Re: rack power question
Sorry to resurrect a slightly old thread, but I did want to touch on
something I noticed while catching up.
On Mar 25, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Michael Brown wrote:
Naturally, that's redundant, so theoretical maximum usage per rack is
half that, 23200W. Plus, the blades available today don't draw
enough to
fully load those power supplies. In the config I'm looking at now, a
single blade (2x Quad-core 2GHz Intel, 4GB memory, no hard drives)
draws
232W max, 160W lightly loaded. Let's pull a number of 195W out of the
air to use.
Don't be so sure that's actually redundant. At $JOB->{prev}, we had a
fully populated IBM H chassis that had fully populated power supplies
where the chassis spent its entire life in an alarm state that there
was "insufficient power redundancy" ... the draw of the loaded chassis
(14 blades, 2 mgmt cards, 2 switches, 2 FC switches) was more than a
single "side" of power could handle. The chassis notified us that if
it lost a side of power it was going to throttle back the CPUs to
account for the loss.
So your theoretical maximum draw is NOT "1/2 the total"... in a nicely
populated chassis it will draw more than 1/2 the total and complain
the whole time about it.
Cheers,
D
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: what the heck do i do now?
Randy Bush wrote: once upon a time, someone more insane than myself wanted to close an RBL and did so by replacing it with a wildcard entry. we all hated that since it caused a lot of mail to bounce. (all mail that would otherwise have been received by that RBL's subscribers, in fact.) it did however have the effect of causing the subscribers to reconfigure their mailers to stop querying the now-dead RBL in question. what's the current thinking on this? one problem with this is that the pain is not felt by the misconfigured folk, but by distant innocents. I don't necessarily agree with that. First off, if you set up your mail server to use "maps.vix.com", you did it a LONG time ago, before scoring systems were all the rage. In all likelihood people are using this in a binary operation "accept or don't based on this DNSBL entry's return code". Flipping that switch will completely break mail for the offending site, and (in all likelihood) they'll notice it pretty quick and stop. Or they won't, in which case, they're pretty much an unattended domain, and who really cares what happens to them anyway? I think that at some poing, Paul has a right to attempt to reclaim the sane use of his domain name, and considering how long the DNSBL in question has been out of commission, and people who use it should know that by now, the carrot needs to be traded in for a stick. Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Clueful Comcast.net Contact Needed
Can someone clueful from comcast.net contact me offlist please? Getting through the outer defenses is proving difficult. :-( Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: OT: How to stop UltraDNS sales people calling
On Nov 28, 2006, at 6:56 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: Okay, this was fun and I am all for OT fun. But can we please stop putting down a part of our community? Especially one which contributes to NANOG so much? We all have sale trolls to live with. Like someone else said, I both agree and disagree. I agree that the OT thread has probably gone on long enough. I disagree with your implied assertion that because "[UltraDNS] contributes to NANOG so much" that they deserve a bye. Scummy business practices are scummy business practices. Period. Full-stop. Just because they contribute to an organization doesn't mean that the organization should feel obligated to keep quiet about their misdeeds. It may very well be a "rogue" within their organization causing the problem, but if they're that involved in NANOG then someone is probably being crucified as we speak, and maybe they'll chime in with their side of the story about how they've corrected the problem. If they haven't, then, frankly, this less-than-flattering portrayal of UltraDNS is not entirely undeserved. Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Collocation Access
Florida law, Title 13 section 322.32(2), "Unlawful use of license" says "[i]t is a misdemeanor of the second degree ... for any person ... [t]o lend his or her driver's license to any other person or knowingly permit the use thereof by another." That statute deals with someone else _using_ my license, but in no way implies that my license can't be _held_ by someone else. The title clearly states "use". ;-) The definition of "use" may be very key, as others have pointed out: - They are "using" it for collateral. - They are "using" it to keep track of who is in their facility at any given time in a manner convenient to them Also, in english this sentence as parsed as: ( condition_1 ) OR ( condition_2 ) which would mean ( you lend ) OR ( you permit the use of ) which then asks "what's the definition of 'lend'"? Merriam-Webster includes among its many definitions, "to put at another's temporary disposal," which it certainly seems would apply, as the ID *is* at their disposal temporarily. So don't kid yourself that it's really all that clear-cut Get a lawyer. :-) Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Removal of my name
An e-mail message *can* in fact, be HTML, as HTML is a text payload like any other. It's not his (or the world's) fault your MUA is locked into 1982 mode and won't process the tags that are included in it. Cheers, D On Sep 20, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Randy Bush wrote: you sent html as opposed to an email message. as i do not use a web browser to read mail, i can not read your message. if you want me to read your email, send email. randy Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:02:52 -0400 From: "Don Welch, Merit Network" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'Betty Burke' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Mary Eileen McLaughlin' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Removal of my name NANOG Community, The issue of altering the NANOG Archive has come up and I wish to present Merit's position on the matter. The NANOG Acceptable Use Policy as it currently stands includes the following: 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as described in the http://www.nanog.org/ charter.html">charter of NANOG. 2. Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. : 4. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. : The part of the post in dispute is not operational or technical and clearly shows a lack of respect for a participant. The subject of the post and not the poster requested that we remove his name from the post in the Archive. Merit has decided to replace the subject's name with "NAME REMOVED". Since this post was not allowed, we believe that we are correcting our mistake in a way that we think has the least impact on the integrity of the archive. We are not removing the post itself. The poster's name and the rest of the text are intact. The topic of the post is still clear even though the individual targeted is not. Operational or technical content was not modified. We have considered a number of things in making this decision including: the age of the post, the reason for the request and Merit's legal exposure. We let the Steering Committee know what we were doing. If you disagree, do not blame the Steering Committee although we consulted with the Steering Committee, it was my decision. This issue has been helpful in that it pointed out some shortcomings in our policies and notification mechanism. We are working with the Steering Committee to address those now. We are not removing a thoughtless post at the request of the poster and do not anticipate doing so in the future. This issue is unique and does not represent a blanket policy. Any request to modify the archive is a serious issue that requires consultation with the Steering Committee and must be balanced against the loss of archive integrity. See you at NANOG 38! Cheers, Don -- Standard Signature Donald J. Welch, Ph.D. President & CEOfont> Merit Network, Inc.font> http://www.merit.edu";>www.merit.edu 734-764-8450div> 1000 Oakbrook Drivefont> Ann Arbor, MI 48104font> -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Blogger post failed
On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: Who forwards NANOG posts to a blogger gateway? You, me, and a claw- hammer need to have a chat. Not me, but what is interesting is that I've not seen any evidence of that when I post. Are you using multipart/signed messages? That's probably the difference D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Fwd: Blogger post failed
Who forwards NANOG posts to a blogger gateway? You, me, and a claw-hammer need to have a chat.Begin forwarded message:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: August 14, 2006 12:30:17 PM EDTTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Blogger post failed Blogger does not accept multipart/signed files.Error code: 7.1DC3E6BOriginal message:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:13:02 -0400Subject: Re: SORBS ContactNone --Derek J. BallingManager of Systems AdministrationVassar College124 Raymond AveBox 0406 - Computer Center 217Poughkeepsie, NY 12604W: (845) 437-7231C: (845) 249-9731
Re: SORBS Contact
On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:11:58 PDT, David Schwartz said: Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual obligations. Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you have no contract with that person, you have a tort obligation not to destroy it. Of course, that only applies if you're dumb enough to answer '250 OK' to the '.' after the DATA. You 5xx that puppy anywhere before that, and you haven't taken custody of that data... This is ridiculous (not your argument, Valdis, but the whole thread in general). If my customers ask me to, or accept via subscribing to a service with a TOS that so permits, me accepting their mail and throwing it away silently, then that's between me and them, nobody else. This is no different from me authorizing Mail Boxes Etc to be my proxy for UPS packages, and them being allowed to simply discard anything from, say, an ex-wife. My ex-wife has no claim, in this hypothetical, against MBE for tossing my package in the trash, because they're acting as my agent. Now, *I* might have a claim against MBE, if I never authorized them to do so and they didn't have a terms-of-service document which I'd agreed to (actively or passively) which said they could do it, but that's a claim between my agent and myself, not the sender. Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: SORBS Contact
On Aug 9, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Allan Poindexter wrote: At LISA a couple of years ago a Microsoftie got up at the SPAM symposium and told of an experiment they did where they asked their hotmail users to identify their mail messages as spam or not. He said the users got it wrong some small percentage amount of the time. I was stunned at the arrogance and presumption in that comment. You can't tell from looking at the contents, source, or destination if something is spam because none of these things can tell whether the message was requested or is wanted by the recipient. The recipient is the only person who can determine these things. I'm gonna hold up the "I call bullshit" card here. Recipients most certainly *can* get it wrong. Things I've seen "reported as spam": - An autoresponse from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" telling the user that the e- mail they had JUST sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] had been accepted and was being fed to a human being for processing - Receipts for online purchases the user legitimately made ... and numerous other things just like this that, whether the user wants to call it "spam" or not, certainly is not "spam". So yes, I would have to -- as much as it pains me in my heart of hearts -- agree with the Hotmail representative in your example. Users can and will get it wrong at the very least some small percentage of the time. Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
OT: Re: Fridays are always good for shock headlines...
On Jul 10, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Barry Shein wrote: The NY State Supreme Court last week tossed gay marriage as being compelled by the state's constitution. One of the reasonings shot down was the assertion that there is any problem with discrimination because the result forbids both straights and gays from marrying same-sex, thus the result is non- discriminatory. I'll admit there may be arguments to be made on both sides but...WHEW! The counter-argument to that is that it DOES unfairly restrict, based on gender, the question of "who can marry a female" or "who can marry a male". But that topic veers widely off-topic, and any future discussion of it should probably find a new home. Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 11, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: So ICANN did come to their senses finally and prevented another collission in balkan namespace :) Thankyou ICANN for your continued support of alternative roots. If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to sell you providing access to Manhattan island. Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Systems Administrator Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 13 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 (845) 437-7231 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: AOL 421 errors
On May 3, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: You know, people say things like this a lot. Its not relevant. What is relevant is how AOL is supposed to know that a) the email considered for rejection is actually wanted b) and wanted by AOL employees themselves And if they did know how to accurately determine that, we wouldnt be having this discussion. If you can't tell, or at least can't tell with darned near 100% accuracy, don't get in the middle of the transaction. -- Derek J. Balling Systems Administrator Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 13 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 (845) 437-7231 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Local Loop Install.
Also bear in mind that after your lease expires, they might could very well be SOL if the new tenant decides "I don't want telco monstronsity in the space I'm paying for", and they'd have every right to simply rip it out (and possibly keep it, depending on your area's local landlord/tenant laws, as it would be considered "abandoned by the former tenant" [you]). I'm not sure if you want to remind them of that, but I think it'd be good form for full disclosure, since they might get dozens of customers dependent on that hardware and suddenly have nowhere to put it if you ever decide to leave. Cheers, D On Apr 26, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Aaron Gagnier wrote: I personally don't see how it would be unreasonable to ask for something if they want to use your space that you're paying for. Myself I would ask for the discount on service and also try to get the install waived or at least reduced. -ag Robert Sherrard wrote: I've got an interesting question / situation... I've got a local loop provider that we're looking at using for some fiber connectivity. The long story is that there’s no real great place for them to place their gear in the entire building, sort of paying rent to the landlord, placing gear in our suite, or placing gear in an uncontrolled room , i.e. no cooling, no controlled access. This “local-loop” provider is asking to place this gear into our space… while this gear is to provide us with fiber connectivity back to a carrier hotel; they’re also looking to service other tenants in our building. It is unrealistic to ask this provider for some sort of a kickback, or monthly discount on service? They’re hitting us up for an install fee, maybe they could waive that? Anyone have some thoughts on this? Am I being unrealistic in thinking that, if they are going to profit by having gear in our space, we should expect to see a small return or favor? The only other option for them is to spend money and lease a small room, or modify an existing smaller room in the building to fit their needs. Rob -- Derek J. Balling Systems Administrator Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 13 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 (845) 437-7231 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Common Carrier Question
From reading that, though, it looks like the ISP in question also has its own telephone product (after all, the quote in the article is that they are a "North Carolina service provider that calls itself the '17th largest phone company' in the US" In which case, the fine may stem from the anti-competitive nature of blocking their competitor rather than simply because they were blocking some sort random service. In other words, what juice would the FCC have against MomNPopISP.com who decided to block VoIP? D On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote: Madison River, a regional cable provider in North Carolina, did it last March and got fined by the FCC for its trouble: http://www.networkingpipeline.com/60405195 -C On Apr 13, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Alain Hebert wrote: Eric Germann wrote: Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then they aren't neutral and it is QoS (unless the QoS == 0 for VoIP) We (or its just me) might be curious about which ISP did that. Offlist if you want. Thanks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:07 PM To: NANOG list Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: Common Carrier Question On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Germann wrote: I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net Neutrality, just by a different name. Except Network Neutrality is about QoS, not filtering. [snip] -- Alain Hebert[EMAIL PROTECTED] PubNIX Inc.P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net fax 514-990-9443 -- Derek J. Balling Systems Administrator Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 13 - Computer Center 221 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 (845) 437-7231 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Memory Refresher: Network Problem Over "X" Miles
I seem to remember reading a story a while back about someone who got a trouble report that the users couldn't access sites greater than "X" miles away (can't remember X but it was like 100 or 200 or something). Anyhow, tech initially disbelieves story, but sees it for himself, and really odd network problem is diagnosed, problem solved. However, I can't find this story to save my life now. Can anyone refresh my memory on it? Cheers, D [sorry if this got sent twice... it doesn't appear to have gone out the first time, probably because it had an S/MIME signature attachment?] -- Derek J. Balling Systems Administrator Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 13 - Computer Center 221 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 (845) 437-7231
Re: is your host or dhcp server sending dns dynamic updates forrfc1918?
At 4:57 PM -0700 4/18/02, Paul Vixie wrote: >what these files are is a whole lot of lines that look like (broken by me): > >18-Apr-2002 16:16:05.491 security: notice: \ > denied update from [63.198.141.30].2323 for "168.192.in-addr.arpa" IN > >by "a whole lot" i mean we've logged 3.3M of these in the last four hours. > >so who are these people and why are they sending dynamic updates for rfc1918 >address space PTR's? Maybe I'm stupid (it wouldn't be the first time). Why do we bother having "public" nameservers answering for this space at all? Why don't we have "blackhole-[12].iana.org" have A records of "127.0.0.1"? Then, if the local resolver doesn't have authority for that network, it'll loopback to itself looking for the answer (failing just as miserably as it would by beating up on the IANA.ORG servers, but without wasting anyone's bandwidth). I'm sure there's a reason why we don't already do this (or something similar), but can someone educate me as to why that is? D -- +---------+-+ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Thou art the ruins of the noblest man | | Derek J. Balling | That ever lived in the tide of times. | | | Woe to the hand that shed this costly | | | blood" - Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1 | +-+-+
