- Test - lists.nanog.org

SDH 1+1 protected circuit and OSPF minimal setup on a single Juniper platform.
by Lorenzo Rossi 13 Apr '11

13 Apr '11

Hi, I have some doubts about the minimal configuration to handle an SDH 1+1 protected circuit with OSPF on a single Juniper router platform (one interface as the Working Circuit and another interface as the Protect Circuit). Reading the JunOS documentation, for instance the 9.4 JunOS version: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos94/swconfig-network-int… and using the various configuration snippet I tried to link together various pieces of configuration and the result is below: so-0/2/0 { framing { sdh; } sonet-options { aps { working-circuit bayward; authentication-key blarney; } } unit 0 { family inet { address 10.100.100.1/24; } } } so-1/3/0 { framing { sdh; } sonet-options { aps { protect-circuit bayward; authentication-key blarney; } } unit 0 { family inet { address 10.100.200.1/24; } } } lab@r1# show protocols ospf area 0.0.0.0 { interface so-0/2/0.0; interface so-1/3/0.0; } } If I'm not wrong the APS/MSP signaling protocol router implementation should set one of the two sonet interfaces as Up and the other as Down, so the OSPF should install in routing table only the IP network related to the Up interface. Am I wrong? Do you think I forgot some configuration pieces? Thanks and regards, Lorenzo

1 0

Level 3 Agrees to Purchase Global Crossing
by William Allen Simpson 13 Apr '11

13 Apr '11

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-04-11/level-3-agrees-to-acquire-gl… The deal will combine two unprofitable companies with total revenue of $6.26 billion as of last year, and cut annualized capital spending by about $40 million, according to the statement. It will also help reduce the pressure on prices, which have declined by as much as 30 percent a year in the industry, said Donna Jaegers, an analyst at DA Davidson & Co. “This is what telecom has needed for a long time,” said Denver-based Jaegers, who recommends buying both stocks. “You have way too many players.”

15 16

RE: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative?
by Ray Corbin 12 Apr '11

12 Apr '11

I also use postini and it works really well for my current needs. <rant>I had experience with Barracuda as outbound anti-spam filters for a very large hosting provider and I won't use Barracuda again. Some of their methods for blocking spam are a tad extreme. At one point they decided to block both yahoo.com and google.com in their domain filters because neither company responded timely to their complaint emails and wanted their attention...not to mention their buggy 'spam engine' that died many times causing mail to error with 'failure to connect to 127.0.0.1'... I especially loved their tier 1's response of how the issue is on the recipients end because they couldn't telnet to mail.domain.com from their workstation...I had to first explain how mail.domain.com wasn’t the MX record for domain.com (it ironically was a postini MX record) and that it was obvious when thousands of messages sit in the inbound queue saying 'failure to connect to 127.0.0.1' meant their engine died and their 'watchdog' process failed to restart it. To me their Tier 1 unable to do the basics was pretty unacceptable. </rant> -r -----Original Message----- From: proth(a)cnsny.net [mailto:proth@cnsny.net] Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 11:56 AM To: Andrew Kirch; John Palmer (NANOG Acct); nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative? Andrew, We use and offer Postini - a front end service. Postini is a anti virus and spam filter, and can spool mail if your circuits are down. Postini is a Google company and works like a charm. If you need more information please contact me offline proth(a)cnsny.net Paul Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Andrew Kirch" <trelane(a)trelane.net> Date: Sat, Apr 9, 2011 10:39 am Subject: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative? To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <nanog2(a)adns.net>, <nanog(a)nanog.org> John, My suggestion isn't _QUITE_ an appliance, but it works very well and I've been exceptionally happy with it. It's a distribution of linux controlled via a web interface that does far more than just mail filtering (at which it is both flexible and adept). Take a look at http://www.clearfoundation.com/Software/overview.html. The hardware requirements shouldn't be too insane, and the rules updates/subscriptions for the various services are all month to month, and not a bucket of insane. Andrew On 4/8/2011 11:51 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: > OK, its been a year since my Barracuda subscription expired. The unit > still stops some spam. I figured that I would go and see what they > would do if I tried to renew my subscription EXACTLY one year after it > expired. Would their renewal website say "Oh, you are at your > anniversary date", and renew me for a year? > > No such luck: They want me to PAY FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR for which I did > NOT receive service and then for the current (upcoming year). Sorry - > I don't allow myself to be ripped off like that. Sorry Barracuda - you > get no money from me and I'll tell everyone I know about this policy > of yours. > > I posted an article about this unscrupulous practice on my blog last > year at http://www.john-palmer.net/wordpress/?p=46 > > My question is - does anyone have any suggestions for another e-mail > appliance like the Barracuda Spam Firewall that doesn't try to charge > their customers for time not used. I should be able to shut off the > unit for a year or whatever and simply renew from the point that I > re-activate the unit instead of having to pay for back-years that I > didn't use. > > Thanks > > > > >

24 35

Facebook Opens Up Its Hardware Secrets
by Bruce Williams 12 Apr '11

12 Apr '11

FYI Just weeks before switching on a massive, super-efficient data center in rural Oregon, Facebook is giving away the designs and specifications to the whole thing online. In doing so, the company is breaking a long-established unwritten rule for Web companies: don't share the secrets of your server-stuffed data warehouses http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/37317/?a=f Bruce Williams Concepts, like individuals, have their histories and are just as incapable of withstanding the ravages of time as are individuals. But in and through all this they retain a kind of homesickness for the scenes of their childhood. Soren Kierkegaard

2 1

LISP
by Christina Klam 12 Apr '11

12 Apr '11

All, One of our ISP is planning to do a LISP deployment. (1) Does anyone know if Sprint uses LISP? (2) Does anyone know of any good guides/documentation of LISP? Thank you, Christina Klam

8 9

Yahoo! Mail Technical Contact
by Nathanael C. Cariaga 12 Apr '11

12 Apr '11

Hi All, Is there by any chance a Yahoo! Mail Technical Contact is subscribed in this mailing list? Please reply directly to my email. Thank you very much. -nathan

2 1

Re: altdb.net: password length
by Bret Palsson 12 Apr '11

12 Apr '11

Yep! It sure did. Phew I don't need to re-submit. Thanks guys! I received many responses. -Bret On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: > My understanding is that the implementation of the DES algorithm used > ignores any characters after the first 8, so basically yes. > -Jonesy > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:43:06 -0600, Bret Palsson <bret(a)getjive.com> wrote: >> Is there a limit of 8 characters for the CRYPT-PW? >> >> -Bret

1 0

Re: Alternatives to GSLB ?
by Jeff Blaum 11 Apr '11

11 Apr '11

Just wanted to thank everyone who replied to my question on the list and off-list. Cheers, Jeff On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Paul W. Roach III <paul(a)isaroach.com>wrote: > The downside of anycast for TCP services require state to be replicated in > realtime across all app servers to prevent crappy user experience in the > case where I switch servers mid-transaction. > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Jack Carrozzo <jack(a)crepinc.com> wrote: > >> Anycast works. >> >> [...] we are looking for ideas on >> > how to 1) ensure clients are routed to the closest geographical server >> 2) >> > ensure the client hits the server(s) with the shortest path. >> > >> >> No need to deal with that yourself when BGP eats that problem for >> breakfast >> lunch and dinner. >> >> -Jack Carrozzo >> > >

1 0

internet probe can track you within 690 m
by Jeroen van Aart 11 Apr '11

11 Apr '11

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20336-internet-probe-can-track-you-do… "The new method zooms in through three stages to locate a target computer. The first stage measures the time it takes to send a data packet to the target and converts it into a distance – a common geolocation technique that narrows the target's possible location to a radius of around 200 kilometres. (..) Finally, they repeat the landmark search at this more fine-grained level: comparing delay times once more, they establish which landmark server is closest to the target. The result can never be entirely accurate, but it's much better than trying to determine a location by converting the initial delay into a distance or the next best IP-based method. On average their method gets to within 690 metres of the target and can be as close as 100 metres – good enough to identify the target computer's location to within a few streets." It seems to me to be a rather flaky way of finding out your estimated location. But I guess it could be helpful when the objective is just to create some global database of demographics for marketing and privacy invasion purposes, where specifics of an individual's exact location don't really matter. Besides the latter can always be subpoenaed. ;-) One more reason to use VPN and other such techniques to hide your location. Greetings, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html

6 5

altdb.net: password length
by Bret Palsson 11 Apr '11

11 Apr '11

Is there a limit of 8 characters for the CRYPT-PW? -Bret

1 0