- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: terminal server recommendation
by SMcGrath＠dhhs.state.nh.us 02 May '01

02 May '01

C

1 0

RE: terminal server recommendation
by Martin, Christian 02 May '01

02 May '01

Charles, Agreed on some of your points - The ssh issue would be the biggest problem, however we separate the term servers on a private, out-of-band network, so we haven't been particularly concerned with telnet snooping, especially considering the ssh code on Cisco still only has limited platform support. Something to bring up with our security team nonetheless. We haven't sen the amphenols dislodge, and we have hundreds of these babies, so that is weird. Maybe a lot of them are dropped downward - haven't inspected them all. As far as configs, we can manually copy them via FTP, but as I said, we only use them for Tservers, so nothing to fancy with PPP, etc. We do use RADIUS, which hasn't been a big issue. I think the primary reason we use them is high port density and our original network engineers had extensive experience with them, so they've stuck around. How many large NSPs have whole racks of 2511s in the field (I think a lot). The setup and recovery totally sucks. I remember the first time I reloaded one. It prompted for the boot file and I put the config filename in by mistake. Whoops, tserver is dead, have to dispatch with a wacky-pinout-having console cable and rebuild. *sigh* We are replacing them with 3660's, unless someone has a better recommendation (The primary reason being TACACS+ support). chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Sprickman [mailto:spork@inch.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:28 PM > To: Martin, Christian > Cc: 'Charles Smith'; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: terminal server recommendation > > > On Tue, 1 May 2001, Martin, Christian wrote: > > > The Xylogics/Bay/Nortel Remote Annex 4000 can support up tp > 72 console > > ports, and has a great menu interface with great EIA-232 > functionality. > > Eh? Unless they've added command completion and history, I have to > disagree there... Add to that that they don't self-boot and that you > can't save your config off the box. And you will *not* just > set the thing > up in a half hour. > > > Ports don't hang, they reset on time, etc. They use > amphenol connectors > > across 25 pair which makes for easy punchdowns and cross-connects. > > The amphenols have a nasty habit of not seating properly, > especially when > the box is in a cabinet and some cables have to go upwards rather than > down... And when they're half-in, or not perfectly level you > one day find > you can reach four of your six devices... > > And there's no ssh. > > > One caveat - they are EOL.... > > Thank God :) > > But the code seems to have lived on for a while in the Bay 5300 access > servers. I think only Concentric bought into that sham > though. Some evil > things just cannot be killed by normal means. Although a > good "ping -s > 1500" directed at an attached PPP user will render it useless > until you > stop. > > Perhaps it's because I'm still forced to use them since we > have them left > over from when they were dialup PPP servers or something, but > I like them > less than stinky cheese. I do get a bit nostalgic because it was the > first thing I ever "su'd" on, and it does have a BSD code base. But I > certainly would recommend anything else over an Annex. > > BTW, wanna buy one? I've got a spare 4000 and two Annex 3's, > and a box > full of octopus cable... > > MHO, > > Charles > > > chris > > > > > > > > > > I would like to deploy a terminal server in several of my > > > POPs, however cost > > > is a slight issue. Can anyone on the list recommend a fairly > > > inexpensive > > > terminal server (besides Cisco)? Obviously the terminal > > > server should be > > > reliable and work - it is the little things that count. > > > > > > chas > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > >

3 2

Re: terminal server recommendation
by Scott Gifford 02 May '01

02 May '01

Charles Sprickman <spork(a)inch.com> writes: > On Tue, 1 May 2001, Martin, Christian wrote: > > > The Xylogics/Bay/Nortel Remote Annex 4000 can support up tp 72 console > > ports, and has a great menu interface with great EIA-232 functionality. > > Eh? Unless they've added command completion and history, I have to > disagree there... You don't need command completion and history for a menu interface: 1. Connect to cisco router 2. Connect to mail server 3. Connect to Web server Pick one> is similar to what we used, and was pretty much all we found necessary. They have a neat feature, too, where you can configure whatever you connect to serial port 1 to be reachable via telnet to port 5001, port 2 to 5002, etc. Great for scripts. > Add to that that they don't self-boot and that you can't save your > config off the box. If these are at all similar to other similar Bay Networks terminal server products (and I'm pretty sure they are), they'll self-boot if you put flash into them, and you can save your configuration with the "na" utility. > And you will *not* just set the thing > up in a half hour. > > > Ports don't hang, they reset on time, etc. They use amphenol connectors > > across 25 pair which makes for easy punchdowns and cross-connects. > > The amphenols have a nasty habit of not seating properly, especially when > the box is in a cabinet and some cables have to go upwards rather than > down... And when they're half-in, or not perfectly level you one day find > you can reach four of your six devices... > > And there's no ssh. > Those are all good points, though. :) [...] > Perhaps it's because I'm still forced to use them since we have them left > over from when they were dialup PPP servers or something, but I like them > less than stinky cheese. I do get a bit nostalgic because it was the > first thing I ever "su'd" on, and it does have a BSD code base. But I > certainly would recommend anything else over an Annex. You'll miss them when they're gone. I still miss logging into them... :) -----ScottG.

1 0

GSR Route Reflector: maximum number of clients?
by James DeMong 02 May '01

02 May '01

I have a GSR 12008 that is acting as a route reflector and core router. What is the practical maximum (from an operational standpoint) number of clients it can support? (My Cisco sources tell me that the maximum technically possible is large and does not significantly impact the operation the forwarding of the GSR.) In terms of manageability and simplicity, is it more favourable to have a separate box (e.g. 7206 VXR) handle the route reflector job? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. James __ James DeMong Network Design Specialist TELUS Advanced Communications Phone: (403) 503-3718 Email: James.DeMong(a)telus.com

3 2

RE: terminal server recommendation
by Martin, Christian 02 May '01

02 May '01

The Xylogics/Bay/Nortel Remote Annex 4000 can support up tp 72 console ports, and has a great menu interface with great EIA-232 functionality. Ports don't hang, they reset on time, etc. They use amphenol connectors across 25 pair which makes for easy punchdowns and cross-connects. One caveat - they are EOL.... chris > > I would like to deploy a terminal server in several of my > POPs, however cost > is a slight issue. Can anyone on the list recommend a fairly > inexpensive > terminal server (besides Cisco)? Obviously the terminal > server should be > reliable and work - it is the little things that count. > > chas > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > >

2 1

RE: terminal server recommendation
by Martin, Christian 01 May '01

01 May '01

One other thing. The Cisco 3660 can support 164 console ports with 5 of the 4x8async NMs. Needs octopus cables, but with that kind of density a patch-panel cross-connect system would be required (unless you are building out 1-RU devices). Supports all the nice Cisco features, but will cost you... chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Smith [mailto:chasmith9@hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 4:13 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: terminal server recommendation > > > > I would like to deploy a terminal server in several of my > POPs, however cost > is a slight issue. Can anyone on the list recommend a fairly > inexpensive > terminal server (besides Cisco)? Obviously the terminal > server should be > reliable and work - it is the little things that count. > > chas > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > >

1 0

New prefix.
by Sabri Berisha 01 May '01

01 May '01

You won't believe this :) -- /* Sabri Berisha CCNA,BOFH,+iO O.O Business Internet Trends * Join HAL!!: www.HAL2001.org ____oOo_U_oOo____ http://www.bit.nl/~sabri * ____________________________________________, +31 318648688 318643334 * DDoS: http://misterpoll.com/3517731598.html L_______________________ */ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Return-Path: <owner-tech-l(a)AMS-IX.NET> Received: from localhost (bofh [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.bit.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3Q9D4c04077 for <sabri@localhost>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:13:04 +0200 Received: from pomo.bit.nl [213.136.0.96] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.5.0) for sabri@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:13:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from listserv-mail.surfnet.nl (listserv-mail.surfnet.nl [192.87.5.141]) by linux.bit.nl (8.8.7/NOSPAM) with ESMTP id LAA03910; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:27 +0200 Received: from listserv-mail (listserv-mail.surfnet.nl) by listserv-mail.surfnet.nl (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.01CB1D5A(a)listserv-mail.surfnet.nl>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:26 +0200 Received: from NIC.SURFNET.NL by NIC.SURFNET.NL (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 1664209 for tech-l(a)NIC.SURFNET.NL; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:25 +0200 Received: from survis.surfnet.nl (192.87.108.3) by nic.surfnet.nl (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.FFD5FD2E(a)nic.surfnet.nl>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:10:48 +0200 Received: from smtp.bevelander.nl ([213.207.0.4]) by survis.surfnet.nl with ESMTP (exPP) for tech-l(a)ams-ix.net id 14shnT-0000ED-00; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:10:47 +0200 Received: from beveland-tjkdtz.bevelander.nl (laptop.reinder.nl [213.207.32.35]) by smtp.bevelander.nl (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3Q9AfO04766 for <tech-l(a)ams-ix.net>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:10:41 +0200 X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010426111230.0200c298(a)s01.bevelander.nl> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:18:07 +0200 Reply-To: "AMS-IX Discussion list for technical issues." <tech-l(a)AMS-IX.NET> Sender: "AMS-IX Discussion list for technical issues." <tech-l(a)AMS-IX.NET> From: "Bevelander Noc." <noc(a)BEVELANDER.NL> Subject: New prefix. Comments: To: Ams-ix tech list <tech-l(a)ams-ix.net> To: tech-l(a)AMS-IX.NET X-UIDL: c+b"!_Oj"!3M0"!c5'#! Dear Peers/Colleagues, We will start to announce a new prefix: AS13197 192.168.0.0/16 Please update your filters. Thanks, Reinder van Amerongen, Junior. System/Network Adminstrator and Senior Cabling consultant. Bevelander Internet Services.

5 5

Re: terminal server recommendation
by Paul Vixie 01 May '01

01 May '01

chasmith9(a)hotmail.com ("Charles Smith") writes: > I would like to deploy a terminal server in several of my POPs, however cost > is a slight issue. Can anyone on the list recommend a fairly inexpensive > terminal server (besides Cisco)? Obviously the terminal server should be > reliable and work - it is the little things that count. http://www.rocketport.com/sales/specs/rack16.htm, with pictures available at http://www.rocketport.com/sales/specs/rack16_foto.htm, will connect to any BSD or Linux machine -- which your POP already ought to have. ftp://ftp.vix.com/pub/vixie/rtty-4.0.shar.gz, when mixed with the above (or, indeed, with any serial port on any posix-like system) will give you console service including multiple simultaneous operators, audit logs, and so on. disclaimer: neither i nor my employer derives any input from giving away rtty.

1 0

Re: black hat .cn networks
by Richard A. Steenbergen 01 May '01

01 May '01

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:18:03PM +0000, Walter Prue wrote: > > The folks in the US who counterattack might be well advised to > reconsider doing so. I would imagine that traffic from the US would > be closely monitored. Any new hacking tricks that these > counterattacks might use would then be recorded and analyzed. These > techniques could then be used by them to further attack the US. Oh for the love of god, 15 web sites get defaced and it's suddenly worth trying to deny internet access to a billion people? They watch a story on the news, and think "wouldn't it be kewl if...". Any excuse or boredom will do, and then the media blows it out of proportion because it makes for an interesting story. I bet it's probably the same number of hacks that you'd see on a normal day, just against another country's www..gov's instead of their own. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

6 7

RE: terminal server recommendation
by Roeland Meyer 01 May '01

01 May '01

http://www.cyclades.com/products/pricing/index.php#TS1000/2000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Smith [mailto:chasmith9@hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 1:13 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: terminal server recommendation > > > > I would like to deploy a terminal server in several of my > POPs, however cost > is a slight issue. Can anyone on the list recommend a fairly > inexpensive > terminal server (besides Cisco)? Obviously the terminal > server should be > reliable and work - it is the little things that count. > > chas > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > >

1 0