I heard that as well, as well as holographic processing...can't remember
who however, but Lucent (or whoever they are this week) or Nortel
(presently circling the drain) come to mind..
At 19:53 7/29/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Wasn't one of the major switch companies working on a system of bubbles.
--On Monday, July 29, 2002 21:32:02 -0400 blitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, I don't see OC768 coming online en masse until they get the
> kinks worked out of optical switching. The transit times are so short
> thru the innards, in the order of picoseconds, that electronics is way
>
Brad writes:
>I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance here (and my stupidity
in
> stepping into a long-standing highly charged argument), but I'm
> completely missing something. For reasons of redundancy &
> reliability, even if you were to buy bandwidth in only one location,
>
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:23:24 -0700, Pedro R Marques wrote:
>All of those are much more frequent than the failure of an entire ISP (a
>transit provider). It is expected, i believe, of a competent ISP to
>provide redudancy both within a POP and intra-POP links/equipment and
>its connections to up
> You cannot as easily be held hostage. I have consulted for
> a few ISPs and
> have my share of war stories.
>
> Here's a (true!) example. One day, a certain head of a
> fairly large ISP
> decided that he wouldn't route traffic to or from IPs he had
> assigned that
> didn't reverse re
(SNIP)
> > Currently, RIR's will issue an AS and will allow the issuance
> of a /24 to a
> > multihomed enterprise, simply on the basis of being multihomed.
> From this
> > point of view, it's easy to make the case that the proper "RIR-approved"
> > boundary for prefix filtering should be at the
>As far as tracking DoS, I've read some good papers on the subject and it
>always boils down to tracking MAC addresses and going interface by
>interface to the source, demanding inter-ISP cooperation, and finally
>legal assistance. This has been tried during a few severe instances with
>poor resu
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's the obvious solution to the problem if the problem is how to track
> down the source(s) of a DoS attack. However, in any DoS attack, there is
> always a victim and one or more devices sendingattack traffic to the
> victim. The owners of the a
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> > So, to restate the problem, how do we identify some of the sources of a
> > DoS attack quickly, maybe even while the attack is still in progress?
>
> Not a complete solution but a start:
> IP Source Tracker:
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/io
>> Not a complete solution but a start:
>> IP Source Tracker:
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120
> limit/120s/120s21/ipst.htm
>> Available as of 12.0(22)S for 7500 and 12000 series Cisco routers.
ah yes. the new enterprise image. :-(
> How many ISPs would identify the user of an IP address for the purposes of
> sending a "cease and desist" letter when contacted by a lawyer?
Despite 9/11, privacy still counts for something. It's rather dangerous
to give out private user information without a court order.
If one of our sus
> I think you may have misread my comment. ARIN ALLOWS the issuance of /24s to
> multihomed enterprises. The recent policy decision was made to allow
> upstreams to do this sort of allocation, without having to receive any other
> justification, other than multihomed status. This could seem to be
who make these kits nowaday? Had some contacts, but most of them
are gone. URL or contact email will be very appreciated.
--
Miguel Mata-Cardona
Intercom El Salvador
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe Junpier does have a OC-768 interface under testing if I'm not
mistaken...
Signal received 0. Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>
> --On Monday, July 29, 2002 21:32:02 -0400 blitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Seriously, I don't see OC768 coming online en masse
Compton, CA, US and Sealand would be the giveaways.
Best regards,
_
Alan Rowland
Who lives just south of Compton
-Original Message-
From: Scott Weeks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 4:31 PM
To: Williams, Ken
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAI
Not sure what you're looking for here. Phone jack converters?
Available at many airport gift shops and a Google search results in
http://kropla.com/sources.htm
Best regards,
_
Alan Rowland
-Original Message-
From: Miguel Mata-Cardona [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I have in the past single-homed to Level(3) and Verio, each in their own
facility in NC.
In that time, both carriers had about 1 solid hour a month of solid
downtime (some months were worse, some were better). Some of the outages
were on the order of 8 solid hours (verio) or 4 hours (level3).
We
I couldn't possibly agree more. In fact, my approach has been to create
a mesh between different Colo centers, and keep it at about 3 Transit
carriers. Because of the different methods of interconnection, I haven't
ever had a long-term outage. Also, I've been able to filter any issues
that are be
Yes their is a reason to some /24s advertised to the world. If this a
class on BGP they would tell you that was a nono, but since this is the
real world it happens and is sometimes required. It is required when you
need to give a customer T-1 access at a location seperate from yours and
has a sep
That is even worse than what we have been talking about. You should be
running a P2P T1 back to yourself, and distributing the access from a
POP, or have the carrier you're reselling the T1 for allocate a /24.
There is no reason to run BGP for a single /24 whatsoever, it should be
announced in Ca
I believe many are working on it, but I haven't seen/heard of much progress
since I learned of this, some 4 years ago now..
Add to that the bandwidth glut with all the DWDM and I guess they've got
breathing room...
At 09:34 7/30/02 -0700, you wrote:
>I believe Junpier does have a OC-768 inter
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Miguel Mata-Cardona wrote:
>
> who make these kits nowaday? Had some contacts, but most of them
> are gone. URL or contact email will be very appreciated.
www.rockstar.com is the current industry favorite...
Andy
Andy D
And my question is that a real oc768 or a Sears oc768. Like Cisco, sure
its a gig E port but oh wait, you wanted to use it for more than 200
mb/s?
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, blitz wrote:
>
> I believe many are working on it, but I haven't seen/heard of much progress
> since I learned of this,
I think an OC-192 network using 56K modems in the core would be a pretty
obvious giveaway as well.
-- David
Rowland, Alan D wrote:
> Compton, CA, US and Sealand would be the giveaways.
>
> Scott Weeks wrote:
>>
>> No, he's not for real. It's a satire in the likes of Bandy Rush and such.
>>
FYI, the technology seems like it might be available at the component level
(dated 3/2002)
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020313S0015
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020430/sftu082_1.html (april 2002?)
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/pcat/15808.htm (7/13/2002)
Deepak Jain
AiNET
> ---
"Mark Radabaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Obviously you can't keep leaving big 'reserved' holes in your
>allocations to downstreams for potential growth.
I've seen RIPE allocate /20s under the proviso that the customer use
the first /23 now and apply to use the rest of the space as they grow
Not necessarily. Don't forget that exchangecolo is in Hunters Point:)
so its not totally unusual for people to put their networks in the hood.
:)
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Charlap wrote:
>
> I think an OC-192 network using 56K modems in the core would be a pretty
> obvious giveaway as we
David Charlap wrote:
>
> I think an OC-192 network using 56K modems in the core would be a pretty
> obvious giveaway as well.
Yes! Sheesh. Nobody uses K56Flex any more.
Peter E. Fry
At 3:23 AM -0700 2002/07/30, Pedro R Marques wrote:
> It is my impression, from reading this list and tidbits of gossip,
> that the most common causes of failure are:
> - link failure
> - equipment failure (routers mostly), both software and hardware
> - configuration errors
Most l
At 1:23 PM -0400 2002/07/30, Derek Samford wrote:
> At the same time, I've been able to maintain aggregation of all
> of my routes, and maintain true stability in my network. There is
> absolutely no excuse to fill up the routing tables with nonsense.
Seeing as I don't under
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The owners of the attacking devices are accessories to the crime
> although I'm sure they could plead ignorance and avoid any liability. But
> what if they could not plead ignorance? What if we could identify some of
> the attacking devices, and w
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
> One more just for kicks. Client had a 100Mbps circuit from their sole
> provider (100Mbps to colocated router, DS3 from this router to their
> premises). The circuit had been in place for several years and the contract
> had long since expired. One da
Out of curiousity, when were MAE East/West ATM established?
--
Omachonu Ogali
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.informationwave.net
Patrick Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My first project, if network availability were a key issue, within any
> organisation would be to a) obtain [an AS number] and b) make use of
> it.
Heh. How many bits in an AS number, again?
Jim Shankland
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Jim Shankland wrote:
> Patrick Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My first project, if network availability were a key issue, within any
> > organisation would be to a) obtain [an AS number] and b) make use of
> > it.
>
> Heh. How many bits in an AS number, again?
>
*g
May 1998
>
> Out of curiousity, when were MAE East/West ATM established?
> --
> Omachonu Ogali
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.informationwave.net
>
limited trials began in very early 1998, and it was
formally available to customers in mid 1998.
- jsb
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Out of curiousity, when were MAE East/West ATM established?
>
--
Jeff Barrows, President
Firefly Networks
http://FireflyNetworks.net
+
How did people interconnect before may 1998, fddi?
Scott
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> May 1998
>
>
> >
> > Out of curiousity, when were MAE East/West ATM established?
> > --
> > Omachonu Ogali
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.informationwave.net
> >
>
> How did people interconnect before may 1998, fddi?
The MAE, later MAE-East, began as FOIRL, which was 10mbps Ethernet over
fiber. Later it was upgraded to a shared FDDI ring with Ethernet attached
segments; later still, a mix of switched FDDI and switched 100Base-T and
GigE. The FDDI por
>> How did people interconnect before may 1998, fddi?
fddi, some remote with netedge boxes at either end of an atm link.
There were some 10baseT connections too, there was at least one
low end Catalyst switch dedicated to plain ethernet.
Here is a big hint:
http://www.nanog.org/2.95.NANOG.note
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Mark Kent wrote:
> http://www.nanog.org/2.95.NANOG.notes/mae-west.html
"Milo believes that some day there will be a working B-ISDN
infrastructure. When that happens, there will no longer be a need for
interconnection points like MAE-WEST."
Or maybe not...
Charles
> -mar
Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
>--- Start of forwarded message ---
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick Evans)
>To: Jim Shankland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Newsgroups: jnx.ext.nanog
>Subject: Re: redundancy [was: something about arrogance]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Da
## On 2002-07-30 08:23 -0700 Randy Bush typed:
RB>
RB> >> Not a complete solution but a start:
RB> >> IP Source Tracker:
RB> > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120
RB> > limit/120s/120s21/ipst.htm
RB> >> Available as of 12.0(22)S for 7500 and 12000 series
43 matches
Mail list logo
