August 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

@Home's 119 domain names up for sale
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

I know this is horribly off-topic, but seeing a reference to @Home kind made me a little nostalgic. :-) [snip] Apparently former high-speed Internet provider Excite@Home once felt likewise. But At Home Liquidating Trust, successor to the once high-flying Internet darling Excite@Home, said Wednesday it is selling the former broadband company's 119 domain names. [snip] http://news.com.com/ExciteHomes+119+domain+names+up+for+sale/2100-1030_3-58… - ferg -- "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/

1 0

power strip with individually monitorable outlet current
by Mike Leber 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

There have been suggestions of good SNMP monitorable power strips here before, however I'm looking for a power strip with individually monitorable outlet current (via SNMP). I've searched google for quite a while and can't seem to separate out such a beast from all the remote power management strips that just monitor aggregate usage. I have an application where I need to record the variation in power consumption for individual devices over time. I need to monitor about 30 devices in 4 cabinets (8 devices per cabinet or so) in and have a budget of $4000. I'd like to be able to see current in milliamps or 10 milliamp increments. I'm looking for an off the shelf device. If anybody can help me I'd certainly appreciate it. +----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

9 10

PAY YOUR BILLS
by John Public 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS PAY YOUR BILLS ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: power strip with individually monitorable outlet current
by Mike Leber 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

I talked to them yesterday and their technical support said they didn't, I just called them again to confirm and rephrased the question a few other ways and they still say they don't. Perhaps it's something they have that they don't call a power strip, what part number is what you had in mind? On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Nate Duehr wrote: > www.servertech.com - some models have per port monitoring of current > draw. > > On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:42:42AM -0700, Mike Leber wrote: > > > > > > There have been suggestions of good SNMP monitorable power strips here > > before, however I'm looking for a power strip with individually > > monitorable outlet current (via SNMP). > > > > I've searched google for quite a while and can't seem to separate out such > > a beast from all the remote power management strips that just monitor > > aggregate usage. > > > > I have an application where I need to record the variation in power > > consumption for individual devices over time. I need to monitor about 30 > > devices in 4 cabinets (8 devices per cabinet or so) in and have a budget > > of $4000. I'd like to be able to see current in milliamps or 10 milliamp > > increments. I'm looking for an off the shelf device. > > > > If anybody can help me I'd certainly appreciate it. > > > > +----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+ > > | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | > > | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | > > | mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > -- > Nate Duehr <nate(a)natetech.com> > +----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

RE: IPv6 Address Planning
by Cody Lerum 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Makes sense. However the PTP addresses need to be internally visible from an NMS perspective in our network. -C -----Original Message----- From: James [mailto:james@towardex.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:13 PM To: Cody Lerum Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Planning On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:24:22AM -0600, Cody Lerum wrote: > > Currently we are in the process of planning our IPv6 addressing schema > for our network. We are a service provider with around 20 core > routers, and several hundred enterprise customers. These customers > currently connect back to our core via a separate VLANs or channelized > DS1/DS3/OC-X type interfaces. Thus currently lots of /30 IPv4 blocks. > > Our address allocation is 2001:1940::/32 > > Here is our current plan, but we are looking for suggestions from > people who have been down this road before. The plan is to break out a > /48 for our organization. Then break out the first /64 for loopbacks, > and the next /64 for point-to-point connections. The PTP /64 then > breaks out further into 1 /80 for core links, and 1 /80 for each of > our distribution sites. Within these /80's are individual /112's for > PTP links. What this will allow us to do is aggregate each sites PTP > connections into /80's within our IGP. The way we do it currently are as follows: Reserve a /48 for backbone pointopoints (eg. 2001:4830:ff::/48) in US, fe::/48 in EU. Reserve a /48 for loopbacks, and use /128s for each loopback out of that. As for point to point links, we currently use simple /64 subnets for each point to point (i.e. 2001:4830:ff:1500::/64, etc where ::1 and ::2 are routers on either side of the circuit). >From there, we also have a /48 allocated per each POP for transfer networks at that location for peering via pni and customer hand-offs. Each xfer net is broken off as /64 out of that /48. We currently do not perform any PTP link aggregation in our IGP, we simply ensure only passive-interfaces are announced to IGP, thus PTP links are not even present in the IGP table (only loopbacks and xfer nets/bgp next-hops are). It is not perfect but works well currently and scales just fine for us. <shameless plug> You may also find the ipv6-ops list helpful for v6 rollout discussions: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops </shameless plug> James -- James Jun Infrastructure and Technology Services TowardEX Technologies Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867 james(a)towardex.com | www.towardex.com

1 0

Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
by Frank Coluccio 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

All, Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed. These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in order to allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to kick in. In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that business continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee-well, where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to concentration of powers? While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of places, it is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However, the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon, SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are still possible. Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once integration is completed users will find themselves riding over systems that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set of NMS constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher levels in the stack. frank(a)coluccio.net ------ > Eight or nine people I had > talked to thought they had geographically distinct > ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable > when the second cut took it down hard. Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into their contracts? Or was this type of service "good enough"? --Michael Dillon

5 5

Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
by Frank Coluccio 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Gordon Cook asked: -- >>How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand they better build their own infrastructure. because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your shareholder...never mind the public at large?<< -- Assuming you're referring to a soup-to-nuts physical layer network, building one's own infrastructure isn't a panacea, and it is not even very often a doable proposition for organizations outside of the government and for companies outside of the Fortunes. Taken to the extreme, customer owned networks, if used as the sole source of transport, defies both the type of robustness that we seek - unless multiple networks per customer are built - and the very form of inter-working demanding of any-to-any end-to-end reach. So, unless it's a situation where great economies can be achieved in support of applications that are relatively local to (or resident solely within the borders of) an enterprise, maybe it's not the end all and be all that we sometimes make it out to be. For a University and Research Consortium, fine. For a forty-state branch banking network that must reach 42,347 end points, with most of those end points producing traffic for a single T1 or T3 line, or even a GbE line over an extended distance, it would appear on the surface "not," although each point solution requires its own evaluation. Volume discounts, the degree of diversity required and security issues all come into play, to name just three areas of concern. Rather, private builds are great for spot solutions, even very large ones, that are relatively constant between two or more points when those points are, likewise, constant and not constantly being relocated. But IMO they do little in the way of extending reach beyond the borders of the enterprise. For service providers, on the other hand, it's more of a financial consideration, assessing tradeoffs against perceived future pricing trends and traffic volumes. Again, to buy, rent or build is something that can only be determined at the time of need, and based on the particulars of the enterprise or service provider. That said, the situation I addressed initially highlights a case where the market had already begun taking care of some of the critical needs of diversity and redundancy for the universe of North American (or at least US) users, which are now about to be trashed in order to satisfy the goals of two corporate entities. Does this make any sense? Of course not. But viewed against the backdrop of this past week's FCC releases, the trend, despite how irrational and ludicrous it may appear, is ringing clear as day. And so it goes ... --- Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 347-526-6788 Mobile frank(a)fttx.org ---------- On Mon Aug 8 16:17 , Gordon Cook sent: So although we have the technology to build networks controlled at the edge and networks that are less subject to failure, the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist that we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies. Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities of economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber. Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad. How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted. How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand they better build their own infrastructure. because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your shareholder...never mind the public at large? ============================================================= The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook(a)cookreport.com Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where is New Wealth Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml ============================================================= On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote: > > All, > > Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially > interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of > the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that > I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be > to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in > both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for > redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport > layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed. > > These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of > routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in > order to > allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to kick in.. > In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that > business > continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention > service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee- > well, > where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How > long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will > become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either > business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to > concentration of powers? > > While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their > services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of > places, it > is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from > disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is > especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However, > the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop > providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back > atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. > > But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon, > SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are still possible. > > Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of > physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once > integration is completed users will find themselves riding over > systems > that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set > of NMS > constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher > levels in the stack. > > frank(a)coluccio.net > ------ > > >> Eight or nine people I had >> talked to thought they had geographically distinct >> ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable >> when the second cut took it down hard. >> > > Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy > seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into > their contracts? > > Or was this type of service "good enough"? > > --Michael Dillon > > > > Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile

1 0

FCC Bans VoIP Services Blocking
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Via Red Herring: [snip] While much of the reaction to Fridays U.S. Federal Communications Commission ruling has been focused on ISPs, a policy statement issued as part of the commissions deregulation of DSL services could add much-needed legal protection for VoIP carriers such as Vonage and Skype. The FCC issued a statement that it does not want the newly freed DSL providers and cable operators to use their total control of their networks to interfere with the access rights of direct competitors such as VoIP providers. A policy statement does not have the legal teeth of a rule, but it does put telecommunications carriers and cable operators on notice that there are still aspects of broadband services delivery in which the FCC reserves the right to meddle. "We need a watchful eye to ensure that network providers do not become Internet gatekeepers, with the ability to dictate who can use the Internet and for what purpose," said Michael J. Copps, one of two democrats on the FCC panel. "Consumers do not want to be told that they cannot use their DSL line for VoIP, for streaming video, to access a particular news web site, or to play on a particular companys game machine." [snip] http://www.redherring.com/article.aspx?a=13071 - ferg -- "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/

1 0

/8 end user assignment?
by Stephen J. Wilcox 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Ok, back up a second.... 126/8 Jan 05 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) inetnum: 126.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255 netname: BBTEC descr: Japan Nation-wide Network of Softbank BB Corp. status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE changed: hm-changed(a)apnic.net 20050208 i thought the decade of giving class A's to large corporates had long since passed.. we've got some major network rollout coming up, i need an extra 16 million IPs, so can i get one? wtf? Steve

32 81

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
by Scott McGrath 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

I believe it is called facism. A big bald Italian mentioned something about trains running on time. Randy Bush wrote: > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:22:23 -1000 > To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow(a)mci.com> > Subject: Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure > > >>>>> Yes there is a major concern that the government has >>>>> just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted >>>>> to use another carriers dsl lines to provide >>>>> service's. >>>> will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, >>>> but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) >>> if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what >>> does 'competitive' pricing mean? >> that which is set by the gov't rulings? :) > > and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an > economy of private ownership and government control? > > randy

2 1