April 2009 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RIM Mail Admin Contact
by David Prude 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hello, If there is anyone from RIM who would be willing to contact me off list I would be most appreciative. Thank you, -David Prude -- David Prude System Administrator Murphy & Durieu (212)618-0320

1 0

Verizon BGP Contact
by Ozar 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Could someone from Verizon contact me off list? We are having some problems with a new turn up with 2 Gig Links, and tech support has not been much help over the last few days in trying to get this resolved. Thanks, Brian

1 0

Paetec MPLS + BGP solution opinions
by Jeffrey Negro 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hi all - I was wondering if anyone could offer any opinions or share some experiences about Paetec, and more specifically their MPLS, BGP, and Network Firewall services. I just started at a new employer and they would like get into a more robust DR strategy involving both our locations and public services. They are suggesting that we use MPLS connections to their bandwidth infrastructure, and make use of their Network Firewall services as a front end for our public services. This way we can make use of their front end BGP without having to qualify for an ARIN allocation. I come from a company where we had our own diverse providers and had an ARIN allocation, so I have not used a managed solution like Paetec is offering. Any experience or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Jeffrey

1 0

Re: SPEEDS
by Bruce Anthony Grobler 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

My sincerest apologies guys, this really wasn't intended to end up here. Bruce On Monday 13 April 2009 4:08:06 pm robbie.jacka(a)regions.com wrote: > please stop posting this to nanog. much appreciated. > > > > > Bruce Anthony > Grobler > <bruce(a)yoafrica.c To > om> nanog(a)nanog.org > cc > 04/13/2009 09:05 > AM Subject > Re: SPEEDS > > Please respond to > bruce(a)yoafrica.co > m > > > > > > > I certainly agree that its only the two you > > Output queue: 0/40 (size/max) > 30 second input rate 16000 bits/sec, 9 packets/sec > 30 second output rate 9000 bits/sec, 7 packets/sec > 51056 packets input, 28961683 bytes > > KPMG-BR#sh clock > 15:48:52.249 GMT Mon Apr 13 2009 > > A significant difference as compared to peak hours > > On Monday 13 April 2009 3:45:10 pm Matikiti, Thomas wrote: > > Wazup Bruce - I'm a bit concerned about our speeds here even today when > > they are two people in the office I still find myself struggling to > > browse the internet due to slow speeds. We should investigate our link's > > performance when there is no one in the office because for it remains > > the same ----- slow. > > > > Regards, > > Tom > > > > > > The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this > > e-mail > > > by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication > > in > > > error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send > > to > > > the original sender , then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of > > it. > > > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, > > distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on > > it, > > > is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in > > this > > > e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing > > KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other > > information > > > in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official > > business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it. > > > > KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or > > error-free, > > > as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, > > arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. > > > > This email is being sent out by KPMG International on behalf of the local > > KPMG member firm providing services to you. KPMG International is a > > Swiss > > > cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of > > independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International > > provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International > > is > > > a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. > > > > Information about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG > > member > > > firm can be obtained from your KPMG representative. > > > > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by > > AntiVirus software.

1 0

Re: SPEEDS
by Bruce Anthony Grobler 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hi Thomas, Please paste me a traceroute to google.com Regards, Bruce On Monday 13 April 2009 3:45:10 pm Matikiti, Thomas wrote: > Wazup Bruce - I'm a bit concerned about our speeds here even today when > they are two people in the office I still find myself struggling to > browse the internet due to slow speeds. We should investigate our link's > performance when there is no one in the office because for it remains > the same ----- slow. > > Regards, > Tom > > > The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail > by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in > error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to > the original sender , then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, > distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, > is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this > e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing > KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information > in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official > business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it. > > KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, > as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, > arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. > > This email is being sent out by KPMG International on behalf of the local > KPMG member firm providing services to you. KPMG International is a Swiss > cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of > independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International > provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is > a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. > Information about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member > firm can be obtained from your KPMG representative. > > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by > AntiVirus software. > >

1 1

Re: SPEEDS
by Bruce Anthony Grobler 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

I certainly agree that its only the two you Output queue: 0/40 (size/max) 30 second input rate 16000 bits/sec, 9 packets/sec 30 second output rate 9000 bits/sec, 7 packets/sec 51056 packets input, 28961683 bytes KPMG-BR#sh clock 15:48:52.249 GMT Mon Apr 13 2009 A significant difference as compared to peak hours On Monday 13 April 2009 3:45:10 pm Matikiti, Thomas wrote: > Wazup Bruce - I'm a bit concerned about our speeds here even today when > they are two people in the office I still find myself struggling to > browse the internet due to slow speeds. We should investigate our link's > performance when there is no one in the office because for it remains > the same ----- slow. > > Regards, > Tom > > > The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail > by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in > error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to > the original sender , then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, > distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, > is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this > e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing > KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information > in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official > business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it. > > KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, > as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, > arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. > > This email is being sent out by KPMG International on behalf of the local > KPMG member firm providing services to you. KPMG International is a Swiss > cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of > independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International > provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is > a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. > Information about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member > firm can be obtained from your KPMG representative. > > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by > AntiVirus software. > >

1 0

Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes!
by Charles Wyble 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Seriously though I want to start some discussion around outside plant protection. This isn't the middle of the ocean or desert after all. There were multiple fiber cuts in a major metropolitan area, resulting in the loss of critical infrastructure necessary to many peoples daily lives (though twitter stayed up so it's all good). :) It would appear that this was a deliberate act by one or more individuals, who seemed to have a very good idea of where to strike which resulted in a low cost, low effort attack that yielded significant results. So allow me to think out loud for a minute.... 1) Why wasn't the fiber protected by some sort of hardened/locked conduit? Is this possible? Does it add extensive cost or hamper normal operation? 2) Why didn't an alarm go off that someone had entered the area? It was after business hours, presumably not in response to a trouble ticket, and as such a highly suspicious action. Does it make sense for these access portals to have some sort of alarm? I mean there is fiber running through and as such it could carry the signaling. Would this be a massive cost addition during construction? 3) From what I understand it's not trivial to raise a manhole cover. Most likely can't be done by one person. Can they be locked? Or were the carriers simply relying on obscurity/barrier to entry?

23 25

Visualizing and confirming network anomalies - Newsight
by Dave Choffnes 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hi folks, We've just released a new tool that allows you to see network problems from end-user machines, currently BitTorrent users. (Think of this as putting P2P traffic to good use.) The interface that we've provided is still very beta, but we'd appreciate any (constructive) feedback. A little more detail: we've deployed software called NEWS (network early warning system) that uses P2P users' natural traffic to detect sudden, unexpected drops in network performance -- this allows our 25k BitTorrent users to corroborate network problems with each other. Our tool, called Newsight, lets you see summaries of their reported network anomalies. You can browse a timeline of anomalies grouped by country, AS or prefix. You can also confirm known network problems, helping to create a public database of outages and their explanations. You can play with Newsight here: http://aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/news/newsight.html Cheers, Dave (on behalf of the Aqualab research group) -- David Choffnes PhD Candidate, Computer Science Northwestern University

1 0

Re: Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes!
by joel.mercado＠verizon.net 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

I agree 100 percent.... The clipboard makes it official... ------Original Message------ From: Jamie Bowden To: Andy Ringsmuth Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes! Sent: Apr 13, 2009 9:07 AM You forgot the clip board. Without the clip board, no one will believe it. J -----Original Message----- From: Andy Ringsmuth [mailto:andyring@inebraska.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 1:52 PM To: Daryl G. Jurbala Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes! On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Daryl G. Jurbala wrote: >> >> 3) From what I understand it's not trivial to raise a manhole >> cover. Most likely can't be done by one person. Can they be locked? >> Or were the carriers simply relying on obscurity/barrier to entry? > > > Your understanding is incorrect. I'm an average sized guy and I can > pull a manhole cover with one hand on the right tool. It might take > 2 hands if it hasn't been opened recently and has lots of pebbles > and dirt jammed in around it. It's like everything else: if you > know how to do it, and you have the right tool, it's simple. Agreed. Manhole covers are very simple to remove. I don't even need any tools. I've removed countless manhole covers to retrieve balls, frisbees, etc., with nothing more than my bare hands. It's a pretty trivial task. Think about it. All anyone would need to do is pull up to the manhole, set a few orange cones around it, put on an orange vest and a hard hat, and crawl on in with your wire cutters and bolt cutter. Guaranteed NO ONE will even question it. -Andy Sent on the Now Network� from my Sprint® BlackBerry

1 0

Re: Fiber cut in SF area
by Roger Marquis 12 Apr '09

12 Apr '09

Jorge Amodio wrote: > s/DARPA/ARPA/; s/BBM/BBN/; s/Internet/ARPAnet/. /DARPA/ARPA/ may be splitting hairs. According to http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_roberts.htm "DARPA head Charlie Hertzfeld promised IPTO Director Bob Taylor a million dollars to build a distributed communications network". And apologies WRT /BBM/BBN/. Guess it was really has been a while now (given the 4 and 5 figure checks to BBN I signed back in the day). Sean Donelan wrote: > On Sat, 11 Apr 2009, Roger Marquis wrote: >> The real problem is route redundancy. This is what the original contract >> from DARPA to BBM, to create the Internet, was about! "The net" was >> created to enable communications bttn point A and point B in this exact >> scenario. > > Uh, not exactly. There was diversity in this case, but there was also > N+1 breaks. Outside of a few counties in the Bay Area, the rest of the > country's telecommunication system was unaffected. So in that sense the > system worked as designed. > > Read the original DARPA papers, they were not about making sure grandma > could still make a phone call. Apparently even some network operators don't yet grasp the significance of this event. > Why didn't the "man in the street" pharmacy have its own backup plans? I assume they, as most of us, believed the government was taking care of the country's critical infrastructure. Interesting how well this illustrates the growing importance of the Internet vis-a-vis other communications channels. Roger Marquis

2 1