- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre
by Leslie 21 Sep '10

21 Sep '10

> > I don't want to start an off-topic subthread but I have to call > bullshit on this so-called "news" story. So it is my intent that > this be my first, last, and only post on this topic. > > Was it addressed at NANOG (in SF?) that many rifles and amateur > shooters both, are capable of sub-MOA accuracy at short distances? > By short, I mean ~50 yards or less. > > Or that a hunter with even modest self-training, who was aiming at > an insulator with a properly sighted-in rifle at short range, has > a significantly greater probability of hitting the insulator being > aimed at than of hitting the supported wire? That wasn't addressed > in the buttwipe propaganda from down under. Need I remind anyone of > the Dunblane and Port Arthur incidents and the subsequent gun control > crackdowns in each of those countries. I wouldn't expect any crown- > influenced news agency to give issues involving our Second Amendment > a fair shake. Just like I don't expect logic or sanity from the Brady > Campaign on the 2A issue. Nor should anyone else. The story smacks of > deliberately painting hunters as irresponsible ruffians and worse. > > What sort of repair rates do the power or other companies running > wire across that expanse contend with? Given the remoteness, the > identity of the affected client (Google) and the apparent absence of > additional information, corporate sabotage seems just-as or even-more > probable than random irresponsible hunters. To be fair, some shooters > are irresponsible, but deliberate sabotage cannot be ruled out with > only the information currently available. In my experience, there's really two types of shootings (which really depend on the region) -- Number one is using shotguns, not rifles, and bird hunting - for example when goose hunting season happens, you'll see fiber shot out over lakes/rivers more often - I think this is both bad aim and not really caring. (Occasionally the shot will even be stuck in the lines or insulation so you can tell it was a shotgun) The second is drunk idiots shooting at the lines - this is more universal and happens closer to civilization. Power companies will also have repair issues with either of these, but fiber, phone, and cable lines are more likely as they are lower to the ground due to regulations that state they have to be at least X feet away from the power lines. I don't think anyone is claiming all hunters/gun owners are irresponsible, but, as with any segment of the population, when you have a large group there will be a percentage of complete idiots out there who take stupid actions. As for the 2nd amendment stuff - I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot fiber ;) Leslie

2 1

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre
by Tony Finch 21 Sep '10

21 Sep '10

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Reese wrote: > > I don't want to start an off-topic subthread but I have to call > bullshit on this so-called "news" story. Several years ago I heard of a Swiss ISP having the same problem. They built their network by running fibre along the earth conductor of high voltage transmission lines (like Energis in the UK). I was told that it was common for hunters to verify the setting of their sights by shooting at the lines. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot(a)dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.

2 1

Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...
by Positively Optimistic 21 Sep '10

21 Sep '10

Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management on 6509/6513 cisco switches? We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our facilities,.. and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed to be a great idea... 8 48port blades.. pose a challenge.. or a problem.. Pictures are welcomed... off-list contact would be great. Thanks

10 11

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre
by Reese 21 Sep '10

21 Sep '10

At 09:19 21 09 10, Christopher Morrow wrote: >this was presented at the nanog in ... SF I think as well: ><http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/abstracts.php?pt=MTU5NSZuYW5vZzQ5&nm=…> > >not really news... > >On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> wrote: > > > > > <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx> I don't want to start an off-topic subthread but I have to call bullshit on this so-called "news" story. So it is my intent that this be my first, last, and only post on this topic. Was it addressed at NANOG (in SF?) that many rifles and amateur shooters both, are capable of sub-MOA accuracy at short distances? By short, I mean ~50 yards or less. Or that a hunter with even modest self-training, who was aiming at an insulator with a properly sighted-in rifle at short range, has a significantly greater probability of hitting the insulator being aimed at than of hitting the supported wire? That wasn't addressed in the buttwipe propaganda from down under. Need I remind anyone of the Dunblane and Port Arthur incidents and the subsequent gun control crackdowns in each of those countries. I wouldn't expect any crown- influenced news agency to give issues involving our Second Amendment a fair shake. Just like I don't expect logic or sanity from the Brady Campaign on the 2A issue. Nor should anyone else. The story smacks of deliberately painting hunters as irresponsible ruffians and worse. What sort of repair rates do the power or other companies running wire across that expanse contend with? Given the remoteness, the identity of the affected client (Google) and the apparent absence of additional information, corporate sabotage seems just-as or even-more probable than random irresponsible hunters. To be fair, some shooters are irresponsible, but deliberate sabotage cannot be ruled out with only the information currently available. Reese

1 0

Twitter web interface exploit ...
by Jorge Amodio 21 Sep '10

21 Sep '10

Don't believe it will create any network waves but just FYI, history reached mainstream media http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social.media/09/21/twitter.security.flaw/index… According to the birdy folks the exploit is being patched right now. J

1 0

financial peering?
by Ryan Finnesey 21 Sep '10

21 Sep '10

Does anyone know if there is a peering point setup to pass traffic to credit card processes such as First Data and or the ATM interexchange networks? Cheers Ryan

4 3

[NANOG-announce] Final agenda posted for NANOG 50
by David Meyer 20 Sep '10

20 Sep '10

Folks, The agenda for NANOG 50 has been updated. The agenda looks very good and we are looking forward to seeing you all in Atlanta. Please note that tomorrow (09/21) is the last day before late registration kicks in. So please register tomorrow if you haven't already. Looking forward to Atlanta, Dave (for the NANOG PC) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
by Robert Bonomi 20 Sep '10

20 Sep '10

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com(a)nanog.org Mon Sep 20 13:24:42 2010 > From: William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:25:31 -0400 > Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, > To: Justin Horstman <justin.horstman(a)gorillanation.com> > Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Justin Horstman > <justin.horstman(a)gorillanation.com> wrote: > > Devil's Advocate here, > > > > What would you say to ISP A that provided similar > > speeds as ISP B, but B took payments from content > > providers and then provided the service for free? > > > > Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, > > which is free, and most people wouldn't know the difference. > > Justin, > > I'd say ISP B was incorrectly described. He doesn't provide service > for free; he merely has a different customer. In ISP A, the end user > is the customer but in ISP B, he isn't. I'm tempted to point out that there have been severl attempts at the ISP B model. None of which are still in existance. I take that back, one or two of them may still exist, but they're not using that business model any more.

1 0

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG 20 Sep '10

20 Sep '10

Leo Bicknell <bicknell(a)ufp.org> wrote: > Part of the reason for this is "U-Verse" is FTTN, Fiber to the Node. > AT&T has run fiber to my neighborhood, I believe the node in my > case is about 1000 feet away (I drive past it on the way out). The > electronics sit there, so the old model of colocating in the CO and > getting the dry pair is no longer possible, the copper stops at the > node and it's a largeish (6' wide, 3' deep, 5' tall) cabinet, so > there's no colo. We have that exact same stuff in my area too: I've actually talked to the AT&T tech who was setting that cabinet up on one of our streets. The explanation he gave me was that even though they want everyone to go to this new-fangled fiber thing, they still have to maintain a small number of copper pairs running all the way to the real CO like it used to be. The reason is that if some kooky customer like me wants a service like ISDN that's only available from the real Class 5 switch and not from the "U-Verse" remote terminal, they are still required to provide that as a regulated telco. Ditto with CLECs like Covad-now-MegaPath: even though they don't get access to the FTTN infrastructure, no telco is evicting their legacy CO presence. Therefore, if a kooky customer like me wishes to forego fiber speeds and prefers the slower all-copper solution, I can still get SDSL from the CLEC, and the ILEC (AT&T) will be required to provide a direct copper pair from that CLEC's cage inside the CO to the customer premise, no matter how much they wish for these copper pairs to die. Long live copper! MS

2 1

Specifications for Internet services on public frequency
by Georges-Keny PAUL 20 Sep '10

20 Sep '10

Hello all, My team is working on technical and technological specifications of a document for the deployment of Internet service on public frequencies in rural areas. We welcome your thoughts on the topic in terms of previous experiences and, well sure, you recommendation in terms of equipment. You should note that the environment in question is very mountainous with very precarious infrastructure conditions: no electricity, poor access, etc. We would like to deploy a service at minimal cost, using mainly open source software. All comments, suggestions, recommendations, draft, success stories are well come. Feel free to contact me for additional information. Warms regards, Georges-Keny PAUL

6 5