Re: 10GE CWDM
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Nitzan Tzelniker wrote: Hi, Look here http://www.btisystems.com/news/releases/Goldfield_Telecom.php These are XFP-based. Thus, not a solution to the problem above. Answer: Nobody's making 10GE CWDM-wavelength lasers. Why? I don't have enough knowledge of optical equipment, but my understanding is that it is because: a) Currently DWDM component suppliers already have a full load of orders and have problems scaling production - as evidenced by long lead times on any DWDM optics. b) They wouldn't be much cheaper to produce than temperature-stabilized DWDM optics. c) The demand is currently for amplifiable DWDM optics. -alex
Re: Great Suggestion for the DNS problem...?
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Brian Dickson wrote: However, if *AS-path* filtering is done based on IRR data, specifically on the as-sets of customers and customers' customers etc., then the attack *can* be prevented. The as-path prepending depends on upstreams and their peers accepting the prefix with a path which differs from the expected path (if the upstreams register their as-sets in the IRR). You are thinking about this specific exploit - which may in fact be stopped by as-path-filtering. However, that's not the problem you are solving. Problem is the hijacking. There are many other ways to reinject traffic closer to victim - will require attacker to work a little harder, but not really fix the problem. (Think, GRE tunnels, no-export, no-export-to-specific-peer, etc). snipped So, if the upstreams of as-hijacker reject all prefixes with an as-path which includes as-bar (because as-bar is not a member of any customer's as-set expansion), the attack fails. What's to stop me from adding as-bar into my as-set? To do what you are describing, you will have to enforce export AS-LEFT and import AS-RIGHT rules on every pair of AS-PATH adjacencies. And I'm not sure if existing tools can do that - or how many existing adjacencies fail that test.
Re: [NANOG] DWDM More Details
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote: Subscribe to Lightwave (at no charge) and look at the back issues for networks. Show up at Supercom or OFC or what is replacing them and get the latest on ROADM, full channel tunable lasers and maintenance costs. What size of network do you want to grow to before replacing the optical link equipment including ILAs? Most any org can cost justify a CWDM / CAN since you can add one fiber pair at a time and one lambda per fiber pair. DWDM gear is much more expensive and is aimed at 20 to 40 lambdas per fiber for service providers while UDWDM and ULHWAN are aimed at trans oceanic links and are very very expensive. DWDM gear is not expensive. Passive muxes cost little. Active transceivers cost money but not very expensive at all. Check out these two presentations (by yours truly et al): http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/lightning-talks/4-pilosov.pdf http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/presenter-pdfs/pilosov.pdf -alex ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [NANOG] DWDM More Details
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote: In your talk, I agree that the CAN with your CWDM is not that expensive but you also mention that the tighter DWDM with long haul optics is expensive ie Everybody knows how to do (active) xWDM by giving a lot of money to (insert vendor of choice]: When you talk about the tighter itu spacing for real DWDM and the lasers with fiber that can handle the power, jitter, chromatic dispersion et al. the optics you mention will not handle that. We have all duct taped optical systems on campus for the lab and across the state of Georgia see the Peach Net map. What is the largest number of lambdas you have actually run on a single fiber with your duct tape system and how bad was the optical cross talk? I'd be curious to ask reverse question, did anyone *have* real problems deploying duct tape systems, or power jitter chromatic dispersion is vendor mumbo jumbo designed to make you buy their gear? (within the distance limits spec'd, 80km dwdm etc) -alex ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Megaera wrote: I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list for years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've subscribed to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had been dumped too. Yes, there was an email prior regarding list transition from Majordomo to mailman. If you missed the email, it is here: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg07543.html Sorry about virus notices. Merit needs to change mailman (or MTA) settings to drop virus-infected emails instead of stripping/bouncing/whatever. If you'd like to discuss mailing list operations, you should do it on [EMAIL PROTECTED], not here. Thanks -alex [MLC chair] ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[Nanog] [admin] Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Jeff Shultz wrote: Mike Lieman wrote: On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 From: Mike Lieman [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how ATT owes everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. If it's impossible to hold ATT accountable for violating the Law in such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards would be ensconced in Law? Are we really going to get into politics here? I smell trolls. Yes, this is getting very offtopic very fast. Politics, philosophy and legal are explicitly forbidden on the list, and this hits all 3. Could y'all knock it off, please? Please see this for NANOG AUP: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html Off-topic: * Whining as in, so-and-so are terrible lawbreakers and they owe us. * Network neutrality (this has been discussed to death here) - unless you have something poignant to add and you've read in detail what has been said previously. * Anything political that does not have operational impact. * Anything legal that does not have operational impact. On-topic: * Operational impact of legal/political/financial external constraints. -alex ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog-futures] Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: I sincerely doubt that any backbone provider will filter at a /32. That means they have to check EVERY PACKET AT FULL IP DEST against your AS advertised routes. Since most backbone routers build circuits at the /18 and above mask on MPLS, just to keep up with traffic, I sincerely doubt Unfortunately our AUP doesn't allow warning you for having no idea what you are talking about. But I'd like to point it out anyhow. most backbone routers build circuits at the /18 and above mask on MPLS, just to keep up with traffic is, erm, wrong. backbone routers don't build circuits. they don't mask on mpls either. (how do you even mask on MPLS?) More serious reply is on-list. -alex [not speaking for mlc] ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] RE: Creating a crystal clear and pureInternet
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should politics/culture/society be on-topic? Or should we maintain this list as *internet operations* list. What is *internet operations*? In the telco companies that operate most of the Internet, operations does not include network design, choice of hardware, etc. It does include things like Trouble-to-Resolve, Service Management and the provisioning parts of the Lead-to-Cash processes. In these companies network designer who are not in operations, make decisions about the BGP architecture (communities, confederations, peering, etc). Sure. I always thought that NANOG's remit was broader than that, so if the term internet operations does not fit, and we want to have a list where people know and understand the AUP and rarely violate it, then we need to have a much clearer definition of things. It is not good enough to say that the MLC members understand it. Everybody needs to understand it. The original charter and AUP, which I had a hand in wordsmithing, were created way back when the Internet was run by ISPs, small entrepreneurial outfits in which people wore several hats. Some of those outfits were companies, some were embedded in universities or telcos or other large companies like IBM. NANOG tradition has been to have discussion that wandered over many areas analogous to the way a job description in an entrepreneurial outfit tends to wander over many areas of human endeavour. However, herein lies the problem. By becoming a 'free-for-all' (pretty much), nanog-list lost its operational focus, and folks who have actual operational responsibilities have ceased reading due to amount of junk - resulting in more banter than operational content, which will self-perpetuate as more operational folks unsubscribe as more banter is added I'd like to make the list relevant to operations, again. That means, increasing signal/noise, and part of that is decreasing non-operational noise. Perhaps we should split list into nanog-operational and nanog-offtopic-gripes ? Why can't we be more open about this and discuss things like the definition of the terms we use? How can we allow discussion to be reasonably broad as long as it is relevant and doesn't overcrowd other issues? Why can't we be more creative in the use of technology and do something like copy all message threads to a blog and have the moderators cut off wandering threads on the list while allowing the discussion to continue on the blog? MLC was discussing blogs recently. I don't think I like your idea - I doubt many people will post to blog, but frankly, as long as on-list traffic becomes operational, I'm all for that! What we have here is a failure of the imagination. (paraphrased from the 911 commission report) Why don't you volunteer for MLC? (serious question). -alex ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo. In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup with this autoresponder policy. Please don't confuzzle things. Was it an email *to* the list or was it private email to J.Oquendo? It doesn't matter what it was in response *to*. Private email between list members is not covered by AUP. In case this still isn't clear, if I send a private email response to someone in response to their list post that contains off-topic information, that's not the AUP violation. To insist that any email between list members need to comply to AUP is silly. -alex ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Program: proposed late start for NANOG SJC
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Todd Underwood wrote: the rationale for the switch is that the earlier meeting time does not allow for people to have substantial morning meetings prior to the conference and may cut into some evening meeting/business/socializing activities as well. several program committee members believed that the new schedule would fit our audience preferences much better and allow more people to attend the plenary session. Personally, I'm all for it. I like to work late (because of night maintenance), so waking up at 8am for 9am conference is tough. I think its the case for many others. -alex ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: mail operators list
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, William B. Norton wrote: I would suggest that it might be best to only put an MLC hat when commenting in an MLC role in a NANOG mailing list. That way, when an MLC person says, I think we have discussed this to death it is clear that it isn't an official stop discussing notice, and that their comments and/or opinions carry no more weight in that context than anyone elses. Otherwise, over time, there is an increased chance for ambiguity and interpretation. MLC hat is put on for identification purpose only. FWIW - I understand the challenge in getting a new mailing list of the ground is one of critical mass; like nanog-futures itself is only a small subsection of the nanog-l community. So chances are that another mailing list for mail operations may not get off the ground. It is equally plausible that it could turn into something that could require it's own MLC. Just the same, if enough people wanted to try it, I don't see too much of a reason why NANOG shouldn't facilitate this interaction among this part of the ops community with an experiment... I wouldn't necessarily mind the experiment. However, I think we should attempt the 'expansion' only after we bring the nanog-list into the good order (in some definition of 'good order'). For reference, keeping up with nanog-list itself (reading every message) takes 30 minutes a day or so. If this was mail-related list, it'd be hours. :)
Re: [nanog-admin] [Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center]
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Sean Figgins wrote: 1) Any auto responder message that is sent to the list will get the sender of said vacation message kicked off the list. They are welcome to come back when they fix their mail program 2) Any auto responder message that is sent to the owner email address will be treated as a bounce message, and the sender of the message will be unsubscribed according to the bounce policy. Again, they are welcome to come back when they have their mail program fixed. 3) Any auto responder message that involves two subscribers of the mailing list, but does not involve the list itself is not within the realm of NANOG MLC, and is between the two individuals. That said, if a mail program is sending a vacation message to the From: header address instead of the Sender, envelope sender or return-path addresses, then their mail program is broken. If operating properly, a list member should never see an auto-response from anyone that they have not emailed directly as either the To, CC or BCC recipient. Never should they see it if they are only sending to the nanog@ or nanog-futures@ email addresses. ^^^this case is the one we are discussing. The mail program is broken - does it merit removal of subscriber from the list until mail program is fixed? -alex
Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed
[please note - followups are set to nanog-futures, this doesn't belong to nanog-list. respect the reply-to header and reply to nanog-futures ] On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Deepak Jain wrote: However, a tremendous amount of time is wasted just by discussing these sorts of small problems. Plenty of people contribute to nanog daily and don't feel the need to complain about it. It seems to me, the ones who contribute in spurts sometimes separated by months seem to have to less to complain about. a) Talking often is not a measure of contribution to community. b) If we tolerate the annoying bounce emails, it doesn't mean we shouldn't fix the issue. That said, a very simple way to handle it is to separate your mail (whether its procmail, a separate mailbox, a + rule in your name, or what have you) to automatically catch these horrible autoresponders into a box that doesn't clutter your critical mail. I think that's how most of us do it. I think someone suggests the above everytime a discussion comes up. In the spirit of a very simple solution, everyone can be their own dictator of their own mailbox -- they don't need to protect the rest of the list, or develop a consensus for change. Just fix it for yourself. This is a time-honored NANOG tradition, at least when it comes to email. In the sense that a time-honored network engineering tradition is let others figure out how to deal with my broken routers/email clients/etc, maybe. But I don't think its a good tradition to keep ;) -alex
AUP modification - full first and last names
Currently, NANOG AUP states: 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names and addresses, rather than aliases. Occasionally, posters don't put in their full names (using either only first name or last name) and get a nice email from mlc asking them to please use their full name. It isn't very clear that using just first or last name is insufficient. The purpose is to ensure that community knows who posters are - we don't need any more n3td3vs or similar. However, just using [EMAIL PROTECTED] is (in my opinion) not with the spirit of the policy. MLC suggests to change the AUP to: 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and last names, rather than aliases. (I think address is superfluous here - by definition email address is identifiable and real). I'd like community feedback on this. Thanks! -alex
Re: AUP modification - full first and last names
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Cat Okita wrote: On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Barak wrote: I don't think the corner cases (people who get stalked, people who only have one name, etc) invalidate the general value of requiring that postings to a list ostensibly devoted to professional matters be associated with one's name. I think the corner cases (and preserving privacy and separation) are decidedly important - but it's easy to claim they're irrelevant if you don't happen to be one of them... Of course, I could be missing something... To : David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps I'm missing something here ; Is that your professional email address? *grin* There's no requirement to have work email address, just the names. :) -alex
Re: 24x7 Support Strategies
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: Vegetable oil can degrade much faster than diesel. What you really want is a large pond at the top of a hill, and another large pond at the bottom of the same hill. When utility prices are low, pump the water to the upper pond. When power is needed, have your installed hydropower setup allow water to flow through the turbine from the upper pond to the lower pond. In a city, a very large tank located at the top of the building and an equally large one in the bottom with a pipe between the two, should suffice. Remember that the head or height difference is a large factor in determining how much power a hydro setup can generate. I just wanted to give a little bit more perspective on above: 1 liter of diesel fuel contains approx 1WH. 1 liter of water pumped 100 meters up has a potential energy of .272WH It takes a *lot* of water to provide a measurable difference for a datacenter of any significant size... -alex
