of our WAN circuits we have a Huawei Quidway router. > Has anyone developed a Cacti template for monitoring that > kind of device? Configuring it to be seen as a "Cisco router" > doesn't work. > > > > Abraços, > Marlon Borba, CISSP. http://forums.cacti.net/about9702.html&highlight=huawei You could also drop a number off the snmp OID string and see what is being returned for values you can poll. At least you should be able to. -M<

1 0

monitoring Huawei routers with Cacti.
by MARLON BORBA 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Fellow Nanogers, In one of our WAN circuits we have a Huawei Quidway router. Has anyone developed a Cacti template for monitoring that kind of device? Configuring it to be seen as a "Cisco router" doesn't work. Abraços, Marlon Borba, CISSP. -- Se você acha que a criptografia pode resolver todos os seus problemas de segurança, então você não conhece os seus problemas e nem a criptografia. (Bruce Schneier) --

1 0

RE: Two Tiered Internet
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

[ SNIP ] > This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco > engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff > (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and > the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal > adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever. Sean recently joined Cisco marketing hence the quoting of vendor cruft as policy. It would be nice to fess up to that with an @cisco or at least an "I work for Cisco Marketing" disclaimer. -M<

3 2

Re: Two Tiered Internet
by Fergie 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Bingo. What they are really saying is: "We're _telling_ you that you need it because we need new ways to generate additional revenue." ;-) Cheers, - ferg -- Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell(a)gmail.com> wrote: The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply suspicious...here in the mobile space, everyone is getting obsessed by IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) and explaining to each other that they need it so they can offer "Better QoS, like the subscribers want". What they really mean, I suspect, is killing third party applications that compete with their own. IMS=I Mash Skype. And, I suspect, "QoS" for SBC customer broadband will mean "the speed we advertise so long as you are paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shite if you aren't". [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

3 3