- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: too many variables
by Patrick Giagnocavo 09 Aug '07

09 Aug '07

On Aug 9, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Tony Li wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Leigh Porter wrote: > >> >> >> Yes a very big unless. Multi-core processors are already available >> that would make very large BGP convergence possible. Change the >> algorithm as well and perhaps add some multi-threading to it and >> it's even better. > > > Not necessarily. BGP convergence is strongly dependent on memory > bandwidth and multiple cores do not increase that. > > Tony Sun just released the T2 chip, claimed 60GB/s memory bandwidth, on- board 10GbE interface etc. Pricing under $1000 for an 8-core chip with 64 "threads". Cordially Patrick Giagnocavo patrick(a)zill.net

1 0

PoC Exploit Now Available for Cisco NHRP Vulnerability
by Paul Ferguson 09 Aug '07

09 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 If you're using NHRP and haven't patched, it might be a good idea to do so real soon now. A proof of concept exploit is now avialable which can crash a router configured with NHRP authentication enabled: http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/4272 Cisco security advisory from yesterday: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a0080899 63b.shtml FYI, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGu1BKq1pz9mNUZTMRAglTAKCEGkQG0pZIn8OAZUPTv3mgFcJxgACg/5qt AIreKsDjLlFGJNSOthmhinU= =ZbWR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

L3 in NYC
by Marshall Eubanks 09 Aug '07

09 Aug '07

Is anyone else having trouble with Level 3 in New York ? We have circuits down, etc. Regards Marshall

3 2

RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or AT&T?
by Paul Ferguson 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Michael Airhart <mairhart(a)cisco.com> wrote: >I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email, at least part of our connectivity is up. > >No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just lurk Nanog to get the skinny).. > Cisco's problem seems to be have been resolved. Also see: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/08/update_ciscocom_site.html Thanks to everyone for their verification. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGujLsq1pz9mNUZTMRAu7pAJ4s2GtvR24DNGyLwGmEeaz6sLQx7gCfZW/J ALFp5DbrxnvdxL9Qfl8OyHk= =0gF2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or AT&T?
by Scott Weeks 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

Does anyone else see the irony in all this if it does turn out to be cisco's fault? High Availability, multiple upstream providers, backup generators and all that? scott

2 1

RE: SBC Issues/Contact?
by Paul Ferguson 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Koch, Christian" <ckoch(a)qualitytech.com> wrote: >Just confirmed w/ Cisco, apparently there was a power outage in San Jose I'm only a few blocks from Cisco, and we have two data centers in the immediate San Jose area -- first _I've_ heard of any powerloss on San Jose. Must be specific to Cisco... - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGuijcq1pz9mNUZTMRAjMSAKDAJ/0C7xSQGp9KS6FOJrJxd0ClFgCcCRuZ oU8/3Bovfc4Qa/hZDwVnoiQ= =GOrX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

3 2

Re: Problems with either Cisco.com or AT&T? [POWER UPDATE]
by J. Oquendo 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

http://infiltrated.net/ciscoOutage.jpg -- ==================================================== J. Oquendo "Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta" http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF684C42E sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net

1 0

Problems with either Cisco.com or AT&T?
by Paul Ferguson 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 No idea -- maybe just a hiccup? - From my office in San Jose: %traceroute www.cisco.com Tracing route to www.cisco.com [198.133.219.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: [snip] 7 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms so-3-0-0.mpr2.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.30.173] 8 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms above-att.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.13.50] 9 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.12.2] 10 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.74] 11 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.253] 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * ^C - From MIT: Tracing to: www.cisco.com 1 legacy26-0.default.csail.mit.edu (18.26.0.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 2 kalgan.trantor.csail.mit.edu (128.30.0.245) [AS40] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 3 B24-RTR-2-CSAIL.MIT.EDU (18.4.7.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 4 EXTERNAL-RTR-1-BACKBONE.MIT.EDU (18.168.0.18) [AS3] 1 ms 4 ms 2 ms 5 ge-6-23.car2.Boston1.Level3.net (4.79.2.1) [AS3356] 0 ms * 0 ms 6 * * ae-5-5.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.250) [AS3356] 8 ms 7 ae-61-61.csw1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.66) [AS3356] 10 ms 5 ms 16 ms 8 ae-13-69.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.5) [AS3356] 67 ms 59 ms 58 ms 9 att-level3-oc192.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.127.150) [AS3356] 17 ms 127 ms 12 ms 10 tbr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.3.57) [] [MPLS: Label 31537 Exp 0] 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 11 12.122.16.153 (12.122.16.153) [] [MPLS: Label 19 Exp 0] 76 ms 77 ms 77 ms 12 cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.1.190) [] [MPLS: Label 1188 Exp 0] 77 ms 76 ms 77 ms 13 12.122.17.146 (12.122.17.146) [] [MPLS: Label 31051 Exp 0] 77 ms 78 ms 78 ms 14 tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.10.6) [] [MPLS: Label 31320 Exp 0] 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms 15 gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.74) [] [MPLS: Label 323 Exp 0] 72 ms 71 ms 71 ms 16 gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.2.253) [] 76 ms 76 ms 77 ms 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGugixq1pz9mNUZTMRAnY3AKCIeE2oiRKl11ZRgsOLs/q6J5TyLwCgi/SQ mnTSn9TJY+yB2cjZSeKaulM= =DGbM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

10 11

RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or AT&T?
by Michael Airhart 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email, at least part of our connectivity is up. No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just lurk Nanog to get the skinny).. >A brief look at routeviews shows www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25) >originating from AS109 (Cisco) and transiting via AS7132 (AT&T/SBC) and >AS7018 (AT&T). Thus I suspect this is an issue with AS109 (Cisco) and >not with their providers. Though, I do feel wrong using the plural >"providers" in this case... > >-Benson > >

2 1

weight vs. volume (95th percentile vs transfer in M/Gbytes)
by Jim Mercer 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

over the years, i've grown quite accustomed to feeling out pricing of bandwidth based on 95th percentile peak utilization with various minimums and potential tiers. i've always sorta viewed pricing by "bytes transferred" to be a consumer thing that my uncle might pay when hosting his webpages showing his matchbox collection. now i'm faced with a jurisdiction where the only providers (all 2 of them) will only give pricing in "bytes transferred". they are not interested in giving me pricing based on 95th percentile, and as such i'm having a tough time budgetting for some of my applications. (pisses me off because i'm sure _they_ are paying by 995th percentile) with 95th percentile, i could always trottle down the applications or figure out what my estimated `overage might be. has anyone got a formula for comparing 95th percentile billing with bytes transferred? -- Jim Mercer jim(a)reptiles.org +971 55 410-5633 "I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I live here and I'm going to take a leak." - Lester Pearson in 1967, during a meeting between himself and President Lyndon Johnson, whose Secret Service detail had taken over Pearson's cottage retreat. At one point, a Johnson guard asked Pearson, "Who are you and where are you going?"

3 2