Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Kevin Graham wrote: Indeed. Capacity upgrades are best gauged by drop rates; bit-rates without this context are largely useless. If you're dropping packets, you're already over the cliff. Our job as ISP is to forward the packets our customers send to us, how is that compatible with upgrading links when they're so full that you're not only buffering but you're actually DROPPING packets? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
> So, in summary: Your dropped packet counters are the ones to be looking at > as a measure of goodput, more than your utilization counters. Indeed. Capacity upgrades are best gauged by drop rates; bit-rates without this context are largely useless. When you're only aware of the RX side though, in the absence of an equivalent to BECN, what's the best way to track this? Do any of the Ethernet OAM standards expose this data? Similarly, could anyone share experiences with transit link upgrades to accommodate bursts? In the past, any requests to transit providers have been answered w/ the need for significant increases to 95%ile commits. While this makes sense from a sales perspective, there's a strong (but insufficient) engineering argument against it.
RE: Ready to get your federal computer license?
Sean, We had a clipped conversation years ago. I'm no longer with the DIA or the NSA or the ASA (an old '70's agency) I've worked at Columbia University in the 80's, the NSA in the 70's, and a lot of other places in the 90's and beyond. Because of my past, I have to "lurk"... However, and you must be getting tired after all these years but, please, keep interjecting your points. My 2 cents Best Ed -Original Message- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:s...@donelan.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:46 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Ready to get your federal computer license? On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Jeff Young wrote: > The more troubling parts of this bill had to do with the President, > at his discretion, classifying parts of public networks as "critical > infrastructure" and so on. Whatever your opinion, get involved. Let your representatives know about your better ideas. > currently living overseas and finding all of this very amusing... If any other country has solved the problem of protecting Internet/data/cyber/critical/etc infrastructures and have some great ideas, it would be great to hear what those ideas are and how they did it.
Re: picking up server vendor in a global scope..
Mehmet Akcin wrote: If you were to compare brands such as Dell, IBM, HP, Supermicro (or any other vendor?) which one you would recommend for this kind of approach? loadbalancer.org picked supermicro and dell. Their Dell option has better US support. They partnered with local companies in the US for build/ship. I've been happy with the supermicro and standard support, though. Jack
picking up server vendor in a global scope..
Hey, Let's say you want to pick a server vendor and you don't necessarily want to buy from one country and ship it to 50 different locations but instead buy them locally in each country, and also have local parties provide support. If you were to compare brands such as Dell, IBM, HP, Supermicro (or any other vendor?) which one you would recommend for this kind of approach? The server specs are fairly standard. Nothing extraordinary.. and expected support isn't also 7/24/365 but a decent next day -5 hours M- F type of deal.. thanks for responses.. Mehmet
Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
Holmes,David A wrote: runs with good values on all 3 measures (low RTT, little or no packet loss, low jitter with small inter-packet arrival variation) can be deemed not a candidate for bandwidth upgrades. The key to active Sounds great, unless you don't own the router on the other side of the link which is subject to icmp filtering has a loaded RE, etc. If you pass the traffic through the routers to a reliable server, you'll be monitoring multiple links/routers and not just a single one. Jack
FCC's Definition of Broadband
All, I am forwarding this on for Susan Estrada with FirstMile.US, a fellow ISOC'er: FirstMile.US has formulated a survey for the tech community. The responses will be complied and sent to the FCC as a formal comment in the reply round to the FCC's "Comment Sought on Defining Broadband, NBP Public Notice #1." It's vital that the tech community respond. We know that it is almost impossible to free up the time to write an individual response. Hence, this survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=VNQhAteAwZ0JZHpFHky_2bTQ_3d_3d Twitter length: Take this FirstMile.US survey on the FCC definition of broadband. Responses will be submitted in the FCC reply round. http://bit.ly/CFnYR Please urge your colleagues to take 2 minutes and provide their very important opinions. The survey closes at 5 pm Pacific on September 7. The response to the FCC will be sent on September 8. Here is Susan's contact info: Susan Estrada FirstMile.US Big Broadband Everywhere Phone: 760-510-8406 x1 Web: http://www.firstmile.us Blog: http://demandbroadband.blogspot.com Thanks all! ~Chris -- Chris Grundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold
> do any router vendors provide something akin to hardware latches to > keep > track of highest buffer fill levels? poll as frequently/infrequently > as > you like... Without getting into each permutation of a device's architecture, aren't buffer fills really just buffer drops? There are means to determine this. Lots of vendors have configurable buffer pools for inter-device traffic levels that record high water levels as well. Deepak Jain AiNET
Re: Issues with Gmail
Back up .. Nairobi Kenya. On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > On 2009-09-01, at 4:34 PM, James Downs wrote: > > >> On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Dominic J. Eidson wrote: >> >> It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail >>> (the MDA). >>> >>> Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS. >>> >> >> Same thing here in the US. Pop/Imap access remains solid. I never use >> the web interface. >> >> -j >> >> > Google's 4:02 PM App Status update specifically said IMAP and POP were > unaffected. > > http://www.google.com/appsstatus#rm=1&di=1&hl=en > -- Samson Oduor
RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold
Another approach to collecting buffer utilization is to infer such utilization from other variables. Active measurement of round trip times (RTT), packet loss, and jitter on a link-by-link basis is a reliable way of inferring interface queuing which leads to packet loss. A link that runs with good values on all 3 measures (low RTT, little or no packet loss, low jitter with small inter-packet arrival variation) can be deemed not a candidate for bandwidth upgrades. The key to active measurement is random measurement of the links so as to catch the bursts. The BRIX active measurement product (now owned by EXFO) is a good active measurement tool which randomizes probe data so as to, over time, collect a randomized sample of link behavior. -Original Message- From: Aaron J. Grier [mailto:agr...@poofygoof.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:19 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:55:45AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >In order to get a really good idea of what's going on at a microburst > >level, you would need to poll as often as it takes to fill the buffer > >of the port in question. This is not feasible in the general case, > >which is why we resort to hacks like QoS to make sure that when there > >is congestion, it is handled semi-sensibly. > > Or some enterprising vendor could start recording utilisation stats? do any router vendors provide something akin to hardware latches to keep track of highest buffer fill levels? poll as frequently/infrequently as you like... -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agr...@poofygoof.com
Re: Issues with Gmail
On 2009-09-01, at 4:34 PM, James Downs wrote: On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Dominic J. Eidson wrote: It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail (the MDA). Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS. Same thing here in the US. Pop/Imap access remains solid. I never use the web interface. -j Google's 4:02 PM App Status update specifically said IMAP and POP were unaffected. http://www.google.com/appsstatus#rm=1&di=1&hl=en
Re: Issues with Gmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 u...@3.am wrote: > > pop.gmail.com is answering on port 995 (pop3 ssl) as well, so I think > it's safe to assume this is probably a httpd-side problem. > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Jeff Kell wrote: > Google says they have issues with gmail: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/todays-gmail-problems.html - -- Jon R. Kibler Chief Technical Officer Advanced Systems Engineering Technology, Inc. Charleston, SC USA o: 843-849-8214 c: 843-813-2924 (NEW!) s: 843-564-4224 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonrkibler My PGP Fingerprint is: BAA2 1F2C 5543 5D25 4636 A392 515C 5045 CF39 4253 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkqdi1sACgkQUVxQRc85QlOAuACgn10QwyDFjGkMmsf8EmU3FO7Q MJgAn3364ABeTm+MyrCQqDiZMVOAXwS+ =iCs+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- == Filtered by: TRUSTEM.COM's Email Filtering Service http://www.trustem.com/ No Spam. No Viruses. Just Good Clean Email.
Re: Issues with Gmail
As a government-employed computer security guy who has never owned or worn a suit OR tie, I feel entitled to ask... WTF? Nick Hilliard wrote: On 01/09/2009 21:01, Jim Wininger wrote: Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? Down, definitely down. Call the White House! It should be clear that the root cause here is a lack of regulation, so could someone phone Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) _urgently_ and advise him that the only way to stop problems like this happening in future is to ensure that the government has a firm grip of the steering wheel at all these web2.0 companies. Also, rather than letting these trendy, fashionable Googlers attempt to fix critical systems like gmail, that real service problems like this ought to be fixed by accredited cyber security professionals, preferably ones which can demonstrate their computing ability by wearing a suit and tie. If we've learned anything in the telecommunications world, it's that if any organisation can respond quickly to a problem and deal with it efficiently and effectively, it's a Government. Nick
Re: Issues with Gmail
pop.gmail.com is answering on port 995 (pop3 ssl) as well, so I think it's safe to assume this is probably a httpd-side problem. On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Jeff Kell wrote: m...@sabbota.com wrote: I think it just may be front end services that are impacted. I'm able to send/receive mail through my BB BIS gmail account. IMAP seems to still be up. Jeff James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor u...@3.am http://3.am =
Re: Re: Issues with Gmail
access via igoogle via a web client works as well ... On Sep 1, 2009 4:25pm, Glenn Johnson wrote: FWIW: http://gmail.com doesn't work for me either right now, but I've read the whole "Issues with Gmail" thread and posted this email via GMail POP and GMail SMTP glenn.s.john...@gmail.com On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Scott Brown/Clack/ESD wrote: Gmail and Google Apps are down in our neck of the woods. -- Scott From: Jim Wininger jwinin...@indianafiber.net> To: nanog@nanog.org> Date: 09/01/2009 01:02 PM Subject: Issues with Gmail Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger
Re: Issues with Gmail
On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Dominic J. Eidson wrote: It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail (the MDA). Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS. Same thing here in the US. Pop/Imap access remains solid. I never use the web interface. -j
Re: Issues with Gmail
Working on my BB here. Acct with rogers in canada but right now on ATT in Vegas --Original Message-- From: Jeff Kell To: m...@sabbota.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Issues with Gmail Sent: Sep 1, 2009 4:25 PM m...@sabbota.com wrote: > I think it just may be front end services that are impacted. I'm able to > send/receive mail through my BB BIS gmail account. IMAP seems to still be up. Jeff Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
Re: Issues with Gmail
On 01/09/2009 21:01, Jim Wininger wrote: Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? Down, definitely down. Call the White House! It should be clear that the root cause here is a lack of regulation, so could someone phone Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) _urgently_ and advise him that the only way to stop problems like this happening in future is to ensure that the government has a firm grip of the steering wheel at all these web2.0 companies. Also, rather than letting these trendy, fashionable Googlers attempt to fix critical systems like gmail, that real service problems like this ought to be fixed by accredited cyber security professionals, preferably ones which can demonstrate their computing ability by wearing a suit and tie. If we've learned anything in the telecommunications world, it's that if any organisation can respond quickly to a problem and deal with it efficiently and effectively, it's a Government. Nick
Re: POP3 DoS attacks and mailanyone.net?
Hummm. Looking through some of my data I found that the domain NORTHROANOKE.COM resolves to 98.190.204.2 (the first attack vector). That box is running Microsoft Business Server 2003. NORTHROANOKE.COM appears to be some kind of assisted living facility in Roanoke, Virginia (based on whois). Doesn't look gmail related from that perspective... Andrew Andrew Fried andrew.fr...@gmail.com Winn Johnston wrote: > Issues with gmail.com > > here in DC > > Winn Johnston > > From: u...@3.am [...@3.am] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:28 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: POP3 DoS attacks and mailanyone.net? > > For the first time since I can remember, my POP3 server was effectively > shut down by too many simultaneous connections today. The first fix I > tried was to raise the number of connections from the default 40 to 100, > but the problem soon returned. > > I finally ipfw'd off the offending IP (98.190.204.2 for anyone > interested), then went to look for other possible offenders in the log. I > noticed several thousand connections today to a few dozen former users > from 4 IPs from 208.70.128.0/21. One of the users was actually > legitimate. > > These IPs belong to mailanyone.net. The tech contact in their ARIN record > is listed as: > > OrgTechHandle: BHE57-ARIN > OrgTechName: Heitman, Bryan > OrgTechPhone: +1-816-587-4700 > OrgTechEmail: hostmas...@mailanyone.net > > However, that phone number goes to a UPS store that has no idea what I'm > talking about. I then dialed their suppseod NOC number: > > Comment:FuseMail, LLC Network Operations Center contact > Comment:877.888.3873 x3 > > I am on hold with that number right now with some very loud and annoying > music. > > Can anyone offer any insight as to these people and how/who to deal with > there? > > Would a provider be amiss to just block their entire /21? > > TIA, > > James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor > u...@3.am http://3.am > = > > > __ > This inbound email was scanned by MessageLabs > _ > > __ > This email was scanned by MessageLabs > _ >
Re: Issues with Gmail
Seems to work with IMAP/SMTP, but no luck on the web UI in boston. On Sep 1, 2009, at 4:14 PM, m...@sabbota.com wrote: I think it just may be front end services that are impacted. I'm able to send/receive mail through my BB BIS gmail account. --Original Message-- From: Nathan Anderson To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Issues with Gmail Sent: Sep 1, 2009 2:05 PM The minute I saw your question, I tabbed over to an open session, and sure enough... -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com -Original Message- From: Jim Wininger [mailto:jwinin...@indianafiber.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Issues with Gmail Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Re: Issues with Gmail
Dominic J. Eidson wrote: It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail (the MDA). Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS. - d. On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Kameron Gasso wrote: Jim Wininger wrote: Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? Yep, it's been throwing 502 HTTP errors for about 25 minutes now. We've been getting a handful of calls from frantic Gmail users wondering why we broke their interwebs. ;) Works fine from chicago via imap
RE: Issues with Gmail
Kameron Gasso wrote: > Yep, it's been throwing 502 HTTP errors for about 25 minutes now. > We've been getting a handful of calls from frantic Gmail users > wondering why we broke their interwebs. ;) Somehow it's always our fault, isn't it? :P (Sorry about the earlier top-posting...have been forced to switch to Outlook, and just discovered Outlook QuiteFix.) -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com
Re: Issues with Gmail
FWIW: http://gmail.com doesn't work for me either right now, but I've read the whole "Issues with Gmail" thread and posted this email via GMail POP and GMail SMTP glenn.s.john...@gmail.com On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Scott Brown/Clack/ESD wrote: Gmail and Google Apps are down in our neck of the woods. -- Scott From: Jim Wininger To: Date: 09/01/2009 01:02 PM Subject:Issues with Gmail Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger
Re: Issues with Gmail
m...@sabbota.com wrote: > I think it just may be front end services that are impacted. I'm able to > send/receive mail through my BB BIS gmail account. IMAP seems to still be up. Jeff
Re: Issues with Gmail
From Spint EVD0 I get Unable to reach Gmail. Please check your internet connection. Trying to reconnect now… Marshall On Sep 1, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: Jim Wininger wrote: Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? More specifically? -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Re: Issues with Gmail
Jim Wininger wrote: > Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? http://mail.google.com/support/?hl=en -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Issues with Gmail
Same here. Complete outage Nathan Anderson wrote: > The minute I saw your question, I tabbed over to an open session, and sure > enough... >
Re: Issues with Gmail
I think it just may be front end services that are impacted. I'm able to send/receive mail through my BB BIS gmail account. --Original Message-- From: Nathan Anderson To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Issues with Gmail Sent: Sep 1, 2009 2:05 PM The minute I saw your question, I tabbed over to an open session, and sure enough... -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com -Original Message- From: Jim Wininger [mailto:jwinin...@indianafiber.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Issues with Gmail Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Re: Issues with Gmail
Yup, it's down. http://thenextweb.com/2009/09/01/google-experiencing-downtime-world/# http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en Been down for the past twenty minutes or so for me in Chapel Hill, NC. Other Google services seem to be working fine. Shaddi On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:01:46 -0400, Jim Wininger wrote: > Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Re: Issues with Gmail
It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail (the MDA). Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS. - d. On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Kameron Gasso wrote: Jim Wininger wrote: Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? Yep, it's been throwing 502 HTTP errors for about 25 minutes now. We've been getting a handful of calls from frantic Gmail users wondering why we broke their interwebs. ;) -- Dominic J. Eidson "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli http://www.dominiceidson.com/
Re: Issues with Gmail
Gmail and Google Apps are down in our neck of the woods. -- Scott From: Jim Wininger To: Date: 09/01/2009 01:02 PM Subject:Issues with Gmail Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger
Re: Issues with Gmail
Jim Wininger wrote: Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? More specifically? -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
RE: Issues with Gmail
The minute I saw your question, I tabbed over to an open session, and sure enough... -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com -Original Message- From: Jim Wininger [mailto:jwinin...@indianafiber.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Issues with Gmail Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger
Re: Issues with Gmail
Jim Wininger wrote: > Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? Yep, it's been throwing 502 HTTP errors for about 25 minutes now. We've been getting a handful of calls from frantic Gmail users wondering why we broke their interwebs. ;) -- Kameron Gasso | Senior Systems Administrator | visp.net Direct: 541-955-6903 | Fax: 541-471-0821
Re: Issues with Gmail
Yes, I'm seeing errors like: Google Error Server Error The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request. Please try again in 30 seconds. r Jim Wininger wrote: Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Re: Issues with Gmail
Full gmail outage as per the status page EOM --Original Message-- From: Jim Wininger To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Issues with Gmail Sent: Sep 1, 2009 13:01 Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Issues with Gmail
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger
RE: POP3 DoS attacks and mailanyone.net?
Issues with gmail.com here in DC Winn Johnston From: u...@3.am [...@3.am] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:28 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: POP3 DoS attacks and mailanyone.net? For the first time since I can remember, my POP3 server was effectively shut down by too many simultaneous connections today. The first fix I tried was to raise the number of connections from the default 40 to 100, but the problem soon returned. I finally ipfw'd off the offending IP (98.190.204.2 for anyone interested), then went to look for other possible offenders in the log. I noticed several thousand connections today to a few dozen former users from 4 IPs from 208.70.128.0/21. One of the users was actually legitimate. These IPs belong to mailanyone.net. The tech contact in their ARIN record is listed as: OrgTechHandle: BHE57-ARIN OrgTechName: Heitman, Bryan OrgTechPhone: +1-816-587-4700 OrgTechEmail: hostmas...@mailanyone.net However, that phone number goes to a UPS store that has no idea what I'm talking about. I then dialed their suppseod NOC number: Comment:FuseMail, LLC Network Operations Center contact Comment:877.888.3873 x3 I am on hold with that number right now with some very loud and annoying music. Can anyone offer any insight as to these people and how/who to deal with there? Would a provider be amiss to just block their entire /21? TIA, James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor u...@3.am http://3.am = __ This inbound email was scanned by MessageLabs _ __ This email was scanned by MessageLabs _
POP3 DoS attacks and mailanyone.net?
For the first time since I can remember, my POP3 server was effectively shut down by too many simultaneous connections today. The first fix I tried was to raise the number of connections from the default 40 to 100, but the problem soon returned. I finally ipfw'd off the offending IP (98.190.204.2 for anyone interested), then went to look for other possible offenders in the log. I noticed several thousand connections today to a few dozen former users from 4 IPs from 208.70.128.0/21. One of the users was actually legitimate. These IPs belong to mailanyone.net. The tech contact in their ARIN record is listed as: OrgTechHandle: BHE57-ARIN OrgTechName: Heitman, Bryan OrgTechPhone: +1-816-587-4700 OrgTechEmail: hostmas...@mailanyone.net However, that phone number goes to a UPS store that has no idea what I'm talking about. I then dialed their suppseod NOC number: Comment:FuseMail, LLC Network Operations Center contact Comment:877.888.3873 x3 I am on hold with that number right now with some very loud and annoying music. Can anyone offer any insight as to these people and how/who to deal with there? Would a provider be amiss to just block their entire /21? TIA, James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor u...@3.am http://3.am =
Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:55:45AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >In order to get a really good idea of what's going on at a microburst > >level, you would need to poll as often as it takes to fill the buffer > >of the port in question. This is not feasible in the general case, > >which is why we resort to hacks like QoS to make sure that when there > >is congestion, it is handled semi-sensibly. > > Or some enterprising vendor could start recording utilisation stats? do any router vendors provide something akin to hardware latches to keep track of highest buffer fill levels? poll as frequently/infrequently as you like... -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agr...@poofygoof.com
QWEST in Washington DC Contact
If anyone from Qwest with site access to 1500 Eckington is around please reply to me privately. Have an urgent issue. -Vin
Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:12:33 +1000 Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <4a9c45d2.1000...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes: > > na...@wbsconnect.com wrote: > > > Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was > > > conducted by a c > > ustomer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was > > found liab le, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling > > the fakes. > > > > > > We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of > > > not being a > > ble to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no > > longer a viable excuse. > > > > > > > Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider > > cannot ignore reports. > > > > "The Akanoc Defendants___ specific business model of providing > > unmanaged server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt > > them from taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing > > activity upon notification from an intellectual property rights > > owner. " > > > > I consider that the more important statement in the article. The > > "upon > notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers > > anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been > > generally accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring > > about liability. > > > > Jack > > It will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that > don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified. > abuse@ better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk > based on this. ..and not before time. -- John
Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote: In order to get a really good idea of what's going on at a microburst level, you would need to poll as often as it takes to fill the buffer of the port in question. This is not feasible in the general case, which is why we resort to hacks like QoS to make sure that when there is congestion, it is handled semi-sensibly. Or some enterprising vendor could start recording utilisation stats? regards, -- Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: Try to value useful qualities in one who loves you.
