- Test - lists.nanog.org

Telco alarm structured cabling standard?
by Glen Turner 11 May '04

11 May '04

Hi folks, I want to run NEBS alarm relay signals via structured cabling. Does anyone have a reference to a standard or know of the typical assignment of signals to wires? Ta, Glen -- Glen Turner Tel: (08) 8303 3936 or +61 8 8303 3936 Australian Academic & Research Network www.aarnet.edu.au

1 0

Type of Service (TOS)
by Vicky Rode 10 May '04

10 May '04

Hi there, Say if I had a qos appliance installed on networks between a lan and a wan box would the qos policies be carried across wan end points (point to point connection)? In other words, will the router retain the TOS bits across to the other side of the wan connection to provide QoS-style priority for the packets or will it clear the TOS bits? BTW, the other side of the wan connection also has the qos appliance sitting between a lan and a wan box. Just so that I'm clear, I'm not talking about an upstream neighbor being an ISP connection which I know they will likely ignore the TOS bits unless I pay them extra for the feature. The above scenario is a point to point connection to a remote site. Any insight will be appreciated. regards, /vicky

3 4

Revised MD5 proliferation statistics
by Steve Gibbard 10 May '04

10 May '04

Last week I sent out some numbers on MD5 proliferation among Packet Clearing House's peers, did some speculation about what this meant for the rest of the Net, and asked for numbers from other sources. At PCH, we had 12% of sessions configured as MD5. We had been responding to requests from peers, but not making any requests of our own. I speculated that if this meant 12% of peers were making such requests, and all peers were complying with the requests, that would mean 22% of peering sessions had MD5 configured. I got responses from six other networks, ranging from one of the traditional tier 1s with 734 peering sessions to a small ISP with five. In total, I heard about 1,226 sessions, of which 458, or 37%, had been configured for MD5. As expected, there are two very different percentage groups based on whether the network has been asking their peers to configure MD5. Among those who have been requesting MD5 from their peers, 49% have been converted (if I exclude the tier 1, that climbs to 86%). Among those who haven't been requesting MD5 from their peers, the average MD5 proliferation is 13%. I'm a little unsure how to interpret the rates for those who have been requesting that their peers configure MD5, due to a huge spread. The tier 1 who responded had 44% configured. Another response, which couldn't be included in my averages due to a lack of specific numbers, said 49%. On the other end of the spectrum were two reports, one from a small ISP that had gotten four out of five, and one from a larger ISP that had gotten 78 of 90, for 86%. I'm going to stick to my 49% number for now, but I'm still interested in seeing more data. To do the same math I did last week, with the revised numbers: If 13% of peers are making MD5 requests, that should mean MD5 requests have been made for 24% of peering sessions. If 49% of those requests are being complied with, that should mean about 12% of peering sessions are now configured for MD5. -Steve

1 0

IPv6 /20 allocated - update your BGP filters!
by Jeroen Massar 10 May '04

10 May '04

Here is a message forwarded for Gert Doering: -----Forwarded Message----- From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> To: 6bone(a)ISI.EDU, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:56:51 +0200 Hi, the first IPv6 /20 allocation ever has been made today: inet6num: 2001:2000::/20 netname: EU-TELIANET-20040510 org: ORG-TIC2-RIPE descr: PROVIDER Local Registry descr: TeliaSonera AB country: EU and this means that "if you have been following my filtering recommendations, this network will not be accepted right now" (the current filters had a minimum accepted prefix length of a /24). I have updated the prefix filter recommendation page: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html and urge you to check whether your filters are prepared for these large prefixes. (There is a /23 upcoming, and rumors speak of a /19 being requested "real soon now"). TODO: the "strict" filter could do some grouping for different IPv6 allocation ranges, but this is dangerous today, as we don't know how future allocations will look like. Note: ICANN just doesn't get it. They have not allocated a reasonable prefix size to RIPE (like a /8), not even a /19, but "a big chunk of 14 sucessive /23s, summing up to a /20+/21+/22" - see the list at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments Gert Doering -- RIPE Address Policy WG Co-Chair, keeper of the IPv6 filter list

1 0

route-views.oregon-ix.net
by Peter Rohrman 10 May '04

10 May '04

Is route-views.oregon-ix.net down? I cant get to it. Pete Rohrman

4 3

NYTIMES: New undersea cable projects face some old problems
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 10 May '04

10 May '04

[about new cables laid by FLAG and SEA-ME-WE-4] -- suresh ramasubramanian suresh(a)outblaze.com gpg EDEDEFB9 manager, security and antispam operations, outblaze ltd > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/business/10cable.html?th=&pagewanted=all&… > New Undersea Cable Projects Face Some Old Problems By KEN BELSON > > Published: May 10, 2004 > > It has been several years since executives in the undersea cable > industry had anything to cheer about. Nearly every company that > strings fiber optics across oceans has been restructured or has gone > bankrupt. Lease prices for cable lines have collapsed and are still > falling. Bankers pulled the plug on most new projects long ago > because so much cable was already sitting at the bottom of the ocean. [...] > The projects - the Falcon cable financed privately by Flag Telecom > and the Sea-Me-We 4 line built by a consortium of global telephone > companies led by Singapore Telecommunications - are nothing if not [...] > But the operators of the new cable lines face the same problems that > sank many competitors. Chief among them is that the amount of > capacity being added far outpaces growth in Internet use and demand > for long-haul lines. Until this changes, prices will slide, making it [...] > Mr. Rawle also expects demand for data links from countries in the > Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea to the rest of the world to > increase 38 percent a year on average through 2013. The problem is [...] > "If you're a buyer, that's the side you want to be on," said David W. > Dorman, the chairman and chief executive of AT&T, which has not built > undersea cables since 1999. "Any time I hear someone is going to > build another cable, we go, 'Bravo.' " But Mr. Dorman added that as a > business proposition, "I wouldn't be putting any new cable into the > ocean right now."

1 0

Re: Corporations becoming a LIR
by leo vegoda 10 May '04

10 May '04

Hi Tom, On May 7, 2004, at 4:10 pm, Tom Vest wrote: > Hi Leo, > > I find the information under the individual LIR entries interesting. > For example, I looked under CN (China) and found 14 European LIRs. I > couldn't find any explanation for the "serviced areas" field in the > LIR refbook -- what exactly does it mean? In this particular case, it > could not mean that the entities are providing IR services to Chinese > operators for local production needs. Nor would it be possible for > these entities to provide IR services to non-Chinese operators for > local use, with the (still unlikely I think) exception of the LIRs' > own internal enterprise networks (e.g., Siemens provisioning its own > CN operations). Could they be servicing Chinese network operators > seeking to break into Europe? No such operators exist, except perhaps > the few telcos that are already APNIC members and handle their own > needs. > > Maybe the "serviced areas" field is simply one of those questions that > means "whatever the applicant thinks it means," i.e., it's technically > meaningless (each respondent would have to independently translate it > into terms that are meaningful to others)? Some clarification here > would be much appreciated! I agree that those pages are a bit confusing. All the LIRs listed in the page for China are actually based in other countries. They just happen to offer services there. For instance, I believe the people at the Holy See indicate that they provide services (no pun intended) in every country in the world. The "serviced areas" field is drawn from a list of countries supplied by the member. They're asked to indicate the country or countries in which they assign addresses or provide services. However, in most cases, when LIRs operate outside the RIPE NCC service region they aren't providing ISP-type services with address space from our region. They're actually providing other types of products or services. I don't think any particular meaning can be applied to the data on these pages. They probably need a bit of an overhaul, really. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS
by Vicky Rode 10 May '04

10 May '04

Hi there, Just wondering if anyone out there has either implemented or looked into this queuing method for quality of service implementation. This solution is offered (hardware solution) and patented by foursticks.com. According to foursticks, "HCQ achieves the efficiency and flexibility of first generation queuing systems, without the disadvantages." It compares HCQ (interesting reading) w/ Class-Based Queuing (CBQ), Random Early Discard (RED) and Weighted Random Early Discard (WRED),Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ),Priority Queuing (PQ) & Low Latency Queuing (LLQ). Also can anyone recommend a qos forum which I can ping as well. Any insight will be appreciated. regards, /vicky

1 0

RE: Filtering network content based on User Subscription
by Ejay Hire 10 May '04

10 May '04

I'm bumping the tail-end of this thread, but here goes. we implemet per-user dynamic content filtering using an N2H2 on a squid box running as a transparent proxy. When we had tnt's, we used ASCEND-IP-DIRECT to force filtered users through the n2h2. We use cisco As5800's now and have an outbound policy that checks and redirects based on the Ip address they are assigned (until I get the final VPDN solution working.) -Ejay -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Mark Borchers Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 6:42 PM To: jshen(a)spymac.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Filtering network content based on User Subscription > Your best bet in this case is to place a appropriately sized > firewall at > the customer's site, i.e. Cisco PIX 501 - 515 series or SonicWall's > equivalent and link it to a WebSense or N2H2 content > filtering server at > your NOC. [snip] > Scott C. McGrath Joe, Cisco's Content Engine can also do the functions that Scott mentioned, plus gives you the benefit of web caching. It's very feature-rich, and the command line looks a lot like IOS. You can configure it to FTP your whitelist of URLs, and set up user-specific or global time restrictions, which address a couple of your specs. For the latter, I think you need the Smart Filter module, which is not part of the basic Content Engine distribution.

1 0

Filtering network content based on User Subscription
by jshen＠spymac.com 08 May '04

08 May '04

3 2