August 2009 - Test - lists.nanog.org

FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
by Dorn Hetzel 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

not to mention all the lightning-blasted-routers that will be prevented by FTTH :) even with several layers of protection I still accumulate about one dead interface of some sort each year on my very rural T-1... On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM, jim deleskie <deleskie(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to > the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to > homes, it's outdated before we even finish. > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Fred Baker<fred(a)cisco.com> wrote: > > If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband > implies > > fiber to the home. That would provide all sorts of stimuli to the economy > - > > infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, and so on. I could > > pretty quickly argue myself into suggesting special favors for deployment > of > > DNSSEC, multicast, and IPv6. As in, use the stimulus money to propel a > leap > > forward, not just waste it. > > > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Carlos Alcantar wrote: > > > >> I think the big push to get the fcc to define broadband is highly based > >> on the rus/ntia setting definitions of what broadband is. If any anyone > >> has been fallowing the rus/ntia they are the one handing out all the > >> stimulus infrastructure grant loan money. So there are a lot of > >> political reasons to make the definition of broadband a bit slower than > >> one would think. I guess it doesn't hurt that the larger lec's with the > >> older infrastructure are shelling out the money to lobby to make sure > >> the definition stays as low as can be. They don't want to see the gov > >> funding there competition. Just my 2 cents. > >> > >> -carlos > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ted Fischer [mailto:ted@fred.net] > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM > >> To: nanog(a)nanog.org > >> Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband > >> > >> > >> > >> Paul Timmins wrote: > >>> > >>> Fred Baker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be > >> > >>>>> going > >>>>> forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a > >>>>> number of > >>>>> years to come. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and > >> > >> broadband > >>>> > >>>> was packet switched. Narrowband was therefore tied to the digital > >>>> signaling hierarchy and was in some way a multiple of 64 KBPS. As the > >> > >>>> term was used then, broadband delivery options of course included > >>>> virtual circuits bearing packets, like Frame Relay and ATM. > >>> > >>> of or relating to or being a communications network in which the > >>> bandwidth can be divided and shared by multiple simultaneous signals > >> > >> (as > >>> > >>> for voice or data or video) > >>> > >>> That's my humble opinion. Let them use a new term, like "High Speed > >>> Internet". > >>> > >>> > >> Seconded > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >

2 1

Data Center testing
by Dan Snyder 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

Does any one know of any data centers that do failure testing of their networking equipment regularly? I mean to verify that everything fails over properly after changes have been made over time. Is there any best practice guides for doing this? Thanks, Dan

14 18

RE: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
by Carlos Alcantar 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

I believe a lot of people are thinking the same way that fiber to the home is broadband. Looking at some poll results from a calix webinar it looks like most people submitting for stimulus money are going down that path of fiber to the home as gpon and active Ethernet seem to be the front runners. If anyone cares to look at the poll http://www.calix.com/bbs/ bottom right. -carlos -----Original Message----- From: jim deleskie [mailto:deleskie@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:57 AM To: Fred Baker Cc: Carlos Alcantar; nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to homes, it's outdated before we even finish. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Fred Baker<fred(a)cisco.com> wrote: > If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband implies > fiber to the home. That would provide all sorts of stimuli to the economy - > infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, and so on. I could > pretty quickly argue myself into suggesting special favors for deployment of > DNSSEC, multicast, and IPv6. As in, use the stimulus money to propel a leap > forward, not just waste it. > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Carlos Alcantar wrote: > >> I think the big push to get the fcc to define broadband is highly based >> on the rus/ntia setting definitions of what broadband is. If any anyone >> has been fallowing the rus/ntia they are the one handing out all the >> stimulus infrastructure grant loan money. So there are a lot of >> political reasons to make the definition of broadband a bit slower than >> one would think. I guess it doesn't hurt that the larger lec's with the >> older infrastructure are shelling out the money to lobby to make sure >> the definition stays as low as can be. They don't want to see the gov >> funding there competition. Just my 2 cents. >> >> -carlos >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ted Fischer [mailto:ted@fred.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM >> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband >> >> >> >> Paul Timmins wrote: >>> >>> Fred Baker wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote: >>>> >>>>> What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be >> >>>>> going >>>>> forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a >>>>> number of >>>>> years to come. >>>> >>>> >>>> Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and >> >> broadband >>>> >>>> was packet switched. Narrowband was therefore tied to the digital >>>> signaling hierarchy and was in some way a multiple of 64 KBPS. As the >> >>>> term was used then, broadband delivery options of course included >>>> virtual circuits bearing packets, like Frame Relay and ATM. >>> >>> of or relating to or being a communications network in which the >>> bandwidth can be divided and shared by multiple simultaneous signals >> >> (as >>> >>> for voice or data or video) >>> >>> That's my humble opinion. Let them use a new term, like "High Speed >>> Internet". >>> >>> >> Seconded >> >> >> > > >

1 0

SORBS?
by trainier＠kalsec.com 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

I need a SORBS maintainer to contact me. The SORBS site reports the site and databases are in maintenance mode for the second day in a row. One of my domains was legitimately listed, but now that I've resolved the problem, I'm unable to request removal. Regards, Tim R. Rainier Systems Administrator II Kalsec Inc. www.kalsec.com

5 5

email address and SMTP server
by Juraj Benak 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

Good morning, I'm having a problem with my SMTP server installed on W2k3 server. Before we used SMTP of our ISP but because messages were delayed by few hours on regular basis I decided to install SMTP server (Exchange server installation is busted and will have to reinstall the server to get it work). For now I have a problem with one address which is working from my ISP's SMTP server but not from my server. I have setup my ISP's DNS servers and there isn't problem with other recipients, only this one. I tried to check the domain record for that email and it was OK. I checked via MX record database what servers they are using and the servers were fine as well. I got this response: Final-Recipient: rfc822; Action: failed Status: 4.4.7 Is there any way how to check it or can you tell me what could be the problem? The domain is boomerangaustralia.com. Thanks Juraj

1 0

[NANOG-announce] Reminder - NANOG 47 is coming quickly!
by Tom Daly 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

Hello Everyone, NANOG 47 is only 7 weeks away! The PC has been busily reviewing talks in preparation for the meeting. If you're interested in submitting a talk, please see: - http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/callforpresent.php. Also, registration is open and the hotel is ready for booking, please see: - https://nanog.merit.edu/registration. - http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/hotel.php Finally, NANOG is always looking for great sponsors, and we always have room for more: - http://nanog.org/sponsors Looking forward to seeing everyone in Dearborn. Thanks, Tom Daly (for the PC) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

ISP Security BOF -- NAOG 47
by Warren Kumari 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things", like how NANOG 47 is fast approaching and how I am *sure* that you would like to participate... This is *your* chance to talk about interesting security related topics and provide some feedback on what you would (and would not) like to hear about... Some security thing been buggin' you all year? Some topic that you feel strongly about and would like a change to inform others about? Step right up and give a talk -- this BOF is traditionally fairly laid back and easy going, so its a low stress introduction to presenting... Slides are welcome, but not required... W

1 0

new collaborative network forensics tool for massive pcap libraries
by Thomas Maufer 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

I wanted to share with the NANOG community this likely interesting bit of pcap wrangling technology that Mu announced yesterday. Here is the announcement on the new network forensics application within pcapr<http://www.pcapr.net/> : Collaborative Network Forensics Mu Dynamics ( http://www.mudynamics.com/ ) took the recently published dataset by the *U.S. Army Information Technology & Operations Center* ( ITOC <http://www.itoc.usma.edu/> ) from the “2009 Inter-Service Academy Cyber Defense Competition<http://www.itoc.usma.edu/research/dataset/index.html>” as well as the *Schmoo Group’s* “Capture the Capture the Flag<http://cctf.shmoo.com/>” ( CCTF ) dataset (for a grand total of *15.0 GBytes…26.3 million packets*), and indexed them all to enable contextual search and instant access to packets, not to mention Hacker-News/Twitter-style one-liners attached to packets and searches for a community-oriented collaborative forensics application. Check it out (read the blog, linked below, first): - http://bit.ly/12I62D for the blog and - http://www.pcapr.net/forensics for the online app Enjoy! A brief background on pcapr: It’s a web-based pcap repository (hence, pcapr) that has some powerful pcap manipulation capabilities. The pcaps on pcapr are fully decoded and editable and you can manipulate them in novel ways: You can identify and isolate or decode streams, remove garbage from the pcap (i.e., extraneous packets from protocols that you aren’t interested in), reorder packets, save subset or modified pcaps without destroying the original, etc. All this happens at http://www.pcapr.net/, which is open to the public. If you can access the web, you can access the pcapr database and upload your own local pcaps for analysis. All registered users can upload up to 5 pcaps into a scratch space that is private to them. There are currently *250*protocols represented on pcapr across over 1500 pcaps, in addition to the forensics application with its 26.3 million packets. Finally, a free denial-of-service traffic generator is available on pcapr; you can turn any packet you find on pcapr into a DoS template. All the best, ~tom -- Thomas Maufer Mu Dynamics, Inc. Mu Line Blog: http://bit.ly/mu-line-blog * Dir., Tech. Mktg. Mu Labs Blog: http://bit.ly/mu-labs-blog * Solutions Architect Mu on twitter: http://bit.ly/mu-twitter Mu on YouTube: http://bit.ly/mu-youtube Mu on Facebook: http://bit.ly/mu-on-facebook Mu Community sign-up: http://bit.ly/mu-community-signup Got packets? Use pcapr: http://bit.ly/pcapr Email to Thomas Maufer: mailto: tmaufer(a)mudynamics.com

1 0

Best Effort QoS Drop Profile Input
by Brad Fleming 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

Hello all, We are working on fine tuning drop profiles for customer edge routers (Juniper J-2320 in almost all cases) and I was hoping for some input from those who are smarter and have done this before. Basics: - Sites each have a single T1 into a service provider L3 VPN - Queue depth is 500ms - Sites typically will use 90%+ of their line rate while school is in session (education network) - Services offered include: real-time video (in a different queue) and best effort (serviced by the queue in question) - Nearly all BE traffic will be TCP (typical web, email, etc traffic) We were never able to find a good best practice for configuring drop profiles on edge devices. We've been using the following with OK results but I was hoping to have some external, more experienced eyes take a look... drop-profiles { be_any { fill-level 50 drop-probability 5; fill-level 70 drop-probability 20; fill-level 90 drop-probability 50; } Has anyone ever run across a publicly documented best practice for drop profile configuration? Does anyone have suggestions on ways to improve the configuration above? Any input is much appreciated, thanks in advance! -brad fleming

2 1

Re: Redundancy & Summarization
by Brian Dickson 22 Aug '09

22 Aug '09

> My institution has a single /16 spread across 2 sites: the lower /17 is > used at site A, the upper /17 at site B. Sites A & B are connected > internally. Currently both sites have their own ISPs and only advertise > their own /17's. For redundancy we proposed that each site advertise > both their own /17 and the whole /16, so that an ISP failure at either > site would trigger traffic from both /17s to reconverge towards the > unaffected location. There are two different ways to achieve almost-identical results. However, one is a 50% more "green" than the other, i.e. friendly to other network operators. These two choices are functionally equivalent, and possible, only because things currently work for both your /17's. Here are the two ways to do this: One is: - announce /17 "A" and /16 from uplink ISP-A - announce /17 "B" and /16 from uplink ISP-B - This results in 3 prefixes globally: A, B, and /16. The other is: - announce /17 "A" and /17 "B", with different policies (i.e. prepend your AS once or twice), at *both* ISPs. - This results in 2 prefixes globally: A and B. In all cases, as long as one ISP link is up, there is a path to both A and B. In most cases, the best path to A or B, is *mostly*, but not completely, under your influence. So, the main difference to everyone else is, the presence or absence of a routing slot (/16), and/or extra copies of A and/or B. The routing slot occupies a slot in data-forwarding-plane hardware that is very limited. The extra copies of A and B (and extra copies of your AS in the AS-path) only eat cheap control-plane memory. If everyone did things nicely, we would not have as much of a crisis on the hardware side as we (collectively) do. Please consider being part of the solution (announcing only /17's, but in both places) rather than part of the problem (adding a new redundant /16 to everyone's routers, including in the hardware slots.) Brian

4 4