September 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Jason Schiller 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

on Sat Sep 10 03:39:59 2005 Christopher L. Morrow writes > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > > > [Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?] > > > > perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :) The most basic question is if there will be a problem if we solve the multihoming question in the traditional IPv4 way? And if so, should we solve the problem by throwing hardware at it and hoping that when it becomes a problem the hardware will be sufficiently advanced to be able to solve it? We can solve the multihoming question in the traditional IPv4 way, de-aggregation. We can argue if that means give end sites a /32, or allow provider independent /48s, but the fact of the matter is a prefix whatever size creates routing state. The sheer size of the IPv6 space allows for lots of routing state. On the other side, if you remove the routing state then you have a trade off where the information you previously attained through routing state must now be detected in the forwarding plane. We are seeing this now with respect to how end systems detect an outage. draft-ietf-shim6-reach-detect-00.txt The problem as I see it is that the IETF community is focused on the protocol design, how end hosts signal shim6 capabilities, and failure detection. They are not focused on operational requirements such as 1. The ability to inter-AS traffic engineering polices 2. To be able to configure and manage inter-AS traffic engineering polices at the network level and not on each individual host 3. The need for transit ASes to leverage traffic engineering. This is evident by the fact that the language in RFC-3582 that attempted to document traffic engineering requirements was down graded to .goals. in order to get adopted. The problem as I see it, is that there are only a few providers making this claim that these requirements are indeed requirements and need to be solved before there will be wide spread adoption of IPv6. Most people involved in IETF either don.t care about multihoming, feel that simple fail-over will solve the problem for 90% of the Internet, or only are concerned with things that affect the protocol, and they believe multihoming isn.t one of them. The process to define how these things work will be done in the IETF, in the shim6 working group... if this might be important to you, perhaps you will want to join the discussion and make your rerquirements/views/issues well known now, before the protocol is specified. ___Jason

1 0

Re: LA power outage?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

"william(at)elan.net" <william(a)elan.net> wrote: >I think there is a difference as to network going down for 3 hours >and network going down for 3 months... > Semantics. :-) >BTW - care to speculate what will happen if cat5 hurricane hits LA? :) >Or maybe we should be thinking of 8+ earthquake .... No -- I wouldn't want to be accused of instigating an off-topic thread. ,-) - 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

RE: mail service with no mx (was - Re: Computer systems blamed for feeble hurricane response?)
by Hannigan, Martin 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

> > > >Application layer firewalls have existed for at least 6 years. > > > Make that 15.... Socks, fwtk (before it went commercial) to name a few. -M<

1 0

RE: LA power outage?
by Reeves, Rob 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

We've been told by our field tech in LA that One Wilshire had lost power for a bit, but it is now restored. I don't know the duration of the outage, but our equipment there is on DC and did not go down. -Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ashe Canvar Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:08 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: LA power outage? My equiment at 1200 W. 7th Street is unreachable. Can anyone confirm if one wilshire is affected ? -ashe On 9/12/05, brett watson <brett(a)the-watsons.org> wrote: > > > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > there's also a blurb on yahoo news of an outage > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050912/ap_on_re_us/la_power_outage > > AM radio news is reporting a "wrong cable cut" by the department of > water and power folks... they're saying "no ties to terrorism"... > > > -b

4 3

rate limiting bandwidth
by Micah McNelly 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Does anyone have any recommendations concerning hardware rate limiting solutions with extensive API's? I remember packeteer from back in the day and have been looking at some of their newer solutions that have XML API's. Comments? Alternatives? I would appreciate any feedback that can be provided. Thanks, /m "I bet the human brain is a kludge." - Marvin Minsky

2 1

OMB: No new money for IPv6 [Was: Re: Multi-6]
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Although I know you're speaking metaphorically, to top it off, see SUBJ: line. http://www.fcw.com/article90779-09-13-05-Web "Upgrade to v6 by 2008 -- no new money." - ferg -- Tony Li <tony.li(a)tony.li> wrote: Moore's Law has not, and does not apply to routers. Thus, costs are going up non-trivially. Tony -- "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

RE: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?
by Hannigan, Martin 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

> > Anyone have recommendations (tested/practical is best :-)? > > The APC Protectnet PNET1 and PRM24 seem quite nice and not > too expensive -- > if they work....pros? cons? It sounds like you're either out of NEC, or, you are grounding them to waterpipe. I believe NEC calls for grounding via earth. You could strike some rod into the ground several feet deep, attach to the pipe with conductive screw+locknut+washer, and a proper gauge for distance cable. Theoretically, that should solve your problem. What did you electricians say? -M<

1 0

Katrina Recovery Post: techs looking for bandwidth in Bay St. Louis, MS
by Dave Curado 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Apologies in advance if this posting is not operational enough. I received a call from a friend who is part of a team who are putting together some wireless networks in the affected areas. They are in need of an internet connection, a link of any kind, in Bay St. Louis, MS. GPS = N 30 22.375", W 89 26.900" I was told they can use T1, bundled T1s, wet string, whatever... If you can supply connectivity to this location, please unicast mail to me and I will forward contact info. Thanks very much.

1 0

RE: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?
by Wallace Keith 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

I've had good luck with Oneac products, such as RJELP100. That being said, it's probably not a good idea to connect switches and/or pc's in different buildings with copper. I'd use fiber between buildings if at all possible . Differences in ground potential between buildings (especially during electrical storms) can not only wipe out a switch port or nic card, but could be lethal to the poor soul with one hand on a mouse and the other on some nearby grounded object... Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of R.P. Aditya Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:25 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations? I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting multiple buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have caused surges along one or more of the cables and burnt out switch ports. I would like to protect the switch ports -- there seem to be lots of products on the market. Anyone have recommendations (tested/practical is best :-)? The APC Protectnet PNET1 and PRM24 seem quite nice and not too expensive -- if they work....pros? cons? Thanks, Adi

1 0

On-topicness and FEMA's mail server
by Steve Gibbard 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Extensive troubleshooting of somebody else's mail server seems a bit off-topic for the NANOG list. That's the sort of thing that, once the problem has been pointed out, will need to be fixed by people internal to the organization that runs the mail server. -Steve NANOG list administration group

1 0