- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: SkyTel 2Way pagers DOWN all US (fwd)
by David Lesher 20 May '98

20 May '98

> Pagemart service is STILL down as of this time (5-20-98 8:30 AM CDT); Lots of folks are busily repointing lots of dishes.....that does not take place instantly. I'm glad *I'm* not the satcom mjr for anyone today... [In case you've not heard, Galaxy IV decided to take a spin; bringing down lots of pager-feeds, TV network production feeds, and National Public Radio.] -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

SKYWORD OK - Part 2
by Martin, Christian 20 May '98

20 May '98

Guys, Sorry - I'm in Northern VA. Chris

1 0

RE: cpu impact of netflow export ?
by Martin, Christian 20 May '98

20 May '98

Dave, It depends on how you define your aggregates - But, using the default on 7507 RSP2 64 Megs, exporting Flow stats from a table with an average of 10,000 flows doesn't seem to hurt very much. Maybe 5% CPU on the Router. It's the Sun box that takes the hit. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Dave Curado [mailto:davec@navinet.net] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 10:53 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: cpu impact of netflow export ? Does anyone have any data points they'd share regarding the impact of netflow export on cpu load? I'd like to capture all of my netflow stats, but I'm worried about scalability. Thanks, davec

1 0

DS1 test units, T-Birds and the like
by Marko Bukvic 19 May '98

19 May '98

Can anyone recommend DS1 diagnostic equipment? Something similar to what the LEC would use when you ask them to test the line.. I am aware that these units range around $3K-$6K each and that you would want to get 2 of them. Thanks. Marko Bukvic marko(a)pfmc.net

3 2

RFC for common shared IP for easy roaming
by Paul Mansfield 19 May '98

19 May '98

I've begun a mailing list here for this, picked out all names which were interested in pooling ideas and/or reviewing it all. I think its clear that there is a need for something simple, effective, and easy for ISPs to do before IPv6/v8 and other auto-DNS over PPP etc are available. Briefly, ideas so far are to have a fixed nameserver in the "swamp" of IPs, and then have hosts like relay.mail.local and so on, as well as to pre-allocated IPs for common standard services. I'll gladly accumulate ideas until all interested parties have "registered". Paul ---- P Mansfield, Senior SysAdmin PSINet, +44-1223-577577x2611/577611 fax:577600 *** If a grand piano had a rubout key, I'd be a concert pianist by now! ***

1 0

Re: renumbering and roaming
by Paul Mansfield 19 May '98

19 May '98

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Daniel Reed wrote: > ) Nah, good idea, but too many useful services with port numbers > 255, so I think this seems nice, but gets complex, and as said breaks things, although you could use the full range of a /16. However, we'd really want TWO of everything, on different networks if possible to give resilience, hence why I proposed x.y.z.2 -> resolver x.y.z-1.2 -> resolver Paul ---- P Mansfield, Senior SysAdmin PSINet, +44-1223-577577x2611/577611 fax:577600 *** If a grand piano had a rubout key, I'd be a concert pianist by now! ***

1 0

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
by Michael K. Smith 19 May '98

19 May '98

Michael Dillon said on 5/17/98 6:13 AM >On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > >> agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades >> itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account. > >I see. So if you tell the customer that they need to renumber, then they >tell you to stuff it and switch to a new provider who... tells them that >they must renumber out of your soon-to-be-reassigned address space. > >I just don't see this as a realistic example of a situation in which a >renumbering ISP is at a severe business disadvantage. In fact I can't >remember ever seeing any such realistic example nor do I ever remember >hearing of a case in which an ISP lost a significant amount of business >because of renumbering. > We have renumbered out of two /20's and 2 /19's and, although we haven't lost any dedicated customers, our time investment in the process has been unreal. In several instances we had to go onsite and do the renumbering for them. Of course, the first time you go onsite, the tech guy isn't there, so that's half a day for two people lost. Then, the next time you go, he doesn't have the passwords to the server, so you have to come back again... And, because this is something we are requiring them to do, we can't charge them for it. Let's not forget to mention the 10,000 dialup customers who have to change their DNS numbers. We have sent snail-mail and e-mail over and over again, yet only about 1/3 of that 10k have actually made the change away from the old numbers. How many of those customers do you think we'll lose when we officially turn off the old ip's? Mike Michael K. Smith Senior Network Administrator - Northwest Link http://www.nwlink.com mksmith(a)nwlink.com 1-800-390-1270 Extension 103

14 23

Laptop console
by Pete Ashdown 19 May '98

19 May '98

>(Of course neither of these is a substitute for doing the telnet from >your trusted laptop) Speaking of, does anyone have a recommendation for a simple VT100 capable laptop? I currently use this PowerBook 5500 which takes forever to boot and currently has a bad battery that goes to sleep all the time. 99% of the time I'm using it, I'm using it in Z-Term. I wish there was a laptop with a nice keyboard that did just serial terminal access.

10 9

RE: DS1 test units, T-Birds and the like
by Chad Skidmore 19 May '98

19 May '98

The TTC T-Berd 224 would be a good choice for DS1 testing. The T-Berd 310 is a similar unit for DS3 level testing. The TTC units have several different software options that you may or may not need (ISDN, various loop codes, etc). The price is often times higher than $3-$6k. You can plan on spending $10k or more for a well configured test set. --------------------------------------------- Chad Skidmore Director of Network Engineering Northwest Nexus, Inc. http://www.nwnexus.com 1-888-NWNEXUS > -----Original Message----- > From: Marko Bukvic [mailto:marko@pfmc.net] > Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 2:53 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: DS1 test units, T-Birds and the like > > > Can anyone recommend DS1 diagnostic equipment? Something > similar to what the LEC > would use when you ask them to test the line.. I am aware > that these units > range around $3K-$6K each and that you would want to get 2 of them. > > Thanks. > > Marko Bukvic > marko(a)pfmc.net >

2 1

RE: renumbering and roaming
by pflores＠wcg.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > In message <19980518135928.37530(a)mcs.net>, Karl Denninger writes: > > >> After several discussions, we came up with this solution > that we think > >> works well to support standard services for roaming users: > >> > >> Support a .local. root domain in your DNS servers. Examples of DNS > >> hostnames would be mail.local., ntp.local., news.local., > etc. When a > >> roamer dials up he generally uses the DNS servers assigned > by the NAS; > >> these addresses would be authoritative on a provider-by-provider > >> basis. If all networks supported this schema all users > could simply > >> have these addresses coded into their client software and would > >> connect to the proper machines as they differ on various networks. > >> > >> iPass is currently building an Internet-Draft specifying > the details > >> of this approach. What do you think? > > >That doesn't work; too many of those things must be > hard-coded numbers > >(specifically, the DNS servers). > > What has to be hard-coded besides the DNS servers? Once you have a > DNS server assigned (which is typically done by the NAS anyway) the > rest is simple. Ass-umeing (never ass-ume, right) that the NAS supports the LCP extensions. > > In our experience, well over 90% of roaming users (which > excludes UNIX > and Mac users) use dynamically-assigned DNS servers. Clearly this > approach won't work for those clients that don't support the LCP > extensions, but we consider this "Best Current Practice." Okay, that is reasonable. Why not take the extra step of reserving some 'internal' IP space, and make it work with 100% of the clients? > Those > clients that can't use dynamic DNS server assignment will have to use > the home ISP's services. Combine a non-advertised, reserved subnet with the .local TLD. (I might point out, that clients not using the the local .local assignments, will get the 'home ISPs' services addresses. I am not quite sure if you meant all their services or just DNS, but that is an important distinction to make here) I would also point out that ANY failure of the local DNS would render everything useless to the roamer. If you had a combination of both, you could actually put the hardwired IPs/ .local domains in a host file on the roamer's machine. You would sacrifice some flexibility, but would probably solve a few nagging details this way. (on second thought, this is probably not such a good idea... :> ) > We consider it important to make sure as many NASes and PPP clients as > possible support dynamic DNS. About the only major obstacle to that > is OT/PPP (MacOS) and, to a lesser degree, UNIX. > > >.LOCAL along with defined addresses, declared as > "non-routable" (ie: local > >only) *DOES* do the trick. > > Routability and IP address definitions are secondary to the problem > we're discussing here--the ability for roamers to use local services > provided by the POP provider. Exactly. Why does it matter if you use DNS, private IP space, or a combination of both. IMHO, both provides the most flexibility. > Let DNS do the work for you. I don't > see the need to force IP assignments on the Internet community. Force? I don't think force is the word. No one forces people to use reserved IP space for their private networks. To me, this is simply an extension to 1918, with the addition of some very sensible service layer options for Service Providers. Paul Flores Williams -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNWCkd71al1suqRKtEQLLHwCdGyvWzGRTDepkJvnQ4MFKCQSFjggAoI1H 7onUFl+f5cSU/MrbFL158t/q =yEDK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0