[Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
I would actually like to steer this to a NANOG-Future topic -- what kind of NANOG do we want to have? Sorry this is a little long, but I wanted to share some data points and context. An organization is defined by how it behaves. Just to provide a little historical context and data for the discussion here... When I was chairing NANOG in the early days, we tried a bunch of new things, including beer-n-gear. We pretty much had to use the hotel services and catering - the costs were pretty high but the sponsors seemed to have the marketing money to get in front of the attendees. Then we started seeing more quasi-commercial activities we hadn't seen so much in the gov't-sponsored NSFNET days : 1) We started seeing folks having suite parties, in a couple cases these competed with the agenda or with the sponsored socials or BOFs. When I asked about their motivation, just to understand why, the answers for having these parties instead of participating in beer-n-gear were varied but seemed centered around the cost - that their little gathering was maybe one-tenth the cost of participating in beer-n-gear and everyone seemed to have a better time in this informal albeit cramped environment. To me, these parties felt more like a college parties vs. a formal event, and I personally liked the feel of these parties too. We (the NANOG team at Merit) had to decide how to deal with this - (and newNOG should decide its attitudes on these types of things as well as it defines its culture). We had really three options: a) do we play hard ball somehow to prevent the parties? The hotel didn't like them either as they didn't generate any $ for them. b) Or let it slide by quietly ignoring (not condoning) the behavior? c) Or do we enjoy the party with the rest of the participants? What actually happened was that people Merit folks were simply not invited to these parties for fear of what their attitude toward the party could be. There was a kind of hope we don't get caught on their side and our (personal) desire to socialize (be invited to the party) like everyone else while (Merit NANOG hat) making sure events didn't clash and the beer-n-gear sponsors didn't bail on the formal events. I think during my stead we slide towards enjoying the parties that we heard about, and a sort of *unwritten rule* emerged that the parties shouldn't clash with the scheduled agenda events. There was another kind of awkwardness as folks wanted to not clash, but didn't know when things occurred, so these unauthorized party organizers awkwardly had to keep checking the agenda to make sure their little parties didn't clash while not tipping their hat to Merit that they were doing something unsanctioned here. Even with this awkwardness, everyone kind of agreed and things kinda ran smoothly. NewNOG will have to decide how to handle this type of thing as well. This wasn't documented anywhere before, so I thought I would share it. 2) We started seeing people quietly passing out logo'd and funny t-shirts, one of the benefits we marketed to beer-n-gear sponsorship prospects. This too, during my time we let slide. What were we to do - police the event for T-shirts, vendor giveaways not done at the sanctioned times? What fun would that be? And for a 501.3c not-for-profit staff (not work for serious money compensation or stock), being aggressive about things like this tends to go against the personality grain. 3) And yes, over the years there have always been a few crashers - people attending the event without registering or paying. The question it seemed to me was the extent of the violation - how long were they there, did they eat or drink beer or get t-shirts at beer n gear, etc. In one incident we know about, a person stopped at the event to say hi in passing, was actually called to the mike to answer a question and then community name-and-shamed / chastised the person for not having paid. In another incident we know about, a person hung out in the lobby and was called out for reaping some of the benefits of NANOG (access to the population of people attending). To some it didn't matter that zero resources were consumed. In the recent incident, a person looking for a lunch date with a person he wouldn't recognize asked for help meeting the person. I assisted in his failed search. He was there for only a few minutes and left. One thing in common - These things sometimes causes some degree of uproar as everyone had an opinion as to where the line was. In most of these events, what seemed to cause the most problems to me was *how* the folks in charge of NANOG responded - if they did nothing, then people (especially people who paid with their own hard earned cash) felt a little cheated, and if the folks running things over reacted then the community responded with resentment of authority. This IMO was overreaction was one of the straws that broke the camel's back and helped roll
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
This is a very long email, so I can't reply to all of it, but here's a try. In terms of room parties - at regular conferences, those are called Hospitality Suites and sponsors pay for the privilege of having them. Or, the privilege is inherited as part of a high-lvel sponsorship. Either way. (I once got yelled at by Susan Harris for having one of these.) The solution is not to allow them, or to forbid them, but to provide a mechanism to have them with the organization getting a cut. That happens in two ways - you need to be a sponsor of a certain level to have the suite, and the food and beverage counts towards our FB minimum. The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events. Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in advance, not a few months. Real events don't require hosts to dedicate a dozen staff members - they can just write a check. Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. The idea of non-sponsors handing out schwag is the same. If we had a real sponsorship model, we could say only Gold sponsors get to do that, sorry. Makes life easier for vendors, attendees, and organizers. As far as crashers - at most conferences, there is an invisible line around the sessions themselves. Sometimes, there is security. Common areas are generally ok for crashers, but sessions, meals, and receptions are not. Commercialization and exploitation of BOFs has been going on forever. Many folks have used the Peering BOF to promote other events, collect data, push datacenter properties - whatever. There's always a fine line, and you know you have crossed it when you get your ass handed to you by someone you respect. It has happened to me, and I learned from it. Obviously, repeat offenders shouldn't be on the agenda. - Dan On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com wrote: I would actually like to steer this to a NANOG-Future topic -- what kind of NANOG do we want to have? Sorry this is a little long, but I wanted to share some data points and context. An organization is defined by how it behaves. Just to provide a little historical context and data for the discussion here... When I was chairing NANOG in the early days, we tried a bunch of new things, including beer-n-gear. We pretty much had to use the hotel services and catering - the costs were pretty high but the sponsors seemed to have the marketing money to get in front of the attendees. Then we started seeing more quasi-commercial activities we hadn't seen so much in the gov't-sponsored NSFNET days : 1) We started seeing folks having suite parties, in a couple cases these competed with the agenda or with the sponsored socials or BOFs. When I asked about their motivation, just to understand why, the answers for having these parties instead of participating in beer-n-gear were varied but seemed centered around the cost - that their little gathering was maybe one-tenth the cost of participating in beer-n-gear and everyone seemed to have a better time in this informal albeit cramped environment. To me, these parties felt more like a college parties vs. a formal event, and I personally liked the feel of these parties too. We (the NANOG team at Merit) had to decide how to deal with this - (and newNOG should decide its attitudes on these types of things as well as it defines its culture). We had really three options: a) do we play hard ball somehow to prevent the parties? The hotel didn't like them either as they didn't generate any $ for them. b) Or let it slide by quietly ignoring (not condoning) the behavior? c) Or do we enjoy the party with the rest of the participants? What actually happened was that people Merit folks were simply not invited to these parties for fear of what their attitude toward the party could be. There was a kind of hope we don't get caught on their side and our (personal) desire to socialize (be invited to the party) like everyone else while (Merit NANOG hat) making sure events didn't clash and the beer-n-gear sponsors didn't bail on the formal events. I think during my stead we slide towards enjoying the parties that we heard about, and a sort of *unwritten rule* emerged that the parties shouldn't clash with the scheduled agenda events. There was another kind of awkwardness as folks wanted to not clash, but didn't know when things occurred, so these unauthorized party organizers awkwardly had to keep checking the agenda to make sure their little parties didn't clash while not tipping their hat to Merit that they were doing something unsanctioned here. Even with this awkwardness,
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. Agreed. That was always one of the dimensions of the NANOG debate - commercial vs. the original academic/research roots. I also believe we err'd too far on the conservative side of commercializing NANOG. imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone too far. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Call for Membership Working Group members
The Membership Working Group has been formed as part of the NANOG transition from Merit to NewNOG. We have been given both short term and ongoing tasks to develop and maintain the membership structure of the new organization. At a high level this is: - making recommendations for the initial membership structure - work with the Governance WG on the membership definition in the bylaws - investigate and review member benefits - provide recommendations on maintaining a healthy group of members. The WG as it stands now is Kris Foster, Bill Woodcock, Ren Provo, Scott Ehnert, and Josh Sahala. If you are interested in contributing please get in touch with me or one of the others above. Most of the work will likely take place via the WG's mailing list, with conference calls as required. Thanks Kris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with - a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the program committee and vice-versa. Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for NANOG. - Dan On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. Agreed. That was always one of the dimensions of the NANOG debate - commercial vs. the original academic/research roots. I also believe we err'd too far on the conservative side of commercializing NANOG. imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone too far. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
I feel that that's a silly restriction to codify - you can't solicit sponsorships be on the PC... There's a reason why it's a program committee and not a dictatorship. People in this community tend to have a very easy time sniffing out bullshit. -Dave On 7/1/10 3:08 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with - a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the program committee and vice-versa. Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for NANOG. - Dan On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bushra...@psg.com wrote: Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. Agreed. That was always one of the dimensions of the NANOG debate - commercial vs. the original academic/research roots. I also believe we err'd too far on the conservative side of commercializing NANOG. imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone too far. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
On 6/30/10 4:00 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: If someone entered the meeting space without paying, I agree. If all of this transpired in the hallways, I suggest that this topic is neither appropriate for this or any other NANOG mailing list. Once again, I find myself in agreement with Martin. If $600 is the cost of introducing yourself to someone at a meeting that you neither attend nor participate in, but merely crossed some invisible boundary... It is like someone claiming to have a private meeting at a public park, and them getting mad that someone's dog came over and sniffed them. I do agree with some of what Bill said in the start of the thread. This has been a concern of mine about this transition. Can we really trust someone that makes a decision behind closed doors, and then acts upon it without really giving the community a chance to understand or comment on it? For our sake, I hope we can, and it all works out. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
Sean Figgins s...@labrats.us writes: It is like someone claiming to have a private meeting at a public park, and them getting mad that someone's dog came over and sniffed them. Flawed analogy. It's more like minding your own business in a park that is clearly posted NO PETS EXCEPT ON LEASH, having a critter come bounding up and chomp down on your leg, and then (in the example at hand) discovering that the owner of said mangy mutt is the retired chief dogcatcher who figures the rules didn't apply to him and intentionally let his dog off the leash. I continue to be disappointed that an apology and a check haven't been forthcoming. Bill makes an argument that the rules ought to be spelled out, yet the commitment to do the right thing clearly isn't there - do we have any basis for expecting things to actually be better after we clearly articulate what ought to be basic courtesy and common sense? -r ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote: As randy said not too long ago, First they came for... No. Not Randy. That was pastor martin neimoller about the nazis. So, you just invoked godwin's law. Thread over. thank you suresh
XO feedback
Hi, We're currently looking to buy transit from XO for one of our DCs. Their pricing is very competative compared to some of the other providers we've considered to date. I'm hoping to get some feedback on their services, support, peering arrangements and the overall stability of their core backbone network from folks who've had experience or currently using them. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance -- Sent from my mobile device
Finland makes broadband access a legal right
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?hpt=T2 Interesting...
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
On 7/1/2010 00:43, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Michael Painter wrote: As randy said not too long ago, First they came for... The felons? Strangely, I am not moved to defend them. +1 According to the article, they didn't even take the physical computers running the sites, meaning not even other users on that virtual server were harmed. Exactly what are you worried about here? I really wonder where we are going with this exalt the illegal thing we have going. How very 1960's. -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
* Michael Painter: BURBANK, Calif. (AP) -- U.S. officials on Wednesday announced a major crackdown on movie piracy that involved disabling nine websites that were offering downloads of pirated movies in some cases hours after they appeared in theaters. Note that some of the domain names in the ICE press release appear to be wrong (or they have already lost control of them). Targeting THEPIRATECITY.ORG and not THEPIRATEBAY.ORG is slightly ridiculous, and it seems that TVSHACK.NET has already reappeared as TVSHACK.CC. ZML.NAME is still controlled by the ZML.COM folks, but seems to have problems right now. This takedown approach might work for controllers of non-too-advanced malware, but you need something better for content which people actually want to access, and which is indexed by helpful search engines. 8-/ -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
LTE for CCTV projects?
A friend of mine works for a physical security company, and he is looking for LTE vendors who might help him create wireless networks that they can run video over. Up to this point, they've used 5.x GHz (802.11a and now 802.11n) for most everything, with 4.9 GHz in certain cases where they could apply for the license. Recently, however, he has been aggressively reaching out to LTE vendors. I asked why LTE instead of WiMAX (which is more baked when it comes to large CCTV deployments around the world), and he gave the following reasons: --true mobile (not simply souped up local wireless) solution --access to the lower 700 MHz band (which can go farther, for obvious reasons) --access to a public safety block (licensed similar to 4.9 GHz). I've googled d block LTE, but can't determine whether or not he is 100% eligible or not... --While WiMAX has better ROI (for most people, anyway), this isn't too much of an option because their overall ROI is good based on the premium services they offer Anyone else's thoughts on this? I'd be particularly intersted in knowing which LTE vendors might be worth talking to in this dept.
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that the USA have control over all those domain names? Can we trust solely the USA for such control? This will come back with a vengeance in the JPA negotiations, ICANN, etc... - Original Message - From: Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de To: Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, 2 July, 2010 12:39:34 AM Subject: Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids * Michael Painter: BURBANK, Calif. (AP) -- U.S. officials on Wednesday announced a major crackdown on movie piracy that involved disabling nine websites that were offering downloads of pirated movies in some cases hours after they appeared in theaters. Note that some of the domain names in the ICE press release appear to be wrong (or they have already lost control of them). Targeting THEPIRATECITY.ORG and not THEPIRATEBAY.ORG is slightly ridiculous, and it seems that TVSHACK.NET has already reappeared as TVSHACK.CC. ZML.NAME is still controlled by the ZML.COM folks, but seems to have problems right now. This takedown approach might work for controllers of non-too-advanced malware, but you need something better for content which people actually want to access, and which is indexed by helpful search engines. 8-/ -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Franck Martin wrote: The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that the USA have control over all those domain names? Can we trust solely the USA for such control? This will come back with a vengeance in the JPA negotiations, ICANN, etc... Yeah, because if the domains were housed in another country than the USofA, that country's court system law enforcement surely wouldn't feel any sort of authority over the machines on their sovereign soil. It's just the evil USA that would dare to think in such a fashion. Oh, wait Is it possible the law enforcement officers went through the standard due process for the country in which they operate, Just Like Any Other Law Enforcement Agency Would? Nahh, no way we could consider that. It wouldn't allow us to bang on the US and make hollow threats about future negotiations. It's fun to bang on the US, but let's try to keep even a hint of reality perspective in our rants. Please? -- TTFN, patrick - Original Message - From: Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de To: Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, 2 July, 2010 12:39:34 AM Subject: Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids * Michael Painter: BURBANK, Calif. (AP) -- U.S. officials on Wednesday announced a major crackdown on movie piracy that involved disabling nine websites that were offering downloads of pirated movies in some cases hours after they appeared in theaters. Note that some of the domain names in the ICE press release appear to be wrong (or they have already lost control of them). Targeting THEPIRATECITY.ORG and not THEPIRATEBAY.ORG is slightly ridiculous, and it seems that TVSHACK.NET has already reappeared as TVSHACK.CC. ZML.NAME is still controlled by the ZML.COM folks, but seems to have problems right now. This takedown approach might work for controllers of non-too-advanced malware, but you need something better for content which people actually want to access, and which is indexed by helpful search engines. 8-/ -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
The Economist, cyber war issue
The upcoming issue will be about cyber war. Check out the front page image: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs488.snc3/26668_410367784059_6013004059_4296972_499550_n.jpg Gadi.
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote: The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that the USA have control over all those domain names? Can we trust solely the USA for such control? No. However, anyone signing up for a GTLD should already have looked into risks like that, and there are ccTLDs This will come back with a vengeance in the JPA negotiations, ICANN, etc... Only if US officials are forcing domains owned by foreign people/organizations to be disabled in the gTLD registry, based on activities of hosts that records in those domains point to, in that case, then, yes.. That's called introducing instability into the networks of other country's people that are not under your jurisdiction or operating servers in your jurisdiction, by attacking global infrastructure (DNS Servers) they rely on. By the same token, authorities could probably contrive court orders and send to Tier1 ISPs demanding they drop traffic to certain IP addresses (in foreign IP space). -- -J
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
* Franck Martin: The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that the USA have control over all those domain names? Most gTLD operators do business pretty much world-wide, so they aren't exposed to just U.S. law alone. Globalization cuts both ways. In this particular case, the copyright infringement seems to have targeted mainly content created in the U.S., so it's quite natural that the U.S. authorities take a particular interest in it. -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
I'm not saying any other country is better, I'm just saying the Internet is international and we have the power of one jurisdiction over many internet resources. This will lead certainly to a push for re-balancing (successfully or not, for democracy or against democracy,...). The USA had a trust position with the nuke button that they should not have pushed, but they pushed the nuke button. How the rest of the world will react? will they want to have their say on who can push the nuke button? Today is may be for the right reason, but tomorrow? And there is the kill switch bill coming up (or not)... This is all political, and not suitable for nanog, but it opens a can of worms... - Original Message - From: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, 2 July, 2010 1:20:45 AM Subject: Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Franck Martin wrote: The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that the USA have control over all those domain names? Can we trust solely the USA for such control? This will come back with a vengeance in the JPA negotiations, ICANN, etc... Yeah, because if the domains were housed in another country than the USofA, that country's court system law enforcement surely wouldn't feel any sort of authority over the machines on their sovereign soil. It's just the evil USA that would dare to think in such a fashion. Oh, wait Is it possible the law enforcement officers went through the standard due process for the country in which they operate, Just Like Any Other Law Enforcement Agency Would? Nahh, no way we could consider that. It wouldn't allow us to bang on the US and make hollow threats about future negotiations. It's fun to bang on the US, but let's try to keep even a hint of reality perspective in our rants. Please? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
On 7/1/2010 08:45, Franck Martin wrote: This is all political, and not suitable for nanog, but it opens a can of worms... If NANOG is truly about Operations and not just BGP knob twiddling and searches for free service, it would be well to recognize at long last that the world we operate in is a political and politicized world and becoming more so by the second. -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP
On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:50:40 pm Ricky Beam wrote: No they don't. Which version of IOS are you running? Oh, right, that switch doesn't run IOS, it runs CatOS? Wait a min, that's a 1900... it uses a menu interface. Yep, much like the 'NetBeyond' EtherSwitch 1420 I have here doing... well... 10Base-5 to 100Base-FX and 24 10Base-T's 'work'. Man, that left a bad taste in my mouth. But if it ain't broke... I have three Cisco switches right here that are radically different. In fact, the 2948G-L3 confused a CCIE for several weeks. :-) Until I told him stop thinking switch and config it like a 48 port router. (and sadly, it doesn't support interface ranges. :-() Have a couple of 2948G-L3's in production here, doing trunked gigabit etherchannel uplink to a 7609, with the 7609 doing the DHCP. Configure them like the nearly forgotten Catalyst 8500's. they're one step from broke, but there's no budget to replace at the moment. Too bad they look virtually identical to the very different 2948G's, which is 4500-based instead of 8500-based. But I'm glad to see I'm not the only one still working those AnyFlow-based switches In this case, perhaps the statement should be 'Advice concerning Cisco BU1/BU2/BU3/etc/Juniper/HP/Extreme.'
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
On 1 jul 2010, at 15.20, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: n Jul 1, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Franck Martin wrote: The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that the USA have control over all those domain names? Can we trust solely the USA for such control? This will come back with a vengeance in the JPA negotiations, ICANN, etc... JPA discussions are concluded and replaced with the AoC. The discussion on the renewal of the IANA contract I suspect will be a recurring theme in IGF in Villnius. Yeah, because if the domains were housed in another country than the USofA, that country's court system law enforcement surely wouldn't feel any sort of authority over the machines on their sovereign soil. It's just the evil USA that would dare to think in such a fashion. Oh, wait If you look at the . level i.e ICANN my understanding is that if it was a treaty or UN organization that does not apply. However as we are talking gTLD level you are indeed right. Is it possible the law enforcement officers went through the standard due process for the country in which they operate, Just Like Any Other Law Enforcement Agency Would? Nahh, no way we could consider that. It wouldn't allow us to bang on the US and make hollow threats about future negotiations. It's fun to bang on the US, but let's try to keep even a hint of reality perspective in our rants. Please? Best regards, - kurtis - PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: XO feedback
I can't say I share the same experience. Their pricing is mediocre and their billing and customer service are absolutely atrocious. They sold me six cabinets with transit in one of their facilities, never installed power to the cabinets, and then tried to invoice me for the transit. To this day no one at XO sees fit to fix this injustice so they're to the impression that I owe them for the balance of a contract that was literally unusable. Jeff On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Net funky...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, We're currently looking to buy transit from XO for one of our DCs. Their pricing is very competative compared to some of the other providers we've considered to date. I'm hoping to get some feedback on their services, support, peering arrangements and the overall stability of their core backbone network from folks who've had experience or currently using them. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance -- Sent from my mobile device -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ddosprotection to find out about news, promotions, and (gasp!) system outages which are updated in real time. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to protect your booty.
Re: The Economist, cyber war issue
Article: http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=16481504 My opinion: http://www.economist.com/comment/586099#comment-586099 Andrew http://sites.google.com/site/n3td3v/ - Original Message From: Gadi Evron g...@linuxbox.org To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 14:25:04 Subject: The Economist, cyber war issue The upcoming issue will be about cyber war. Check out the front page image: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs488.snc3/26668_410367784059_6013004059_4296972_499550_n.jpg Gadi.
Re: The Economist, cyber war issue
Apparently the Economist has just become aware of the coming 8-bit apocalypse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGeuiZr-u50 On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Gadi Evron g...@linuxbox.org wrote: The upcoming issue will be about cyber war. Check out the front page image: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs488.snc3/26668_410367784059_6013004059_4296972_499550_n.jpg Gadi.
Re: The Economist, cyber war issue
andrew.wallace wrote: Article: http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=16481504 I know it's shortsighted, but any article with the word cyber in it, used in such a way as being about cyber this-or-that, already lost its credibility by virtue of using the word. It must be a of rather high quality to win back its credibility. This economist article sadly does the opposite. Regards, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that the USA have control over all those domain names? the usg controls the cctlds too. randy
SPANS Vs Taps
As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to aggregate instead of a true port aggregator?? Regards, Matthew
Type of network operators?
I have been on this list for about 2 weeks, just observing the discussions. I have primarily worked with wireless service providers in the past who are fairly low budget operators. Some of the things I've observed about this group are: * This list seems to be populated by better funded operations (whether that means larger or just better at getting funding may remain to be seen) * Most of the operators on this list seem to be pretty good at their work and the questions seem to revolve around more complex issues * There seems to be a number of corporate network operators on this list as opposed to access network operators (such as ISPs and such) I hope you all don't take this as an affront and get offended, as that's not my intent. I am just making some simple observations. Having said this, I wanted to introduce myself and see if this is a list that I need to participate in actively. I am a network engineer and consultant. I have worked in the past with Cisco, Juniper and other similar higher end type devices, but it's been a while since I had customers who use that gear. Most of my current customer base are smaller operators who can pinch a penny in half. :-) I do a lot of work with MikroTik RouterOS, ImageStream and other Linux based devices. I do engineering, training, hardware sales and such for networks all over the world. I am likely to continue to monitor the list for questions that are in my area of expertise, but wondered if these devices I mention are common to operators on this list. I know that I have not caught a discussion that involved any of them so far (other than one reference to an OpenBSD solution a day or two ago). Anyway, hello to the list and I look forward to finding a home among this group.
Re: SPANS Vs Taps
Depends on the the bunch of 100MB connections. On the down side, when aggregating using a Cisco switch is a limit on the number of switch ports you can aggregate. On the up side, you don't have to be concerned about another device between the switch and device you want to connect to. Gary Gary Gladney Space Telescope Science Institute Email: glad...@stsci.edu Voice: 410.338.4912 Public Key: ldap://certserver.pgp.com Original message Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:48:14 -0400 From: Bein, Matthew mb...@iso-ne.com Subject: SPANS Vs Taps To: nanog@nanog.org As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to aggregate instead of a true port aggregator?? Regards, Matthew
Re: The Economist, cyber war issue
There is a part 2 as well http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792 Andrew - Original Message From: Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 19:57:08 Subject: Re: The Economist, cyber war issue andrew.wallace wrote: Article: http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=16481504 I know it's shortsighted, but any article with the word cyber in it, used in such a way as being about cyber this-or-that, already lost its credibility by virtue of using the word. It must be a of rather high quality to win back its credibility. This economist article sadly does the opposite. Regards, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Re: The Economist, cyber war issue
There is a part 2 as well and this is a bug or a feature?
Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right
On 07/01/2010 02:04 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?hpt=T2 Interesting... Finland isn't first. http://www.comcom.admin.ch/aktuell/00429/00457/00560/index.html?lang=enmsg-id=13239
Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Gadi Evron g...@linuxbox.org wrote: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?hpt=T2 In the US, the Communications Act of 1934 brought about the creation of the Universal Service Fund. The idea, more or less, was that every phone line customer contributed to the fund (you'll find it itemized on your phone bill) and the phone companies had to charge the same for every phone line regardless of where delivered in their territory but when initially installing an unusually difficult (expensive) phone line the phone company was entitled to reimburse its cost from the fund. In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the E-Rate program) instead of improving rural communications... -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: XO feedback
XO has many downs than ups. I am a current XO customer mainly due to the costs, having voice, PtP, Transit, and Co-Location. Here is my rundown. Internet Transit: Yes it works, and when their routing goes ape, no one knows what is going on. They have a tendency not to do a wr mem on their ciscos. Point to Point: Yes it works, but when they have to take an OC12 or some large circuit down you might be notified the day of. Also if you have more than one circuit with them, finding what circuit will be hit takes ages on their side. Co-Location: One crap shoot close to death. A change control group has to approve changes, adds, and you as a customer has zero say. Call Center: I feel like Mr. Bean is running the call center. Depending on who you call, and when they last did trainning you will get a wild range of responces. Even for the simplest of things takes about 20 min to make a ticket, and some have taken past 40min. Voice: Random failures of not being able to reach cell phone carriers. Random issues where some trunk lines just go offline. But to XO it is always the customer hardware. Another great feature if you have a trouble ticket and in part of correcting the issue if some other change was introduced an automated system will back out any changes weeks later. It is one of those things in life you deal with because the tradeoff is something execs see as the monthly OPEX costs. Stefan On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Net wrote: Hi, We're currently looking to buy transit from XO for one of our DCs. Their pricing is very competative compared to some of the other providers we've considered to date. I'm hoping to get some feedback on their services, support, peering arrangements and the overall stability of their core backbone network from folks who've had experience or currently using them. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance -- Sent from my mobile device
Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right
On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the E-Rate program) instead of improving rural communications... As someone who's always been in the tech field, the amount spent on ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. Bring back the Acorn Archimedes and ECONET! M
Re: SPANS Vs Taps
Tap manufactures will be sure to tell you of many issues. The main concern I would have is that it is possible for a switch to drop frames of a SPAN. Your decision might be influenced based on your application and the impact of such errors (billing, lawful intercept, forensics). A tap vendors take: http://www.networkcritical.com/What-are-Network-Taps On a somewhat related note, I will mention that TNAPI from ntop is quite handy. http://www.ntop.org/TNAPI.html http://www.networkcritical.com/What-are-Network-Taps--D On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Bein, Matthew mb...@iso-ne.com wrote: As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to aggregate instead of a true port aggregator?? Regards, Matthew -- -- Darren Bolding -- -- dar...@bolding.org --
Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right
On 7/1/2010 18:14, Matthew Walster wrote: On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the E-Rate program) instead of improving rural communications... As someone who's always been in the tech field, the amount spent on ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. Bring back the Acorn Archimedes and ECONET! Does anybody know how much the Big Sky Telegraph cost, and who paid for it? -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Re: SPANS Vs Taps
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:24:38 -0400, Darren Bolding dar...@bolding.org wrote: Tap manufactures will be sure to tell you of many issues. Well, there are issues on both sides... A true tap is an electronic mirror. It doesn't much care what the signal is; whatever it senses, it replicates. As the OP is talking about an aggrigating tap, he's already using a switch. I've used NetworkCritical, NetOptics, and several other cheap taps. None of them are even remotely cheap. That said, use an ethernet switch... The main concern I would have is that it is possible for a switch to drop frames of a SPAN. Your decision might be influenced based on your application and the impact of such errors (billing, lawful intercept, forensics). Yes, a switch can drop traffic (inbound and out.) But so can a tap. And so can the thing listening to the tap. At work I'm configuring an integrate Broadcom 10G switch (SoC) as a pure mirror. The ports wired to the system form a trunk group which is the destination for the mirror of the external ports. This is exactly what you'll find inside $ commercial multiport aggrigating taps. (and btw, we've thrown over 1Mpps at it without issue; ~50% 64byte packets, the bane of any switch. (recorded) real world traffic, not some Spirent simulation.) --Ricky
Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:14:42AM +0100, Matthew Walster wrote: On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the E-Rate program) instead of improving rural communications... As someone who's always been in the tech field, the amount spent on ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. Don't get me started on ICT in schools. Please. - Matt -- Igloo I remember going to my first tutorial in room 404. I was most upset when I found it.
Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right
On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Gadi Evron g...@linuxbox.org wrote: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?hpt=T2 In the US, the Communications Act of 1934 brought about the creation of the Universal Service Fund. The idea, more or less, was that every phone line customer contributed to the fund (you'll find it itemized on your phone bill) and the phone companies had to charge the same for every phone line regardless of where delivered in their territory but when initially installing an unusually difficult (expensive) phone line the phone company was entitled to reimburse its cost from the fund. In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the E-Rate program) instead of improving rural communications... Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) invented the Internet ? Regards Marshall -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Type of network operators?
Thanks. Your observations are good related to active posters. The overall list is very diverse. Aside from the active posters, the list is about 10K strong. Everything from AOL to people from Zoos, law enforcement, banks, and any industry you can think of. NANOG is not just a list, but an interesting hodge podge of builders and occupants of the Internet that sometimes make sense. :-) As Paul Wall might say, Drive Slow. Best, Marty On 7/1/10, Butch Evans na...@butchevans.com wrote: I have been on this list for about 2 weeks, just observing the discussions. I have primarily worked with wireless service providers in the past who are fairly low budget operators. Some of the things I've observed about this group are: * This list seems to be populated by better funded operations (whether that means larger or just better at getting funding may remain to be seen) * Most of the operators on this list seem to be pretty good at their work and the questions seem to revolve around more complex issues * There seems to be a number of corporate network operators on this list as opposed to access network operators (such as ISPs and such) I hope you all don't take this as an affront and get offended, as that's not my intent. I am just making some simple observations. Having said this, I wanted to introduce myself and see if this is a list that I need to participate in actively. I am a network engineer and consultant. I have worked in the past with Cisco, Juniper and other similar higher end type devices, but it's been a while since I had customers who use that gear. Most of my current customer base are smaller operators who can pinch a penny in half. :-) I do a lot of work with MikroTik RouterOS, ImageStream and other Linux based devices. I do engineering, training, hardware sales and such for networks all over the world. I am likely to continue to monitor the list for questions that are in my area of expertise, but wondered if these devices I mention are common to operators on this list. I know that I have not caught a discussion that involved any of them so far (other than one reference to an OpenBSD solution a day or two ago). Anyway, hello to the list and I look forward to finding a home among this group.
RE: Type of network operators?
But Butch be da dude. Only half a penny?! Butch, I can cut that penny at least into eighths! Sheeesh! Bob- -Original Message- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hanni...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:19 PM To: Butch Evans; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Type of network operators? Thanks. Your observations are good related to active posters. The overall list is very diverse. Aside from the active posters, the list is about 10K strong. Everything from AOL to people from Zoos, law enforcement, banks, and any industry you can think of. NANOG is not just a list, but an interesting hodge podge of builders and occupants of the Internet that sometimes make sense. :-) As Paul Wall might say, Drive Slow. Best, Marty On 7/1/10, Butch Evans na...@butchevans.com wrote: I have been on this list for about 2 weeks, just observing the discussions. I have primarily worked with wireless service providers in the past who are fairly low budget operators. Some of the things I've observed about this group are: * This list seems to be populated by better funded operations (whether that means larger or just better at getting funding may remain to be seen) * Most of the operators on this list seem to be pretty good at their work and the questions seem to revolve around more complex issues * There seems to be a number of corporate network operators on this list as opposed to access network operators (such as ISPs and such) I hope you all don't take this as an affront and get offended, as that's not my intent. I am just making some simple observations. Having said this, I wanted to introduce myself and see if this is a list that I need to participate in actively. I am a network engineer and consultant. I have worked in the past with Cisco, Juniper and other similar higher end type devices, but it's been a while since I had customers who use that gear. Most of my current customer base are smaller operators who can pinch a penny in half. :-) I do a lot of work with MikroTik RouterOS, ImageStream and other Linux based devices. I do engineering, training, hardware sales and such for networks all over the world. I am likely to continue to monitor the list for questions that are in my area of expertise, but wondered if these devices I mention are common to operators on this list. I know that I have not caught a discussion that involved any of them so far (other than one reference to an OpenBSD solution a day or two ago). Anyway, hello to the list and I look forward to finding a home among this group.
Sample RFP/RFQs for routing/switching equipment
I'm working with a very rapidly growing SME that is preparing an RFP/RFQ for new routing and switching equipment. Nothing too extravagant - 2 locations, 100mbps throughput. I'm seeking sample RFPs and RFQs for them to assist in the process - specifically to see what to ask for in terms of features and other considerations. There's a deep passion to get this right the first time. If you know of or have access to RFPs or RFQs you'd be willing to share, it would be of great help. I briefly searched the NANOG archives, and (somewhat surprisingly) did not find a similar request. Thank you very much. --Don
Re: Sample RFP/RFQs for routing/switching equipment
On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Don McMorris wrote: I'm working with a very rapidly growing SME that is preparing an RFP/RFQ for new routing and switching equipment. Nothing too extravagant - 2 locations, 100mbps throughput. I'm seeking sample RFPs and RFQs for them to assist in the process - specifically to see what to ask for in terms of features and other considerations. There's a deep passion to get this right the first time. If you know of or have access to RFPs or RFQs you'd be willing to share, it would be of great help. I briefly searched the NANOG archives, and (somewhat surprisingly) did not find a similar request. Conference presentation archives: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/abstracts.php?pt=MTM5MCZuYW5vZzQ2nm=nanog46 -- kris
