Re: async serial fiber transceivers

[Michael Painter]

Christopher O'Brien wrote:

Greetings,
I am planning on deploying a console access server on my network for
20-30 network devices including routers, wireless controllers and other
devices.  The design is to have one central device for all console access.

Due to the geographic diversity of my campus, I will need need to carry
the async serial connections over my fiber plant with long reach optics
and single mode fiber.  I have the fiber plant to support this design.
I have been researching solutions to implement the serial part, but I am
not very familiar with the vendors I am coming up with.  For instance, I
know Black Box Networks makes products like this but they only seem to
have stand alone devices.  I was hoping for something rack mountable
since I will have a dense deployment of these devices.

Does anyone have experience deploying a solution like this or with async
serial fiber transceivers in general?  I welcome any suggestions.
-Chris


You could try calling these folks:
http://www.bb-elec.com/custom.asp

http://www.bb-elec.com/SubCategory.asp?SubCategoryId=34&Trail=11&TrailType=Main

Re: Juniper SSG-140, Monitoring and control the usage of the Internet

[Michael Painter]

Yasir Munir Abbasi wrote:

Hi,

I have a SSG-140 Juniper Firewall. I need to ask, how can I Monitor the individual IP traffic? I mean I want to see who 
is taking

more bandwidth.

Please help me out. Thanks

Yasir Munir Abbasi
Senior Network Engineer
EMail: y...@ciklum.net


ntop?

http://www.ntop.org/overview.html

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Jack Bates]

On 9/21/2010 2:53 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:

On 9/21/2010 6:04 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:


http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx



1. Deer tend to hang out in little clearings while eating.  Little
clearings like the right of way clearing 25 or 50 feet on each side of
an electricity pylon.



Deer hang out in a lot of places that I wouldn't shoot them.


2.  Deer are easier to shoot when their silhouette is seen at or near
the top of a ridge, especially if they are in a clearing as well.



This is why most states require hunter safety courses, which among other 
things points out that not only should you be able to identify your 
target, but you should have good visibility behind your target. Bullets 
pass through animals (or miss), and continue to travel. Silhouette on a 
ridge shootings is how people get shot accidentally.



Combine #1 and #2, it is logical that even without "bubbas" the
deer/fiber coincidence level would be high.


Any true hunter combining #1 and #2 should have his license permanently 
revoked. Why not just shoot deer in headlights or on roads, or in 
populated areas with people and houses behind them? (sarcasm)


That being said, there are plenty of people that just shoot things; 
inanimate objects or animals (often without a license). The article 
wasn't meant to be, but is insulting. Incidents involving guns, cars, 
ATVs, etc, etc aren't too uncommon, though the damage for us is usually 
less than a single wildfire (which melts the peds for the ground cable 
and destroys the poles and cable for the aerial). Heck, we had a semi 
riding the back roads (possibly to avoid highway patrol) snag an aerial 
crossing the road. It was witnessed by the local gas station attendant. 
he dragged the cabled for 1000 feet or so, ripping down poles. Stopped, 
unhooked the cable from the truck, and drove off.



Jack

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Joe Provo]

...and I used to live in parts of Virginia where rednecks took 
out signs with shotguns and no doubt now [if not run out by 
gentrification] take out fiber.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:59:03PM -0700, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
[snip]
> Long story short, you can't account for stupid.

...and the same presentation reported on from AUSNOG was at 
last NANOG in SF by the same presenter. Can some kind hunter
deliver the coup de grace to this thread?  Just cruel to keep 
beating this horse with the same anecdote sticks.

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 9/21/10 2:10 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
> David DiGiacomo wrote:
>> Instead of a rifle, how about a shotgun? It fires a nice wide spread
>> shot pattern. I think you would be much more likely to do
>> some damage (ie: knock fiber off a pole) with something like that.
>> Here in New Jersey it is illegal to use a rifle to hunt deer,
>> so typically you will find hunters using a bow/arrow or Shotgun and
>> you will see a lot of road signs (or other abandon junk) that
>> has been victim of a shotgun blast.

you don't hunt deer with buckshot...

the shotgun consideration is due to the range, and the expectation is
that your target is under 100 meters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_slug

>> ~Dave
> 
> Birds like to sit on wires and assholes like to shoot them.
> 50 years ago I carried around the .22 slug I dug out of the
> lead-sheathed cable while troubleshooting the outer marker for McClellan
> AFB in the middle of a rainy night.
> 
> --Michael
> 

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Michael Painter]

David DiGiacomo wrote:
Instead of a rifle, how about a shotgun? It fires a nice wide spread shot pattern. I think you would be much more likely 
to do
some damage (ie: knock fiber off a pole) with something like that. Here in New Jersey it is illegal to use a rifle to 
hunt deer,
so typically you will find hunters using a bow/arrow or Shotgun and you will see a lot of road signs (or other abandon 
junk) that

has been victim of a shotgun blast.

~Dave


Birds like to sit on wires and assholes like to shoot them.
50 years ago I carried around the .22 slug I dug out of the lead-sheathed cable while troubleshooting the outer marker for 
McClellan AFB in the middle of a rainy night.


--Michael 

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Matthew Palmer]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 09:31:07AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> > Yes they are -- content providers aren't getting their connections to
> > the
> > Internet for free (and if they are, how can I get me some of that?).
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear.  Traffic is moving away from "transit" to direct
> peering at private exchanges in many cases.  [Citation needed]

> > > If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
> > > some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to
> the
> > > end user.
> > 
> > Say wha?  ISPs don't *have* to peer at an IX; if they think that it's
> > cheaper to buy transit from someone than it is to peer, they're more
> > than
> > capable of doing so.
> 
> Transit would have to get extremely cheap to compete with exchange
> peering.  I don't see it getting that low any time soon.

So it *is* cheaper to peer than to buy transit.  Take the money you save
from not buying transit and put it towards upgrading your core.

- Matt

-- 
Generally the folk who love the environment in vague, frilly ways are at
odds with folk who love the environment next to the mashed potatoes.
-- Anthony de Boer, in a place that does not exist

RE: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

> -Original Message-
> From: Reese [mailto:re...@inkworkswell.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:36 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre
> 
> At 11:39 21 09 10, Leslie wrote:
> 
> >I don't think anyone is claiming all hunters/gun owners are
irresponsible,
> 
> Re-read the article. "[h]unters" it said, not "some hunters" or
> "irresponsible hunters". How broad must the brush be, before you
> feel personally impugned and maligned?
> 
> >but, as with any segment of the population, when you have a large
> >group there will be a percentage of complete idiots out there who
> >take stupid actions.
> 
> I acknowledged that. I regret its truthiness. But with Google and
> only Google as a named victim of the hardware DoS, I have yet to
> read anything that convinces me that it was not corporate sabotage.
> 
> My point was not that wires and insulators do not get shot or shot
> at, but that "hunters" was a convenient excuse that other things
> could be too-conveniently classified with.
> 
> Who, here, hunts? Shoot at wires and insulators on towers, do you?
> 
> Reese
> 
> 
I live in Washington State and have managed a fiber network along paths
similar to the ones being taken by Google.  Every winter we had at least
4 shotgun-blast outages, sometimes in the middle of nowhere and
sometimes with a direct line of site to the back porch of a local
"manufactured home".You would be amazed at what people find fun with
during a long, cold winter and a belly full of libations.  And I can
almost guarantee you it wasn't sabotage.  In many cases, the revelers
were shooting at power lines and happened to hit the fibers wrapped
around the ground wire.  These are 500 kV lines by the way.  Long story
short, you can't account for stupid.

Mike

--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3  08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
 

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Jeff Wasilko]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:53:58PM -0500, Dantzig, Brian wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Positively Optimistic wrote:
> 
> > Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable
> management on
> > 6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of
> our
> > facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches
> seemed to
> > be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a
> problem..
> >
> > Pictures are welcomed...   off-list contact would be great.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> 
> If you can choose your rack equipment, you should look at Ortronics
> Might Mo 10. It is very stable and has plenty of cable management

Let me 2nd the mighty mo! We went with them, and had our cabling
contractor pre-wire the switch faces to patch panels. They're really
nice--probably the nicest rack system I've worked with.

In the photo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwasilko/3213527881/in/set-72157612760455411/ 
the first 2 racks with black patches are for patching switch ports to
racks. The Ciscos are in the 3rd and 4th racks.

One of the things we did that worked out very nice was on the
switch/rack patch panel, we interspersed switch ports and rack ports
every 2U. This means that we can often patch servers to switch ports
with a 2 or 3' cable, which really minimizes the amount of extra cable
running up and down patch panels.

I've got a bunch of other photos at:

http://www.smoe.org/jeffw/gallery-new/e_dc_build_2008-10-06
http://www.smoe.org/jeffw/gallery-new/e_dc_build_2008-07-15

Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Dantzig, Brian]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Positively Optimistic wrote:

> Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable
management on
> 6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of
our
> facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches
seemed to
> be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a
problem..
>
> Pictures are welcomed...   off-list contact would be great.
>
> Thanks
>

If you can choose your rack equipment, you should look at Ortronics
Might Mo 10. It is very stable and has plenty of cable management
options. They are kind of a cross between a two post and a cabinet.
Basicaly the side cannel is 16.25 inces deep. Unfortunatly, the 6500 has
slot spacing that doesn't line up with rack U's so most cable management
will not work perfectly. The Might Mo can handle the density but make
sure you use the largest vertical channels you have room for. You
probably are not interested in doors but in locations where this is
desired, the doors over the vertical channels hinge both wasy and remove
easier than anything I've seen.

You probably want to look at the air baffles since the 6509/6513 have
right to left airflow rather than front to back. One fo the features in
the Mighty Mo 10 is the ventilated side channels and available baffles.
The airflow can actualy be one of your biggest challenges if you have
6509/6513's in adjacent cabinets. The warm air from one can blow into
the input of the switch to the left.

You could also look at using the WS-C6509-V-E chassis with front to back
airflow and built in cable management.

From:
Brian Dantzig
Senior Network Engineer
Medline Industries, Inc.
bdant...@medline.com

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Patrick Giagnocavo]

On 9/21/2010 6:04 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx
> 

1. Deer tend to hang out in little clearings while eating.  Little
clearings like the right of way clearing 25 or 50 feet on each side of
an electricity pylon.

2.  Deer are easier to shoot when their silhouette is seen at or near
the top of a ridge, especially if they are in a clearing as well.

Combine #1 and #2, it is logical that even without "bubbas" the
deer/fiber coincidence level would be high.

--Patrick

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Reese]

At 11:39 21 09 10, Leslie wrote:


I don't think anyone is claiming all hunters/gun owners are irresponsible,


Re-read the article. "[h]unters" it said, not "some hunters" or
"irresponsible hunters". How broad must the brush be, before you
feel personally impugned and maligned?

but, as with any segment of the population, when you have a large 
group there will be a percentage of complete idiots out there who 
take stupid actions.


I acknowledged that. I regret its truthiness. But with Google and
only Google as a named victim of the hardware DoS, I have yet to
read anything that convinces me that it was not corporate sabotage.

My point was not that wires and insulators do not get shot or shot
at, but that "hunters" was a convenient excuse that other things
could be too-conveniently classified with.

Who, here, hunts? Shoot at wires and insulators on towers, do you?

Reese

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Wayne E. Bouchard]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:45:11PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> What I have to wonder about is how often hunter-inflicted damage is 
> intentional
> and located at the insulator (which makes for a good story) and how often it's
> a totally accidental stray bullet nicking the cable many yards from the 
> nearest
> pole (which makes for a poor story).  I'd expect that since the fiber is
> usually hung much closer to the ground, it would get hit a lot more than the
> power cables higher up. Also, you're less likely to notice a 1mm divot taken
> out of a (usually thicker and sturdier and essentially single fat conductor)
> power cable than a 1mm divot out of a 48 pair.

What I want to know is, even if the story is bogus, why is anyone
surprised by the prospect?

It's been my experience that when Bubba goes out into the woods that
anything manmade becomes a target. Microwave reflectors, telephone
poles, road signs, water towers, windmills you name it and some
low-brow will shoot at it. That and leave shell casings and shotgun
hulls all over the place when he's done. Gives all us responsible
folks a bad name... Now I just have one more good reason to loathe
that behavior.

(and we're now drifting well off topic so this thread should probably
die pretty quickly.)

-Wayne

---
Wayne Bouchard
w...@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

RE: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[David DiGiacomo]

Instead of a rifle, how about a shotgun? It fires a nice wide spread shot 
pattern. I think you would be much more likely to do some damage (ie: knock 
fiber off a pole) with something like that. Here in New Jersey it is illegal to 
use a rifle to hunt deer, so typically you will find hunters using a bow/arrow 
or Shotgun and you will see a lot of road signs (or other abandon junk) that 
has been victim of a shotgun blast.

~Dave


-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:03 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

On 9/21/2010 10:52, Holmes,David A wrote:
> Modern telephone pole aerial fiber uses all dialectric self-supporting
> (ADSS) technology, where the self-supporting component consists
> primarily of aramid yarn, the same material used for bullet-proof vests.
> This makes for an extremely light weight, almost indestructible fiber
> bundle. My guess is that ADSS fiber would deflect any bullets, or it
> would take a very good marksman using a very high caliber weapon to
> actually sever an aerial fiber. 
> 
> Now in the case described below where optical ground wire (OPGW) fiber
> is used as a component in the ground wire running at the top of high
> voltage transmission towers, it may be possible to hit the insulators at
> the top of the towers, but the ground wire itself is usually armored,
> with ADSS inside. Seems far-fetched to me.
> 


Back in my ISP days it was more common for people to take pot shots at
remote equipment cabinets than the cable/fiber itself. Any field
enclosure is as easy a target as your average bullet-ridden road sign.
Although this was extremely rare; I can only recall one instance where
it was the direct cause of an outage.

~Seth

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Joe Greco]

> > Yes they are -- content providers aren't getting their connections to
> > the
> > Internet for free (and if they are, how can I get me some of that?).
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear.  Traffic is moving away from "transit" to direct
> peering at private exchanges in many cases.  Since most exchanges are
> "flat rate" and aren't all that expensive, it is "practically" free.
> For example, if I have a 10G connection to an exchange (say Equinix IX,
> or DEIX in Germany, or LINX in the UK, or PARIX in France, or INIX in
> Ireland among other) it doesn't cost me any more to send 1G than it does
> to send 5G of traffic. So if something happens that increases the
> bandwidth utilization, my monthly cost does not change until I have to
> change to higher capacity media and that is a step change. =20

That only happens if both parties choose to peer.  Even though the cost
per incremental *bit* might appear to be zero, there's a large cost in
terms of exchange membership, colocating equipment, etc.

> > > If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
> > > some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to
> the
> > > end user.
> >=20
> > Say wha?  ISPs don't *have* to peer at an IX; if they think that it's
> > cheaper to buy transit from someone than it is to peer, they're more
> > than
> > capable of doing so.
> 
> Transit would have to get extremely cheap to compete with exchange
> peering.  I don't see it getting that low any time soon.

I thought I heard some folks were bailing on peering because transit was
so cheap.  Last time I looked, Equinix Exchange wasn't exactly cheap, it
was quite a bit cheaper to run private cross-connects.

> >=20
> > The customer's requesting this traffic, therefore the customer needs a
> > bigger pipe, therefore the customer pays more.
> 
> The problem is that maybe the customer is doing nothing different than
> they have always done.  They didn't request more bandwidth.  The product
> they have always used now consumes more bandwidth through no fault of
> their own.   It would be as if you regularly ordered some product every
> month and the product keeps getting heavier and heavier and the shipping
> costs go up until the weight is higher than the carrier will ship.  You
> are ordering the same thing you always did, you didn't ask for it to be
> heavier, the producer decided to make it heavier.  But that is not a
> perfect analogy because a consumer pays a flat monthly "shipping fee"
> for Internet traffic.  The problem comes in when the content providers
> make it "heavier" or higher bandwidth utilization beyond the control of
> the customer.  Now the customer's pipe is saturated and they aren't
> doing anything different than what they did before.  Or maybe some new
> product is released that is an out and out bandwidth hog. 

Okay, so it's kind of like the evolution of the modern road.  Years ago,
we had cars that resembled horse buggies and dirt or gravel roads.  As
time passes, cars improve and roads improve.  Now we have cars that are
capable of 200MPH and the pavers on the Autobahn use lasers to make sure
the road is sufficiently smooth that drivers don't wreck at those speeds.

At the same time, we no longer have manual laborers doing most of the
laying of the roads by hand, even the Germans figured out really quickly
that machines were better at it.  So on one hand, machinery drives the
cost of laying road down, and on the other, increased automobile use and
more roads drives the cost of maintaining our system of roads up.

Mapped back to the world of NANOG, we need to be aware that the computer
of today, the storage technology of today, the home entertainment systems
of today, etc., are all much faster and more sophisticated than just what
we had ten years ago.  We've made it very difficult for users to continue
to use older computers: the web browsers are hungrier and piggier, and a
233 MHz 32MB Win98 machine that was perfectly suitable in 1998 is only
good for being sent to India for recycling today.

It seems unlikely to me that we're going to slow the evolution of modern
computing and modern media consumption.  Perhaps we need to find a better
way to connect people.  I know that the legacy communications providers
are very hesitant to start replacing their "gravel road" coax with faster
stuff, but really, that's the point we're at.  In the last decade, the
thing that's been dragging us down is that last mile pipe.

We already know that it is reasonably economical to arrange for faster
access.  One just has to look around elsewhere to see what's been done.
Other countries are providing speeds of up to 100Mbps to residential.
We're still hearing our telcos argue for definitions of "broadband" that
are less than 1Mbps.  Talk about dirt road lovers.

> MOST people
> using consumer Internet have no idea of things like that nor should they
> need to.  All they know is that now their Internet performs like crap
> and their ISP wants more money 

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:10:38 MDT, Kevin Neal said:
> How are the guys sent out on cross-country skis going to get up to the fiber
> to repair it?  I'm sure that the cable isn't low enough for them to reach it
> without a ladder, bucket truck, helicopter  all of which you don't pack
> in on skis...

Of course it's easily reachable - it's been shot down and is on the ground.  If
it was still on the pole you wouldn't be out there on skis with a splice kit. :)

What I have to wonder about is how often hunter-inflicted damage is intentional
and located at the insulator (which makes for a good story) and how often it's
a totally accidental stray bullet nicking the cable many yards from the nearest
pole (which makes for a poor story).  I'd expect that since the fiber is
usually hung much closer to the ground, it would get hit a lot more than the
power cables higher up. Also, you're less likely to notice a 1mm divot taken
out of a (usually thicker and sturdier and essentially single fat conductor)
power cable than a 1mm divot out of a 48 pair.

(Consider that even today, it is *still* relatively common to visit some CIvil
War battlegrounds and find 2 bullets that hit each other in mid-air.  Of
course, most of those were probably going down a narrow cone pointed at the
source of the other bullet, but still, it indicates that with enough hunters
and enough bullets, somebody's going to nick that 300 miles of cable hanging
just a few yards above the deer



pgpq7nRTktt0l.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Kevin Neal]

I guess it depends on whether these are wooden poles or the metal towers
that I find around here for long haul power.

-Kevin


On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Mark Keymer  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> That is easy. "Tree Climbing Spurs / Tree Climbing Spikes" A quick
> Google search found these for sale. http://wesspur.com/spurs/spurs.html
>
> :)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark
>
>
> Kevin Neal wrote:
> > How are the guys sent out on cross-country skis going to get up to the
> fiber
> > to repair it?  I'm sure that the cable isn't low enough for them to reach
> it
> > without a ladder, bucket truck, helicopter  all of which you don't
> pack
> > in on skis...
> >
> >
> > -Kevin
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Seth Mattinen 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 9/21/2010 10:52, Holmes,David A wrote:
> >>
> >>> Modern telephone pole aerial fiber uses all dialectric self-supporting
> >>> (ADSS) technology, where the self-supporting component consists
> >>> primarily of aramid yarn, the same material used for bullet-proof
> vests.
> >>> This makes for an extremely light weight, almost indestructible fiber
> >>> bundle. My guess is that ADSS fiber would deflect any bullets, or it
> >>> would take a very good marksman using a very high caliber weapon to
> >>> actually sever an aerial fiber.
> >>>
> >>> Now in the case described below where optical ground wire (OPGW) fiber
> >>> is used as a component in the ground wire running at the top of high
> >>> voltage transmission towers, it may be possible to hit the insulators
> at
> >>> the top of the towers, but the ground wire itself is usually armored,
> >>> with ADSS inside. Seems far-fetched to me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Back in my ISP days it was more common for people to take pot shots at
> >> remote equipment cabinets than the cable/fiber itself. Any field
> >> enclosure is as easy a target as your average bullet-ridden road sign.
> >> Although this was extremely rare; I can only recall one instance where
> >> it was the direct cause of an outage.
> >>
> >> ~Seth
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Mark Keymer]

Hi Kevin,

That is easy. "Tree Climbing Spurs / Tree Climbing Spikes" A quick
Google search found these for sale. http://wesspur.com/spurs/spurs.html

:)

Sincerely,

Mark


Kevin Neal wrote:
> How are the guys sent out on cross-country skis going to get up to the fiber
> to repair it?  I'm sure that the cable isn't low enough for them to reach it
> without a ladder, bucket truck, helicopter  all of which you don't pack
> in on skis...
>
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
>   
>> On 9/21/2010 10:52, Holmes,David A wrote:
>> 
>>> Modern telephone pole aerial fiber uses all dialectric self-supporting
>>> (ADSS) technology, where the self-supporting component consists
>>> primarily of aramid yarn, the same material used for bullet-proof vests.
>>> This makes for an extremely light weight, almost indestructible fiber
>>> bundle. My guess is that ADSS fiber would deflect any bullets, or it
>>> would take a very good marksman using a very high caliber weapon to
>>> actually sever an aerial fiber.
>>>
>>> Now in the case described below where optical ground wire (OPGW) fiber
>>> is used as a component in the ground wire running at the top of high
>>> voltage transmission towers, it may be possible to hit the insulators at
>>> the top of the towers, but the ground wire itself is usually armored,
>>> with ADSS inside. Seems far-fetched to me.
>>>
>>>   
>> Back in my ISP days it was more common for people to take pot shots at
>> remote equipment cabinets than the cable/fiber itself. Any field
>> enclosure is as easy a target as your average bullet-ridden road sign.
>> Although this was extremely rare; I can only recall one instance where
>> it was the direct cause of an outage.
>>
>> ~Seth
>>
>>
>> 

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Kevin Neal]

How are the guys sent out on cross-country skis going to get up to the fiber
to repair it?  I'm sure that the cable isn't low enough for them to reach it
without a ladder, bucket truck, helicopter  all of which you don't pack
in on skis...


-Kevin

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 9/21/2010 10:52, Holmes,David A wrote:
> > Modern telephone pole aerial fiber uses all dialectric self-supporting
> > (ADSS) technology, where the self-supporting component consists
> > primarily of aramid yarn, the same material used for bullet-proof vests.
> > This makes for an extremely light weight, almost indestructible fiber
> > bundle. My guess is that ADSS fiber would deflect any bullets, or it
> > would take a very good marksman using a very high caliber weapon to
> > actually sever an aerial fiber.
> >
> > Now in the case described below where optical ground wire (OPGW) fiber
> > is used as a component in the ground wire running at the top of high
> > voltage transmission towers, it may be possible to hit the insulators at
> > the top of the towers, but the ground wire itself is usually armored,
> > with ADSS inside. Seems far-fetched to me.
> >
>
>
> Back in my ISP days it was more common for people to take pot shots at
> remote equipment cabinets than the cable/fiber itself. Any field
> enclosure is as easy a target as your average bullet-ridden road sign.
> Although this was extremely rare; I can only recall one instance where
> it was the direct cause of an outage.
>
> ~Seth
>
>

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Seth Mattinen]

On 9/21/2010 10:52, Holmes,David A wrote:
> Modern telephone pole aerial fiber uses all dialectric self-supporting
> (ADSS) technology, where the self-supporting component consists
> primarily of aramid yarn, the same material used for bullet-proof vests.
> This makes for an extremely light weight, almost indestructible fiber
> bundle. My guess is that ADSS fiber would deflect any bullets, or it
> would take a very good marksman using a very high caliber weapon to
> actually sever an aerial fiber. 
> 
> Now in the case described below where optical ground wire (OPGW) fiber
> is used as a component in the ground wire running at the top of high
> voltage transmission towers, it may be possible to hit the insulators at
> the top of the towers, but the ground wire itself is usually armored,
> with ADSS inside. Seems far-fetched to me.
> 


Back in my ISP days it was more common for people to take pot shots at
remote equipment cabinets than the cable/fiber itself. Any field
enclosure is as easy a target as your average bullet-ridden road sign.
Although this was extremely rare; I can only recall one instance where
it was the direct cause of an outage.

~Seth

RE: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Holmes,David A]

Modern telephone pole aerial fiber uses all dialectric self-supporting
(ADSS) technology, where the self-supporting component consists
primarily of aramid yarn, the same material used for bullet-proof vests.
This makes for an extremely light weight, almost indestructible fiber
bundle. My guess is that ADSS fiber would deflect any bullets, or it
would take a very good marksman using a very high caliber weapon to
actually sever an aerial fiber. 

Now in the case described below where optical ground wire (OPGW) fiber
is used as a component in the ground wire running at the top of high
voltage transmission towers, it may be possible to hit the insulators at
the top of the towers, but the ground wire itself is usually armored,
with ADSS inside. Seems far-fetched to me.

-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:05 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: US hunters shoot down Google fibre


http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.
aspx

Repairers forced to ski in to Oregon back woods.

Google has revealed that aerial fibre links to its data centre in Oregon
were
"regularly" shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables
underground.

The search and advertising giant's network engineering manager Vijay
Gill
told the AusNOG conference in Sydney last week that people were trying
to hit
insulators on electricity distribution poles.

The poles also hosted aerially-deployed fibre connected to Google's
$US600
million ($A635 million) data centre in the Dalles, a small city on the
Columbia River in the US state of Oregon.

"What people do for sport or because they're bored, they try to shoot at
the
insulators," Gill said.

"I have yet to see them actually hit the insulator, but they regularly
shoot
down the fibre.

"Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the
fibre
will be shot down, so much so that we are now building an underground
path
[for it]."

Gill said that on one occasion, a snowstorm and avalanche prevented
Google
from transporting repairers and gear into the area of the cut.

It usually used a helicopter or a Caterpillar D9 tractor for transport.
It
improvised by sending three technicians on skis to "repair the fibre
that got
shot down".

"These guys had to cross country ski for three days," Gill said.

"[One guy] is carrying what is known as a fusion splicing kit on his
backpack."

He joked: "These guys had to go in and fix the fibre while facing
gunshots

"So [the] internet... [it's] more dangerous than you realise."

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Andrew Kirch]

 On 9/21/2010 12:29 PM, Tony Finch wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Reese wrote:
Several years ago I heard of a Swiss ISP having the same problem. They
built their network by running fibre along the earth conductor of high
voltage transmission lines (like Energis in the UK). I was told that it
was common for hunters to verify the setting of their sights by shooting
at the lines.

Tony.
I shoot competition rifle, and rifles just aren't that accurate.  You 
certainly CAN shoot out a fiber or utility line on the pole, from point 
blank, but it's not actually useful in diagnosing or correcting problems 
with the rifle.  A good rifle will shoot 1" groups (`MOA) at 100 yards, 
and most lines on the pole are smaller, fiber being much smaller.  There 
are rifles that exceed 1MOA, but most hunters quite frankly can't afford 
them, nor are they necessary for hunting.




Andrew

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[George Bonser]

> 
> My friend, that is a straw man. ISPs have complete control over who
> they peer with, the size of the peering pipe they accept and whether
> that peering session is free or paid. If peering with Netflix will
> cost you more than you gain, you just don't do it.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

To some extent, yes, it is.  There is a certain amount of "devil's
advocate" being played on my part to help flesh out the nature of the
problem and other ideas from other folks and their insight.  Sometimes
you just have to run something up the pole and see who shoots at it and
what they shoot.

I suppose what I am saying is that in general, selling express treatment
in the core is probably a bad idea as it gives the bean counters an
incentive not to approve capacity increases in order to increase revenue
from selling "premium" access.  In some cases, prioritizing on the
customer edge might be a good idea so your 16yo downloading movies or
sharing his porn collection doesn't keep your VIOP phone from working.

There is room for innovation to decrease bandwidth utilization at least
in the core and at the Internet edge of the provider's network.
Multicast, for example, has never really reached its potential for
streaming live events such as sporting, news, or live entertainment
events.  Sometimes the investment in innovation must be caused by
feeling some pain if things are left as they are.  Currently the ones
feeling the pain are not the ones who would have to undertake that
investment; there is nothing the ISP or consumer can do to improve the
content provider's application. The point I was trying to make is maybe
if those content providers did experience some or more financial
consequence of increased bandwidth consumption, they would be more
sensitive to it and we would all benefit as a result.

G

RE: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Tony Thornton]

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1040489

-Original Message-
From: Positively Optimistic [mailto:positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:07 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management
on
6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of
our
facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches
seemed to
be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a
problem..

Pictures are welcomed...   off-list contact would be great.

Thanks

[NANOG-announce] Final agenda posted for NANOG 50

[David Meyer]

Folks,

The agenda for NANOG 50 has been updated. The agenda looks very good and we
are
looking forward to seeing you all in Atlanta. Please note that tomorrow
(09/21) is the
last day before late registration kicks in. So please register tomorrow if
you haven't
already.

Looking forward to Atlanta,

Dave

(for the NANOG PC)
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[George Bonser]

> Yes they are -- content providers aren't getting their connections to
> the
> Internet for free (and if they are, how can I get me some of that?).

Maybe I wasn't clear.  Traffic is moving away from "transit" to direct
peering at private exchanges in many cases.  Since most exchanges are
"flat rate" and aren't all that expensive, it is "practically" free.
For example, if I have a 10G connection to an exchange (say Equinix IX,
or DEIX in Germany, or LINX in the UK, or PARIX in France, or INIX in
Ireland among other) it doesn't cost me any more to send 1G than it does
to send 5G of traffic. So if something happens that increases the
bandwidth utilization, my monthly cost does not change until I have to
change to higher capacity media and that is a step change.  

> > If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
> > some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to
the
> > end user.
> 
> Say wha?  ISPs don't *have* to peer at an IX; if they think that it's
> cheaper to buy transit from someone than it is to peer, they're more
> than
> capable of doing so.

Transit would have to get extremely cheap to compete with exchange
peering.  I don't see it getting that low any time soon.


> 
> The customer's requesting this traffic, therefore the customer needs a
> bigger pipe, therefore the customer pays more.

The problem is that maybe the customer is doing nothing different than
they have always done.  They didn't request more bandwidth.  The product
they have always used now consumes more bandwidth through no fault of
their own.   It would be as if you regularly ordered some product every
month and the product keeps getting heavier and heavier and the shipping
costs go up until the weight is higher than the carrier will ship.  You
are ordering the same thing you always did, you didn't ask for it to be
heavier, the producer decided to make it heavier.  But that is not a
perfect analogy because a consumer pays a flat monthly "shipping fee"
for Internet traffic.  The problem comes in when the content providers
make it "heavier" or higher bandwidth utilization beyond the control of
the customer.  Now the customer's pipe is saturated and they aren't
doing anything different than what they did before.  Or maybe some new
product is released that is an out and out bandwidth hog.  MOST people
using consumer Internet have no idea of things like that nor should they
need to.  All they know is that now their Internet performs like crap
and their ISP wants more money to make it work better.  They might feel
they have been ripped off.  As time goes by, their Internet performs
worse and worse, they begin to blame their network provider for that,
not the content provider who produces a product that consumes increasing
amounts of bandwidth as time goes by.  Consider, for example, the number
of sites that have streaming media of some sort that begins to play as
soon as you land on the page.  

> - Matt

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Tony Finch]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Reese wrote:
>
> I don't want to start an off-topic subthread but I have to call
> bullshit on this so-called "news" story.

Several years ago I heard of a Swiss ISP having the same problem. They
built their network by running fibre along the earth conductor of high
voltage transmission lines (like Energis in the UK). I was told that it
was common for hunters to verify the setting of their sights by shooting
at the lines.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7,
DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR
ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Leslie]

I don't want to start an off-topic subthread but I have to call
bullshit on this so-called "news" story. So it is my intent that
this be my first, last, and only post on this topic.

Was it addressed at NANOG (in SF?) that many rifles and amateur
shooters both, are capable of sub-MOA accuracy at short distances?
By short, I mean ~50 yards or less.

Or that a hunter with even modest self-training, who was aiming at
an insulator with a properly sighted-in rifle at short range, has
a significantly greater probability of hitting the insulator being
aimed at than of hitting the supported wire? That wasn't addressed
in the buttwipe propaganda from down under. Need I remind anyone of
the Dunblane and Port Arthur incidents and the subsequent gun control
crackdowns in each of those countries. I wouldn't expect any crown-
influenced news agency to give issues involving our Second Amendment
a fair shake. Just like I don't expect logic or sanity from the Brady
Campaign on the 2A issue. Nor should anyone else. The story smacks of
deliberately painting hunters as irresponsible ruffians and worse.

What sort of repair rates do the power or other companies running
wire across that expanse contend with? Given the remoteness, the
identity of the affected client (Google) and the apparent absence of
additional information, corporate sabotage seems just-as or even-more
probable than random irresponsible hunters. To be fair, some shooters
are irresponsible, but deliberate sabotage cannot be ruled out with
only the information currently available.


In my experience, there's really two types of shootings (which really 
depend on the region) -- Number one is using shotguns, not rifles, and 
bird hunting - for example when goose hunting season happens, you'll see 
fiber shot out over lakes/rivers more often - I think this is both bad 
aim and not really caring.  (Occasionally the shot will even be stuck in 
the lines or insulation so you can tell it was a shotgun) The second is 
drunk idiots shooting at the lines - this is more universal and happens 
closer to civilization.  Power companies will also have repair issues 
with either of these, but fiber, phone, and cable lines are more likely 
as they are lower to the ground due to regulations that state they have 
to be at least X feet away from the power lines.


I don't think anyone is claiming all hunters/gun owners are 
irresponsible, but, as with any segment of the population, when you have 
a large group there will be a percentage of complete idiots out there 
who take stupid actions.


As for the 2nd amendment stuff - I'm not touching that one with a 10 
foot fiber ;)


Leslie

RE: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Dylan Ebner]

Justin really hit in on the head with points 4 and 5. You can have the the most 
organized cabling in the work and lack of labeling and documentation can kill 
you in a second. A long time ago I was introduced to the rule of 8s. 80% of 
network outages are caused by cable failure, 80% of the time to repair is 
finding the cable, and for a mid to large organization, it costs 80K per hour 
of downtime. 

We took this to heart and borrowed an idea from Sun. Every cable in our DC has 
two labels per end. One label for the near end and one for the far. This way 
you always know where you came from and where you are going. It takes a lot of 
time to setup, but it is worth every penny,

 

Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer
Consulting Radiologists, Ltd.

-Original Message-
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 8:39 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Positively Optimistic wrote:

> Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management on
> 6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
> facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed to
> be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a problem..

The biggest things with 6500s, or any high-density configuration for that 
matter, are:
1. Using racks/cabinets that have ample space for your vertical and 
horizontal cabling.  If you don't have this, things can get ugly in a 
hurry.  Make sure the kit you choose has plenty of wire management 
channel space left over even after the racks are fully populated.  Having
to tear overstuffed wire management channels apart to back-pull a bad cable
or jumper at 3 AM is no fun.
2. Emphasizing the importance of following established cabling standards 
to the people who will be touching this equipment.  Having visual aids, 
i.e. "Here are some pictures of the quality of work we expect", usually go 
a lot farther to drive this point home than handing someone a 20-page 
cabling standards document with no pictures.
3. Dont forget about your inter-rack/overhead wiring channels/trays.  I've 
seen a few places that had things neatly dressed in the racks, but the 
overhead channels were a complete mess... assumingly because they were 
hidden from view :).  If your overhead distribution has separate 
channels/lanes for power/copper/fiber, even better.
4. Labeling and documentation.
5. See 4.

jms

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Matthew Topper wrote:


Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, but it seems to be that
that would be a huge problem when you need to change out a cable or
move something.  Do the benefits outweigh the headaches with this kind
of setup?


Keeping the 'unseen' copper/fiber bundles neatly organized can actually 
make those moves easier.  If you have to replace a jumper, sure it means 
taking some extra time to undo and re-do the velcro tape loops as you go, 
but if done properly, it shouldn't add much extra time.


The argument could also be made that a properly run and dressed cabling 
job would need to be touched less frequently, and by extension, is less 
prone to physical failures that would require changing out a cable.


jms


On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:

On 21/09/2010 06:07, Positively Optimistic wrote:


Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management
on
6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed
to
be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a problem..


courtesy of Richard Steenbergen:

http://cluepon.net/ras/betterfiber.jpg

Nick

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Seth Mattinen]

On 9/21/10 8:23 AM, Matthew Topper wrote:
> Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, but it seems to be that
> that would be a huge problem when you need to change out a cable or
> move something.  Do the benefits outweigh the headaches with this kind
> of setup?
> 


I can't speak for others, but I find it's rarely necessary to move a
physical cable. If I need to "move" something I do it virtually in the
config.

~Seth

RE: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Todd Snyder]

"Fiber Week"?

-Original Message-
From: Leslie [mailto:les...@craigslist.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:29 AM
To: Christopher Morrow
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

Hunters, backhoes, and ship anchors are all fiber's natural enemies -
I'm surprised Discovery Channel hasn't done a special on it!

On 9/21/10 6:19 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> this was presented at the nanog in ... SF I think as well:
> 
>
> not really news...
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
>>
>> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx
>>
>> Repairers forced to ski in to Oregon back woods.
>>
>> Google has revealed that aerial fibre links to its data centre in Oregon were
>> "regularly" shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables
>> underground.
>>
>> The search and advertising giant's network engineering manager Vijay Gill
>> told the AusNOG conference in Sydney last week that people were trying to hit
>> insulators on electricity distribution poles.
>>
>> The poles also hosted aerially-deployed fibre connected to Google's $US600
>> million ($A635 million) data centre in the Dalles, a small city on the
>> Columbia River in the US state of Oregon.
>>
>> "What people do for sport or because they're bored, they try to shoot at the
>> insulators," Gill said.
>>
>> "I have yet to see them actually hit the insulator, but they regularly shoot
>> down the fibre.
>>
>> "Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the fibre
>> will be shot down, so much so that we are now building an underground path
>> [for it]."
>>
>> Gill said that on one occasion, a snowstorm and avalanche prevented Google
>> from transporting repairers and gear into the area of the cut.
>>
>> It usually used a helicopter or a Caterpillar D9 tractor for transport. It
>> improvised by sending three technicians on skis to "repair the fibre that got
>> shot down".
>>
>> "These guys had to cross country ski for three days," Gill said.
>>
>> "[One guy] is carrying what is known as a fusion splicing kit on his
>> backpack."
>>
>> He joked: "These guys had to go in and fix the fibre while facing gunshots
>>
>> "So [the] internet... [it's] more dangerous than you realise."
>>
>>


-
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential 
information, privileged material (including material protected by the 
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public 
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, 
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your 
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission 
by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Re: IPv6 tunnel brokers that provide BGP other than HE?

[Jack Carrozzo]

OCCAID has been doing this for a while but I don't see anything on their
site about it. Might try contacting them.

-Jack Carrozzo

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Not a complete solution, but, you could always do a second HE tunnel to a
> different site for at least
> some level of redundancy.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 21, 2010, at 7:12 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
>
> > Neither of our upstream providers offer direct ipv6 although both claim
> deployment in Q1 2011. In the meantime, we have a tunnel with BGP to HE
> announcing our /48, but we are looking for redundancy. Is there anyone else
> out there offering services like Hurricane Electric?
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Matthew Huff   | One Manhattanville Rd
> > OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
> > http://www.ox.com  | Phone: 914-460-4039
> > aim: matthewbhuff  | Fax:   914-460-4139
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Reese]

At 09:19 21 09 10, Christopher Morrow wrote:


this was presented at the nanog in ... SF I think as well:


not really news...

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
>
> 



I don't want to start an off-topic subthread but I have to call
bullshit on this so-called "news" story. So it is my intent that
this be my first, last, and only post on this topic.

Was it addressed at NANOG (in SF?) that many rifles and amateur
shooters both, are capable of sub-MOA accuracy at short distances?
By short, I mean ~50 yards or less.

Or that a hunter with even modest self-training, who was aiming at
an insulator with a properly sighted-in rifle at short range, has
a significantly greater probability of hitting the insulator being
aimed at than of hitting the supported wire? That wasn't addressed
in the buttwipe propaganda from down under. Need I remind anyone of
the Dunblane and Port Arthur incidents and the subsequent gun control
crackdowns in each of those countries. I wouldn't expect any crown-
influenced news agency to give issues involving our Second Amendment
a fair shake. Just like I don't expect logic or sanity from the Brady
Campaign on the 2A issue. Nor should anyone else. The story smacks of
deliberately painting hunters as irresponsible ruffians and worse.

What sort of repair rates do the power or other companies running
wire across that expanse contend with? Given the remoteness, the
identity of the affected client (Google) and the apparent absence of
additional information, corporate sabotage seems just-as or even-more
probable than random irresponsible hunters. To be fair, some shooters
are irresponsible, but deliberate sabotage cannot be ruled out with
only the information currently available.

Reese

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Leslie]

Hunters, backhoes, and ship anchors are all fiber's natural enemies - 
I'm surprised Discovery Channel hasn't done a special on it!


On 9/21/10 6:19 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

this was presented at the nanog in ... SF I think as well:


not really news...

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:


http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx

Repairers forced to ski in to Oregon back woods.

Google has revealed that aerial fibre links to its data centre in Oregon were
"regularly" shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables
underground.

The search and advertising giant's network engineering manager Vijay Gill
told the AusNOG conference in Sydney last week that people were trying to hit
insulators on electricity distribution poles.

The poles also hosted aerially-deployed fibre connected to Google's $US600
million ($A635 million) data centre in the Dalles, a small city on the
Columbia River in the US state of Oregon.

"What people do for sport or because they're bored, they try to shoot at the
insulators," Gill said.

"I have yet to see them actually hit the insulator, but they regularly shoot
down the fibre.

"Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the fibre
will be shot down, so much so that we are now building an underground path
[for it]."

Gill said that on one occasion, a snowstorm and avalanche prevented Google
from transporting repairers and gear into the area of the cut.

It usually used a helicopter or a Caterpillar D9 tractor for transport. It
improvised by sending three technicians on skis to "repair the fibre that got
shot down".

"These guys had to cross country ski for three days," Gill said.

"[One guy] is carrying what is known as a fusion splicing kit on his
backpack."

He joked: "These guys had to go in and fix the fibre while facing gunshots

"So [the] internet... [it's] more dangerous than you realise."

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Chuck Anderson]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:19:50AM -0400, Brandon Applegate wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Positively Optimistic wrote:
> http://www.cecommunication.com/pages/cablemgmtproducts.html
>
> I have no affiliation with them nor do I even have any - but they do look 
> nice.  They claim to not block blade swaps or fan tray removal.
>
> If you notice about half the pics/links posted - folks have ALL cabling  
> leaving the 6500 to one side.  If you don't do this, you must disconnect  
> cables to get the fan tray out.  The folks fanning to both sides are  
> either ignorant or overly optimistic (no pun intended WRT your email  
> address) :)

Also in line with this, make sure the cables are bundled per-card, 
leaving a service loop big enough to be able to pull the line card out 
all the way without disconnecting the cables.  This allows you to swap 
a line card and then move the cables one-by-one to the new card 
without losing track of where each cable connects.

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Matthew Topper]

Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, but it seems to be that
that would be a huge problem when you need to change out a cable or
move something.  Do the benefits outweigh the headaches with this kind
of setup?

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> On 21/09/2010 06:07, Positively Optimistic wrote:
>>
>> Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management
>> on
>> 6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
>> facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed
>> to
>> be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a problem..
>
> courtesy of Richard Steenbergen:
>
> http://cluepon.net/ras/betterfiber.jpg
>
> Nick
>
>
>

Re: IPv6 tunnel brokers that provide BGP other than HE?

[Owen DeLong]

Not a complete solution, but, you could always do a second HE tunnel to a 
different site for at least
some level of redundancy.

Owen

On Sep 21, 2010, at 7:12 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:

> Neither of our upstream providers offer direct ipv6 although both claim 
> deployment in Q1 2011. In the meantime, we have a tunnel with BGP to HE 
> announcing our /48, but we are looking for redundancy. Is there anyone else 
> out there offering services like Hurricane Electric? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Huff   | One Manhattanville Rd
> OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
> http://www.ox.com  | Phone: 914-460-4039
> aim: matthewbhuff  | Fax:   914-460-4139
> 
> 
> 

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Seth Mattinen]

On 9/21/10 5:38 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
> And, of course, the easy way:
> 
> http://bill.herrin.us/pictures/2008/cables-sm.jpg
> 

A similar way would be MRJ21 cables and patch panels or fan out ends,
but Cisco doesn't make any line cards with it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vax-o-matic/2465615611/in/photostream/

~Seth

async serial fiber transceivers

[Christopher O'Brien]

Greetings,
I am planning on deploying a console access server on my network for
20-30 network devices including routers, wireless controllers and other
devices.  The design is to have one central device for all console access.

Due to the geographic diversity of my campus, I will need need to carry
the async serial connections over my fiber plant with long reach optics
and single mode fiber.  I have the fiber plant to support this design.
I have been researching solutions to implement the serial part, but I am
not very familiar with the vendors I am coming up with.  For instance, I
know Black Box Networks makes products like this but they only seem to
have stand alone devices.  I was hoping for something rack mountable
since I will have a dense deployment of these devices.

Does anyone have experience deploying a solution like this or with async
serial fiber transceivers in general?  I welcome any suggestions.
-Chris

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Brandon Applegate]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Positively Optimistic wrote:


Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management on
6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed to
be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a problem..

Pictures are welcomed...   off-list contact would be great.

Thanks



http://www.cecommunication.com/pages/cablemgmtproducts.html

I have no affiliation with them nor do I even have any - but they do look 
nice.  They claim to not block blade swaps or fan tray removal.


If you notice about half the pics/links posted - folks have ALL cabling 
leaving the 6500 to one side.  If you don't do this, you must disconnect 
cables to get the fan tray out.  The folks fanning to both sides are 
either ignorant or overly optimistic (no pun intended WRT your email 
address) :)


--
Brandon Applegate - CCIE 10273
PGP Key fingerprint:
7407 DC86 AA7B A57F 62D1 A715 3C63 66A1 181E 6996
"SH1-0151.  This is the serial number, of our orbital gun."

Re: IPv6 tunnel brokers that provide BGP other than HE?

[Jack Bates]

On 9/21/2010 9:12 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:

Neither of our upstream providers offer direct ipv6 although both claim 
deployment in Q1 2011. In the meantime, we have a tunnel with BGP to HE 
announcing our /48, but we are looking for redundancy. Is there anyone else out 
there offering services like Hurricane Electric?


Many are, though generally you'll pay a fee for the tunnel, and some 
have bandwidth limitations for the tunnel. In particular, talk with 
NTTA, L3, or glbx who all have dual stack and tunnel capabilities.



Jack

IPv6 tunnel brokers that provide BGP other than HE?

[Matthew Huff]

Neither of our upstream providers offer direct ipv6 although both claim 
deployment in Q1 2011. In the meantime, we have a tunnel with BGP to HE 
announcing our /48, but we are looking for redundancy. Is there anyone else out 
there offering services like Hurricane Electric? 




Matthew Huff   | One Manhattanville Rd
OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
http://www.ox.com  | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff  | Fax:   914-460-4139

Twitter web interface exploit ...

[Jorge Amodio]

Don't believe it will create any network waves but just FYI, history
reached mainstream media
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social.media/09/21/twitter.security.flaw/index.html?on.cnn=1

According to the birdy folks the exploit is being patched right now.

J

Re: financial peering?

[todd glassey]

On 9/21/2010 6:09 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> 
>> Does anyone know if there is a peering point setup to pass traffic to
>> credit card processes such as First Data and or the ATM interexchange
>> networks?
> 
> If you're talking about exchanging IP traffic with a payment processor,
> I don't think there is an exchange point dedicated to them.  They would
> either buy transit from a provider, or have a presence at one or more
> public exchange points.  If you want to use a specific payment
> processor, many of the ones I've seen have a way to move payment info
> securely over the public Internet, or if you have a large enough
> transaction volume (or your business policies require it), a circuit
> directly to the processor's network might be an option.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by an "ATM interexchange network".

There are financial networking providers like SAVVIS and others who
handle this. There are a number of others including parties with PCI-DSS
competence in their compliance models.

The evidence capture and maintanence requirements for these closed
networks are very strict so, they dont allow non-players to participate
in their activities.

The Banking Service orgs like DIRBOLD Financial for instance or NCR or
any of a couple dozen other providers do this type of thing...

What specifically are you looking to do with them?

> 
> jms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3148 - Release Date: 09/20/10 
> 10:04:00
> 


-- 
//-


This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
on this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

>> But there is a potential problem here in that content providers are
>> producing applications and content requiring increasing amounts of
>> bandwidth but are not bearing the cost of delivering that content to the
>> end user.  If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
>> some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to the
>> end user.
> [...]
>> In that light I can see where they might want a fee.  But a better way
>> of looking at it is not in prioritizing anyone up, look at it the other
>> way.  Imagine an ISP says "if you don't pay us, we are going to
>> prioritize your traffic down".  So anyone who pays gets their traffic at
>> the normal default priority, those who don't pay get in the "space
>> available" line.  Now a content provider who does not pay the toll sees
>> a drop in users which equates to a possible drop in ad revenue.
> 
> There's a huge risk in this.
> 
> Service providers have to recognize that their customers have already
> paid for access; when I pay a provider for an "Internet" connection, I
> am not paying them to deprioritize the destination I'm trying to reach,
> and that would be an epic fail of "best effort".
> 
> Content providers already pay fees.  No content is generated and served
> entirely for free.  Even in a "free peering" model, electricity costs
> money, cooling costs money, space costs money, servers cost money, and
> meeting some network's peering requirements generally involves peering
> at multiple locations.  Content authors usually prefer to be paid, net
> ops people usually prefer to be paid, system admins usually prefer to be
> paid, etc.  Content providers pay a lot.
> 

+1

> There are some key bits that people miss about all of this.
> 
> First off, Internet Service Providers get customers because people want
> access to all this fantastic content that's out on the Internet.  No
> Yahoo!, no Google, no YouTube, no Facebook, no Netflix, none of that?
> Can you honestly tell me that customers would keep their subscriptions
> to a service provider without anywhere to go?  Is it the content 
> providers who are getting a free ride?  Or is it the Internet Service 
> Providers?  Perhaps they're a symbiotic relationship.
> 
> Next, content providers are generally already paying their own Service
> Providers for access to the Internet.  That might be a Cogent or a
> Hurricane or a ServerCentral.  This covers most of the "small fry".  A
> large guy like Google may have settlement-free peering with eyeball 
> networks, but then again, they've invested an incredible amount of 
> money in being a destination your customers want to get to...  the truth
> of the matter is you, your customer, and Google all benefit from it.
> 

Every content provider, large or small, in my experience pays for Internet. 
Where the checks go to may vary (dark fiber vs colo charges vs ISP payments vs 
...), but every content provider has (or has service providers that have) some 
sort of contractual arrangement with the entities they connect to and has spent 
money based on that. Sure, those contracts can be mutually renegotiated, prices 
may go up or down, etc., but letting third parties interfere with these 
arrangements sets a very dangerous precedent that cannot be good for the 
Internet as a whole (again, IMO).

Regards
Marshall


> Finally, there's a risk that this double-edged sword could slice back 
> at service providers.  Content networks often raise funds through
> advertising.  What happens when one day, some network (*cough ESPN360*), 
> decides that a *SERVICE PROVIDER* should pay for the privilege of
> getting access to their content?  I mean, after all, two can play at
> the game of holding the ISP's subscribers hostage, and in many areas,
> subscribers do have a choice between at least two service providers,
> in case their first choice sucks.  I don't think we want this, but it
> could be a natural backlash.  What if Google came to you and said "you
> will pay us a dollar per sub per month, or we will route all your
> traffic through a 56k link in Timbuktu"?  Would most eyeball networks
> even have a realistic *choice*?
> 
> At the end of the day, after stripping away all the distractions, the
> concept of prioritizing traffic looks to me like something that is
> ultimately intended to squeeze more revenue out of the network, and
> this happens by not giving the customer some of what they have already
> paid for:  in other words, this happens at the customer's expense.
> 
> ... JG
> -- 
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail 
> spam(CNN)
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
> 
> 

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Positively Optimistic wrote:


Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management on
6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed to
be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a problem..


The biggest things with 6500s, or any high-density configuration for that 
matter, are:
1. Using racks/cabinets that have ample space for your vertical and 
horizontal cabling.  If you don't have this, things can get ugly in a 
hurry.  Make sure the kit you choose has plenty of wire management 
channel space left over even after the racks are fully populated.  Having

to tear overstuffed wire management channels apart to back-pull a bad cable
or jumper at 3 AM is no fun.
2. Emphasizing the importance of following established cabling standards 
to the people who will be touching this equipment.  Having visual aids, 
i.e. "Here are some pictures of the quality of work we expect", usually go 
a lot farther to drive this point home than handing someone a 20-page 
cabling standards document with no pictures.
3. Dont forget about your inter-rack/overhead wiring channels/trays.  I've 
seen a few places that had things neatly dressed in the racks, but the 
overhead channels were a complete mess... assumingly because they were 
hidden from view :).  If your overhead distribution has separate 
channels/lanes for power/copper/fiber, even better.

4. Labeling and documentation.
5. See 4.

jms

Re: financial peering?

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:36 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:

> Does anyone know if there is a peering point setup to pass traffic to
> credit card processes such as First Data and or the ATM interexchange
> networks?
> Cheers
> Ryan
> 

What features would you want / need that are not present on a normal Layer 3 
exchange ? Exchange mediated NAT/PAT ?

Regards
Marshall


> 
> 

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Jack Bates]

On 9/21/2010 8:12 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

Finally, there's a risk that this double-edged sword could slice back
at service providers.  Content networks often raise funds through
advertising.  What happens when one day, some network (*cough ESPN360*),
decides that a *SERVICE PROVIDER* should pay for the privilege of
getting access to their content?  I mean, after all, two can play at
the game of holding the ISP's subscribers hostage, and in many areas,
subscribers do have a choice between at least two service providers,
in case their first choice sucks.  I don't think we want this, but it
could be a natural backlash.  What if Google came to you and said "you
will pay us a dollar per sub per month, or we will route all your
traffic through a 56k link in Timbuktu"?  Would most eyeball networks
even have a realistic *choice*?


Yeah, wish that was illegal. The size of the provider determines the 
cost per capable subscriber, along with other perks, so it's a better 
deal for the AT&T and Verizons of the world, and sucks for the "We have 
13 independent ILECs and each has to have a separate deal." Word is, 
they designed it with their current cable customers in mind, not the 
traditional ISP, so it pushes people towards the cable company.


I'd accept any ISP net-neutrality arguement for content providers to 
stop doing that crap and support per user subscription fees. The whole 
beauty of the Internet video is people can pick and choose and not have 
to pay for things they don't use (ie, for espn3, I have to account the 
per customer charges into my bills and pester my customers with espn3 
advertising in their bills even if they hate sports or don't watch 
video/tv/movies).



Jack

Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Christopher Morrow]

this was presented at the nanog in ... SF I think as well:


not really news...

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
>
> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx
>
> Repairers forced to ski in to Oregon back woods.
>
> Google has revealed that aerial fibre links to its data centre in Oregon were
> "regularly" shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables
> underground.
>
> The search and advertising giant's network engineering manager Vijay Gill
> told the AusNOG conference in Sydney last week that people were trying to hit
> insulators on electricity distribution poles.
>
> The poles also hosted aerially-deployed fibre connected to Google's $US600
> million ($A635 million) data centre in the Dalles, a small city on the
> Columbia River in the US state of Oregon.
>
> "What people do for sport or because they're bored, they try to shoot at the
> insulators," Gill said.
>
> "I have yet to see them actually hit the insulator, but they regularly shoot
> down the fibre.
>
> "Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the fibre
> will be shot down, so much so that we are now building an underground path
> [for it]."
>
> Gill said that on one occasion, a snowstorm and avalanche prevented Google
> from transporting repairers and gear into the area of the cut.
>
> It usually used a helicopter or a Caterpillar D9 tractor for transport. It
> improvised by sending three technicians on skis to "repair the fibre that got
> shot down".
>
> "These guys had to cross country ski for three days," Gill said.
>
> "[One guy] is carrying what is known as a fusion splicing kit on his
> backpack."
>
> He joked: "These guys had to go in and fix the fibre while facing gunshots
>
> "So [the] internet... [it's] more dangerous than you realise."
>
>

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Joe Greco]

> But there is a potential problem here in that content providers are
> producing applications and content requiring increasing amounts of
> bandwidth but are not bearing the cost of delivering that content to the
> end user.  If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
> some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to the
> end user.
[...]
> In that light I can see where they might want a fee.  But a better way
> of looking at it is not in prioritizing anyone up, look at it the other
> way.  Imagine an ISP says "if you don't pay us, we are going to
> prioritize your traffic down".  So anyone who pays gets their traffic at
> the normal default priority, those who don't pay get in the "space
> available" line.  Now a content provider who does not pay the toll sees
> a drop in users which equates to a possible drop in ad revenue.

There's a huge risk in this.

Service providers have to recognize that their customers have already
paid for access; when I pay a provider for an "Internet" connection, I
am not paying them to deprioritize the destination I'm trying to reach,
and that would be an epic fail of "best effort".

Content providers already pay fees.  No content is generated and served
entirely for free.  Even in a "free peering" model, electricity costs
money, cooling costs money, space costs money, servers cost money, and
meeting some network's peering requirements generally involves peering
at multiple locations.  Content authors usually prefer to be paid, net
ops people usually prefer to be paid, system admins usually prefer to be
paid, etc.  Content providers pay a lot.

There are some key bits that people miss about all of this.

First off, Internet Service Providers get customers because people want
access to all this fantastic content that's out on the Internet.  No
Yahoo!, no Google, no YouTube, no Facebook, no Netflix, none of that?
Can you honestly tell me that customers would keep their subscriptions
to a service provider without anywhere to go?  Is it the content 
providers who are getting a free ride?  Or is it the Internet Service 
Providers?  Perhaps they're a symbiotic relationship.

Next, content providers are generally already paying their own Service
Providers for access to the Internet.  That might be a Cogent or a
Hurricane or a ServerCentral.  This covers most of the "small fry".  A
large guy like Google may have settlement-free peering with eyeball 
networks, but then again, they've invested an incredible amount of 
money in being a destination your customers want to get to...  the truth
of the matter is you, your customer, and Google all benefit from it.

Finally, there's a risk that this double-edged sword could slice back 
at service providers.  Content networks often raise funds through
advertising.  What happens when one day, some network (*cough ESPN360*), 
decides that a *SERVICE PROVIDER* should pay for the privilege of
getting access to their content?  I mean, after all, two can play at
the game of holding the ISP's subscribers hostage, and in many areas,
subscribers do have a choice between at least two service providers,
in case their first choice sucks.  I don't think we want this, but it
could be a natural backlash.  What if Google came to you and said "you
will pay us a dollar per sub per month, or we will route all your
traffic through a 56k link in Timbuktu"?  Would most eyeball networks
even have a realistic *choice*?

At the end of the day, after stripping away all the distractions, the
concept of prioritizing traffic looks to me like something that is
ultimately intended to squeeze more revenue out of the network, and
this happens by not giving the customer some of what they have already
paid for:  in other words, this happens at the customer's expense.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: financial peering?

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Ryan Finnesey wrote:


Does anyone know if there is a peering point setup to pass traffic to
credit card processes such as First Data and or the ATM interexchange
networks?


If you're talking about exchanging IP traffic with a payment processor, I 
don't think there is an exchange point dedicated to them.  They would 
either buy transit from a provider, or have a presence at one or more 
public exchange points.  If you want to use a specific payment processor, 
many of the ones I've seen have a way to move payment info securely over 
the public Internet, or if you have a large enough transaction volume (or 
your business policies require it), a circuit directly to the processor's 
network might be an option.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by an "ATM interexchange network".

jms

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Positively Optimistic
 wrote:
> Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management on
> 6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
> facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed to
> be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a problem..
>
> Pictures are welcomed...   off-list contact would be great.

>From Google image search:

http://pics.poisonnuke.de/upload/2/Kabelsalat_Nexus7010.jpg
http://pics.poisonnuke.de/upload/2/Cisco6513.jpg
http://joost.blogsite.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/26092008014.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_jqU6k3eD83g/SYCVZXpBQMI/ARg/odmVcFK3jzo/dec2008+019.JPG
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_jqU6k3eD83g/So7MFuzfitI/Bjw/qL7ad0ZefP8/DSC01782.JPG


And, of course, the easy way:

http://bill.herrin.us/pictures/2008/cables-sm.jpg



Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Eugen Leitl]

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx

Repairers forced to ski in to Oregon back woods.

Google has revealed that aerial fibre links to its data centre in Oregon were
"regularly" shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables
underground.

The search and advertising giant's network engineering manager Vijay Gill
told the AusNOG conference in Sydney last week that people were trying to hit
insulators on electricity distribution poles.

The poles also hosted aerially-deployed fibre connected to Google's $US600
million ($A635 million) data centre in the Dalles, a small city on the
Columbia River in the US state of Oregon.

"What people do for sport or because they're bored, they try to shoot at the
insulators," Gill said.

"I have yet to see them actually hit the insulator, but they regularly shoot
down the fibre.

"Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the fibre
will be shot down, so much so that we are now building an underground path
[for it]."

Gill said that on one occasion, a snowstorm and avalanche prevented Google
from transporting repairers and gear into the area of the cut.

It usually used a helicopter or a Caterpillar D9 tractor for transport. It
improvised by sending three technicians on skis to "repair the fibre that got
shot down".

"These guys had to cross country ski for three days," Gill said.

"[One guy] is carrying what is known as a fusion splicing kit on his
backpack."

He joked: "These guys had to go in and fix the fibre while facing gunshots

"So [the] internet... [it's] more dangerous than you realise."

Re: Juniper SSG-140, Monitoring and control the usage of the Internet

[Marek Lukaszuk]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 07:49, Yasir Munir Abbasi  wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

> I have a SSG-140 Juniper Firewall. I need to ask, how can I Monitor the 
> individual IP traffic? I mean I want to see who is taking more bandwidth.
>
> Please help me out. Thanks

As far as I know, you will not be able to get any bandwidth usage per
host from the ScreenOS.
You can still get a pretty good idea who is hammering your network
either by enabling logging on the policies or by analyzing the session
table. In both cases you you will probably need to analyze the data on
some remote host (traffic/policy logs can be send by syslog, get
session output can be copy over tftp) and not on the device itself.
There is no support for anything like JFlow or NetFlow on ScreenOS.

> Yasir Munir Abbasi

Thanks,
Marek

Re: Cisco 6509/6513 cable management...

[Nick Hilliard]

On 21/09/2010 06:07, Positively Optimistic wrote:

Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management on
6509/6513 cisco switches?   We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
facilities,..  and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed to
be a great idea...   8 48port blades..  pose a challenge.. or a problem..


courtesy of Richard Steenbergen:

http://cluepon.net/ras/betterfiber.jpg

Nick

financial peering?

[Ryan Finnesey]

Does anyone know if there is a peering point setup to pass traffic to
credit card processes such as First Data and or the ATM interexchange
networks?
Cheers
Ryan