Re: cooling door
On 29 Mar 2008, Paul Vixie wrote: page 10 and 11 of http://www.panduit.com/products/brochures/105309.pdf says there's a way to move 20kW of heat away from a rack if your normal CRAC is moving 10kW (it depends on that basic air flow), permitting six blade servers in a rack. panduit licensed this tech from IBM a couple of years ago. i am intrigued by the possible drop in total energy cost per delivered kW, though in practice most datacenters can't get enough utility and backup power to run at this density. if cooling doors were to take off, we'd see data centers partitioned off and converted to cubicles. Can someone please, pretty please with sugar on top, explain the point behind high power density? Raw real estate is cheap (basically, nearly free). Increasing power density per sqft will *not* decrease cost, beyond 100W/sqft, the real estate costs are a tiny portion of total cost. Moving enough air to cool 400 (or, in your case, 2000) watts per square foot is *hard*. I've started to recently price things as cost per square amp. (That is, 1A power, conditioned, delivered to the customer rack and cooled). Space is really irrelevant - to me, as colo provider, whether I have 100A going into a single rack or 5 racks, is irrelevant. In fact, my *costs* (including real estate) are likely to be lower when the load is spread over 5 racks. Similarly, to a customer, all they care about is getting their gear online, and can care less whether it needs to be in 1 rack or in 5 racks. To rephrase vijay, what is the problem being solved? [not speaking as mlc anything]
[admin] [summary] RE: YouTube IP Hijacking
A bit of administrativia: This thread generated over a hundred posts, many without operational relevance or by people who do not understand how operators, well, operate, or by people who really don't have any idea what's going on but feel like posting. I'd like to briefly summarize the important things that were said. If you would like to add something to the thread, make sure you read this post in entirety. Sorry if I didn't attribute every suggestion to a poster. Facts: * AS17557 announced more specific /24 to 3491, which propagated to wider internets * Chronology (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/02/pakistan_hijacks_youtube.shtml * Things suggested to possibly address the problem: ** IRR filtering (using IRRPT http://sourceforge.net/projects/irrpt/ to generate filter lists) ** Notification when origin of a given route changes http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~mohit/cameraReady/ladSecurity06.pdf http://www.ris.ripe.net/myasn.html http://cs.unm.edu/~karlinjf/IAR/index.php (from pgBGP) ** pgBGP to depref suspicious routes http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/josh-karlin.pdf (unclear the number of false positives that will adversely affect connectivity) ** sbgp/sobgp - require full authentication for each IP block, and thus unlikely to be implemented until certificate chains are in place, and vendors release code that does verification, and operators are happy enough running it. Other things addressed: * Fragility of Internet: ** Nobody brought up the important point - the BGP announcement filtering are only as secure as the weakest link. No [few?] peers or transits are filtering large ISPs (ones announcing few hundred routes and up). There are a great many of them, and it takes only one of them to mess up filtering a downstream customer for the route to be propagated. ** Paul Wall brought up the fact that even obviously bogus routes (1/8 and 100/7) were accepted by 99% of internet during an experiment. Will it take someone announcing 9/11 to get us to pay attention? (ok, bad joke) ** What I'd like to see discussed: Issues of filtering your transit downstream customers, who announce thousands of routes. Does *anyone* do it? * Typos vs Malicious announcements ** Some ways of fixing the problem (such as IRR filtering) only address the typos or unintentional announcements. There's full agreement that IRR is full of junk, which is not authenticated in any sort. ** Things like PHAS won't work if hijacker keeps the origin-AS same (by getting their upstream to establish session with different ASN) ** What I'd like to see discussed: Who (ICANN/RIRs/LIRs) is actively working on implementing chain of trust of IP space allocations? * Ways to address the issue without cooperation of 3491: ** Filtering anything coming out of 17557 ** Suggestions given: ** What I'd like to see discussed: Can an network operator, *today*, filter the possibly bogus routes from their peers, without manual intervention, and without false positives? * Yelling at people who don't filter ** Per above, 3491 isn't the only one who filters. In fact, claims were made that *nobody* filters large enough downstreams. (beyond aspath/maxpref) ** *please* do not post additional comments about pccw bad, etc. * Malicious vs mistaken on part of AS17557 and 3491: ** *please* do not post speculation unless you have facts to back it up. ** Any discussions of cyber-jihad are off-topic unless you can produce the fatwa to back it up.
Re: [admin] [summary] RE: YouTube IP Hijacking
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Danny McPherson wrote: ** Paul Wall brought up the fact that even obviously bogus routes (1/8 and 100/7) were accepted by 99% of internet during an experiment. I'm not sure why this would surprise anyone. To me and you, it's not surprising. To public, it might be. Even the majority of nanog attendees I think would be surprised. ** What I'd like to see discussed: Issues of filtering your transit downstream customers, who announce thousands of routes. Does *anyone* do it? Lots of folks do. The interesting bit is that even then, those same providers would accept perhaps even those customer routes from their peers implicitly. Well, in this case, they *aren't* filtering! (unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, due to repeated use of 'their'). ** Things like PHAS won't work if hijacker keeps the origin-AS same (by getting their upstream to establish session with different ASN) NO, that's not even necessary. Simple originate the route from the legit AS, and then transit it with the local AS as a transit AS. AS path manipulation is trivial. Oh yeah, d'oh! Thanks for correction. But that is also an important point against PHAS and IRRPT filtering - they are powerless against truly malicious hijacker (one that would register route in IRR, add the right origin-as to AS-SET, and use correct origin). ** What I'd like to see discussed: Who (ICANN/RIRs/LIRs) is actively working on implementing chain of trust of IP space allocations? * Ways to address the issue without cooperation of 3491: ** Filtering anything coming out of 17557 Bad idea. Obviously :) ** Suggestions given: ** What I'd like to see discussed: Can an network operator, *today*, filter the possibly bogus routes from their peers, without manual intervention, and without false positives? Sure, if they want to dedicate an engineer to it, automate policy deployment and deal with brokenness by turning steam valves. I'd hear to see who does it, and get them to present the operational lessons at the next nanog! * Yelling at people who don't filter That's been productive for over a decade now. ** Per above, 3491 isn't the only one who filters. In fact, claims were made that *nobody* filters large enough downstreams. (beyond aspath/maxpref) Wrong. Likewise, I'd like to know who does this (names) and how can we get them to present best practices at the next nanog! -alex
[admin] Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)
This conversation is quickly spinning into discussion of politics and terrorism. Reminder to all, please stick to the *operational* aspects of this thread. -alex [NANOG MLC Chair] On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Patrick Clochesy wrote: I disagree... I think information warfare tactic could easily be terrorism, though I can't see why this particular event could/would be terrorism. Disrupting a major network like the Internet WITHIN the US could definitely be a form of terrorism... I think anything which maliciously disrupts a huge portions of a nation's day-to-day activities would be cause for concern for many folk, especially the telecommunications infrastructure. However, I'm not sure what the mindset of the terrorist would be even if they fully succeeded what is proposed would be the terrorist's plan - even if we lost totally connectivity with the middle east, or even what's considered friendly countries... as long as the information is flowing at home, nobody's going to be filling their swimming pools full of drinking water. I imagine the mindset would be different if you were a small country loosing a substantial portion of it's communication channels with the outside world... -Patrick - Original Message - From: Mark Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@merit.edu Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2008 11:12:46 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE) On 04/02/2008, at 4:38 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: I agree with Rod Beck as far as the speculations go. It could be terror, Well, no, it couldn't be. Nobody is being terrorized by this. How can it possibly be a terrorist incident? If it's deliberate, it might be described as an information warfare tactic. But not terrorism. (visions of some guy sitting a in cave with a pair of wet boltcutters laughing maniacally to himself, cackling, Ha-ha! Now their daytraders will get upset, and teenagers will get their porn _slower_! Die American scum! Doesn't really work, does it?) Politicians have succeeded in watering down the definition of the word terrorism to the point where it no longer has any meaning. But we're rational adults, not politicians, right? If we can't get it right, who will? - mark
RE: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: I sincerely doubt that any backbone provider will filter at a /32. That means they have to check EVERY PACKET AT FULL IP DEST against your AS advertised routes. Since most backbone routers build circuits at the /18 and above mask on MPLS, just to keep up with traffic, I sincerely doubt they are going to expend the CPU, and potentially RAM, never mind prefix table entries (you know, those things we're running out of) to have a full table of every host that every hoster says is being DDOSed. In this case, there's a clear economic cost, for no economic benefit (they do actually make money delivering that DDOS traffic). most backbone routers build circuits at the /18 and above mask on MPLS - that part is seriously funny. However: a) Yes, if such proposal was to be widely accepted, it would generate more entries in RIB/FIB. b) However, if this service was actually operated by IX's, the limits to prevent too much growth could be applied centrally (max-prefixes per ASN, automatic removal of those routes after X days, unless manually requested by host, etc). c) Since only your peers will have those :666 entries, it is less route growth than than the alternative of announcing the affected block as /24 (which you seem to suggest). A better approach would be to move your DDOS target and all the rest of its co-subnet hosts into a different /24, update the DNS RRs, and cease advertising that /24. That...is...perverted. Not to mention, you can't cease advertising /24. what you would need to do is to deaggregate your (say) /20 into /21, /22, /23 and /24. That's 3 extra entries in FIB for everyone in the world to carry. If you really want to be nice, they don't need to renumber, you just need to stop advertising the target subnet, change the DNS RR's and NAT at your borders, if you control DNS and IP. The added benefit of this is that you can swap them back when the DDOs is over, and they get to stay up while it's happening. All you need to do this is some spare, never to be allocated, IP space. That...is...perverted. -alex [not speaking as mlc anything]
Re: Off Topic
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Rod Beck wrote: At the risk of incurring Mr. Pilosoft's wrath (the Putin of NANOG?), You meant the srh of nanog. And I'm not ;) I'll looking for NANOG style ISP meetings to attend in Europe this year (France, Germany, UK, Belgium, and Netherlands). Any suggestions would be appreciated. Please bypass the list and send them directly to me. The first thing that comes to mind is RIPE. Next thing that comes to mind is UKNOF. Also, that isn't really off-topic. However, if you get off-list replies, could you please do a follow-up summary post and list the european neteng groups, that would be quite helpful. A good starting point for the search is www.euro-ix.net, which lists european IXPs. Many IXP's have annual (or more often) meetings of members, which serve similarly to NANOG. See: https://www.euro-ix.net/news/meetevent/ for starters. -alex
[admin] RE: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Jerry Pasker wrote: But, if it's not viewed as political then... Your analogy is flawed, because the Internet is not a pipe system and ISP's are not your local water utility. And the internet is not a big truck! It'sIt's a series of tubes! Sorry, I couldn't resist... with all these things clogging all the tubes. :-) I'd like to draw attention to nanog AUP, particularly #6: Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited. While the regulation of internet by filtering bad traffic is clearly political and/or legal, I do think the *technical* implication of it are very much on-topic. After all, once this happens, we as network operators will be responsible for the filtering. Given that, I'd like to ask everyone to refrain off-hand comments about tubes and dump trucks - we all hear this joke every day. Discussion of morality of such filtering is also off-topic. Discussion of implementation of such filtering and effect of it on network operations at-large is clearly on-topic. Discussion of separating traffic (by network operators) into bad and good is also on-topic. The list is about technology and operations. This is not ITU. This is not C-SPAN. This is not 'general banter among network operators' list either. Before you post to the list, think - would you want to make a presentation at NANOG-conference based on your post? If it doesn't feel appropriate, the list post is similarly inappropriate. Also, this is another reminder that MLC *will* be giving formal warnings (which will eventually lead to removal from the list) to those who continue to post off-topic messages. As usual, should you wish to discuss this post, please do so on nanog-futures (reply-to has been set accordingly). Thanks! -alex [mlc chair]
[admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their customers can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently does not care to hear about it. Seems to be perfectly wise if you're a business and care more about making money than getting all tangled up in pesky things like morals and ethics. It's great when you can help the balance sheet by converting ongoing support costs and loss of paying customers into what economists call externalities (in other words, they make the decisions, but somebody else gets to actually pay for the choices made). This is one of the threads where posting further will not be productive. Cox abuse has been named and shamed, and hopefully, the next post we see to the thread will be from them. As a reminder, political discussions, and discussions about spam filtering (other than operational, such as abuse@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) are off-topic for nanog. Please keep it this way. -alex [mlc chair]
Re: Getting DSL at your datacenter for OOB
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, David Ulevitch wrote: We had a great experience doing this with Sonic.net at PAIX in Palo Alto but have had no success at our other sites. (Sonic.net isn't a national DSL provider) Has anyone found providers who can provision DSL circuits at: EQNX ASH, the MMR at 111 8th, and the Westin in Seattle? Speakeasy, after trying valiantly, finally just gave up saying they just couldn't make it happen. It's not rocket science. You order POTS line from the LEC. Then you order DSL from your favorite shared-line DSL provider on that POTS line. Trying to get non-lineshared-dsl might be a challenge. However, I recommend POTS + DSL, for additional OOB-ness, you can plug your DSL modem into the OOB ethernet and your analog modem into OOB serial network. fwiw, we are providing dsl to 111 8th MMR, the one running the free wifi there :) -alex [not posting as mlc anything]
Re: Fwd: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Sean Figgins wrote: I also think this needs additional language to ensure that it is within the realm of the authority of the MLC/NANOG. NANOG has no authority to prohibit autoresponses that result in a direct email to someone on the list. Without this language, you will have a lot of people continuing to whine about getting an autoresponse when they CC everyone in the thread and one of them is on vacation. Since this is the lists' AUP, whatever consenting adults do to their private email that has no bearing to the list is clearly OK. I already know of one case that someone that CCed nanog@ and the original poster complained when they got an autoresponder. The proposed language is vague enough that it does not make it clear if it applies only to messages send through the list, or a message to any individual that includes the list. If you all want to live in a vague world, then that's fine by me, but don't complain when you get complaints that arise out of the vagueness. Well, that's why MLC is paid big bucks to separate loony complaints from real ones ;) -alex
Re: mail operators list
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Well, the current nanog MLC is mostly because Susan Harris was cracking down equally on discussions of anything mail / spam filtering related (operational not kooky) .. in fact, on anything that didnt involve pushing packets from A to B. And we have Marty Hannigan from the MLC telling us that operational mail / spam filtering issues are perfectly on topic. New list not particularly necessary I think .. but sure, a spam or mailops bof at nanog would be a good idea. I (or well, APCAUCE) have been running a spam conference track at APRICOT for the past few years now .. This has veered from operational discussion into the realm of meta-discussion about the list, so let's move it to nanog-futures. Reply-to has been set accordingly in this email, please respect it. MLC's position is that anything that is acceptable for the conference is acceptable on the list. Mail operations are on-topic, although tangentially. Spam filtering is definitely off-topic. -alex [mlc chair]
Re: ARPANet Co-Founder Predicts An Internet Crisis (slashdot)
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: Dr. Larry Roberts, co-founder of the ARPANET and inventor of packet switching, predicts the Internet is headed for a major crisis in an article published on the Internet Evolution web site today. Internet traffic is now growing much more quickly than the rate at which router cost is decreasing, Roberts says. At current growth levels, the cost of deploying Internet capacity to handle new services like social networking, gaming, video, VOIP, and digital entertainment will double every three years, he predicts, creating an economic crisis. Of course, Roberts has an agenda. He's now CEO of Anagran Inc., which makes a technology called flow-based routing that, Roberts claims, will solve all of the world's routing problems in one go. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/1643248 I don't know, this is mildly offtopic (aka, not very operational) but the article made me giggle a few times. a) It resembles too much of Bob Metcalfe predicting the death of the Internet. We all remember how that went (wasn't there NANOG tshirt with Bob eating his hat?) b) In the words of Randy Bush, We tried this 10 years ago, and it didn't work then. Everyone was doing flow-based routing back in '90-95 (cat6k sup1, gsr e0, first riverstoned devices, foundry ironcore, etc). Then, everyone figured out that it does not scale (tm Vijay Gill) and went to tcam-based architectures (for hardware platforms) or cef-like based architectures for software platforms. In either case, performance doesn't depend on flows/second, but only packets/second. Huge problem with flow-based routing is susceptibility to ddos (or abnormal traffic patterns). It doesn't matter that your device can route 1mpps of normal traffic if it croaks under 10kpps of ddos (or codered/nimda/etc). -alex [not mlc anything] [mlc]
[admin] Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks? and Re: Comcast blocking p2p uploads
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Randy Bush wrote: actually, it would be really helpful to the masses uf us who are being liberal with our delete keys if someone would summarize the two threads, comcast p2p management and 204/4. 240/4 has been summarized before: Look for email with MLC Note in subject. However, in future, MLC emails will contain [admin] in the subject. Interestingly, the content for the p2p threads boils down to: a) Original post by Sean Donelan: Allegation that p2p software does not play well with the rest of the network users - unlike TCP-based protocols which results in more or less fair bandwidth allocation, p2p software will monopolize upstream or downstream bandwidth unfairly, resulting in attempts by network operators to control such traffic. Followup by Steve Bellovin noting that if p2p software (like bt) uses tcp-based protocols, due to use of multiple tcp streams, fairness is achieved *between* BT clients, while being unfair to the rest of the network. No relevant discussion of this subject has commenced, which is troubling, as it is, without doubt, very important for network operations. b) Discussion started by Adrian Chadd whether p2p software is aware of network topology or congestion - without apparent answer, which leads me to guess that the answer is no. c) Offtopic whining about filtering liability, MSO pricing, fairness, equality, end-user complaints about MSOs, filesharing of family photos, disk space provided by MSOs for web hosting. Note: if you find yourself to have posted something that was tossed into the category c) - please reconsider your posting habits. As usual, I apologise if I skipped over your post in this summary. -alex
[admin] Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks? and Re: Comcast blocking p2p uploads
[note that this post also relates to the thread Re: Comcast blocking p2p uploads] While both discussions started out as operational, most of the mail traffic is things that are not very much related to technology or operations. To clarify, things like these are on-topic: * Whether p2p protocols are well-behaved, and how can we help making them behave. * Filtering non-behaving applications, whether these are worms or p2p applications. * Helping p2p authors write protocols that are topology- and congestion-aware These are on-topic, but all arguments for and against have already been made. Unless you have something new and insightful to say, please avoid continuing conversations about these subjects: * ISPs should[n't] have enough capacity to accomodate any application, no matter how well or badly behaved * ISPs should[n't] charge per byte * ISPs should[n't] have bandwidth caps * Legality of blocking and filtering These are clearly off-topic: * End-user comments about their particular MSO/ISP, pricing, etc. * Morality of blocking and filtering As a guideline, if you can expect a presentation at nanog conference about something, it belongs on the list. If you can't, it doesn't. It is a clear distinction. In addition, keep in mind that this is the network operators mailing list, *not* the end-user mailing list. Marty Hannigan (MLC member) already made a post on the Comcast blocking p2p uploads asking to stick to the operational content (vs, politics and morality of blocking p2p application), but people still continue to make non-technical comments. Accordingly, to increase signal/noise (as applied to network operations) MLC (that's us, the team who moderate this mailing list) won't hesitate to warn posters who ignore the limits set by AUP and guidance set up by MLC. If you want to discuss this moderation request, please do so on nanog-futures. -alex [mlc chair]
RE: 240/4 (MLC NOTE)
Guys, this thread has gone over 50 posts, and doesn't seem to want to end. By now, everyone has had a chance to advance their argument (at least once), and we are just going in circles, increasing noise and not contributing to signal. I'd like to summarize arguments advanced - and if you don't have something new (not listed here) to say, can you please avoid posting to this thread? If you disagree with me, please take it to nanog-futures. Summary of arguments: In favor of experimental use only: Alain Durand: at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network In favor of private use: Randy Bush: if it works for you, why mark it experimental Dillon: why shouldn't people use it if they can In favor of no use at all: Joe Greco: it doesn't work now (today) on current-generation OSes, there is no chance to get it to work in any shape of form by the time v4 space is exhausted. Steve Wilcox: it will never work Mixed: Daniel Senie: Allocate some as private, reserve rest as 'allocatable' once vendors get the gear fixed to accomodate those who use as private Additional points: David Ulevitch: If it is ever designated rfc1918, it cannot ever become public. Many: It will buy us some time before v4 address space is exhausted, and much less painful than v6 deployment Many: Old gear cannot be v6-enabled, but it can be 240-enabled Dillon: This is not our decision, this is IETF/IANA decision. -alex [mlc chair]
Re: autoresponders
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Lynda wrote: I'm on a couple of lists where the reply-to header is munged in just this way. I hate it. I much prefer the extra effort that says to send to the list, rather than constantly checking to make sure that a private message is not being sent to the list by accident. FWIW, IMHO, I agree 100%. Sean, not picking on you, but this touched a nerve. Out of control vacation (and other autoresponder) programs should be dealt with one at a time, as needed. There's already enough rules. As they are. I've asked [EMAIL PROTECTED] for rough number of subscribers that have 'no longer with the company' autoresponder that gets unsubscribed by her based on complaints by list subscribers - the answer is between 0.5 to 2 per month - seems low, however, if we stop doing it, a year later, you'll get between 6 and 24 autoresponder replies to each post. Which would be bad (tm). -alex
Re: NANOG Elections
Question, I wonder if we can get statistics on how many people who have registered at this nanog have voted vs those who are not physically here? This would help determine if putting a voting desktop outside of main conference room help increase voting participation? Also, possibly, instead of posting to -announce, a direct email to last-registered-email should be sent to each eligible voter reminding them to vote - Some people who attend aren't on any mailing list. (actually, it is an interesting data point, but probably impossible to gather correct data on). -alex
kill thread (Re: wanted: offshore hosting)
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all. Last time I asked for a hosting place, I ended up going with LayeredTech, but I can give you a list of options if you like. snip Please note that this thread is off-topic for nanog-list. Please do not contribute further to this thread. Reasons for offtopic-ness: a) not internet operational b) commercial c) end-user -alex [mlc chair]
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, vijay gill wrote: Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and actual value to be had from NANOG, we are getting tied up discussing an offhand remark about a convicted felon. I submit that nanog as a whole is stupider under this formal SC/MLC/PC/whatever than when it was under the benevolent dictatorship of Susan. It takes Vijay to cut to the core of the issue and drop science like bombs. Sometimes benevolent dictatorship is much better at getting things done. Never was the old adage about people getting the government they deserve truer than it is now. We have become a legion of whiners, focused less on the work and more on the process and protocols of etiquette than building networks, though that is probably something a cisco SE can crank out from a visio template faster and in most cases, better than most participants in this trainwreck. This is something that could be on nanog tshirt, trainspotting style. I suggest with the best intention possible that marty unwad his shorts and the rest of us STFU and GBTW. I'll add others to the list, but yes, in the simplest possible terms, this thread was a ridiculous waste of time of everyone involved. -alex
Re: Anyone using uvlan out there?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Steven Haigh wrote: From my understanding, this software is pretty much acting like a bridge, but with endpoints over a routed IP network. So its like l2tpv3 vpn. And, since its based on PC platform, I kind of have to say, in words of Vijay, It does not scale, and What problem is being solved? -alex [not mlc anything]
RE: Using Mobile Phone email addys for monitoring (summarization)
As an experiment, I wanted to try to summarize all the answers given on this question, hope this helps someone. Suggestions given: * modem and TAP gateway ** TAP numbers at http://www.avtech.com/Support/TAP/index.htm ** Software: sendpage or qpage * Mobile phone with a serial port and AT commandset ** Software: sms-tools gnokii gsmd ** Issues: not reliable because of battery drain * Purpose-made GSM/CDMA modems ** Software: same as above ** Manufacturers: Intercel, Sierra 750 (PCMCIA), Falcom Samba 75 (USB) * Purpose-made GSM-IP modems ** Manufacturers: http://www.acmesystems.it/?id=70 * Pages via DTMF ** Hylafax/asterisk -alex [for mlc]
Re: Using Mobile Phone email addys for monitoring
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, matthew zeier wrote: Recommendations on software and modems? Couple of options: Dedicated cell phone connected via serial cable and gnokii-like software Analog modem and voice line and TAP software (like sendpage or qpage) Technically, SNPP is the appropriate solution, but might be overkill if you just have a single host sending messages. -alex [not nanog mlc blah blah]
NANOG Humour (Re: 2M today, 10M with no change in technology? An informal survey.)
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hex Star wrote: On 8/27/07, Justin M. Streiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on it's side, like a cow... http://farm.tucows.com/images/2006/07/cow_tipping.jpg :D While its occasionally amusing, can we please keep the humour to the minimum, while sticking to the operational content? -alex (mlc chair)
Re: 2M today, 10M with no change in technology? An informal survey.
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote: Though if you've kept up with the latest IOS developments, cisco is finally differentiating the platforms we've assumed for years were only different in angle and paint. 6500's won't get to run the newest 7600 code. I think Cisco is coming to their senses. SXH has *most* of SRB features, while (hopefully) more stable. At this point, imho, the rsp720 is getting the short end of the stick, because it is only limited to SRB+, while you have a choice of SX* and SRB on the sup720. But I think, imho, this discussion belongs to cisco-nsp more than to nanog-l. -alex [not speaking as mlc blah blah]
Kill this thread (Re: DNS not working)
I think this thread is obviously silly, so please refrain from posting further on this and feeding the troll... Thanks! On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I try adding google.com to my dns server to get more visitors but google.com still show search engine. Please advise how to do so more visitor in return? May the Gods be with you!
Re: Link to wiki?
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Lynda wrote: Resending, using merit, since nanog.org doesn't seem to be working... fyi, I received the previous one sent through nanog.org I note that the (sadly outdated) FAQ is still listed on the web site, and that there isn't a pointer to the Wiki... I had been planning on spending a bit of time trying to reconcile the two (i.e. take some of the still useful bits from the FAQ to the Wiki), which is what made me sit up and take notice. Perhaps a link would be in order? agree. I'll ask Merit webmaster to update website. I think it should be a Wiki link below the Maling list FAQ. -alex
Please stop (Re: Gwd: crypted document)
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: If you could read the header, the question you would have asked is, What is Chris Adams doing in Korea sending virus mail to nanog? :) Especially as this particular Chris Adams is not well traveled and has never been west of the Mississippi! I think at this point, its fairly clear what happened (fake sender, reply that went to list etc) so continued discussion is rather fruitless. Lesson to be learned: You cannot protect from human factors. :( -alex (mlc chair)
EPO/NEC (was Re: Why do we use facilities with EPO's?)
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Leo Bicknell wrote: What I found interesting is that a single EPO is not a hard and fast rule. They walked me through a twisty maze of the national electric code, the national fire code, and local regulations. Through that journey, they left me with a rather interesting tidbit. The more urban an area the more likely it is to have strict fire codes. Typically these codes require a single EPO for the entire structure, there's no way to compartmentalize to rooms or subsystems. However in more rural areas this is often not so, and they had in fact built data centers to code WITHOUT a single building EPO in several locations. That's to say there was no EPO, but that it may only affect a single room, or even a single device. If they can be avoided, why do we put up with them? Do we really want our colo in downtown San Francisco bad enough to take the risk of having a single point of failure? How can we, as engineers, ask questions about how many generators, how much fuel, and yet take for granted that there is one button on the wall that makes it all turn off? Is it simply that having colo in the middle of the city is so convenient that it overrides the increased cost and the reduced redundancy that are necessitated by that location? This is an interesting question. National Electric Code (NEC) requires EPO. Sort of. Articles 645 and 685 deal with it. While NEC is not binding on every jurisdiction, almost every US jurisdiction bases its code on NEC with additions/subtractions. I don't know offhand if the local changes deal with EPO much, however, here's some food for thought regarding EPO and NEC. With regard to putting up with them - EPOs are designed to protect life, not property or uptime. If there's a short causing electrical fire because breaker did not open, firefighter better be sure he can cut the power *before* stepping next to it. Here's how NEC works: 1) If a room is designed to comply with Article 645, it must have EPO, *except* if it qualifies under Article 685. Being under Article 645 gives couple of things that are generally not permitted otherwise, as follows: 645.4 D) permits underfloor wiring for power, receptacles and crossconnects. 645.4 E) Power cables; comunications cables; connecting cables; interconnecting cables; and associated boxes, connectors plugs and receptacles that are listed as part of, or for, information technology equipment shall not be required to be secured in place. In other words, you can have crossconnects that are laying on the floor (or under raised floor but not otherwise secured), and that is OK, normally they'd need to be secured every X feet. 645.17) (too lazy to retype NEC language) You can have PDUs with multiple panelboards within a single cabinet - not all that clear what exactly does it permit (PDUs with multiple breaker panels essentially). My understanding is that if you are willing to forego things that Article 645 permits, you do not have to install EPO. Frankly, I don't see all that much logic in 645 requirements and linking it to EPO (except, possibly, to make operation of datacenters not in compliance with 645 to be annoying enough that everyone would opt to comply with EPO). The Article 685 exception from EPO applies if An orderly shutdown is required to minimize personnel hazard and equipment damage. It is really intented for industrial (like chemical plants control) systems where EPO shutoff can cause damage to life/property. I doubt this applies to datacenter. Above is an armchair engineer's understanding. To be sure, you should consult a real engineer who can stamp and seal your plans! -alex
