Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings

[Sean Donelan]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
> Most ISPs don't provide users with a heavy-duty client that
> replaces or patches lots of the operating system's functions,
> though may will offer friendly customized browsers for
> users who want them, and a few misguided carriers will
> provide drivers for PPPoE or other evil excuses for protocols (:-)

Looking at the top 10 US residential ISPs (covering an estimated 60%+
of  all residential accounts), as far as I can tell all of them include
a fairly sophisticated support client.  "Expert" users may not install it,
but I suspect the bulk of the users do.

> Generally, ISPs tell you the network settings to use on Windows,
> and tell you or let you guess for other popular operating systems,
> and they may give you a friendly dialer program that
> knows how to find their nearest POP but doesn't mess around much.

There is a difference between what is done, and what is possible.
The support clients distributed by AT&T, Earthlink, UnitedOnline/Netzero,
MSN and AOL have amazing capabilties to "fix" a user's account after
the user mucks up the computer.

Microsoft has asked ISPs to make changes on its behalf, such as enabling
the XP firewall.  But is it wise for an ISP to change the settings on
a user's computer?  If Microsoft is reluctant to make the changes itself,
what problems is the ISP creating?

   a. Enable firewall
   b. Disable file/printer sharing
   c. Shut down "uncessary services" like Windows Messenger
   d. Install patches/enable auto-update
   e. Remove spyware/trojans/remote access software

And so on, through all the changes recommended by the Center for
Internet Security (http://www.cisecurity.org/)

RE: Whitelisting, AOL E.mail etc.

[Deepak Jain]

One point I'd like to mention is that most AOL antispam guys also have an
aol.net address. When AOL.COM has stopped accepting your mail, aol.net still
will. [Postmaster, for example].

Deepak Jain
AiNET

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Stephen J. Wilcox
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:28 PM
> To: Robert Mathews
> Cc: North American Network Operators
> Subject: Re: Whitelisting, AOL E.mail etc.
>
>
>
> This was presented at this weeks NANOG by AOL:
>
> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/spam.html
>
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Robert Mathews wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > All:
> >
> > I have weighed the benefit of posting Vs. NOT posting this
> information to
> > NANOG.  I found that posting this note to the larger community was
> > important perhaps for two reasons.  They are:
> >
> > 1) The problems that we at the University of Hawai'i experienced from
> > 10/17 - 10/20 with AOL, effected a fairly large userbase.
> Therefore, I am
> > inclined to believe that someone who is at least partially
> responsible for
> > the operation or managment of another network similar to our own - could
> > benefit from having this information (I know of at least 2 other large
> > University systems that were effected by the same issue).
> >
> > 2) Having the requisite AOL contact information in any event - might be
> > important toward at least partially achieving a resolve to future
> > problems.
> >
> > Now, a brief recap.  Beginning the afternoon of the 17th (EDT),
> all E.mail
> > traffic from UH' namespace to AOL began to bounce.  This
> condition did not
> > resolve until the morning of the 20th (EDT).  Primarily, this was due to
> > AOL's whitelisting, and whitelisting policies.  Upon discovering this
> > problem, I began an inquiry into the condition.  We were
> informed that AOL
> > had received complaints from 'its members', who stated that our central
> > E.mail server was responsible for instances of spamming.
> >
> > Subsequently, AOL personnel and I were able to hold a dialog over the
> > weekend to resolve pertinent issues regarding the matter.  I
> wish to give
> > praise the AOL Team, who responded quickly, and were both
> cooperative and
> > sincere with respect to their desire to resolve issues.  I MUST credit
> > Carl Hutzler, Dir. of AntiSpam Operations at AOL, and Charles Stiles,
> > Manager of the Postmaster-Team at AOL especially, for their
> commitment to
> > resolve this issue expediently.  Traffic exchange between AOL
> and us have
> > been re-established.
> >
> > For your reference, I wish to present the following statement
> from Carl to
> > me, which may be helpful to you as well.
> >
> > "Anyone can request to receive the complaints that mail
> > transmitted from their IP space generated via a Complaint Feedback
> > Loop. All we need is:
> >
> > 1. Address space (CIDR or otherwise)
> > 2. Abuse email address where you want them sent
> >
> > We will send them in realtime as we get them with the entire
> > original spam included for your analysis. Feel free to have them
> > send this data to me and/or our abuse phone number for now ..."
> >
> > The relevant AOL contacts are as follows:
> >
> > Carl Hutzler
> > Director, AntiSpam Operations
> > America Online Mail Operations
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 703.265.5521 work
> > 703.915.6862 cell
> > Carl Hutzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > or
> >
> > Charles Stiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Manager, Postmaster-Team - AOL
> >
> >
> > All my best,
> > Robert.
> > ---
> >
>
>
>

Re: Whitelisting, AOL E.mail etc.

[Stephen J. Wilcox]

This was presented at this weeks NANOG by AOL:

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/spam.html



On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Robert Mathews wrote:

> 
> 
> All:
> 
> I have weighed the benefit of posting Vs. NOT posting this information to
> NANOG.  I found that posting this note to the larger community was
> important perhaps for two reasons.  They are:
> 
> 1) The problems that we at the University of Hawai'i experienced from
> 10/17 - 10/20 with AOL, effected a fairly large userbase. Therefore, I am
> inclined to believe that someone who is at least partially responsible for
> the operation or managment of another network similar to our own - could
> benefit from having this information (I know of at least 2 other large
> University systems that were effected by the same issue).
> 
> 2) Having the requisite AOL contact information in any event - might be
> important toward at least partially achieving a resolve to future
> problems.
> 
> Now, a brief recap.  Beginning the afternoon of the 17th (EDT), all E.mail
> traffic from UH' namespace to AOL began to bounce.  This condition did not
> resolve until the morning of the 20th (EDT).  Primarily, this was due to
> AOL's whitelisting, and whitelisting policies.  Upon discovering this
> problem, I began an inquiry into the condition.  We were informed that AOL
> had received complaints from 'its members', who stated that our central
> E.mail server was responsible for instances of spamming.
> 
> Subsequently, AOL personnel and I were able to hold a dialog over the
> weekend to resolve pertinent issues regarding the matter.  I wish to give
> praise the AOL Team, who responded quickly, and were both cooperative and
> sincere with respect to their desire to resolve issues.  I MUST credit
> Carl Hutzler, Dir. of AntiSpam Operations at AOL, and Charles Stiles,
> Manager of the Postmaster-Team at AOL especially, for their commitment to
> resolve this issue expediently.  Traffic exchange between AOL and us have
> been re-established.
> 
> For your reference, I wish to present the following statement from Carl to
> me, which may be helpful to you as well.
> 
>   "Anyone can request to receive the complaints that mail
>   transmitted from their IP space generated via a Complaint Feedback
>   Loop. All we need is:
> 
>   1. Address space (CIDR or otherwise)
>   2. Abuse email address where you want them sent
> 
>   We will send them in realtime as we get them with the entire
>   original spam included for your analysis. Feel free to have them
>   send this data to me and/or our abuse phone number for now ..."
> 
> The relevant AOL contacts are as follows:
> 
> Carl Hutzler
> Director, AntiSpam Operations
> America Online Mail Operations
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 703.265.5521 work
> 703.915.6862 cell
> Carl Hutzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> or
> 
> Charles Stiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Manager, Postmaster-Team - AOL
> 
> 
> All my best,
> Robert.
> ---
> 

Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings

[Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS]

Most ISPs don't provide users with a heavy-duty client that
replaces or patches lots of the operating system's functions,
though may will offer friendly customized browsers for
users who want them, and a few misguided carriers will 
provide drivers for PPPoE or other evil excuses for protocols (:-)

Generally, ISPs tell you the network settings to use on Windows,
and tell you or let you guess for other popular operating systems,
and they may give you a friendly dialer program that 
knows how to find their nearest POP but doesn't mess around much.

Making major changes to a user's OS violates the principle of
Least Astonishment (which is usually a policy problem,
not an operational one, though you could argue that having a 
random network protocol not work quite right on Windows
is less astonishing to most users than a flood of popups), 
but it also often fails to work successfully on 
security-compromised machines, which is an operational issue.

So it won't stop viruses or trojans or spammerbots or 
crackers or spyware or worms or bad ActiveX or Javascripts.
On the other hand, it could reduce some risks on machines that
aren't cracked, and could reduce the spam level they receive,
and can protect most of the users who aren't doing anything fancy,
so as long as it's part of some friendly user interface menu
and can be turned on and off it's ok.

The alternative place to provide this kind of protection
is in the network edge, which is probably the dial POP for
most AOL users.  If you implement it in a way that can be
turned on or off per user, that's usually much cleaner,
usually more scalable, and can work even when user machines 
are compromised.

Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?

[Henry Linneweh]

A bunch of optical ethernet guys make everything one would need from the enterprise to the metro area, GigE to dwdm to sonet/sdh  http://www.luminous.com/
 
-HRLDeepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A bunch of guys make these in very simple configurations.MRV: http://www.mrv.com/product/MRV-FD-SF/appdrawing/There are companies that make a plug-in GBIC that is single attach as well,but I can't seem to find the URL readily.Something similar: http://www.iteck.com/eng/products/pdf/GMC(Rev.D).pdfDeepak JainAiNET> -Original Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of> Eric Kuhnke> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:52 AM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs? Would anyone like to contribute their favorite solution for doing> both Rx and Tx over a single fiber, in MAN environments?>> http://www.imcnetworks.com/products/minimc.asp>> I've found that
 unit, but I'm hoping to find some alternatives...> Is there anything that will do 1000Mb over a single fiber?

Re: Whitelisting, AOL E.mail etc.

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Robert, and all,

> 2) Having the requisite AOL contact information in any event - might
> be important toward at least partially achieving a resolve to future
> problems.

Also let me remind folks that this is exactly what EDDB is for - to 
provide a place to find contact information in situations such as 
this.  (Yes, that information is in EDDB.)

We have contact information for senders, ISPs, and spam filtering 
companies.  Information provided *by* them, not culled from elsewhere 
- this is them saying "if you are a participant in EDDB, you can 
contact us directly here:"

I'm not pushing this to get EDDB payments from folks here - in fact, 
if you contact me directly off-list I'll tell you about the *very* 
healthy NANOG discount. :-)

http://www.isipp.com/eddb.php

Anne

P.S.  If you want a laugh, check out our new Slam a Spammer graphic, 
at http://www.isipp.com/slamspammer.php

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
President & CEO
Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy

Fwd: Re: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?

[Timo Janhunen]

Canoga Perkins hasn't updated their website to show specs for the 9119 
single fiber transceivers. You'll have to call them for details on that 
specific model, as it became available recently.

Regards,

Timo


The Canoga Perkins 9119 (100MB) and 9120 (1000MB) series are tried and 
true. They have single fiber and dual fiber versions available. We have 
over 50 units currently deployed.

See http://www.canogaperkins.com/library/datasheets/index.asp#LAN. In 
terms of pricing, they are a bit more expensive than the others, but their 
reputation is excellent.

Regards,

Timo

At 06:52 AM 24/10/2003 -0700, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Would anyone like to contribute their favorite solution for doing both Rx 
and Tx over a single fiber, in MAN environments?

http://www.imcnetworks.com/products/minimc.asp

I've found that unit, but I'm hoping to find some alternatives...  Is 
there anything that will do 1000Mb over a single fiber?

Re: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?

[Dennis Hayes]

I would stay away from IMC, they may be cheap but you get what you pay for.

Timo's is right, the Canoga transceivers are excellent. The only problem 
I've had is with the standalone models; the power supply had failed on a 
couple of them, but swap them out with another and your off and running 
again.  Canoga was aware of this problem and supposedly fixed it.

Another alternative is Transitions networks www.transition.com.   I haven't 
had much experience with them personally, but I hear good things about 
them.  They are also not as bulky as the Canogas, giving you a higher port 
density, per RMU.

-Dennis



At 02:21 PM 10/24/03 -0400, you wrote:

The Canoga Perkins 9119 (100MB) and 9120 (1000MB) series are tried and 
true. They have single fiber and dual fiber versions available. We have 
over 50 units currently deployed.

See http://www.canogaperkins.com/library/datasheets/index.asp#LAN. In 
terms of pricing, they are a bit more expensive than the others, but their 
reputation is excellent.

Regards,

Timo

At 06:52 AM 24/10/2003 -0700, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Would anyone like to contribute their favorite solution for doing both Rx 
and Tx over a single fiber, in MAN environments?

http://www.imcnetworks.com/products/minimc.asp

I've found that unit, but I'm hoping to find some alternatives...  Is 
there anything that will do 1000Mb over a single fiber?

SEC-Letter (was: Re: NOAA warning for rf communications)

[Gregory Hicks]

> From: Bob Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:27:23 -0400

> [...snip...]

> Don't expect warnings like this in the future; Congress is likely to
> drop the Space Environment Center's funding to 0.

> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/10/03/3/

> Bob

Saw Bob's message and remembered another received some time ago...

- Begin Forwarded Message -

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:35:12 GMT
From: Space Environment Center <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SEC-Letter

Dear Friend,

The following describes Space Environment Center's unfortunate
financial situation. For the coming fiscal year, the House
Committee-recommended funding creates a huge shortfall, and the Senate
Committee's recommendation implies no support for space weather service
at all this year. Possibly a new service would be established elsewhere
in the government, but that is uncertain at this point.

We thought you would like to know.

Ernest Hildner and the staff of SEC


U.S. SPACE WEATHER SERVICE IN DEEP TROUBLE

SUMMARY
For Fiscal Year 2004, starting October 1, 2003, the House
Appropriations Bill for Commerce, Justice, and State continues Space
Environment Center's funding at $5.2 M (a reduction of 40% below the
FY02 level).  Worse, the FY04 Senate Appropriations Bill zeroes Space
Environment Center and all space weather in NOAA, so services, data and
observations, and archiving would all disappear if the final
appropriation is at the Senate level.  At the House funding level,
starting October 1 SEC will rapidly lose about half its staff,
negatively affecting its ability to serve the Nation with operational
products, data collection, and R&D.  Unless the appropriation level for
Space Environment Center is restored to the level of the President's
FY04 Budget Request, $8.3 million, the Nation's civilian space weather
service is in trouble.  At the President's requested funding level,
Space Environment Center can almost return to FY02 level of services,
data, and R&D.

BACKGROUND
NOAA's Space Environment Center in Boulder, Colorado, provides a range
of services to the Nation related to space weather phenomena.  Among
other activities, the Center is the unique provider of real-time
monitoring and forecasting of solar and geophysical events, it conducts
research in solar-terrestrial physics, and it develops techniques for
forecasting solar and geophysical disturbances.  That is, Space
Environment Center is the Nation's space weather service, monitoring
and predicting conditions in space, much as the National Weather
Service does for meteorological weather.

SEC jointly operates the Space Weather Operations Center with the U.S.
Air Force and serves as the national and world warning center for
disturbances that can affect people and equipment working in the space
environment.  It is the government's official source for alerts and
warnings of disturbances.  Customers include DoD, NASA, FAA, airlines,
operators of electric power grids, communicators, satellite operators,
the National Space Weather Program, and commercial providers of
value-added space weather services.  Partnering with researchers funded
by NSF, NASA, and the DoD, Space Environment Center is the place where
much of the nation's $100s of millions annual investment in the
National Space Weather Program and in space physics research is applied
for the benefit of commerce, defense, NASA spaceflight, and individual
taxpayers.

SEC's appropriation lines can be found in the Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research portion of the Budget.

In the omnibus appropriations Bill for FY 2003, the SEC received a
severe cut to its budget of about 40%, with no explanation for the
reduction.   One-time funding additions have kept SEC afloat in
FY2003.  The President's Budget request is $8.3 million for SEC in
FY2004 (an amount consistent with its past budgetary levels), but the
House Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Committee provides only
$5.2 million, or roughly 40% less than the amount necessary to maintain
SEC at its current operational effectiveness.  Again for FY04, no
explanatory text was included in the Committee Report to explain this
reduction, and it far exceeds the 18 % reduction below request meted
out to NOAA Research overall and the 1% reduction to National Weather
Service's request.  The Bill has not yet been acted upon by the full
House.  The Senate Appropriations Committee explains its termination of
space weather in NOAA in the Report accompanying its
Commerce-Justice-State Bill as follows.  The full text of the Senate
Report may be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=sr144&dbname=cp108&

Solar observation. - The "Atmospheric" in NOAA does not extend to the
astral.  Absolutely no funds are provided for solar observation.  Such
activities are rig

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Kevin Loch]

The NOAA links seem saturated... http://www.sec.noaa.gov/
I have a Solar Data page here:

http://n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html

And Solar status monitor images you can deep link on your own
page:
http://n3kl.org/sun/status.html

The above pages poll data from ftp.sec.noaa.gov, which is still
available.
KL

Re: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?

[Timo Janhunen]

The Canoga Perkins 9119 (100MB) and 9120 (1000MB) series are tried and 
true. They have single fiber and dual fiber versions available. We have 
over 50 units currently deployed.

See http://www.canogaperkins.com/library/datasheets/index.asp#LAN. In terms 
of pricing, they are a bit more expensive than the others, but their 
reputation is excellent.

Regards,

Timo

At 06:52 AM 24/10/2003 -0700, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Would anyone like to contribute their favorite solution for doing both Rx 
and Tx over a single fiber, in MAN environments?

http://www.imcnetworks.com/products/minimc.asp

I've found that unit, but I'm hoping to find some alternatives...  Is 
there anything that will do 1000Mb over a single fiber?

RE: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?

[Peter John Hill]

gbic form factor. No experience with it, but looks pretty cool for special cases...

Peter Hill

--On Friday, October 24, 2003 2:09 PM -0400 Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



A bunch of guys make these in very simple configurations.

MRV: http://www.mrv.com/product/MRV-FD-SF/appdrawing/

There are companies that make a plug-in GBIC that is single attach as well,
but I can't seem to find the URL readily.
Something similar: http://www.iteck.com/eng/products/pdf/GMC(Rev.D).pdf

Deepak Jain
AiNET
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?


Would anyone like to contribute their favorite solution for doing
both Rx and Tx over a single fiber, in MAN environments?
http://www.imcnetworks.com/products/minimc.asp

I've found that unit, but I'm hoping to find some alternatives...
 Is there anything that will do 1000Mb over a single fiber?

RE: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?

[Deepak Jain]

A bunch of guys make these in very simple configurations.

MRV: http://www.mrv.com/product/MRV-FD-SF/appdrawing/

There are companies that make a plug-in GBIC that is single attach as well,
but I can't seem to find the URL readily.

Something similar: http://www.iteck.com/eng/products/pdf/GMC(Rev.D).pdf

Deepak Jain
AiNET

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Eric Kuhnke
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?
>
>
>
> Would anyone like to contribute their favorite solution for doing
> both Rx and Tx over a single fiber, in MAN environments?
>
> http://www.imcnetworks.com/products/minimc.asp
>
> I've found that unit, but I'm hoping to find some alternatives...
>  Is there anything that will do 1000Mb over a single fiber?
>
>
>
>

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Anton L. Kapela]

Rodney Joffe said:

[snip]

> 900 mhz and 1800 mhz. And facing East or West. And Satellite,
> somewhat above 2.0 ghz.

Hmm.

> And a significant number of ISPs are currently employing 802.11 2.4
> and 5.0+ ghz equipment for last mile links (Proxim Tsunami) and
> Motorola Canopy gear.

The PSD of the modulation (BPSK) that Canopy employs is rather, shall
we say, insane when contrasted with CCK or QAM. I'd be impressed to
find a system that experiences errors or goes off-line completely due
to a CME.

Interestingly, I found a few papers discussing the nature (as well as
proposed detection methods, with examples) of the RF signature of a
CME. The two most easily understood (imho) would be the following:

-http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/cannibalism.pdf

"Long-wavelength radio emission in the decameter-hectometric
(DH) wavelengths (21–280 m or 1–14 MHz in frequency) has
proven to be an important diagnostic for understanding very
energetic coronal mass ejections (CMEs) propagating into the
outer corona and interplanetary (IP) medium (Kaiser et al. 1998;
Gopalswamy et al. 1999; Reiner & Kaiser 1999)."

-http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/gopal2003.cospar.pdf

Page three of this paper has an excellent time/spectrum graph of
several type II and type III CME (radio) bursts:


Again, these researchers are looking at RF spectrum below 10Mhz. One
could maybe reason (or argue) that the onset of the type III events
(which appear to be initially identified by very broad spectral
content) contain components out to (or above) UHF frequency ranges.
However, after looking over these two papers, I don't see that there's
anything "interesting" above 10mhz, let alone 3 GHz+.

If anyone could offer up evidence that has linked path "fading" or
"desensitization" (of an operator's equipment) to a type II or III
CME, _and_ is operating above 3 GHz, I'm all eyes.

--Tk

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Todd Vierling]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Keptin Komrade Dr. BobWrench III esq. wrote:

: Well, this is more than you really wanted to know, but

:   HF  High3mhz-30mhz

I realize this.  However, satellite communications (which were mentioned in
the notice) are certainly not in the HF band.  I suppose I then interpreted
the NOAA notice such that "high frequency" was being used as a generic term,
not indicative of the band.

Oh well, back to running a network.  

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

AS num and route flaps

[Rodney Joffe]

Is anyone aware of any relationship between AS numbers and route
dampening? Are there any situations, or knobs to be tweaked, that can
result in an AS being dampened due to flaps, rather than only ip
addresses and prefixes and meds coming into play?

I'm working on a tech draft for IPv4 anycast in DNS, and in the hallways
in Chicago there was some peripheral discussion about the problems that
would occur with route dampening including a statement that if the
various anycast addresses were in the same AS and only one of the nets
flapped, they would all be affected if "someone networks" dampened the
AS. For some reason no-one in the assembled pack questioned the veracity
of this statement at the time. 

Granted, it was late in the night even for NANOG, but in the cold light
of day I can't see any relationship. So I would appreciate any input in
case someone has found a reason and method to involve AS numbers in
dampening (and specifically related to dampening - I am not examining
other factors like fat fingering, or filtering issues based on AS, at
this stage).

Many thanks...
-- 
Rodney Joffe
CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM)

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Bob Snyder]

On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 01:22, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> I'm surprised that there has been no warning or discussion on NANOG...
> 
> There is a high likelihood that things like 802.11, licensed and
> unlicensed microwave links, and certainly satellite links will sustain
> interference over the next few days. I assume that everyone on the list
> is both aware, and prepared ;-)
> 
> Oh, perhaps an alternative to paging or cellphone notifications to
> support folks is a good idea ;-)
> 
> http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12850
> 
> The NOAA links seem saturated... http://www.sec.noaa.gov/

Don't expect warnings like this in the future; Congress is likely to
drop the Space Environment Center's funding to 0.

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/10/03/3/

Bob

Whitelisting, AOL E.mail etc.

[Robert Mathews]

All:

I have weighed the benefit of posting Vs. NOT posting this information to
NANOG.  I found that posting this note to the larger community was
important perhaps for two reasons.  They are:

1) The problems that we at the University of Hawai'i experienced from
10/17 - 10/20 with AOL, effected a fairly large userbase. Therefore, I am
inclined to believe that someone who is at least partially responsible for
the operation or managment of another network similar to our own - could
benefit from having this information (I know of at least 2 other large
University systems that were effected by the same issue).

2) Having the requisite AOL contact information in any event - might be
important toward at least partially achieving a resolve to future
problems.

Now, a brief recap.  Beginning the afternoon of the 17th (EDT), all E.mail
traffic from UH' namespace to AOL began to bounce.  This condition did not
resolve until the morning of the 20th (EDT).  Primarily, this was due to
AOL's whitelisting, and whitelisting policies.  Upon discovering this
problem, I began an inquiry into the condition.  We were informed that AOL
had received complaints from 'its members', who stated that our central
E.mail server was responsible for instances of spamming.

Subsequently, AOL personnel and I were able to hold a dialog over the
weekend to resolve pertinent issues regarding the matter.  I wish to give
praise the AOL Team, who responded quickly, and were both cooperative and
sincere with respect to their desire to resolve issues.  I MUST credit
Carl Hutzler, Dir. of AntiSpam Operations at AOL, and Charles Stiles,
Manager of the Postmaster-Team at AOL especially, for their commitment to
resolve this issue expediently.  Traffic exchange between AOL and us have
been re-established.

For your reference, I wish to present the following statement from Carl to
me, which may be helpful to you as well.

"Anyone can request to receive the complaints that mail
transmitted from their IP space generated via a Complaint Feedback
Loop. All we need is:

1. Address space (CIDR or otherwise)
2. Abuse email address where you want them sent

We will send them in realtime as we get them with the entire
original spam included for your analysis. Feel free to have them
send this data to me and/or our abuse phone number for now ..."

The relevant AOL contacts are as follows:

Carl Hutzler
Director, AntiSpam Operations
America Online Mail Operations
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
703.265.5521 work
703.915.6862 cell
Carl Hutzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

or

Charles Stiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manager, Postmaster-Team - AOL


All my best,
Robert.
---

Re: No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??

[Jay Hennigan]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Roman Volf wrote:

> Show Version:
>
> Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
> IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3620-I-M), Version 12.2(12a), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
>
> flash image:
> System image file is "flash:c3620-i-mz.122-12a.bin"
>
>
> I'm trying to configure a FastEthernet sub interface for 802.1q VLANs, but
> theres no encapsulation command. I've googled it up for about 2 hours and
> have come up with nothing... the following command sequence is documented
> dozens of times:
>
> Any help would be appreciated.

You have an IP-only image as shown by the c3620-i in the filename.  For
VLAN support you need at least an "Plus" image.  Depending on your hardware
this may require more RAM and/or flash.

-- 
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WestNet:  Connecting you to the planet.  805 884-6323  WB6RDV
NetLojix Communications, Inc.  -  http://www.netlojix.com/

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Scott Granados]

Wouldn't 2.4 ghz fall in that range or does hf mean hf in the classical
sense of something on the scale of 3 to 49 mhz or so.


On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Roy wrote:

>
> According to the notice
>
> "Satellite and other spacecraft operations, power systems, high
> frequency communications, and navigation systems may experience
> disruptions over this two-week period."
>
> I think you will find that 802.11b and other terrestrial microwave LOS
> links don't meet any of those criteria and should be unaffected.  Some
> small increase in the noise level may be detected.
>
> Chris Yarnell wrote:
>
> > my office experienced 802.11b weirdness (sudden bouts of 0% signal for no
> > apparent reason) earlier this week. i'm fully expecting more tomorrow. :)
> >
> >
> >>There is a high likelihood that things like 802.11, licensed and
> >>unlicensed microwave links, and certainly satellite links will sustain
> >>interference over the next few days. I assume that everyone on the list
> >>is both aware, and prepared ;-)
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Urgent request, need a drop in CAL

[Rick Duff]

I doubt this is even possible, but I have a client who needs Internet,
dial-up through T1, he doesn't care, to this address, by the middle of
next week at:

100 innovation drive, suite 200, irvine ca 92612

Please contact off list with a voice mail with your full contact
information, earliest completion date, circuit type / specs, and price.

Randy Walker
Mitsubishi Electric Automation, IT
847-478-2250



Thanks in advance;

Rick Duff
Wireless Network Data Engineering
Atecs, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??

[Michel Py]

You need the "plus" image

Michel.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Roman Volf
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??


Show Version:

Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3620-I-M), Version 12.2(12a), RELEASE SOFTWARE
(fc1)

flash image:
System image file is "flash:c3620-i-mz.122-12a.bin"


I'm trying to configure a FastEthernet sub interface for 802.1q VLANs,
but
theres no encapsulation command. I've googled it up for about 2 hours
and
have come up with nothing... the following command sequence is
documented
dozens of times:

As shown on:

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft
/120t/120t1/8021q.htm#wp3944
interface fastethernet slot/port.subinterface-number
encapsulation dot1q vlanid


Any help would be appreciated.

Re: Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Kuhnke  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Would anyone like to contribute their favorite solution for doing both
>Rx and Tx over a single fiber, in MAN environments?  

Google for "fiber splitter/combiner"

Mike.
-- 
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself.

Re: No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??

[jlewis]

This is what http://cio.cisco.com/go/fn is for.  You need a "plus" version 
for VLAN support on the 3620.  i.e. IP Plus, Enterprise Plus, etc.  Your 
IP version below doesn't include the feature you're looking for.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Roman Volf wrote:

> 
> Show Version:
> 
> Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
> IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3620-I-M), Version 12.2(12a), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
> 
> flash image:
> System image file is "flash:c3620-i-mz.122-12a.bin"
> 
> 
> I'm trying to configure a FastEthernet sub interface for 802.1q VLANs, but
> theres no encapsulation command. I've googled it up for about 2 hours and
> have come up with nothing... the following command sequence is documented
> dozens of times:
> 
> As shown on:
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120t/120t1/8021q.htm#wp3944
> interface fastethernet slot/port.subinterface-number
> encapsulation dot1q vlanid
> 
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.
> 

--
 Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|  
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Eric Kuhnke]

Does everyone have their generators ready?   :-)

http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/13Mar89.html

On 13 March 1989, the voltage of Quebec's power grid began to fluctuate alarmingly. 
Seconds later, the lights went out across the entire province. Some 6 million people 
were without electricity for nine hours. Within two days, NASA had lost track of some 
of its spacecraft and the northern lights were glowing in the sky south of London. As 
described in the 3 February 1996 issue of The New Scientist, these events had the same 
cause - a monumental Solar Storm, the fiercest for 30 years 

>- the electrical grid acts as a big radio antenna and circuit breakers may trip.

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Marshall Eubanks]

At NASA at least, we referred to everything above 1 GHz as microwave. I 
have
never heard SHF and EHF used in practice (and I worked at 8 GHz and 
above for years).

There are two basic dangers here

- the electrical grid acts as a big radio antenna and circuit breakers 
may trip.

- The maximum frequency at which the ionosphere reflects radio waves 
(the MUF -
http://www.hfradio.org/muf_basics.html )
will increase. Some things that depend on ionospheric reflection may 
act weird, there
may be interference at higher frequencies which normally do not 
reflect, but now do, etc.

- it is also possible that dispersion (frequency depend phase changes) 
at higher
frequency could cut down on bandwidths of broadband systems.

The reflection frequency is almost never higher than 30 MHz anywhere on 
the planet, and the effects depend on the inverse frequency squared. I 
doubt that many of the bits moved by the readers of this list go at 
radio frequencies as low as 30 MHz. Even the cell phone and other bands 
starting about 700 Mhz are
unlikely to be affected.

Spacecraft may be effected, but this will be because they are bathed in 
increased radiation. There also may be some cool low latitude aurora.

On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 09:49 AM, Keptin Komrade Dr. BobWrench 
III esq. wrote:

Well, this is more than you really wanted to know, but

ELV Exremely Lowdc - 3khz
VLF Very Low Freq   3khz - 30khz
LF  Low Frequency   30khz - 300Khz
MF  Medium  300Khz - 3Mhz
HF  High3mhz-30mhz
VHF Very High   30mhz-300mhz
UHF Ultra High  300-3Ghz
SHF Super High  3Ghz - 30 Ghz
EHF Extremely High  30Ghz - 300Ghz
Different folks put the breaks at slightly different places (the.g. 
the amatuer radio community puts the hf/vhf break @ 50Mhz and the 
MF/HF break @ 1.8Khz.

And, as a side note, I can't find the URL, but the US Cong is talking 
about pulling all the funding for the NASA space weather programs. 
Would mean less/no warning of this sort of stuff.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled off topic discussions

Komrade

Owen DeLong wrote:
This will not likely affect point-to-point line-of-site 
communications above 50Mhz.
It will likely affect non-terrestrial communications and HF 
communications depending
on ionospheric reflection.
Owen
--On Friday, October 24, 2003 07:15:29 AM -0400 Todd Vierling 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Roy wrote:

: "Satellite and other spacecraft operations, power systems, high
: frequency communications, and navigation systems may experience
: disruptions over this two-week period."
:
: I think you will find that 802.11b and other terrestrial microwave 
LOS
: links don't meet any of those criteria and should be unaffected.

"High frequency communications"?

We *are* talking about multi-GHz frequencies here.

--
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



 Regards
 Marshall Eubanks
T.M. Eubanks
e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telesuite.com

Rx and Tx on a single SMF strand for MANs?

[Eric Kuhnke]

Would anyone like to contribute their favorite solution for doing both Rx and Tx over 
a single fiber, in MAN environments?  

http://www.imcnetworks.com/products/minimc.asp

I've found that unit, but I'm hoping to find some alternatives...  Is there anything 
that will do 1000Mb over a single fiber?

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Keptin Komrade Dr. BobWrench III esq.]

Well, this is more than you really wanted to know, but

ELV Exremely Lowdc - 3khz
VLF Very Low Freq   3khz - 30khz
LF  Low Frequency   30khz - 300Khz
MF  Medium  300Khz - 3Mhz
HF  High3mhz-30mhz
VHF Very High   30mhz-300mhz
UHF Ultra High  300-3Ghz
SHF Super High  3Ghz - 30 Ghz
EHF Extremely High  30Ghz - 300Ghz
Different folks put the breaks at slightly different places (the.g. the 
amatuer radio community puts the hf/vhf break @ 50Mhz and the MF/HF 
break @ 1.8Khz.

And, as a side note, I can't find the URL, but the US Cong is talking 
about pulling all the funding for the NASA space weather programs. Would 
mean less/no warning of this sort of stuff.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled off topic discussions

Komrade

Owen DeLong wrote:
This will not likely affect point-to-point line-of-site communications 
above 50Mhz.
It will likely affect non-terrestrial communications and HF 
communications depending
on ionospheric reflection.

Owen

--On Friday, October 24, 2003 07:15:29 AM -0400 Todd Vierling 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Roy wrote:

: "Satellite and other spacecraft operations, power systems, high
: frequency communications, and navigation systems may experience
: disruptions over this two-week period."
:
: I think you will find that 802.11b and other terrestrial microwave LOS
: links don't meet any of those criteria and should be unaffected.
"High frequency communications"?

We *are* talking about multi-GHz frequencies here.

--
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Robert Mathews]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:

> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:22:04 -0700
> From: Rodney Joffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: NANOG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: NOAA warning for rf communications
>
>
> I'm surprised that there has been no warning or discussion on NANOG...
>
> There is a high likelihood that things like 802.11, licensed and
> unlicensed microwave links, and certainly satellite links will sustain
> interference over the next few days. I assume that everyone on the list
> is both aware, and prepared ;-)
>
> Oh, perhaps an alternative to paging or cellphone notifications to
> support folks is a good idea ;-)
>
> http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12850
>
> The NOAA links seem saturated... http://www.sec.noaa.gov/
> --
> Rodney Joffe
> CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
> http://www.centergate.com
> "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(R)



Rodney, All:

See:

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:32:10 -1000 (HST)
From: Richard Crowe - ASTRONOMY
Subject: Large sunspot!!
To: Robert Mathews - NATLSEC


>There's a very large spot group on the sun today. Yesterday it
>covered 0.17% of the visible disk; it's at least no smaller today.
>
>A new full-disk image is at
>http://www.solar.ifa.hawaii.edu/MWLT/Today/latest.jpg
>
>The spot group is magnetically quite complex, has produced several
>large flares since sunday, and is easily resolvable with the naked eye
>(except, of course, the sun is too bright to look at...)
>--
>
>--Don Mickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


If interested, there are more links that people can follow through UH - Institute For
Astronomy's Website.


Regards,
Robert.
---

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Rodney Joffe]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> This will not likely affect point-to-point line-of-site communications above 50Mhz.
> It will likely affect non-terrestrial communications and HF communications depending
> on ionospheric reflection.
> 
> Owen

Ummm...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/cell_phone_020306.html

900 mhz and 1800 mhz. And facing East or West. And Satellite, somewhat
above 2.0 ghz. 

And a significant number of ISPs are currently employing 802.11 2.4 and
5.0+ ghz equipment for last mile links (Proxim Tsunami) and Motorola
Canopy gear.

There are also warnings regarding parts of the power grid.

However, fair warning. Perhaps Sean Donelan knows more? 

NK6S
-- 
Rodney Joffe
CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM)

Re: No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

And if all else fails, of course, you should contact cisco
tech support folks, not NANOG folk.

- ferg

Owen writes:


int ethernet 0/0.0
encap 802.1q 532

You can't spec the encap on the parent interface.  You must do it on the sub
 int.

Owen


--On Friday, October 24, 2003 02:49:15 AM -0700 Roman Volf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Show Version:
>
> Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
> IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3620-I-M), Version 12.2(12a), RELEASE SOFTWARE
 (fc1)
>
> flash image:
> System image file is "flash:c3620-i-mz.122-12a.bin"
>
>
> I'm trying to configure a FastEthernet sub interface for 802.1q VLANs, but
> theres no encapsulation command. I've googled it up for about 2 hours and
> have come up with nothing... the following command sequence is documented
> dozens of times:
>
> As shown on:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120t/120t1/8021q.htm#wp3944
> interface fastethernet slot/port.subinterface-number
> encapsulation dot1q vlanid
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated.



--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Intern
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Tomas Lund]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:

> The NOAA links seem saturated... http://www.sec.noaa.gov/

Yeah.. The story was on slashdot:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/23/175252&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=160
taken from space.com:
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/solar_storm_031023.html

//tlund

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Owen DeLong]

This will not likely affect point-to-point line-of-site communications above 50Mhz.
It will likely affect non-terrestrial communications and HF communications depending
on ionospheric reflection.
Owen

--On Friday, October 24, 2003 07:15:29 AM -0400 Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Roy wrote:

: "Satellite and other spacecraft operations, power systems, high
: frequency communications, and navigation systems may experience
: disruptions over this two-week period."
:
: I think you will find that 802.11b and other terrestrial microwave LOS
: links don't meet any of those criteria and should be unaffected.
"High frequency communications"?

We *are* talking about multi-GHz frequencies here.

--
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>





pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??

[Owen DeLong]

int ethernet 0/0.0
encap 802.1q 532
You can't spec the encap on the parent interface.  You must do it on the sub int.

Owen

--On Friday, October 24, 2003 02:49:15 AM -0700 Roman Volf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Show Version:

Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3620-I-M), Version 12.2(12a), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
flash image:
System image file is "flash:c3620-i-mz.122-12a.bin"
I'm trying to configure a FastEthernet sub interface for 802.1q VLANs, but
theres no encapsulation command. I've googled it up for about 2 hours and
have come up with nothing... the following command sequence is documented
dozens of times:
As shown on:

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120t/120t1/8021q.htm#wp3944
interface fastethernet slot/port.subinterface-number
encapsulation dot1q vlanid
Any help would be appreciated.





pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Kevin Bednar]

Correct. 


 
Kevin
K2KMB 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:47 AM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NOAA warning for rf communications


> "High frequency communications"?
>
> We *are* talking about multi-GHz frequencies here.

HF is generally taken to mean 30Mhz and lower, at least in radio circles.

Ghz I think is in the SHF range.

-ed
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[ed]

> "High frequency communications"?
>
> We *are* talking about multi-GHz frequencies here.

HF is generally taken to mean 30Mhz and lower, at least in radio circles.

Ghz I think is in the SHF range.

-ed
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings

[Brian Bruns]

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Brenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings
>
> Is this "mechanism" an SSL connection? HTTP in the clear? AIM? Is it
> exploitable?
>
> I think the intention is admirable, but it has the potential to be a
> real nightmare if implemented incorrectly. The fact that it can all
> happen without the knowledge of the end user means even a savvy users
> could get whacked if the underlying structure is insecure.
>

AOL has a new function as of 8.0 IIRC that allows them to do repairs and
make changes to a users computer using the AOL Computer Checkup (I forget if
thats what its actually called, or something like that).   Users can use it
to fix DUN errors, IE errors, GPF errors, etc.  It appears to be an ActiveX
control in IE and is probably being used to do this change to the messenger
service.  I haven't had time to sit there with a packet sniffer to see what
it does or how it works exactly.


--
Brian Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources
http://www.sosdg.org
ICQ: 8077511

Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings

[Chris Brenton]

On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 00:22, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:13:59AM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7278
> > 
> > How many other ISPs intend to follow AOL's practice and use their
> > connection support software to fix the defaults on their customer's
> > Windows computers?
> 
>   Sounds good to me.  The potential for these users
> to be less-than-educated enough about the existance of
> this "feature" means that the potential for this to
> increase the overall network security is a good thing.

Does anyone know anything about what security has been put in place for
this? These quotes troubled me:

"So two weeks ago, AOL began turning the feature off on customers'
behalf, using a self-updating mechanism in AOL's software."

"Users are not notified of the change..."

Is this "mechanism" an SSL connection? HTTP in the clear? AIM? Is it
exploitable?

I think the intention is admirable, but it has the potential to be a
real nightmare if implemented incorrectly. The fact that it can all
happen without the knowledge of the end user means even a savvy users
could get whacked if the underlying structure is insecure.

C

RE: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings

[Brian Knoblauch]

> -Original Message-
> How many other ISPs intend to follow AOL's practice and use their
> connection support software to fix the defaults on their customer's
> Windows computers?

I've already seen an interesting side effect from a disabled messenger 
service...  With one of those new low-price
Intel hardware modems in a P4 running XP, the system will not shutdown properly after 
a dial-up session with messenger
disabled...  Just an FYI in case confused AOLers start swamping your helpdesks...  :-)

RE: No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??

[Temkin, David]

Kind of OT for NANOG, you should go to cisco-nsp for these kinds of
questions.

However, to answer your question anyway you need an IP plus version of IOS
to get 802.1q/ISL subifs on a 36xx router.  That's only plain IP (c3620-i
vs. c3620-is)

-Original Message-
From: Roman Volf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 5:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??



Show Version:

Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3620-I-M), Version 12.2(12a), RELEASE SOFTWARE
(fc1)

flash image:
System image file is "flash:c3620-i-mz.122-12a.bin"


I'm trying to configure a FastEthernet sub interface for 802.1q VLANs, but
theres no encapsulation command. I've googled it up for about 2 hours and
have come up with nothing... the following command sequence is documented
dozens of times:

As shown on:

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120
t/120t1/8021q.htm#wp3944
interface fastethernet slot/port.subinterface-number encapsulation dot1q
vlanid


Any help would be appreciated.

RE: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Graham, Darel R.]

Anything in the wireless or open air communications spectrum 
will be affected. Think of it as an electronic shower with the
pressure being turned up and down over the next two weeks. 

It is definitely a problem for all radio spectrum users. 
The only media not affected is cable, to include fiber (this 
is if your cable is properly shielded). 

Darel 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Todd Vierling
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:15 AM
To: Roy
Cc: Chris Yarnell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NOAA warning for rf communications



On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Roy wrote:

: "Satellite and other spacecraft operations, power systems, high
: frequency communications, and navigation systems may experience
: disruptions over this two-week period."
:
: I think you will find that 802.11b and other terrestrial microwave LOS
: links don't meet any of those criteria and should be unaffected.

"High frequency communications"?

We *are* talking about multi-GHz frequencies here.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

The Cidr Report

[cidr-report]

This report has been generated at Fri Oct 24 21:48:22 2003 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.

Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.

Recent Table History
Date  PrefixesCIDR Agg
17-10-03126363   89850
18-10-03126619   89843
19-10-03126587   89846
20-10-03126527   89882
21-10-03126559   89845
22-10-03126609   89973
23-10-03126751   89997
24-10-03126836   89914


AS Summary
 15984  Number of ASes in routing system
  6349  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  1427  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS701  : ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc.
  73596160  Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS568  : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA


Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as 
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').

 --- 24Oct03 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 126568899093665929.0%   All ASes

AS4323   681  198  48370.9%   TW-COMM Time Warner
   Communications, Inc.
AS701   1427  992  43530.5%   ALTERNET-AS UUNET
   Technologies, Inc.
AS7018  1356  945  41130.3%   ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet
   Services
AS7843   532  144  38872.9%   ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp.
AS6197   641  274  36757.3%   BATI-ATL BellSouth Network
   Solutions, Inc
AS3908   880  528  35240.0%   SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc.
AS6198   572  231  34159.6%   BATI-MIA BellSouth Network
   Solutions, Inc
AS22909  304   13  29195.7%   DNEO-OSP1 Comcast Cable
   Communications, Inc.
AS1221   972  689  28329.1%   ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd
AS4355   389  106  28372.8%   ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC
AS22773  296   18  27893.9%   CCINET-2 Cox Communications
   Inc. Atlanta
AS1239   931  669  26228.1%   SPRINTLINK Sprint
AS6347   342   86  25674.9%   DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications
   Corporation
AS27364  316   70  24677.8%   ACS-INTERNET Armstrong Cable
   Services
AS209608  371  23739.0%   ASN-QWEST Qwest
AS4134   360  127  23364.7%   CHINANET-BACKBONE
   No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS17676  271   38  23386.0%   GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.
AS25844  242   10  23295.9%   SKADDEN1 Skadden, Arps, Slate,
   Meagher & Flom LLP
AS11305  230   38  19283.5%   INTERLAND-NET1 Interland
   Incorporated
AS6140   337  149  18855.8%   IMPSAT-USA ImpSat
AS4519   1899  18095.2%   MAAS Maas Communications
AS9583   262   85  17767.6%   SATYAMNET-AS Satyam Infoway
   Ltd.,
AS6327   204   28  17686.3%   SHAW Shaw Communications Inc.
AS14654  1772  17598.9%   WAYPORT Wayport
AS2386   382  208  17445.5%   INS-AS AT&T Data
   Communications Services
AS2048   252   86  16665.9%   LANET-1 State of Louisiana
AS705400  243  15739.2%   ALTERNET-AS UUNET
   Technologies, Inc.
AS5668   309  155  15449.8%   CENTURY Century Telephone
AS20115  541  387  15428.5%   CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC Charter
   Communications
AS11172  192   42  15078.1%   MX-SASC-LACNIC Servicios
   Alestra S.A de C.V

Total  14595 6941 765452.4%   Top 30 total


Possible Bogus Routes

24.119.0.0/16AS11492 CABLEONE CABLE ONE
61.12.32.0/24AS7545  TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet Pty Ltd
61.12.34.0/24AS7545  TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet Pty Ltd
64.30.64.0/19AS14900 USLEC-CORP-1 USLEC Corp.
64.85.160.0/22   AS3356  LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications, L

Re: NOAA warning for rf communications

[Todd Vierling]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Roy wrote:

: "Satellite and other spacecraft operations, power systems, high
: frequency communications, and navigation systems may experience
: disruptions over this two-week period."
:
: I think you will find that 802.11b and other terrestrial microwave LOS
: links don't meet any of those criteria and should be unaffected.

"High frequency communications"?

We *are* talking about multi-GHz frequencies here.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

No "encapsulation" command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??

[Roman Volf]

Show Version:

Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3620-I-M), Version 12.2(12a), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

flash image:
System image file is "flash:c3620-i-mz.122-12a.bin"


I'm trying to configure a FastEthernet sub interface for 802.1q VLANs, but
theres no encapsulation command. I've googled it up for about 2 hours and
have come up with nothing... the following command sequence is documented
dozens of times:

As shown on:

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120t/120t1/8021q.htm#wp3944
interface fastethernet slot/port.subinterface-number
encapsulation dot1q vlanid


Any help would be appreciated.

Re: China Telecom filtering nameservers

[Tom (UnitedLayer)]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Care to share what was going on?  Was it really censorship or something more
> mundane and less offensive?

It was actually about 100Mbps of DOS...
Joe took care of it :)