- Test - lists.nanog.org

Computer systems blamed for feeble hurricane response?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

This is the first I've heard of this... Via The Inquirer: [snip] REPORTERS at the Wall Street Journal said they have seen documents which show that a swift response by the US federal government to Hurricane Katrina was hampered because FEMA computer servers crashed. Michael Brown, FEMA's head, resigned yesterday after being recalled by the Department of Homeland Security to Washington DC. Attempts by agencies to spur the Federal Emergency Management Agency into urgent action were met with bouncing emails, the Journal said. It quoted a Department of Health official as saying every email it had sent to FEMA staff bounced. "They need a better internet provider during disasters," the Journal quoted her or him as saying. A number of US agencies made desperate calls to the Department of Homeland Security and to Congresswomen and men, the article claimed. [Subscription required.] The newspaper did not say which computer systems FEMA uses. [snip] http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26125 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

14 19

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

On 12-sep-2005, at 4:55, Matthew Petach wrote: > > And no, multiple IP addresses is not good enough. > What requirements do you have that are fundamentally incompatible > with using multiple addresses? > How would a default-free content provider with 1000+ peering sessions > be handled? Would they be treated as an ISP, even though they have no > downstreams, and get PI space? There are a few corner cases that fall through the cracks in today's policies. A content network like you describe would be one, a transit ISP with customers that all have their own addresses would be another: where would they get the IPv6 addresses to number their routers? However, the number of such networks is so incredibly small that whatever happens to them is completely insignificant with regard to scalability. Still, we need a decent policy for these cases, and JUST these cases but not random people who'd also like a /32. > Or would you expect them to get prefixes from every peer they have, > and configure several hundred IP addresses on each server? Getting address space from a peer doesn't make much sense. But 99.999% of all content networks have 1 or more ISPs that they can get address space from and then announce to any peers. > I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of > the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the > IPv6 arena. Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I don't know if this makes a difference. The whole point of IPv6 is that we have a technology that will allow our networks to grow for decades to come. Importing IPv4 mistakes defeats the purpose. > ACLs are already enough of a hassle with one > IP address per host. Ok, let's see... which is more important to keep the internet running, a routing table that fits in our routers, or acl monkeys that get to go home at 5?

12 18

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
by Jason Schiller 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

on Sat Sep 10 03:39:59 2005 Christopher L. Morrow writes > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > > > [Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?] > > > > perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :) The most basic question is if there will be a problem if we solve the multihoming question in the traditional IPv4 way? And if so, should we solve the problem by throwing hardware at it and hoping that when it becomes a problem the hardware will be sufficiently advanced to be able to solve it? We can solve the multihoming question in the traditional IPv4 way, de-aggregation. We can argue if that means give end sites a /32, or allow provider independent /48s, but the fact of the matter is a prefix whatever size creates routing state. The sheer size of the IPv6 space allows for lots of routing state. On the other side, if you remove the routing state then you have a trade off where the information you previously attained through routing state must now be detected in the forwarding plane. We are seeing this now with respect to how end systems detect an outage. draft-ietf-shim6-reach-detect-00.txt The problem as I see it is that the IETF community is focused on the protocol design, how end hosts signal shim6 capabilities, and failure detection. They are not focused on operational requirements such as 1. The ability to inter-AS traffic engineering polices 2. To be able to configure and manage inter-AS traffic engineering polices at the network level and not on each individual host 3. The need for transit ASes to leverage traffic engineering. This is evident by the fact that the language in RFC-3582 that attempted to document traffic engineering requirements was down graded to .goals. in order to get adopted. The problem as I see it, is that there are only a few providers making this claim that these requirements are indeed requirements and need to be solved before there will be wide spread adoption of IPv6. Most people involved in IETF either don.t care about multihoming, feel that simple fail-over will solve the problem for 90% of the Internet, or only are concerned with things that affect the protocol, and they believe multihoming isn.t one of them. The process to define how these things work will be done in the IETF, in the shim6 working group... if this might be important to you, perhaps you will want to join the discussion and make your rerquirements/views/issues well known now, before the protocol is specified. ___Jason

1 0

Re: LA power outage?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

"william(at)elan.net" <william(a)elan.net> wrote: >I think there is a difference as to network going down for 3 hours >and network going down for 3 months... > Semantics. :-) >BTW - care to speculate what will happen if cat5 hurricane hits LA? :) >Or maybe we should be thinking of 8+ earthquake .... No -- I wouldn't want to be accused of instigating an off-topic thread. ,-) - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

RE: mail service with no mx (was - Re: Computer systems blamed for feeble hurricane response?)
by Hannigan, Martin 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

> > > >Application layer firewalls have existed for at least 6 years. > > > Make that 15.... Socks, fwtk (before it went commercial) to name a few. -M<

1 0

RE: LA power outage?
by Reeves, Rob 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

We've been told by our field tech in LA that One Wilshire had lost power for a bit, but it is now restored. I don't know the duration of the outage, but our equipment there is on DC and did not go down. -Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ashe Canvar Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:08 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: LA power outage? My equiment at 1200 W. 7th Street is unreachable. Can anyone confirm if one wilshire is affected ? -ashe On 9/12/05, brett watson <brett(a)the-watsons.org> wrote: > > > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > there's also a blurb on yahoo news of an outage > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050912/ap_on_re_us/la_power_outage > > AM radio news is reporting a "wrong cable cut" by the department of > water and power folks... they're saying "no ties to terrorism"... > > > -b

4 3

rate limiting bandwidth
by Micah McNelly 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Does anyone have any recommendations concerning hardware rate limiting solutions with extensive API's? I remember packeteer from back in the day and have been looking at some of their newer solutions that have XML API's. Comments? Alternatives? I would appreciate any feedback that can be provided. Thanks, /m "I bet the human brain is a kludge." - Marvin Minsky

2 1

OMB: No new money for IPv6 [Was: Re: Multi-6]
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Although I know you're speaking metaphorically, to top it off, see SUBJ: line. http://www.fcw.com/article90779-09-13-05-Web "Upgrade to v6 by 2008 -- no new money." - ferg -- Tony Li <tony.li(a)tony.li> wrote: Moore's Law has not, and does not apply to routers. Thus, costs are going up non-trivially. Tony -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

RE: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?
by Hannigan, Martin 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

> > Anyone have recommendations (tested/practical is best :-)? > > The APC Protectnet PNET1 and PRM24 seem quite nice and not > too expensive -- > if they work....pros? cons? It sounds like you're either out of NEC, or, you are grounding them to waterpipe. I believe NEC calls for grounding via earth. You could strike some rod into the ground several feet deep, attach to the pipe with conductive screw+locknut+washer, and a proper gauge for distance cable. Theoretically, that should solve your problem. What did you electricians say? -M<

1 0

Katrina Recovery Post: techs looking for bandwidth in Bay St. Louis, MS
by Dave Curado 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Apologies in advance if this posting is not operational enough. I received a call from a friend who is part of a team who are putting together some wireless networks in the affected areas. They are in need of an internet connection, a link of any kind, in Bay St. Louis, MS. GPS = N 30 22.375", W 89 26.900" I was told they can use T1, bundled T1s, wet string, whatever... If you can supply connectivity to this location, please unicast mail to me and I will forward contact info. Thanks very much.

1 0