- Test - lists.nanog.org

2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by Geoff White 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

We are trying to roll our own server/router/accounting box and have everything speced out but the chassis, we need to find a PC rack mount chassis that is no higher than 2U ( 3.5"). The co-los we use charge us not only by bandwidth but by real estate, we need to cram as many boxes as we can in the space. In fact if you know of a 1U (like the cobalt boxes) that would be even better. Any clues would be greatly appreciated. Geoff White GW Communications Inc.

7 7

Re: 2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by Paul Vixie 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

> We are trying to roll our own server/router/accounting box and > have everything speced out but the chassis, we need to find a PC rack > mount chassis that is no higher than 2U ( 3.5"). ... My friend Billy Bath of Telenet (billy(a)tesys.com) has been selling me Integrand boxes (4U) for some years now, and he just recently commissioned his own sheet metal. He has a 2.5U case and also a 2U case, both with lots of fans and with the option of dual/hotswap power supplies. He'd probably sell them as either raw components or as built systems. For my part, I've bought my last Integrand. I just don't need that much airspace any more. Billy's box is every bit as well made as the Integrand 590 is/was. Disclaimer: Billy is a friend, so I would benefit indirectly from someone believing any or all of the above. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: 2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

For embedded Linux systems we've used these 2U boxes. http://www.capax.co.uk/products/sys/rack/er2200/er2200.htm regards, brandon

1 0

Re: 2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by Bill Woodcock 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

We've had good luck with ones from Appro, www.appro.com. -Bill Woodcock

1 0

Re: Rootshell pages hacked
by bryan s. blank 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

|o| It is not a fucking problem in SSH! Jesus christ, people do not listen. try a better choice of words, these show little respect for your audience. |o| If it had anything to do with ssh, heres what happened. (speculation) A |o| trusted host was compromised that Kit Knox or another rootshell staff |o| member used, ssh was trojaned and passwords were snagged, and the intruder |o| simply walked right in through the front door. Nothing sophisticated, |o| nothing fancy, no ssh remote exploits. anything is possible. i don't blame anyone for taking interest in possible vunerabilities in their systems. just because you and i don't know of a remote root exploit for a current version of ssh doesn't mean one doesn't exist. i've seen them in older versions, and would be stupid not to have some worry of the same in current versions. |o|----------------------------------------------------------------------|o| |o| bryan s. blank (203)-351-1178 voice |o| |o| senior systems analyst (203)-351-1186 fax |o| |o| discovernet, incorporated (203)-979-5126 emerg |o|

1 0

Re: Rootshell pages hacked
by Adam D. McKenna 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

You need to 1) take a chill pill 2) understand that there are plenty of people around that know more than you. I didn't say it might be an ssh exploit based on some idiot's misinterpretation of the bugtraq post. I said it because I have heard rumours that an exploit is *circulating*. If you have *real* information then do not hesitate to post it. But conjecture and denial gets us nowhere. --Adam -----Original Message----- From: Michael Freeman <mikef(a)boris.talentsoft.com> To: Adam D. McKenna <adam(a)flounder.net> Cc: Joe Shaw <jshaw(a)insync.net>; JR Mayberry <rick(a)magpage.com>; neil <neil(a)junior.uwc.ac.za>; Russ Haynal <russ(a)navigators.com>; nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Saturday, October 31, 1998 3:41 PM Subject: Re: Rootshell pages hacked It is not a fucking problem in SSH! Jesus christ, people do not listen. If it had anything to do with ssh, heres what happened. (speculation) A trusted host was compromised that Kit Knox or another rootshell staff member used, ssh was trojaned and passwords were snagged, and the intruder simply walked right in through the front door. Nothing sophisticated, nothing fancy, no ssh remote exploits. On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > They claim they were running only qmail, apache and ssh, but who knows if > that's true. > > I have heard rumours about an ssh exploit but nothing concrete. > > --Adam > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Shaw <jshaw(a)insync.net> > To: JR Mayberry <rick(a)magpage.com> > Cc: neil <neil(a)junior.uwc.ac.za>; Russ Haynal <russ(a)navigators.com>; > nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 2:36 PM > Subject: Re: Rootshell pages hacked > > > I thought they were runnign qmail? > > Joe > > On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, JR Mayberry wrote: > > > Supposedly sendmail 8.9.1 is to blame, not ssh. > > http://www.sendmail.com/sendmail.8.9.1a.html > > > >

1 0

Re: 2U chassis (was Linux Router Kit)
by shields＠crosslink.net 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

In article <Pine.SO4.4.05.9810310808380.14448-100000(a)precipice.v-site.net>, Geoff White <geoffw(a)precipice.v-site.net> wrote: > We are trying to roll our own server/router/accounting box and > have everything speced out but the chassis, we need to find a PC rack > mount chassis that is no higher than 2U ( 3.5"). The co-los we use charge http://www.varesearch.com has these; I haven't tried them. However they are very deep. -- Shields, CrossLink.

1 0

NANOG 14 ATTENDE LIST
by Pam Ciesla 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

Is up to date through Friday, 10/30. If you are not on the list and have registered or have any questions please contact me. Thanks __________________ Pam Ciesla Merit Network, Inc. 734-936-0172 - phone 4251 Plymouth Road 734-647-3185 - fax Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785

1 0

Re: Linux Router KIT
by Adam D. McKenna 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

So does linux. Linux can be: A packet forwarder (router) A packet filter (firewall) An IP masquerading packet filter (NAT firewall) Can run RIP, BGP, EGP, OSPF (via gated) Maybe I'm being naiive here, but what does Cisco offer beyond this (besides the availability of higher performance)? --Adam -----Original Message----- From: Michael Shields <shields(a)crosslink.net> To: dirk(a)power.net <dirk(a)power.net> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu>; list(a)inet-access.net <list(a)inet-access.net> Date: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Linux Router KIT In article <19981028100541.00359(a)orlando.power.net>, dirk(a)power.net wrote: > Linux doesn't just kill Microsoft's NT and Solaris. It also eats > Cisco for lunch. This isn't true. IOS does a lot more than just get packets from interface A to interface B. (In terms of managability as well as functionality) -- Shields, CrossLink.

17 26

Re: Xedia vs Packeteer Comparsion
by matthew zeier 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:35:02PM -0800, Christofer Hoff wrote: > Matthew: > > What version of code are you running in your 4000 -- I see no such latency > issues nor packet drop and we regularly push 20+ Mb through our boxes... > sits between a Cisco 75xx and Catalyst 5000 Switch. PacketShaper v3.1.3g14 1998-09-15. > Are you using the same cable/cables when you place the packetshaper > in the network vs. when it is out? Also, have you looked at the CLI for > the NIC stats? Yeah, same cables. I believe the issues was in the number of sessions the box was handling, not the amount of bandwidth. I believe we were looking at "mib tcp" - some of the values we were seeing were nearing the limits of the box. One of the websites that we host, but don't shape, typically gets 200-300 hits per second during peak. Which, of course, has a direct impact on bandwidth. The technical explaination that made the most sense to me was the increase in hits per second meant an increase is hosts the p4k was managing. I can track down my emails and talk to you offline about this, if you're interested. - mz -- matthew zeier - "Chance is irrelevant - we will succeed." - 7 of 9

1 0