Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Mike
On 04/29/2011 12:35 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: *http://aws.amazon.com/message/65648/* ___ So, in a nut shell, Amazon had a single point of failure which touched off this entire incident. I am still waiting for proof that single points of failure can reali

Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Jay Ashworth
- Original Message - > From: "Mike" > On 04/29/2011 12:35 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > *http://aws.amazon.com/message/65648/* > > So, in a nut shell, Amazon had a single point of failure which touched > off this entire incident. > > I am still waiting

Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Andrew Kirch
On 5/1/2011 2:07 PM, Mike wrote: > I am still waiting for proof that single points of failure can > realistically be completely eliminated from any moderately complicated > network environment / application. So far, I think murphy is still > winning on this one. Sure they can, but as a thought exe

Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Jeff Wheeler
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: > Sure they can, but as a thought exercise fully 2n redundancy is > difficult on a small scale for anything web facing.  I've seen a very > simple implementation for a website requiring 5 9's that consumed over > $50k in equipment, and this wasn'

RE: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread George Bonser
> I am still waiting for proof that single points of failure can > realistically be completely eliminated from any moderately complicated > network environment / application. So far, I think murphy is still > winning on this one. > > Good job by the AWS team however, I am sure your new procedures

Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Paul Graydon
On 5/1/2011 9:29 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: Sure they can, but as a thought exercise fully 2n redundancy is difficult on a small scale for anything web facing. I've seen a very simple implementation for a website requiring 5 9's that consumed ov

Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Brett Frankenberger
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:50:37PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: > > From my reading of what happened, it looks like they didn't have a > single point of failure but ended up routing around their own > redundancy. > > They apparently had a redundant primary network and, on top of that, a > secondar

Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Robert Bonomi
> Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 11:07:56 -0700 > From: Mike > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Amazon diagnosis > > On 04/29/2011 12:35 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > http://aws.amazon.com/message/65648/ > > > > ___ > > > So, in a nut shell, Amazon had a single point of failure which touched > off this e

Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Sun, 01 May 2011 11:07:56 PDT, Mike said: > I am still waiting for proof that single points of failure can > realistically be completely eliminated from any moderately complicated > network environment / application. So far, I think murphy is still > winning on this one. For starters, you a

RE: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Robert Bonomi
> Subject: RE: Amazon diagnosis > Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 12:50:37 -0700 > From: George Bonser > > They apparently had a redundant primary network and, on top of that, a > secondary network. The secondary network, however, did not have the > capacity of the primary network. > > Rather than failing

Re: Amazon diagnosis

2011-05-01 Thread Stefan
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > *http://aws.amazon.com/message/65648/* > > ___ > -- > --- > Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >  htt

Multitenant FWs

2011-05-01 Thread David Oramas
Hi, What do you guys recommend for Multitenant Firewalls with support for over 1,000+ users/contexts? I have looked at Centrinet's Accessmanager and Barracuda NG Firewall. Any other players/products? Many Thanks in advance for the input,

RE: Multitenant FWs

2011-05-01 Thread Mark Gauvin
Paloalto Networks build some nice gear From: David Oramas [david.ora...@aptel.com.au] Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 8:42 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Multitenant FWs Hi, What do you guys recommend for Multitenant Firewalls with support for over 1,000+ user

RE: Multitenant FWs

2011-05-01 Thread Stefan Fouant
> -Original Message- > From: David Oramas [mailto:david.ora...@aptel.com.au] > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:42 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Multitenant FWs > > Hi, > What do you guys recommend for Multitenant Firewalls with support for > over 1,000+ users/contexts? > I have looked a

Re: Multitenant FWs

2011-05-01 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: David Oramas [mailto:david.ora...@aptel.com.au] >> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:42 PM >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Multitenant FWs >> >> Hi, >> What do you guys recommend for Multitenant Firewalls wi

RE: Multitenant FWs

2011-05-01 Thread Stefan Fouant
> -Original Message- > From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com > [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow > > one thing to keep in mind is that as near as I can tell no vendor (not > a singl eone) has actual hard limits configurable for each tenant > firewall instan

Re: Multitenant FWs

2011-05-01 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com >> [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow >> >> one thing to keep in mind is that as near as I can tell no vendor (not >> a singl eone) has actua

RE: Multitenant FWs

2011-05-01 Thread Stefan Fouant
> -Original Message- > From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com > [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow > > > > Ahem, actually ScreenOS does support just such a thing through the > use of > > resource profiles - with this you can limit the amount of CPU, > Sessions