Re: massive facebook outage presently
Wishful thinking .. but hey, one is allowed to dream. /M On 04/10/2021 18:57, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 10/4/21 10:35, Mel Beckman wrote: Suspiciously, this comes the morning after Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen disclosed on 60 Minutes that Facebook's own research shows that it chose to profit from misinformation and political unrest through deliberate escalation of conflicts. Occam’s razor says “When multiple causes are plausible, and CBS 60 Minutes is one of them, go with 60 Minutes.” :) It could just be that after the 60 Minutes interview they've shut things down in order to divert all power to the shredders. -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair - http://www.airwire.ie - Phone: 091 395000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961 -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Re: fs.com dwdm equipment
Hi, I have both 1Gig and 10Gig DWDM optics from SF.com being using in Cisco and Mikrotik switches. Never had an issue with them. Work flawless .. for years. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd. On 18/02/2019 19:54, Anderson, Charles R wrote: I concur. I have also used CWDM and DWDM optics and they are fine. I have had one QSFP+ optic go bad. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 07:47:10PM +, Brian R wrote: Samir, I have purchased over a thousand SFPs from Fiber Store. I can recall less than 5 having problems when we received them (not all even DOA) and I know less than 10 dead even after deployment. Some we have ad running for 4+ years. We have done very little with their SFP+ equipment, really only testing and a few lower priority links. The only downside to the SFPs that we found was the variance of power. Say an Adtran, Cisco, Juniper, HP SFP is rated from -3dB to -8 db (all units I have used them with), the equivalent FS direct SFP we have seen as hot as 3dB and as weak as -15dB. These extremes are fairly rare but we have still seen them. Distribution (approximate): 80% SM single fiber SFPs (mostly 10km - 40km, some 60km & 80km) 7% 1Gb Copper 5% MM SFPs 5% SM dual fiber SFPs 3% others (SFP+, GPON, testing, etc) I have not used them for any DWDM applications and only used them a few times on an older CWDM link that used standard SFPs into a MUX. This was not over great distances (less than 40 miles). With WDM SFP power consistency was important so we did not play much with it, granted most of the SFPs I am purchasing are in the $10-$25 range so take the extremes with a grain of salt. Their sales has always been very responsive and helpful. The support/engineering, the few times I worked with them, were helpful but the language barrier was harder here. Brian From: NANOG on behalf of Samir Rana Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 12:42 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: fs.com dwdm equipment Hello All, Does anybody have experience with fs.com<http://fs.com dwdm equipment in their production environment? Are you they working without any issue? How's their warranty support if the issue arises? Thanks in advance for all the answers and help. -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: GTT Regulatory Recovery Surcharge
We have CenturyLink, Cogent, NTT and Viatel in the mix for IP transit. CenturyLink and Cogent are unproblematic, unless you change something (like upgrading a circuit). Cogent will fix billing issues quickly, but they do crop up. CenturyLink is not very communicative. Can't fault the service, but their billing department is a mess. We've had Viatel for years without much issues. They are an european Tier 2. NTT only just enabled their PoP where we haul our backhaul from, so time will show. But they've been very proactive. We used to have PacketExchange, but left them because they were a mess. They were taken over by or merged with GTT eventually. We moved to Tiscali back then, which became TInet and then changed name 2 more times before they got swallowed up by GTT. So we ended up where we started .. including all the problems that came with it. Connectivity was solid enough, once you didn't have to deal with them. But when they increased our monthly pricing, which already was on the higher scale of what we pay in the mix ... we told them to go away. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd. On 03/12/2018 14:11, Tom Beecher wrote: There are quite a few not crappy vendors out there, regardless of my snark. NTT is definitely one of the better ones. Unfortunately, telecommunications billing is only slightly less complex than medical billing, and there are plenty of vendors that have made those decisions to invest in more financial engineering than technical since, as has been said, they can. On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:05 AM Martin List-Petersen wrote: On 03/12/2018 14:01, Tom Beecher wrote: "Cancelled all GTT connections and replaced them with a carrier, that doesn't try to screw their customer base." Who is this magical unicorn? :) Replaced that circuit with NTT. So far, very pleased with that. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd. On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:51 AM Martin List-Petersen wrote: On 02/12/2018 22:06, Brandon Wade via NANOG wrote: We've been a GTT customer for several years and on our latest bill we now have a "Regulatory Recovery Surcharge" of almost 10% tacked on. We only purchase IP Transit services from them, nothing else, and have never had any fees tacked on top of our contracted agreed upon amount. Has anyone else ran into this? If this is a legit "surcharge" any idea of why we were never charged for that before? I figured I'd reach out to the community on this prior to jumping to further conclusions. -Brandon Hi, I'm not sure, if thats a stateside thing, but GTT started increasing the prices on customers that were out of contract to try and get them back into a long term contract. For us that was the last straw, where we simply told them to take their IP transit and keep it. Cancelled all GTT connections and replaced them with a carrier, that doesn't try to screw their customer base. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961 -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961 -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: GTT Regulatory Recovery Surcharge
On 03/12/2018 14:01, Tom Beecher wrote: "Cancelled all GTT connections and replaced them with a carrier, that doesn't try to screw their customer base." Who is this magical unicorn? :) Replaced that circuit with NTT. So far, very pleased with that. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd. On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:51 AM Martin List-Petersen wrote: On 02/12/2018 22:06, Brandon Wade via NANOG wrote: We've been a GTT customer for several years and on our latest bill we now have a "Regulatory Recovery Surcharge" of almost 10% tacked on. We only purchase IP Transit services from them, nothing else, and have never had any fees tacked on top of our contracted agreed upon amount. Has anyone else ran into this? If this is a legit "surcharge" any idea of why we were never charged for that before? I figured I'd reach out to the community on this prior to jumping to further conclusions. -Brandon Hi, I'm not sure, if thats a stateside thing, but GTT started increasing the prices on customers that were out of contract to try and get them back into a long term contract. For us that was the last straw, where we simply told them to take their IP transit and keep it. Cancelled all GTT connections and replaced them with a carrier, that doesn't try to screw their customer base. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961 -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: GTT Regulatory Recovery Surcharge
On 02/12/2018 22:06, Brandon Wade via NANOG wrote: We've been a GTT customer for several years and on our latest bill we now have a "Regulatory Recovery Surcharge" of almost 10% tacked on. We only purchase IP Transit services from them, nothing else, and have never had any fees tacked on top of our contracted agreed upon amount. Has anyone else ran into this? If this is a legit "surcharge" any idea of why we were never charged for that before? I figured I'd reach out to the community on this prior to jumping to further conclusions. -Brandon Hi, I'm not sure, if thats a stateside thing, but GTT started increasing the prices on customers that were out of contract to try and get them back into a long term contract. For us that was the last straw, where we simply told them to take their IP transit and keep it. Cancelled all GTT connections and replaced them with a carrier, that doesn't try to screw their customer base. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?
Hi, needing a /24 to participate in BGP has always been sort of a world-wide standard. Even before the explosion of the IPv4 BGP full table (which has more than doubled in the last decade), that was the standard. Because . if carriers (and ISPs) accepted upstream < /24, then you'd have an entirely different animal at large. The issue here is not ARIN, or RIPE, or APNIC, or AfriNIC etc. The issue is, that the industry standard is to filter the upstream table and not to accept smaller than /24 ... so even if the policies were changed your It would take decades before you'd see it routable everywhere .. if at all .. as ISPs and Carriers relax their filters. And before that happens, IPv6 will be the norm so it won't happen. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd. On 13/03/18 18:14, Justin Wilson wrote: Even to buy it on the secondary market you have to have justification and show usage. So if someone buys a /24 and really only needs a /25 then what? It ARIN, or others for that matter, going to relax those requirements? If I am an ISP and need to do BGP, maybe because I have a big downstream customer, I have to have a /24 to participate in BGP. I see these scenarios more and more. Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net www.mtin.net www.midwest-ix.com On Mar 13, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote: Marketplaces - supply and demand and costs to operate as Bill noted (never thought of that) will settle out the need. Thank You Bob Evans CTO I am looking at it from an ARIN justification point. If you are a small operator and need a /24 you have justification if you give customerâs publics, but is it a great line if you are only giving out publics for people who need cameras or need to connect in from the outside world. If I need a /24 and I donât really use it all am I being shady? It becomes a âhow much of a grey area is thereâ kind of thing. Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net www.mtin.net www.midwest-ix.com On Mar 13, 2018, at 1:37 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson <li...@mtin.net> wrote: I agree that the global routing table is pretty bloated as is. But what kind of a solution for providers who need to participate in BGP but only need a /25? Hi Justin, If you need a /25 and BGP for multihoming or anycasting, get a /24. The cost you impose on the system by using BGP *at all* is much higher than the cost you impose on the system by consuming less than 250 "unneeded" Ip addresses. I did a cost analysis on a BGP announcement a decade or so ago. The exact numbers have changed but the bottom line hasn't: it's ridiculously consumptive. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: Anyone using Cogent Ethernet
On 23/01/18 02:12, Michael Crapse wrote: Tier 1 just means they don't pay for ip transit themselves, only Peering. Doesn't mean that it's good transit. Best provider i've ever used is hurricane electric, actually a tier 2 provider, but bigger/better than many tier 1s. I'd still categorise Hurricane a lot better than Cogent. Both quality and customer service wise. /M On 22 January 2018 at 19:07, Martin List-Petersen <mar...@airwire.ie> wrote: On 22/01/18 20:05, Mike Hammett wrote: I much prefer using WDM transport as opposed to Ethernet\VPLS transport due to it being significantly harder (I try not to say impossible) to oversubscribe. That said, it isn't always available at a decent rate at a given location. Cogent has a reputation (right or wrong) for running things a little hot. Have any of you used Cogent Ethernet\VPLS services? What are you experiences? Offlist is fine if you don't want it public. Never use them without a backup alternative. I've seen more outages, that one would want to ever see from a provider, that would like to be categorised as Tier1. Especially, when some of these are longer than expected, because there were no cold-spares in the country and the cold-spare needed missed the flight. /M -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961 -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: Anyone using Cogent Ethernet
On 22/01/18 20:05, Mike Hammett wrote: I much prefer using WDM transport as opposed to Ethernet\VPLS transport due to it being significantly harder (I try not to say impossible) to oversubscribe. That said, it isn't always available at a decent rate at a given location. Cogent has a reputation (right or wrong) for running things a little hot. Have any of you used Cogent Ethernet\VPLS services? What are you experiences? Offlist is fine if you don't want it public. Never use them without a backup alternative. I've seen more outages, that one would want to ever see from a provider, that would like to be categorised as Tier1. Especially, when some of these are longer than expected, because there were no cold-spares in the country and the cold-spare needed missed the flight. /M -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: AS Numbers unused/sitting for long periods of time
On 03/01/18 03:40, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM, James Breeden <ja...@arenalgroup.co> wrote: I'm amazed at the number of AS numbers that are assigned, but not actively being used. 'not actuvely being used' ... how would you (or anyone) know? what if they were used only on some internal part of a large public network which never leaked beyond their borders/uses? What if the ASN is used on a large private network? (for instance.. where I know of several such things). I'd second those views. Just take IXPs as an example. Their AS does not necessarily get redistributed past the ISPs peering on these. Not only that, but smaller ones often have non-routable IPv4 allocations, like a /26. So saying, that an ASN is unused is never very accurate, when you don't have the full picture. And the global routing table certainly isn't the full picture. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: Xbox Live and Teredo
On 02/01/18 23:15, Justin Wilson wrote: These are all Xbox one clients. We don’t hand out IPv6 on this network yet, so I made sure to disable any sort of IPV6 on the interfaces just to be sure because I figured Teredo is tied to v6. The only thing we have not done yet is disable any IPV6 stuff on the customer routers. Everyone has been getting link local addresses for the longest time. We just disabled ipv6 totally on the interfaces just to be safe. Disabling anything IPv6 is counter productive. The way things are going is IPv6 and has been for many years. Now ... what could happen is that you've got a missconfigured torredo gateway upstream. Disabling IPv6 on customer routers etc won't solve your problem. IPv6 is here to stay. Your best bet: set up a Terredo gateway and facilitate these Xboxes as long as you don't give them native IPv6. Just my 2c. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot
On 06/10/16 20:28, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: In message <20161006163137.uvcnzodrve6to...@cisco.com>, Joseph Karpenko <karpe...@cisco.com> wrote: P.S. This crap appears to be be brought to us courtesy of AS29632, NetAssist, LLC: http://new.netassist.ua/ assuming accuracy of records, etc... ;-) Right. An that doesn't seem to be RIPE's strong suit. It's not so much a questions on RIPE's strong suit, but more the LIRs, that don't keep their info updated. RIPE only updates the basic data, to match it the contract data, but they're quite adament about updated data, if you want further allocations, which now sort of again is ... void. Specifically, bgp.he.net is reporting the name associated with AS47860 as "Albino, LLC", but personally, I have no idea where they are getting that name from. (And it sure doesn't look like a European style of company name... rather more American, I think.) I reckon .. but this is a guestimate, that the AS and prefix probably was allocated to that company in the past, but either their contract never was finalised or their contract was cancelled by one of the parties. So that might have been the name that "used" to be in the whois database for that prefix and ASN, but now isn't anymore, if the entity has ceased to exist. That could also be the reason, why the prefix and ASN have been seen historically. Either way ... that's a guestimate, but a very plausable one. Only somebody inside RIPE would be able to shed more light into, what actually happened. If they're actually permitted (could be prevented by data protection). Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot
On 06/10/16 16:38, Sandra Murphy wrote: Private reply: bgp.he.net sees it. For me. http://bgp.he.net/net/93.175.240.0/20 I don’t know why they do and you do not. —Sandy That just means, they "have" seen it. Not that they're seeing it right now, actually. I checked our feed, which you also can at http://lg.as42227.net And various upstream looking glasses, for example HE.net's actually. https://lg.he.net/ NIKHEF Amsterdam Interxion Copenhagen he.net Freemont 2 None of them have the route in the table. Even the CIDR report reports, that it's withdrawn: http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS47860=2.0 But it has been seen in the last 7 days. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd. On Oct 6, 2016, at 4:34 AM, Martin List-Petersen <mar...@airwire.ie> wrote: On 06/10/16 00:55, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: Anyway, it's rather annoying to me personally... and I hope I'm not the only one who feels that way... to know that this has gone mostly unnoticed for so long, that nobody within the RIPE region has ever bothered to -do- anything about it, and that the AS and the bogus route are still being announced, even as we speak. I had a look in my feeds, then a few global BGP LG's and well, it's not in the BGP table. In reality, it's the upstream, that feeds it in, that really needs to be penalised. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961 -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot
On 06/10/16 00:55, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: Anyway, it's rather annoying to me personally... and I hope I'm not the only one who feels that way... to know that this has gone mostly unnoticed for so long, that nobody within the RIPE region has ever bothered to -do- anything about it, and that the AS and the bogus route are still being announced, even as we speak. I had a look in my feeds, then a few global BGP LG's and well, it's not in the BGP table. In reality, it's the upstream, that feeds it in, that really needs to be penalised. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Re: twitter is serving up errors
On 06/04/11 04:43, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: John Adams j...@retina.net On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Andrew Kirch trel...@trelane.net wrote: expect nothing of technical relevance in this thread, but as this might generate some phonecalls to some people. Known issue, we're on it. This is not a nanog issue. fwiw. No; it's probably better suited to outa...@outages.org. What, you mean you're not subscribed to that? Ah well, you'd better have a LOT of storage space for your mailbox, if you subscribe to that :) Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
On 26/05/10 19:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote: On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote: From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, you can use the same interface though. Most Internet Exchanges don't care what BGP protocol options consenting neighbours decide to use, in my experience. (If they cared, what could they do?) Don't care? I think you mean don't know. The exchange that starts snooping my BGP session to see what I am trading with my peer is the exchange that will lose my business. Ok, let's clarify, what I was on about: I was talking about the peering sessions to the route-servers. What the IXP members do peering wise between themselves is hardly enforced. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Mikrotik BGP Question
On 24/05/10 17:28, Allan Eising wrote: In some ways, I find the MikroTik RouterOS routing filter syntax a little more powerful than Cisco's route-maps. As routing filters work the same way as firewall filters, you can group rules in chains and reuse parts of your filters in other filters by jumping to another chain. This could be used, for instance, on a peering setup, where you have a number of rules per peer but also some common filtering for all peers, or to handle specific and generic filtering for your customers. I haven't yet found anything that I missed being able to with filters, at least with BGP. With other routing protocols, it's another story. It's different thinking for every router platform/os, really. On Cisco/Quagga you can also reuse filtering rules by using peering-groups. At the end of the day, everybody has to find their best medium. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: looking glass
On 25/05/10 15:28, Randy Bush wrote: so i went to get a looking glass going, and went to install lg (http://freshmeat.net/projects/lg/) on freebsd 8. it is perl insanity. among other cpan sikness, it wants to build an entire perl implementation of ssh, with 666 other library modules included when there is a perfectly fine ssh client on the machine. is there a decent looking glass package that does not fill my machine with trash? I used the Multi-Router looking glass and adapted it to my use -- http://freshmeat.net/projects/mrlg4php/ Not sure, how much you fancy or already have PHP knocking about. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Mikrotik BGP Question
On 21/05/10 13:39, Bret Clark wrote: On 05/21/2010 08:23 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: I will refrain from making any smart-ass comments about Mikrotik and BGP, but no: there is no reason whatever that you can't take your internet feeds from different locations, so long as you have a good quality interior network link between those two locations, and your two routers talk iBGP to each other. Just make sure your boxes have enough RAM to cope with a full dfz feed. I.e. it's just the same as using any other router in this regard. Nick I've used Mikrotiks for everything except BGP, but we don't use Mikrotiks for BGP only because we already had BGP on a different platform...personally, when it comes to BGP, I think people are better off running it on devices they are familiar with rather then trying to learn the idiosyncrasies of a new platform. While Mikrotik's BGP implementation isn't very sofisticated, there is no reason, why you can't have your feeds in different places. As Nick outlined, you need to set iBGP up between the boxes. I'm running myself a ISP on mainly Mikrotik basis (basestations and clients, approx 2500 users) and I've been extensively testing Mikrotik's BGP stack in the last 4 years (from 2.9 and up). Mikrotik wrote the whole routing stack from scratch in 3.x, which resultet in tons of problems and bugs. In my opinion, it still isn't where it should be. Don't get me wrong, but there are several pitfalls. - Mikrotik still has some memory leaks in the BGP stack somewhere, causing funny issues at times. - Filters aren't adequate for my use, and lacking a lot on IPv4, but even more on IPv4. First of all, you will need at least a RB1000, RB1100 or a PC based Mikrotik router to get enough ram, to accomodate one full-table or more. Anything less and you can forget it. I'm running a mix of Quagga boxes, Cisco and recently Juniper instead for BGP. For our internal routing OSPF on Mikrotik definatly does the job. Just my 2c. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Using twitter as an outage notification
Aleksandr Milewski wrote: On 7/4/09 7:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote: What I'm trying to anticipate is the objection to *also* posting to Twitter, which might be raised on the grounds that it's too unofficial, or unsupported or something like that. Anecdotal, of course, but I found twitter to be very useful during the SF Bay Area fiber cuts a few months back. I was able to fairly quickly get reports of who was down (UnitedLayer) and who wasn't (everyone else), and made some good contacts, some of whom I've done business with since (Cernio). Set up a twitter account for outage/event notifications, and don't *ever* use it for marketing. I'd agree on this one. We use it for outage/event/coverage expansion notifications. Originally, we thought a blog style website somewhere outside our network was the way to go, but twitter has so many more angles, like RSS feed capability, an API to integrate it somewhere on your website and mobile clients. On top of that, you can update it via SMS if needed. The hype some people are pushing twitter on, I can't follow, but for those type of notifications, it's perfect, also because it's not part of your own infrastructure. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Using twitter as an outage notification
Roland Perry wrote: In article 4a50a3c9.3080...@airwire.ie, Martin List-Petersen mar...@airwire.ie writes for those type of notifications, it's perfect, also because it's not part of your own infrastructure. From an operational resilience point of view, that's a very important feature. It's the main reason for choosing something like twitter, blogspot etc. If you want to communicate an outage, it might be as bad as your infrastructure is gone, even though that you'd might hope, that you've designed your network in a way, that it never happens. But let's just take the scenario, where some event basically whipes your ASN of the face of global BGP :) . It doesn't have to be a physical outage, that causes it. Talking about monetizing twitter, there's a very simple approach, just based on this type of service: Service Providers, Carriers etc., that use Twitter can pay a monthly fee for the service and twitter sends them responses, private messages etc. by more organized means. Just my 2c on another approach, but I can see that happening and I wouldn't mind paying a few bob for the service. As for some responses on this tread and also some reactions from a few customers (childish, my kids use twitter, i don't, etc.): - some people think twitter is a hype, that's ignorant in my eyes. Sure it's overhyped by some, it doesn't make twitter a hype. - some people think twitter is a child's toy. It can be used as such, but that's not it's primary function or intention. - some people say it's the next Google. I can pretty much see, where that idea comes from. Real time search, while Google didn't pick very fast up on the fires (Seattle, Toronto), you'd be able to find tweets on them within minutes on Twitter. It would take hours before any of it appears on Google. - and as the last thing, with companies like ATT, authorize.net and various others using it for service notifications or interaction with customers, my above point actually is just even more valid. Calling it a lame web 2.0 is pretty much off, when it's actually used for something sensible. Just my 2c Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Using twitter as an outage notification
Roland Perry wrote: In article 4a50acb7.6070...@airwire.ie, Martin List-Petersen mar...@airwire.ie writes Calling it a lame web 2.0 is pretty much off, when it's actually used for something sensible. I seem to be trying to find the middle ground between members of the public who think The Internet isn't appropriate because they didn't teach it to me in college 20 years ago and those who say Web 2.0 isn't appropriate because they didn't teach it to me in college 5 years ago. Shouldn't we at least be giving it the benefit of the doubt? Since when has, what has been teached in college ever been a defining standard for what is happening on the internet or what the trend in computing is ? A lot of people never touch Linux during studies, and don't get any of it in college, however are faced with it in the corporate or public world. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0
Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Mike, Aside from the occasional peering wars i've never had or witnessed any serious issues with Cogent. If you want some redundancy you might also try some other similarly priced providers like WBS Connect, HE, or BtN. I can second that. For the amount of money they charge, you get a very good deal and their techs are competent. However, due to peering wars, never rely on them alone. Any decent ISP should anyway at least have connections from n+1 carriers. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Best regards, Jeff On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Mike Bartz m...@bartzfamily.net wrote: I like the haiku! On a serious note, we are considering getting a connection from Cogent. We currently have connections to att, Level 3 and TW Telecom. The low cost and high number of peer AS number's seems appealing to us. Every carrier has its issues, so I don't know what to make of the apparent negativity that I am seeing in these haiku threads. I am looking for some first hand experiences to help me make this decision. Thanks for any assistance! Mike On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:59 PM, neal rauhauser nrauhau...@gmail.com wrote: Cogent makes a mess My phone rings and rings Unfornicate this! -- Mike Bartz m...@bartzfamily.net -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread)
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Mike, Aside from the occasional peering wars i've never had or witnessed any serious issues with Cogent. If you want some redundancy you might also try some other similarly priced providers like WBS Connect, HE, or BtN. (resend due to subject filter) Plus if you had direct connectivity to Cogent, their peering status with others wouldn't affect you anymore. Personally, I've seriously considered this as a reason to get a connection from Cogent. If you are not single-homed, you have no issues reaching Cogent even during a peering war - unless Cogent depeers / gets depeered from -both- (all) of your upstreams at the same time. So what value is there to add Cogent? The value is, that Cogent pretty much is the cheapest transit you can get out there vs. paying a premium for carriers that have less clue and more outages. And if you do that in a multi-homed scenario you shouldn't have issues, having Cogent or not having it, correct. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Northern Ireland undersea branch to be implemented
Martin Hannigan wrote: Hibernia has been busy. THE COMMUNICATIONS minister Eamon Ryan and the North's Enterprise Minister Arlene Foster have announced the awarding of a £30 million (€32 million) contract to construct a new direct telecommunications link to North America that will benefit Northern Ireland and the Republic http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0106/1230936699678.html That's just a spur from the existing Hibernia Atlantic fibre that goes from Halifax to Dublin. In my opinion, that should have been done from the very beginning. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Security team successfully cracks SSL using 200 PS3's and MD5 flaw.
Hank Nussbacher wrote: On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: MD5 is broken, don't use it for anything important. You mean like for BGP neighbors? Wanna suggest an alternative? :-) MD5 on BGP sessions has already been proven to not being that effective anyhow, for the purpose that it was intended for. I don't think these findings will make any difference there. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Security team successfully cracks SSL using 200 PS3's and MD5 flaw.
Joe Abley wrote: On 2009-01-02, at 09:04, Rodrick Brown wrote: A team of security researchers and academics has broken a core piece of Internet technology. They made their work public at the 25th Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin today. The team was able to create a rogue certificate authority and use it to issue valid SSL certificates for any site they want. The user would have no indication that their HTTPS connection was being monitored/modified. I read a comment somewhere else that while this is interesting, and good work, and well done, in practice it's much easier to social-engineer a certificate with a stolen credit card from a real CA than it is to create a fake CA. (I'd give proper attribution if I could remember who it was, but it put things into perspective for me at the time so I thought I'd share.) It is. But this issue might open for man-in-the-middle attacks, which is much harder for issued certificates. Issued certificates usually also incorporate a check, that you control a domain etc. With engineered certificates you can practically avoid that whole process. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: What to do when your ISP off-shores tech support
Matthew Black wrote: On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:53:18 + Martin List-Petersen mar...@airwire.ie wrote: The problem is, and this was stated by the original poster, that the lads off-shore he deals with have no clue and simply stick to the script. No intention of looking what the real problem is. And that problem lies not in the call center. It is the deal, that $TELCO struck with $CALLCENTER and the procedures, that were put in place, that are the problem. Only solution: find a provider, who's support (off-shore or not) does have a clue, has an escalation process and is willing to find a solution. How does one find such a provider? I'm unaware of any company that lets potential customers test drive their $SERVICE call center before purchase. Ask others for their experience :), like for example here. Even if one did, how is a potential customer supposed to evaluate the competence of said call center when customer has no clue as to what problems may arise 5 years after purchase of provider's service, whether said test drive provided an accurate and appropriate solution, and whether said call center quality will exist 5 years after purchase of the service. Well, if you're not any happy longer with the service, vote with your feet again and find a better option. It's as easy as that. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: What to do when your ISP off-shores tech support
Skywing wrote: Of course, in much of the US, vote with your feet on residential ISP service might as well be as realistic advice as pack up and move to a different city. [Perhaps not in the OP's case, though, if they are fortunate. Which it seems like they might be.] It isn't different here either :) Solution: if there is no alternative, it might be an idea to create one. We had to do that here and works like a treat. You might find, that you get more custom, that you wished for. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen - S -Original Message- From: Martin List-Petersen [mailto:mar...@airwire.ie] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 3:59 PM To: Matthew Black Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What to do when your ISP off-shores tech support Matthew Black wrote: On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:53:18 + Martin List-Petersen mar...@airwire.ie wrote: The problem is, and this was stated by the original poster, that the lads off-shore he deals with have no clue and simply stick to the script. No intention of looking what the real problem is. And that problem lies not in the call center. It is the deal, that $TELCO struck with $CALLCENTER and the procedures, that were put in place, that are the problem. Only solution: find a provider, who's support (off-shore or not) does have a clue, has an escalation process and is willing to find a solution. How does one find such a provider? I'm unaware of any company that lets potential customers test drive their $SERVICE call center before purchase. Ask others for their experience :), like for example here. Even if one did, how is a potential customer supposed to evaluate the competence of said call center when customer has no clue as to what problems may arise 5 years after purchase of provider's service, whether said test drive provided an accurate and appropriate solution, and whether said call center quality will exist 5 years after purchase of the service. Well, if you're not any happy longer with the service, vote with your feet again and find a better option. It's as easy as that. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: What to do when your ISP off-shores tech support
david raistrick wrote: On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, JF Mezei wrote: The problem with oursourced first level support is that they are totally disconnected from real time operations and wouldn't be aware of problems that network engineers are currently working on. Not always true. Our outsourced support in India were also our first layer of network troubleshooting, and they monitored everything related to the products they supported.They were almost always the first to call the engineers (in .us and .ca) to alert them of issues. It's all about /what/ you hire them to do. Not only that. It also depends on the call center. I used to work for a quite large call center, that would deal with anything from computer support for vendors, cellphone support, cable-tv, cable-broadband, etc. And just as an example for cellphones, the people on the floor had access to internal systems of the telco's and where able to send real-time commands to the switches. When $TELCO decides to use this call center, it can sometimes take 2-3 years, before the calls end up in the call center. This is down to the fact, that the call center has to implement structures with $TELCO that will make a handover possible in the first place. Also stuff with enough technical knowledge needed to be located within the agents or new staff hired in. Some customers had to be told, that it is impossible to do support for them on the expectations, that they have, because their own internal structures simply are a mess. Outsouring and off-shoring is never the problem. The problem is, and this was stated by the original poster, that the lads off-shore he deals with have no clue and simply stick to the script. No intention of looking what the real problem is. And that problem lies not in the call center. It is the deal, that $TELCO struck with $CALLCENTER and the procedures, that were put in place, that are the problem. Only solution: find a provider, who's support (off-shore or not) does have a clue, has an escalation process and is willing to find a solution. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
TJ wrote: Personally, I like the fact that IPv4 and IPv6 control plane are different, thus I'd go for OSPv3. I totally agree on the discrete/segregated control planes, although note that - for those who want it - OSPFv3 will soon be able to do IPv4 route exchange as well ... Only if the vendors pick up on those changes. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen /TJ -Original Message- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:23 AM To: devang patel Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, devang patel wrote: I do have some confusion about which one is better for IPv6 in Service Provider networks as far as IP routing and MPLS application is concern! Both work and have advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I like the fact that IPv4 and IPv6 control plane are different, thus I'd go for OSPv3. ISIS-MT means you have to know that all your ISIS speakers will handle the MT packets gracefully. I know products from large vendors in the market which do not (IPv6 not enabled, it receives IPv6 MT packets, affects IPv4 ISIS control plane badly). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: What to do when your ISP off-shores tech support
Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: Sounds like a business opportunity to me. Given any thought to Sprint EV-DO? You can not seriously consider a 3G technology as broadband replacement. It is midband at best, especially because there is no control on contention. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Henry Yen wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 18:32:40PM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote: --On December 18, 2008 4:02:14 PM -0800 Bruce Robertson br...@greatbasin.net wrote: Imagestream does nice work as well. I'll second the plug for imagestream as well. Soucy, Ray wrote: If all you're looking for is basic routing though, it might be worthwhile just getting a Vyatta appliance. Aren't both Imagestream and Vyatta routers built atop a Linux platform? So is Juniper a BSD base (if I recall correct). The difference is the selection of hardware and added routing hardware. The issue is, that those additions, that Juniper, Imagestream and Vyatta add, are not available on the standard platform, so it can't be quite compared. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Brandon Galbraith wrote: I wasn't aware of imagestream using any custom (asic) hardware, except the T1/3 cards in the concentrator we bought from them (worked like a champ, btw). It doesn't have to be hardware. Even their custom developed drivers and software isn't available on anything but their platform. But true, their products show, what can be done even without custom hardware. It's a matter of optimizing the drivers and a careful selection of hardware. All I was referring to, is that if you take a Linux box, Quagga, stock hardware, you might not get quite the same results. And don't get me wrong, we use Quagga and are quite happy with it. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -brandon On 12/19/08, Martin List-Petersen mar...@airwire.ie wrote: Henry Yen wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 18:32:40PM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote: --On December 18, 2008 4:02:14 PM -0800 Bruce Robertson br...@greatbasin.net wrote: Imagestream does nice work as well. I'll second the plug for imagestream as well. Soucy, Ray wrote: If all you're looking for is basic routing though, it might be worthwhile just getting a Vyatta appliance. Aren't both Imagestream and Vyatta routers built atop a Linux platform? So is Juniper a BSD base (if I recall correct). The difference is the selection of hardware and added routing hardware. The issue is, that those additions, that Juniper, Imagestream and Vyatta add, are not available on the standard platform, so it can't be quite compared. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: No route to verizon
Sharlon R. Carty wrote: Hello, This is my first post. Can anyone provide some info or Verizon why there is no connectivity to Verizon CA(Verizon Business UUNETCA8-A)? Can not reach the following net range: 66.48.66.160 - 66.48.66.175 11. ae-4-99.edge2.NewYork2.Level 0.0% 12. mci-level3-xe.newyork2.Level 0.0% 13. 0.xe-5-0-3.XL4.NYC4.ALTER.NE 0.0% 14. ??? 100.0 It gets into Verizons network and as far as New York. Maybe a fault between Verizon and the customer ? After all, Alter.net is Verizon. /Martin -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Netblock reassigned from Chile to US ISP...
Joe Abley wrote: On 2008-12-12, at 15:02, Martin List-Petersen wrote: It's a misconception of some muppets, especially in IT related products, that forget, that a lot or IT professionals do travel all over the world and usually have a credit card in their home country. Pure and utter nonsense. Or perhaps the hassle of dealing with stolen US credit card numbers from clients outside the US costs far more money than you could hope to make back with the purchases of US nationals travelling overseas? Could well be muppets, but surely there are other possibilities. I can understand merchants wanting the extra security, but the issue is, that they then don't want to fork out for a MaxMind subscription or the likes. One of the bigger colo providers in the states is selling SSL certificates, but their geoip data is ancient. I even bothered to raise a ticket with them and the answer was just we're working with our development team on that. When I revisited 6 months later, nothing had changed. It's not the only case, that I've ran into this issue and the US is not the only place that credit cards are issued or used. Nor is credit card/credit card theft a outside US only thing. It happens anywhere, inside or outside the US. That's exactly, why the banks starting adding the personalized password option etc. Using outdated geoip data for merchant-services is as unprofessional as asking people to fax a copy of their credit card to some fax number. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Netblock reassigned from Chile to US ISP...
Owen DeLong wrote: On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Nathan Stratton wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Joe Abley wrote: On 2008-12-12, at 15:02, Martin List-Petersen wrote: It's a misconception of some muppets, especially in IT related products, that forget, that a lot or IT professionals do travel all over the world and usually have a credit card in their home country. Pure and utter nonsense. Or perhaps the hassle of dealing with stolen US credit card numbers from clients outside the US costs far more money than you could hope to make back with the purchases of US nationals travelling overseas? Could well be muppets, but surely there are other possibilities. Sad but true, we have had to turn off signups outside the US because of that very problem. Yes, I am sure we lose some sales, but in general it is not worth the fraud costs. Why don't the fraudsters just use Open US Proxies? You can be sure, that the people wanting to defraud merchants know all these tricks and use them. The verified by visa password option is a far better solution, but I've not seen many US merchants supporting that yet. Instead they're relying on outdated geoip data or ask people to fax a copy of their credit card. /Martin -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Netblock reassigned from Chile to US ISP...
Robert Tarrall wrote: 1) www.google.com is in Spanish Contact Google. 2) Web pages are slow - am assuming this is due to folks like Akamai sending them to content caches in Chile though I haven't tested it myself... God knows web pages are slow isn't particularly specific but I'm assuming an OC-3 with 3 DSL subscribers on it will be reasonably free of congestion and I know the upstream is competent. Again. Akamai is helpful. Contact them. 3) End-user unable to complete an online e-commerce transaction due to a fraud-prevention service thinking he was a Chilean user trying to buy something with a US-based credit card. There's no fast fix for this, but have you talked to MaxMind about chaning the Geo location ? They'll implent it fast and it's in their DB within a week, max 2, but it'll take 2 months at least, before it makes the internet turn-around. I've ranges, that were originally in Denmark, UK and Germany (we're in Ireland) and after half a year and actively submitting data to MaxMind, that actually ok. I've not had the necessity to contact Google or Akamai. However, the ecommerce issue is a bit worse, because there's some of'em out there, like one of the biggest hosters in the states, that have 2 year old data. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Telecom Collapse?
Daniel Senie wrote: Mike Lyon wrote: That makes two of us... Anyways, for residential VOIP, where are we these days with E911? Are providers like Vonage and such providing reliable E911 when people call 911? That is one of the major problems I see with the residential realm going with VOIP offerings... Where we are, the SLC units on the telephone poles have batteries. Until very recently, DEAD batteries. We'd lose power, and the POTS line would go out. We've got our own genset and UPSs to bridge the gap, so we kept power, the cable Internet service stayed running, and the Vonage VOIP. The only thing NOT working was POTS. We run a fixed wireless business and with modern embedded hardware, that is designed to be installed on remote sites, like mast sites, we can for very little money add battery backup for one week (7 days !!) The cost of that is less than $200 pr. site and would power up to 4 routers easily. As the west of Ireland has terrible power in the rural areas (as in daily power cuts), we've implemented the power backup everywhere. A minimum of 2 days. In the regular winterstorms, when tree's fall into our overland telephone cabling, roads get flooded etc., we've had customers telling us, that the only thing that stays working for them, is the broadband from us. Some even ask us, how they can power the kit in an emergency and as our kit runs on anything from 10-28 volt, they can just hook it up to a car battery. As for E911 or similar services, as mentioned before, there is always a cellphone. Any GSM provider is enforced to provide 911/112 services as part of the license, even to phones that have no sim-card in it. And all of the phones allow you to call 911 and 112 without a sim-card. That's for some people, that can't get a phoneline, the only way of having E911/112 services. Pots will often fail during powercuts, especially if you are sitting on a pair gain/multiplexer. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: an over-the-top data center
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: HavenCo, which ran a datacenter on the nation of Sealand, is no longer operating there: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/25/havenco/ --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb If you do a bit more research on that one, it never got to a serious point. They had one 802.11b onto the platform and never got very far with it. No fiber and no redundancy. However the idea was a bit of a novelty, because it's claimed to be sovereign territory. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
