Re: Why do we use facilities with EPO's?
On Jul 26, 2007, at 6:59 PM, Randy Epstein wrote: I guess my point was that it's safer to power off a UPS system as best you can before you shoot water at it. :) Most likely you are doing this at somewhat close proximity, with step-down transformers nearby, etc. Somewhat true. An EPO not only shuts down the power feed to the UPS, but the UPS as well. Which is a good thing. The batteries still make pretty colors when you hit them and start bridging things that shouldn't be bridged. But if it's not on fire, it is usually avoided by the fire department. I'm posting on this as a 17 year volunteer fire department member as well as a professional (albeit part-time, with the rest of my time spent in network ops) fire marshal for a town in PA. EPOs are great, and as a fire marshal I like them (preventative) but they really don't figure in to the picture when I've got my firefighter hat (ok, helmet) on - because we just cut mains to everything, and generally know what we're looking at and how to handle it. Any building in any reasonably juristiction that has any real sized UPS most likely has not only a pre-plan so the FD knows what is where, but also at least annual inspections. Chances are good the facility also has to hold a permit for the number/capacity of the batteries in the unit (per IFC 105.7.2) and most likely the fuel storage for the generators (IFC 105.6.16). Even in your jurisdiction doesn't use that code, IFC and/or it's ancestors provide the model code that most of the US operates on, so chances are high there are similar restrictions/procedures/permitting requirements. Daryl
RE: Lazy network operators
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen J. Wilcox Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:02 AM To: Michel Py Cc: John Curran; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lazy network operators [...] Not being happy with the ISP's smarthost is not justification to run your own; you should change ISPs.. assuming we implement this locked [...] That's a super idea. Now explain how that works when you have access to only a single broadband provider. If you already thought of this scenario, you're seriously underestimating the number of people in this situation. Reverting to 56k dialup to solve a mail relay problem on your only choice for 3MB/512k service doesn't exactly sound reasonable. Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel (NY): +1 917 477 0468 x235 Tel (MI): +1 616 608 0004 x235 Tel (UK): +44 208 792 6813 x235 Fax: +1 215 862 9880 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
RE: Lazy network operators
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lazy network operators [...] A tier 1 provider in the SMTP mesh does not have to be the same thing as a tier 1 provider in the physical mesh. See the structure of the NNTP mesh over the years for examples. I fully expect to see specialized email peering providers arise who will have SMTP peering arrangements with the large email site like AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail etc. and who then arrange peering with large numbers of smaller sites who either cannot find SMTP peering locally or who want to be assured of alternate SMTP routes in the event their main peer cannot reach all destinations. Michael, I picked your message simply as a representative of this viewpoint. But can you ro someone who shares this idea please explain to me how this model accounts for compromised hosts sending their spam through the default MTA or using the default MTA setting son the host? After all of this trouble to get such a system in place, it's going to take the spammers 1/100th of the effort the operation community has put in to thwart the system. But maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong on this one. Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel (NY): +1 917 477 0468 x235 Tel (MI): +1 616 608 0004 x235 Tel (UK): +44 208 792 6813 x235 Fax: +1 215 862 9880 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
Broadwing Network Status Page?
One of my customers is experiencing what I'm being told is backhoe fade in the Philadelphia area. It's a Broadwing circuit resold by another party, so they won't talk to me directly. Does anyone know if they have a network status page? I've not found anything googling around. Thanks, Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel: +1 215 825 8401 x235 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
RE: more on filtering
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Parker Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:01 PM To: Alex Yuriev Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: more on filtering [...] I don't see how that is the same thing here. I have an agreement with cust X to provide services in accordance with my AUP. cust X resells that service to cust Y, etc. cust Y is bound to the terms and conditions of my agreement with cust X, despite that I do not have a direct agreement with cust Y. Oh christ...network engineers trying to be lawyers. I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by reference in the other. Daryl
RE: more on filtering
-Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:12 AM To: Daryl G. Jurbala; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: more on filtering [...] NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by reference in the other. Yes and no. If my agreement with cust X says that they take responsibility for ensuring that any customers to whom they resell my service (or any traffic they transit into my network, to be more specific) must conform to my AUP, then the fact that it is cust Y that originated the violating traffic has little effect. I can still hold cust X responsible. As a good guy and for good customer service, I will, instead, first ask X to hold Y accountable and rectify the situation. If that doesn't work, you bet X will get disconnected or filtered. I 100% agree with this (other than the first three words;) ). But legally, the agreement is not transitive. Legally it's YOUR customer only that is responsible to your AUP. It follows logically, but not legally, that your customer binds their customers to an AUP that is at least as restrictive as yours, or YOUR CUSTOMER will be in breach with you, if their customers exercise practices violating your AUP...whether they are allowed to in the contract with their upstream or not. I'm speaking legally only (yes, by random chance, I had my contract attorney on the phone when I first read this post). Logically, you're correctbut law != logic. Daryl
RE: Worst design decisions?
* How about the plastic stand-offs that hold the AIM-VPN cards in the 2600 and 1700 series. Yeah...the ones that DON'T come with your SmartNet replacement chassis and that you have the pull the entire board to release. * And how about this: Cisco: PICK A BUSINESS END ON YOUR SMALL OFFICE ROUTING EQUIPMENT. Most of my less clued customer like to help out and rack the equipment ahead of time. And it always gets done pretty side out. Yeah..the side with a Cisco logo and three lights. It sure does look like it should be the front, but it's useless that way. Maybe putting the power on that side would clue people in to the fact that it's basically useless to point that at the easy-access side of the rack. * PCs with built in Ethernet that is so close to a lip on the case, with the release pointed down, that you need to use a screwdriver/knife/whatever to release the cable. * Lack of proper SPAN support on 29xx/35xx series switches. Read only? I can live with it. No inter-vlan? Very bad. Does that make my worse design decision using Cisco CPE at my small customer/remote office sites? H Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel: +1 215 825 8401 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
OT: Alpharetta, GA fast turnup?
Sorry for the OT post. I've got a customer who is trying to move their office 30 days form now and can't get BellSouth to commit to moving their T1 (of course). If anyone has any info of alternate means in the area for T1-ish access please contact me off list. Thanks, Daryl G. Jurbala BMPC Network Operations Tel: +1 215 825 8401 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 INOC-DBA: 26412*DGJ PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
Northville and Ann Arbor, MI back on utility power
I'm getting happy pages about my sites in those areas since about 21:30 EST. Looking much better. Daryl G. Jurbala Introspect.net Consulting Tel: +1 215 825 8401 Fax: +1 508 526 8500 http://www.introspect.net PGP Key and Adobe Digital Signature: http://www.introspect.net/pgp
RE: North America not interested in IP V6
The reference to 70% of people in Europe having a web enabled phone made me laugh too... although I guess it could be true - my last 3 mobile phones have all had WAP capability, but I don't know of anyone that actually uses this feature. I actually use mine. But it's behind a proxy, as I suspect nearly every other provder's WAP gateway is. Daryl Jurbala
RE: rfc1918 ignorant
Ahhh...but this all comes down to how one defines enterprise and it's network scope. IANALBPSB (I am not a lawyer but probably shoud be) Daryl PGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp [...] That's not what is in my copy of 1918. In order to use private address space, an enterprise needs to determine which hosts do not need to have network layer connectivity outside the enterprise in the foreseeable future and thus could be classified as private. Such hosts will use [...]
RE: IPv6
Title: Message I guess that means vendor C has no excuse on the 7200 VXR series (and I believe a few of the newer models). But I still don't see anthing fantastically IPv6 happening there. Daryl G. JurbalaIntrospect.net ConsultingTel: +1 215 825 8401Fax: +1 508 526 8500http://www.introspect.netPGP Key: http://www.introspect.net/pgp -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:48 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: IPv6[.] Most L3 switches shipping today (e.g. the product in question) have particular ethertypes and destination address offsets hardcoded into their ASICs. It's not a matter of supporting 128-bit addresses -- they simply doesn't understand IPv6's header any more than they do DECnet or AppleTalk. While allocation policies may have an effect on how IPv6 FIBs are most efficiently stored, address length is a fairly small part of the problem when you're talking about redesigning every ASIC to handle both IPv4 and IPv6. []
RE: 18.0.0.0/8 RFC1918
Oh...must have been caused by a massive power drain from printing out copies of RFC1918. Now it all makes sense. Daryl G. Jurbala WorldNet Technology Consultants, Inc. Sr. Network Engineer Tel: +1.610.288.6200 FAX: +1.508.526.8500 http://www.wtci.net -Original Message- From: Matt Braun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:28 PM To: jcvaraillon Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: 18.0.0.0/8 A large utility outage followed by failures in secondary systems caused power problems in MIT's POP. My understanding is service has been restored. Matt From: jcvaraillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:02:40 +0200 Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is now = reachable. I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and 18.0.0.0/8 = was not in their routing table. Is it related to a major problem? Regards, Christophe
RE: Yahoogroups
Yes, 172.16 actually IS RFC1918. Where are you getting that lookup from? I don't seem to be seeing it. And I don't see how router mismanagement would cause a bad name resolution, but maybe I'm not understanding the situation fully. Daryl G. Jurbala WorldNet Technology Consultants, Inc. Sr. Network Engineer Tel: +1.610.288.6200 FAX: +1.508.526.8500 http://www.wtci.net -Original Message- From: blitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Yahoogroups Mail to yahoogroups for two days is giving some strange responses. Mail is attempting to go to 172.16.3.10 when sent to a yahoogroup. This looks real strangethat block is reserved I believe? Wondering why theyre resolving to that address? Router mismanagement? Poisoning? I dont know...but its causing some grief here... Yahoo is real lax in giving some human contact addy, perhaps the esteemed group here can shed some light... Thanks..
RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address
Title: RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address The page loaded pretty slow. Must be cloudy today. Daryl G. Jurbala Sr. Network Engineer WorldNet Technology Consultants, Inc. Tel: +1.610.288.6200 FAX: +1.508.526.8500 http://www.wtci.net
