RE: Worst design decisions?
* How about the plastic stand-offs that hold the AIM-VPN cards in the 2600 and 1700 series. Yeah...the ones that DON'T come with your SmartNet replacement chassis and that you have the pull the entire board to release. * And how about this: Cisco: PICK A BUSINESS END ON YOUR SMALL OFFICE ROUTING EQUIPMENT. Most of my less clued customer like to help out and rack the equipment ahead of time. And it always gets done pretty side out. Yeah..the side with a Cisco logo and three lights. It sure does look like it should be the front, but it's useless that way. Maybe putting the power on that side would clue people in to the fact that it's basically useless to point that at the easy-access side of the rack. * PCs with built in Ethernet that is so close to a lip on the case, with the release pointed down, that you need to use a screwdriver/knife/whatever to release the cable. * Lack of proper SPAN support on 29xx/35xx series switches. Read only? I can live with it. No inter-vlan? Very bad. Does that make my worse design decision using Cisco CPE at my small customer/remote office sites? H Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel: +1 215 825 8401 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
OT: Alpharetta, GA fast turnup?
Sorry for the OT post. I've got a customer who is trying to move their office 30 days form now and can't get BellSouth to commit to moving their T1 (of course). If anyone has any info of alternate means in the area for T1-ish access please contact me off list. Thanks, Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel: +1 215 825 8401 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
Northville and Ann Arbor, MI back on utility power
I'm getting happy pages about my sites in those areas since about 21:30 EST. Looking much better. Daryl G. Jurbala Introspect.net Consulting Tel: +1 215 825 8401 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 http://www.introspect.net PGP Key and Adobe Digital Signature: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
RE: North America not interested in IP V6
The reference to 70% of people in Europe having a web enabled phone made me laugh too... although I guess it could be true - my last 3 mobile phones have all had WAP capability, but I don't know of anyone that actually uses this feature. I actually use mine. But it's behind a proxy, as I suspect nearly every other provder's WAP gateway is. Daryl Jurbala
RE: rfc1918 ignorant
Ahhh...but this all comes down to how one defines enterprise and it's network scope. IANALBPSB (I am not a lawyer but probably shoud be) Daryl PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp [...] That's not what is in my copy of 1918. In order to use private address space, an enterprise needs to determine which hosts do not need to have network layer connectivity outside the enterprise in the foreseeable future and thus could be classified as private. Such hosts will use [...]
RE: IPv6
Title: Message I guess that means vendor C has no excuse on the 7200 VXR series (and I believe a few of the newer models). But I still don't see anthing fantastically IPv6 happening there. Daryl G. JurbalaIntrospect.net ConsultingTel: +1 215 825 8401Fax: +1 508 526 8500http://www.introspect.netPGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:48 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: IPv6[.] Most L3 switches shipping today (e.g. the product in question) have particular ethertypes and destination address offsets hardcoded into their ASICs. It's not a matter of supporting 128-bit addresses -- they simply doesn't understand IPv6's header any more than they do DECnet or AppleTalk. While allocation policies may have an effect on how IPv6 FIBs are most efficiently stored, address length is a fairly small part of the problem when you're talking about redesigning every ASIC to handle both IPv4 and IPv6. []
RE: 18.0.0.0/8 RFC1918
Oh...must have been caused by a massive power drain from printing out copies of RFC1918. Now it all makes sense. Daryl G. Jurbala WorldNet Technology Consultants, Inc. Sr. Network Engineer Tel: +1.610.288.6200 FAX: +1.508.526.8500 http://www.wtci.net -Original Message- From: Matt Braun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:28 PM To: jcvaraillon Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: 18.0.0.0/8 A large utility outage followed by failures in secondary systems caused power problems in MIT's POP. My understanding is service has been restored. Matt From: jcvaraillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:02:40 +0200 Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is now = reachable. I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and 18.0.0.0/8 = was not in their routing table. Is it related to a major problem? Regards, Christophe
RE: Yahoogroups
Yes, 172.16 actually IS RFC1918. Where are you getting that lookup from? I don't seem to be seeing it. And I don't see how router mismanagement would cause a bad name resolution, but maybe I'm not understanding the situation fully. Daryl G. Jurbala WorldNet Technology Consultants, Inc. Sr. Network Engineer Tel: +1.610.288.6200 FAX: +1.508.526.8500 http://www.wtci.net -Original Message- From: blitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Yahoogroups Mail to yahoogroups for two days is giving some strange responses. Mail is attempting to go to 172.16.3.10 when sent to a yahoogroup. This looks real strangethat block is reserved I believe? Wondering why theyre resolving to that address? Router mismanagement? Poisoning? I dont know...but its causing some grief here... Yahoo is real lax in giving some human contact addy, perhaps the esteemed group here can shed some light... Thanks..
