ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Martin Hepworth
http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/


-- 
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK


Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Vlad Galu
On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/


Saying the other brand sucks doesn't make yours any better. Besides, there are 
other big players on the market. Terribly lame of Cisco...
 
Vlad Galu
g...@packetdam.com







Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Nick Hilliard
On 14/09/2011 11:42, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/

Wow, classy.

Nick



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Brian Raaen
Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip do not 
look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all 
over the site.



whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

   Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
   Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
   Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
   Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
   Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
   Status: clientDeleteProhibited
   Status: clientRenewProhibited
   Status: clientTransferProhibited
   Status: clientUpdateProhibited
   Updated Date: 05-sep-2011
   Creation Date: 05-sep-2011
   Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012

Registrant:
   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
   DomainsByProxy.com
   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
   United States

   Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
   Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
  Created on: 05-Sep-11
  Expires on: 05-Sep-12
  Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11

   Administrative Contact:
  Private, Registration  overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
  Domains by Proxy, Inc.
  DomainsByProxy.com
  15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
  Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
  United States
  (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598

   Technical Contact:
  Private, Registration  overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
  Domains by Proxy, Inc.
  DomainsByProxy.com
  15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
  Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
  United States
  (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598

   Domain servers in listed order:
  NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
  NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM



braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN  A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  A   98.129.229.190

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS  ns36.domaincontrol.com.
OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS  ns35.domaincontrol.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   216.69.185.18
ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   208.109.255.18


braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> -x 98.129.229.190
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa.   IN  PTR

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300IN  SOA ns.rackspace.com. 
hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300



---
Brian Raaen
Network Architect
Zcorum
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
> 
> 
> -- 
> Martin Hepworth
> Oxford, UK



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Always Learning

On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 07:15 -0400, Brian Raaen wrote:

> Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip
> do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted
> their logo all over the site.

(1) If Cisco were responsible, would they want to advertise the fact ?

(2) If Cisco feel their intellectual and copyright property is being
abused, Cisco lawyers would have the Cisco name and branding removed in
seconds !


Paul,
England,
EU.





Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Frank Habicht
Main cisco page has a link to it...

Frank

On 9/14/2011 2:15 PM, Brian Raaen wrote:
> Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip do not 
> look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all 
> over the site.
> 
> 
> 
> whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net
> 
> Whois Server Version 2.0
> 
> Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
> with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
> for detailed information.
> 
>Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
>Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
>Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
>Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
>Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
>Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
>Status: clientDeleteProhibited
>Status: clientRenewProhibited
>Status: clientTransferProhibited
>Status: clientUpdateProhibited
>Updated Date: 05-sep-2011
>Creation Date: 05-sep-2011
>Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012
> 
> Registrant:
>Domains by Proxy, Inc.
>DomainsByProxy.com
>15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
>Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
>United States
> 
>Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
>Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
>   Created on: 05-Sep-11
>   Expires on: 05-Sep-12
>   Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11
> 
>Administrative Contact:
>   Private, Registration  overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
>   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
>   DomainsByProxy.com
>   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
>   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
>   United States
>   (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598
> 
>Technical Contact:
>   Private, Registration  overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
>   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
>   DomainsByProxy.com
>   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
>   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
>   United States
>   (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598
> 
>Domain servers in listed order:
>   NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
>   NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> 
> 
> 
> braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN  A
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  A   98.129.229.190
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS  ns36.domaincontrol.com.
> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS  ns35.domaincontrol.com.
> 
> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   216.69.185.18
> ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   208.109.255.18
> 
> 
> braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> -x 98.129.229.190
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa.   IN  PTR
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300IN  SOA ns.rackspace.com. 
> hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Brian Raaen
> Network Architect
> Zcorum
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Martin Hepworth
>> Oxford, UK
> 




HP A-series, H3C, Huawei and their capabilities in real-life

2011-09-14 Thread Mark Smith
Hi list

Does anyone have (or know somebody who has) real-life experience of HP
A-series (former Huawei and H3C) high-end routers in service provider
environment? From the specs they look very good (both features and
performance) but the specs don't tell everything and nothing can
replace real-life experience.

The features I'm interested in include (not in any specific order)
- v4 and v6 routing
- BGP (full feed)
- OSPF and IS-IS
- MPLS(-TE) P/PE functionality (RSVP, L3VPN, VPLS)

For example this box
http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/products/routers/HP_A8800_Router_Series/index.aspx

Any info or pointers greatly appreciated.

Rgds,
Mark



RE: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Erik Bais
Hi Frank,

http://blogs.cisco.com/tag/overpromise/  

Quote from the blog: "Some vendors have repeatedly over-promised and under
delivered, and still somehow receive credit for their vision! (You can read
more about one vendor's repeated broken promises here.)" 

http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/  

https://twitter.com/#!/CiscoSystems/status/113226120601677825  

https://twitter.com/#!/CiscoNL/statuses/113577908525744129 

Personally I think this is a pathetic action from Cisco, however I'm not
surprised by them doing it ... 

Regards,
Erik Bais

> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Habicht [mailto:ge...@geier.ne.tz]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:21 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: ouch..
> 
> Main cisco page has a link to it...
> 
> Frank
> 
> On 9/14/2011 2:15 PM, Brian Raaen wrote:
> > Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip
> do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted
> their logo all over the site.
> >
> >
> >
> > whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net
> >
> > Whois Server Version 2.0
> >
> > Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
> > with many different competing registrars. Go to
> http://www.internic.net
> > for detailed information.
> >
> >Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> >Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
> >Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
> >Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
> >Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> >Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> >Status: clientDeleteProhibited
> >Status: clientRenewProhibited
> >Status: clientTransferProhibited
> >Status: clientUpdateProhibited
> >Updated Date: 05-sep-2011
> >Creation Date: 05-sep-2011
> >Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012
> >
> > Registrant:
> >Domains by Proxy, Inc.
> >DomainsByProxy.com
> >15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
> >Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
> >United States
> >
> >Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
> >Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> >   Created on: 05-Sep-11
> >   Expires on: 05-Sep-12
> >   Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11
> >
> >Administrative Contact:
> >   Private, Registration
> overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
> >   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
> >   DomainsByProxy.com
> >   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
> >   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
> >   United States
> >   (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598
> >
> >Technical Contact:
> >   Private, Registration
> overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
> >   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
> >   DomainsByProxy.com
> >   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
> >   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
> >   United States
> >   (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598
> >
> >Domain servers in listed order:
> >   NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> >   NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> >
> >
> >
> > braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> >
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> > ;; global options: +cmd
> > ;; Got answer:
> > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339
> > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
> >
> > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN  A
> >
> > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  A   98.129.229.190
> >
> > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS
> ns36.domaincontrol.com.
> > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS
> ns35.domaincontrol.com.
> >
> > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> > ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   216.69.185.18
> > ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   208.109.255.18
> >
> >
> > braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190
> >
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> -x 98.129.229.190
> > ;; global options: +cmd
> > ;; Got answer:
> > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507
> > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
> >
> > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa.   IN  PTR
> >
> > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> > 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300IN  SOA ns.rackspace.com.
> hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Brian Raaen
> > Network Architect
> > Zcorum
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> >> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Martin Hepworth
> >> Oxford, UK
> >
> 
> 
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3895 - Release Date: 09/13/11




Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Brian Raaen
Nice, I didn't see that.  Then I guess whoever set up this site was a shill for 
Cisco, I just love how instead of focusing on developing better products, that 
they are more about marketing now.

---
Brian Raaen
Network Architect
Zcorum

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:20:56PM +0300, Frank Habicht wrote:
> Main cisco page has a link to it...
> 
> Frank
> 
> On 9/14/2011 2:15 PM, Brian Raaen wrote:
> > Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip do 
> > not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo 
> > all over the site.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net
> > 
> > Whois Server Version 2.0
> > 
> > Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
> > with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
> > for detailed information.
> > 
> >Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> >Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
> >Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
> >Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
> >Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> >Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> >Status: clientDeleteProhibited
> >Status: clientRenewProhibited
> >Status: clientTransferProhibited
> >Status: clientUpdateProhibited
> >Updated Date: 05-sep-2011
> >Creation Date: 05-sep-2011
> >Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012
> > 
> > Registrant:
> >Domains by Proxy, Inc.
> >DomainsByProxy.com
> >15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
> >Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
> >United States
> > 
> >Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
> >Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> >   Created on: 05-Sep-11
> >   Expires on: 05-Sep-12
> >   Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11
> > 
> >Administrative Contact:
> >   Private, Registration  
> > overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
> >   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
> >   DomainsByProxy.com
> >   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
> >   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
> >   United States
> >   (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598
> > 
> >Technical Contact:
> >   Private, Registration  
> > overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
> >   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
> >   DomainsByProxy.com
> >   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
> >   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
> >   United States
> >   (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598
> > 
> >Domain servers in listed order:
> >   NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> >   NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> > 
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> > ;; global options: +cmd
> > ;; Got answer:
> > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339
> > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
> > 
> > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN  A
> > 
> > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  A   98.129.229.190
> > 
> > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS  ns36.domaincontrol.com.
> > OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS  ns35.domaincontrol.com.
> > 
> > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> > ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   216.69.185.18
> > ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   208.109.255.18
> > 
> > 
> > braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190
> > 
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> -x 98.129.229.190
> > ;; global options: +cmd
> > ;; Got answer:
> > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507
> > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
> > 
> > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa.   IN  PTR
> > 
> > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> > 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300IN  SOA ns.rackspace.com. 
> > hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > Brian Raaen
> > Network Architect
> > Zcorum
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> >> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Martin Hepworth
> >> Oxford, UK
> > 
> 
> 



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Bret Clark

On 09/14/2011 07:58 AM, Brian Raaen wrote:

Nice, I didn't see that.  Then I guess whoever set up this site was a shill for 
Cisco, I just love how instead of focusing on developing better products, that 
they are more about marketing now.

---
Brian Raaen
Network Architect


Cisco has always been about marketing from since Chambers took over way 
back when!




Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

2011-09-14 Thread Owen DeLong

On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Dan Wing wrote:

>> One can do that with or without NAT. This claim that one cannot
>> keep a network running without a service provider connected if you
>> don't run NAT is a myth of dubious origin.
> 
> If the hosts are running DHCP, and the ISP is running the DHCP
> server?  I guess they will fall back (after a while) to link-local
> and continue on their merry way.
> 

That's some pretty big IFs. Even if I were using DHCP to get the prefix
from my service provider via DHCP-PD, I'd back-stop that with some
form of local DHCP server and deal with the need for manual intervention
when the provider renumbered me.

In my experience, getting renumbered is a rare enough experience that
I don't pay Comcast $60/year for a static address.

Owen

>>> can accomplish this pretty easily, because the IPv4 addresses in
>>> the home can be any IPv4 address whatsoever -- which allows the
>>> in-home CPE ("B4", in Dual Stack-Lite parlance) to assign any address
>>> it wants with its built-in DHCP server.)
>>> 
>> 
>> There are other ways to accomplish this as well.
> 
> -d
> 
>>> -d
>>> 
 and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who
 pays?
>> 
>> In some cases, ISPs will provide new CPE to their end users. In other
>> cases,
>> end-users will be expected to pay to upgrade their own.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
 
 
 Christian
 
 On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote:
 
> On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter"
>> 
 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
>>> Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
>>> To: Leigh Porter
>>> Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG
>>> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>>> 
 Considering that offices, schools etc regularly have far more
>> than
 10
>>> users per IP, I think this limit is a little low. I've happily
>> had
>>> around 300 per public IP address on a large WiFi network, granted
 these
>>> are all different kinds of users, it is just something that
 operational
>>> experience will have to demonstrate.
 
>>> Yes, but, you are counting individual users whereas at the NAT444
>>> level, what's really being counted is end-customer sites not
 individual
>>> users, so the term
>>> "users" is a bit misleading in the context. A given end-customer
 site
>>> may be from 1 to 50 or more individual users.
>> 
>> Indeed, my users are using LTE dongles mostly so I expect they
>> will
 be
> single users. At the moment on the WiMAX network I see around 35
 sessions
> from a WiMAX modem on average rising to about 50 at peak times.
>> These
 are a
> combination of individual users and "home modems".
>> 
>> We had some older modems that had integrated NAT that was broken
>> and
> locked up the modem at 200 sessions. Then some old base station
 software
> died at about 10K sessions. So we monitor these things now..
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 I would love to avoid NAT444, I do not see a viable way around
>> it
 at
>>> the moment. Unless the Department of Work and Pensions release
 their /8
>>> that is ;-)
 
>>> 
>>> The best mitigation really is to get IPv6 deployed as rapidly and
>>> widely as possible. The more stuff can go native IPv6, the less
 depends
>>> on fragile NAT444.
>> 
>> Absolutely. Even things like google maps, if that can be dumped on
 v6,
> it'll save a load of sessions from people. The sooner services such
 as
> Microsoft Update turn on v6 the better as well. I would also like
>> the
 CDNs
> to be able to deliver content in v6 (even if the main page is v4)
 which
> again will reduce the traffic that has to traverse any NAT.
>> 
>> Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services
>> on
 the
> 'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will
>> not
 have
> to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts
 and
> such.
>> 
> 
> What do you mean by performance increase? If performance equals
 latency, v4
> will win for a long while still. Cgn does not add measurable
>> latency.
> 
> Cb
>> --
>> Leigh
>> 
>> 
>> 
 
>> __
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
 System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> 
 
>> __
>> 
>>> 
>>> 




RE: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Chuck Church
-Original Message-
>From: Erik Bais [mailto:eb...@a2b-internet.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:56 AM
>To: 'Frank Habicht'; nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: ouch..


>Personally I think this is a pathetic action from Cisco, however I'm not
>surprised by them doing it ... 

>Regards,
>Erik Bais

Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy.  My first thought was a
disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee.  Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in
its cartoon strips all those years.  Payback???





Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Owen DeLong

On Sep 14, 2011, at 3:54 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> On 14/09/2011 11:42, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
> 
> Wow, classy.
> 
> Nick

Wow... If Cisco slides any further into mudslinging, I'll expect the company to 
run
for president.

Owen




Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Owen DeLong
Or possibly Cisco is trying to cover their tracks.

Owen

On Sep 14, 2011, at 4:15 AM, Brian Raaen wrote:

> Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip do not 
> look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all 
> over the site.
> 
> 
> 
> whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net
> 
> Whois Server Version 2.0
> 
> Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
> with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
> for detailed information.
> 
>   Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
>   Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
>   Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
>   Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
>   Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
>   Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
>   Status: clientDeleteProhibited
>   Status: clientRenewProhibited
>   Status: clientTransferProhibited
>   Status: clientUpdateProhibited
>   Updated Date: 05-sep-2011
>   Creation Date: 05-sep-2011
>   Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012
> 
> Registrant:
>   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
>   DomainsByProxy.com
>   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
>   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
>   United States
> 
>   Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
>   Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
>  Created on: 05-Sep-11
>  Expires on: 05-Sep-12
>  Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11
> 
>   Administrative Contact:
>  Private, Registration  overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
>  Domains by Proxy, Inc.
>  DomainsByProxy.com
>  15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
>  Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
>  United States
>  (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598
> 
>   Technical Contact:
>  Private, Registration  overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com
>  Domains by Proxy, Inc.
>  DomainsByProxy.com
>  15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
>  Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
>  United States
>  (480) 624-2599  Fax -- (480) 624-2598
> 
>   Domain servers in listed order:
>  NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
>  NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
> 
> 
> 
> braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN  A
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  A   98.129.229.190
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS  ns36.domaincontrol.com.
> OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN  NS  ns35.domaincontrol.com.
> 
> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   216.69.185.18
> ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN  A   208.109.255.18
> 
> 
> braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> -x 98.129.229.190
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa.   IN  PTR
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300IN  SOA ns.rackspace.com. 
> hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Brian Raaen
> Network Architect
> Zcorum
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Martin Hepworth
>> Oxford, UK




Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Saku Ytti

One:
> Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip do not
> look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all
> over the site.

Another:
> Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy.  My first thought was a
> disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee.  Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in
> its cartoon strips all those years.  Payback???

I'm bit surprised people actually think where campaign site is hosted and who
has registered domain can be used to predict who is responsible for it. Cisco
marketing probably have tons of webshops from whom they buy campaigns, what
ever company was responsibly for winning this bid happens to use godaddy and
rackspace.
Our marketing has bought campaigns which have been hosted in our competitors
networks, they don't understand to ask from the bidder where and how will the
pages be hosted.


-- 
  ++ytti



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread N. Max Pierson
Check out the White Papar referenced 

http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/pdfs/Why_Cisco_Not_Juniper.pdf

It has Cisco's usual White Paper format and their copyright stamped on the
bottom which is also dates "9/11". If it's not Cisco or one of it's
affiliates, I would expect them to be contacting their so called "Marketing"
folks anytime now.

If this really is Cisco  i'm with Owen and expect a presidential bid
announcement any second now 

Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the
site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some
feedback :)

-
Max

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Saku Ytti  wrote:

>
> One:
> > Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip do
> not
> > look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo
> all
> > over the site.
>
> Another:
> > Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy.  My first thought was a
> > disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee.  Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in
> > its cartoon strips all those years.  Payback???
>
> I'm bit surprised people actually think where campaign site is hosted and
> who
> has registered domain can be used to predict who is responsible for it.
> Cisco
> marketing probably have tons of webshops from whom they buy campaigns, what
> ever company was responsibly for winning this bid happens to use godaddy
> and
> rackspace.
> Our marketing has bought campaigns which have been hosted in our
> competitors
> networks, they don't understand to ask from the bidder where and how will
> the
> pages be hosted.
>
>
> --
>  ++ytti
>
>


Re: Microsoft deems all DigiNotar certificates untrustworthy, releases

2011-09-14 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Ted Cooper
 wrote:
>
> As claimed by the DigiNotar hacker - He compromised their servers but
> Eddy was manually approving certs at the time and so no certs were signed.
>
> There was information about it on the site, but it seems to be gone now.
> Articles still show a screenshot of the message you're talking about [1]
> , but the site was back alive in July when I needed a certificate.
>
> "A separate notice on another part of the company's site says that its
> services would be unavailable until June 20, " [2]
>
> I've certainly been able to issue certificates for myself since then.

indeed, cool! I was able to have a site cert issued lastnight as well.
This is (for me) good news :)

-chris



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Always Learning

On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:

> Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
> fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
> somewhere for some feedback :)

Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?


-- 
With best regards,

Paul.
England,
EU.





Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread sthaug
> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?

If you believe any vendors out there are white knights (telling no
lies) you may need a reality check.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread N. Max Pierson
Define Cisco in your context please. Cisco marketing?? Cisco sales?? Cisco
TAC? Cisco product development??

I've been told several lies by some Cisco SE's that have worked with me, but
I wouldn't go as far to say "Cisco lies".

-
Max

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Always Learning  wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:
>
> > Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
> > fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
> > somewhere for some feedback :)
>
> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?
>
>
> --
> With best regards,
>
> Paul.
> England,
> EU.
>
>
>


Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread James Jones
:)

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:36 AM, Always Learning  wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:
> 
>> Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
>> fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
>> somewhere for some feedback :)
> 
> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?
> 
> 
> -- 
> With best regards,
> 
> Paul.
> England,
> EU.
> 
> 
> 



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:44:10 CDT, "N. Max Pierson" said:
> Define Cisco in your context please. Cisco marketing?? Cisco sales?? Cisco
> TAC? Cisco product development??

Cisco outsourced PR campaign?  Wouldn't be the first time a company has hired a
shop, stuck a link to the result on their home page, and then been surprised by
what they linked to.

In any case, I'm sure *somebody* is having an uncomfortable conversation
in their supervisor's office this morning. ;)


pgpZSBaqeud2w.pgp
Description: PGP signature


RE: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Leigh Porter


> -Original Message-
> From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net]
> Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39
> To: N. Max Pierson
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: ouch..
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:
> 
> > Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
> > fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
> > somewhere for some feedback :)
> 
> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?
> 
> 
> --
> With best regards,
> 
> Paul.
> England,
> EU.


Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..?

--
Leigh



__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread James Jones
Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter  wrote:

> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net]
>> Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39
>> To: N. Max Pierson
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: ouch..
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:
>> 
>>> Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
>>> fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
>>> somewhere for some feedback :)
>> 
>> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> With best regards,
>> 
>> Paul.
>> England,
>> EU.
> 
> 
> Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..?
> 
> --
> Leigh
> 
> 
> 
> __
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> __
> 



RE: NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 55 - Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Sutton, Allen

Well, I'm not surprised at all, being that Cisco also does this to 
Alcatel-Lucent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX3zvjX3c5Q

I think Cisco is just running scared now.  If they didn't charge so much for 
their products, they wouldn't have this problem.  In addition, I think they 
also thought that they would be # 1 forever and that nobody could touch them, 
so they just stopped trying to stay ahead of the competition.
_
Allen


-Original Message-
From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org [mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:56 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 55

Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
nanog@nanog.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
nanog-requ...@nanog.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
nanog-ow...@nanog.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of NANOG digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. RE: NAT444 or ? (Dan Wing)
   2. ouch.. (Martin Hepworth)
   3. Re: ouch.. (Vlad Galu)
   4. Re: ouch.. (Nick Hilliard)
   5. Re: ouch.. (Brian Raaen)
   6. Re: ouch.. (Always Learning)
   7. Re: ouch.. (Frank Habicht)
   8. HP A-series, H3C, Huawei and their capabilities in real-life
  (Mark Smith)
   9. RE: ouch.. (Erik Bais)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:28:17 -0700
From: "Dan Wing" 
To: "'Owen DeLong'" 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: NAT444 or ?
Message-ID: <0a4d01cc729f$1bc0abc0$53420340$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"

> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:43 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Leigh Porter'; 'David Israel'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> >>
> >> Good point, but aside from these scaling issues which I expect can
> be
> >> resolved to a point, the more serious issue, I think, is
> applications
> >> that just do not work with double NAT. Now, I have not conducted
> >> any serious research into this, but it seems that
> >> draft-donley-nat444- impacts does appear to have highlight issues
> >> that may have been down
> to
> >> implementation.
> >
> > Draft-donley-nat444-impacts conflates bandwidth constraints with CGN
> > with in-home NAT.  Until those are separated and then analyzed
> carefully,
> > it is harmful to draw conclusions such as "NAT444 bad; NAT44 good".
> >
>
> Continuing to make this claim does not make it any more true.
>
> Draft-donley took networks and measured their real-world functionality
> without NAT444, then, added NAT444 and repeated the same tests.
> Regardless of the underlying issue(s), the addition of NAT444 to the
> mix resulted in the forms of service degradation enumerated in the
> draft.

I disagree it reached that conclusion.  That may have been its intent.

> Further, I would not ever say "NAT444 bad; NAT44 good". I would say,
> rather, "NAT44 bad, NAT444 worse". I think that's a pretty safe and
> non-harmful thing to say.

Yes, your statement is completely accurate.  I agree that IPv4 address sharing 
causes additional problems (which encompasses all forms of
IPv4 address sharing), and CGN causes additional problems.

> >> Other simple tricks such as ensuring that your own internal
> >> services such as DNS are available without traversing NAT also help.
> >
> > Yep.  But some users want to use other DNS servers for performance
> > (e.g., Google's or OpenDNS servers, especially considering they
> > could point the user at a 'better' (closer) CDN based on Client IP),
> > to avoid ISP DNS hijacking, or for content control (e.g., "parental
> > control" of DNS hostnames).  That traffic will,
> necessarily,
> > traverse the CGN.  To avoid users burning through their UDP port
> > allocation for those DNS queries it is useful for the CGN to have
> > short timeouts for port 53.
> >
> If the user chooses to use a DNS server on the other side of a NAT,
> then, they are choosing to inflict whatever damage upon themselves.
> I'm not saying that short UDP/53 timeouts are a bad idea, but, I am
> saying that the more stuff you funnel through an LSN at the carrier,
> the more stuff you will see break. This would lead me to want to avoid
> funneling anything through said NAT which I could avoid. Then again, I
> run my own authoritative and recursive nameservers in my home and
> don't use any NAT at all, so, perhaps my perspective is different from
> others.

Yeah, you are probably of about 1000 or maybe 3000 people in the world that do 
that.  Seems to be a minority.

> >> Certainly some more work can be done in this area, but I fear that
> the
> >> only way a real idea as to how much NAT444 really doe break things
> will
> >> be operational experience.
> >

Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Paul
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/CRS-1x100GE_DS.html ? 

James Jones  wrote:

>Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter  wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net]
>>> Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39
>>> To: N. Max Pierson
>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: ouch..
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:
>>> 
 Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
 fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
 somewhere for some feedback :)
>>> 
>>> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> With best regards,
>>> 
>>> Paul.
>>> England,
>>> EU.
>> 
>> 
>> Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..?
>> 
>> --
>> Leigh
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> __
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>> __
>> 
>


Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Randy Bush
> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/

amazingly professional.  not.

but lead contestant for pathetic jealousy post of the year



RE: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Leigh Porter
Great, can you actually order one and really have it delivered? Not that you 
would really want to I guess, but if you were into that kind of thing..

Point me to it if I am wrong, but I still do not see an MX-series 100G 
interface even on the Juniper site..

http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx960/#modules

--
Leigh


> -Original Message-
> From: Paul [mailto:p...@paulgraydon.co.uk]
> Sent: 14 September 2011 16:48
> To: James Jones; Leigh Porter
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Always Learning
> Subject: Re: ouch..
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/CRS-
> 1x100GE_DS.html ?
> 
> James Jones  wrote:
> 
> >Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where.
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter
>  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net]
> >>> Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39
> >>> To: N. Max Pierson
> >>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> >>> Subject: Re: ouch..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:
> >>>
>  Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
>  fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
>  somewhere for some feedback :)
> >>>
> >>> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> With best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Paul.
> >>> England,
> >>> EU.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Leigh
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> __
> >> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
> System.
> >> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> >>
> __
> >>
> >
> 
> __
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> __

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__


Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread James Jones
I stand corrected. I willing to admit when I am wrong. So do that only have 
100Gb on the carrier routers?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 14, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Paul   wrote:

> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/CRS-1x100GE_DS.html 
> ? 
> 
> James Jones  wrote:
> 
>> Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 -Original Message-
 From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net]
 Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39
 To: N. Max Pierson
 Cc: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: ouch..
 
 
 On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:
 
> Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
> fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
> somewhere for some feedback :)
 
 Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?
 
 
 --
 With best regards,
 
 Paul.
 England,
 EU.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Leigh
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>> __
>>> 
>> 



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread David Israel

On 9/14/2011 10:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:

On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:

Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
somewhere for some feedback :)

Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?



Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..?



That's disingenuous.  The question was not whether Cisco has ever lied, 
but whether the web page lies.  The web page very carefully picks and 
chooses facts, but I don't think it actually lies.  Therefore, it isn't 
slander.  It's just mudslinging.


Also, on another note, nobody should be surprised that the registration 
information doesn't say "Cisco."  Think about it: would they want "whois 
overpromisesunderdelivers.com" to say "Cisco" all over it?







Re: Microsoft deems all DigiNotar certificates untrustworthy, releases

2011-09-14 Thread Lou Katz
The problem that I see with browser response to self-signed (or org generated) 
certs is
not the warning(s) but the assertion that the cert is invalid. Not issued by 
one of the
players in the Protection Racket does not make the cert invalid. It may be 
untrustable,
unreliable, from an unknown and/or unverifiable source, but it IS a valid cert. 
Certs in
a revocation list or malformed certs are invalid. 

After all, the Diginotar certs were 'valid', until revoked. Apparently the 
(arbitrary)
inclusion or exclusion of a root cert by each browser creator or distributer is
equated with validity. By removing the Diginotar root cert, suddenly ALL 
Diginotar
certs are now reported to end users as Invalid? By refusing to include a CACert 
root
certificate, no CACert certificate is 'valid'? I think not.

-- 

-=[L]=-
Hand typed on my Remington portable




Opta revokes Diginotar TTP license (Was: Microsoft deems all DigiNotar certificates untrustworthy, releases)

2011-09-14 Thread Jeroen Massar
And to end this thread as this effectively ends Diginotar troubles for
the Interwebz:

Dutch official statement:
http://www.opta.nl/nl/actueel/alle-publicaties/publicatie/?id=3469

English Summary "OPTA revokes Diginotar License as TTP":
http://www.circleid.com/posts/opta_revokes_diginotar_license_as_ttp/

Greets,
 Jeroen



Re: Opta revokes Diginotar TTP license (Was: Microsoft deems all DigiNotar certificates untrustworthy, releases)

2011-09-14 Thread Always Learning

On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 19:16 +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> And to end this thread as this effectively ends Diginotar troubles for
> the Interwebz:
> 
> Dutch official statement:
> http://www.opta.nl/nl/actueel/alle-publicaties/publicatie/?id=3469

Bedankt. Vertaling (my own translation, niet slecht voor een
buitenlander) 

OPTA regulates the Dutch communications market including consumer
protection.

OPTA has now ended the registration of Diginotar as a supplier of
authorised certificates for electronic signatures. 

An investigation by OPTA revealed the trustworthiness of approved
certificates from Diginotar can no longer be guaranteed.

This means the business of issuing authorised certificates must stop and
no new authorised certificates must be issued.


-- 
With best regards,

Paul.
England,
EU.





Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Brandon Galbraith
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:02 AM, David Israel  wrote:

> On 9/14/2011 10:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote:
>>
>>> Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the
 fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form
 somewhere for some feedback :)

>>> Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ?
>>>
>>>
>> Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..?
>>
>>
> That's disingenuous.  The question was not whether Cisco has ever lied, but
> whether the web page lies.  The web page very carefully picks and chooses
> facts, but I don't think it actually lies.  Therefore, it isn't slander.
>  It's just mudslinging.
>
> Also, on another note, nobody should be surprised that the registration
> information doesn't say "Cisco."  Think about it: would they want "whois
> overpromisesunderdelivers.com" to say "Cisco" all over it?
>
>
Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're
gear just works.

-- 
Brandon Galbraith
US Voice: 630.492.0464


Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Scott Weeks


--- brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Brandon Galbraith 

Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're
gear just works.
---


Unless it's the ERX series.  Blech, it puts a bad taste in my mouth just 
writing the acronym ERX.  Thank $deity that I don't have to work on those 
anymore...

scott



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Michael Hare

You seem to have accidentally put an 'R' between your E and X ;)

On 9/14/2011 4:05 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:



--- brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Brandon Galbraith

Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're
gear just works.
---


Unless it's the ERX series.  Blech, it puts a bad taste in my mouth just 
writing the acronym ERX.  Thank $deity that I don't have to work on those 
anymore...

scott





Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Don Gould

Well...

Seems to be popping up on global NOG lists today.

When you're already in trouble with the wife you go have a beer with 
your mates.


This campaign got all of you to stop talking about NAT444 and focused on 
talking about Cisco and Juniper gear.


Hell, if I put my tinfoil hat on, I'd say this was a joint venture by 
both vendors to get you all to focus on their kit and stop looking at 
other brands or talking about technology standards.


How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web site?

* Does Juniper break promises?
* Does Cisco break them?
* What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper?
* What is the best technology for each company?
* Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution?

...I could go on...

It's 9:20am here and I woke up to a flurry of the worlds leading IP 
people talking about Cisco and Juniper -


To:   From:  
Subject:  Global brand awareness Marketing campaign

Body:  Job well done.

D

On 15/09/2011 9:05 a.m., Scott Weeks wrote:



--- brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Brandon Galbraith

Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're
gear just works.
---


Unless it's the ERX series.  Blech, it puts a bad taste in my mouth just 
writing the acronym ERX.  Thank $deity that I don't have to work on those 
anymore...

scott







Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:24:25AM +1200, Don Gould wrote:
> How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web site?

Ok, I'll take a swing at your list...

> * Does Juniper break promises?

Yes.

> * Does Cisco break them?

Yes.

> * What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper?

It might take me several days, and many pages to compile that list.

> * What is the best technology for each company?

Cisco: The AGS+ was ahead of its time.
Jiniper: The Olive is quite nifty.

> * Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution?

Yes, but I can't afford it.

Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate even the
thought of NAT444?

:) :) :)

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpEPzh82PK9Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Summary: US Colo transit pricing

2011-09-14 Thread Jay Ashworth
My apologies; I was just too damned tired to do this last night, by which
time I had gotten my answer: $17 for a 5 way blend based on L3 and GBLX, in 
Tampa, isn't really all that bad. (100mbs commit; GigE fiber redundant)

City  PipeCommitCarrier(s) $/mbs
===
various   1G+ unk   Cogent/HE  <1
various   1G  1GHE 1 for 3yr cont.
various   1G+ unk   carriers not spec  2-3
multi 10G/agg 10G   carrier not spec   3
various   unk 1Gcarrier not spec   3-20[1]
LAmetro   4x1G250-500M  carriers not spec  <5
NYC/colo  1G  500M  carrier not spec   5
var/colo  1G  100-1Gblend not spec 15-20 down to 8
Portland  1G  100M  AboveNet   9
various   unk 700Magg   Internap   9
var/colo  unk unk   blend not spec.10
various   unk 50-100M   carriers not spec  20-10
unk/colo  1G  150Magg   Tier2 not spec 15 renego from *50*
SF/colo   unk "small"   carriers not spec  45

Those are sorted in ascending order by the lowest rate quoted; where
I could discern that it was for colo delivery, I've said so.  Some commits
(and hence rates) were aggregated over pipes or sites; if it was clear that
the price applied to multiple quotes or blended bandwidth I've noted that
too.

My thanks to the folks who took a moment to contribute; the outcome of my 
inquiry was "nah; I guess the price I got quoted really isn't all that bad,
given the quality of the datacenter involved (which is quite nicely done).

Cheers,
-- jra

[1]"depending on how many beers we'd had together at NANOG meetings"
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Don Gould



On 15/09/2011 9:46 a.m., Leo Bicknell wrote:

Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate even the
thought of NAT444?


Clearly some hate it enough to go to the trouble of making a 'we think 
they suck' web site in an attempt to draw readers in a different direction.


Now with respect to your list... I'm sure there will be many that will 
be quite interested to see it, so Monday?


:)

Beer

D



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread James Jones

On 9/14/11 2:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

In a message written on Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:24:25AM +1200, Don Gould wrote:

How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web site?

Ok, I'll take a swing at your list...


* Does Juniper break promises?

Yes.


* Does Cisco break them?

Yes.


* What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper?

It might take me several days, and many pages to compile that list.


* What is the best technology for each company?

Cisco: The AGS+ was ahead of its time.
Jiniper: The Olive is quite nifty.


* Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution?

Yes, but I can't afford it.

Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate even the
thought of NAT444?

:) :) :)



Just the thought of NAT444 makes my stomach turn.





Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Mark Gauvin
Nat444 or frontal labotomy hmm let's see at least with the second I  
would still be able to make a living as a micro soft network admin;)

Sent from my iPhone

On 2011-09-14, at 6:07 PM, "James Jones"  wrote:

> On 9/14/11 2:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> In a message written on Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:24:25AM +1200, Don  
>> Gould wrote:
>>> How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web  
>>> site?
>> Ok, I'll take a swing at your list...
>>
>>> * Does Juniper break promises?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> * Does Cisco break them?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> * What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper?
>> It might take me several days, and many pages to compile that list.
>>
>>> * What is the best technology for each company?
>> Cisco: The AGS+ was ahead of its time.
>> Jiniper: The Olive is quite nifty.
>>
>>> * Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution?
>> Yes, but I can't afford it.
>>
>> Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate  
>> even the
>> thought of NAT444?
>>
>> :) :) :)
>>
>
> Just the thought of NAT444 makes my stomach turn.
>
>
>



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Michael DeMan
Good grief.

Tell me ANY vendor who has not had this happen?

| QUALIFIER | - A vendor who has been in business at least ten years please.

- Mike DeMan

On Sep 14, 2011, at 3:42 AM, Martin Hepworth wrote:

> http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
> 
> 
> -- 
> Martin Hepworth
> Oxford, UK




Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Leigh Porter
I'm looking forward to the awful experience of NAT444 promoting IPv6.


-- 
Leigh Porter


On 15 Sep 2011, at 00:37, "Mark Gauvin"  wrote:

> Nat444 or frontal labotomy hmm let's see at least with the second I  
> would still be able to make a living as a micro soft network admin;)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 2011-09-14, at 6:07 PM, "James Jones"  wrote:
> 
>> On 9/14/11 2:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>> In a message written on Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:24:25AM +1200, Don  
>>> Gould wrote:
 How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web  
 site?
>>> Ok, I'll take a swing at your list...
>>> 
 * Does Juniper break promises?
>>> Yes.
>>> 
 * Does Cisco break them?
>>> Yes.
>>> 
 * What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper?
>>> It might take me several days, and many pages to compile that list.
>>> 
 * What is the best technology for each company?
>>> Cisco: The AGS+ was ahead of its time.
>>> Jiniper: The Olive is quite nifty.
>>> 
 * Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution?
>>> Yes, but I can't afford it.
>>> 
>>> Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate  
>>> even the
>>> thought of NAT444?
>>> 
>>> :) :) :)
>>> 
>> 
>> Just the thought of NAT444 makes my stomach turn.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> __
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> __

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__



Re: ouch..

2011-09-14 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:36:42 -, Leigh Porter said:
> I'm looking forward to the awful experience of NAT444 promoting IPv6.

In NAT444, no one can hear you scream


pgpBLlUFzt9KM.pgp
Description: PGP signature