Re: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:45:47PM -0800, Bruce Robertson wrote: FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs, H... we're not having this trouble. What are you using to propagate your loopback interfaces? It works just fine with OSPF. Probably apples/oranges. We're not talking OSPF with our customer DSL boxes; the routing entries (as with the original poster, I believe) are static. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. mm
Re: PING: blacklist.mail.ops.worldnet.att.net-clueful admin at ATT
--- Subject: ATTN: Anyone with RBL clue at att.net Something must be highly broken at ATT. I have been receiving tons of emails in response to a Usenet posting I made months ago asking if anyone knew how to get out of att.net's private RBL. You might try writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mm
Re: Looking for power metering equipment...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:17:56AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to find some small, cheap ammeters. I only need a readable analog dial for current, no SNMP or anything fancy. I'd like to be able to hardwire one to each individual circuit going into the racks. Anyone know a candidate? As odd as it sounds: Radio Shack makes some little wattmeters that can show current, wattage, voltage on its single outlet, for something like $20-$30 (I forget, I bought one a year or so ago to play around with). Digital readout though, not analog. One annoying thing: no reset button for the cumulative stats, only powercycle will clear it. mm
Re: Looking for power metering equipment...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:40:54AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know a model number? I can't seem to find anything like this on radioshack.com. (cc'd to nanog ..) Shoot, I should have looked first. I can't find it either. I found the note from January 2003 where I heard about it, and it said: http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLGcategory%5Fname=CTLG%5+F008%5F021%5F003%5F000product%5Fid=63%2D1152 or just go to radioshack.com and search for watt meter (two words) under test equipment orwhatever.. it says they're sold out online, so I don't know if they discontinued it after not getting a lot of sales. The last sentence is foreboding. Sorry about that. mm
Re: Bandwidth Control Question
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:24:36AM -0600, Claydon, Tom wrote: Thanks to everyone who responded. Looks like I'm going to have to invest in a PA-MC-2T3+ card for the 7206...I have at least four PA-MC-T3 cards, and they're not going to work the way I want them to (unless I rate-limit them). This is for point-to-point DS3, right? I don't think you want -MC- anything, you'd want e.g. PA-2T3+ . (I don't remember the original message though.) mm
Re: Bandwidth Control Question
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:36:08AM -0600, Claydon, Tom wrote: Hi Mark, Yes, it's a point-to-point link. Somebody else mentioned ethernet; I know (without specific recommendation though) that you can run fiber and use some inexpensive media converters on each end to produce something that looks like ethernet, without worrying about stringing wire between separate electrical systems. Ethernet ports are cheaper than T3 ports too, but then you'd still have to deal with shaping/limiting. mm
Re: Bandwidth Control Question
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:45:08AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:35:34AM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:24:36AM -0600, Claydon, Tom wrote: Thanks to everyone who responded. Looks like I'm going to have to invest in a PA-MC-2T3+ card for the 7206...I have at least four PA-MC-T3 cards, and they're not going to work the way I want them to (unless I rate-limit them). This is for point-to-point DS3, right? I don't think you want -MC- anything, you'd want e.g. PA-2T3+ . (I don't remember the original message though.) The PA-MC-2T3+ will do both channelized and unchannelized DS3 with the same PA. I stand corrected, thanks. I had thought the -MC- adaptors were channelized only. Is that something with with the '+' or have I just always been wrong? :-) mm
Re: OT - list netiquette
P.S. OWEN, PLEASE STOP CC'ING ME ON REPLIES. EITHER REPLY TO ME ONLY, OR TO THE LIST (WHICHEVER YOU PREFER), BUT NOT TO BOTH. pps: Lazily clicking reply to all and sending off a message (with an unwanted *attachment* no less) cc'd to a bunch of people who don't need duplicate replies typically goes hand in hand with top posting. These are clear signs of someone who is too lazy to bother with following standard conventions, and who thinks that it's OK to do the lazy easy thing even when it inconveniences others. I've seen lots of requests in both directions, over the years. On a slow list like this, people often like to be cc'd directly. It's hard to know what to do in all situations, other than mind one's own mailbox. There are ways to filter out duplicates, and that seems (to me) to be the best. Yours, mm
Re: Blocked by msn.com MX, contact for MSN.COM postmaster ?
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:49:16AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: I found out that our outgoing SMTP servers have been blocked by the msn.com MXes. In a nasty way, too -- no SMTP error, the TCP connection is simply closed by them immidiately after establishing it. We're not listed on any RBL/DNSBL and have an active abuse desk. I mailed [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], but didn't get a reply from any of them. Does anyone here know who to talk to ? I'd be interested in knowing what you find out. We observed the same thing a while ago from one of our mail servers-- but just one. Connection drops immediately, no clue given as to why. However, from another mail server just a few IP numbers away (in the same /24), the connection goes through just fine. The workaround was obviously to configure the first mail server to relay mail for msn.com via the second one, and to try to get Microsoft to tell us what was up. No luck on that last front though. -mm-
Re: Name Server Change-over completed
IN TXT tldtag field='email' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED] in this case, the suggesion that TXT RR's be put alongside NS RR's *above* the zone cut is your clue that the whole thing is a put-on. i guess this author was being too subtle about it, so you didn't catch the humour. Unterminated quoted strings are amusing too. mm
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 01:18:10PM +0100, Anne Marcel Roorda wrote: Having a support model in which anyone can call any NOC about a problem they're having does not scale very well. I felt justified in calling UUnet. I know the conversation had morphed by the time you made the above comment. However in my case UUnet was propagating an announcement that was stepping on one of ours; the owner of the netblock was there to say that he did not want that announcement being made; the UUnet customer making the announcement (who I would rather have dealt with) was apparently operating without a crew. Here was a conversation between directly affected parties. It came down to who was bothering who: was it UUnet bothering me by announcing my route, or was it me bothering them by asking them to stop? The model of I won't talk to anybody who isn't my customer is probably almost always right, but it does not work for every single situation. With that stand, you wouldn't have an abuse contact. Sometimes your actions directly affect somebody and you should be willing to deal with the consequences of that. While their initial reaction in my case was I can't talk to you, they did indeed reconsider and help out. Thanks again. It happened pretty much at the instant I asked for help here, which is the usual sort of kharma.. BTW as I mentioned when I contacted Genuity, they advised me to contact UUnet directly. So by inference at least one large carrier (Genuity) seems to feel that contacting them directly is appropriate. -mm- my once-per-year posting average is really blown now..
