- Test - lists.nanog.org

re: GE over oc48
by brett watson 23 Jun '02

23 Jun '02

point of clarification: i mentioned luminous and "RPT". their marketing folks call it that, it is in fact RPR (resilient packet ring). -b

1 0

RE: Jamming authorized:
by Matthew Asham 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

>Wouldn't count on that cell phone in Canada..... And in other news, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf05958e.html : Industry Canada is announcing that it will no longer authorize the use of jamming devices. This is consistent with the Departmental mandate to manage the radio frequency spectrum. With respect to the use of jamming devices in connection with federal security and law enforcement functions for national security purposes, an alternative authorization process is currently under review.

1 0

Gig-E over OC48?
by Ralph Doncaster 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

What's the cheapest way to get Gig-E over OC48? A couple used Cerent(Cisco) boxes would work, but the $15-$20K price tag is too high. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com

2 1

Jamming authorized:
by blitz 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

Wouldn't count on that cell phone in Canada..... >Jamming of radio signals authorized > >Special permission for RCMP, military >restricted to G8 summit, Pope's visit > >By PAUL WALDIE > >Friday, June 21, 2002 Print Edition, Page A1 > >TORONTO -- The Canadian military and the RCMP have been given special >authorization to jam radio and cellphone signals during the G8 Summit >next week and the Pope's visit to Canada in July. > >It's the first time police or the military have ever been allowed to >block signals, an official said. > >The authorization allows the Department of National Defence and the RCMP >to use jamming devices around Calgary and Kananaskis, Alta., from June >17 to June 29 for the summit of leaders from Group of Eight nations. >They will have the same power to jam signals in Toronto from July 16 to >July 31 -- the Pope is scheduled to arrive in Canada July 23 and depart >July 29, with three Toronto appearances in between. > >RCMP spokesman Corporal Benoît Desjardins said jamming is an important >part of the security measures for both events. > >"The RCMP must ensure the safety and security of those attending," he >said yesterday. > >"It could be used, for example, if there was threat of a detonation of >some type of a remote-controlled device. We could jam the frequencies to >make sure nobody could send a signal to that bomb." > >He did not know, however, how the jamming would affect cell phones or >commercial radio transmissions. > >The order, signed by the Minister of Industry on June 6, exempts the >army and police from provisions of the Radiocommunication Act, which >prohibits "the interference with or obstruction of radiocommunication >without lawful excuse." > >The exemption "will provide a way to address the problematic application >of the prohibitions," the order says. > >It specifies that "every reasonable effort shall be made to confine or >restrict to the extent possible interference with or obstruction of a >radiocommunication . . . to the smallest physical area, the fewest >number of frequencies and the minimum duration required to accomplish >the objectives of the interference or obstruction." > >David Warnes, a senior adviser in Industry Canada's telecommunications >branch, said yesterday that it is the first time this kind of order has >been granted. > >He added that cellphone jammers are illegal in Canada, but the >department will soon release a policy on the devices. > >The department held public consultations on cellphone jammers last year >and it is considering permitting them in theatres, hospitals and other >public places. Jamming devices are also illegal in the United States, >but there is a growing underground market for the devices, which can be >bought for about $2,200. >A survey of 2,000 people last year by Decima Research found about 50 per >cent support for jammers in public places. > >Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

1 0

Qwest Megacentral DSL weirdness
by Christopher J. Wolff 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

Greetings, Approximately two weeks ago, dsl customers over our Qwest Megacentral service began to randomly drop offline. According to Qwest, each of the customers had "good birectional cell flow." However, each of the affected customers were unable to pass any IP traffic. I was able to restore traffic to the affected customers by bouncing their ATM subinterface. No hardware or software changes were made at our NOC. I find this to be a curious situation since many of our dsl customers have been connected continuously for 9-12 months. A few Qwest technicians covertly mentioned that "something was going on at the CO" but used codewords for fear of losing their jobs, while other Qwest technicians claim it was not their problem. Some of the techs outright hung up on the customer. So to make a long story short, I'm curious to know if anyone has the 'inside scoop' or has similar issues that just cropped up. Thanks in advance for your advice. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO Broadband Laboratories http://www.bblabs.com

1 0

Re: Bet on with my boss
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

Hi Greg Gregory Hicks wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:22:29 -0100 > > From: "Pawlukiewicz Jane" <pawlukiewicz_jane(a)bah.com> > > To: steve uurtamo <uurtamo(a)arttoday.com>, "nanog(a)merit.edu" <nanog(a)merit.edu> > > Subject: Re: Bet on with my boss > > > > [...] > > > > No. That's not what the bet is about. Sorry. > > > > The bet was if I could stop the various SPEWS threads. > > > [...] > > Actually, the moderator (list 'owner') for nanog told the instigator to quit or > '... off the list...' > they say, timing is everything. And COB Friday was the bet, of course, cob friday on what continent was never discussed so . . . Jane

1 0

Re: Bet on with my boss
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

steve uurtamo wrote: > > > No. That's not what the bet is about. Sorry. > > > > The bet was if I could stop the various SPEWS threads. > > ha! i was close, at least admit that! Someone else was closer actually. Hold on, let me back track through the posts and see who . . . Andy Dills. He said, and I quote: "I probably should take your advice, but that's an interestingly ambiguous question so I'll indulge on a slow Friday afternoon. Anything to derail that spews thread." I think that's pretty close, but then he wasn't guessing was he. I think you were the first to attempt a guess. > > > But I am actually curious about this. Because, you see, genuity, as I > > understand it, restored "phone" service to lower manhattan post 9/11 > > through voice over ip. And I was just wondering how they would fix a > > shafu with the internet if the only phone service was Voice over IP. And > > that got me thinking about this whole convergence, you know, when we all > > migrate to a packet switched network and the telcos are all bankrupt. > > And I wondered if anyone else needs/hates the phone the way I do. > > oh, i think that telephones, with their existing ridiculous, but reasonably > effective routing system, will be around for a long time. plus, you can be > on a packet switched network without being affected by internet snafus. HOW?!?! I'm fairly new to this, so . . . Maybe it's cause I'm not well versed on VoIP. Dunno. But it seems that if your packet switched, you need a router. Unless you design the network so voice traffic routed by a different router, using all different fiber, in different trenches, so there is no possibility of an internet snafu nixing phone service. Because, I thought the reason ... people ... were all hot to converge the networks was ease, one stop shopping and all that crap (can you say crap here?) BTW, since you're being so nice and not ignoring me, what does FIARK mean? > i think that the day is reasonably far away when everyone who picks up a > phone is actually transmitting packets across the globally connected internet. > same goes for cell phones. Some ... people ... think its no more than five years away, for metropolitan areas that is. Which is where most of the people are anyway. It may take another hundred to get _everyone_ packet switched. I mean there are some 1AESSes still out there. > > you know, a good friend of mine once hung up the phone at a point that seemed > a bit early in the conversation, after suggesting that we go somewhere to > talk instead. his reason? he said he'd rather talk to a person than to > a piece of plastic. i liked that reason. me too. I hate phones. Doesn't mean they aren't absolutley necessary. > > > That's all. > > > > I think I stopped the spews thread. > > what an aptly named thread, you know? > > :) your clever question, as well as steven sobol ranting about being > asked to quit posting about it, seemed to have dried it up. > > > Thanks for your support. > > no problemo, > > s. I may have to unsubscibe to nanog, or figure out some way to fix this so it stops filling my inbox. Who'd ever thought network operators talked so much! Anyone got a great idea on how to recieve only the messages for you, and not recieve everything addressed to nanog, without dumping HUGE quantities of mail into some unknown box in yahoo?? or aol?? Thanks again, Jane

1 0

The Cidr Report
by CIDR Report 22 Jun '02

22 Jun '02

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 21 23:00:00 PDT 2002 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report-region.html for the regional version of this report. NEW: Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/autnums.html for a complete list of autonomous system number to name mappings as used by the CIDR-Report. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amount of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to GX Networks for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to CIDR Report <cidr-report(a)cisco.com>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 21Jun02 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 140602 111440 150602 111459 160602 111437 170602 111518 180602 111528 190602 111542 200602 111562 210602 111582 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 13153 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 8033 (4515 cidr, 3518 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 658 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1352 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 21Jun02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1352 1079 273 20.2% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS1221 1090 846 244 22.4% Telstra Pty Ltd AS17557 295 111 184 62.4% Pakistan Telecom AS6595 189 57 132 69.8% DoD Education Activity Network As AS7018 808 678 130 16.1% AT&T AS852 480 354 126 26.2% Telus Advanced Communications AS16473 194 76 118 60.8% Bell South AS705 301 201 100 33.2% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4151 235 141 94 40.0% USDA AS19632 98 4 94 95.9% Metropolis Intercom S.A. AS12302 122 29 93 76.2% MobiFon S.A. AS1239 517 427 90 17.4% Sprint AS7046 322 233 89 27.6% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS7303 152 65 87 57.2% Telecom Argentina Stet-France Tel AS16814 105 20 85 81.0% NSS, S.A. AS226 176 92 84 47.7% Los Nettos AS2048 179 103 76 42.5% State of Louisiana AS577 262 190 72 27.5% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS4755 196 124 72 36.7% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS4323 408 339 69 16.9% Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS724 226 158 68 30.1% DLA Systems Automation Center AS3464 165 104 61 37.0% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS19834 64 4 60 93.8% NetForce, Inc. AS10620 83 23 60 72.3% TVCABLE BOGOTA AS3908 308 251 57 18.5% Supernet, Inc. AS209 319 262 57 17.9% Qwest AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS1 445 389 56 12.6% GENUITY AS9051 81 26 55 67.9% INCONET Autonomous System AS6535 69 16 53 76.8% Chilesat Servicios Empresariales Total 55073 42468 12605 22.9% For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

rogue networks
by Dan Hollis 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

Has anyone else come to the conclusion that AS23205 is black hat / rogue? Contact me in private email. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

1 0

Re: Bet on with my boss
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

steve uurtamo wrote: > > especially with the "you can ignore this if you want to", i'd > have to say that the most interesting part of your question > was that the bet is not neccesarily related to the question > itself. > > my guess is that you guys bet on how many responses the question > would generate. > > :) > No. That's not what the bet is about. Sorry. The bet was if I could stop the various SPEWS threads. But I am actually curious about this. Because, you see, genuity, as I understand it, restored "phone" service to lower manhattan post 9/11 through voice over ip. And I was just wondering how they would fix a shafu with the internet if the only phone service was Voice over IP. And that got me thinking about this whole convergence, you know, when we all migrate to a packet switched network and the telcos are all bankrupt. And I wondered if anyone else needs/hates the phone the way I do. That's all. I think I stopped the spews thread. Thanks for your support. Jane > s.

1 0