- Test - lists.nanog.org

VerizonWireless.com contact
by Mark Price 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

Does anyone know how to get in touch with someone at Verizon Wireless regarding SMTP? Part of our network seems to be blocked by their MX servers for verizonwireless.com and I can't find any contact info. Thanks, Mark

1 0

Facility wide DR/Continuity
by Drew Weaver 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

Hi All, I'm attempting to devise a method which will provide continuous operation of certain resources in the event of a disaster at a single facility. The types of resources that need to be available in the event of a disaster are ecommerce applications and other business critical resources. Some of the questions I keep running into are: Should the additional sites be connected to the primary site (and/or the Internet directly)? What is the best way to handle the routing? Obviously two devices cannot occupy the same IP address at the same time, so how do you provide that instant 'cut-over'? I could see using application balancers to do this but then what if the application balancers fail, etc? Any advice from folks on list or off who have done similar work is greatly appreciated. Thanks, -Drew

7 10

Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity
by gb10hkzo-nanog＠yahoo.co.uk 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

Some things just don't active/active nicely on a budget. > Sure, because of inefficient legacy design choices. Roland, I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Budget is very much an issue when choosing between active/active and active/passive. Nothing to do with "inefficient legacy design". For example, consider the licensing and hardware costs involved in running something like Oracle Database in active/active mode (in a topology that is supported by Oracle Tech Support).

2 1

RE: Facility wide DR/Continuity
by gb10hkzo-nanog＠yahoo.co.uk 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

On the subject of DNS GSLB, there's a fairly well known article on the subject that anyone considering implementing it should read at least once.... :) http://www.tenereillo.com/GSLBPageOfShame.htm and part 2 http://www.tenereillo.com/GSLBPageOfShameII.htm Yes it was written in 2004. But all the "food for thought" that it provides is still very much applicable today.

5 9

Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity
by gb10hkzo-nanog＠yahoo.co.uk 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

(by the way ....before the accusations start flying of spamming , no I don't work for Zeus or have any incentive to mention their name... just happen to know their product)

1 0

Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity
by gb10hkzo-nanog＠yahoo.co.uk 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

to whoever said ... >F5's if you like commercial solutions F5s if you like expensive commercial solutions ..... Those with a less bulging wallet may wish to speak to the guys at Zeus Technology (http://www.zeus.com/) who have a lot of experience in the area and a more reasonable price tag. Contact me off-list and I can give you some names of senior techies there to speak to. (usual disclaimer that you should research your products .... it may be that for your particular application/environment/business model/whatever F5 may be your tool of choice)

1 0

Issues through ATT core/backbone
by Veerender Attri 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

We have a few circuits with ATT and a few VZ. Since friday we have seen serveral intermittent issues throught ATT to reach various customers and our various remote offices. If we swing the traffic through VZ interfaces using static routes we can reach those locations fine. We were doing traceroutes during the issue and we saw the traceroutes dying inside ATT network. I was wondering if any one else saw similar issues ? On friday we saw issue between ATT and GBLX peering point. We saw similar issue on tuesday. And another one today. We sent to ATT various traceroutes and opened a few tickets but didnt really get any kind of confirmation. The problem seems to remedy itself on its own after 10-30 minutes. Please chime in if any one else saw similar issues transiting through AT&T or global crossing.

2 2

Savvis quality?
by David Hubbard 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection. Thanks, David

6 7

Re: Fiber cut - response in seconds?
by Warren Bailey 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

I do 250 mbits on 21 transponders :) ----- Original Message ----- From: John van Oppen <john(a)vanoppen.com> To: Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>; Deepak Jain <deepak(a)ai.net> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Tue Jun 02 14:51:59 2009 Subject: RE: Fiber cut - response in seconds? Ok, while this is off-topic, let's just point people to Wikipedia: Other satellites (which are NOT in the same position at all times from the prospective of a spot on earth): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit TV, and other fixed positioned (relative to the earth are geostationary): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit perhaps further comments can go to the discussion pages on Wikipedia since I would wager a very small number of us push any serious number of bits via satellite. John van Oppen Spectrum Networks LLC Direct: 206.973.8302 Main: 206.973.8300 Website: http://spectrumnetworks.us -----Original Message----- From: Chris Adams [mailto:cmadams@hiwaay.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:36 PM To: Deepak Jain Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Fiber cut - response in seconds? Once upon a time, Deepak Jain <deepak(a)ai.net> said: > I promise you that that is not the case for all applications. > Geosynchronous satellites can be anywhere. For the applications you > are considering (communications mostly), equatorial orbit is the most > advantageous. Geosynchronous are only over a particular longitude. They move up and down in latitude, so it isn't over a given point except twice per day (or only once at the extremes). -- Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

2 1

Re: Fiber cut - response in seconds?
by David Barak 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Charles Wyble <charles(a)thewybles.com> wrote: > David Barak wrote: > > Encryption is insufficient - if you let someone have > physical access for a long enough period, they'll eventually > crack anything. > > Really? I don't think so. I imagine it would be much more > dependent on the amount of computing power the attacker has > access to. More encrypted blobs won't help. If that was the > case then the various encryption schemes in wide use today > would be cracked already. Bad guys can setup networks and > blast data through it and have complete access. I don't see > them cracking encryption. Paranoia 101 teaches us that any given encryption approach will eventually fall before a brute-force onslaught of sufficient power and duration[1]. I'm not trying to argue that the attacker in this case could necessarily detect a flaw in the algorithm; rather, they'll get an effectively infinite number of chances to bang against it with no consequences. Once it's cracked, the attacker will *still* have the physical access which is thus compromised, and then has free access to all of the transmissions. Physical security is a prerequisite to all of the other approaches to communication security. Those cases where physical security is presumed to be non-existant have to rely on a lot of out-of-band knowledge for any given method to be resistant to attack, and it's very hard to make use of a connection of that type for regular operations. Pretty much all security eventually boils down to people with firearms saying "don't do that." David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com

7 8