On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt we'll ever see the day when running gigabit across
town becomes cost effective when compared to running gigabit
to the other end of your server room/cage/whatever.
You show me the ISP with the majority of their userbase
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a little hint - most distributed applications in
traditional jobsets, tend to work best when they are close
together. Unless you can map those jobsets onto truly
partitioned algorithms that work on local copy, this is a
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Frank Coluccio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Michael Dillon is spot on when he states the following (quotation below),
although he could have gone another step in suggesting how the distance
insensitivity of fiber could be further leveraged:
Dillon is not only
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that power and HVAC are such key issues in building
big datacenters, and that fiber to the office is now a reality
virtually everywhere, one wonders why someone doesn't start
building out distributed data centers. Essentially,
On 3/13/07, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
realize that nanog future's participants are not necessarily the target
audience for introductory materials, but people in your companies might
be. Would additional or different folks gets sent if there were
tutorials relevant to their interests
Joseph Jackson wrote:
I'm pretty new to the networking world. While I don't run a huge and
complex network in a service provider market. We're just an enterprise
network. I have read a lot of useful info about networking from the
nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the
Owen DeLong wrote:
This may be a nit, but, you will _NEVER_ see AC power at any, let alone
all of
the seats. Seat power that works with the iGo system is DC and is not
conventional 110 AC.
Is this your final answer? I've used AC power in lufthansa business
class. Makes the 8 or 9 hour
Matthew Petach wrote:
Thank you Matt, these notes are almost like being there. Excellent work.
Also Ted Seely at the peering bof? Shocked there wasn't a riot.
They're getting into the peering fray, and only a
year old.
This is gigs and gigs, has potential to dwarf
current peering traffic.
Randy Bush wrote:
but it will be a classic. if you can get and edit it, send
it to boing boing or /.
Pearls before swine.
that's what a number of i* members have publicly stated is their
opinion of talking to us operators. i saved in my mementos the
following quote from an ipv6 architect
Pete Templin wrote:
John Curran wrote:
Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the
receiving network even if its handed off at the closest interconnect
to the final destination(s).
And there's still revenue, as the traffic is going to customers (we all
filter our
Andre Oppermann wrote:
I guess it's time to have a look at the actual scalability issues we
face in the Internet routing system. Maybe the area of action becomes
a bit more clear with such an assessment.
In the current Internet routing system we face two distinctive scalability
issues:
1.
Andre Oppermann wrote:
vijay gill wrote:
Moore's law for CPUs is kaput. Really, Moore's Law is more of an
observation, than a law. We need to stop fixating on Moore's law for
the love of god. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, Components don't get
on the curve for free. Each generation
Richard Irving wrote:
/lurk
Maybe not, the depeering L3 is involved in is sort of like blackmail,
we can all thank the indicted ex-CEO of WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers,
for the modern peering There can only be one rule set.
Because you were there at the time Ebbers was going around? Do you
Richard Irving wrote:
Richard Irving wrote:
/lurk Maybe not, the depeering L3 is involved in is sort of like
blackmail,
we can all thank the indicted ex-CEO of WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers,
for the modern peering There can only be one rule set.
Because you were there at the time Ebbers
Richard Irving wrote:
vijay gill wrote:
There can only be *one* ! - WorldCom chant, Circa 1995.
WorldCom didn't know what IP SFI was in 95. Perhaps you mean UUNET/MFS?
Or, perhaps I mean Alternet, eh ?
Perhaps this is a rolex on my wrist, but they seemed to have made a
typo
Dan Evans wrote:
All,
Can anyone point me to information on what the top N service providers
are using for their IGP? I'm trying to build a case for switching from
OSPF to IS-IS. Those on this list who are currently running IS-IS, do
you find better scalability and stability running IS-IS than
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
It shouldn't be complicated. I think members are looking
for Operator experience. I don't think it's too hard to make that
easily discernable as long as it's fair.
Members aren't looking for Operator experience (sic). Members are
looking for talks that do not suck.
If you are an operator, would you deploy soBGP or something like it? If
not, why not.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/about/ac123/ac147/ac174/ac236/about_cisco_ipj_archive_article09186a00801c5a9b.html
/vijay
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
without wishing to repeat what can be googled for.. putting acls on your edge to
protect your ebgp sessions wont work for obvious reasons -- to spoof data and
disrupt a session you have to spoof the srcip which of course the acl will allow
in
This is why you either
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
provided your gear supports it an acl (this is one reason layered acls
would be nice on routers) per peer with:
permit /30 eq 179 /30
permit /30 /30 eq 179
deny all-network-gear-ip-space (some folks call it backbone ip space, Paul
Quinn at cisco says: Infrastructure ip
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:13:07PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can
do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion.
randy
try 172.128.1.1
/vijay
We here at AOL have noticed that there are still some people filtering
172.0.0.0/8, which is causing AOL subscribers to get blocked from some
sites. As a matter of general IP route filtering hygene I thought it
worth mentioning (again) to see if we can get this tamped down (or, better
still,
Petri Helenius wrote:
And lately, for reasons undetermined so far there has been instances of
both vendor C and J where counters suddenly go to zero either
temporarily (like 1,2,3,4,0,6,7,8,0,10,etc.) or reset altogether without
any reason.
Pete
I am unclear as to what Vendors C and J are.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 02:31:06PM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Link outages are higher than router failures when you
subtract human error RFO's.
Overall, fat fingers account for the larger percentage
of all outages.
See my preso at the eugene nanog
/vijay
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:17:41AM -0500, Jerry Eyers wrote:
Ok, let me throw some cold reality water on this discussion...
...
in the UK, the largest 'chemist' in the UK, built the largest
website in the world (2.4 million cc transactions/month with over 460
servers) and coordinated an
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:54:32AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
Except that, SPF records are as easy to setup for a spammer, as for
you and I. If the above is a spammer, then SPF for foobar.com will
list randomgibberish.comcast.net as an authorised sender.
SPF will absolutely not have any
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 12:14:54PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, vijay gill wrote:
But if instead of foobar.com, it is vix.com or citibank.com, then
their SPF records will not point at randomgibberish.comcast.net as
an authorized sender. That means that if I do get a mail
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 07:48:00PM -0700, Joe Rhett wrote:
vijay gill wrote:
Sorry, again YMMV but I had no trouble with this in either Taiwan or
Singapore, when I was responsible for support in those countries, Japan and
Korea combined. I never saw a problem calling between any of those
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:47:43AM +1200, Randy Bush wrote:
strongly recommended. or, as here in fiji, one can get a phone
unlocked for a few bucks (couple of guys on a bench in a street
stall).
Triband phones mostly operate on 900/1800/1900 frequencies. There is a
major US deployment of
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 06:23:31PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
At 06:04 PM 09/02/04 -0700, Joe Rhett wrote:
Also note due to fraud mitigation, most phones only allow you to call
within the country you are in or back to the home country, all the while
charging you an exhorbitant price.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:32:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how you run your lab nets, but if I have something on a lab net,
it still gets secured the same way as a world-visible machine would.
1) That protects it if ever I add a gateway machine that talks to the world.
--On Tuesday, July 06, 2004 08:46 -0400 Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Everyone running their cable wherever they want with no controls,
and abandoning it all in place makes a huge mess, and is one way
to think about it.
[snipped]
I believe the problem Vijay is referencing isn't throw
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 10:55:42AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote:
$5000 for an ethernet switch port? It makes me long for the days of throwing
ethernet cables over the ceiling to informally peer with other networks in a
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
/vijay
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 01:43:14AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (vijay gill) writes:
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
i think it's important to distinguish between things aol and uunet don't
think are good for aol and uunet and things that aren't
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 05:15:48AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be
had for $20 per megabit per second?
anyone whose applications are too important to risk dependency on OPNs
(other people's networks).
OPNs also carry some of the consumers of
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:11:02PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Crist Clark wrote:
But it has limited effectiveness for multi-hop sessions. There is the
appeal of a solution that does not depend of the physical layout of the
BGP peers.
Does MD5 open the door to cpu
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:42:07PM -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote:
vijay gill wrote:
Yes it does. About 5 mbit of md5 should peg a juniper at 100% according
to my friend alex. I have not verified this in the lab. I suggest
you try it out.
Also, this is why the GTSM (ttl hack
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 09:45:01PM +, vijay gill wrote:
infrastructure today - a large amount of PPS at the _router_ (with or
without md5 or tcpsecure) will blow it out of the water. A 10mbits/s
of packets at the juniper without md5 will also destroy it.
To be clear, I was just using jnx
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:30:38AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/prod_bulletin09186a00801abfda.html#wp55584
From Dave Meyer's NANOG 27 presentation:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/hack.html
Not bad - Feb 2003 till April 2004 to code,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:01:56PM -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
[ various journals ]
Any thoughts? Have NANOG powerpoint presentations made these sorts of
journals obsolete? :)
Powerpoints have a hard time matching the depth of a refereed journal
submission, because with the powerpoint,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:48:17AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly, the Internet has always had N+1 or better vendor resiliency
so IOS can have problems while the non-IOS vendor (or vendors) keep on
running. In fact, I would argue that N+1 vendor resiliency is a good
thing for
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:48:55PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is possible today. Build your own routers using
the right microkernel, OSKIT and the Click Modular Router
software and you can have this. When we restrict ourselves
only to router packages from major vendors then we
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:05:03AM -0800, David Barak wrote:
--- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would you know this? Historically, the cutting
edge technology
has always gone into the large cores first because
they are the
ones pushing the bleeding edge in terms of capacity
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:32:07PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
along. It might still exist. CEF was developed to address the issue of
route cache insertion and purging. The unneccessarily painful 60 second
interval new destination stall was widely documented before CEF got
widespread
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:28:09AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it be great
if routers had the equivalent of 'User mode Linux' each process
handling a service, isolated and protected from each other. The
physical router would be nothing more than a generic kernel handling
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:31:00AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
inject large volumes of email into the system? The existing
non-hierarchical email exchange network is not scalable.
I hope that everyone on this list can understand what the
email exchange overlay network is and recognize
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 08:47:54AM -0700, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Although in principle I agree with what you say here, I will point out
that the number and frequency of significant network outages
(excluding things like the recent power failure in LAX) has become
rare as compared to what
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:05:46PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
My questions are these:
Is sub-optimal routing caused by BGP so pervasive it needs to be
addressed?
that depends on your isp, and whether their routing policies (openness
or closedness of peering, shortest vs.
Stephen Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Optical switch technology, and the control systems that cause the
technology to implement the business rules of an exchange point, have
a ways to go before they're ready for prime-time.
We don't know anything we could do with 50ms provisioning without
David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With the rapid onset of an attack such as the one sat morning. Models
I have show that not only would the spare capacity been utilized
quickly but that in a tiered (colored) customer system. That the lower
service level customers (lead colored, silver
David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
was to pay for what you used when you used it. The biggest
technical factor was how the heck do you bill it.
Actually I'd think the biggest technical factor would be the trained
monkey that would sit at the switch and do OIR of line cards on the
router as
Al Rowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mention the effect everyone on AOL going to broadband and downloading
Disney clips all the time would have on their settlement plans with
backbone providers.
Of course, because you are definitely being kept in the loop regarding
the AOL settlement plans?
Avi Freedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many networks of sizable import have no capex budget, though - or
sometimes very little if no engineering resources. They all pay
attention to sales - and especially to RFIs and RFQs from the Feds,
though.
I suspect this will be a self correcting
Avi Freedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Routers must be configured by end of 2003 so that all packets
to the control plane must be logically separated from user
packets (or demonstrate the ability to take 200mb of attack
traffic to the router CPU without having an effect)
This at
54 matches
Mail list logo
