RE: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center
>On 15/10/2007, at 12:05 AM, Simon Lyall wrote: > As for where the Blackboxes will be used, It'll be where companies >> want >> servers in place in weeks or months and existing datacenters are >> full or >> in the wrong place. Think of a building full of people processing >> insurance claims in India or a cluster delivering video on demand >> in each >> Asian city with more than 500,000 people. > >Or say, lots of processing somewhere short term - like video editing/ >rendering/whatever at the Olympic games. That kind of work is better suited to a central location where your editing/rendering/whatever staff is established and non-transient. In the film industry, the people on set are largely local to the set and are there to run the lights, electrical, camera, etc. The editing goes on back in the studio. Still, there are good uses for this kind of platform. Perhaps in cases where the amount of data to be captured outstrips the ability/bandwidth available to transmit that data back in (near) realtime? The seismic / geophone industry (if that's what it's called) has a box like this they have used for years. It has a satellite uplink for data transmission back to base after gathering large amounts of data from geophones. The processing of that data is done back at home base. Lorell
more-specifics via IX
I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due to the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at the IX and via my own transit customers. I normally use localpref to prefer customer advertisements over peers' advertisements. There is a customer's customer who is advertising more-specifics at the IX (and using a different source AS, to boot). I can think of a couple ways to prevent hearing these, but thought I should ask for suggestions first. -Bradley
Re: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center
On 15/10/2007, at 12:05 AM, Simon Lyall wrote: As for where the Blackboxes will be used, It'll be where companies want servers in place in weeks or months and existing datacenters are full or in the wrong place. Think of a building full of people processing insurance claims in India or a cluster delivering video on demand in each Asian city with more than 500,000 people. Or say, lots of processing somewhere short term - like video editing/ rendering/whatever at the Olympic games. -- Nathan Ward
Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability
Further explanation and examples for XP, Windows 2003 and Vista also available here: http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/guides&id=2 http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/guides&id=1 http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/guides&id=13 Regards, Jordi > De: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:48:26 +0200 > Para: Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: > Asunto: Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability > > > On 14-okt-2007, at 19:34, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> Is this a configurable option for the inverse behavoir? Seems to me >> that it should be since it affects the user experience and sets policy >> for the network. It just may be, but I can't find the option if it is. > > If you have FreeBSD or Windows you can manipulate the "policy table" > to make this happen. > > It's a bit too complex to explain how this works in a post though, > but try: > > # ip6addrctl show > > or > > C:\>netsh > netsh>interface ipv6 > netsh interface ipv6>show prefixpolicy > > RFC 3484 provides background info. And of course any IPv6 book worth > its salt explains it all in great detail. :-) ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability
On 14-okt-2007, at 19:34, Martin Hannigan wrote: Is this a configurable option for the inverse behavoir? Seems to me that it should be since it affects the user experience and sets policy for the network. It just may be, but I can't find the option if it is. If you have FreeBSD or Windows you can manipulate the "policy table" to make this happen. It's a bit too complex to explain how this works in a post though, but try: # ip6addrctl show or C:\>netsh netsh>interface ipv6 netsh interface ipv6>show prefixpolicy RFC 3484 provides background info. And of course any IPv6 book worth its salt explains it all in great detail. :-)
Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability
On 13 Oct 2007 15:47:16 +, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > ... > > Nice rant though :-) > > agreed. > > > ... > > Does anyone have info on how bind (and other recursive resolvers) > > select whether to use v6 or v4 if an NS points at a resource with both > > A and records? Most OSes prefer the record, does bind behave > > the same? > > yes. Is this a configurable option for the inverse behavoir? Seems to me that it should be since it affects the user experience and sets policy for the network. It just may be, but I can't find the option if it is. Best, -M<
Re: How to Handle ISPs Who Turn a Blind Eye to Criminal Activity?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:23:15 GMT > From: Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: How to Handle ISPs Who Turn a Blind Eye to Criminal Activity? > [ ... ] > Sometimes I think to myself that "...ISPs have Terms of Service and > Acceptable Use Policies, so they have the scope and tools they need > to boot a 'customer" who break the rules." > But all too often, it would appear, the potential loss of revenue > seems to win out over enforcing those policies. This is something most CSIRTs/CERTs/Abuse/Security people run into. At some point they will have an issue with an entity they're providing service to that management will veto. In most cases having a good chat with management about it, before they're sweet-talked too much by the other side helps getting your point across, or - in business terms - makes it managements responsability. I've seen various scenarios played out like that, and others where the "license to disconnect" was squarely backed by management. > And as you say, if the ISP boots them, they just set up shop elsewhere. Although I try to educate, this is a matter of life on the Internet. > So, back to my original question: If you alert an ISP that "bad and > possibly criminal" activity is taking place by one of their customer, > and they do not take corrective action (even after a year), what do > you do? Well, depends on the level of information and your contacts in the operational / security field. Being a member of an NREN CSIRT I can either directly or indirectly participate in local, regional and worldwide bodies where people "like us" come together. How that plays out, or how you *want* that to play out, is something you cannot predict. But sometimes other people will have advise about whom to contact within Law Enforcement, other people will chime in, other people have direct contact with clueful people etc. But first and foremost; you try to protect my constituents. (through technical, legal, procedural etc. means) Kind regards, JP Velders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHEiu0IHoRBHmf0YQRAnI/AKCQ2ZXCrWqXhNRFPWyW7XLjzbrn/gCfaXYY Ae24xpME0Q+hjU5tRRfie8g= =5JJH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Andy Davidson wrote: > I understand what Lorell means - the web 2.0 scaling model is to > throw resources, rather than intelligence at your bottlenecks. I think this is a little hard. Just about all the Web 2.0 presentations I see have a big bit that says that how they had to redesign and rearchitect each time their customer level increased by a factor or 10 or so. The newer companies are learning from this and implementing scaling from the start. Most of these companies are less than a dozen people and sometimes go from nothing to "Top 1000" site in months or a year or two. The aim these days is to make sure you can do that. Take a look at Pages 8-11 of this ( ppt -> flash presentation): http://s3.amazonaws.com/slideshare/ssplayer.swf?id=122183&doc=aiderss-aws-the-startup-project708 These people don't care about power, space, aircon and bandwidth problems. They just buy off others companies (eg Amazon) who specialise in those problems and charge the Web 2.0 companies what it costs them to solve. As for where the Blackboxes will be used, It'll be where companies want servers in place in weeks or months and existing datacenters are full or in the wrong place. Think of a building full of people processing insurance claims in India or a cluster delivering video on demand in each Asian city with more than 500,000 people. -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
On 4-okt-2007, at 14:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: I would be interested to know how many people favor each of the following approaches. Feel free to send me private email and I'll summerize. I only got three replies, which don't really support drawing many conclusions. 1. Keep NAT and ALGs out of IPv6 and use additional protocols between hosts and firewalls to open "pinholes" in firewalls (where appropriate/allowed, such as in consumer installations) to avoid ALGs + + 2. Keep NAT out of IPv6 but use ALGs to bypass firewalls _ 3. Come up with a standard way of doing 1-to-1 NAT (no PAT) in IPv6 4. Come up with a standard way of doing NAT/PAT in IPv6 + 5. Everyone do whatever suits their needs like what happened in IPv4 - Interestingly, nobody seems to like option 3. And: if people start using NAT in IPv6 I will: a. Implement ALGs and application workarounds to accommodate it "don't want to but we'll have to if it comes to this" x 2 unqualified x 1 b. Not do anything, it's their problem if stuff breaks "would prefer this if it were up to me" x 1 c. Break stuff that goes through IPv6 NAT on purpose to prove a point -
Re: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center
On 14 Oct 2007, at 01:26, Jim Popovitch wrote: - New Media / Web 2.0 HUH? I understand what Lorell means - the web 2.0 scaling model is to throw resources, rather than intelligence at your bottlenecks. I met some 'web 2' people at a conference quite recently, and they were telling me their platform scales because they can keep throwing servers at a cluster and performance increases. Problem is that it needs to scale early, and scale often. I asked if any of them understood the power requirements of a typical server, whether they'd heard of the power constraints in the datacentres that they'd all heard of, and how this model affected their new company's OSS costs long-term, and none of them knew. Scaling meant something else when I was solving these problems for the first time.
