OT: Training
All,
I am working on a training proposal, and would appreciate your input.
This training is going to be an introductory course aimed at
those who are new to networking.
Just to put it in context ... I'm presuming that most of you on
this list have help desk personnel who would be 3 or more levels
above the training I'm working on. For example, if I even mention
BGP it would be along the lines of BGP is a routing protocol
{presuming I've even mentioned routing protocols} that is used
between ISPs. Period. I don't expect that people coming out of this
particular course will be able to do even non-VLSM subnetting - with
a calculator, let alone on paper - but at least they will have seen it.
What I'm more interested in from you all is something along the
lines of - What do you wish the Help Desk personnel that your Help
Desk is trying to help actually knew. Or even, more basically,
What do I wish that people interested in - or in the process of
being hired for/promoted to/assigned to (because no one else wants
it) - network help desk assignments knew, or should be sent to
training to learn, before even trying to talk to me. What would be
an appropriate 5-10 minute overview (i.e. what is MPLS and how does
it help networks), and what might be appropriate for more in depth
(i.e. IP Addressing basics). What networking myths do you want me to bust?
I may also be able to let them actually do something ... perhaps
run a traceroute (live or canned, not sure yet) and explain how it
works. I will definitely have a chapter - or at least portion of a
chapter - on history (how we got where we are), including the
who/what/why/where/when of RFCs (traceroute might be a good one to
explore the technical aspects of implementation; i.e. why should UDP
be used instead of ICMP - what do the RFCs say about it). If nothing
else, I may assign some of Jon Postel's writing for research - like RFC 791 :-)
Everyone has to start somewhere, and I want this to be the best,
yet most succinct, training I can come up with.
Please keep in mind that I only have 4 or 5 (probably 4) days to
do this in. It is meant to be an introduction, and not cure all
network training fauxes pas (is that the correct plural?) in one fell
swoop. One of the other things I want to accomplish is to hook
people on networking so that they will continue their training.
Off-list replies welcome - you decide.
Thanks.
Regards.
Ted Fischer
Re: NTIA will control the root name servers?
At 11:28 AM 7/3/2005, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:44:56 +0200, Peter Dambier said: http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/ Try to see their homepage! I can't help it if they disregard RFC2826... ICANN does not want them. They dont want ICANN either. This doesn't change the technical issues in rfc2826. European ISPs and Asian ISPs do change to the Public-Root because their customers need to send emails to each other. Curiously enough their is no SPAM on Public-Root email addresses. I thought the spammers were located in Asia and Europe only? (A) You thought wrong. Just because a large percentage (not only) arrives from Asia and Europe doesn't mean the *spammer* is located there, any more than the fact that this e-mail went through one of Merit's servers means that I'm actually in Michigan. ... Or that I'm in Vermont (or Virginia or California or Sweden (when I'm working)) but my mail ISP is in Maryland ... (B) Spammers send to addresses that are likely to get them money. Thus, the lack of spam to public-root addresses isn't surprising. (C) The fact that I *do* see spam advertising the availability of public-root addresses should be an adequate predictor of what will happen if said addresses get any significant uptake. In Africa there is not much internet technology yet. They build on chinese technology because it is cheap and China supports their needs. What if their need is censoring and perfect control? Go read this: http://65.246.255.51/rfc/rfc3675.txt And ask yourself (a) why did that URL work at all, and (b) whether censoring via top-level domain is likely to work. As an interesting side note, my e-mail client (Eudora) helpfully popped up the following message when checking the above URL: The host, http://65.246.255.52/rfc/rfc3675.txt, is a numerical IP address; most legitimate sites use names, not addresses. Besides some of the obvious comments (it was written by the Department of Redundancy Department), I think this shows that we really do need to keep legislators as informed as possible on the technical side of How Things Work to try and keep the hysteria to a minimum. Ted Fischer p.s. Valdis ... didn't know that you were in Vermont, too ;-) *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:02:33 GMT Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just in case anyone was wondering, U.S. gummint agencies will be screaming in migration agony for the next couple of years. ;-) http://www.fcw.com/article89432-06-29-05-Web Well, when I was in the gummint, we used to get these missives all the the time. (My personal favorite was the one that said that US Navy had to conduct all email over Outlook for security reasons.) We waivered or ignored every one. So I wouldn't count on this, either. Regards Marshall Eubanks Then there was, about 1989 or 1990, the one that all Military IT purchases had to be OSI Compliant TP0/CLNP Anybody? Regards. Ted Fischer - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Is the Internet a Phone Company
/lurk All, Right from the Horse's Mouth: Quote: FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell applauded the Supreme Court's move to hear the case. The 9th Circuit's decision would have grave consequences for the future and availability of high-speed Internet connections in this country, he said in a statement. High-speed Internet connections are not telephones. Unquote: Context: Mr. Powell's statement re: The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider whether Internet providers should be allowed to sell their high-speed service over the cable television system. Full article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6645391/ Although I am not well versed in the particulars of this specific case, the statement itself would seem to have broad operational ramifications on how High-speed Internet connections are built marketed, and priced - at least in the U.S. The pressure for extra-net (if you'll pardon the marketing term) VOIP is immense, for example. I would appreciate The List's - US as well as Non-US - reaction to this statement. It is the first time I have seen it so explicitly stated by someone who's opinion on this matter carries more than just a little weight. Ted Fischer lurk
RE: Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P2P
Big Snip ... At 07:03 PM 8/30/2004, Sean Donlan postualted: Is the problem P2P? Or is the problem copyright infringement? Thank you, Sean. What does Peer-to-Peer mean, anyway. Unfortunately, lots of things. One could argue (I've seen a few replies re this subject hinting around this definition) that the entire Internet works because of the Peer-to-Peer concept. After all, if I am on a 100MBs Ethernet and want to communicate directly with another NIC on MY ethernet, then we must be Peer at Layer 1. Is the Peer-to-Peer ethernet network a danger? I would tell her that the benefits of Peer-to-Peer is that this concept allows us to communicate on networks using computers ... Including allowing Senator Feinstein to receive E-Mail replies to her question (after all, isn't SMTP (or X.400 for that matter) Peer-to-Peer at Layer 7?). Until Senator Feinstein asks a meaningful question, the result will be GIGO. Ted Fischer
Re: What could have been done differently?
At 11:13 AM 1/28/03 -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. et al postulated: | Are there practical answers that actually work in the real world with | real users and real business needs? Yes, the simple ones that are known for decades: - Minimum-privilege networks (access is blocked by default, permitted to known and required traffic) - Hardened systems (only needed components are left on the servers) - Properly coded applications - Trained personnel I would just add, as has been mentioned by others (but bears repeating): - A commitment by management There are no shortcuts. Agreed Ted Fischer Rubens Kuhl Jr.
Re: IP address fee??
At 10:00 AM 9/6/02 -0400, Joe Abley postulated: On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:13:27PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Because Cee is easier to pronounce than slash twenty-four. Ease of use trumps open standards yet again :) Nobody was talking. /24 is easier to type than class C. No trumps! Everybody loses! How many people learn about networks from certification courses or in school, anyway? It was always my impression that people learnt mainly by listening to other people. If networking on the front lines is an informal oral tradition more than it is a taught science, then perhaps it's natural for obsolete terminology to continue to be taught long after it stopped having any relevance. Joe The class of an address is determined by the bit-pattern of the first octet of the address. 10.0.0.0 will always be a Class A address. 172.16.0.0 will always be a Class B address, and 192.168.0.0 will always be Class C address. I'm not aware of any RFC that rescinded the definition of the Class of an address. Masks, when associated with an address, enable one to determine (a), what network I'm on (if I'm an IP host) or (b) how many addresses exist within a given range of addresses (if I'm a routing table). Subnetting (robbing mask host bits (0's) to make network bits (1's) allowed one to more effectively use the decreasing amounts of networks that required less than the default number of addresses (65,536 in the case of a Class B) by more effeciently using the space one had been allocated. With subnetting, I can take one Classful network and make many (sub)networks from it. There was no way prior to 1993, however, to effectively represent the range of addresses in more than one Classful network. CIDR, simply stated, says that one can use any address with any mask, regardless of the original class of the address, to represent a range of addresses (i.e. rob network bits to make host bits). It allows the properties of IP to be more effectively used for IP host addressing (only need a /23 to support 400 IP hosts (a very effecient 78% use of the allocated space), as well as (one of the original, primary reasons for CIDR) aggregate (Supernet) X traditional Class C's into one routing statement (who today would advertise delivery to the range of 4,096 addresses from, for example, 192.168.192.0 through 192.168.207.255 with 16 individual traditional Class C statements?). Since NANOG is the front line, then perhaps that is where the oral tradition should be teaching the history of IP addressing, from Classful addressing (default masks) to Subnetting (other than default) to Supernetting (ranges of addresses regardless of original - or legacy if you will - class (Classless)). The prefix, of course, does not refer to the class of the address, but the number of contiguous ones in the mask. As far as pronounciation goes, I prefer slash 24 to two fifty five dot two fifty five dot two fifty five dot zero :) $.02 Ted Fischer
Re: IP address fee??
At 12:42 PM 9/6/02 -0400, you wrote: Was this reply directed at me, particularly? Joe Joe, Most definitely not. I felt that the two comments I included most closely represented the discussion and information I wanted to pass. No offense meant, I hope none taken, apologies if they were. Ted On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:33:09PM -0400, Ted Fischer wrote: At 10:00 AM 9/6/02 -0400, Joe Abley postulated: On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:13:27PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Because Cee is easier to pronounce than slash twenty-four. Ease of use trumps open standards yet again :) Nobody was talking. /24 is easier to type than class C. No trumps! Everybody loses! How many people learn about networks from certification courses or in school, anyway? It was always my impression that people learnt mainly by listening to other people. If networking on the front lines is an informal oral tradition more than it is a taught science, then perhaps it's natural for obsolete terminology to continue to be taught long after it stopped having any relevance. Joe The class of an address is determined by the bit-pattern of the first octet of the address. 10.0.0.0 will always be a Class A address. 172.16.0.0 will always be a Class B address, and 192.168.0.0 will always be Class C address. I'm not aware of any RFC that rescinded the definition of the Class of an address. Masks, when associated with an address, enable one to determine (a), what network I'm on (if I'm an IP host) or (b) how many addresses exist within a given range of addresses (if I'm a routing table). Subnetting (robbing mask host bits (0's) to make network bits (1's) allowed one to more effectively use the decreasing amounts of networks that required less than the default number of addresses (65,536 in the case of a Class B) by more effeciently using the space one had been allocated. With subnetting, I can take one Classful network and make many (sub)networks from it. There was no way prior to 1993, however, to effectively represent the range of addresses in more than one Classful network. CIDR, simply stated, says that one can use any address with any mask, regardless of the original class of the address, to represent a range of addresses (i.e. rob network bits to make host bits). It allows the properties of IP to be more effectively used for IP host addressing (only need a /23 to support 400 IP hosts (a very effecient 78% use of the allocated space), as well as (one of the original, primary reasons for CIDR) aggregate (Supernet) X traditional Class C's into one routing statement (who today would advertise delivery to the range of 4,096 addresses from, for example, 192.168.192.0 through 192.168.207.255 with 16 individual traditional Class C statements?). Since NANOG is the front line, then perhaps that is where the oral tradition should be teaching the history of IP addressing, from Classful addressing (default masks) to Subnetting (other than default) to Supernetting (ranges of addresses regardless of original - or legacy if you will - class (Classless)). The prefix, of course, does not refer to the class of the address, but the number of contiguous ones in the mask. As far as pronounciation goes, I prefer slash 24 to two fifty five dot two fifty five dot two fifty five dot zero :) $.02 Ted Fischer
