what a morass of confusion. on the one hand we have a metro peering fabric,
which as linx, exchangepoint, paix, and lots of others have shown, is good.
on another hand we have a metro peering fabric, which as mfs and ames showed,
can be really bad. because we have a lot of hands we also have exc
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Pete Kruckenberg wrote:
> > Would be nice to see all tier-X service providers provide
> > more (working) knobs and response teams to help their
> > customers and peers track, diagnose and defend and protect
> > themselves against se
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Theres an increasing number of "psuedo-wire" connections tho, you could regard
> these L2 extensions an extension of the switch as a whole making it
> international.
> Where the same pseudo wire provider connects to say LINX, AM
Unnamed Administration sources reported that John Fraizer said:
>
> Does anyone know the answers to the following:
>
> (1) Why was this datacenter unmanned?
Why are CO's unmanned Saturday nights? ISP's?
Could the cost of manpower having anything to do with it?
> (2) If it was manned, how did
At 08:14 PM 1/9/2003 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> Well, first I think we need to agree that there are two different cases
here:
> 1) interconnecting IXes operated by the same party, vs.
> 2) interconnecting IXes operated by different parties.
>
> In the first case an IX operator can shoot himse
> Well, first I think we need to agree that there are two different cases here:
> 1) interconnecting IXes operated by the same party, vs.
> 2) interconnecting IXes operated by different parties.
PAIX has successful implementations of both of these (I count our
metro strategy as an instance of t
> Well, first I think we need to agree that there are two different cases here:
> 1) interconnecting IXes operated by the same party, vs.
> 2) interconnecting IXes operated by different parties.
>
> In the first case an IX operator can shoot himself in the foot, but there
> is only one gun and
On 9 Jan 2003 at 17:45, Swaminathan, Sekar wrote:
> Instead of Frame Relay frames, you have to look at the
> payload which is usually IP packets. Here is the formula
> that I would use: [...]
Specifying an "average packet size" is rough: I've observed that on
an "average Internet connection"
At 06:07 PM 1/9/2003 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> Where the same pseudo wire provider connects to say LINX, AMSIX,
> DECIX your only a little way off having an interconnection of
> multiple IXs, its possible this will occur by accident ..
and l2 networks scale s well, and are so well known fo
> Where the same pseudo wire provider connects to say LINX, AMSIX,
> DECIX your only a little way off having an interconnection of
> multiple IXs, its possible this will occur by accident ..
and l2 networks scale s well, and are so well known for being
reliable. is no one worried about storm
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> > The LINX consists of a handful
> > of distributed and interconnected switches such that customers are able to
> > choose which site they want for colo. Likewise for the AMS-IX and a handful
> > of other dominant European exchanges.
> The LINX consists of a handful
> of distributed and interconnected switches such that customers are able to
> choose which site they want for colo. Likewise for the AMS-IX and a handful
> of other dominant European exchanges.
Correct. Within the metro area. That is, as has be
At 10:35 AM 1/3/2003 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly-
> connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their
> customers don't complain too loudly.
> not that it's a bad long-term plan...
Actually, it
Instead of Frame Relay frames, you have to look at the
payload which is usually IP packets. Here is the formula
that I would use:
BW = IP bandwidth in bits per second (bps)
PS = average IP packet size; typically 256 bytes
AO = AAL5 Overhead = 8 bytes
OH = overhead factor
Ceilin
Im finding it reachable at the moment. But MSN messenger just
started having problems again. 18:29. Let's see if it disappears
quickly this time. They may be cutting something over.
David
At 14:22 -0800 1/9/03, Matt Thoene wrote:
On Thursday, January 9, 2003 @ 2:11:02 PM [-0700], Oscar Vald
On Thursday, January 9, 2003 @ 2:11:02 PM [-0700], Oscar Valdez wrote:
> some problem with www.hotmail.com right now???
> the page doesnt open.
I believe the problem is not at the destination but somewhere in between...
8 gar1-p360.stwwa.ip.att.net (12.123.203.169) 30.418 ms 30.371 ms 30.32
some problem with www.hotmail.com right now???
the page doesnt open.
--
Oscar
I'm trying to locate a tool (eg, spreadsheet) to convert throughput
on a frame circuit to an ATM circuit. So, for example if you have
a 512k CIR with burst to 1024k and 80% of the time you get your
burst bandwidth and you want to convert that link to ATM,
what corresponding SCR/PCR/MBS values woul
In the real world, auto-negotiation on fiber vs. auto-negotiation on copper
have been two different animals. Most of the compatibility issues result
from 10/100 auto-negotiation on copper as this was the first major
deployment of the technique in Ethernet devices.
Most devices engineered recentl
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
:Its 2003 and everyone is making their predictions. What trends are
:network operators seeing for Internet security?
- Backdoors will be found in every major OS after they have been shipped
on disk.
- More reports of trojaned packages.
- Resurgance
I realize that this is skirting the edge of operational, but I
think it is notable that Verios security policy and incident
response allowed for an entire ISP to be disconnected at
their discretion.
I suppose that any ISP can turn off a connection they deem
a threat to the rest of their oper
> They took the _medical records_ of _half a million_ US _soldiers_ and
> their families.
>
> Regardless of the identity-theft aspect, it's hard to imagine them not
> seeing a lucrative aftermarket for that batch of data.
And just think, courtesy the USA "Patriot" act, next time it won't
just
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, David Lesher wrote:
> Don't recall if NANOG mentioned it, but mid-December someone broke
> into a DOD-contractor HMO's server farm; and stole all the drives.
> It was clearly an organized identity theft. They got 500,000
> names, medical records and SSNs.
Verio appears to have had a number of problems
yesterday: We noticed a tremendous packet loss
spike and a loss in "reachability" to various sites.
Verio states that it had issues [!] with www1501 and
that "customers in Boca Raton" may have experienced
delays.
Anyone know what happened?
Pet
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Pete Kruckenberg wrote:
> Would be nice to see all tier-X service providers provide
> more (working) knobs and response teams to help their
> customers and peers track, diagnose and defend and protect
> themselves against security attacks.
Symantec charges between $1,000-$2,00
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Arent these more the attack trends of tier-3 providers and not network
> > operators.
>
> Maybe. I don't see too many tier-1 network operators
> attacking other tier-1 network operators. The trend I
> conti
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Sean Donelan said:
> There are lots of interesting problems, but I don't know if 2003 is
> the year. DOS is just too much fun.
>
> Route hijacks/bogus origins
> Compromised infrastructure
> MLPS alteration
> Authentication attacks
>
If you haven't seen it regarding last weeks outage:
Microsoft: Human Error Was The Cause Of Five-Hour Instant Message
Outage
The service went out due to configuration errors when setting up new
routers that were -- ironically enough -- installed to make the
service more reliable.
http://updat
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Arent these more the attack trends of tier-3 providers and not network
> operators.
Maybe. I don't see too many tier-1 network operators attacking other
tier-1 network operators. The trend I continue to see affecting network
operators is customer sec
29 matches
Mail list logo
