Very interesting. I still have in ~/ a 6509 config I did for an early
Quakecon (or some predecessor or similar event) as a favor for a friend in
~2003. The more things change...
BTW, ISTR there's some dark fiber between Anatole and INFOMART. I'm sure
there's somebody in the 'mart who could provide
3. Aug 2015 21:38 by b...@debmi.com:
> The WiFi jammers have an interesting MO. They don't throw up static on the
> frequency, that would also block their own wifi. They spoof
> de-authentication packets. I've been looking for a way to detect this kind
> of jamming because my WiFi sucks and I liv
hi mr bugs :-)
On 08/03/15 at 05:38pm, Mr Bugs wrote:
> The WiFi jammers have an interesting MO. They don't throw up static on the
> frequency, that would also block their own wifi. They spoof
> de-authentication packets. I've been looking for a way to detect this kind
> of jamming because my WiF
On 4 Aug 2015, at 4:38, Mr Bugs wrote:
They don't throw up static on the frequency, that would also block
their own wifi. They spoof
de-authentication packets.
Sure - I'm saying, I don't see this anywhere, is it possible most of
this activity is on 2.4GHz and not 5GHz?
The WiFi jammers have an interesting MO. They don't throw up static on the
frequency, that would also block their own wifi. They spoof
de-authentication packets. I've been looking for a way to detect this kind
of jamming because my WiFi sucks and I live next to three hotels, what you
get for living
On 4 Aug 2015, at 4:03, mikea wrote:
In the US, the FCC has ruled that wifi jammers violate one or more
parts of the FCC Rules and Regs.
I travel quite a bit worldwide, and I've never run into this. I run my
portable AP on 5GHz, FWIW.
---
Roland Dobbins
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 01:52:17PM -0700, alvin nanog wrote:
>
> hi ethan
>
> On 08/03/15 at 10:58am, Ethan wrote:
> >
> > Getting bandwidth into the events is a pain. Huge venues are meant for large
> > corporate events not lower budget cons and festivals. Venue pricing I
> > believe is 750-150
hi ethan
On 08/03/15 at 10:58am, Ethan wrote:
>
> Getting bandwidth into the events is a pain. Huge venues are meant for large
> corporate events not lower budget cons and festivals. Venue pricing I
> believe is 750-1500$ per megabit. 100 megabit = $75,000 for the weekend. One
> year I rememeber
- Original Message -
From: "Ethan"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 9:58:35 AM
Subject: Re: Quakecon: Network Operations Center tour
I help with an event that has a pretty decent sized lan party as well.
We're not just focused on the lan party, more of
On 3 Aug 2015, at 21:58, Ethan wrote:
In the end, one of the griefers friends went and told on them, and
that's how they were discovered.
Pretty much how it works on the general Internet, too, it seems.
;>
---
Roland Dobbins
I help with an event that has a pretty decent sized lan party as well.
We're not just focused on the lan party, more of a rock concerts - huge
arcade - panels - lan party type event.
It was a few years ago that a mincraft "griefing" team came and attacked
the network internally. At the time
On 02.08.2015 23:36, Josh Hoppes wrote:
We haven't tackled IPv6 yet since it adds complexity that our primary
focus doesn't significantly benefit from yet since most games just
don't support it. Our current table switches don't have an RA guard,
and will probably require replacement to get ones t
On 3 Aug 2015, at 8:47, Christopher Morrow wrote:
oh .. maybe they really are all gone :)
People still run things long after EoS, heh.
A 6500 *with a Sup2T* is OK at the edge, for now - it has decent ASICs
which support critical edge features, unlike its predecessors. Myself,
I'd much rath
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> As anchors, I would be hard put to make a choice between a 6500 and a 7500,
>> which was a fine router in its day but alas only had a useful lifetime of a
>> small number of years.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> As anchors, I would be hard put to make a choice between a 6500 and a 7500,
> which was a fine router in its day but alas only had a useful lifetime of a
> small number of years. Obsolescence happens.
isn't some of L3's edge still 7500's? I
On 02/08/2015 23:30, Randy Bush wrote:
> otoh, i did not believe in the fad of using 65xxs at the bgp global
> edge. while it was temporarily cheap, two years later not a lot of folk
> had that many boats which needed anchoring.
A juniper EX9200 is a switch and a cisco sup2t box is a router. The
>> so it is heavily routed using L3 on the core 'switches'? makes a lot
>> of sense.
> Lots of switches will happily forward layer 3 packets.
and a lot of so-called switches will happily *route* at L3, which is i
think the point. in this case, heavily subnetting a LAN, it makes a lot
of sense.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> josh,
>
> thanks for the more technical scoop. now i get it a bit better.
>
>> We also re-designed the LAN back in 2011 to break up the giant single
>> broadcast domain down to a subnet per table switch.
>
> so it is heavily routed using L3 on t
On 02/08/2015 22:59, Randy Bush wrote:
> so it is heavily routed using L3 on the core 'switches'? makes a lot of
> sense.
Lots of switches will happily forward layer 3 packets.
Nick
josh,
thanks for the more technical scoop. now i get it a bit better.
> We also re-designed the LAN back in 2011 to break up the giant single
> broadcast domain down to a subnet per table switch.
so it is heavily routed using L3 on the core 'switches'? makes a lot of
sense.
randy
Not that often you see a bunch of people talking about a video you're
in, especially so on NANOG. So here goes.
BYOC is around 2700 seats. Total attendance was around 11,000.
2Gbps has been saturated at some point every year we have had it.
Additional bandwidth is definitely a serious considerati
On 2 Aug 2015, at 23:49, Mike Hammett wrote:
If the core of the mission is local LAN play and your Internet
connection fills up
You're assuming the DDoS attack originates from outside the local
network(s). I was curious as to whether they'd seen any *internal* DDoS
attacks.
And again, ext
.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Roland Dobbins"
To: "nanog list"
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 11:23:18 AM
Subject: Re: Quakecon: Network Operations Center tour
On 2 Aug 2015, at 22:56
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, Dave Pooser wrote:
I wonder if that would be a reason for the relatively anemic 1Gb
Internet pipe-- making sure that a DDoS couldn't push enough packets
through to inconvenience the LAN party.
I was involved in delivering 1GigE to Dreamhack in 2001 which at the time
(if I
On 2 Aug 2015, at 22:56, Alistair Mackenzie wrote:
I would assume this would a start to the problem if your attacks were
volumetric.
In a world of 430gb/sec reflection/amplification DDoS attacks, not
really.
;>
Just increasing bandwidth has never been a viable DDoS defense tactic,
due to
On 2 Aug 2015, at 22:56, Mike Hammett wrote:
It's completely reasonable when the world at large is only secondary
to the local, on-net operations.
It has nothing to do with DDoS.
---
Roland Dobbins
I recently wrapped up a 1300 players with gigabit connections where we
had a single 5gig link. We never saturated the link and peaked at
3.92Gbps for a new minutes. Bandwidth usage peaks on the first day and
settles down after that (the event was during an entire weekend starting
on friday). If
nd Dobbins"
To: "nanog list"
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 10:50:05 AM
Subject: Re: Quakecon: Network Operations Center tour
On 2 Aug 2015, at 22:44, Dave Pooser wrote:
> I wonder if that would be a reason for the relatively anemic 1Gb
> Internet
>
> pipe-- making
While increasing bandwidth to the endpoint isn't viable wouldn't increasing
the edge bandwidth out to the ISP be a start in the right direction?
I would assume this would a start to the problem if your attacks were
volumetric.
Once the bandwidth is there you can look at mitigation before it reach
On 2 Aug 2015, at 22:44, Dave Pooser wrote:
I wonder if that would be a reason for the relatively anemic 1Gb
Internet
pipe-- making sure that a DDoS couldn't push enough packets through to
inconvenience the LAN party.
While increasing bandwidth is not a viable DDoS defense tactic,
decreasin
>>any security protections so competitors can't kill off their
>> competition?)
>
>It would be interesting to learn whether they saw any DDoS attacks or
>cheating attempts during competitive play, or even casual
>non-competitive play amongst attendees.
I wonder if that would be a reason for the re
On 2 Aug 2015, at 22:32, Christopher Morrow wrote:
any security protections so competitors can't kill off their
competition?)
It would be interesting to learn whether they saw any DDoS attacks or
cheating attempts during competitive play, or even casual
non-competitive play amongst attendees
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> I guess a tale of punching 300-odd patchpanels is not that captivating to
> everybody out there.
I find this hard to believe.
:)
I was hoping for more 'how the network is built' (flat? segmented? any
security protections so competitors can't
On 01.08.2015 21:27, Sean Donelan wrote:
What Powers Quakecon | Network Operations Center Tour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOv62lBdlXU
Cool stuff!
For reference here are the blog for the tech-crew at the worlds second
largest LAN-party, The Gathering:
http://technical.gathering.org/
A fe
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, Niels Bakker wrote:
Also, 2 Gbps for 4,400 people? Pretty lackluster compared to European
events. 30C3 had 100 Gbps to the conference building. And no NAT: every
host got real IP addresses (IPv4 + IPv6).
Quakecon is essentially a giant LAN party. Bring Your Own Computer
Steam moved to http streaming few years ago for exact that reason
> On 2 авг. 2015 г., at 4:51, Steven Miano wrote:
>
> historically steam/game downloads are not
> cahce'able
* ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) [Sun 02 Aug 2015, 13:37 CEST]:
ietf, >1k people, easily fits in 10g, but tries to have two for
redundancy. also no nat, no firewall, and even ipv6. but absorbing
or combatting scans and other attacks cause complexity one would
prefer to avoid. in praha, there was
> Also, 2 Gbps for 4,400 people? Pretty lackluster compared to European
> events. 30C3 had 100 Gbps to the conference building. And no NAT:
> every host got real IP addresses (IPv4 + IPv6).
ietf, >1k people, easily fits in 10g, but tries to have two for
redundancy. also no nat, no firewall, an
* mian...@gmail.com (Steven Miano) [Sun 02 Aug 2015, 03:52 CEST]:
It would have been more interesting to see:
-- a network weather map
-- the ELK implementation
-- actual cache statistics (historically steam/game downloads are not
cahce'able)
Not quite true according to
http://blog.multiplay.
It would have been more interesting to see:
-- a network weather map
-- the ELK implementation
-- actual cache statistics (historically steam/game downloads are not
cahce'able)
Thanks for the share though Sean!
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> highlights:
> "ha
highlights:
"happy and blinking"
"two firewalls for the two att 1gig links, and two spare doing ."
catalyst 6500's
Also the 3750 on top of the services rack is funny... because empty.
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> Non-work, work related information. Many NANOG
41 matches
Mail list logo
