RE: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
Hello Eric: You can issue the following command in the 3550 series that takes care of that issue. However, your mileage may vary. :-) No errdisable detect cause gbic-invalid Mike > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Eric Kuhnke > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 2:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device > > > Be warned that you can't use non-Cisco CWDM SFPs or GBICs in a cisco > switch or router... There is a PROM code in the cisco-sold units that > is identified by IOS. Plug in a non-cisco SFP/GBIC and it will shut > down the port. (This was discussed about 9 months ago on nanog-l, it > should be in the archives). > > Does anyone actually buy the $3500 CWDM SFPs? That's a $3300 profit > margin for Cisco... > > Scott McGrath wrote: > > > > > Finisar also has CWDM optics in both the SFP and GBIC form factor and > they > > are quite a bit less expensive than the Cisco solution and they do have > a > > 16 lambda passive OADM as well as the 4 and 8 lambda models. > > > > Scott C. McGrath > > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Erik Haagsman wrote: > > > > > >>What you could try is use the Cisco CWDM-MUX-4 and it's pluggable optics > >>that can be fit into any GBIC 802.3z compliant slot. It's just an OADM > >>with 4 or 8 wavelengths that delivers GigE to any box with pluggable > >>GBICs provided you use the right optics and it's quite a bit cheaper > >>than using ONS stuff. That said, CWDM doesn't get you much further than > >>80 kilometres, above that DWDM is your only option, and a hell of a lot > >>more expensive. > >> > >>Cheers, > >> > >>-- > >>--- > >>Erik Haagsman > >>Network Architect > >>We Dare BV > >>tel: +31(0)10 7507008 > >>fax:+31(0)10 7507005 > >>http://www.we-dare.nl > >> > >> > >>On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 17:30, Michael Smith wrote: > >> > >>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >>>Hash: SHA1 > >>> > >>>Hello All: > >>> > >>>I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for > >>>providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of > >>>fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than > >>>putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE > >>>circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future > >>>growth. > >>> > >>>If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to > >>>hear about it. > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>> > >>>Mike > >>> > >>>- -- > >>>Michael K. SmithNoaNet > >>>206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.noanet.net > >>> > >>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > >>>Version: PGP 8.0.3 > >>> > >>>iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx > >>>41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p > >>>=hDVT > >>>-END PGP SIGNATURE- > >> > >> > > > > >
Re: Tracking the bad guys
Eric Brunner-Williams is slightly incorrect in his description of the blog-spammer's attack, because he's misinterpreting whois. He states that based on the spammer's entry in the whois entry, the spammer "claims domicile" in whatever location. Whois records don't make any claims about domicile, legal jurisdiction, True Name, National Identity Number, Retina Prints, likely sleeping location, likely location of hardware, ICBM coordinates, or preferred subpoena acceptance location, though ICANN would certainly like it if they did. They're strictly indicating some postal contact information, and for the billing address, they're indicating where to send a paper bill. (Keeping them current is certainly good practice, and I'd recommend that Eric check nic-naa.net's whois phone numbers, which appear to have suffered from some helpful spreadsheet doing arithmetic on them.) Meanwhile, while it's annoying to have to do self-defense, rather than getting the miscreant's ISP to do it, if Eric's wife's machine is self-administered as opposed to administered by some hosting company, adding the miscreant's IP address to the firewall or routing table can take care of the bandwidth problem, and while collateral damage is a bad thing for ISPs to do, it's not unreasonable for personal machines. Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cable networks RE: best effort has economic problems, maybe OT
>>So what's the cable HFC Achilles heel? As an observer, only, here ;) ... for one thing, investment is one of HFC's weaknesses as it relates to alternative transmission techniques in the broadband space, as witnessed by Rainmaker Technologies' early out. And while Narad's team may tell you that (and here I'm now getting this part second hand) they can customize a downstream mesh or ring for reliability and failover purposes, the reality is that most of these will go in as linear spurs off the local neigborhood block amplifier or thereabouts in an unprotected manner. And then there are the intrinsic capacity constraints imposed by coaxial's distance-attenuation characteristic, facing a ceiling far lower than that of optical fiber. I've been impressed with some of the other MSO-related endeavors, however, where they've implemented native fiber rings - sans coax - for GigE and SONET applications to industrial/corporate parks and educational campuses, going head to head with the ILEC. Cablevision's Lightpath division comes to mind here, as do several of COX' and Comcast's metro entrees. But these, of course, are not based on some RF exorcism device. Instead, they are standard fare, comparable to what MFN/Abovenet or the local ILEC would install. I suppose that the Narad approach works for limited numbers of corporate type accounts on the same segment, maybe even more than I could envisage. I couldn't tell you exactly how well it would scale. Frank On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:47 , 'Christopher J. Wolff' [EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: > >All of these are great observations. So what's the cable HFC Achilles heel? > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]','','','')">[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 12:58 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ''Christopher J. Wolff''; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [url correction] Cable networks RE: best effort has economic >problems, maybe OT > >Correcting a previous url error on my part. > >Narad's site is at: > > http://www.naradnetworks.com > > >Sorry 'bout that, folks. > >Frank > >On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:30 , [EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: > >> >>Agree, this is a great discussion, akin to a recent Cook Report accounting >of >best >>effort considerations. Several startups (now going into year two) have >addressed >>the cable-HF/C constraints you've mentioned. You may be interested in >perusing >>these two: >> >>http://www.narad.com >> >>Another, Rainmaker Technologies... >> >>http://www.rainmakertechnologies.com >> >> appears to have fallen on hard times while seeking later round >funding. Not >>sure of their disposition at this time, but doing googles on their name >reveal >>some good articles on their approach to using wavelets to improve bit gain >over >>black coax/fiber systems to homes and businesses. >> >>Metcalfe has financial backing hooks and input into Narad, and Mark E. >Laubach of >>COM21 fame (ATM over HF/C) heads up (headed up?) Rainmaker's technical >pursuits. >> >>[[As an aside, I'm finding increased interest in corporate parks >(especially >those >>that are boondocks-bound) where MSO fiber-based offerings are being >seriously >>considered for WAN access, both of the type discussed above and enterprise- >>tailored rings coming off local head-ends.]] >> >>Frank >> >> >>On Sun, 30 May 2004 08:47 , 'Christopher J. Wolff' [EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: >> >>> >>>Folks, >>> >>>This is a great discussion. I'm interested in understanding these types >of >>>limitations in the context of HFC cable networks. In my opinion, HDTV >>>channel bandwidth (30mhz?) , increased demand for voip, and growing demand >>>for IP connectivity is going to stress the cable network model as well, >>>forcing cable operators to convert everything to IP before going out >across >>>the wire. Any input is appreciated. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Christopher >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >
Re: botnets world and the FBI
E-crime = E-crap another media driven dribbled label. There are many students, even housewives who in their spare time write botnets and other software mechanisms simply for the purpose of learning how to program, in C and C++ or even learn how to script in Perl, Python and tcl. To make a blanket statement is to condemn innocent people who have nothing to do with a limited group of people that do warez aka pirate software on irc servers when law enforcement, already has been there to make cases and arrests and prosecutions. Seeing that a dalnet luser is crying wolf, if my history has taught me correctly, that network got ddos'd out of existence over warez and battles over control over software piracy. Other networks were intelligent enough to get out of the way and make sure such events do not destroy the client base. -Nite --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:06:20 EDT, "Jamie C.Pole" > said: > > Because academics know EVERYTHING. > > What's that got to do with anything? (or are you > making the rather rash and > all-too-common generalization that everybody who > posts from a .edu is an > academic? Surprise - at least some sites are clued > enough to keep academics in > the classroom and lab, and hire people who know > something about production > environments to run the network and the big > servers) > > > Let's not talk about the links between financial > fraud, drugs, and > > terrorism. Of course they're related... > > Right... my point is that "e-crime" is a *symptom* > of the others - you won't > be able to do anything about e-crime until the > *root* problem (fraud/drugs/terrorism) > is dealt with. > > We have had enough ill-defined 'War on > Election-Year-Buzzwords' (terrorism, > drugs, organized crime, illiteracy, poverty - the > wars on Communism and > Inflation seem to have evaporated. I've probably > missed a few...). And we > seem to do a very poor job of ever asking *why* > people decide to blow us up, or > do drugs, or be poor/homeless. I don't see any > reason why we'd do any better > with e-crime. > > And even if E-crime *is* a separate war we need to > declare, where will we get > the resources from? Our military has long had a > policy regarding the troop > strength we need, and bases it on a "We can handle 3 > small conflicts, or 1 > large and one small, and we need to avoid being in 2 > major conflicts at once" > type of ruleset. Take a look how many billions of > dollars a month we're > collectively hemorrhaging in Iraq, and ask what > we'll trim to fight e-crime. > > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature
RE: [url correction] Cable networks RE: best effort has economic problems, maybe OT
All of these are great observations. So what's the cable HFC Achilles heel? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 12:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ''Christopher J. Wolff''; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [url correction] Cable networks RE: best effort has economic problems, maybe OT Correcting a previous url error on my part. Narad's site is at: http://www.naradnetworks.com Sorry 'bout that, folks. Frank On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:30 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: > >Agree, this is a great discussion, akin to a recent Cook Report accounting of best >effort considerations. Several startups (now going into year two) have addressed >the cable-HF/C constraints you've mentioned. You may be interested in perusing >these two: > >http://www.narad.com > >Another, Rainmaker Technologies... > >http://www.rainmakertechnologies.com > > appears to have fallen on hard times while seeking later round funding. Not >sure of their disposition at this time, but doing googles on their name reveal >some good articles on their approach to using wavelets to improve bit gain over >black coax/fiber systems to homes and businesses. > >Metcalfe has financial backing hooks and input into Narad, and Mark E. Laubach of >COM21 fame (ATM over HF/C) heads up (headed up?) Rainmaker's technical pursuits. > >[[As an aside, I'm finding increased interest in corporate parks (especially those >that are boondocks-bound) where MSO fiber-based offerings are being seriously >considered for WAN access, both of the type discussed above and enterprise- >tailored rings coming off local head-ends.]] > >Frank > > >On Sun, 30 May 2004 08:47 , 'Christopher J. Wolff' [EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: > >> >>Folks, >> >>This is a great discussion. I'm interested in understanding these types of >>limitations in the context of HFC cable networks. In my opinion, HDTV >>channel bandwidth (30mhz?) , increased demand for voip, and growing demand >>for IP connectivity is going to stress the cable network model as well, >>forcing cable operators to convert everything to IP before going out across >>the wire. Any input is appreciated. >> >>Regards, >>Christopher >> > > > >
Re: botnets world and the FBI
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:06:20 EDT, "Jamie C.Pole" said: > Because academics know EVERYTHING. What's that got to do with anything? (or are you making the rather rash and all-too-common generalization that everybody who posts from a .edu is an academic? Surprise - at least some sites are clued enough to keep academics in the classroom and lab, and hire people who know something about production environments to run the network and the big servers) > Let's not talk about the links between financial fraud, drugs, and > terrorism. Of course they're related... Right... my point is that "e-crime" is a *symptom* of the others - you won't be able to do anything about e-crime until the *root* problem (fraud/drugs/terrorism) is dealt with. We have had enough ill-defined 'War on Election-Year-Buzzwords' (terrorism, drugs, organized crime, illiteracy, poverty - the wars on Communism and Inflation seem to have evaporated. I've probably missed a few...). And we seem to do a very poor job of ever asking *why* people decide to blow us up, or do drugs, or be poor/homeless. I don't see any reason why we'd do any better with e-crime. And even if E-crime *is* a separate war we need to declare, where will we get the resources from? Our military has long had a policy regarding the troop strength we need, and bases it on a "We can handle 3 small conflicts, or 1 large and one small, and we need to avoid being in 2 major conflicts at once" type of ruleset. Take a look how many billions of dollars a month we're collectively hemorrhaging in Iraq, and ask what we'll trim to fight e-crime. pgptlguNjqqCc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: botnets world and the FBI
With the rise of extortion incidents online, there's no doubt in my mind that we've got lots of things that relate here. You rarely ever find one crime being done independantly of another. I mean how do you suppose that the terrorists get their funding? Large sums of money pass to them every year as a result of credit card fraud, identity theft, drugs, and other similar crimes. (Now thats by no means to say that all such stuff is associated with terrorism -- there is afterall old fashioned organized crime -- but it's hard to deny that there is indeed a link.) On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:53:17PM -0700, Bora Akyol wrote: > > On 6/1/04 7:24 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > To be brutal - do we really need to declare a "War on E-Crime" when we're > > still > > fighting a War on Terrorism and a War on Drugs? > > How do you know they are not related. > > Bora --- Wayne Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Re: botnets world and the FBI
On Jun 1, 2004, at 4:53 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: On 6/1/04 7:24 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To be brutal - do we really need to declare a "War on E-Crime" when we're still fighting a War on Terrorism and a War on Drugs? How do you know they are not related. Bora Because academics know EVERYTHING. Let's not talk about the links between financial fraud, drugs, and terrorism. Of course they're related... The majority of my forensics cases involve one or more of the above "unrelated" wars. The FBI is mostly clueless when it comes to these different types of fraud, but the Secret Service most assuredly is not. Anyone who feels compelled to complain about privacy should feel free to move to Australia - you can't take $10.00 (AUS) out of an ATM without the government knowing it. In the USA, we have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to complain about. WOW! How quickly these threads go off-topic... :-) Jamie -- Jamie C. Pole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Principal Consultant J.C. Pole & Associates, Inc. Information Security / Information Warfare / Information Forensics Comprehensive Law Enforcement & Litigation Support --
Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
Be warned that you can't use non-Cisco CWDM SFPs or GBICs in a cisco switch or router... There is a PROM code in the cisco-sold units that is identified by IOS. Plug in a non-cisco SFP/GBIC and it will shut down the port. (This was discussed about 9 months ago on nanog-l, it should be in the archives). Does anyone actually buy the $3500 CWDM SFPs? That's a $3300 profit margin for Cisco... Scott McGrath wrote: Finisar also has CWDM optics in both the SFP and GBIC form factor and they are quite a bit less expensive than the Cisco solution and they do have a 16 lambda passive OADM as well as the 4 and 8 lambda models. Scott C. McGrath On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Erik Haagsman wrote: What you could try is use the Cisco CWDM-MUX-4 and it's pluggable optics that can be fit into any GBIC 802.3z compliant slot. It's just an OADM with 4 or 8 wavelengths that delivers GigE to any box with pluggable GBICs provided you use the right optics and it's quite a bit cheaper than using ONS stuff. That said, CWDM doesn't get you much further than 80 kilometres, above that DWDM is your only option, and a hell of a lot more expensive. Cheers, -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV tel: +31(0)10 7507008 fax:+31(0)10 7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 17:30, Michael Smith wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello All: I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future growth. If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to hear about it. Thanks, Mike - -- Michael K. SmithNoaNet 206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.noanet.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx 41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p =hDVT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: botnets world and the FBI
On 6/1/04 7:24 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be brutal - do we really need to declare a "War on E-Crime" when we're > still > fighting a War on Terrorism and a War on Drugs? How do you know they are not related. Bora
RE: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
You need to check the switches to make sure they support the xWDM GBICs though. The older Cisco switches don't support them. Last time I checked, 3500XLs didn't support them, but 3550s did... Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Wam!Net Government Services - Design & Implementation Team 13665 Dulles Technology Dr. Ste 250 Herndon, VA 20171 Office: 703-480-2569 Cell: 703-819-3495 [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=cchurch%40wamnetgov. com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Haagsman Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:49 AM To: Michael Smith Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device What you could try is use the Cisco CWDM-MUX-4 and it's pluggable optics that can be fit into any GBIC 802.3z compliant slot. It's just an OADM with 4 or 8 wavelengths that delivers GigE to any box with pluggable GBICs provided you use the right optics and it's quite a bit cheaper than using ONS stuff. That said, CWDM doesn't get you much further than 80 kilometres, above that DWDM is your only option, and a hell of a lot more expensive. Cheers, -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV tel: +31(0)10 7507008 fax:+31(0)10 7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 17:30, Michael Smith wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello All: > > I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for > providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of > fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than > putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE > circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future > growth. > > If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to > hear about it. > > Thanks, > > Mike > > - -- > Michael K. SmithNoaNet > 206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.noanet.net > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: PGP 8.0.3 > > iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx > 41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p > =hDVT > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: a small note for the Internet archives
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Peter Lothberg wrote: > > > > 2.5/40Gb.. only 6.25% usage.. you sure you needed to spend the money upgrading > > > from your OC192? :) > > did peter really spend anything for his oc-192? :) If it's a free upgrade > > why pass it up? > > This is not to the house, it's inside Sprintlink shipping real live traffic. you should include stats for your inhouse one also... Oh, and does that mean the trickle-down will put the old 192 to the outhouse instead of an oc-12? :)
RE: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
> If you only need two GigE circuits, the least expensive > solution is probably standard LX/LH GBICs and passive > splitter/combiners. Available from several vendors, for instance > http://www.mrv.com/product/MRV-FD-SPLTCMB/ > Disclaimer: I have no practical experience with this product. FYI - We have one of our strands of fiber (about 40km) terminating in AFOP WDM 1550/1310 splitters with the 1550 being terminated in ZX GBICS and the 1310 in an ATM switch and it works great. Eric
Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
Finisar also has CWDM optics in both the SFP and GBIC form factor and they are quite a bit less expensive than the Cisco solution and they do have a 16 lambda passive OADM as well as the 4 and 8 lambda models. Scott C. McGrath On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Erik Haagsman wrote: > > What you could try is use the Cisco CWDM-MUX-4 and it's pluggable optics > that can be fit into any GBIC 802.3z compliant slot. It's just an OADM > with 4 or 8 wavelengths that delivers GigE to any box with pluggable > GBICs provided you use the right optics and it's quite a bit cheaper > than using ONS stuff. That said, CWDM doesn't get you much further than > 80 kilometres, above that DWDM is your only option, and a hell of a lot > more expensive. > > Cheers, > > -- > --- > Erik Haagsman > Network Architect > We Dare BV > tel: +31(0)10 7507008 > fax:+31(0)10 7507005 > http://www.we-dare.nl > > > On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 17:30, Michael Smith wrote: > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hello All: > > > > I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for > > providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of > > fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than > > putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE > > circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future > > growth. > > > > If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to > > hear about it. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > - -- > > Michael K. SmithNoaNet > > 206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.noanet.net > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: PGP 8.0.3 > > > > iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx > > 41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p > > =hDVT > > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > >
Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
> I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for > providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of > fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than > putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE > circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future > growth. If you only need two GigE circuits, the least expensive solution is probably standard LX/LH GBICs and passive splitter/combiners. Available from several vendors, for instance http://www.mrv.com/product/MRV-FD-SPLTCMB/ Disclaimer: I have no practical experience with this product. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
What you could try is use the Cisco CWDM-MUX-4 and it's pluggable optics that can be fit into any GBIC 802.3z compliant slot. It's just an OADM with 4 or 8 wavelengths that delivers GigE to any box with pluggable GBICs provided you use the right optics and it's quite a bit cheaper than using ONS stuff. That said, CWDM doesn't get you much further than 80 kilometres, above that DWDM is your only option, and a hell of a lot more expensive. Cheers, -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV tel: +31(0)10 7507008 fax:+31(0)10 7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 17:30, Michael Smith wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello All: > > I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for > providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of > fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than > putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE > circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future > growth. > > If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to > hear about it. > > Thanks, > > Mike > > - -- > Michael K. SmithNoaNet > 206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.noanet.net > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: PGP 8.0.3 > > iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx > 41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p > =hDVT > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: a small note for the Internet archives
> > 2.5/40Gb.. only 6.25% usage.. you sure you needed to spend the money upgrading > > from your OC192? :) > did peter really spend anything for his oc-192? :) If it's a free upgrade > why pass it up? This is not to the house, it's inside Sprintlink shipping real live traffic. -P
OT: Looking for Ethernt/Optical Device
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello All: I'm wondering if anyone has seen a good and cheap(er) solution for providing multiple Gigabit Ethernet circuits over single pair of fiber. I'm looking for a way to do CWDM or DWDM that's cheaper than putting in a Cisco 15454 or 15327. I'm only going to be doing 2 GigE circuits between two switches, so I don't need to plan for future growth. If anyone knows of a magic box that will do the above I would love to hear about it. Thanks, Mike - -- Michael K. SmithNoaNet 206.219.7116 (work) 866.662.6380 (NOC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.noanet.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQLyiVJzgx7Y34AxGEQIDewCfR8JQG2jqbxsBopUE6u3FUnfiX3UAoODx 41QL7T1eyK1EQ4ZMnVJU+l2p =hDVT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
DC Service Providers...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 All, Please could any DC service providers with a POP physically close to Connecticut and Florida NW contact me off-list if they are able to offer temoprary (i.e. 1 month) public internet connectivity at DS-3 or 100Mbps. Thanks, Ben. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3 Comment: "" iQA/AwUBQLyWdkNm3F1O6YPWEQLZbACgi9qtyptV8UcRUPJRMyvz8YfwkJkAnRnO 5vr64jw3Czd93VOqfHCtnplg =vE9n -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: botnets world and the FBI
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 00:01:48 PDT, John Obi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: (Insert standard "Death of Internet predicted, film at 11" sound bite here) > I found this important article, maybe it's the time to > have the FBI to work in the e-crime more and more. Then again, maybe it's not. Where will the FBI get the budget to work on e-crime? Remember that to be good at that takes some talent and training, and the prospective candidates can probably get better paying jobs elsewhere, even in today's economy. To be brutal - do we really need to declare a "War on E-Crime" when we're still fighting a War on Terrorism and a War on Drugs? (I'll leave it to the others in the tinfoil helmet brigade to discuss whether we should give the FBI sufficient budget in order to be able to effectively use the various "War on Privacy and Civil Rights" tools they've been given recently) pgpWZwWWnhxIX.pgp Description: PGP signature
botnets world and the FBI
Hello, I found this important article, maybe it's the time to have the FBI to work in the e-crime more and more. http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040506/ZNYT05/405060313/1009/BUSINESS Thanks, -J __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
