- Test - lists.nanog.org

OT: HELP!!!!
by Rich Sena 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

A while back there was a direct number to a reliable Network Solutions contact published here - can someone forward me that info... -- Richard Sena The Mitre Corporation e: rsena(a)mitre.org Lead Engineer 202 Burlington Road v: +1-781-271-3712 Dept: R10N; MS C020 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 f: +1-781-271-2600

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Martin, Christian 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

> | They can use standard PC133 DIMMs, if they want to. > > With ECC please. > > Sean. Amen to that. Unless the vendors are interested in rad-hardening the chassis... chris >

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by smd＠clock.org 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

| They can use standard PC133 DIMMs, if they want to. With ECC please. Sean.

1 0

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Vijay Gill 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

Roeland Meyer <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> writes: > |> From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr@latency.net] > |> being accessed by lots of reading and writing processes. RIB > |> processing is substantial, and is only getting worse. > > SMP systems and multi-ported RAM is a good enough stop-gap. If I didn't like > non-deterministic systems, I might suggest Echelon technologies > (hardware-based neural nets). Roeland, what I believe Dr. Rothschild was alluding to is that the underlying problem here is is more of fundamental database managment problem. Key issues are concurrency controls involved in operating on data that must be accessed by multiple readers and writers, among other things. > don't agree on, and am amazed to see, the admission that they don't > know at what point the convergeince problem becomes intractible. Or > even, if it does... that sounds more like a fundimental lack of > understanding of the algorithm itself. Large, distributed database systems are annoying and hard to deal with, there is no silver bullet yet. This is something the DB folks have been working on for years and since AS's can be viewed as a distributed multiversion databases, no doubt there is much to be learned from the research in the DB field. /vijay

1 0

RE: multi-homing fixes
by Roeland Meyer 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

You guys are all missing the point. The only reason for Cisco's prices is because they built proprietary RAM modules. That is ... >non-standard<. Cisco didn't *have* to do that. RAM chips are cheap. RAM modules are only expensive because the mfg *makes* them expensive. Actual COGm is less than $15US. In fact, the PCB costs more than the RAMs do because they are made in smaller volume. By the same token, the sheet metal costs more than the electronics, on a Cat 6509, but they know that you are willing to pay $150K^H^H^H^H^H$200K so *that's* what they charge for it. It's pure marketing. They can use standard PC133 DIMMs, if they want to. 90% of the MSRP goes to the distro channel. |> -----Original Message----- |> From: Brian Whalen [mailto:bri@sonicboom.org] |> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 9:54 PM |> To: Joe Abley |> Cc: John Fraizer; Leo Bicknell; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' |> Subject: Re: multi-homing fixes |> |> |> |> Well I remember seeing a message on groupstudy where somone |> from the tac |> came on and made a statement along the lines that a |> substantial quantity |> of cases they get are a result of non Cisco memory. |> |> Brian "Sonic" Whalen |> Success = Preparation + Opportunity |> |> |> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Joe Abley wrote: |> |> > |> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:31:29PM -0700, Brian Whalen wrote: |> > > Yes and this non cisco ram can make Cisco's tac have a |> cor or two.. |> > |> > Cisco have certified a number of RAM vendors; you can happily buy |> > RAM from them (at non-inflated prices) without voiding |> your warranty |> > or causing an abnormal palpitations in the TAC. |> > |> > For example: |> > |> > http://www.kingston.com/memory/routerzone/default.asp |> > |> > Last time I priced RAM upgrades for RSP4s (which was a few years |> > ago now) cisco list price was around five times greater than |> > Kingston's price for cisco-approved SIMMs. Hooray, etc. |> > |> > |> > Joe |> > |>

1 0

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Vijay Gill 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

"Joel Baker" <lucifer(a)lightbearer.com> writes: > Or by SCTP - an elegant, protocol-level solution to most of the basic > reasons for small businesses (IE, those not likely to qualify for a > provider-independant block) to want multihoming. > > Unfortunately, it appears to be even more poorly adopted than IPv6 so far, The fatal sentence. To forestall ratholing on this list, I urge people to take this to the rathole-by-charter: multi6 http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.html /vijay "bring the noise" gill

1 0

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Vijay Gill 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

Daniel Hagerty <hag(a)linnaean.org> writes: > Take prefixes from both providers and use them. Route your egress > traffic appropriately. > > My point wasn't that "there is no need to BGP multihome", but that > many seem to see this as the only way of achieving use of multiple > providers worth of pipe. There are other alternatives, depending on > your application. This is a possible solution (and similar ideas have been bought up in the v6 arena as well). This runs into two things: 1) it is hard to maintain and manage (you've doubled the counting, storing and allocation burden on the end user), as well as debugging. Having been on the enterprise side of things, I believe that these are non trivial problems to solve for a large number of people. 2) proper end unit (host) source address selection. the way around #2 is to use some sort of a NAT scheme, and number internally out of say, net10, and NAT appropriately at the autonomous system edge. With the "servers" as it were (mail, http, ftp et al.) being configured to listen on public address or special ports, etc. These impose a significant added burden upon the end user. It costs them significantly less to "graze upong the commons" as Randy so eloquently put it at the IETF plenary in london. /vijay

2 1

Re: multi-homing fixes
by Vijay Gill 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

Daniel Hagerty <hag(a)linnaean.org> writes: > Please don't confuse "I need more than one pipe into the internet" > with "my organization must place its prefixes into the default free > zone". > > > It is possible to effectively use multiple pipes into many ISPs > without the cost to all of us that introducing your prefix into the > DFZ has. I am all ears as to how you propose I achieve provider independence without introducing my prefix(es) into the DFZ. eg, say I am connected to two upstreams, I would like to still continue reachability with the global net in case of failure of one of the upstreams (as wide failure), or a failure of an upstream POP (which happens to be the only one in my LATA) from one of the providers. /vijay

2 1

RE: resolved Re: should i publish a list of cracked machines?
by Roeland Meyer 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

1 0

RE: XTNS launch alternate domain name system
by Hunter, Jonathan 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

Alex Bligh quoth: > > This company is even more bogus then new.net. At least new.net is > > /trying/ to use dns. > > How unforunate it would be if they had a name space clash. I also note that keywords such as "pointless product", "crap realnames" and (somewhat more rude) variations of the same have not been reserved or blocked by RealNames. If it didn't cost actual money I'd be tempted to register a couple for them... :) -- Jonathan (Speaking only for himself)

4 3