RE: 10GE access switch router
Bill, With the right amount of prep work and understanding of how the stacking works, you can control everything you complained about. I complained about the same stuff until I read the document that explains how to: 1) Renumber a switch in the cluster (and all of it's interfaces with it) 2) Hot swap a new switch into the cluster 3) - and this one's sweet - upgrade the s/w on the entire cluster in one shot, even if they're different models 4) Control which switch is the master so that adding a new switch to the stack doesn't chance screwing up your configs. 5) Permanently remove all stacking config from the switch The actual backplane has lived up performance wise in the testing I've done, but I haven't come anywhere near testing it to 32gbps. Just the same as thousands of people have wiped out every VLAN on their network by putting in a switch with a higher VTP revision number with no VLANs defined, it takes a learning curve to work well with these suckers. Granted - the software has been somewhat buggy - but those aren't the merits I'm debating. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/hw/switches/ps5023/products _configuration_guide_chapter09186a00801a6558.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:33 AM To: Deepak Jain Cc: Frederic NGUYEN; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 10GE access switch router On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Deepak Jain wrote: Just a note, if you want redundant 10GE uplinks you need to get two of these and stack them. The stacking interface does not reduce the amount of switching bandwidth to the front ports IIRC. ...and the stacking interface is actually pretty lousy, from our testing. We were anticipating really liking it, but we haven't touched it again, since our lab work. Obviously it precludes hot-swappability, but beyond that, using it wipes any preexisting configuration on all but the first box (and out of two, I don't know how to predict which it will decide is first, in advance), and it leaves the port-numbering screwed up on any boxes that have used it, in perpetuity. -Bill IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Website contact for www.cisco.com
Can someone responsible for either security or operations of www.cisco.com please contact me? We are seeing an issue where you may be blocking one of our source IP addresses from accessing the website. Thanks, -Dave David Temkin S-I-G IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: NYSE
And let's not forget that if you use that 3rd party provider, especially to connect to SIAC, you pay a premium to have someone to blame other than the actual data provider. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:36 AM To: nanog Subject: Re: NYSE I would prefer not to use a third party provider because of the IP backbone. My experience has been witht eh third party providers is that there is not enough responsiveness (packet loss issues) to burstable traffic at market open and close. Unfortunately when the third party networks were designed there was no forethought into the need for market data traffic or multicast. Hmmm... well I happen to work in Engineering at Radianz. I can assure that our network was designed for multicast so that there are two resilient low latency paths for multicast traffic throughout our network in spite of the tendency of IP to have a single best path. And our basic design rules for network capacity worldwide are to allow for the bursts that happen at U.S. Market Open. The advice to go to a 3rd party provider who specializes in the financial services industry is a good one because we and our competitors tend to understand the special needs of companies in that industry. If you want to discuss this further with one of our technical sales support people, then send me an email and I'll put you in touch. --Michael Dillon IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: NYSE
You can no longer order direct lines to SIAC unless you have an extremely compelling reason. Nowadays you must order a line to SFTI which is their Disaster-Recovery-centric service. You are correct about the connection method, but he will need to be specific and understand that he wants to connect to SFTI and not just SIAC directly anymore. See: https://sfti.siac.com/sfti/index.jsp for more details. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alen Capalik Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:20 PM To: Philip Lavine Cc: nanog Subject: Re: NYSE On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:36:16AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote: If I where to connect to SIAC thru a SONNET ring who's would it be? Is it private or public? They use any provider (Verizon, MCI, ATT and ConEd Comm.), however ConED Comm. is their primary backbone provider. So, here's how you go about it. You order a line (DS-1, DS-3, 100Mb/s, Gig, whatever) from any of the providers you use (if I were you I would use either Verizon or ConEd Comm, I can give you the number for ConEd Comm. head sales person). You contact SIAC, and you start the paperwork to get your network connected into their backbone SONET. Once you get permit numbers, you have the provider drop a line into one of 5 data centers around NY area, and SIAC gives you a port on one of their Juniper Routers. They also give you a VLAN setup requirements so you can configure your border switch/router. The line is owned by you. SIAC only gives you a port on their routers. NOTE: NEVER ORDER ONE LINE. ORDER TWO OR MORE LINES TO DIFFERENT SIAC DATA CENTERS. The cost for one port (one line) is as follows: MRC (Monthly Reaccuring Cost): $4,400.00 NRC (Non-Reaccuring Cost i.e. one time fee): $8,800 Any line you drop at SIAC will cost you that amount, and that's on top of the line costs from the provider. That's it. Hope this helps. Like I said it's a very long and tedious process getting the line up and running with SIAC. They are practically a government institution, and they don't move too fast for anybody. --- R. Benjamin Kessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've setup a highly-redundant connection for one of my clients (equipment in two different access-centers in two different cities). What are you looking to do? - Ben ~~ R. Benjamin Kessler Sr. Network Consultant CCIE #8762, CISSP, CCSE Midwest Network Services Group Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midwestnsg.com Phone: 260-625-3273 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philip Lavine Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 2:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NYSE Does anyone have experience in setting up a direct connection with NYSE, specifically SIAC or SFTI? __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail -- Alen Capalik CTO Wiretap Networks Inc. Tel: (310)497-3512 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.wiretapnetworks.com /* * Anything that is considered impossibility, * will in fact occur with absolute certainty. */ IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: RE: NYSE
It's my understanding that A) The providers of the actual ring did install Separate fiber for SFTI but I have no idea whether or not they're in new rights of way - I'm willing to bet not B) Reducing the points of entry into the ring reduces complexity and makes it much easier to recover the ring in the event of a disaster. Understanding that SIAC has thousands and thouands of customers connecting at the DS-3+ level to get data that's generated from one place means that you need to keep the distribution uniform. Basically, it boils down to them being able to say Our ring is up, if your connectivity to our ring is down it's your problem in order to maintain fairness between Trading firm A that has 10 people and Trading firm B that has 10,000 people. When they were maintaining separate interfaces for each customer they could potentially run into issues where they'd get certain larger firms back able to trade sooner than smaller ones and then you create unfair market disadvantages. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:40 AM To: Temkin, David Cc: Alen Capalik; Philip Lavine; nanog Subject: Re: RE: NYSE There are a few things about the SFTI set up that are a bit baffling to me. From their website: SFTI carries IP traffic over a topology of redundant, self-healing fiber-optic rings, completely independent of all other telco circuits and conduits. SFTI's design is straightforward, consolidating traffic into fewer pipes, which minimizes complexity and reduces the number of potential points of failure. What does completely independent of all other telco circuits and conduits mean? Did they get their very own new right of ways dug out. A certain government report listed their physical fiber provider, and they certainly are not new right of ways. Further, I'm a bit baffled how reducing the number of pipes reduces the number of potential points of failure. Usually fewer pipes means less diversity. A ring is nice till someone hits it in two places. I also wonder how many of these rings are collapsed in a single conduit. I hope someone over there is asking tough questions and are following up on getting a second physical fiber provider. I'd recommend not advertising who it this time either. - Original Message - From: Temkin, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:45 am Subject: RE: NYSE You can no longer order direct lines to SIAC unless you have an extremely compelling reason. Nowadays you must order a line to SFTI which is their Disaster-Recovery-centric service. You are correct aboutthe connection method, but he will need to be specific and understandthat he wants to connect to SFTI and not just SIAC directly anymore. See: https://sfti.siac.com/sfti/index.jsp for more details. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alen Capalik Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:20 PM To: Philip Lavine Cc: nanog Subject: Re: NYSE On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:36:16AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote: If I where to connect to SIAC thru a SONNET ring who's would it be? Is it private or public? They use any provider (Verizon, MCI, ATT and ConEd Comm.), however ConED Comm. is their primary backbone provider. So, here's how you go about it. You order a line (DS-1, DS-3, 100Mb/s, Gig, whatever) from any of the providers you use (if I were you I would use either Verizon or ConEd Comm, I can give you the number for ConEd Comm. head sales person). You contact SIAC, and you start the paperwork to get your network connected into their backbone SONET. Once you get permit numbers, you have the provider drop a line into one of 5 data centers around NY area, and SIAC gives you a port on one of their Juniper Routers. They also give you a VLAN setup requirements so you can configure your border switch/router. The line is owned by you. SIAC only gives you a port on their routers. NOTE: NEVER ORDER ONE LINE. ORDER TWO OR MORE LINES TO DIFFERENT SIAC DATA CENTERS. The cost for one port (one line) is as follows: MRC (Monthly Reaccuring Cost): $4,400.00 NRC (Non-Reaccuring Cost i.e. one time fee): $8,800 Any line you drop at SIAC will cost you that amount, and that's on top of the line costs from the provider. That's it. Hope this helps. Like I said it's a very long and tedious process getting the line up and running with SIAC. They are practically a government institution, and they don't move too fast for anybody. --- R. Benjamin Kessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've setup a highly-redundant connection for one of my clients (equipment in two
RE: RE: RE: NYSE
You are correct. The rings are geographically diverse and separated (ie, they have separate rings for each metro and then tie the rings together in multiple places). No idea about the right-of-ways, but my understanding is that it wasn't necessarily meant to be a be-all-end-all for those sorts of outages. You are correct, however, it is one of the most reliable infrastructures we connect to. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Temkin, David' Cc: 'Alen Capalik'; 'Philip Lavine'; 'nanog' Subject: RE: RE: RE: NYSE My understanding is that the way the SFTI network is built the loss of an entire ring between Site A and Site B wouldn't cause an outage because Site B would also have a ring between it and Site C and Site A would be connected to Site n. I can't speak to how the fibers were procured and whether or not they're in their own rights-of-way (as another poster suggested; I'd guess that they're using previously dark fiber in existing bundles). Based-on the drawings I've seen (unfortunately, they don't appear to be on SFTI's web site so they must be considered proprietary) the multiple rings are separated in some places by several hundred miles to prevent the single back hoe incident. Aside from the $$ and the joy of dealing with SIAC (they tend to be a bit inflexible at times), the infrastructure has been quite stable in the 18 months that my client has been using it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:31 AM To: Temkin, David Cc: Alen Capalik; Philip Lavine; nanog Subject: Re: RE: RE: NYSE So, that would be a another conduit sitting in the same right of way, and this is supposed to make it completely independent. Last time I checked a backhoe treated all conduits the same. Not trying to shoot the messanger jsut trying to make a point. Points of entry is different than the number of pipes. The biggest single problem in the security of these networks is physical diversity, at least in my biased point of view. There are six different sets of right of ways in Manhattan and forty something fiber providers, but no one seems to fess up when they are not offering redundancy but just another pipe in the same conduit. Do the math and you see the problem. It is not just a SFTI problem but a generic problem. Just worrisome that it appears that SFTI does not see it as a problem, or worse view at as a problem they have solved by laying new pipe in the same conduits. The problem rears it head in several examples where effeciency and cost savings trumps true diversity. - Original Message - From: Temkin, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:11 am Subject: RE: RE: NYSE It's my understanding that A) The providers of the actual ring did install Separate fiber for SFTI but I have no idea whether or not they're in new rights of way - I'm willing to bet not B) Reducing the points of entry into the ring reduces complexity and makes it much easier to recover the ring in the event of a disaster. Understanding that SIAC has thousands and thouands of customers connecting at the DS-3+ level to get data that's generated from one place means that you need to keep the distribution uniform. Basically,it boils down to them being able to say Our ring is up, if your connectivity to our ring is down it's your problem in order to maintainfairness between Trading firm A that has 10 people and Trading firm B that has 10,000 people. When they were maintaining separate interfaces for each customer they could potentially run into issues where they'd get certain larger firmsback able to trade sooner than smaller ones and then you create unfair market disadvantages. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:40 AM To: Temkin, David Cc: Alen Capalik; Philip Lavine; nanog Subject: Re: RE: NYSE There are a few things about the SFTI set up that are a bit baffling to me. From their website: SFTI carries IP traffic over a topology of redundant, self-healing fiber-optic rings, completely independent of all other telco circuits and conduits. SFTI's design is straightforward, consolidating traffic into fewer pipes, which minimizes complexity and reduces the number of potential points of failure. What does completely independent of all other telco circuits and conduits mean? Did they get their very own new right of ways dug out. A certain government report listed their physical fiber provider, and they certainly are not new right of ways. Further, I'm a bit baffled how
RE: DS3 questions.
Title: Message With a box like the Adtran Atlas you'd be able to give them the PRI's and hand the rest off as a DS-3 or HSSI. -Dave -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew WeaverSent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:59 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: DS3 questions. We have a scenario where we have a DS3 at a Customer location that they want to use for both Data/PRI(voice) They need 8 Voice PRIs and they want to use the remainder of the DS3 for data. If we channelize this DS3, my question is, is it possible to use the unused portion of the DS3 as a fractional DS3, or would we have to terminate the rest as single T1s? Thanks, -Drew IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: No encapsulation command on IOS 12.2(12a) ??
Kind of OT for NANOG, you should go to cisco-nsp for these kinds of questions. However, to answer your question anyway you need an IP plus version of IOS to get 802.1q/ISL subifs on a 36xx router. That's only plain IP (c3620-i vs. c3620-is) -Original Message- From: Roman Volf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 5:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: No encapsulation command on IOS 12.2(12a) ?? Show Version: Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3620-I-M), Version 12.2(12a), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) flash image: System image file is flash:c3620-i-mz.122-12a.bin I'm trying to configure a FastEthernet sub interface for 802.1q VLANs, but theres no encapsulation command. I've googled it up for about 2 hours and have come up with nothing... the following command sequence is documented dozens of times: As shown on: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120 t/120t1/8021q.htm#wp3944 interface fastethernet slot/port.subinterface-number encapsulation dot1q vlanid Any help would be appreciated.
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
... And seeing as that all most switches are is a glorified multiple port bridge, feel free to go to your 7500 and make it a switch by placing bridge-group 1 on every port, and if you want to get really crazy and make it a L3 switch, go all out and put in a bridge 1 route ip. :-) -Original Message- From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:02 PM To: Richard A Steenbergen; Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond Richard A Steenbergen wrote: So a 7500 with a fast cache is a L3 switch? :) Of course. It does wire-speed switching with one and Possibly more CX-EIP6 if you enable dCEF :-) Michel.
Adjusting TCP windows on production systems?
Title: Adjusting TCP windows on production systems? Is there anyone in a production environment who, as part of their system build process, adjusts the TCP receive window/MSS/etc. on production systems? I'm dealing with a few latency issues and the MSS settings improve them, but I'm hesitant to suggest it unless there's something I can point to. -Dave
Address for making BGP changes w/ Qwest?
Title: Address for making BGP changes w/ Qwest? [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't work anymore. Is there anyone from Qwest on the list or can someone point me to where I'm supposed to be making these changes now? (Call tech support?!) Thanks, Dave
RE: dry pair
Order it as an alarm circuit... At least that's how VZ recognizes it in NY. -Dave -Original Message- From: Austad, Jay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: dry pair Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry pair between two buildings connected to the same CO? When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about. -jay
RE: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
Not that Yipes is necessarily a transit provider by any means, but they have done the same thing within the cores of their network. I was troubleshooting an issue yesterday that was pointing to them for 15-20% packet loss, and I called them and they stated that they started rate limiting ICMP last weekend, but that it was only on a temporary basis. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable future. What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? Cheers, Rich
RE: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear?
FWIW we've had FedEx destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of gear in transit (all shipped with full insurance and properly packed). They're extremely slow to pay their insurance claims on large amounts, as well. This has happened to us at least 5 times so far - cross-country, cross-state, and international. Choose carefully. -Original Message- From: N. Richard Solis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:27 PM To: Matthew Zito Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear? FedEx will be your best bet. Trust me. You COULD do a counter to counter shipment via an airline cargo desk. That MIGHT be cheaper but you will still have to transport it from your spot to their pickup and back again on the other side. Rail is not an option because it is across country. Ground/Highway is not an option because it is across country. Your only choice is by air. Use FedEx. Life is short. -Richard Matthew Zito wrote: Hello, I was wondering if anyone could provide any advice or suggestions on shipping heavy/bulky equipment (~300 pounds, about a half-rack worth of gear) on short notice cross-country? We're obviously looking to minimize cost, but realistically it can't be in transit for more than two days. Are there any companies or methods people would recommend? Thanks in advance for the help. Thanks again, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com
RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
True, but at that time you didn't have illegitimate traffic on port 80, either. Future engineering could be worked around this issue. -Original Message- From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:09 PM To: 'McBurnett, Jim'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim ... I really can not image legitimate traffic on 135.. My problem with this approach is that, in 1985, you could have said I really cannot imagine legitimate traffic on port 80. (On the other hand, you could probably say that today and be mostly right) Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: a new labor intensive layer 1 solution (humor?)
Which, ironically coincided with the time WorldCom bought UUNet. duck -Original Message- From: Christopher L. Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:05 PM To: Robert E. Seastrom Cc: Eric Kuhnke; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: a new labor intensive layer 1 solution (humor?) On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe thats an FN-FAL rifle, not a M-16... I wonder if telcom's could employ these folks to watch over their fiber lines to keep the backhoes away? It's a SIG SG550, not an FAL or an M16. well there ya go! :) I just knew it wasn't a m16 and was guessing toward the FAL due to language and stock appearances... been a few years since I spent time looking at guns.
RE: Fiber cut in PA?
According to Yipes it was just two customers affected - a landscaping truck caught fire and took out a spur at Route 30 Route 100... -Original Message- From: Nick Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fiber cut in PA? Has anyone heard any details on the fiber cut in PA affecting ATT, and possibly from what I understand Yipes and webreseller.net? From my understanding it's an auto accident, but beyond that I haven't been able to find any details.. Anyone? cheers, nick -- Nick Nelson// USA: 1-877-Lunarpages [EMAIL PROTECTED]//UK: 0800 0729150 Lunarpages.com // INTL: 1-714-521-8150 IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Latency generator?
Title: Latency generator? Does anyone know of any free, cheap, or potentially rentable latency generators? Ideally I'd like something that just sits between two ethernet devices to induce layer 2/3 latency in traffic, but am open to any options... David Temkin S-I-G 401 City Avenue Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: Minimum prefix length?
Back on topic... For those who mentioned Verio I found http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter which I forgot exists. Looks like they've changed it to a /22 for everything in Class A and B space. IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Minimum prefix length?
Title: Minimum prefix length? A few years ago I had an issue with a few of the larger carriers rejecting my routes (from a natural Class B space) because their prefix length was too short (at one point I simply had the /16 divided into two /17's and this still got rejected in some places). I can't remember which carriers exactly, but it may have been some larger transit providers like AboveNet/etc. Anyone know what the current attitude is by carriers about this? Nowadays with ever-growing memory and CPU it doesn't seem like it's as much of an issue. In an environment where we're all trying to conserve address space watching natural boundries doesn't seem all that smart. IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
FW: Minimum prefix length?
Randy - please stop sending these to me - you send me one every time I post to NANOG. If you don't like the signature that's appended to my emails (not by my choice), and the litigious society we live in, go ahead and block all email from me. Replies directly to you to stop sending me these emails have gone unanswered, which is why I am mentioning this here. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:34 PM To: Temkin, David Subject: Re: Minimum prefix length? you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal warning on who can read it, or how it may be distributed, or whether it may be archived, etc. i do not accept such email, and have therefore deleted it. do not expect further response. randy IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: FW: Minimum prefix length?
I'm glad to hear there is actually some precedent. As I mentioned to someone privately, I could go ahead and use a @yahoo.com or some other webmail service, but I prefer doing anything work related via email such as this officially rather than covertly. I may go ahead and switch at some point, though. Ironic, though, that you're 100% correct- that signature is going to be archived publically, which goes against what it claims. -Original Message- From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:51 PM To: Temkin, David Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Minimum prefix length? Whilst we're sidetracking... I took some counsel on this not so long ago to see whether these were just novelty signatures or if they were real legal stuff. Turns out they could actually be used legally, interesting I thought. Howevers its curious that signatures such as this claiming to be confidential are posted to a list which is very much public and archived in several public websites.. not sure how right it is to autoappend them to all your mails as well as the private ones! Steve On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Temkin, David wrote: Randy - please stop sending these to me - you send me one every time I post to NANOG. If you don't like the signature that's appended to my emails (not by my choice), and the litigious society we live in, go ahead and block all email from me. Replies directly to you to stop sending me these emails have gone unanswered, which is why I am mentioning this here. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:34 PM To: Temkin, David Subject: Re: Minimum prefix length? you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal warning on who can read it, or how it may be distributed, or whether it may be archived, etc. i do not accept such email, and have therefore deleted it. do not expect further response. randy IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses. IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: ntop and/or sflow
I find ntop crashes quite often under heavy traffic loads, moreso if you're using it realtime versus as a sflow/netflow collector, but even then it still crashes. Also, clicking too quickly on certain pages in ntop will crash the whole thing :-) -Original Message- From: Timothy Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ntop and/or sflow Is anyone doing work with ntop as an sFlow collector, or with sFlowtool to translate sFlow data into NetFlow data for use with other toolsets? Can anyone speak to the usage of ntop in a production network? Thanks, Tim IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: They all suck! Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)
Liebert makes one, actually. The model # escapes me, but we considered
using it for equipment that's single powered. (We have uber power
redundancy..)
-Original Message-
From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 7:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: They all suck! Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)
SD Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:53:43 -0400 (EDT)
SD From: Sean Donelan
SD Yep, tieing together redundant systems with parelleling gears
SD turns two independent systems into one co-dependent system. In a
SD failure situation, you want to compartmentalize the failure.
SD Loosing half your systems may be better than loosing all your
SD systems.
Too bad a substantial amount of equipment doesn't allow for redundant
plugins. The ability to plug { servers | routers | whatever } into two
totally separate power feeds is nice.
Anyone for building a rackmount transfer switch for two inputs? Assuming it
didn't fail (!) -- would the economies of scale work for or against it
compared to big transfer switches? Between dealing with _much_ smaller
current levels and the opportunity for mass production, what are the chances
of something like this working?
Eddy
--
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting,
e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its
attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of
this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly
prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or
should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or
sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or
her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as
to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein
or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: They all suck! Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)
Here you go:
http://www.liebert.com/dynamic/displayproduct.asp?ID=1042cycles=60Hz
-Original Message-
From: Temkin, David
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 7:49 PM
To: 'E.B. Dreger'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: They all suck! Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)
Liebert makes one, actually. The model # escapes me, but we considered
using it for equipment that's single powered. (We have uber power
redundancy..)
-Original Message-
From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 7:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: They all suck! Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)
SD Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:53:43 -0400 (EDT)
SD From: Sean Donelan
SD Yep, tieing together redundant systems with parelleling gears
SD turns two independent systems into one co-dependent system. In a
SD failure situation, you want to compartmentalize the failure.
SD Loosing half your systems may be better than loosing all your
SD systems.
Too bad a substantial amount of equipment doesn't allow for redundant
plugins. The ability to plug { servers | routers | whatever } into two
totally separate power feeds is nice.
Anyone for building a rackmount transfer switch for two inputs? Assuming it
didn't fail (!) -- would the economies of scale work for or against it
compared to big transfer switches? Between dealing with _much_ smaller
current levels and the opportunity for mass production, what are the chances
of something like this working?
Eddy
--
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting,
e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its
attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of
this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly
prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or
should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or
sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or
her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as
to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein
or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: fire at NAC
If by Fire at nac.net, you mean their Firewall promotion, here you go: http://www.nac.net/specials.asp#84 *duck* (I see no reference to a fire on anything off their system status/other pages) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fire at NAC Fire at nac.net http://www.nac.net Alex IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: level3 contact
Title: Message I sure hope this isn't the future of Genuity -Original Message-From: Steve Rude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:46 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: OT: level3 contact Can someone clueful at level3 please contact me about bgp. We are a customer, and phone calls and email have failed to get us a contact. Sorry for the OT post. Thanks. Steve Rude IP Network Engineer Skyriver Communications, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 858-812-9326 | office 858-945-1557 | mobile IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Comcast contacts?
Title: Comcast contacts? Does anyone have any contacts at Comcast that I might speak to RE: an issue that multiple users from my network are having with their comcast.net email via the web. Basically, starting last week, numerous users have reported that they get 'session timed out' messages as soon as they open their mailbox via the comcast.net webpage. I have no other issues with any other services. Thanks, -Dave IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Not to beat a dead hose, but about the Bank of America ATM Article
Title: Message ... some very interesting reading to follow up on the discussions that were had last month regarding ATM machine security and PIN storage. Turns out CitiBank has a serious flaw in their system that they'd rather everyone not know about. As well, as was noted, the PIN numbers are no longer stored on the cards. See the article @ cryptome: http://cryptome.org/pacc.htm -Dave David Temkin S-I-G 401 City Avenue Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: OT: Banc of America Article
FYI this is completely incorrect. I have changed my PIN with both my PayPal debit card as well as my First Union/Wachovia card numerous times without a single contact with a physical bank. See: http://www.wachovia.com/helpcenter/page/0,,2372_2705,00.html To store the PIN on a card, whether hashed or not, would be foolish. Do people really think that the ATM's of 15 years ago had the CPU power to calculate the hash of a PIN number on the fly? I know people who are carrying around 10+ year old cards and they still work fine. -Dave -Original Message- From: Krzysztof Adamski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 3:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Banc of America Article Since nobody has given the correct information about the PIN on the card I will give a very brief description. There are two types of PIN, natural and customer selected. The natural PIN is computed from the number on the card. The computation involves one way crypto keys. I don't remember the algorithm. For this the PIN that is stored on the card is . Now, when a customer selects a PIN, an offset is computed between the natural PIN and selected PIN. This offset is stored on the card. Based on this you can see that re-encoding is needed when you change the PIN number, most ATM will do that re-encoding. So unless things have changed in the last 4 years since I worked with this, you can not change your PIN over the phone without physical contact by the bank with the card. Personally I carry a card without any logo as my ATM card, at one point I had access to reader/encoder for mag strip cards and I programmed a blank card with the info from my real ATM card. No encryption involved. K On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Charlap wrote: Al Rowland wrote: The PIN is on your card ... Not for any card I've ever owned. I've changed my PIN several times over the years, and the bank has never re-encoded my card or sent me a new card as a result of doing so. Maybe some banks do store the PIN on the card, but I'm certain that it's in the server for ever bank I've used. I use a not-my-bank ATM in the lobby at work and it doesn't initiate the call (you can hear the modem dial) until you're beyond the PIN screen and are actually requesting a transaction. I'm not surprised. But the PIN is verified as a part of the transaction. I've occasionally mistyped my PIN. The ATM takes the mistake and goes straight to the menu. It's only after requesting a transaction that it comes back with the invalid PIN message. -- David IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: Banc of America Article
I think you're leaving out a very viable possibility in your summary... What if BoA took a proactive approach and shut down their SQL environment (even though none of us known conclusively if they're a SQL or Oracle shop) to verify that it was in fact clean and not compromised. When you're talking about access to billions of dollars, it's not worth taking a chance. They might have actually followed proper security protocol and verified their systems were clean before re-activating them. Just a thought. -Dave -Original Message- From: Alex Rubenstein [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 10:59 AM To: Ray Burkholder Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Banc of America Article Let me summarize, then ask a question: a) BoA uses the public internet for ATM transactions. The public internet was so dead, that every one of thier ATM machines was dead for many hours, even many hours longer than the public internet was dead. b) BoA uses it's own network for it's on ATM transactions. Somewhere on the a public to private connection, a firewall wasn't doing it's job, or there wasn't a firewall. Things were broken for a while, until they were able to fix all thier SQL servers. I guess my point is, if it were a), not every ATM would be dead all the time, and things would have been fixed in only a little while. Not many internet 'backbones' (at least ones BoA would have used for this application) were down as long as BoA's ATM's were. On the other hand, I think it's more likely that BoA had unprotected SQL servers, and they got it. It took a long while for BoA IT people to make it out of bed saturday morning to fix the problem. I still clearly say that I don't know what happened, and I did make assumptions (as I said in the original mail) -- but I'd still place my money on b). On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Ray Burkholder wrote: Actually, I think too many assumptions were made. Let's simplify. We know UUNet traffic capabilities were reduced significantly. Uunet has many big customers. Other big carriers had similar affects on their networks, probably particularly at peering points. We know many companies use public or private VPN services from major carriers such as these, and that both VPN types may use public internet carriers. I think therefore that the only true conclusion we could say is that if BoA's traffic was not prioritized, it therefore suffered collateral damage primarily due to traffic not being able to get through between ATM's and the central processing center. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Problems with UU-Level3 last night?
Last night I saw an issue with connectivity between a domestic site in Pennsylvania off of Level3's network connecting to a site on UUNet in Australia - latency was almost triple of what it normally is... Level3's response was of course We don't see anything - even with traceroutes showing otherwise. Did anyone else experience anything or hear anything about it? Latency is normally in the ~240ms range. 1 Loopback0.GW1.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.0.54) 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 2 321.at-3-0-0.XR1.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.3.89) 8 msec 8 msec 4 msec 3 so-3-0-0.TR2.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.48.145) 4 msec so-3-0-0.TR1.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.48.133) 4 msec 4 msec 4 0.so-5-0-0.IR1.SAC2.Alter.Net (210.80.49.150) 164 msec 0.so-1-0-2.IR2.SAC2.Alter.Net (210.80.50.142) 164 msec 0.so-5-0-0.IR1.SAC2.Alter.Net (210.80.49.150) 164 msec 5 POS2-0.IR2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (137.39.31.206) 156 msec 156 msec POS2-0.IR1.SAC1.ALTER.NET (137.39.31.190) 164 msec 6 0.so-0-0-0.TL1.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.114) 184 msec 180 msec 0.so-4-1-0.TL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.118) 156 msec 7 0.so-7-0-0.XL1.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.53.249) 172 msec 0.so-7-0-0.XL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.54.9) 168 msec 164 msec 8 POS6-0.BR5.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.52.225) 168 msec POS7-0.BR5.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.52.229) 156 msec 156 msec 9 atm3-0.core2.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (166.90.50.133) 496 msec 496 msec 492 msec 10 so-4-1-0.mp2.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (209.247.10.237) 492 msec 500 msec 492 msec 11 so-0-1-0.mp1.Philadelphia1.Level3.net (64.159.0.141) 572 msec 572 msec 564 msec 12 gig10-2.hsa1.Philadelphia1.level3.net (209.247.9.26) 560 msec 560 msec 564 msec 13 unknown.Level3.net (63.209.178.162) 560 msec 556 msec 556 msec 3 ge-6-1-0.mp2.Philadelphia1.level3.net (64.159.3.29) [AS 3356] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 4 unknown.Level3.net (209.247.8.66) [AS 3356] 8 msec 4 msec 8 msec 5 unknown.Level3.net (64.159.17.166) [AS 3356] 8 msec 4 msec 8 msec 6 102.ATM2-0.BR3.NYC8.ALTER.NET (209.244.160.162) [AS 3356] 8 msec 8 msec 8 msec 7 0.so-6-1-0.XL2.NYC8.ALTER.NET (152.63.19.50) [AS 3356] 4 msec 8 msec 8 msec 8 0.so-1-0-0.TL2.NYC8.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.169) [AS 3356] 8 msec 0.so-2-0-0.TL2.NYC8.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.185) [AS 3356] 8 msec 8 msec 9 0.so-2-0-0.TL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.8.2) [AS 3356] 464 msec 460 msec 456 msec 10 0.POS6-0.IR2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.117) [AS 3356] 464 msec 0.POS6-0.IR2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.149) [AS 3356] 80 msec 0.POS6-0.IR2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.117) [AS 3356] 468 msec 11 so-7-1-0.IR2.SAC2.ALTER.NET (137.39.31.209) [AS 3356] 468 msec 472 msec 468 msec 12 so-3-0-0.TR2.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.48.145) [AS 3356] 628 msec 0.so-1-0-0.TR2.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.50.141) [AS 3356] 624 msec so-3-0-0.TR2.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.48.145) [AS 3356] 644 msec 13 so-6-2-0.XR1.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.48.146) [AS 3356] 628 msec 624 msec 624 msec 14 311.ATM5-0-0.GW1.SYD2.Alter.Net (210.80.3.90) [AS 3356] 620 msec 616 msec 608 msec David Temkin Susquehanna International Group, LLP IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
