Re: The Cidr Report
At 10:27 AM 14-02-05 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: Well said. At NANOG you get the clueful people cuz they at least knew to come. That is a start. But there are hundreds of ISPs out there who don't have a clue. RIPE realized this without having to do a membership poll and rightly so, goes and does training where it is needed (and believe me - I am their biggest critic and all-around pain in the ass when it comes to their expenses as Leo and Rob can attest). NANOG is not the place to do it. ARIN, as part of their overhead should do an east coast, west coast and Chicago area tutorial at least once a year. And guess what - most of the training material has already been written by the other RIRs. -Hank The BGP tutorials I've been doing on Sundays at NANOG all cover aggregation - at least, I seem to end up talking about aggregation in each one. Maybe I need to be more direct? But then again, who am I preaching to? The choir maybe, I don't know. Maybe we need a specific aggregation tutorial for those who don't know how to? Those who have operational and technical reasons not to aggregate have made that decision with prior knowledge. We should try and give everyone else the knowledge, then at least we will know that all de-aggregation is done for a reason. Then it begs the question, is NANOG the conference actually reaching the people who'd most benefit from it? I say this as I'm in transit in Singapore heading back from a hugely successful and enjoyable SANOG (South Asia NOG) in Bangladesh. Similar idea to NANOG, but heavier emphasis on education (workshops tutorials), and we had ISPs falling over themselves to participate in the first Internet operations meeting held in that country. philip -- +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
Re: The Cidr Report
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hank Nussbacher) wrote: Duh! No suprise there. ARIN just gives IP space and only offers some measly online training: http://www.arin.net/library/training/index.html RIPE on the other hand, has 3-6 course a month, throughout Europe: http://www.ripe.net/training/lir/index.html http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/courselist.pl.cgi You should read the course outline. RIPE teaches nothing whatsoever to do with routing. It's all registration stuff... But certainly, a routing course could be added, maybe to a somewhat more techy track like where the DNSSEC courses sit. Yours, Elmar. -- Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren. (PLemken, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) --[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
Re: Collecting PTR names or IP addresses (Was: Re: IRC Bot list (crossposting))
Ketil Froyn wrote: http://www.albany.edu/~ja6447/hacked_bots8.txt Isn't it a good idea to collect the IP addresses rather than the ptr name? For instance, if I were an evil person in control of the ptr record of my own IP, I could easily make the name something like 1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net, and if you didn't collect my IP, you can never be sure you got the right details! Something like this is probably not very widespread (has anyone seen it in practice?), but I still think that for tracking purposes, ptr records are useless. IMHO. You are right, people can change it to be whatever they like, potentially. What if they wanted to change the IP? Think about what you said, and you will see why you are wrong. Gadi.
RE: The Cidr Report
Hank and Warren are right on. I have seen several ISPs (one of which has been around a long time) who don't even understand the basics of CIDR routing or why they should aggregate their announcements. This same group are the ones who are not subscribed to this mailing list and don't go to Nanog events, and there are surly a large number of them. I think one thing the CIDR report glosses over, with its ranking system is the sheer number of ASes which announce extra routes. At least that is what strikes me when I start punching my local peer (not customer) ASes into the cidr-report website, virtually all of them have an aggregation problem and by percentage of junk announcements, the small ASes are often far worse than the big guys. That being said, perhaps we need some sort of nanog outreach or BGP support community that larger (or clue full) providers can point their less clue full BGP customers towards. The question then becomes, who would maintain such a group and how do we get the large number of currently non-participating ASes involved? John van Oppen PocketiNet Communications AS23265 (which yes, is fully aggregated) -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:26 AM An: Philip Smith Cc: Nanog Betreff: Re: The Cidr Report At 10:27 AM 14-02-05 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: Well said. At NANOG you get the clueful people cuz they at least knew to come. That is a start. But there are hundreds of ISPs out there who don't have a clue. RIPE realized this without having to do a membership poll and rightly so, goes and does training where it is needed (and believe me - I am their biggest critic and all-around pain in the ass when it comes to their expenses as Leo and Rob can attest). NANOG is not the place to do it. ARIN, as part of their overhead should do an east coast, west coast and Chicago area tutorial at least once a year. And guess what - most of the training material has already been written by the other RIRs. -Hank The BGP tutorials I've been doing on Sundays at NANOG all cover aggregation - at least, I seem to end up talking about aggregation in each one. Maybe I need to be more direct? But then again, who am I preaching to? The choir maybe, I don't know. Maybe we need a specific aggregation tutorial for those who don't know how to? Those who have operational and technical reasons not to aggregate have made that decision with prior knowledge. We should try and give everyone else the knowledge, then at least we will know that all de-aggregation is done for a reason. Then it begs the question, is NANOG the conference actually reaching the people who'd most benefit from it? I say this as I'm in transit in Singapore heading back from a hugely successful and enjoyable SANOG (South Asia NOG) in Bangladesh. Similar idea to NANOG, but heavier emphasis on education (workshops tutorials), and we had ISPs falling over themselves to participate in the first Internet operations meeting held in that country. philip -- +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
Re: Collecting PTR names or IP addresses (Was: Re: IRC Bot list (cross posting))
PTR records are just as pointless as A records... in a secured DNS heirarchy, this is less of an issue We are not quite there yet, are we? since you have to spoof the entire delegation chain. so either trust the DNS (both forward and reverse) or not. For forensics, collect the DNS lables and the IP addresses associated w/ them. and yes, i have seen DNS spoofing in the wild, both A and PTR, although A spoofing is much more pronounced. Question is, why bother and spoof?
Re: Collecting PTR names or IP addresses (Was: Re: IRC Bot list (cross posting))
Adam Jacob Muller wrote: Not possible with most modern IRCD's since they check forward and reverse dns. So for example if your address is: 1.2.3.4 and that resolves to: 1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net the ircd make sure that: 1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net resolves back to 1.2.3.4 it's a simple and elegant solution that basically stops spoofing of this nature, on IRC anyway Wrong. On your IRCd. Not on mine. Do I want to run my drone army on your IRCd?
Re: Collecting PTR names or IP addresses (Was: Re: IRC Bot list (crossposting))
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:29 +0200, Gadi Evron wrote: Isn't it a good idea to collect the IP addresses rather than the ptr name? For instance, if I were an evil person in control of the ptr record of my own IP, I could easily make the name something like 1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net, and if you didn't collect my IP, you can never be sure you got the right details! You are right, people can change it to be whatever they like, potentially. What if they wanted to change the IP? Think about what you said, and you will see why you are wrong. I wouldn't collect the contents of an A record, if that's what you mean. I meant that it would be better to collect the IP of whoever is connected to the irc server directly, eliminating the entire, possibly misleading, step of DNS lookups. Faking that IP is more difficult. Ketil
Verizon wins MCI
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=1802e=2u=/washpost/2005021 4/ts_washpost/a22085_2005feb13 -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations Infrastructure [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Collecting PTR names or IP addresses (Was: Re: IRC Bot list (crossposting))
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:50:17 +, Ketil Froyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:29 +0200, Gadi Evron wrote: Isn't it a good idea to collect the IP addresses rather than the ptr name? For instance, if I were an evil person in control of the ptr record of my own IP, I could easily make the name something like 1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net, and if you didn't collect my IP, you can never be sure you got the right details! You are right, people can change it to be whatever they like, potentially. What if they wanted to change the IP? Think about what you said, and you will see why you are wrong. I wouldn't collect the contents of an A record, if that's what you mean. I meant that it would be better to collect the IP of whoever is connected to the irc server directly, eliminating the entire, possibly misleading, step of DNS lookups. Faking that IP is more difficult. Agreed. I always store the original IP. If the PTR record matches with the A record (aka paranoid DNS) then I additionally store the hostname from the A record, and permit the connection to go through. But no matter what, always store the original IP. It's just four more bytes (sixteen for IPng), and TCP is more difficult to spoof than DNS. Kevin Kadow
Verizon wins MCI
From: Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B. VerizUUtal? -- A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 dead20915-1433
Re: Collecting PTR names or IP addresses (Was: Re: IRC Bot list (crossposting))
I wouldn't collect the contents of an A record, if that's what you mean. I meant that it would be better to collect the IP of whoever is connected to the irc server directly, eliminating the entire, possibly misleading, step of DNS lookups. Faking that IP is more difficult. Agreed. I always store the original IP. If the PTR record matches with the A record (aka paranoid DNS) then I additionally store the hostname from the A record, and permit the connection to go through. But no matter what, always store the original IP. It's just four more bytes (sixteen for IPng), and TCP is more difficult to spoof than DNS. In the case of the actual drones, I don't see why you'd need the PTR, although it helped me out before. In the case of CC's.. PTR, A, etc. could be critical.
RE: The Cidr Report
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hank Nussbacher Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:26 AM To: Philip Smith Cc: Nanog Subject: Re: The Cidr Report At 10:27 AM 14-02-05 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: Well said. At NANOG you get the clueful people cuz they at least knew to come. That is a start. But there are hundreds of ISPs out there who don't have a clue. RIPE realized this without having to do a membership poll and rightly so, goes and does training where it is needed (and believe me - I am their biggest critic and all-around pain in the ass when it comes to their expenses as Leo and Rob can attest). NANOG is not the place to do it. ARIN, as part of their overhead should do an east coast, west coast and Chicago area tutorial at least once a year. And guess what - most of the training material has already been written by the other RIRs. Am I misreading the report? That doesn't look like a list of clueless people. Just because another RIR does something doesn't mean we should automatically assume ARIN should too. This is a different area with different dynamics. Regardless, you could always propose this to ARIN instead of NANOG. :-) -M
Re: Break-In At SAIC Risks ID Theft
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jim Popovitch wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17506-2005Feb11.html (registration required) Registration is not required if you copypaste the above URL into Google and then click the URL returned in the search results. ;-) Same trick works for the NYTimes. ISTR that this sort of thing was explicitly disallowed by Google's policies at one point, and was grounds for exclusion from the engine. I somehow doubt (post-IPO) that this policy is enforced any longer. :) -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Verizon wins MCI
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :) Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B. I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well? -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Verizon wins MCI
Yes, this includes the former Digex Web Hosting employees (from a former Digex employee...) It does not include the former Digex Leased Line/Intermedia staff - those that still exist. McLean -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:23 PM To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: Re: Verizon wins MCI On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :) Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B. I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well? -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Verizon wins MCI
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) From: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :) Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B. I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well? The articles I have read indicate that Verizon was not the best offer. Qwest bid $7B. But MCI wanted to be bought by someone who was financially stable and Qwest has a huge debt load which the purchase of MCI would only increase. They were also looking for a better known purchaser and Qwest is not as familiar to the public as Verizon (Can you here me, now?) To me, it sounds like MCI determined that it could not succeed on its own and that forced the sale and MCI seemed to want Verizon to buy them from the start because of the long-term value to shareholders and bond holders, the REAL owners of the company. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Re: Verizon wins MCI
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) From: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :) Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B. I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well? The articles I have read indicate that Verizon was not the best offer. Qwest bid $7B. But MCI wanted to be bought by someone who was financially stable and Qwest has a huge debt load which the purchase of MCI would only increase. They were also looking for a better known purchaser and Qwest is not as familiar to the public as Verizon (Can you here me, now?) To me, it sounds like MCI determined that it could not succeed on its own and that forced the sale and MCI seemed to want Verizon to buy them from the start because of the long-term value to shareholders and bond holders, the REAL owners of the company. Add to that that Verizon also agreed to assume $4B in MCI debts and the purchase price doesn't look so low anymore. Also, despite all the news of Qwest's offer, according to what I read Verizon has been in talks with MCI for 2 years now, so they probably had a much more detailed agreement ironed out to MCI's liking. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
3rd Party Cisco CWDM GBICs?
Hi List, Cisco currently provides 8 lambdas for CWDM and we have a 10 lambda mux/de-mux system we want to make use of over a single fibre (5 data channels). The 1430 and 1450nm lambdas are dark and I was wondering if there are any 3rd party vendors out there that have produced Cisco compatible GBICs for these wavelengths. I have looked around and seen Finisar does make Cisco GBICs, but not in the 1430/1450 lambdas. Any help appreciated Aaron
Re: 3rd Party Cisco CWDM GBICs?
From: Aaron Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:52:46 -0800 To: 'nanog list' nanog@merit.edu Subject: 3rd Party Cisco CWDM GBICs? Hi List, Cisco currently provides 8 lambdas for CWDM and we have a 10 lambda mux/de-mux system we want to make use of over a single fibre (5 data channels). The 1430 and 1450nm lambdas are dark and I was wondering if there are any 3rd party vendors out there that have produced Cisco compatible GBICs for these wavelengths. I have looked around and seen Finisar does make Cisco GBICs, but not in the 1430/1450 lambdas. Any help appreciated Aaron You might want to try MRV Communications, www.mrv.com. I think they also make units for Cisco. Mike
Re: Break-In At SAIC Risks ID Theft
You can always use http://www.bugmenot.com/ as well. irwin From: Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:22:21 -0500 (EST) To: Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Break-In At SAIC Risks ID Theft On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jim Popovitch wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17506-2005Feb11.html (registration required) Registration is not required if you copypaste the above URL into Google and then click the URL returned in the search results. ;-) Same trick works for the NYTimes. ISTR that this sort of thing was explicitly disallowed by Google's policies at one point, and was grounds for exclusion from the engine. I somehow doubt (post-IPO) that this policy is enforced any longer. :) -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Level3 using uRPF on their access routers
Hi all, Does anybody know if Level3 is performing Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding on it's interfaces with it's customers? Did anybody have problems with this fact (if so)? We have a multihoming customer, and we found out that packets sent to Level3 sourced with IP blocks winning over other provider (the return path not being prefered over Level3) are being filtered on Level3 network entrance (pretty much uRPF behavior), but they told me and they swear they are not using uRPF. Thanks in advanced, Eng. Lucas Iglesias, CCNP IP Engineering, Tiba S.A Ph: 5411-48068400 ext 6212
Re: 3rd Party Cisco CWDM GBICs?
On 14.02.2005 20:52 Aaron Thomas wrote Hi List, Cisco currently provides 8 lambdas for CWDM and we have a 10 lambda mux/de-mux system we want to make use of over a single fibre (5 data channels). The 1430 and 1450nm lambdas are dark and I was wondering if there are any 3rd party vendors out there that have produced Cisco compatible GBICs for these wavelengths. I have looked around and seen Finisar does make Cisco GBICs, but not in the 1430/1450 lambdas. Have a look at Optoway (http://www.optoway.com.tw/html/products/CWDM_GE.htm) I did not yet test their CWDM GBICs but I'm about to use their BiDI GBICs which come with great distance granularity and excellent price. Arnold -- Arnold Nipper / nIPper consulting, Sandhausen, Germany email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone/mobile: +49 172 2650958 fax: +49 6224 9259 333
RE: The Cidr Report
Based on the experience with the CIDR Police project (http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/cidr.html), you can encourge operators to aggregate. My observation during that time was that operators: - Didn't know they had a problem. - Didn't know how to set up an aggregation policy - Had no one paying attention to the advertisements - Never had time to deal with the problem. Usually, nudging, encouragement, and clue helped. Having the NANOG Tutorials on-line helped - since we use them as on-line learning tools to tactfully clue-in people. Perhaps it is time for a new crew to get together to form a new CIDR Police team? Every week would get people from the CIDR Police knocking on the doors of their peers offering their help and asstance to enhance their aggregation. Hank and I are occupied with another project, but I'm sure we can brain dump to any who would like to build this new team. My $.02, Barry
RADB anon ftp server stoned or deprecated?
$ ftp ftp.radb.net Connected to ftp.radb.net (198.108.1.48). 421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection $ ftp ftp.merit.edu Connected to ftp.merit.edu (198.108.1.48). 421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection - billn
Re: RADB anon ftp server stoned or deprecated?
Works for me. Are you sure you are not coming from a PTR/A record mismatch ? smarthost1# host 66.235.194.37 37.194.235.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer ds194-37.ipowerweb.com smarthost1# host ds194-37.ipowerweb.com Host not found. smarthost1# smarthost1# host -tns ipowerweb.com ipowerweb.com name server ns2.ipowerweb.net ipowerweb.com name server ns1.ipowerweb.net smarthost1# host ds194-37.ipowerweb.com ns1.ipowerweb.net Using domain server: Name: ns1.ipowerweb.net Addresses: 64.70.61.130 smarthost1# host ds194-37.ipowerweb.com ns2.ipowerweb.net Using domain server: Name: ns2.ipowerweb.net Addresses: 66.235.217.200 smarthost1# At 10:05 PM 14/02/2005, Bill Nash wrote: $ ftp ftp.radb.net Connected to ftp.radb.net (198.108.1.48). 421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection $ ftp ftp.merit.edu Connected to ftp.merit.edu (198.108.1.48). 421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection - billn
Re: RADB anon ftp server stoned or deprecated?
Quite possibly, didn't even occur to me to check from that host. Donkey shins for the clue by four. - billn On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote: Works for me. Are you sure you are not coming from a PTR/A record mismatch ? smarthost1# host 66.235.194.37 37.194.235.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer ds194-37.ipowerweb.com smarthost1# host ds194-37.ipowerweb.com Host not found. smarthost1# smarthost1# host -tns ipowerweb.com ipowerweb.com name server ns2.ipowerweb.net ipowerweb.com name server ns1.ipowerweb.net smarthost1# host ds194-37.ipowerweb.com ns1.ipowerweb.net Using domain server: Name: ns1.ipowerweb.net Addresses: 64.70.61.130 smarthost1# host ds194-37.ipowerweb.com ns2.ipowerweb.net Using domain server: Name: ns2.ipowerweb.net Addresses: 66.235.217.200 smarthost1# At 10:05 PM 14/02/2005, Bill Nash wrote: $ ftp ftp.radb.net Connected to ftp.radb.net (198.108.1.48). 421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection $ ftp ftp.merit.edu Connected to ftp.merit.edu (198.108.1.48). 421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection - billn
Source for IDS data
One more request for the group. Looking for some contacts off list who would be willing to discuss supplying some IDS data. Ideal candidates for this research would have the following characteristics: 1. Have a fairly visible network that draws appreciable attempts. 2. Have an IDS collection point in front of the firewall so ATTEMPTED intrusions are also recorded. 3. Have a fairly extensive history of IDS attempts. This is for a graduate research project I am engaged in and I am willing to discuss with potential suppliers of data. Targets are not required, I want to characterize sources only. If you are interested in supplying data or would like to discuss it further, please contact me OFF-LIST by hitting reply and we can talk off line. Thanks Eric Germann
Re: Verizon wins MCI
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B. I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well? But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers. -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Verizon wins MCI
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Jon Lewis wrote: On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B. I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well? But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers. uhm, thats the '70 billing departments' ... or so said the SEC's info about how many billing systems were 'integrated' during the bernie-dynastic-times.
Re: Verizon wins MCI
At 11:45 PM 2/14/2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: uhm, thats the '70 billing departments' ... or so said the SEC's info about how many billing systems were 'integrated' during the bernie-dynastic-times. I remember reading in IT Week or Infoweek or some other trade rag that they had over 2400 software packages used for billing and provisioning and they were going to reduce that down to 1500 within 10 years! We have never gotten a correct bill from MCI - ever! In over 10 years of dealing with them and their divisions - MFS, UU, WCom, etc. After CW took over MCI's network in the mid 90's, their billing department took a couple of months to grasp the enormity of the problem. Once they did, they made changes and the CW bills were always right after that. :) That is an enormous project... -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 Well done is better than well said. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: The Cidr Report
Jerry Pasker wrote: Until there's deep shame, or real financial incentive to not being listed as a member of the dirty 30, nothing is going to happen in terms of aggregation. I sometimes wonder if this list is seen as some sort of hit parade of potential peers and if that is the case then perhaps another list acknowledging the largest players with the best aggregation might also be in order. Mark.
Cisco 3640 Flash errors - upgrade bootrom?
I have a 3640 that while booting up gives the errors below at the console, Console Errors: _ C3600 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory Main memory is configured to 64 bit mode with parity disabled unknown flash deþ System Bootstrap, Version 11.1(7)AX [kuong (7)AX], EARLY DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFT WARE (fc2) Copyright (c) 1994-1996 by cisco Systems, Inc. C3600 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory Main memory is configured to 64 bit mode with parity disabled unknown flash device - mandev code = 0x cannot read flash info getdevnum warning: device flash has size of zero unknown flash device - mandev code = 0x cannot read flash info getdevnum warning: device flash has size of zero open: read error...requested 0x4 bytes, got 0x0 trouble reading device magic number boot: cannot open flash: an alternate boot helper program is not specified (monitor variable BOOTLDR is not set) and unable to determine first file in bootflash loadprog: error - on file open boot: cannot load tftp:c3640-js-mz.122-15.T5.bin 40.40.40.2 System Bootstrap, Version 11.1(7)AX [kuong (7)AX], EARLY DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFT WARE (fc2) Copyright (c) 1994-1996 by cisco Systems, Inc. C3600 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory Main memory is configured to 64 bit mode with parity disabled I was adviced to upgrade bootrom, because the bootrom doesnt recognize the flash sticks, how do you guys check that this bootrom will work with this flash stick ? Regards
