- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Worst design decisions?
by Austad, Jay 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Sun Ultra Enterprise 3500. Three power supplies for redundancy, only *one* power cord. You'd think that with something that originally cost 6 figures, that this would have been thought out a bit more. Oh, and 1U patch panels with only 12 ports in them annoy me. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt [mailto:acheron@qwest.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:43 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Worst design decisions? > > > > Hello all, > > Was doing some upgrades on a UBR7246 (to a VXR), and I got to > thinking > about short sighted design considerations. I was curious if > any of you > had some pet peeves from a design perspective to rant about. > I'll start > with a couple. > > 1) Why did Cisco design the I/O controller on the 7246 with screws in > the corner, which are very difficult to get at? And worse than that, > why did they not include a cheap handle on the blank in this slot? > > 2) Why did Cisco not include side handles on the 12000 > chassis? It's a > heavy chassis, and I can imagine how many techs have thrown out their > back moving that chassis around. > > I've got a couple others in my head from 3Com and a couple of others, > but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. So, what do you think? > >

1 0

Re: Worst design decisions?
by Vinny Abello 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

How about MB chipset fans which always seem to fail! I avoid any mobo with a chipset fan if possible. This is still commonplace and I still see them fail all the time. At 09:09 AM 9/18/2003, Ryan Dobrynski wrote: >I have beef with every chasis designer that has ever left a sharp edge >hidden deep inside thier "case of doom" just waiting to gash some poor IT >guy in a most unpleasent manor.. > >also ASUS who insists on putting thier onboard sound interface at the >BOTTOM of the MB when they know that the little cable you get with the >cdrom is half the length of the board. you end up with an analog audio >cable thats stretched tight and now in the way of all your PCI slots... >/rude > >Ryan Dobrynski >Hat-Swapping Gnome >Choice Communications > > >Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking >for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem. Vinny Abello Network Engineer Server Management vinny(a)tellurian.com (973)300-9211 x 125 (973)940-6125 (Direct) PGP Key Fingerprint: 3BC5 9A48 FC78 03D3 82E0 E935 5325 FBCB 0100 977A Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com (888)TELLURIAN There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those that don't.

1 0

Re: DNS anycast considered harmful (was: .ORG problems this evening)
by Todd Vierling 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: : > There's an easy fix to that particular situation: Make the first (or first : > two) listed servers anycast, and the rest unicast. : : It would require a central management (or at least a central : oversight) of the root name servers and I do not believe there is one: : each root name server anycasts at will, without a leader saying ("A : and B will anycast, the others will stay unicast"). Well, that's something for the root server operators to think about and discuss amongst themselves. I know several of them are reading this list, and may be reading this thread. 8-) Still doesn't help .ORG, which is 100% anycast and thus has no DNS-based redundancy (see my experience elsewhere in this thread). -- -- Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> <tv(a)pobox.com>

2 1

Fw: Re: ICANN - Formal Complaint re Verisign
by Jerry Eyers 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

An interesting thought... Jerry >Jerry, > >One question - if I previously typed in an URL that was incorrect and would get the usual response from my OWN system, there would be not a real lot of data sent/received to pay for that mistake. Now that Verisign is doing their current thing, there is a lot more data being paid by ISPs across the world that shouldnt HAVE to be paid for. > >So is anyone thinking of banding together the ISPs in on this formal complaint citing loss of income >from this? The bigger the ISP - eg AOL - the bigger the new cost for Verisign advertising, paid at the >ISP's expense because of all this. A group of ISPs all complaining should get some action you would >think. > >I am posting this to you as if you can use it, feel free to post it to Nanog where I have no posting rights. > >Regards, Greg. > >.

2 1

Re: DNS anycast considered harmful (was: .ORG problems this evening)
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

On donderdag, sep 18, 2003, at 14:08 Europe/Amsterdam, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> BGP is really bad at. DNS servers on the other hand track RTTs for >> query responses > BIND does it but what about Microsoft cache/forwarder? At RIPE 45 (you > were there), Was I??? > a talk by people at CAIDA showed that A.root-servers.net > received twice as much traffic as the other root name servers since it > is just the first one listed... That's not good. But not an excuse. If MS is unable to fix this (how long did it take them to retire the FAT filesystem that was considered prehistoric by the late 1980s again?), BIND runs under Windows too... >> (but I hope they're smart enough to keep some non-anycasted root >> servers around), > Who is "they"? Not sure. :-) > Since there is no top Root Nameservers Authority, every > root nameserver manager decides for himself (I assume they coordinate > but I'm not sure and it's not the same thing). Unlike a TLD, there is > no central decision for management of the root's name servers. So they > can all decide independently to anycast. Diversity is a good thing. But who to the root operators answer to anyway? Not to ICANN, I'm told.

1 0

Just had an interesting side effect of the "V" hijack...
by Jerry Eyers 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Went to register.com to register a new DNS server for someone, and when it normally asks for the IP address (new server, new domain), it didn't because when it did a query, it got a response for that name. Now, it is reporting the new DNS server as resolving to Verisign's IP address. I think register has got some tweaking to do on their web scripts to ignore wildcard responses... But, shows another side effect of "V's" unilateral action. Jerry

1 0

Re: DNS anycast considered harmful (was: .ORG problems this evening)
by Todd Vierling 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: : BIND does it but what about Microsoft cache/forwarder? At RIPE 45 (you : were there), a talk by people at CAIDA showed that A.root-servers.net : received twice as much traffic as the other root name servers since it : is just the first one listed... There's an easy fix to that particular situation: Make the first (or first two) listed servers anycast, and the rest unicast. That gains the distributed nature of anycast to deal with crap like this, while keeping the ability for DNS servers to find one that is *up*. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv(a)duh.org> <tv(a)pobox.com>

1 0

Re: What *are* they smoking?
by George William Herbert 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

>> A wildcard A record in the net TLD. > >It's Verisign's return shot at the web browser "couldn't find this page" >searches. Doesn't seem to have much by way of advertising yet, but I'm >sure that'll change. I heard about this coming from somewhere last week, >though I don't recall where. Probably Wired or the WSJ. Verisign wants >the revenue that all those typos are generating. It's just the next shot >in the eyeball war. This is sufficiently technically and business slimy that I would null-route that IP, personally. -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

16 18

Re: ICANN - Formal Complaint re Verisign
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

>One thing I haven't seen mentioned in all this is the incredible business >monopolizing effect this move will have on the TLD's in question. It >dramatically shifts the domain playing field in Verisign's favor by pointing >millions of potential customers to their site(s) specifically, giving them >millions of dollars in free advertising eye-time over any of the competition I don't see how this eye-time can be translated into millions of dollars. But it is clear that Verisign are making money by selling sponsored links to people who sell spamming services and software. And it is also clear that this redirection of traffic allows them to amass a large database of email addresses that are current, active and which belong to people who don't always check things carefully before acting, i.e. the To: email address was mistyped. They could make a lot of money selling that list of email addresses to spammers. And they could also sell a lot of the mistyped addresses after "correcting" the domain name portion by supplying the closest matches from the .COM and .NET database. I wonder how anyone can continue to trust a company like this as a certificate authority. They seem to have attracted the breed of get-rich-quick management who want to make money by scamming the public and selling very unsubtantial things like names(.COM) and numbers (SSL certs). I don't pretend to believe that we can stop fast-buck artists from running these sorts of scams but we have to find alternative sources for SSL certs from companies whose business model lies squarely in the world of security and trust. That clearly excludes Verisign. Any company with such shoddy business practices that they can unleash this technically flawed redirection of traffic without proper testing and public consultation is also a soft target for infiltration. As was already mentioned, it is only a matter of time before a criminal gang infiltrates Verisign and launches man-in-the-middle attacks on the banking system. There are already people that are specifically targetting banks by installing surreptitious keyloggers on computers that sniff out Internet banking passwords. This would be far more effective if the keyloggers were installed by a man-in-the-middle so that they were targetted only at the intended victims. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Route failures to behosting.com
by Lou Katz 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

I am unable to reach them via several different ISPs. It looks to my naive eyes like routes to them have vanished. Can anyone shed any light on this? -- -=[L]=-

5 6