From cb.list6 at gmail.com Fri Jan 1 00:49:40 2016 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:49:40 -0800 Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Chris Burwell wrote: > Hi NANOG, > > I'm looking to solicit feedback on VPLS providers. The requirement is for > connectivity among about ten sites in North America, however feedback for > providers that also extend service to EMEA and APAC would also be welcome. > > All types of feedback are appreciated (good, bad, and anything in between). > > Thanks, > > - Chris > Sorry for the meta suggestion, but i think you would be much happier with an L3 vpn. It is a more common offering and avoid transcontinental broadcast storms From cburwell at gmail.com Fri Jan 1 01:49:58 2016 From: cburwell at gmail.com (Chris Burwell) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:49:58 -0500 Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I appreciate the suggestion! That's something to consider if our requirements expand globally. Right now the focus is N.A., but I threw EMEA & APAC in there. I've had enough trouble with broadcast storms and other issues in N.A., so I don't have much of an appetite for magnifying those issues on a global scale! - Chris On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Ca By wrote: > > > On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Chris Burwell wrote: > >> Hi NANOG, >> >> I'm looking to solicit feedback on VPLS providers. The requirement is for >> connectivity among about ten sites in North America, however feedback for >> providers that also extend service to EMEA and APAC would also be welcome. >> >> All types of feedback are appreciated (good, bad, and anything in >> between). >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Chris >> > > Sorry for the meta suggestion, but i think you would be much happier with > an L3 vpn. It is a more common offering and avoid transcontinental > broadcast storms > From matecs at niif.hu Fri Jan 1 07:34:43 2016 From: matecs at niif.hu (mate csaba) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:34:43 +0100 Subject: http://rtros.nop.hu/ Message-ID: <56862C13.6080103@niif.hu> opinions? From randy at psg.com Fri Jan 1 08:40:31 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 17:40:31 +0900 Subject: http://rtros.nop.hu/ In-Reply-To: <56862C13.6080103@niif.hu> References: <56862C13.6080103@niif.hu> Message-ID: > opinions? yep. do not click on strange urls. randy From matecs at niif.hu Fri Jan 1 08:51:18 2016 From: matecs at niif.hu (mate csaba) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 09:51:18 +0100 Subject: http://rtros.nop.hu/ In-Reply-To: References: <56862C13.6080103@niif.hu> Message-ID: <56863E06.8060808@niif.hu> On 01/01/2016 09:40 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> opinions? > yep. do not click on strange urls. > never. and disable flash! and activate firewall. this one http://fun.nop.hu/cisco-asa.jpg or this one http://fun.nop.hu/firewall.png in the following topology: http://fun.nop.hu/firewalls.png cs From contact at winterei.se Fri Jan 1 09:01:13 2016 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:01:13 +0900 Subject: http://rtros.nop.hu/ In-Reply-To: <56863E06.8060808@niif.hu> References: <56862C13.6080103@niif.hu> <56863E06.8060808@niif.hu> Message-ID: <56864059.1050008@winterei.se> I'm not sure if these URLs are supposed to resolve `-` On 1/1/2016 05:51 PM, mate csaba wrote: > > > On 01/01/2016 09:40 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> opinions? >> yep. do not click on strange urls. >> > never. and disable flash! and activate firewall. > this one http://fun.nop.hu/cisco-asa.jpg > or this one http://fun.nop.hu/firewall.png > in the following topology: http://fun.nop.hu/firewalls.png > cs > From nanog at ics-il.net Fri Jan 1 13:22:16 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 07:22:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: http://rtros.nop.hu/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2070528989.4528.1451654587433.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> It's the same thing that the recent router OS thread was about. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" To: "mate csaba" Cc: cs at nop.hu, "NANOG" , nep at listserv.niif.hu Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 2:40:31 AM Subject: Re: http://rtros.nop.hu/ > opinions? yep. do not click on strange urls. randy From nanog at ics-il.net Fri Jan 1 13:22:51 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 07:22:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2095013446.4531.1451654625767.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> I suspect this will be somewhat restricted to who has a presence at the locations you're interested in. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Burwell" To: "NANOG" Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 2:55:24 PM Subject: VPLS Providers Hi NANOG, I'm looking to solicit feedback on VPLS providers. The requirement is for connectivity among about ten sites in North America, however feedback for providers that also extend service to EMEA and APAC would also be welcome. All types of feedback are appreciated (good, bad, and anything in between). Thanks, - Chris From nick at foobar.org Fri Jan 1 15:19:21 2016 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:19:21 +0000 Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <568698F9.6010206@foobar.org> Chris Burwell wrote: > I've had enough trouble with broadcast storms and other issues in N.A. And you still want vpls? Wow. If you're talking a requirement for connecting geographically separated locations, there are sound technical reasons for avoiding vpls like the plague. Unless there are overriding technical reasons why it wouldn't work, l3vpn will almost always provide a far better quality service. Nick From cscora at apnic.net Fri Jan 1 18:11:17 2016 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 04:11:17 +1000 (AEST) Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <201601011811.u01IBHNG017618@thyme.rand.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 02 Jan, 2016 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 576790 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 213317 Deaggregation factor: 2.70 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 281104 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 52380 Prefixes per ASN: 11.01 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 36587 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15873 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6419 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 165 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.4 Max AS path length visible: 39 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 55644) 36 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1004 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 361 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 12266 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 9374 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 35887 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 16 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 382 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2802747332 Equivalent to 167 /8s, 14 /16s and 135 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 75.7 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 75.7 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 97.9 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 189420 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 146553 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 40529 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.62 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 155260 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 62790 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5122 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.31 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1194 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 898 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 39 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1779 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 756331140 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 20 /16s and 178 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 88.4 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 181208 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 88927 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.04 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 184631 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 86591 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16456 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 11.22 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5922 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1725 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 37 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 911 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1101680064 Equivalent to 65 /8s, 170 /16s and 77 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 58.3 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 64198-64296, 393216-395164 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 138671 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 68862 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 146667 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 90783 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18042 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.13 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7973 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3006 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.9 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 30 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4339 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 702366336 Equivalent to 41 /8s, 221 /16s and 66 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 102.1 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-204287 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 60730 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 11852 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.12 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 73834 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 34308 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2464 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 29.97 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 594 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 546 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 24 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2169 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 170653696 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 43 /16s and 248 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 101.7 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-265628 + ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 13654 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3105 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.40 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 16016 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 6309 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 730 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.94 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 190 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 169 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 176 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 71369216 Equivalent to 4 /8s, 65 /16s and 2 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 70.9 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5601 4192 76 China Education and Research 7545 3097 346 158 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3021 11136 1003 Korea Telecom 17974 2841 909 90 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 9829 2292 1430 370 National Internet Backbone 4755 2069 431 233 TATA Communications formerly 9808 1727 8717 29 Guangdong Mobile Communicatio 4808 1604 2278 506 CNCGROUP IP network China169 9583 1511 121 558 Sify Limited 38197 1415 88 185 Sun Network (Hong Kong) Limit Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 22773 3273 2948 145 Cox Communications Inc. 3356 2591 10689 530 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 6389 2508 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 18566 2211 394 277 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1908 1907 407 Charter Communications 6983 1698 849 238 EarthLink, Inc. 30036 1669 333 330 Mediacom Communications Corp 4323 1579 1021 393 tw telecom holdings, inc. 209 1467 4338 1231 Qwest Communications Company, 701 1381 11445 652 MCI Communications Services, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 39891 2473 129 7 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 20940 2284 902 1635 Akamai International B.V. 34984 1938 322 411 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 8551 1435 376 44 Bezeq International-Ltd 13188 1075 97 79 TOV "Bank-Inform" 12479 1070 965 80 France Telecom Espana SA 31148 1042 47 41 Freenet Ltd. 8402 1033 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 9198 957 349 26 JSC Kazakhtelecom 6830 894 2712 464 Liberty Global Operations B.V Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 3407 540 140 Telmex Colombia S.A. 8151 2145 3372 500 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 7303 1579 941 241 Telecom Argentina S.A. 6503 1388 453 58 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 28573 1214 2173 135 NET Servi?os de Comunica??o S 11830 1096 366 25 Instituto Costarricense de El 6147 1034 376 34 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 7738 994 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 3816 977 460 187 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S 26615 959 2325 34 Tim Celular S.A. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8452 1226 1472 16 TE-AS 24863 1163 403 36 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 37611 583 39 40 Afrihost-Brevis Computer Serv 36903 552 278 110 Office National des Postes et 36992 445 1233 33 ETISALAT MISR 37492 332 197 64 Orange Tunisie 24835 326 146 12 Vodafone Data 29571 264 21 11 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 3741 221 837 183 Internet Solutions 15706 171 32 6 Sudatel (Sudan Telecom Co. Lt Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5601 4192 76 China Education and Research 10620 3407 540 140 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3273 2948 145 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3097 346 158 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3021 11136 1003 Korea Telecom 17974 2841 909 90 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 3356 2591 10689 530 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 6389 2508 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 39891 2473 129 7 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 9829 2292 1430 370 National Internet Backbone Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 10620 3407 3267 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3273 3128 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3097 2939 TPG Telecom Limited 17974 2841 2751 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 6389 2508 2466 BellSouth.net Inc. 39891 2473 2466 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 3356 2591 2061 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 4766 3021 2018 Korea Telecom 18566 2211 1934 MegaPath Corporation 9829 2292 1922 National Internet Backbone Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46467 UNALLOCATED 8.19.192.0/24 46887 Lightower Fiber Netw 18985 UNALLOCATED 8.21.68.0/22 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 15347 UNALLOCATED 8.224.147.0/24 12064 Cox Communications I 33628 UNALLOCATED 12.0.239.0/24 1239 Sprint 32805 UNALLOCATED 12.1.225.0/24 7018 AT&T Services, Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.112.0/20 62788 >>UNKNOWN<< 23.249.144.0/20 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.144.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.152.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 31.170.96.0/23 23456 32bit Transition AS 37.46.10.0/23 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.14.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.15.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 41.73.1.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:16 /9:13 /10:36 /11:100 /12:265 /13:506 /14:1016 /15:1770 /16:12974 /17:7411 /18:12627 /19:25579 /20:37829 /21:40085 /22:63764 /23:55187 /24:316045 /25:547 /26:575 /27:382 /28:17 /29:16 /30:9 /31:0 /32:21 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 22773 2460 3273 Cox Communications Inc. 39891 2432 2473 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 18566 2113 2211 MegaPath Corporation 6389 1553 2508 BellSouth.net Inc. 30036 1486 1669 Mediacom Communications Corp 6983 1344 1698 EarthLink, Inc. 10620 1291 3407 Telmex Colombia S.A. 34984 1225 1938 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 11492 1135 1225 CABLE ONE, INC. 31148 961 1042 Freenet Ltd. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1631 2:662 4:100 5:2064 6:26 8:1430 12:1796 13:30 14:1605 15:23 16:2 17:57 18:19 20:48 22:1 23:1325 24:1733 27:2171 31:1718 32:54 33:2 34:4 35:5 36:202 37:2179 38:1140 39:22 40:80 41:3025 42:368 43:1612 44:36 45:1580 46:2371 47:64 49:1068 50:823 51:3 52:36 54:96 55:7 56:8 57:44 58:1458 59:841 60:519 61:1776 62:1436 63:1913 64:4451 65:2175 66:4077 67:2135 68:1090 69:3269 70:1042 71:461 72:1984 74:2556 75:357 76:419 77:1389 78:1245 79:821 80:1315 81:1350 82:860 83:672 84:777 85:1536 86:456 87:1048 88:552 89:1937 90:152 91:5960 92:863 93:2301 94:2242 95:2255 96:471 97:353 98:955 99:45 100:78 101:866 103:9273 104:2189 105:90 106:361 107:1114 108:640 109:2376 110:1250 111:1558 112:906 113:1190 114:930 115:1543 116:1516 117:1361 118:2023 119:1518 120:520 121:1162 122:2254 123:1883 124:1577 125:1741 128:675 129:357 130:423 131:1256 132:600 133:170 134:452 135:117 136:345 137:310 138:1634 139:202 140:246 141:464 142:639 143:750 144:582 145:150 146:830 147:609 148:1429 149:454 150:628 151:806 152:566 153:270 154:493 155:905 156:446 157:416 158:348 159:1059 160:420 161:700 162:2221 163:525 164:710 165:1100 166:315 167:919 168:1338 169:561 170:1480 171:263 172:378 173:1575 174:716 175:769 176:1492 177:4034 178:2216 179:1050 180:2067 181:1646 182:1914 183:665 184:764 185:5293 186:3004 187:1864 188:2127 189:1712 190:7607 191:1277 192:8756 193:5726 194:4317 195:3715 196:2251 197:1109 198:5491 199:5520 200:6711 201:3496 202:9930 203:9296 204:4565 205:2722 206:2966 207:3039 208:4011 209:3976 210:3766 211:2018 212:2642 213:2185 214:819 215:72 216:5708 217:1894 218:741 219:556 220:1647 221:810 222:646 223:888 End of report From larrysheldon at cox.net Fri Jan 1 22:09:22 2016 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 16:09:22 -0600 Subject: http://rtros.nop.hu/ In-Reply-To: References: <56862C13.6080103@niif.hu> Message-ID: <5686F912.8000402@cox.net> On 1/1/2016 02:40, Randy Bush wrote: >> opinions? > > yep. do not click on strange urls. ESPECIALLY when they: Reek of malevolence Have no reason given for why I might be interested in seeing the contents. Are from somebody and someplace that I have never hear of before. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal) From jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com Sat Jan 2 01:55:53 2016 From: jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com (Jeff Tantsura) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 01:55:53 +0000 Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: <568698F9.6010206@foobar.org> References: , <568698F9.6010206@foobar.org> Message-ID: <241B0872-6B9F-42FD-9084-3FA187CB28DD@ericsson.com> In 2016 we will start seeing first massive EVPN deployments. If you really need L2 with multihoming and BGP FRR speeds in service recovery - look for EVPN, otherwise, as mentioned below - L3 is your friend. Regards, Jeff > On Jan 1, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Chris Burwell wrote: >> I've had enough trouble with broadcast storms and other issues in N.A. > > And you still want vpls? Wow. > > If you're talking a requirement for connecting geographically separated > locations, there are sound technical reasons for avoiding vpls like the > plague. Unless there are overriding technical reasons why it wouldn't > work, l3vpn will almost always provide a far better quality service. > > Nick > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sat Jan 2 04:57:41 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:57:41 -0500 Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <165403.1451710661@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:55:24 -0500, Chris Burwell said: > Hi NANOG, > > I'm looking to solicit feedback on VPLS providers. The requirement is for > connectivity among about ten sites in North America, Going to depend a lot on what the 10 sites are. You're in Fairfax, Virginia, I'm sure you can find a lot of peope willing to take your money. You're in Grundy, Virginia, probably not so much. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richard.hesse at weebly.com Sat Jan 2 19:02:26 2016 From: richard.hesse at weebly.com (Richard Hesse) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 11:02:26 -0800 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <567D3987.2050008@netassist.ua> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <567D3987.2050008@netassist.ua> Message-ID: Purposefully hosting an "inflammatory" site that the Russians or Chinese object to is a valid way to get your AS null routed inside those countries. Same goes for Turkey, India, Australia... Solves the DDoS and malware problem inside their borders, not yours. On Dec 25, 2015 4:43 AM, "Max Tulyev" wrote: > Come on, keep calm and wait a year: Russia and China will de-peer with > all the world for their security (AKA censorship) reasons! ;) > > On 25.12.15 01:44, Colin Johnston wrote: > > see > > http://map.norsecorp.com > > > > We really need to ask if China and Russia for that matter will not take > abuse reports seriously why allow them to network to the internet ? > > > > Colin > > > > > > From adampf at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 12:55:16 2016 From: adampf at gmail.com (Andrew Dampf) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 07:55:16 -0500 Subject: Level 3 contact Message-ID: Would an engineer from Level 3 please contact me off list? Thank you. From tpoder at cis.vutbr.cz Sat Jan 2 15:35:10 2016 From: tpoder at cis.vutbr.cz (Tomas Podermanski) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:35:10 +0100 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> Message-ID: <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> Hi, according to Google's statistics (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883. I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-) Tomas -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100 From: Tomas Podermanski To: nanog at nanog.org Hi, It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) T. From randy at psg.com Sun Jan 3 03:44:34 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 12:44:34 +0900 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <567D3987.2050008@netassist.ua> Message-ID: > Purposefully hosting an "inflammatory" site that the Russians or > Chinese object to is a valid way to get your AS null routed inside > those countries. Same goes for Turkey, India, Australia... luckily this is not true in the US. oh wait. >> We really need to ask if China and Russia for that matter will not >> take abuse reports seriously why allow them to network to the >> internet ? luckily all american and ukranian isps respond to abuse in minutes. moving right along ... randy From mhoppes at indigowireless.com Sun Jan 3 23:31:45 2016 From: mhoppes at indigowireless.com (Matt Hoppes) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 18:31:45 -0500 Subject: TransPacific Partnership Message-ID: Has anyone heard any more regarding the TPP and the proposed additional monitoring burdens that would be put on ISPs? From mhoppes at indigowireless.com Mon Jan 4 00:07:12 2016 From: mhoppes at indigowireless.com (Matt Hoppes) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:07:12 -0500 Subject: TransPacific Partnership In-Reply-To: <925F280C2DCC9D409D202D3E79C01E12105B0B58@MAIL.connectivityit.com.au> References: <925F280C2DCC9D409D202D3E79C01E12105B0B58@MAIL.connectivityit.com.au> Message-ID: My understanding was if it all goes through here in the US as proposed ISPs would have to provide real time monitoring of data Not as part of CALEA but as part of NSA surveilance. > On Jan 3, 2016, at 18:54, Tom Berryman wrote: > > G'Day Matt, > > I'm here in Australia - and yes we are all well aware of the "benefits" of the TPP. > > What do you mean by burned? > As in the additional accounting and administration overhead of doing business with operators in TPP participating countries? > > Also, will you be attending PTC? > > > Regards, > Tom Berryman > > > Tom Berryman | CTO > Connectivity I.T. PTY LTD > ABN: 41128650635 > > 1300 22 46 00 (+61356224600) | tom at connectivityit.com.au | AS-58511 > www.connectivityit.com.au | facebook.com/connectivityit | twitter.com/connectivityit > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes > Sent: Monday, 4 January 2016 10:32 AM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: TransPacific Partnership > > Has anyone heard any more regarding the TPP and the proposed additional monitoring burdens that would be put on ISPs? From lists at mtin.net Mon Jan 4 05:26:09 2016 From: lists at mtin.net (Justin Wilson) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 00:26:09 -0500 Subject: Netflix stuffing data on pipe In-Reply-To: References: <6317C965-2A8D-4806-B146-B137AC6ED7B3@indigowireless.com> Message-ID: Netflix is streaming video. It will try to do the best data rate it can. If the connection can handle 4 megs a second it is going to try and do 4 megs a second. If the network can?t handle it then Netflix will back off and adapt to try and fit. Keep in mind, at least last I knew, a full HD stream was somewhere around 5 megs a sec. If the customer has a 4 meg plan it will try and fill up that 4 megs unless the algorithm backs off and steps it down. ISPs who run into this on lower packages need to implement QOS at the customer level to deal with streaming. This can be done several ways. This is one reason an endpoint the ISP controls is a huge asset, especially if it does QOS. Justin Wilson j2sw at mtin.net --- http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO xISP Solutions- Consulting ? Data Centers - Bandwidth http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman > On Dec 31, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Evelio Vila wrote: > > It is actually buffer-based, as it picks the video rate as a function of > the current buffer occupancy. > > See here http://yuba.stanford.edu/~nickm/papers/sigcomm2014-video.pdf > > -- > evelio > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Matt Hoppes > wrote: > >> Has anyone else observed Netflix sessions attempting to come into customer >> CPE devices at well in excess of the customers throttled plan? >> >> I'm not talking error retries on the line. I'm talking like two to three >> times in excess of what the customers CPE device can handle. >> >> I'm observing massive buffer overruns in some of our switches that appear >> to be directly related to this. And I can't figure out what possible good >> purpose Netflix would have for attempting to do this. >> >> Curious if anyone else has seen it? > From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 4 07:42:12 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 23:42:12 -0800 Subject: Netflix stuffing data on pipe In-Reply-To: References: <6317C965-2A8D-4806-B146-B137AC6ED7B3@indigowireless.com> Message-ID: <6C79F42C-C915-45EA-982B-72CEA0C11413@delong.com> As I understand it, the problem being discussed is an oscillation that is created when the reaction occurs faster than the feedback resulting in a series of dynamically increasing overcompensations. Owen > On Jan 3, 2016, at 21:26 , Justin Wilson wrote: > > Netflix is streaming video. It will try to do the best data rate it can. If the connection can handle 4 megs a second it is going to try and do 4 megs a second. If the network can?t handle it then Netflix will back off and adapt to try and fit. > > Keep in mind, at least last I knew, a full HD stream was somewhere around 5 megs a sec. If the customer has a 4 meg plan it will try and fill up that 4 megs unless the algorithm backs off and steps it down. ISPs who run into this on lower packages need to implement QOS at the customer level to deal with streaming. This can be done several ways. This is one reason an endpoint the ISP controls is a huge asset, especially if it does QOS. > > > Justin Wilson > j2sw at mtin.net > > --- > http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO > xISP Solutions- Consulting ? Data Centers - Bandwidth > > http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman > >> On Dec 31, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Evelio Vila wrote: >> >> It is actually buffer-based, as it picks the video rate as a function of >> the current buffer occupancy. >> >> See here http://yuba.stanford.edu/~nickm/papers/sigcomm2014-video.pdf >> >> -- >> evelio >> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Matt Hoppes >> wrote: >> >>> Has anyone else observed Netflix sessions attempting to come into customer >>> CPE devices at well in excess of the customers throttled plan? >>> >>> I'm not talking error retries on the line. I'm talking like two to three >>> times in excess of what the customers CPE device can handle. >>> >>> I'm observing massive buffer overruns in some of our switches that appear >>> to be directly related to this. And I can't figure out what possible good >>> purpose Netflix would have for attempting to do this. >>> >>> Curious if anyone else has seen it? >> > From pete at fiberphone.co.nz Mon Jan 4 08:11:19 2016 From: pete at fiberphone.co.nz (Pete Mundy) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 21:11:19 +1300 Subject: Netflix stuffing data on pipe In-Reply-To: <6C79F42C-C915-45EA-982B-72CEA0C11413@delong.com> References: <6317C965-2A8D-4806-B146-B137AC6ED7B3@indigowireless.com> <6C79F42C-C915-45EA-982B-72CEA0C11413@delong.com> Message-ID: Very succiently put, Owen! I concur. Is anything the ISP could avoid to alleviate this occurrence, or is it entirely a 'server-side' issue to resolve? Pete > On 4/01/2016, at 8:42 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: > > As I understand it, the problem being discussed is an oscillation that is created when the reaction occurs faster than the feedback resulting in a series of dynamically increasing overcompensations. > > Owen From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 4 09:19:27 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:19:27 +0200 Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: <568698F9.6010206@foobar.org> References: <568698F9.6010206@foobar.org> Message-ID: <568A391F.3030602@seacom.mu> On 1/Jan/16 17:19, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > If you're talking a requirement for connecting geographically separated > locations, there are sound technical reasons for avoiding vpls like the > plague. Unless there are overriding technical reasons why it wouldn't > work, l3vpn will almost always provide a far better quality service. Almost every time a customer has asked me for VPLS (or EVPN), they've been just fine with l3vpn as a suggested alternative. Other customers are all about doing their own routing... Mark. From A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk Mon Jan 4 09:36:26 2016 From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk (A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 09:36:26 +0000 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> Message-ID: <20160104093626.GA24417@lboro.ac.uk> Hi, > I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-) half of us will celebrate, the other half will cry ;-) alan From neil at tonal.clara.co.uk Mon Jan 4 11:26:12 2016 From: neil at tonal.clara.co.uk (Neil Harris) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:26:12 +0000 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> Message-ID: <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote: > Hi, > > according to Google's statistics > (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December > 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a > little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also > celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883. > > I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-) > > Tomas > Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get: Jan 2016: 10% Jan 2017: 20% Jan 2018: 33% Jan 2019: 50% Jan 2020: 67% Jan 2021: 80% Jan 2022: 90% with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4 switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027. Neil From rs-lists at seastrom.com Mon Jan 4 15:35:58 2016 From: rs-lists at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:35:58 -0500 Subject: Netflix stuffing data on pipe In-Reply-To: References: <6317C965-2A8D-4806-B146-B137AC6ED7B3@indigowireless.com> <6C79F42C-C915-45EA-982B-72CEA0C11413@delong.com> Message-ID: <39FD83EA-6A29-4910-AE86-6964919520E6@seastrom.com> I haven't done packet dumps to verify the behavior (too busy catching up on holiday email) but I can't help but wonder if IW10 (on by default in FreeBSD 10 which I believe might be what Netflix has underneath) is causing this problem, and that maybe a more gentle CWND ramp-up (or otherwise tweaking the slow start behavior) for prefixes that are known to be in networks with weak hardware might be a good choice. Of course this would be a change on Netflix's end... as for things the ISP could do to alleviate the problem the answer is always "sure, but it'll cost ya". -r > On Jan 4, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Pete Mundy wrote: > > > Very succiently put, Owen! > > I concur. > > Is anything the ISP could avoid to alleviate this occurrence, or is it entirely a 'server-side' issue to resolve? > > Pete > > >> On 4/01/2016, at 8:42 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> As I understand it, the problem being discussed is an oscillation that is created when the reaction occurs faster than the feedback resulting in a series of dynamically increasing overcompensations. >> >> Owen From cb.list6 at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 16:09:06 2016 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:09:06 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris wrote: > On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> according to Google's statistics >> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December >> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a >> little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also >> celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883. >> >> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-) >> >> Tomas >> >> > Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a > logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get: > > Jan 2016: 10% > Jan 2017: 20% > Jan 2018: 33% > Jan 2019: 50% > Jan 2020: 67% > Jan 2021: 80% > Jan 2022: 90% > > with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4 > switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027. > > Neil > > Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices. Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the past onto the future. It does not account for purposeful engineering design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates. For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as they have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, you may see substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly meaningful moving that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks. This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol for all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet. CB From jlewis at lewis.org Mon Jan 4 16:21:14 2016 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Ca By wrote: >> Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a >> logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get: >> >> Jan 2016: 10% >> Jan 2017: 20% >> Jan 2018: 33% >> Jan 2019: 50% >> Jan 2020: 67% >> Jan 2021: 80% >> Jan 2022: 90% >> >> with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4 >> switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027. >> >> Neil >> >> > Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. > > The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices. > > Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the > past onto the future. It does not account for purposeful engineering > design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates. Add to that the fact that as we run closer to (or further into?) run-out, at some point there's likely to be a rapid acceleration in v6 provisioning as networks finally realize that they can't reasonably get any more v4 space or their end-user customers finally begin to demand v6. If Brighthouse has people on-list...you're embarrassingly late to this party...and its time to start calling out end-user providers that still don't even offer v6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From jared at puck.nether.net Mon Jan 4 16:28:16 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:28:16 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: <167650E3-02DE-4CC5-99FC-79DC3BF06AA4@puck.nether.net> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Ca By wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris wrote: >> >>> On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> according to Google's statistics >>> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December >>> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a >>> little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also >>> celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883. >>> >>> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-) >>> >>> Tomas >> Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a >> logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get: >> >> Jan 2016: 10% >> Jan 2017: 20% >> Jan 2018: 33% >> Jan 2019: 50% >> Jan 2020: 67% >> Jan 2021: 80% >> Jan 2022: 90% >> >> with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4 >> switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027. >> >> Neil > Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. > > The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices. > > Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the > past onto the future. It does not account for purposeful engineering > design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates. > > For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as they > have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, you may see > substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly meaningful moving > that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks. > > This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol for > all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet. I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my phone, or at least v4v6 APN setting. I keep hearing rumors it is "coming soon". This could have a similar step function in the traffic and graphs. From jacques.latour at cira.ca Mon Jan 4 16:44:31 2016 From: jacques.latour at cira.ca (Jacques Latour) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:44:31 +0000 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <167650E3-02DE-4CC5-99FC-79DC3BF06AA4@puck.nether.net> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <167650E3-02DE-4CC5-99FC-79DC3BF06AA4@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: Great news and even more impressive is that Canada is the fastest adopter with ~8% IPv6 penetration, growing from almost 0.5% to 8% in 3 months!!!. See http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CA Telus is making a big difference in Canada as the IPv6 adoption leader @ ~45% IPv6 adoption. http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS852?c=CA&g=&w=1&x=1 Hint, hint, subliminal message here for all Canadian ISPs, IPv6 works ;-) So let's shutdown IPv4 on April 4, 2024 Bonne Ann?e! > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch > Sent: January-04-16 11:28 AM > To: Ca By > Cc: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration > > > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Ca By wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris > wrote: > >> > >>> On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> according to Google's statistics > >>> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st > >>> December > >>> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just > >>> a little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December > >>> we also celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC > 1883. > >>> > >>> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-) > >>> > >>> Tomas > >> Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is > >> following a logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for > neatness, I get: > >> > >> Jan 2016: 10% > >> Jan 2017: 20% > >> Jan 2018: 33% > >> Jan 2019: 50% > >> Jan 2020: 67% > >> Jan 2021: 80% > >> Jan 2022: 90% > >> > >> with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4 > >> switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027. > >> > >> Neil > > Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. > > > > The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices. > > > > Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends > > the past onto the future. It does not account for purposeful > > engineering design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates. > > > > For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as > > they have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, > > you may see substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly > > meaningful moving that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks. > > > > This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol > > for all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet. > > I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my > phone, or at least v4v6 APN setting. > > I keep hearing rumors it is "coming soon". > > This could have a similar step function in the traffic and graphs. From neil at tonal.clara.co.uk Mon Jan 4 16:54:17 2016 From: neil at tonal.clara.co.uk (Neil Harris) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:54:17 +0000 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: <568AA3B9.5020501@tonal.clara.co.uk> On 04/01/16 16:09, Ca By wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris wrote: > >> On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> according to Google's statistics >>> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December >>> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a >>> little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also >>> celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883. >>> >>> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-) >>> >>> Tomas >>> >>> >> Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a >> logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get: >> >> Jan 2016: 10% >> Jan 2017: 20% >> Jan 2018: 33% >> Jan 2019: 50% >> Jan 2020: 67% >> Jan 2021: 80% >> Jan 2022: 90% >> >> with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4 >> switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027. >> >> Neil >> >> > Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. > > The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices. > > Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the > past onto the future. It does not account for purposeful engineering > design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates. > > For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as they > have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, you may see > substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly meaningful moving > that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks. > > This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol for > all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet. > > CB > Absolutely. So these figures should be regarded as conservative. The logistic growth model is just the default model choice for predicting new-things-replacing-old transitions. Any number of things could make the transition go faster, particularly, as you say, pushes by major platform vendors like Apple, and the move to mobile first in the expansion of the Internet in the developing world. Companies like search engine providers and streaming video providers could also exert pressure to speed up the IPv6 transition, if they wished. Also, passing psychological thresholds like 50% or 90% -- or even just fashion, in the sense of decision makers wanting to be associated with success and the future, not the rapidly contracting legacy of the past -- might have an effect to accelerate the eventual collapse of IPv4 traffic volumes. I can only imagine the scale of the schadenfreude IPv6 proponents will be able to feel once they're able to start talking about IPv4 as a legacy protocol. Neil From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 19:03:23 2016 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:03:23 -0500 Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: <568A391F.3030602@seacom.mu> References: <568698F9.6010206@foobar.org> <568A391F.3030602@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > Almost every time a customer has asked me for VPLS (or EVPN), they've > been just fine with l3vpn as a suggested alternative. > > Other customers are all about doing their own routing... there are complications with an L3 vpn solution that L2/vpls doesn't bring along... and sometimes VPLS is cheaper than a wave/ptp-link ... and all I want is a ptp.... From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 4 19:32:50 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:32:50 -0800 Subject: Netflix stuffing data on pipe In-Reply-To: References: <6317C965-2A8D-4806-B146-B137AC6ED7B3@indigowireless.com> <6C79F42C-C915-45EA-982B-72CEA0C11413@delong.com> Message-ID: The most obvious things would be to make feedback faster? Implement congestion controls further up stream with reduced buffering throughout the network, selective technologies like WRED, etc. As RS said, sure, but all come at a cost either in performance, equipment, support, or some combination thereof. Owen > On Jan 4, 2016, at 00:11 , Pete Mundy wrote: > > > Very succiently put, Owen! > > I concur. > > Is anything the ISP could avoid to alleviate this occurrence, or is it entirely a 'server-side' issue to resolve? > > Pete > > >> On 4/01/2016, at 8:42 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> As I understand it, the problem being discussed is an oscillation that is created when the reaction occurs faster than the feedback resulting in a series of dynamically increasing overcompensations. >> >> Owen > From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 4 19:59:40 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:59:40 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> > > > Add to that the fact that as we run closer to (or further into?) run-out, at some point there's likely to be a rapid acceleration in v6 provisioning as networks finally realize that they can't reasonably get any more v4 space or their end-user customers finally begin to demand v6. > > If Brighthouse has people on-list...you're embarrassingly late to this party...and its time to start calling out end-user providers that still don't even offer v6. Here?s the thing, from my perspective (and I?ve been doing this for a while and I think I have a pretty good perspective from talking to a lot of people from all different levels and areas of involved)? Eyeball providers have an inherent forcing function. They _WILL_ run out of IPv4 addresses and they will have no choice but to start bringing up some new customers on IPv6. They will eventually need to recycle addresses allocated to current customers to things like CGN if they still have to maintain IPv4 connectivity for their customers. The real focus that needs to move now is content. Check out http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html and/or http://www.delong.com/ipv6_fortune500.html for a look at how this is going? It?s _NOT_ good. 18% (90) of the top 500 web sites even have an AAAA record for the domain name. Interestingly, there are 18 more sites (108, still 18%) that have AAAA records for www.domain name. Unfortunately, only 13.8% (69) of those return a status 200 in response to a query for the domain name and only 16.2% (81) for www.domain name as of this writing. For the fortune 500, it?s even more bleak. 13 sites (2.63%) have AAAA records with only 9 (1.82%) of them returning status 200. These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses are not counted as good. So long as the content situation remains this bad, there is no option to turn off IPv4 at the eyeball level. Additionally, there?s a large volume of consumer devices that are IPv4 only still being produced. This is a huge problem. IMHO, that?s the truly critical issue. Eyeball providers that haven?t started to move yet are much more capable of an accelerated deployment using a well trod path at this point and will have more than ample motivation relatively soon. On the content side, however, so far the motivations are somewhat limited and require vision and foresight which is often lacking in corporate leadership. Owen From jfbeam at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 21:20:23 2016 From: jfbeam at gmail.com (Ricky Beam) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:20:23 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:21:14 -0500, Jon Lewis wrote: >> Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. And it's not "native". A great many (myself included) have IPv6 *by choice* through various tunnels. And AT&T (Uverse) isn't "native" either -- it's a 6rd tunnel their gateways have been programmed to setup automatically (based on the public IPv4 address.) > If Brighthouse has people on-list...you're embarrassingly late to this > party... And Earthlink ("Eye Pee Vee What?"), and TWTC (pre-L3), and TWC ("not available on that node", and "not available through that gateway"), and Sprint, etc. etc. etc. etc. Verizon _Wireless_, yes. Verizon FiOS, NO. Verizon Business (f.k.a. UUNet), "maybe". That's the issue for Fortune 500's. They ("we") care more about cost than feature. IPv6 isn't valuable enough to justify the added expense for an ISP that does have their act together. (which, in my experience, is "no one".) And Amazon doesn't do IPv6, at all; so there you are. --Ricky From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jan 4 21:21:56 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:21:56 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> Message-ID: <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:59:40 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses are > not counted as good. They may be a *lot* more than slightly pessimistic - consider the case of any site that uses 3xx replies to redirect to a geo-IP based server rather than doing it in DNS (which has the problem that you're redirecting based on the IP of the DNS server that asked, which will fail miserably for anybody using 8.8.8.8 as their DNS server) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From damian at google.com Mon Jan 4 21:52:46 2016 From: damian at google.com (Damian Menscher) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:52:46 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:21 PM, wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:59:40 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > > > These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses > are > > not counted as good. > > They may be a *lot* more than slightly pessimistic - consider the case of > any site that uses 3xx replies to redirect to a geo-IP based server rather > than doing it in DNS (which has the problem that you're redirecting based > on the IP of the DNS server that asked, which will fail miserably for > anybody using 8.8.8.8 as their DNS server) While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about 8.8.8.8 are over-stated. 8.8.8.8 is deployed in many locations, which gives DNS-based geolocation a decent chance of working. And it also supports the client subnet EDNS0 extension ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-06) for more fine-grained balancing. Damian From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jan 4 22:09:30 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:09:30 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:52:46 -0800, Damian Menscher said: > While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used > to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about > 8.8.8.8 are over-stated. 8.8.8.8 is deployed in many locations, which > gives DNS-based geolocation a decent chance of working. So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the same country as the machine that made the original query? How does a company know that another instance of 8.8.8.8 has been turned up or down or re-peered, causing a shift in the mapping of DNS queries to countries/ states? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 4 22:17:56 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > On Jan 4, 2016, at 13:21 , Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:59:40 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > >> These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses are >> not counted as good. > > They may be a *lot* more than slightly pessimistic - consider the case of > any site that uses 3xx replies to redirect to a geo-IP based server rather > than doing it in DNS (which has the problem that you're redirecting based > on the IP of the DNS server that asked, which will fail miserably for > anybody using 8.8.8.8 as their DNS server) I say slightly pessimistic because there aren?t all that many 3XX responses being reported. Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, so if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure mode you are describing in that case. However, in either case, I?ll happily give you a copy of the code if you want to enhance it to detect 3XX responses that redirect to an IPv6 capable site vs. 3XX responses that redirect to an IPv4 only site in a sort of slight of hand designed to trick scripts like this one (yes, there are some of those out there last time I looked). Owen From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 22:23:20 2016 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:23:20 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq?hl=en there I asked jeeves for ya! On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:09 PM, wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:52:46 -0800, Damian Menscher said: > >> While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used >> to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about >> 8.8.8.8 are over-stated. 8.8.8.8 is deployed in many locations, which >> gives DNS-based geolocation a decent chance of working. > > So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to > a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the > same country as the machine that made the original query? > > How does a company know that another instance of 8.8.8.8 has been turned up or > down or re-peered, causing a shift in the mapping of DNS queries to countries/ > states? > > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jan 4 22:48:06 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:48:06 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:23:20 -0500, Christopher Morrow said: > https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq?hl=en > > there I asked jeeves for ya! > > So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to > > a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the > > same country as the machine that made the original query? With 43 subnets for servers and only 13 unique airport codes, the conclusion is that without additional fun and games, locating based on the DNS for 8.8.8.8 will be incorrect for *most* countries. Probably gets the continent right. On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, so > if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure mode > you are describing in that case. Which only helps for people using 8.8.8.8. Client Subnet does help the issue, but it doesn't actually fix it until support is near ubiquitous across intermediate nameservers that have clients in other geographic locations... (I believe that the fact that Google found a need to create EDNS0 Client Subnet *at all* is proof that using the DNS address for localization is problematic...) And again - it's still something that needs work upstream to support, and you *still* have to deal with the case where the intermediate DNS server doesn't do Client Subnet. > I say slightly pessimistic because there aren???t all that many 3XX responses > being reported. OK, that's a slightly different kettle of fish :) To the nearest 10% or so, how many are answering with a 3xx of any sort? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 23:33:12 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 00:33:12 +0100 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a business reason to implement IPv6. Regards, Baldur From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 4 23:35:05 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:35:05 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <13D126AA-3261-4E87-A7E4-536DCD13181C@delong.com> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 14:09 , Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:52:46 -0800, Damian Menscher said: > >> While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used >> to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about >> 8.8.8.8 are over-stated. 8.8.8.8 is deployed in many locations, which >> gives DNS-based geolocation a decent chance of working. > > So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to > a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the > same country as the machine that made the original query? > > How does a company know that another instance of 8.8.8.8 has been turned up or > down or re-peered, causing a shift in the mapping of DNS queries to countries/ > states? > > You do realize that the query source address is not 8.8.8.8 when it goes to the authoritative server, right? The client sees 8.8.8.8. The authoritative server does not. The query from Google to the authoritative server will come from a unique address local to the particular instance. Owen From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 4 23:39:30 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:39:30 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <581BC4E8-993F-48D9-976B-5F31FFB13E1E@delong.com> > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said: >> Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, so >> if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure mode >> you are describing in that case. > > Which only helps for people using 8.8.8.8. Client Subnet does help the issue, > but it doesn't actually fix it until support is near ubiquitous across > intermediate nameservers that have clients in other geographic locations? Well? that and any other DNS server that supports EDNS0 client subnet. > > (I believe that the fact that Google found a need to create EDNS0 Client > Subnet *at all* is proof that using the DNS address for localization is > problematic?) Sure, but anycast is even more problematic and those are basically the only two alternatives currently known for solving the problem in question. > > And again - it's still something that needs work upstream to support, and > you *still* have to deal with the case where the intermediate DNS server > doesn't do Client Subnet. Or accept that no solution is perfect, make this one as good as we can for now and move on. > >> I say slightly pessimistic because there aren?t all that many 3XX responses >> being reported. > > OK, that's a slightly different kettle of fish :) To the nearest 10% or > so, how many are answering with a 3xx of any sort? Well? I?ll post a separate message detailing my findings. It?s more interesting than I previously realized because none were reporting 3xx results and all 3xx results were getting hidden behind 5xx results which weren?t (all) entirely valid. Owen From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 4 23:55:59 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:55:59 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> Message-ID: <1BA4669B-CD90-4A87-9A0F-26743E3D229F@delong.com> It?s always fun when I open my mouth in public only to turn it into a learning experience. TL;DR version: Several enhancements to the script and to my PERL library to improve the accuracy were made. The now more accurate results aren?t very different. Details below: As a result of comments received in this thread and privately about the statistics pages, I started investigating the mysterious 5XX result codes and made several improvements to the script. First, I found the black text on blue hard to read, so I got rid of it. I converted the black text to white when the background is blue. Purely cosmetic, but still worth doing. Next, I started digging into why was LWP returning a 5xx result code. I discovered that it wasn?t getting a 5xx on the wire and was only sending one request which was getting a 3xx result and then it wasn?t sending an additional request. This led me to (erroneously) assume that it wasn?t attempting to follow the redirect. Some additional digging led me to the fact that LWP sometimes lies to you in both the documentation and the software. It was following redirects and continued to do so no matter how hard I tried to tell it not to. I did find out how to reverse the redirect back a step ($ua->previous() will return the response prior to the current response object in $ua if anyone cares). Armed with that information, I started looking at what I was getting and the text being reported by LWP with the 5xx errors. Turns out that I had neglected to install a module known as LWP::Protocol::https which meant that any redirect to HTTPS would fail with a 5xx result code from LWP without any packets over the wire being attempted. I?ve also made the script slightly more optimistic in that I do now count 3xx results as valid. This is now OVERLY optimistic in that anything that gets stuck at 3xx is actually a failed page load (the redirect went somewhere that didn?t actually work), but there are very few of these and they appear to relate to certificate verification failures which may be due to the version of root cert library on my system used by LWP more than anything else. The legitimate results post redirect are now guaranteed to come from an IPv6 destination because LWP is running with a source host name/address which does not have an A record or an IPv4 address associated. So? The revised statistics are now up and the results aren?t very startling. DNS results are unchanged. domain.name results are 82 (16.4%) up from 69 (13.8%). www.domain.name results are 101 (20.2%) up from 81 (16.2%) So it only changed the results for 13-20 sites overall. speedtest.net and wikimedia.org (but not www.wikimedia.org ) failes (500) with ?write failed: bad file descriptor? ??? Write? Interestingly, speedtest.net has an AAAA record, but www.speedtest.net does not. mega.nz still errors out 500 for timeout marca.com still has a legitimate 500 error (timeout) A further enhancement to the script will probably replace the short status code in the table with the full status line for any result outside of the 2xx range. Owen From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jan 4 23:59:51 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:59:51 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <13D126AA-3261-4E87-A7E4-536DCD13181C@delong.com> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <13D126AA-3261-4E87-A7E4-536DCD13181C@delong.com> Message-ID: <109656.1451951991@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:35:05 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > You do realize that the query source address is not 8.8.8.8 when it goes to the > authoritative server, right? As I said: > So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to > a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the > same country as the machine that made the original query? User talks to 8.8.8.8, and that host goes up the tree with *its* IP. And how often does *that* IP look like it belongs in the same country as the user? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From damian at google.com Tue Jan 5 00:21:42 2016 From: damian at google.com (Damian Menscher) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:21:42 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <1BA4669B-CD90-4A87-9A0F-26743E3D229F@delong.com> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <1BA4669B-CD90-4A87-9A0F-26743E3D229F@delong.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > domain.name results are 82 (16.4%) up from 69 (13.8%). > www.domain.name results are 101 (20.2%) up from > 81 (16.2%) As a professional pessimist, I can't help but note that of the 111 sites responding over IPv6 (I'm including a 400 or 500 as a "response"), more than half (58) are operated by Google. So ignoring Google sites, the Alexa Top 500 becomes the Alexa Top 441 and has 53 IPv6-enabled sites, or ~12%. Damian From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 5 00:27:46 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:27:46 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <1BA4669B-CD90-4A87-9A0F-26743E3D229F@delong.com> Message-ID: <096C73ED-C3B6-4D08-9E22-6E40A7E897B0@delong.com> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 16:21 , Damian Menscher wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > domain.name results are 82 (16.4%) up from 69 (13.8%). > www.domain.name > results are 101 (20.2%) up from 81 (16.2%) > > As a professional pessimist, I can't help but note that of the 111 sites responding over IPv6 (I'm including a 400 or 500 as a "response"), more than half (58) are operated by Google. So ignoring Google sites, the Alexa Top 500 becomes the Alexa Top 441 and has 53 IPv6-enabled sites, or ~12%. > > Damian I think 12% vs. 16% isn?t that much of a difference. Both numbers are horribly horribly low. Owen From sander at steffann.nl Tue Jan 5 00:37:53 2016 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:37:53 +0100 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Hi, > We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight > bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a > business reason to implement IPv6. I already discussed that with them a long time ago, but they weren't convinced. Maybe now is the time to discuss it again :) Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 5 00:42:45 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:42:45 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > On Jan 4, 2016, at 16:37 , Sander Steffann wrote: > > Hi, > >> We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight >> bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a >> business reason to implement IPv6. > > I already discussed that with them a long time ago, but they weren't convinced. Maybe now is the time to discuss it again :) > > Cheers, > Sander > Another alternative discussed, but Netflix seems so far to be unconvinced: If you come via IPv6, you get all the content. If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted, instead of the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a better internet connection and that the content you want will be available to the legacy internet on . Owen From jfbeam at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 01:01:29 2016 From: jfbeam at gmail.com (Ricky Beam) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:01:29 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:42:45 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: > If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted, > instead of the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a > better internet connection and that the content you want will be > available to the legacy internet on . All that does is piss off Netflix's customers who have zero control ("choice") over IPv6 availability. And in most cases zero understanding as well. Netflix isn't in the business of driving away paying customers. --Ricky From streinerj at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 16:19:54 2016 From: streinerj at gmail.com (Justin M. Streiner) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:19:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Ca By wrote: > Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. > > The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices. > > Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the > past onto the future. It does not account for purposeful engineering > design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates. > > For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as they > have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, you may see > substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly meaningful moving > that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks. > > This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol for > all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet. True, but as noted in other recent threads, it would appear that IPv6 deployment in many areas outside the United States is nowhere near as far along. While IPv6 is the future (in some areas, the present), it's probably way too early to try to nail down a date to write the obituary on IPv4. jms From menscher at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 23:00:37 2016 From: menscher at gmail.com (Damian Menscher) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:00:37 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:48 PM, wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:23:20 -0500, Christopher Morrow said: > > https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq?hl=en > > > > there I asked jeeves for ya! > > > > So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve > to > > > a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the > > > same country as the machine that made the original query? > > With 43 subnets for servers and only 13 unique airport codes, the > conclusion > is that without additional fun and games, locating based on the DNS for > 8.8.8.8 > will be incorrect for *most* countries. Probably gets the continent right. If you're load-balancing by country, you've already lost. It turns out the USA has more users than Luxembourg, Samoa, Monaco, Bermuda, and Andorra *combined*. On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > > Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, > so > > if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure > mode > > you are describing in that case. > > Which only helps for people using 8.8.8.8. Client Subnet does help the > issue, > but it doesn't actually fix it until support is near ubiquitous across > intermediate nameservers that have clients in other geographic locations... > > (I believe that the fact that Google found a need to create EDNS0 Client > Subnet *at all* is proof that using the DNS address for localization is > problematic...) > > And again - it's still something that needs work upstream to support, and > you *still* have to deal with the case where the intermediate DNS server > doesn't do Client Subnet. > Not all auth servers need to support Client Subnet... just those that want to do DNS-based load-balancing in a more fine-grained level than already achieved by Google's multiple datacenters. And while I don't know what software most companies use for their DNS-based load-balancing, I'd guess that adding Client Subnet support is a minor feature request relative to the other required logic. Damian From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 5 01:53:58 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:53:58 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > On Jan 4, 2016, at 17:01 , Ricky Beam wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:42:45 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: >> If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted, instead of the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a better internet connection and that the content you want will be available to the legacy internet on . > > All that does is piss off Netflix's customers who have zero control ("choice") over IPv6 availability. And in most cases zero understanding as well. Netflix isn't in the business of driving away paying customers. > > --Ricky The same is likely true of the Google search ranking idea, no? Owen From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Tue Jan 5 02:17:33 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 21:17:33 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <119381.1451960253@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:42:45 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > Another alternative discussed, but Netflix seems so far to be unconvinced: > > If you come via IPv6, you get all the content. > > If you come from IPv4, And Netflix convinces Sony to ship an IPv6-capable OS update for the PS3 and PS4, how, exactly? (Replace Sony, and PS[34] with pretty much any other legacy client out there...) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 02:20:42 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 03:20:42 +0100 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On 5 January 2016 at 02:53, Owen DeLong wrote: > The same is likely true of the Google search ranking idea, no? > The Netflix idea is putting pressure on eyeball networks. The google search rank idea is to put pressure on content providers. You have been arguing that the content providers are the larger problem now. Content providers in general have access to IPv6 if they want it. They are just too lazy to implement it. The exception being AWS. But I would cry dry tears if these guys got hunted by their lack of IPv6 by design. Regards, Baldur From randy at psg.com Tue Jan 5 02:37:38 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:37:38 +0900 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > The Netflix idea is putting pressure on eyeball networks. The google > search rank idea is to put pressure on content providers. and how does the internet benefit by putting pressure on providers? i see how the folk who produce glossy paper for a living, or those who charge for renting 128 bit integers, benefit. but how do those of us who push packets, or our customers, benefit? the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat? carrot not stick. randy From george.metz at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 04:27:56 2016 From: george.metz at gmail.com (George Metz) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 23:27:56 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do > to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and > enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat? carrot not stick. > > randy > The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done, and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien language!" At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has a chance to become a swan. From randy at psg.com Tue Jan 5 04:42:28 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 13:42:28 +0900 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: >> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do >> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and >> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat? carrot not stick. > > The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and > enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated > sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit > numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done, > and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but > the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading > stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying > "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien > language!" > > At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has > a chance to become a swan. sorry, i am not interested in the marketing and glossy paper crap. and your dissing isps and enterprises is a part of the problem not part of an approach to a solution. this reminds me when one of the ietf ivory tower fools said (during the TLA?NLA wars), and i quote, "the HD ratio will not work because operators do not understand logarithms." and he still stands in the way of useful progress. randy From dovid at telecurve.com Tue Jan 5 06:38:24 2016 From: dovid at telecurve.com (Dovid Bender) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:38:24 +0000 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <1004535615-1451975904-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1698996394-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Some one mentioned here a while back to make a free porn site that is IPv6 only. Watch the support lines at all the eyeballs light up! Regards, Dovid -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong Sender: "NANOG" Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:42:45 To: Sander Steffann Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration > On Jan 4, 2016, at 16:37 , Sander Steffann wrote: > > Hi, > >> We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight >> bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a >> business reason to implement IPv6. > > I already discussed that with them a long time ago, but they weren't convinced. Maybe now is the time to discuss it again :) > > Cheers, > Sander > Another alternative discussed, but Netflix seems so far to be unconvinced: If you come via IPv6, you get all the content. If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted, instead of the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a better internet connection and that the content you want will be available to the legacy internet on . Owen From tore at fud.no Tue Jan 5 07:41:32 2016 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:41:32 +0100 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <20160105084132.0112f643@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> * Sander Steffann > > We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a > > slight bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will > > suddenly be a business reason to implement IPv6. > > I already discussed that with them a long time ago, but they weren't > convinced. Maybe now is the time to discuss it again :) I've mentioned this in other forums before, but I might as well repeat it here too: I can understand that Google (or Netflix for that matter) are reluctant to engage in pure IPv6 activism by providing different or improved content to users which have no IPv6 connectivity. However, maybe they'd be more open to the idea if it was limited to IPv6 clients only? That is, IFF the Google user submitting the search is doing it using IPv6, then consider the result entries' IPv6 availability when sorting the result set. My reasoning is that there would be an objective techincal reason for doing it. The client is demonstrably capable of using IPv6 and prefers to do so, and as it has been shown that IPv6 performs better than IPv4 (see e.g. https://youtu.be/_7rcAIbvzVY), giving priority to IPv6-enabled results seems a logical thing to do. Much in the same way that it makes sense to rank mobile-optimised sites high in result sets returned to mobile clients. I'd imagine that the promise of improved Google ratings for 10%/25% of global/U.S. users will still be a significant enough business reason for web site operators to seriously consider implementing IPv6. Tore From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jan 5 08:09:53 2016 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:09:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <167650E3-02DE-4CC5-99FC-79DC3BF06AA4@puck.nether.net> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <167650E3-02DE-4CC5-99FC-79DC3BF06AA4@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Jared Mauch wrote: > I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my phone, or at least v4v6 APN setting. That's not how it's done on Apple, they (together with the operator) control the APN settings. There are several mobile networks that run IPv4v6 on iOS (all LTE enabled devices support this) for almost a year (I believe it was iOS 8.3 in March 2015 that started to support this for more general 3GPP providers). But getting IPv4v6 bearer working in a mobile network is non-trivial and it still brings the CGN mess, so a lot of mobile providers prefer to use IPv6 only with translation to reach IPv4 sites. That's where Cameron is coming from, and it's perfectly understanable mode of operation. Apple seems to be working to make IPv6 only+AFTR happen and I have good hopes that they'll succeed in 2016. To some other poster regarding IPv6 adoption by people settings up tunnels etc. In my experience, if you put "enable IPv6"-button in the self-care portal, around 1% will enable this. Very few are interested, and rightly so. IPv6 needs to be engineered and enabled by the ISP as a normal part of Internet access, not something the customer has to actively choose. If the customer buys their own CPE and it doesn't support IPv6, well, then that customer will have to fix that themselves, but the ISP needs to make sure that whatever equipment/access they deliver, they need to support IPv6 on it. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu Tue Jan 5 08:29:00 2016 From: bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu (Bruce Curtis) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:29:00 +0000 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> Message-ID: <7B638D2A-B3CC-4E74-AF16-75FB2D93A111@ndsu.edu> This page is fun to play with. The 3rd order polynomial currently results in the most optimistic projection and 700 days in the future is enough for a good view of the results. The page is for the US. https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php?metric=q&country=us > On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Tomas Podermanski wrote: > > Hi, > > according to Google's statistics > (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December > 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a > little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also > celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883. > > I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-) > > Tomas > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100 > From: Tomas Podermanski > To: nanog at nanog.org > > > > Hi, > > It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first > time when native IPv6 on google statistics > (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some > might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) > > T. > > > --- Bruce Curtis bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu Certified NetAnalyst II 701-231-8527 North Dakota State University From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 5 08:43:05 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 00:43:05 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <17AFECBE-B605-4785-89A6-35A627C33725@delong.com> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:27 , George Metz wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do >> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and >> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat? carrot not stick. >> >> randy >> > > The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and > enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated > sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit > numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done, > and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but > the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading > stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying > "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien > language!" > > At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has > a chance to become a swan. I haven?t been involved in a single executive briefing where hex or the length of the addresses came up as an issue. This is a total red herring. Decision makers aren?t paying attention to what the addresses look like. Most of them likely wouldn?t recognize an IPv4 address if you showed them one. Owen From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 5 08:48:36 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 00:48:36 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <167650E3-02DE-4CC5-99FC-79DC3BF06AA4@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <0FB8879B-0A2F-47AB-8163-2D9E1AE98B96@delong.com> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 00:09 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my phone, or at least v4v6 APN setting. > > That's not how it's done on Apple, they (together with the operator) control the APN settings. There are several mobile networks that run IPv4v6 on iOS (all LTE enabled devices support this) for almost a year (I believe it was iOS 8.3 in March 2015 that started to support this for more general 3GPP providers). > > But getting IPv4v6 bearer working in a mobile network is non-trivial and it still brings the CGN mess, so a lot of mobile providers prefer to use IPv6 only with translation to reach IPv4 sites. That's where Cameron is coming from, and it's perfectly understanable mode of operation. Except that the only mode of translation Cameron is willing to support is the one which isn?t available in iOS, so we have a religious war between T-Mo and Apple where T-Mo says ?Support 464Xlat or suffer? and Apple says ?No, you support one of the mechanisms already supported in iOS?. > Apple seems to be working to make IPv6 only+AFTR happen and I have good hopes that they'll succeed in 2016. Good that one of them is finally backing down on the previous stupidity, but for a variety of reasons, I wish it had been T-mo. Owen From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Jan 5 09:23:05 2016 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:23:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <0FB8879B-0A2F-47AB-8163-2D9E1AE98B96@delong.com> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <167650E3-02DE-4CC5-99FC-79DC3BF06AA4@puck.nether.net> <0FB8879B-0A2F-47AB-8163-2D9E1AE98B96@delong.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: > Good that one of them is finally backing down on the previous stupidity, > but for a variety of reasons, I wish it had been T-mo. Why? IPv6 only with IPv4 transported over it is clearly the way to go for the future, it makes more sense to have Apple support this mode once for their devices, than it is for every mobile provider to have to support IPv4v6 with all the drawbacks, and then migrate people again to IPv6+AFTR solution in a few years. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com Tue Jan 5 15:09:14 2016 From: Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com (Steve Mikulasik) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:09:14 +0000 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: They don't need to actually implement it, just say IPv6 increases ranking. SEO is mostly BS anyways, I doubt anyone would notice. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 4:33 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a business reason to implement IPv6. Regards, Baldur From fastest963 at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 16:15:21 2016 From: fastest963 at gmail.com (James Hartig) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:15:21 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <20160105084132.0112f643@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160105084132.0112f643@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> Message-ID: I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO. [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking -- James Hartig From wesley.george at twcable.com Tue Jan 5 16:37:01 2016 From: wesley.george at twcable.com (George, Wes) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:37:01 +0000 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <568AA3B9.5020501@tonal.clara.co.uk> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <568AA3B9.5020501@tonal.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: On 1/4/16, 11:54 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Neil Harris" wrote: >I can only imagine the scale of the schadenfreude IPv6 proponents will >be able to feel once they're able to start talking about IPv4 as a >legacy protocol. *start*? https://www.flickr.com/photos/n3pb/sets/72157634324914351/ :-) Wes Anything below this line has been added by my company?s mail server, I have no control over it. ----------- ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 5 16:44:26 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:44:26 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160105084132.0112f643@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> Message-ID: <9A16AAB2-F8C8-4C3E-AFC8-9FFD8CC13A7C@delong.com> I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as: Host Virtual vr.org Softlayer softlayer.com Linode linode.com Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than from people complaining on this list. Owen > On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig wrote: > > I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine > networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO. > > [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking > -- > James Hartig From ecrogers at precisionds.com Tue Jan 5 17:07:20 2016 From: ecrogers at precisionds.com (Eric Rogers) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:07:20 -0500 Subject: Possible Level3 Latency and Packet Loss Message-ID: I have several customers that have contacted us about VoIP quality, and I have moved BGP away from Level3, and even through Cogent and/or HE to try and bypass but it still goes back into Level3's network. Is there any way I can get an engineer from Level3 to contact me to help troubleshoot this? The NOC will not talk with me as I am not a Customer of Record. Eric Rogers www.pdsconnect.me (317) 831-3000 x200 From nanog-isp at mail.com Tue Jan 5 21:00:35 2016 From: nanog-isp at mail.com (nanog-isp at mail.com) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:00:35 +0100 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON Message-ID: Hello all, For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with both GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the differences between GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective? For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest. Thanks, Jared From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 6 01:10:41 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:10:41 -0800 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160105084132.0112f643@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <9A16AAB2-F8C8-4C3E-AFC8-9FFD8CC13A7C@delong.com> Message-ID: <81AA67E6-C696-4EE7-9887-A91E77B71A0E@delong.com> Yes and no? Yes, IBM bot Softlayer. No, IBM datacenters that predate Softlayer still can?t spell IPv6. Softlayer datacenters all had IPv6 before IBM got to them. Owen > On Jan 5, 2016, at 14:53 , Mansoor Nathani wrote: > > Aren't IBM and Softlayer one and the same these days? > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as: > > Host Virtual vr.org > > Softlayer softlayer.com > > Linode linode.com > > > Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than > from people complaining on this list. > > Owen > > > On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig > wrote: > > > > I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine > > networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO. > > > > [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking > > -- > > James Hartig > > From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jan 6 02:35:19 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 21:35:19 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <9A16AAB2-F8C8-4C3E-AFC8-9FFD8CC13A7C@delong.com> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160105084132.0112f643@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <9A16AAB2-F8C8-4C3E-AFC8-9FFD8CC13A7C@delong.com> Message-ID: <813D51DB-D54A-43CB-AB56-1F4FE29DCE23@puck.nether.net> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as: > > Host Virtual vr.org > Softlayer softlayer.com > Linode linode.com > > Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than > from people complaining on this list. Yes, the echo chamber of NANOG, that sometimes makes it out further :) I?ve heard rumblings that Amazon is slowly making progress in the IPv6 front and others are marching forward here. I think this will largely be driven by the mobile marketing machine. There?s a lot of things converging at once and I expect 2016 to see major shifts in ?IP Classic? -> IPv6 traffic. We saw a doubling of IPv6 bitrate on our network just by the iOS change in how they handled happy eyeballs. I?m hoping that Frontier brings v6 to their service area when they close the deal on FiOS purchase from VZ. For me on the marketing side: If you expect your users to visit from a mobile device, your website and resources should be available and optimized for IPv6. - Jared From javier at advancedmachines.us Tue Jan 5 17:35:02 2016 From: javier at advancedmachines.us (Javier J) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:35:02 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] IPv4 subnets for lease? In-Reply-To: References: <1661b60868b54fe3b6a3eaaabc5c70e1@exchange.broadaspect.local> Message-ID: Is there anyone who leases to companies in the US? On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Fredrik Widell wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Nick Ellermann wrote: > > > Hi. > > We lease /24's or more to customers since many years, but as someone later > in the thread commented, > spammers will use this opportunity if they can, so we limit our customers > to Sweden nowadays, and always check their earlier reputation before > leasing space. > If you have Swedish customers you are welcome to send in an application. > > ( http://webb.resilans.se/registry/order-eng.html ) > > > > > > We have customers asking to lease IP space for BGP transit with us and >> other peers. But they are struggling to get at a minimum even a Class C, >> even though they have their own ASN. We don't have large amounts of free >> IPv4 space to lease out to a single customer in most cases anymore. Hope to >> at least introduce these customers to some contacts that may be able to >> help. >> Do we know of any reputable sources that are leasing or selling IPv4 >> subnets as small as a /24 to satisfy their diversity needs? Thanks! >> >> Sincerely, >> Nick Ellermann - CTO & VP Cloud Services >> BroadAspect >> >> E: nellermann at broadaspect.com >> P: 703-297-4639 >> F: 703-996-4443 >> >> THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY >> MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you >> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and >> its attachments from all computers. >> >> >> > -- > > Mvh > > Fredrik Widell Resilans AB http://www.resilans.se/ > mail: info at resilans.se , fredrik at resilans.se > phone: +46 8 688 11 80 > From mnathani.lists at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 22:53:56 2016 From: mnathani.lists at gmail.com (Mansoor Nathani) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:53:56 -0500 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: <9A16AAB2-F8C8-4C3E-AFC8-9FFD8CC13A7C@delong.com> References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160105084132.0112f643@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <9A16AAB2-F8C8-4C3E-AFC8-9FFD8CC13A7C@delong.com> Message-ID: Aren't IBM and Softlayer one and the same these days? On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as: > > Host Virtual vr.org > Softlayer softlayer.com > Linode linode.com > > Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than > from people complaining on this list. > > Owen > > > On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig wrote: > > > > I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine > > networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO. > > > > [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking > > -- > > James Hartig > > From tglassey at earthlink.net Tue Jan 5 23:28:11 2016 From: tglassey at earthlink.net (=?utf-8?B?dGdsYXNzZXlAZWFydGhsaW5rLm5ldA==?=) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 15:28:11 -0800 Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFRyYW5zUGFjaWZpYyBQYXJ0bmVyc2hpcA==?= Message-ID: I wouldn't worry about it every byte if the surveillance data is tied to the patent fraud around Us6370629 imho. Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "Tom Berryman" Cc: Subject: TransPacific Partnership Date: Sun, Jan 3, 2016 16:07 My understanding was if it all goes through here in the US as proposed ISPs would have to provide real time monitoring of data Not as part of CALEA but as part of NSA surveilance. > On Jan 3, 2016, at 18:54, Tom Berryman wrote: > > G'Day Matt, > > I'm here in Australia - and yes we are all well aware of the "benefits" of the TPP. > > What do you mean by burned? > As in the additional accounting and administration overhead of doing business with operators in TPP participating countries? > > Also, will you be attending PTC? > > > Regards, > Tom Berryman > > > Tom Berryman | CTO > Connectivity I.T. PTY LTD > ABN: 41128650635 > > 1300 22 46 00 (+61356224600) | tom at connectivityit.com.au | AS-58511 > www.connectivityit.com.au | facebook.com/connectivityit | twitter.com/connectivityit > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes > Sent: Monday, 4 January 2016 10:32 AM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: TransPacific Partnership > > Has anyone heard any more regarding the TPP and the proposed additional monitoring burdens that would be put on ISPs? From paul at paulstewart.org Wed Jan 6 11:02:40 2016 From: paul at paulstewart.org (Paul Stewart) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:02:40 -0500 Subject: [NANOG] IPv4 subnets for lease? In-Reply-To: References: <1661b60868b54fe3b6a3eaaabc5c70e1@exchange.broadaspect.local> Message-ID: <04b101d14871$c2bd1150$483733f0$@paulstewart.org> Definitely there is - don't have any names handy but there were a few companies at NANOG Montreal that chased me down re: leasing IP space (and of course selling). Paul -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Javier J Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 12:35 PM To: Fredrik Widell Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: [NANOG] IPv4 subnets for lease? Is there anyone who leases to companies in the US? On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Fredrik Widell wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Nick Ellermann wrote: > > > Hi. > > We lease /24's or more to customers since many years, but as someone > later in the thread commented, spammers will use this opportunity if > they can, so we limit our customers to Sweden nowadays, and always > check their earlier reputation before leasing space. > If you have Swedish customers you are welcome to send in an application. > > ( http://webb.resilans.se/registry/order-eng.html ) > > > > > > We have customers asking to lease IP space for BGP transit with us and >> other peers. But they are struggling to get at a minimum even a Class >> C, even though they have their own ASN. We don't have large amounts >> of free >> IPv4 space to lease out to a single customer in most cases anymore. >> Hope to at least introduce these customers to some contacts that may >> be able to help. >> Do we know of any reputable sources that are leasing or selling IPv4 >> subnets as small as a /24 to satisfy their diversity needs? Thanks! >> >> Sincerely, >> Nick Ellermann - CTO & VP Cloud Services BroadAspect >> >> E: nellermann at broadaspect.com >> P: 703-297-4639 >> F: 703-996-4443 >> >> THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE >> PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended >> recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender >> and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. >> >> >> > -- > > Mvh > > Fredrik Widell Resilans AB http://www.resilans.se/ > mail: info at resilans.se , fredrik at resilans.se > phone: +46 8 688 11 80 > From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jan 6 12:32:09 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:32:09 +0200 Subject: VPLS Providers In-Reply-To: References: <568698F9.6010206@foobar.org> <568A391F.3030602@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <568D0949.8070804@seacom.mu> On 4/Jan/16 21:03, Christopher Morrow wrote: > there are complications with an L3 vpn solution that L2/vpls doesn't > bring along... and sometimes VPLS is cheaper than a wave/ptp-link ... > and all I want is a ptp.... You would fall under "other customers". Mark. From colton.conor at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 13:57:12 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:57:12 -0600 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or know? Those would be the major differences I would say. We only deploy GPON here. I would say in a system like GEPON or GPON where a port is shared between users more bandwidth is better, and GPON has more capacity than GEPON. I am not sure which region you are in, but in the USA GEPON is almost non-existent from the larger players. Meaning that most GEPON equipment won't be ANSI certified, and might not have FFC certs. Huawei used to have a couple of slides. I looked on some other list and found the following: We considered EPON, and there are some inexpensive solutions from off shore that are worth considering. In the end, we went for GPON for two reasons: One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports 2.4Gbps of total usage on the segment. Two we like our current vendor, Adtran, and we wanted to put OLT cards into the same chassis and manage them using the same systems. The cost premium versus a new vendor for EPON wasn't huge. The CPE is the bigger cost, and we didn't see a real cost difference between EPON ONT and GPON ONT. In the end, the price difference for GPON versus EPON wasn't great - and while GPON is a bit "designed by committee" and there are some valid criticisms there, they're academic in light of the other factors. On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM, wrote: > Hello all, > > For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with > both GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the differences > between GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective? > > For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor > compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest. > > Thanks, > > Jared > From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 16:30:30 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 17:30:30 +0100 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The solution for selling 1G internet with EPON could be 10GEPON. This is still cheaper than GPON. The idea is that the ONU has a cheap standard 1G transmitter. Apparently you can make a 10G receiver very cheap, it is the transmitter that is expensive. So it is 10G downstream and 1G upstream. With the option to deliver 10G upstream per ONU. It is about reusing standard ethernet components that are dirt cheap - you can buy ethernet SFP modules for peanuts after all and 10G SFP+ modules are not that expensive either. However when we asked some vendors about this, nobody wanted to sell to us because Europe (and USA I assume) is GPON while China is GEPON. They did offer to sell us GPON at 10GEPON pricing instead... Something fishy is going on. It is not about EC compliance as it is just a matter of buying a 10GEPON card instead of GPON card to the same chassis switch. Maybe patents? Regards, Baldur On 6 January 2016 at 14:57, Colton Conor wrote: > If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and > purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or > know? Those would be the major differences I would say. We only deploy GPON > here. I would say in a system like GEPON or GPON where a port is shared > between users more bandwidth is better, and GPON has more capacity than > GEPON. I am not sure which region you are in, but in the USA GEPON is > almost non-existent from the larger players. Meaning that most GEPON > equipment won't be ANSI certified, and might not have FFC certs. > > Huawei used to have a couple of slides. > > I looked on some other list and found the following: > > We considered EPON, and there are some inexpensive solutions from off shore > that are worth considering. > > > > In the end, we went for GPON for two reasons: > > > > One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a > PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports > 2.4Gbps of total usage on the segment. > > > > Two we like our current vendor, Adtran, and we wanted to put OLT cards into > the same chassis and manage them using the same systems. The cost premium > versus a new vendor for EPON wasn't huge. The CPE is the bigger cost, and > we didn't see a real cost difference between EPON ONT and GPON ONT. > > > > In the end, the price difference for GPON versus EPON wasn't great - and > while GPON is a bit "designed by committee" and there are some valid > criticisms there, they're academic in light of the other factors. > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM, wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with > > both GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the > differences > > between GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective? > > > > For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor > > compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jared > > > From dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com Wed Jan 6 19:36:00 2016 From: dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com (David Hubbard) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:36:00 +0000 Subject: SMS gateways Message-ID: Hey all, was curious if anyone has opinions on the FoxBox vs SMS Eagle boxes for sending SMS alerts directly to the cell network? http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-iq.html/ http://www.smseagle.eu/store/en/devices/1-sms-eagle.html Any alternative options would be appreciated too. I saw Microcom?s iSMS modem mentioned in the list archives but it?s only 2G so likely won?t be viable much longer. The other question, given the fact that they?re both GSM-based, is whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ?machine? plans for use by these types of devices. We have all of our OpenGear out of band console servers on Verizon and they have these special ?machine? plans for $10/mo with very limited bandwidth, so that has allowed us to deploy a bunch of them without worrying about a huge phone bill. Thanks, David From johnl at iecc.com Wed Jan 6 21:28:18 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 6 Jan 2016 21:28:18 -0000 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160106212818.25490.qmail@ary.lan> >The other question, given the fact that they?re both GSM-based, is whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ?machine? plans for use by these types of devices. AT&T and T-Mo both have cheap MVNOs (resellers.) Airvoice Wireless resells AT&T and has a $10/mo plan, texts charged at 2c each with any extra rolling over to the next month. Tracfone has a variety of AT&T bring your own device plans, of which one of the the cheapest is $18 every 90 days, including 180 texts, any extra rolls over. If you need more than that, you can top up 1000 texts for $10 at any time. These are both SIM-only plans, put the SIM in whatever device you want. R's, John From cmaurand at xyonet.com Wed Jan 6 21:38:09 2016 From: cmaurand at xyonet.com (cmaurand at xyonet.com) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:38:09 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <20160106212818.25490.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20160106212818.25490.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <00bfeaab3a667fe59a45a56553bd8bc7@xyonet.com> On 2016-01-06 16:28, John Levine wrote: >> The other question, given the fact that they?re both GSM-based, is >> whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ?machine? plans >> for use by these types of devices. > > AT&T and T-Mo both have cheap MVNOs (resellers.) Airvoice Wireless > resells AT&T > and has a $10/mo plan, texts charged at 2c each with any extra rolling > over to > the next month. > > Tracfone has a variety of AT&T bring your own device plans, of which > one of the the cheapest is $18 every 90 days, including 180 texts, any > extra > rolls over. If you need more than that, you can top up 1000 texts for > $10 at any time. > > These are both SIM-only plans, put the SIM in whatever device you want. > > R's, > John There's lots of providers out there complete with api's. I found one in Canada with 1 cent per each sms to US and Canada and 3 cents each anywhere else. If you want a dedicated long code, that'll cost you $25.00 per month. Cheers, Curtis From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Wed Jan 6 21:57:36 2016 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 16:57:36 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <568D8DD0.6050106@meetinghouse.net> There are also services that do it for you. In my day job (Transit related software), we use textmarks.com to provide interactive transit information ("where's my bus" kinds of things) via interactive SMS. Not particularly expensive. On 1/6/16 2:36 PM, David Hubbard wrote: > Hey all, was curious if anyone has opinions on the FoxBox vs SMS Eagle boxes for sending SMS alerts directly to the cell network? > > http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-iq.html/ > http://www.smseagle.eu/store/en/devices/1-sms-eagle.html > > Any alternative options would be appreciated too. I saw Microcom?s iSMS modem mentioned in the list archives but it?s only 2G so likely won?t be viable much longer. > > The other question, given the fact that they?re both GSM-based, is whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ?machine? plans for use by these types of devices. We have all of our OpenGear out of band console servers on Verizon and they have these special ?machine? plans for $10/mo with very limited bandwidth, so that has allowed us to deploy a bunch of them without worrying about a huge phone bill. > > Thanks, > > David > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mel at beckman.org Wed Jan 6 22:14:08 2016 From: mel at beckman.org (Mel Beckman) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 22:14:08 +0000 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <568D8DD0.6050106@meetinghouse.net> References: , <568D8DD0.6050106@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: The problem with Internet-based services is that they depend on the very thing most of us are trying to monitor. For reliable SMS you need out-of-band text transmission at least, and ideally out-of-band TCP/IP data. So far cellular modems provide lots of options for the latter, but I've seen few universally-available choices for the former. I plan to check out the Verizon options mentioned here -- the last time I tried to talk to our business exec, they claimed there were no cheap options. -mel ________________________________________ From: NANOG on behalf of Miles Fidelman Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 1:57 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: SMS gateways There are also services that do it for you. In my day job (Transit related software), we use textmarks.com to provide interactive transit information ("where's my bus" kinds of things) via interactive SMS. Not particularly expensive. On 1/6/16 2:36 PM, David Hubbard wrote: > Hey all, was curious if anyone has opinions on the FoxBox vs SMS Eagle boxes for sending SMS alerts directly to the cell network? > > http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-iq.html/ > http://www.smseagle.eu/store/en/devices/1-sms-eagle.html > > Any alternative options would be appreciated too. I saw Microcom?s iSMS modem mentioned in the list archives but it?s only 2G so likely won?t be viable much longer. > > The other question, given the fact that they?re both GSM-based, is whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ?machine? plans for use by these types of devices. We have all of our OpenGear out of band console servers on Verizon and they have these special ?machine? plans for $10/mo with very limited bandwidth, so that has allowed us to deploy a bunch of them without worrying about a huge phone bill. > > Thanks, > > David > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com Wed Jan 6 22:37:20 2016 From: dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com (David Hubbard) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 22:37:20 +0000 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <568D8DD0.6050106@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <256AB21E-935F-4074-A366-E43D99A4749F@dino.hostasaurus.com> The specific phrase you?ll want to use with your VZ rep is a ?machine to machine? plan. It?s the same type of plans alarm companies purchase for cell-backups. They have plans with data allowances as low as 1 MB/month for a few dollars, but you get destroyed if you go over the plan because the data rates are very high. If you just use them for emergency OOB ssh over cell they?re great and economical. David On 1/6/16, 5:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman" wrote: >The problem with Internet-based services is that they depend on the very thing most of us are trying to monitor. For reliable SMS you need out-of-band text transmission at least, and ideally out-of-band TCP/IP data. So far cellular modems provide lots of options for the latter, but I've seen few universally-available choices for the former. I plan to check out the Verizon options mentioned here -- the last time I tried to talk to our business exec, they claimed there were no cheap options. > > -mel From mel at beckman.org Wed Jan 6 23:31:54 2016 From: mel at beckman.org (Mel Beckman) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:31:54 +0000 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <256AB21E-935F-4074-A366-E43D99A4749F@dino.hostasaurus.com> References: <568D8DD0.6050106@meetinghouse.net> , <256AB21E-935F-4074-A366-E43D99A4749F@dino.hostasaurus.com> Message-ID: David, Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to avoid. We used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 phone bills. I'll check the plan overage terms carefully! -mel ________________________________________ From: David Hubbard Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 2:37 PM To: Mel Beckman; nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: SMS gateways The specific phrase you?ll want to use with your VZ rep is a ?machine to machine? plan. It?s the same type of plans alarm companies purchase for cell-backups. They have plans with data allowances as low as 1 MB/month for a few dollars, but you get destroyed if you go over the plan because the data rates are very high. If you just use them for emergency OOB ssh over cell they?re great and economical. David On 1/6/16, 5:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman" wrote: >The problem with Internet-based services is that they depend on the very thing most of us are trying to monitor. For reliable SMS you need out-of-band text transmission at least, and ideally out-of-band TCP/IP data. So far cellular modems provide lots of options for the latter, but I've seen few universally-available choices for the former. I plan to check out the Verizon options mentioned here -- the last time I tried to talk to our business exec, they claimed there were no cheap options. > > -mel From sotnickd-nanog at ddv.com Thu Jan 7 00:23:21 2016 From: sotnickd-nanog at ddv.com (David Sotnick) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 16:23:21 -0800 Subject: How to update IPv6 geolocation data? Google sites blocked. Message-ID: Really? Nobody here knows how one goes about updating IPv6 geolocation data? Our /48 is still being denied access to Google sites due to unknown geolocation. Help? Best, David On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:34 PM, David Sotnick wrote: > Hello, and Season's Greetings! > > We recently lit up a new IPv6-connected location and expanded our > ARIN-allocated /48 network to a /44 network to accommodate the additional > location (and future locations). > > However, since moving our small satellite office off our primary /48 and > onto their own /48 as part of our /44 network, the users at that office are > receiving messages from e.g. YouTube that the "user has not made this > content available in your country". > > How does one go about updating this v6 geolocation data? This is impacting > a bunch of our users. > > Thanks! > > -David > From ying.zhang13 at hpe.com Thu Jan 7 00:51:33 2016 From: ying.zhang13 at hpe.com (Zhang, Ying) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:51:33 +0000 Subject: Survey on Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting Message-ID: <9FB7CAEB5595194395CF60B36B98FEED1DAD0575@G4W3218.americas.hpqcorp.net> Dear All, We are researchers in HP Labs and Duke university. We are currently working on a project related to Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting. We are currently conducting a survey and gathering feedback from operators. Can you help us by providing some answers? Please feel free to email us if you have any additional suggestions. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5SFP6G8 Thanks! -Ying From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Thu Jan 7 01:17:36 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 20:17:36 -0500 Subject: Survey on Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting In-Reply-To: <9FB7CAEB5595194395CF60B36B98FEED1DAD0575@G4W3218.americas.hpqcorp.net> References: <9FB7CAEB5595194395CF60B36B98FEED1DAD0575@G4W3218.americas.hpqcorp.net> Message-ID: <400B8916-E77F-45CA-BABE-5D2633021EBA@hammerfiber.com> > On Jan 6, 2016, at 7:51 PM, Zhang, Ying wrote: > > Dear All, > > We are researchers in HP Labs and Duke university. We are currently working on a project related to Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting. > We are currently conducting a survey and gathering feedback from operators. > Can you help us by providing some answers? Please feel free to email us if you have any additional suggestions. > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5SFP6G8 > > Thanks! > -Ying > Why do you keep posting the same thing to the list over and over again? Do you really think the subscriber count changes that much from week to week? From bill at herrin.us Thu Jan 7 01:18:02 2016 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 20:18:02 -0500 Subject: Survey on Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting In-Reply-To: <9FB7CAEB5595194395CF60B36B98FEED1DAD0575@G4W3218.americas.hpqcorp.net> References: <9FB7CAEB5595194395CF60B36B98FEED1DAD0575@G4W3218.americas.hpqcorp.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Zhang, Ying wrote: > We are researchers in HP Labs and Duke university. We are currently working on a project related to Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting. > We are currently conducting a survey and gathering feedback from operators. > Can you help us by providing some answers? Please feel free to email us if you have any additional suggestions. > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5SFP6G8 Hello, I would offer two suggestions: First, we heard you the first time. One post was acceptable. Twice was forgivable. This is the fourth time you've posted this exact same message to the NANOG list. Please stop spamming. Second, the people one this mailing list are here for their interest in Internet backbone networks... where stateful middleboxes can't possibly keep up and thus are not generally used. Most of us operate ancillary networks where we use middleboxes of one kind or another but if you're trying to understand middleboxes on the backbone, responses littered with that data won't help you. And if you're trying to understand middleboxes on Internet networks in general, you'll get badly skewed results by only asking here. We are in no respect a representative population. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From ying.zhang13 at hpe.com Thu Jan 7 02:36:15 2016 From: ying.zhang13 at hpe.com (Zhang, Ying) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 02:36:15 +0000 Subject: Survey on Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting In-Reply-To: References: <9FB7CAEB5595194395CF60B36B98FEED1DAD0575@G4W3218.americas.hpqcorp.net> , Message-ID: <8B3A1851-179E-4A74-B218-0CCAA3C09F30@hpe.com> Hi Joe, William and Daniel, Thank you for your suggestions and raising the concerns. Sorry for spamming the list. I thought resending will have it be seen by more people who might have missed the earlier ones. I fully understand the security concern as well. I will be more careful posting to the list next time. Thanks! -Ying On Jan 7, 2016, at 9:47 AM, Joe Hamelin > wrote: On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Zhang, Ying > wrote: > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5SFP6G8 One issue that stopped me dead in your monkeysurvey was that you asked how many "Middleboxes" I had without telling me what you consider a middlebox. Then you go into questions that ask me to delve deep into the whitepapers of how they work. I work with a team that supports about 100 international locations on a large MPLS network with Palo Alto, Ipanema, Cisco and homebrew virtual machines. For me to even try to answer your questions the way you state would require me to schedule meetings with all network stakeholders from across the globe. Trust me, we have enough meetings already. And I'm only on a small network of 30,000 users. I think the problem isn't what your are trying to learn, it's how you are asking. There is no motivation for us to answer your survey, there is actually very good security reasons why we wouldn't. You don't explain what you are trying to research but asking us to give, gratis, deep inside depth to our deployments. Most of us would have serious issues with our employers if we gave out that info. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474 From johnl at iecc.com Thu Jan 7 02:40:44 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 7 Jan 2016 02:40:44 -0000 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> >Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to avoid. We used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, >but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 phone bills. I'll check the plan overage terms >carefully! Sounds like an excellent application for a $10/mo prepaid plan on something like Tracfone. If disaster strikes and you need a lot of data one month, you can add extra credit directly from the phone. From joe at nethead.com Thu Jan 7 01:47:47 2016 From: joe at nethead.com (Joe Hamelin) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 17:47:47 -0800 Subject: Survey on Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting In-Reply-To: References: <9FB7CAEB5595194395CF60B36B98FEED1DAD0575@G4W3218.americas.hpqcorp.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Zhang, Ying wrote: > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5SFP6G8 One issue that stopped me dead in your monkeysurvey was that you asked how many "Middleboxes" I had without telling me what you consider a middlebox. Then you go into questions that ask me to delve deep into the whitepapers of how they work. I work with a team that supports about 100 international locations on a large MPLS network with Palo Alto, Ipanema, Cisco and homebrew virtual machines. For me to even try to answer your questions the way you state would require me to schedule meetings with all network stakeholders from across the globe. Trust me, we have enough meetings already. And I'm only on a small network of 30,000 users. I think the problem isn't what your are trying to learn, it's how you are asking. There is no motivation for us to answer your survey, there is actually very good security reasons why we wouldn't. You don't explain what you are trying to research but asking us to give, gratis, deep inside depth to our deployments. Most of us would have serious issues with our employers if we gave out that info. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474 > From randy at psg.com Thu Jan 7 04:48:25 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 13:48:25 +0900 Subject: Survey on Middlebox modeling and troubleshooting In-Reply-To: References: <9FB7CAEB5595194395CF60B36B98FEED1DAD0575@G4W3218.americas.hpqcorp.net> Message-ID: > You don't explain what you are trying to research but asking us to > give, gratis, deep inside depth to our deployments. Most of us would > have serious issues with our employers if we gave out that info. this is the problem with all the academic surveys on nanog. few, if any, medium to large networks could answer if they wanted to. so the surveyors get very biased results and then report them at academic conferences. this is not really a problem unless you happen to also go to academic conferences and choke trying to keep your mouth shut. randy From hugo at slabnet.com Thu Jan 7 05:18:12 2016 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:18:12 -0800 Subject: How to update IPv6 geolocation data? Google sites blocked. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160107051812.GB4470@slab-wks-04.int.slabnet.com> On Wed 2016-Jan-06 16:23:21 -0800, David Sotnick wrote: >Really? Nobody here knows how one goes about updating IPv6 geolocation >data? Our /48 is still being denied access to Google sites due to unknown >geolocation. > >Help? John Lewis responded with some info[1], which is backed up by Google's own support page[2][3]. No bets from me on how quickly or reliably that gets updated, though... > >Best, >David -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) [1] http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-December/083078.html [2] https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/873?hl=en [3] https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/179386 >On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:34 PM, David Sotnick >wrote: > >> Hello, and Season's Greetings! >> >> We recently lit up a new IPv6-connected location and expanded our >> ARIN-allocated /48 network to a /44 network to accommodate the additional >> location (and future locations). >> >> However, since moving our small satellite office off our primary /48 and >> onto their own /48 as part of our /44 network, the users at that office are >> receiving messages from e.g. YouTube that the "user has not made this >> content available in your country". >> >> How does one go about updating this v6 geolocation data? This is impacting >> a bunch of our users. >> >> Thanks! >> >> -David >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: From swannie at swannie.net Thu Jan 7 15:34:03 2016 From: swannie at swannie.net (Brian R. Swan) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:34:03 -0600 Subject: Smokeping targets Message-ID: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Hi all, I?m setting up smokeping to try and gather some latency statistics on my ISP to different parts of the world. Does there exist a list or any generic recommendations of different targets to config within smokeping? Google and searching the NANOG mailing list have failed me, and I don?t want to just spam random IP addresses with ICMP requests if there?s a more official/accepted method for doing this. Thanks! Brian From adampf at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 15:59:27 2016 From: adampf at gmail.com (Andrew Dampf) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:59:27 -0500 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: Something I found that is helpful once you've gathered a list of targets is the following command for generating config to paste: traceroute -w 3 [IPaddress] | grep -v "*" | grep -v "traceroute" | sed -e 's/(//g' -e 's/)//g' | awk '{ gsub(/\./,"_",$2); print "++++ "$2"\nmenu = "$3"\ntitle = "$2" - "$3"\nhost = "$3"\n"}' That generates a valid output for configs to ping each hop along the way to your destination, which can be super useful. Not all of them allow ICMP but a decent amount do. On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Brian R. Swan wrote: > Hi all, > > I?m setting up smokeping to try and gather some latency statistics on my > ISP to different parts of the world. Does there exist a list or any > generic recommendations of different targets to config within smokeping? > Google and searching the NANOG mailing list have failed me, and I don?t > want to just spam random IP addresses with ICMP requests if there?s a more > official/accepted method for doing this. > > Thanks! > Brian From swannie at swannie.net Thu Jan 7 16:06:25 2016 From: swannie at swannie.net (Brian R. Swan) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:06:25 -0600 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: Very cool - thanks for sharing that. > On Jan 7, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Andrew Dampf wrote: > > Something I found that is helpful once you've gathered a list of targets is the following command for generating config to paste: From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 16:18:39 2016 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:18:39 -0500 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Dampf wrote: > Something I found that is helpful once you've gathered a list of targets is > the following command for generating config to paste: > > traceroute -w 3 [IPaddress] | grep -v "*" | grep -v "traceroute" | sed -e > 's/(//g' -e 's/)//g' | awk '{ gsub(/\./,"_",$2); print "++++ "$2"\nmenu = > "$3"\ntitle = "$2" - "$3"\nhost = "$3"\n"}' > > That generates a valid output for configs to ping each hop along the way to > your destination, which can be super useful. Not all of them allow ICMP but > a decent amount do. > curious... why is pinging along the path interesting? nodes on the network which process packets for routing purposes tend to handle local destination packets vastly differently from transit packets... additionally, there's no guarantee that the path to the device you are pinging is congruent with the path to the far end you traceroute to, so I'm not even sure you'd be testing the path correctly anyway. > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Brian R. Swan wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I?m setting up smokeping to try and gather some latency statistics on my >> ISP to different parts of the world. Does there exist a list or any >> generic recommendations of different targets to config within smokeping? one thing I'd recommend is NOT publishing a list of 'ping these for useful results', there are enough people that already ping /8.8.8.8/ or /4.2.2.2/ or /favorite website/ that there are definitely cases of intermediate paths parts limiting traffic for monitoring. Isn't the question to ask here: "Why don't you monitor things you care about access to?" For instance, if your mailserver is smtp.example.com perhaps testing access over time to that is important? >> Google and searching the NANOG mailing list have failed me, and I don?t >> want to just spam random IP addresses with ICMP requests if there?s a more >> official/accepted method for doing this. >> >> Thanks! >> Brian From jlewis at lewis.org Thu Jan 7 16:24:47 2016 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:24:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Brian R. Swan wrote: > Hi all, > > I??m setting up smokeping to try and gather some latency statistics on > my ISP to different parts of the world. Does there exist a list or any > generic recommendations of different targets to config within smokeping? > Google and searching the NANOG mailing list have failed me, and I don??t > want to just spam random IP addresses with ICMP requests if there??s a > more official/accepted method for doing this. 8.8.8.8 is pretty popular. There's lots of them. (Anycast) But, it's not nice to send remote networks unwanted traffic (it's a DNS server, not a light house), and I know GOOG receives enough ICMP at some of those anycast nodes to be "problematic". I'd say keep your smokeping targets to devices you or your connectivity provider(s) own/are paying for rather than abusing random 3rd parties just to satisfy your curiosity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From frederik at kriewitz.eu Thu Jan 7 16:26:48 2016 From: frederik at kriewitz.eu (Frederik Kriewitz) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:26:48 +0100 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: Hello Brian, you might want to consider joining the nlnog ring (https://ring.nlnog.net/). You can request access to a full mesh smokeping for all hosts too. Besides the ring host RIPE Atlas anchors ( https://atlas.ripe.net/anchors/list/) might be another option for hosts to add to your list. Am 07.01.2016 16:36 schrieb "Brian R. Swan" : > Hi all, > > I?m setting up smokeping to try and gather some latency statistics on my > ISP to different parts of the world. Does there exist a list or any > generic recommendations of different targets to config within smokeping? > Google and searching the NANOG mailing list have failed me, and I don?t > want to just spam random IP addresses with ICMP requests if there?s a more > official/accepted method for doing this. > > Thanks! > Brian From clinton at scripty.com Thu Jan 7 16:32:05 2016 From: clinton at scripty.com (Clinton Work) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:32:05 -0700 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: <1452184325.3801980.485630074.2FBC460C@webmail.messagingengine.com> The NLNOG RING servers would be good targets and they expected to get pinged. https://ring.nlnog.net/participants/ On Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 08:34 AM, Brian R. Swan wrote: > I?m setting up smokeping to try and gather some latency statistics on my > ISP to different parts of the world. Does there exist a list or any > generic recommendations of different targets to config within smokeping? From swannie at swannie.net Thu Jan 7 16:39:30 2016 From: swannie at swannie.net (Brian R. Swan) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:39:30 -0600 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: <24FA3307-32D9-4C05-8520-D4812D5B730C@swannie.net> Doh! Not sure why I didn?t think about Atlas prior to posting my question - that?s perfect. I have an Atlas node on my network too. After I put it in and played with it for a week I started a big project at work and put it on the ?to play with later? list and never got back to it. :) Thanks! Brian > On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Frederik Kriewitz wrote: > > Hello Brian, > > you might want to consider joining the nlnog ring (https://ring.nlnog.net/ ). > You can request access to a full mesh smokeping for all hosts too. > > Besides the ring host RIPE Atlas anchors (https://atlas.ripe.net/anchors/list/ ) might be another option for hosts to add to your list. > From sotnickd-nanog at ddv.com Thu Jan 7 16:39:34 2016 From: sotnickd-nanog at ddv.com (David Sotnick) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:39:34 -0800 Subject: How to update IPv6 geolocation data? Google sites blocked. In-Reply-To: <20160107051812.GB4470@slab-wks-04.int.slabnet.com> References: <20160107051812.GB4470@slab-wks-04.int.slabnet.com> Message-ID: Hi Hugo, Thanks for the follow-up. For some reason both responses from Mr. Lewis ended up my Gmail (domain) Spam folder. I have never had a NANOG response go into Spam, so I didn't even think to check there. I'll give this a shot today. Thanks again! -David On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > On Wed 2016-Jan-06 16:23:21 -0800, David Sotnick > wrote: > > Really? Nobody here knows how one goes about updating IPv6 geolocation >> data? Our /48 is still being denied access to Google sites due to unknown >> geolocation. >> >> Help? >> > > John Lewis responded with some info[1], which is backed up by Google's own > support page[2][3]. No bets from me on how quickly or reliably that gets > updated, though... > > >> Best, >> David >> > > -- > Hugo > > hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber > PGP fingerprint (B178313E): > CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E > > (also on Signal) > > [1] http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-December/083078.html > [2] https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/873?hl=en > [3] https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/179386 > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:34 PM, David Sotnick >> wrote: >> >> Hello, and Season's Greetings! >>> >>> We recently lit up a new IPv6-connected location and expanded our >>> ARIN-allocated /48 network to a /44 network to accommodate the additional >>> location (and future locations). >>> >>> However, since moving our small satellite office off our primary /48 and >>> onto their own /48 as part of our /44 network, the users at that office >>> are >>> receiving messages from e.g. YouTube that the "user has not made this >>> content available in your country". >>> >>> How does one go about updating this v6 geolocation data? This is >>> impacting >>> a bunch of our users. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -David >>> >>> From keiths at neilltech.com Thu Jan 7 16:45:00 2016 From: keiths at neilltech.com (Keith Stokes) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:45:00 +0000 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: I have a couple of different SmokePing implementations related to our SaaS platform. I have monitors inside our network looking at several of our largest customers. I have monitors in some IaaS providers looking back at us. I do include a couple of common addresses previously mentioned since I need some sort of confirmation to show the sites can actually get out. On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Jon Lewis > wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Brian R. Swan wrote: Hi all, I??m setting up smokeping to try and gather some latency statistics on my ISP to different parts of the world. Does there exist a list or any generic recommendations of different targets to config within smokeping? Google and searching the NANOG mailing list have failed me, and I don??t want to just spam random IP addresses with ICMP requests if there??s a more official/accepted method for doing this. 8.8.8.8 is pretty popular. There's lots of them. (Anycast) But, it's not nice to send remote networks unwanted traffic (it's a DNS server, not a light house), and I know GOOG receives enough ICMP at some of those anycast nodes to be "problematic". I'd say keep your smokeping targets to devices you or your connectivity provider(s) own/are paying for rather than abusing random 3rd parties just to satisfy your curiosity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ --- Keith Stokes From royce at techsolvency.com Thu Jan 7 18:30:29 2016 From: royce at techsolvency.com (Royce Williams) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:30:29 -0900 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: References: <45C21B36-2FDF-4624-A261-7985407E7AC9@swannie.net> Message-ID: My Alaska-focused public SmokePing instance: http://akmon.techsolvency.com/smokeping/ ... has links to other public SmokePings. Many of them have a general "is the Internet healthy" target group. I looked through those groups and selected a cross-section for my own group: http://akmon.techsolvency.com/smokeping/smokeping.cgi?target=Other Some of them are subject to CDN or anycast; other are not. If anyone has a public SmokePing instance, send me a link and I will add. Royce On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Keith Stokes wrote: > I have a couple of different SmokePing implementations related to our SaaS platform. > > I have monitors inside our network looking at several of our largest customers. > > I have monitors in some IaaS providers looking back at us. > > I do include a couple of common addresses previously mentioned since I need some sort of confirmation to show the sites can actually get out. > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Jon Lewis > wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Brian R. Swan wrote: > > Hi all, > > I??m setting up smokeping to try and gather some latency statistics on my ISP to different parts of the world. Does there exist a list or any generic recommendations of different targets to config within smokeping? Google and searching the NANOG mailing list have failed me, and I don??t want to just spam random IP addresses with ICMP requests if there??s a more official/accepted method for doing this. > > 8.8.8.8 is pretty popular. There's lots of them. (Anycast) > > But, it's not nice to send remote networks unwanted traffic (it's a DNS server, not a light house), and I know GOOG receives enough ICMP at some of those anycast nodes to be "problematic". > > I'd say keep your smokeping targets to devices you or your connectivity provider(s) own/are paying for rather than abusing random 3rd parties just to satisfy your curiosity. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route > | therefore you are > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ > > > --- > > Keith Stokes > > > > From littlefishguy at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 20:34:42 2016 From: littlefishguy at gmail.com (Scott Fisher) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 15:34:42 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: Does anyone having experience getting this to work on US networks? http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-lx800-gateway-100.html/ I am interested on getting this working with our Nagios notifications. On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, John Levine wrote: >>Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to avoid. We used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, >>but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 phone bills. I'll check the plan overage terms >>carefully! > > Sounds like an excellent application for a $10/mo prepaid plan on > something like Tracfone. If disaster strikes and you need a lot of > data one month, you can add extra credit directly from the phone. > -- Scott From faisal at snappytelecom.net Thu Jan 7 20:51:05 2016 From: faisal at snappytelecom.net (Faisal Imtiaz) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 20:51:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <1405367437.1874667.1452199865274.JavaMail.zimbra@snappytelecom.net> There are multiple ways to skin this cat !. No, not familiar with this product... However.. 1) You know that you can send sms messages via email to pretty much any cell phone. 2) Personal Preference, if I was doing so, I would do it with a small mikrotik router + usb cell modem, very inexpensive, especially when combined with a M2M plan. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Fisher" > To: "John Levine" > Cc: "nanog list" > Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 3:34:42 PM > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > Does anyone having experience getting this to work on US networks? > > http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-lx800-gateway-100.html/ > > I am interested on getting this working with our Nagios notifications. > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to avoid. We >>>used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, >>>but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 phone >>>bills. I'll check the plan overage terms >>>carefully! >> >> Sounds like an excellent application for a $10/mo prepaid plan on >> something like Tracfone. If disaster strikes and you need a lot of >> data one month, you can add extra credit directly from the phone. >> > > > > -- > Scott From littlefishguy at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 20:55:07 2016 From: littlefishguy at gmail.com (Scott Fisher) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 15:55:07 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <1405367437.1874667.1452199865274.JavaMail.zimbra@snappytelecom.net> References: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> <1405367437.1874667.1452199865274.JavaMail.zimbra@snappytelecom.net> Message-ID: I am well aware of email-to-sms, but that is dependant on links/infrastructure that you are monitoring. (Think of it like having your Nagios system running on the same hypervisor as your other production gear. What happens if the hypervisor drops? How would you know?) The hardware sms gateway allows for true oob notifications. On Thursday, January 7, 2016, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > There are multiple ways to skin this cat !. > > No, not familiar with this product... > > However.. > > 1) You know that you can send sms messages via email to pretty much any > cell phone. > > 2) Personal Preference, if I was doing so, I would do it with a small > mikrotik router + usb cell modem, very inexpensive, especially when > combined with a M2M plan. > > Regards. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, FL 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Scott Fisher" > > > To: "John Levine" > > > Cc: "nanog list" > > > Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 3:34:42 PM > > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > > Does anyone having experience getting this to work on US networks? > > > > http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-lx800-gateway-100.html/ > > > > I am interested on getting this working with our Nagios notifications. > > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, John Levine > wrote: > >>>Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to > avoid. We > >>>used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, > >>>but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 > phone > >>>bills. I'll check the plan overage terms > >>>carefully! > >> > >> Sounds like an excellent application for a $10/mo prepaid plan on > >> something like Tracfone. If disaster strikes and you need a lot of > >> data one month, you can add extra credit directly from the phone. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Scott > -- Scott From faisal at snappytelecom.net Thu Jan 7 21:10:45 2016 From: faisal at snappytelecom.net (Faisal Imtiaz) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:10:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> <1405367437.1874667.1452199865274.JavaMail.zimbra@snappytelecom.net> Message-ID: <1472892326.1874843.1452201045989.JavaMail.zimbra@snappytelecom.net> Yep, agreed in certain situations a hardware gateway is more useful. That is what I listed as item #1. A small Mikrotik Router + USB Cell Stick of your choice. make for a very inexpensive, flexible gateway. http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/CO10/day1/03-arnis_3g.pdf (quiet a few options for different form-factors) http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/US11/us11-brian.pdf Regards :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net > From: "Scott Fisher" > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" > Cc: "John Levine" , "nanog list" > Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 3:55:07 PM > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > I am well aware of email-to-sms, but that is dependant on links/infrastructure > that you are monitoring. (Think of it like having your Nagios system running on > the same hypervisor as your other production gear. What happens if the > hypervisor drops? How would you know? ) > The hardware sms gateway allows for true oob notifications. > On Thursday, January 7, 2016, Faisal Imtiaz < faisal at snappytelecom.net > wrote: >> There are multiple ways to skin this cat !. >> No, not familiar with this product... >> However.. >> 1) You know that you can send sms messages via email to pretty much any cell >> phone. >> 2) Personal Preference, if I was doing so, I would do it with a small mikrotik >> router + usb cell modem, very inexpensive, especially when combined with a M2M >> plan. >> Regards. >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> 7266 SW 48 Street >> Miami, FL 33155 >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Scott Fisher" < littlefishguy at gmail.com > >> > To: "John Levine" < johnl at iecc.com > >> > Cc: "nanog list" < nanog at nanog.org > >> > Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 3:34:42 PM >> > Subject: Re: SMS gateways >> > Does anyone having experience getting this to work on US networks? >> > http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-lx800-gateway-100.html/ >> > I am interested on getting this working with our Nagios notifications. >> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, John Levine < johnl at iecc.com > wrote: >> >>>Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to avoid. We >> >>>used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, >> >>>but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 phone >> >>>bills. I'll check the plan overage terms >> >>>carefully! >> >> Sounds like an excellent application for a $10/mo prepaid plan on >> >> something like Tracfone. If disaster strikes and you need a lot of >> >> data one month, you can add extra credit directly from the phone. >> > -- >> > Scott > -- > Scott From dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com Thu Jan 7 21:40:06 2016 From: dhubbard at dino.hostasaurus.com (David Hubbard) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:40:06 +0000 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <58941393-7BAD-4885-9CAD-003E720D3AA8@dino.hostasaurus.com> Scott, I was interested in that as well, it was in my original post. I?m considering that and the SMSEagle; both are from Europe. I can?t find too much on them from a real world war stories perspective, but there has been mention of the FoxBox on nanog in years past, so there are some users out there. I am not going the Microtik+cell modem route that Faisal mentioned in his reply post because the intent is to tie the SMS alerting into other systems using some form of API, and both FoxBox and SMSEagle make that incredibly easy by having a simple http interface for sending texts, or a full API if you need to do two way. The nagios plugin (and Zabbix too) are super simple since it?s just HTTP POST to send the alerts. FoxBox claims it will work on Verizon networks because of the 3G support, but that doesn?t leave me with a comfortable feeling, so if we buy in, we?d probably get accounts from a GSM carrier for it, although I can?t find whether or not AT&T, etc. offer machine accounts, and I would not want to pay $50/mo per device just to send random texts. I did get an off list reply from someone who let me know that our existing OpenGear devices (cell+ethernet console servers that run linux) have the ability to send SMS using a utility already present in the OS install. Since we already have those in every location we?d also be putting an SMS gateway, I?m going to investigate if we could put a cgi script or something similar on them to accomplish the same goal with no additional equipment. David On 1/7/16, 3:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Scott Fisher" wrote: >Does anyone having experience getting this to work on US networks? > >http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-lx800-gateway-100.html/ > >I am interested on getting this working with our Nagios notifications. > >On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to avoid. We used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, >>>but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 phone bills. I'll check the plan overage terms >>>carefully! >> >> Sounds like an excellent application for a $10/mo prepaid plan on >> something like Tracfone. If disaster strikes and you need a lot of >> data one month, you can add extra credit directly from the phone. >> > > > >-- >Scott From littlefishguy at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 21:44:35 2016 From: littlefishguy at gmail.com (Scott Fisher) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:44:35 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <58941393-7BAD-4885-9CAD-003E720D3AA8@dino.hostasaurus.com> References: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> <58941393-7BAD-4885-9CAD-003E720D3AA8@dino.hostasaurus.com> Message-ID: I emailed smsfoxbox support asking about US network support. I am hoping to hear back soon and I will let you all know the answer. Thanks, Scott On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:40 PM, David Hubbard wrote: > Scott, I was interested in that as well, it was in my original post. I?m considering that and the SMSEagle; both are from Europe. I can?t find too much on them from a real world war stories perspective, but there has been mention of the FoxBox on nanog in years past, so there are some users out there. > > I am not going the Microtik+cell modem route that Faisal mentioned in his reply post because the intent is to tie the SMS alerting into other systems using some form of API, and both FoxBox and SMSEagle make that incredibly easy by having a simple http interface for sending texts, or a full API if you need to do two way. The nagios plugin (and Zabbix too) are super simple since it?s just HTTP POST to send the alerts. > > FoxBox claims it will work on Verizon networks because of the 3G support, but that doesn?t leave me with a comfortable feeling, so if we buy in, we?d probably get accounts from a GSM carrier for it, although I can?t find whether or not AT&T, etc. offer machine accounts, and I would not want to pay $50/mo per device just to send random texts. > > I did get an off list reply from someone who let me know that our existing OpenGear devices (cell+ethernet console servers that run linux) have the ability to send SMS using a utility already present in the OS install. Since we already have those in every location we?d also be putting an SMS gateway, I?m going to investigate if we could put a cgi script or something similar on them to accomplish the same goal with no additional equipment. > > David > > > > > On 1/7/16, 3:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Scott Fisher" wrote: > >>Does anyone having experience getting this to work on US networks? >> >>http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-lx800-gateway-100.html/ >> >>I am interested on getting this working with our Nagios notifications. >> >>On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to avoid. We used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, >>>>but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 phone bills. I'll check the plan overage terms >>>>carefully! >>> >>> Sounds like an excellent application for a $10/mo prepaid plan on >>> something like Tracfone. If disaster strikes and you need a lot of >>> data one month, you can add extra credit directly from the phone. >>> >> >> >> >>-- >>Scott -- Scott From alex.buie at frozenfeline.net Thu Jan 7 23:46:42 2016 From: alex.buie at frozenfeline.net (Alex Buie) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 18:46:42 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <58941393-7BAD-4885-9CAD-003E720D3AA8@dino.hostasaurus.com> References: <20160107024044.26318.qmail@ary.lan> <58941393-7BAD-4885-9CAD-003E720D3AA8@dino.hostasaurus.com> Message-ID: Based on a cursory pass of the FB website I can't find any of their products that have a CDMA modem - so they're definitely incorrect in that sense. Voice, text, 2G and 3G data are all CDMA on Verizon, unless you're doing something with SMS over IMS which is only supported with LTE capable hardware on the Verizon side. On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:40 PM, David Hubbard wrote: > Scott, I was interested in that as well, it was in my original post. I?m > considering that and the SMSEagle; both are from Europe. I can?t find too > much on them from a real world war stories perspective, but there has been > mention of the FoxBox on nanog in years past, so there are some users out > there. > > I am not going the Microtik+cell modem route that Faisal mentioned in his > reply post because the intent is to tie the SMS alerting into other systems > using some form of API, and both FoxBox and SMSEagle make that incredibly > easy by having a simple http interface for sending texts, or a full API if > you need to do two way. The nagios plugin (and Zabbix too) are super > simple since it?s just HTTP POST to send the alerts. > > FoxBox claims it will work on Verizon networks because of the 3G support, > but that doesn?t leave me with a comfortable feeling, so if we buy in, we?d > probably get accounts from a GSM carrier for it, although I can?t find > whether or not AT&T, etc. offer machine accounts, and I would not want to > pay $50/mo per device just to send random texts. > > I did get an off list reply from someone who let me know that our existing > OpenGear devices (cell+ethernet console servers that run linux) have the > ability to send SMS using a utility already present in the OS install. > Since we already have those in every location we?d also be putting an SMS > gateway, I?m going to investigate if we could put a cgi script or something > similar on them to accomplish the same goal with no additional equipment. > > David > > > > > On 1/7/16, 3:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Scott Fisher" < > nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of littlefishguy at gmail.com> wrote: > > >Does anyone having experience getting this to work on US networks? > > > >http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-lx800-gateway-100.html/ > > > >I am interested on getting this working with our Nagios notifications. > > > >On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, John Levine wrote: > >>>Thanks for those pointers. The "mega bill" problem is one I have to > avoid. We used to use ISDN as backup to T1 circuits, > >>>but had to abandon that after some wayward fail-overs resulted in $5000 > phone bills. I'll check the plan overage terms > >>>carefully! > >> > >> Sounds like an excellent application for a $10/mo prepaid plan on > >> something like Tracfone. If disaster strikes and you need a lot of > >> data one month, you can add extra credit directly from the phone. > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Scott > From carlos at race.com Fri Jan 8 00:01:31 2016 From: carlos at race.com (Carlos Alcantar) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 00:01:31 +0000 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: At this point if you haven't deployed any of these system, make sure you know the road map of your vendor for N-GPON2 that is going to be the next wave of deployed pon systems. https://www.calix.com/solutions/next-generation-pon.html ? Carlos Alcantar Race Communications / Race Team Member 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / carlos at race.com / http://www.race.com ________________________________________ From: NANOG on behalf of Baldur Norddahl Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 8:30 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON The solution for selling 1G internet with EPON could be 10GEPON. This is still cheaper than GPON. The idea is that the ONU has a cheap standard 1G transmitter. Apparently you can make a 10G receiver very cheap, it is the transmitter that is expensive. So it is 10G downstream and 1G upstream. With the option to deliver 10G upstream per ONU. It is about reusing standard ethernet components that are dirt cheap - you can buy ethernet SFP modules for peanuts after all and 10G SFP+ modules are not that expensive either. However when we asked some vendors about this, nobody wanted to sell to us because Europe (and USA I assume) is GPON while China is GEPON. They did offer to sell us GPON at 10GEPON pricing instead... Something fishy is going on. It is not about EC compliance as it is just a matter of buying a 10GEPON card instead of GPON card to the same chassis switch. Maybe patents? Regards, Baldur On 6 January 2016 at 14:57, Colton Conor wrote: > If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and > purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or > know? Those would be the major differences I would say. We only deploy GPON > here. I would say in a system like GEPON or GPON where a port is shared > between users more bandwidth is better, and GPON has more capacity than > GEPON. I am not sure which region you are in, but in the USA GEPON is > almost non-existent from the larger players. Meaning that most GEPON > equipment won't be ANSI certified, and might not have FFC certs. > > Huawei used to have a couple of slides. > > I looked on some other list and found the following: > > We considered EPON, and there are some inexpensive solutions from off shore > that are worth considering. > > > > In the end, we went for GPON for two reasons: > > > > One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a > PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports > 2.4Gbps of total usage on the segment. > > > > Two we like our current vendor, Adtran, and we wanted to put OLT cards into > the same chassis and manage them using the same systems. The cost premium > versus a new vendor for EPON wasn't huge. The CPE is the bigger cost, and > we didn't see a real cost difference between EPON ONT and GPON ONT. > > > > In the end, the price difference for GPON versus EPON wasn't great - and > while GPON is a bit "designed by committee" and there are some valid > criticisms there, they're academic in light of the other factors. > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM, wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with > > both GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the > differences > > between GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective? > > > > For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor > > compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jared > > > From dougb at dougbarton.us Fri Jan 8 00:39:28 2016 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:39:28 -0800 Subject: Nat In-Reply-To: References: <5E0884E1-952F-434D-B2F9-FDA87814A7EC@hrins.net> <770D0609-0A3A-4142-854F-210410682D69@isc.org> <6B6686E3-D30B-4E42-8F06-F8077D62894F@isc.org> Message-ID: <568F0540.1040200@dougbarton.us> On 12/18/2015 01:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > > > On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach" >> I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around >> to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 >> when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not >> allowing the DHCP server to assign a default >> gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling >> point for at least one large enterprise I'm aware >> of. > > > Tell me again why you want this, and not routing information from the > router? C'mon Lee, stop pretending that you're interested in the answer to this question, and wasting everyone's time in the process. You know the answers, just as well as the people who would give them. >> Right now, the biggest obstacle to IPv6 >> deployment seems to be the ivory-tower types >> in the IETF that want to keep it pristine, vs >> allowing it to work in the real world. > > There?s a mix of people at IETF, but more operator input there would be > helpful. I have a particular draft in mind that is stuck between ?we?d > rather delay IPv6 than do it wrong? and ?be realistic about how people > will deploy it." On this topic the operator input has been clear for over a decade, and yet the purists have blocked progress this whole time. The biggest roadblock to IPv6 deployment are its most ardent "supporters." From dougb at dougbarton.us Fri Jan 8 00:44:57 2016 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:44:57 -0800 Subject: Nat In-Reply-To: <841DE17E-F075-491C-BAFE-144E6FFE6A53@steffann.nl> References: <5E0884E1-952F-434D-B2F9-FDA87814A7EC@hrins.net> <770D0609-0A3A-4142-854F-210410682D69@isc.org> <6B6686E3-D30B-4E42-8F06-F8077D62894F@isc.org> <20151219002105.GB58695@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk> <5B66F13D-DE61-446F-8649-2CB970F2611E@steffann.nl> <31373.74.139.119.34.1450536582.iglou@webmail.iglou.com> <841DE17E-F075-491C-BAFE-144E6FFE6A53@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <568F0689.5020005@dougbarton.us> On 12/19/2015 07:17 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Jeff, > >> It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people >> deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this >> point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy. > > I partially agree with you. If people have learned how IPv6 works, deployed IPv6 (even if just in a lab) and came to the conclusion that there is an obstacle then I very much want to hear what problems they ran into. That's rarely the case unfortunately. Most of the time I hear "we don't want to learn something new". A) You don't need to deploy something to see that the design is overly complex, and not a good fit for existing, well-entrenched workflows. B) Many people have done this, and provided the exact feedback you describe, for well over a decade. There is no technical reason that IPv6 cannot have full-featured DHCP. The only obstacles are the purists like you who insist on the entire installed base coming up to speed with their cleverness. All the user education in the world will not fix that problem. From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Fri Jan 8 00:48:01 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:48:01 -0500 Subject: CPE that supports 464XLAT Message-ID: <3B3699D1-1CDF-44F3-B3DE-0B0C256044A1@hammerfiber.com> Anyone out there aware of any DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems that have a working CLAT implementation? From cb.list6 at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 01:19:10 2016 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:19:10 -0800 Subject: CPE that supports 464XLAT In-Reply-To: <3B3699D1-1CDF-44F3-B3DE-0B0C256044A1@hammerfiber.com> References: <3B3699D1-1CDF-44F3-B3DE-0B0C256044A1@hammerfiber.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, January 7, 2016, Daniel Corbe wrote: > Anyone out there aware of any DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems that have a working > CLAT implementation? > > Not modems, but home gateway routers NEC has a product http://www.necat.co.jp/en/ipv6/index.html And it is supported in openwrt From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Fri Jan 8 03:43:20 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis Kletnieks) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 22:43:20 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. Message-ID: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time. "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie /me makes popcorn.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nanog-isp at mail.com Fri Jan 8 10:03:00 2016 From: nanog-isp at mail.com (nanog-isp at mail.com) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:03:00 +0100 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or know? All the interesting bits obviously :) Anybody can read the bitrates, split ratios, compatibility and price of a spec sheet/quote. That however leaves out all the interesting operative aspects such as auxiliary network requirement, service turn up and software tool differences between the two standards. The hard facts only cover the CAPEX part of the TCO equation and the differences between GPON and GEPON are small. Controlling for any parameter roughly equal or if any different within a constant factor of less than two. I'm more interested in the OPEX part, to find out if there are any (significant) differences between the two. ? I welcome all insight into the operative aspects of GPON and/or GEPON, regardless if you have used one or both. >> One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports 2.4Gbps of >> total usage on the segment. I know this is a quote of a quote, whose origin I do not know, but I would not feel comfortable offering "a true 1Gbps service" on any PON system with less than 10G of capacity. Plain GPON/GEPON is meant to be split vigorously to achieve cost savings in the OSP and as such aren't suitable for gigabit speeds. It's more like a 100M kind of technology. Jared From josh at kyneticwifi.com Fri Jan 8 12:56:45 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:56:45 -0600 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It all depends on how it is designed as well. Take a Calix E7-2. You could do a pretty high split per gpon port, I think either 32 or 64 is the max for them, but you're really just shooting yourself in the foot IMO if you're advertising and selling a lot of gig service. A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards are 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not. Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service. For SMB, they end up on a different split, or with SLA end up on an active port on the chassis or on the Juniper access/transport switch. On Jan 8, 2016 4:05 AM, wrote: > > If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and > purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or > know? > All the interesting bits obviously :) > Anybody can read the bitrates, split ratios, compatibility and price of > a spec sheet/quote. That however leaves out all the interesting operative > aspects such as auxiliary network requirement, service turn up and software > tool differences between the two standards. > The hard facts only cover the CAPEX part of the TCO equation and the > differences between GPON and GEPON are small. Controlling for any parameter > roughly equal or if any different within a constant factor of less than two. > I'm more interested in the OPEX part, to find out if there are any > (significant) differences between the two. > > I welcome all insight into the operative aspects of GPON and/or GEPON, > regardless if you have used one or both. > > >> One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer > on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON > supports 2.4Gbps of > >> total usage on the segment. > I know this is a quote of a quote, whose origin I do not know, but I > would not feel comfortable offering "a true 1Gbps service" on any PON > system with less than 10G of capacity. Plain GPON/GEPON is meant to be > split vigorously to achieve cost savings in the OSP and as such aren't > suitable for gigabit speeds. It's more like a 100M kind of technology. > > > Jared > From md+nanog at Linux.IT Thu Jan 7 16:13:58 2016 From: md+nanog at Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:13:58 +0100 Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160107161358.GB2219@bongo.bofh.it> On Jan 07, Andrew Dampf wrote: > Something I found that is helpful once you've gathered a list of targets is > the following command for generating config to paste: > > traceroute -w 3 [IPaddress] | grep -v "*" | grep -v "traceroute" | sed -e > 's/(//g' -e 's/)//g' | awk '{ gsub(/\./,"_",$2); print "++++ "$2"\nmenu = > "$3"\ntitle = "$2" - "$3"\nhost = "$3"\n"}' > > That generates a valid output for configs to ping each hop along the way to > your destination, which can be super useful. Not all of them allow ICMP but > a decent amount do. It is also super stupid, because routers reply to ICMP echo requests with a very low priority: this introduces jitter which makes these measurements unreliable. If you are not monitoring a server then you are wasting your time. (Also, it would be nice to have the owner permission before deciding to permanently send a lot of ICMPs to a device.) -- ciao, Marco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 648 bytes Desc: not available URL: From torres.73a at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 01:29:34 2016 From: torres.73a at gmail.com (Wilkinson, Alex) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:29:34 +0800 Subject: nagios ntp/clock check for Cisco devices ... ? Message-ID: <20160108012934.GA95484@vm6695.octopus> Hi all, Can anyone recommend any good nagios checks for time drifting on Cisco routers and switches ? -Alex From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 16:56:31 2016 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:56:31 -0500 Subject: nagios ntp/clock check for Cisco devices ... ? In-Reply-To: <20160108012934.GA95484@vm6695.octopus> References: <20160108012934.GA95484@vm6695.octopus> Message-ID: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=check%20cisco%20router%20ntp%20nagios there I googled it for you? On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: > Hi all, > > Can anyone recommend any good nagios checks for time drifting on Cisco routers and switches ? > > -Alex From hugo at slabnet.com Fri Jan 8 17:11:51 2016 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:11:51 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <20160108171151.GA16973@bamboo.slabnet.com> On Thu 2016-Jan-07 22:43:20 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: >So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether >it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... > >The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing >doesn't match what they said it was... > >https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies > >Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, >or why they're giving him a hard time. > >"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why >are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" > >http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie > >/me makes popcorn.... And I'm sorry, but this line from Legere had me raging at my screen: "There are people out there saying we?re ?throttling.? They?re playing semantics! Binge On does NOT permanently slow down data nor remove customer control. Here?s the thing, mobile customers don?t always want or need giant heavy data files. So we created adaptive video technology to optimize for mobile screens and stream at a bitrate designed to stretch your data (pssst, Google, that's a GOOD thing)."[1] ...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile by lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". And you're accusing the "other guys" of playing semantics? Beside pure marketing doublespeak, I don't even know what actual logic he's using here. Apparently it's only "throttling" if it *permanently* slows down traffic, and BingeOn somehow doesn't do that (besides what the EFF is putting forward)? Is it because even though it's enabled by default, there is still an "off" switch, and therefore user choice is maintained (though probalby not obvious to most consumers)? Listen: I have no issue with doing shaping or traffic prioritization or whatever as your customer asks for it; we offer that as an option to customers to get the most out of their connections and I'm sure many of you do as well. But: 1) Those are done at the request of the customer, not opt-out. 2) Be honest about what you're doing. T-Mobile seems to be trying to spin this as if they have some magical technology that will re-encode streaming video on the fly to 480p, when really they're just ID-ing video and rate-limiting it (when it comes to video that doesn't match their technical requirements doc and doesn't do ABR down to 480p on the sending side). Fine: just getting decent accuracy on various edge cases of identifying video traffic isn't trivial, so kudos, but don't blow smoke about it. If Legere has some info about how this truly at a technical level is not just rate limiting, then show us that info. Yes: I've read the "Content Provider Technical Requirements" doc[2] that talks about adaptive bitrate tech on the sending side: "The content provider will provide video over T?Mobile?s network using adaptive bit rate technology in which the server sending streaming video content will automatically adapt video resolution of the stream based on the capabilities of the data connection or as otherwise indicated by the T?Mobile network." But, that's for the content folks that are participating in the BingeOn setup for zero-rating. The EFF's data indicates that if you're just a random video stream (or video media type file), you get rate limited. With all of this said, I appreciate the challenge of getting something like this implemented at scale without going opt-out. T-Mo is going for a PR win as well as, let's be honest, reducing network utilization by reducing the bitrate of video crossing the network, but it's *highly* unlikely that you're going to get enough critical mass in an opt-in effort to pull it off. To T-Mo's credit, they're making the opt-out quite simple, but let's be clear that this is not a net neutral move if we go by the commonly accepted definitions: "The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[3] "Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication."[4] The majority of the "fight" to date has been about the source and origin of the traffic, so the discussion often leans that direction, but there is no question that BingeOn works to identify a specific application or type of content (video) and then treats it differently from other traffic. "So why are special interest groups -- and even Google! -- offended by this? Why are they trying to characterize this as a bad thing?" Because you're drawing a box within which people have to play, which puts shackles on innovation. For traffic destined for a BingeOn enabled T-Mo customer (which is everyone by default unless they opt out), content providers can choose to: 1. Meet the technical requirements (possibly at real cost to them to adapt their infrastructure) and do adaptive bitrate streaming, and get capped at 480p but be zero-rated. 2. Do nothing, don't get zero-rated, and get rate-limited to 1.5 mbps. Part of the concern from the net neut crowd is that creating little boxes like this hampers innovation and the development of novel new applications. BingeOn in and of itself may not directly curtail innovation, but the concern is that everyone can create their own little box with which content providers need to cooperate/interoperate. Already in the BingeOn technical requirements doc, there is reference to basically a business relationship (e.g. "To ensure a good customer experience, any changes to a content provider?s streaming formats and/or mechanisms that could impact T?Mobile?s ability to include the provider?s content in the offering must be communicated to T?Mobile in advance"). Do we really want a situation where content providers need to establish direct relationships with any edge provider that runs a similar setup to BingeOn in order to ensure their traffic doesn't get squashed or degraded? My gut says that most edge operators wouldn't have an issue with the practice of traffic prioritization or rate limiting as requested by customers (e.g. prioritize my VoIP traffic; cap offsite backup or replication traffic). But those are explicit customer-initiated requests. I think it is legitimate to express concern when that type of traffic classification and differential treatment is applied en masse. T-Mo (or at least Legere) are pandering to "the little guy" and dismissing legitimate reports as "bullshit" in a bunch of handwaving and PR. Let's have an honest conversation about this, including who all stand to benefit and where there is legitimate harm or cause for concern. -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) [1]https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/binge-on-update-blog.htm [2]http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf [3]http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From cscora at apnic.net Fri Jan 8 18:11:14 2016 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 04:11:14 +1000 (AEST) Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <201601081811.u08IBEvJ026432@thyme.rand.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 09 Jan, 2016 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 577904 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 213596 Deaggregation factor: 2.71 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 281683 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 52425 Prefixes per ASN: 11.02 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 36605 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15864 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6407 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 164 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.4 Max AS path length visible: 39 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 55644) 36 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1022 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 364 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 12305 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 9413 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 36098 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 16 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 440 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2802534084 Equivalent to 167 /8s, 11 /16s and 70 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 75.7 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 75.7 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 97.9 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 189356 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 147258 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 40643 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.62 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 156044 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 63000 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5127 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.44 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1187 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 897 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 39 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1791 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 756488836 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 23 /16s and 26 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 88.4 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 181566 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 89017 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.04 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 184966 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 86826 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16461 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 11.24 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5926 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1720 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 37 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 920 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1101459904 Equivalent to 65 /8s, 166 /16s and 241 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 58.3 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 64198-64296, 393216-395164 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 138687 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 68896 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 146691 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 90771 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18040 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.13 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7969 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3002 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.9 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 30 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4342 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 702250624 Equivalent to 41 /8s, 219 /16s and 126 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 102.1 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-204287 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 60570 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 11881 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.10 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 73732 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 34381 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2462 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 29.95 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 590 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 539 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2180 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 170577664 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 42 /16s and 207 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 101.7 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-265628 + ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 13639 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3118 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.37 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 16031 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 6341 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 732 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.90 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 192 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 168 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 180 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 71174144 Equivalent to 4 /8s, 62 /16s and 8 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 70.7 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5603 4192 76 China Education and Research 7545 3095 346 158 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3017 11136 1004 Korea Telecom 17974 2858 914 96 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 9829 2312 1433 376 National Internet Backbone 4755 2072 431 234 TATA Communications formerly 9808 1728 8717 29 Guangdong Mobile Communicatio 4808 1620 2278 506 CNCGROUP IP network China169 9583 1514 121 556 Sify Limited 38197 1416 88 182 Sun Network (Hong Kong) Limit Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 22773 3274 2948 145 Cox Communications Inc. 3356 2602 10693 546 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 6389 2508 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 18566 2210 394 277 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1900 1905 406 Charter Communications 6983 1695 849 238 EarthLink, Inc. 30036 1673 333 323 Mediacom Communications Corp 4323 1579 1021 393 tw telecom holdings, inc. 209 1469 4339 1233 Qwest Communications Company, 701 1380 11445 652 MCI Communications Services, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 39891 2515 135 9 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 20940 2322 921 1662 Akamai International B.V. 34984 1940 322 412 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 8551 1238 376 44 Bezeq International-Ltd 13188 1075 97 79 TOV "Bank-Inform" 12479 1070 965 80 France Telecom Espana SA 8402 1065 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 31148 1043 48 42 Freenet Ltd. 9198 972 351 22 JSC Kazakhtelecom 6830 894 2712 464 Liberty Global Operations B.V Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 3400 539 160 Telmex Colombia S.A. 8151 2172 3383 518 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 7303 1585 943 242 Telecom Argentina S.A. 6503 1389 437 57 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 28573 1213 2172 140 NET Servi?os de Comunica??o S 11830 1101 366 25 Instituto Costarricense de El 6147 1036 376 34 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 7738 994 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 3816 978 460 187 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S 26615 959 2325 34 Tim Celular S.A. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8452 1240 1472 15 TE-AS 24863 1174 403 36 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 37611 581 39 41 Afrihost-Brevis Computer Serv 36903 549 276 123 Office National des Postes et 36992 447 1233 33 ETISALAT MISR 37492 335 213 63 Orange Tunisie 24835 330 146 12 Vodafone Data 29571 264 21 11 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 3741 221 837 183 Internet Solutions 36947 174 807 13 Telecom Algeria Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5603 4192 76 China Education and Research 10620 3400 539 160 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3274 2948 145 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3095 346 158 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3017 11136 1004 Korea Telecom 17974 2858 914 96 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 3356 2602 10693 546 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 39891 2515 135 9 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 6389 2508 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 20940 2322 921 1662 Akamai International B.V. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 10620 3400 3240 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3274 3129 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3095 2937 TPG Telecom Limited 17974 2858 2762 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 39891 2515 2506 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 6389 2508 2466 BellSouth.net Inc. 3356 2602 2056 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 4766 3017 2013 Korea Telecom 9829 2312 1936 National Internet Backbone 18566 2210 1933 MegaPath Corporation Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46467 UNALLOCATED 8.19.192.0/24 46887 Lightower Fiber Netw 18985 UNALLOCATED 8.21.68.0/22 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 15347 UNALLOCATED 8.224.147.0/24 12064 Cox Communications I 33628 UNALLOCATED 12.0.239.0/24 1239 Sprint 32805 UNALLOCATED 12.1.225.0/24 7018 AT&T Services, Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.112.0/20 62788 >>UNKNOWN<< 23.249.144.0/20 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.144.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.152.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 37.46.10.0/23 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.14.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.15.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 41.73.1.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.2.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:16 /9:13 /10:36 /11:100 /12:265 /13:506 /14:1015 /15:1770 /16:12972 /17:7424 /18:12625 /19:25603 /20:37895 /21:39925 /22:63843 /23:55275 /24:317050 /25:545 /26:577 /27:387 /28:16 /29:16 /30:9 /31:0 /32:21 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 39891 2472 2515 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 22773 2459 3274 Cox Communications Inc. 18566 2112 2210 MegaPath Corporation 6389 1553 2508 BellSouth.net Inc. 30036 1490 1673 Mediacom Communications Corp 6983 1341 1695 EarthLink, Inc. 10620 1292 3400 Telmex Colombia S.A. 34984 1226 1940 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 11492 1135 1225 CABLE ONE, INC. 31148 960 1043 Freenet Ltd. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1617 2:666 4:100 5:2062 6:26 8:1428 12:1797 13:31 14:1605 15:23 16:2 17:57 18:19 20:48 22:1 23:1344 24:1740 27:2174 31:1715 32:54 33:2 34:4 35:5 36:204 37:2312 38:1139 39:23 40:80 41:3044 42:370 43:1638 44:36 45:1633 46:2364 47:66 49:1076 50:824 51:3 52:39 54:136 55:7 56:8 57:44 58:1467 59:843 60:530 61:1776 62:1438 63:1915 64:4461 65:2171 66:4071 67:2128 68:1089 69:3274 70:1044 71:461 72:1984 74:2584 75:358 76:421 77:1388 78:1277 79:811 80:1309 81:1349 82:866 83:674 84:780 85:1539 86:455 87:1048 88:549 89:1944 90:150 91:5956 92:867 93:2293 94:2248 95:2245 96:470 97:352 98:954 99:45 100:76 101:868 103:9355 104:2207 105:94 106:369 107:1111 108:640 109:2181 110:1274 111:1610 112:901 113:1191 114:939 115:1552 116:1516 117:1359 118:2022 119:1525 120:520 121:1165 122:2274 123:1991 124:1575 125:1747 128:683 129:355 130:425 131:1300 132:603 133:170 134:449 135:117 136:345 137:320 138:1635 139:201 140:248 141:466 142:639 143:771 144:587 145:151 146:843 147:606 148:1408 149:452 150:636 151:806 152:567 153:266 154:528 155:907 156:451 157:419 158:348 159:1067 160:420 161:702 162:2230 163:527 164:709 165:1100 166:316 167:943 168:1353 169:562 170:1483 171:264 172:393 173:1590 174:713 175:815 176:1490 177:4039 178:2223 179:1068 180:2067 181:1630 182:1921 183:668 184:762 185:5334 186:2991 187:1863 188:2133 189:1720 190:7594 191:1286 192:8757 193:5725 194:4307 195:3719 196:2275 197:1103 198:5500 199:5526 200:6746 201:3467 202:9997 203:9350 204:4567 205:2726 206:2966 207:3041 208:4011 209:3973 210:3769 211:2019 212:2619 213:2169 214:824 215:73 216:5705 217:1890 218:740 219:557 220:1636 221:846 222:665 223:892 End of report From nanog at ics-il.net Fri Jan 8 18:23:08 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:23:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Smokeping targets In-Reply-To: <20160107161358.GB2219@bongo.bofh.it> Message-ID: <37206632.6932.1452277425244.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Most of these "OMG, think of the target!!!!!111" posts are unwarranted. The OP asked for lists of IPs that the community agrees can be safely monitored. If it can be safely monitored , obviously the host is aware and agrees to it. Yes, if a particular hop along the way has a higher latency than ones behind it, it's just an overloaded control plane.... but that network should be looking to upgrade that router anyway. (Cue the OMG, it's forwarding just fine e-mails... don't.) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marco d'Itri" To: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 10:13:58 AM Subject: Re: Smokeping targets On Jan 07, Andrew Dampf wrote: > Something I found that is helpful once you've gathered a list of targets is > the following command for generating config to paste: > > traceroute -w 3 [IPaddress] | grep -v "*" | grep -v "traceroute" | sed -e > 's/(//g' -e 's/)//g' | awk '{ gsub(/\./,"_",$2); print "++++ "$2"\nmenu = > "$3"\ntitle = "$2" - "$3"\nhost = "$3"\n"}' > > That generates a valid output for configs to ping each hop along the way to > your destination, which can be super useful. Not all of them allow ICMP but > a decent amount do. It is also super stupid, because routers reply to ICMP echo requests with a very low priority: this introduces jitter which makes these measurements unreliable. If you are not monitoring a server then you are wasting your time. (Also, it would be nice to have the owner permission before deciding to permanently send a lot of ICMPs to a device.) -- ciao, Marco From betty at nanog.org Fri Jan 8 18:46:56 2016 From: betty at nanog.org (Betty Burke ) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:46:56 -0500 Subject: [NANOG-announce] NANOG Committee Nominations Message-ID: Colleagues, NANOG Committee Nominations are open for the NANOG Communications andProgram Committees. Committee nominations will close at 12:00PM ET February 8, 2016, and Board Appointments will take place the evening of February 9, 2016. If you care about NANOG and think that you would like to take a turn at volunteering your time to help make it better, please consider joining as a member and running for a position. If you know someone else that you believe would be interested, nominate them by completing the Online Process noted on each of the committee pages referenced above. Should you have questions, please direct them to elections at nanog.org. NANOG Committees play an important role in in our success. By joining now, you can be an integral part of the process. All best, Betty Betty J. Burke NANOG Executive Director 2864 Carpenter Rd., Ste 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 +1 866-902-1336 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce at mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 8 18:46:37 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:46:37 -0800 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a > very scalable solution for residential service. Um? 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact? Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit. The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference. OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf. Personally, I don?t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. Owen From nanog at ics-il.net Fri Jan 8 18:53:16 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:53:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> Message-ID: <103393080.7010.1452279227985.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" To: "Josh Reynolds" Cc: "NANOG" , nanog-isp at mail.com Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a > very scalable solution for residential service. Um? 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact? Almost every one of my neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit. The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference. OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf. Personally, I don?t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. Owen From josh at kyneticwifi.com Fri Jan 8 19:03:40 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:03:40 -0600 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: <103393080.7010.1452279227985.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> <103393080.7010.1452279227985.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all. On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" wrote: > I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF > performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in > 2.4. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Owen DeLong" > *To: *"Josh Reynolds" > *Cc: *"NANOG" , nanog-isp at mail.com > *Sent: *Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM > *Subject: *Re: GPON vs. GEPON > > > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most > > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in > > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a > > very scalable solution for residential service. > > Um? 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than > 2.4Ghz > due (in large part) to this fact? Almost every one of my neighbors is using > various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the > center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from > Adafruit. > > The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, > especially here > in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people > are > smart enough to pay attention to the difference. > > OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to > easily > differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of frequency) and you > have > to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable > WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because > those > are the least expensive routers on the shelf. > > Personally, I don?t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more > to do > with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with > performance. > > Owen > > > From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 8 19:38:52 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:38:52 -0800 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> <103393080.7010.1452279227985.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <65F6DA70-FBC2-4A32-9C71-5DFD3083C336@delong.com> Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID. I don?t do that? I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable). Owen > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds wrote: > > Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all. > > On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote: > I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > From: "Owen DeLong" > > To: "Josh Reynolds" > > Cc: "NANOG" >, nanog-isp at mail.com > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM > Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON > > > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most > > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in > > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a > > very scalable solution for residential service. > > Um? 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz > due (in large part) to this fact? Almost every one of my neighbors is using > various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the > center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit. > > The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here > in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are > smart enough to pay attention to the difference. > > OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily > differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of frequency) and you have > to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable > WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those > are the least expensive routers on the shelf. > > Personally, I don?t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do > with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. > > Owen > > From josh at kyneticwifi.com Fri Jan 8 19:42:41 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:42:41 -0600 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: <65F6DA70-FBC2-4A32-9C71-5DFD3083C336@delong.com> References: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> <103393080.7010.1452279227985.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <65F6DA70-FBC2-4A32-9C71-5DFD3083C336@delong.com> Message-ID: You are not the average user. On Jan 8, 2016 1:39 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID. > > I don?t do that? I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me > to know > which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is > desirable). > > Owen > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds wrote: > > Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply > connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay > attention to SNR at all. > On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" wrote: > >> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF >> performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in >> 2.4. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Owen DeLong" >> *To: *"Josh Reynolds" >> *Cc: *"NANOG" , nanog-isp at mail.com >> *Sent: *Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM >> *Subject: *Re: GPON vs. GEPON >> >> > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most >> > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless >> in >> > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being >> a >> > very scalable solution for residential service. >> >> Um? 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than >> 2.4Ghz >> due (in large part) to this fact? Almost every one of my neighbors is >> using >> various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the >> center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from >> Adafruit. >> >> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, >> especially here >> in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where >> people are >> smart enough to pay attention to the difference. >> >> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to >> easily >> differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of frequency) and you >> have >> to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz >> capable >> WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because >> those >> are the least expensive routers on the shelf. >> >> Personally, I don?t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more >> to do >> with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with >> performance. >> >> Owen >> >> >> > From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 8 19:52:00 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:52:00 -0800 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> <103393080.7010.1452279227985.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <65F6DA70-FBC2-4A32-9C71-5DFD3083C336@delong.com> Message-ID: True. I know a number of average users that also do what I am doing, however. Owen > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:42 , Josh Reynolds wrote: > > You are not the average user. > > On Jan 8, 2016 1:39 PM, "Owen DeLong" > wrote: > Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID. > > I don?t do that? I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know > which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable). > > Owen > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds > wrote: >> >> Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all. >> >> On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote: >> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> >> From: "Owen DeLong" > >> To: "Josh Reynolds" > >> Cc: "NANOG" >, nanog-isp at mail.com >> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM >> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON >> >> > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most >> > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in >> > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a >> > very scalable solution for residential service. >> >> Um? 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz >> due (in large part) to this fact? Almost every one of my neighbors is using >> various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the >> center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit. >> >> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here >> in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are >> smart enough to pay attention to the difference. >> >> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily >> differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of frequency) and you have >> to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable >> WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those >> are the least expensive routers on the shelf. >> >> Personally, I don?t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do >> with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. >> >> Owen >> >> > From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 8 19:52:52 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:52:52 -0800 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> <103393080.7010.1452279227985.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <65F6DA70-FBC2-4A32-9C71-5DFD3083C336@delong.com> Message-ID: <3ED45313-33A0-4B57-866B-C65FD3827A42@delong.com> True, but most households are not using a reputable enterprise wireless solution. Owen > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:46 , Chris Adams (IT) wrote: > > Most reputable enterprise wireless solutions employ band-steering which helps to "force" users onto 5ghz, but still allows clients to connect to 2.4 if it's the only SSID strong enough or if the client only supports 2.4ghz. Band steering largely negates the need to run two SSIDs for optimal band selection. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 2:39 PM > To: Josh Reynolds > Cc: nanog-isp at mail.com; NANOG > Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON > > Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID. > > I don?t do that? I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable). > > Owen > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds wrote: >> >> Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all. >> >> On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote: >> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> >> >> >> From: "Owen DeLong" > >> To: "Josh Reynolds" > > >> Cc: "NANOG" >, >> nanog-isp at mail.com >> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM >> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON >> >>> Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that >>> most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz >>> wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - >>> that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service. >> >> Um? 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than >> 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact? Almost every one of my >> neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external >> SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit. >> >> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, >> especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in >> any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference. >> >> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to >> easily differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of >> frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of >> the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most >> consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf. >> >> Personally, I don?t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has >> more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. >> >> Owen >> >> > From ray at orsiniit.com Fri Jan 8 17:21:35 2016 From: ray at orsiniit.com (Ray Orsini) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:21:35 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <20160108171151.GA16973@bamboo.slabnet.com> References: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160108171151.GA16973@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: <206368cf763f1128ab197edbfc41fbde@mail.gmail.com> On one hand I want to give Legere some credit for addressing the publicity himself. On the other hand, he sounds like a complete fool doing it. I wish I would've been on Periscope at the time. Regards, Ray Orsini ? CEO Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Slabbert Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:12 PM To: Valdis Kletnieks Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. On Thu 2016-Jan-07 22:43:20 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: >So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and >whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... > >The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually >doing doesn't match what they said it was... > >https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-op >timization-just-throttling-applies > >Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, >or why they're giving him a hard time. > >"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere >said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" > >http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie > >/me makes popcorn.... And I'm sorry, but this line from Legere had me raging at my screen: "There are people out there saying we?re ?throttling.? They?re playing semantics! Binge On does NOT permanently slow down data nor remove customer control. Here?s the thing, mobile customers don?t always want or need giant heavy data files. So we created adaptive video technology to optimize for mobile screens and stream at a bitrate designed to stretch your data (pssst, Google, that's a GOOD thing)."[1] ...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile by lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". And you're accusing the "other guys" of playing semantics? Beside pure marketing doublespeak, I don't even know what actual logic he's using here. Apparently it's only "throttling" if it *permanently* slows down traffic, and BingeOn somehow doesn't do that (besides what the EFF is putting forward)? Is it because even though it's enabled by default, there is still an "off" switch, and therefore user choice is maintained (though probalby not obvious to most consumers)? Listen: I have no issue with doing shaping or traffic prioritization or whatever as your customer asks for it; we offer that as an option to customers to get the most out of their connections and I'm sure many of you do as well. But: 1) Those are done at the request of the customer, not opt-out. 2) Be honest about what you're doing. T-Mobile seems to be trying to spin this as if they have some magical technology that will re-encode streaming video on the fly to 480p, when really they're just ID-ing video and rate-limiting it (when it comes to video that doesn't match their technical requirements doc and doesn't do ABR down to 480p on the sending side). Fine: just getting decent accuracy on various edge cases of identifying video traffic isn't trivial, so kudos, but don't blow smoke about it. If Legere has some info about how this truly at a technical level is not just rate limiting, then show us that info. Yes: I've read the "Content Provider Technical Requirements" doc[2] that talks about adaptive bitrate tech on the sending side: "The content provider will provide video over T?Mobile?s network using adaptive bit rate technology in which the server sending streaming video content will automatically adapt video resolution of the stream based on the capabilities of the data connection or as otherwise indicated by the T?Mobile network." But, that's for the content folks that are participating in the BingeOn setup for zero-rating. The EFF's data indicates that if you're just a random video stream (or video media type file), you get rate limited. With all of this said, I appreciate the challenge of getting something like this implemented at scale without going opt-out. T-Mo is going for a PR win as well as, let's be honest, reducing network utilization by reducing the bitrate of video crossing the network, but it's *highly* unlikely that you're going to get enough critical mass in an opt-in effort to pull it off. To T-Mo's credit, they're making the opt-out quite simple, but let's be clear that this is not a net neutral move if we go by the commonly accepted definitions: "The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[3] "Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication."[4] The majority of the "fight" to date has been about the source and origin of the traffic, so the discussion often leans that direction, but there is no question that BingeOn works to identify a specific application or type of content (video) and then treats it differently from other traffic. "So why are special interest groups -- and even Google! -- offended by this? Why are they trying to characterize this as a bad thing?" Because you're drawing a box within which people have to play, which puts shackles on innovation. For traffic destined for a BingeOn enabled T-Mo customer (which is everyone by default unless they opt out), content providers can choose to: 1. Meet the technical requirements (possibly at real cost to them to adapt their infrastructure) and do adaptive bitrate streaming, and get capped at 480p but be zero-rated. 2. Do nothing, don't get zero-rated, and get rate-limited to 1.5 mbps. Part of the concern from the net neut crowd is that creating little boxes like this hampers innovation and the development of novel new applications. BingeOn in and of itself may not directly curtail innovation, but the concern is that everyone can create their own little box with which content providers need to cooperate/interoperate. Already in the BingeOn technical requirements doc, there is reference to basically a business relationship (e.g. "To ensure a good customer experience, any changes to a content provider?s streaming formats and/or mechanisms that could impact T?Mobile?s ability to include the provider?s content in the offering must be communicated to T?Mobile in advance"). Do we really want a situation where content providers need to establish direct relationships with any edge provider that runs a similar setup to BingeOn in order to ensure their traffic doesn't get squashed or degraded? My gut says that most edge operators wouldn't have an issue with the practice of traffic prioritization or rate limiting as requested by customers (e.g. prioritize my VoIP traffic; cap offsite backup or replication traffic). But those are explicit customer-initiated requests. I think it is legitimate to express concern when that type of traffic classification and differential treatment is applied en masse. T-Mo (or at least Legere) are pandering to "the little guy" and dismissing legitimate reports as "bullshit" in a bunch of handwaving and PR. Let's have an honest conversation about this, including who all stand to benefit and where there is legitimate harm or cause for concern. -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) [1]https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/binge-on-update-blog.htm [2]http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf [3]http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality From Chris.Adams at ung.edu Fri Jan 8 19:46:37 2016 From: Chris.Adams at ung.edu (Chris Adams (IT)) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:46:37 +0000 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: <65F6DA70-FBC2-4A32-9C71-5DFD3083C336@delong.com> References: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> <103393080.7010.1452279227985.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <65F6DA70-FBC2-4A32-9C71-5DFD3083C336@delong.com> Message-ID: Most reputable enterprise wireless solutions employ band-steering which helps to "force" users onto 5ghz, but still allows clients to connect to 2.4 if it's the only SSID strong enough or if the client only supports 2.4ghz. Band steering largely negates the need to run two SSIDs for optimal band selection. Chris -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 2:39 PM To: Josh Reynolds Cc: nanog-isp at mail.com; NANOG Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID. I don?t do that? I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable). Owen > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds wrote: > > Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay attention to SNR at all. > > On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote: > I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 2.4. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > > From: "Owen DeLong" > > To: "Josh Reynolds" > > Cc: "NANOG" >, > nanog-isp at mail.com > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM > Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON > > > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that > > most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz > > wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - > > that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service. > > Um? 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than > 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact? Almost every one of my > neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external > SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit. > > The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, > especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in > any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference. > > OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to > easily differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of > frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of > the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most > consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on the shelf. > > Personally, I don?t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has > more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. > > Owen > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4805 bytes Desc: not available URL: From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Sat Jan 9 03:48:48 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 04:48:48 +0100 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> References: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> Message-ID: On 8 January 2016 at 19:46, Owen DeLong wrote: > OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to > easily > differentiate (it?s all ?n? or ?ac? now regardless of frequency) and you > have > to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable > WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because > those > are the least expensive routers on the shelf. > ac = 5 GHz. The only dual frequency standard is 802.11n. But that has resolved itself by now: any router only advertizing "n" is going to be a 2,4GHz only router and even if you find a rare old model that was 5 GHz "n" it still sucks for lacking "ac". In our market everyone delivers "ac" routers by now. One reason for that is that DSL now needs VDSL2 with vectoring and channel bonding, and this brings you to a price point where you also want to get "ac" for little or no extra. Or you are selling high speed internet and the user experience is simply lacking without "ac". But 5 GHz usage is still low because people have a ton of devices that are 2,4 GHz only. Even brand new laptops are sold without a 5 GHz radio. People don't know that they have to check - it is oh but it has wifi and it is brand new, therefore it must have support for the new standard you are talking about! Sometimes we have to send someone out to the customer to demonstrate how crappy his new purchase is. Regards, Baldur From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Sat Jan 9 03:59:14 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 04:59:14 +0100 Subject: Fwd: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8 January 2016 at 13:56, Josh Reynolds wrote: > A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards are > 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG > working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not. > That is rubbish. We are using 128 optical splits and 64 users per OLT and a mix of users buying either 100 or 1000 Mbit/s service. This just works. The system is very far from being overloaded. We would put even more users on the OLT if our vendor would allow this (they only support a max of 64 users per OLT). Remember the very first thing users do when you sell 1000 Mbit/s internet is to run a speedtest. Our users do that too and they do get the expected 940-950 Mbit/s (=gigabit ethernet wire speed) speedtest result at all time of day, also at peak usage. Regards, Baldur From mureninc at gmail.com Sat Jan 9 04:07:06 2016 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:07:06 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: > So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether > it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... > > The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing > doesn't match what they said it was... > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies > > Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, > or why they're giving him a hard time. > > "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why > are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" > > http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie > > /me makes popcorn.... I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the record straight, once and for all. T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! Here's my comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya 2015-11-11: ?Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?? I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm > Los Angeles, California ? November 10, 2015 ... > Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile?s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice. Here it is again, the relevant bits: > for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s >>>> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video. It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but that's most certainly what was meant. Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his own consumers this time around. The only truth from his https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! Cheers, Constantine.SU. From nanog at ics-il.net Sat Jan 9 04:25:45 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 22:25:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <212111788.7432.1452313595545.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering or larger bills? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Constantine A. Murenin" To: "Valdis Kletnieks" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: > So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether > it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... > > The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing > doesn't match what they said it was... > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies > > Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, > or why they're giving him a hard time. > > "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why > are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" > > http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie > > /me makes popcorn.... I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the record straight, once and for all. T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! Here's my comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya 2015-11-11: ?Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?? I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm > Los Angeles, California ? November 10, 2015 ... > Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile?s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice. Here it is again, the relevant bits: > for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s >>>> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video. It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but that's most certainly what was meant. Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his own consumers this time around. The only truth from his https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! Cheers, Constantine.SU. From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Sat Jan 9 04:55:20 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 05:55:20 +0100 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We do not sell TV but that means our customers are cable cutters that do a ton of Netflix, HBO Nordic, ViaSat, SBS, DR TV etc streaming. Our traffic level per customer is about the double of what others report. VoIP is not very popular, but people do that too. In either case traffic levels from VoIP is so low that it is below the noise floor. When you can get 940 Mbit/s transfer rates with 1 ms latency and no jitter, a single 64 Kbit/s voice stream is not going to be a problem. We point customers to third party SIP providers and everyone are happy with that. Do the math: a Netflix HD stream is about 5 Mbit/s. How many such stream can you have with 2,4 Gbit/s capacity on a GPON OLT? Yes a lot. You might say but every home has at least 5 TVs now, so with 64 users you need to be able to do 5 times 64 times 5 Mbit/s (*). But it simply does not work that way. We are very far from a situation where it works that way. Instead we monitor the traffic levels, and if sometime in the future the peak traffic becomes a problem, we are ready to either lower the split ratio or invest in the next technology (probably some kind of x*10 Gbit/s PON). Until then we take the cost savings of using a split ratio that works in the real world. (*) nobody has a backbone that can cope with that kind of traffic either. Regards, Baldur On 9 January 2016 at 05:41, Josh Reynolds wrote: > And you are doing 6+ stream IPTV and VoIP as well? > On Jan 8, 2016 9:58 PM, "Baldur Norddahl" > wrote: > >> >> >> On 8 January 2016 at 13:56, Josh Reynolds wrote: >> >>> A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards >>> are >>> 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG >>> working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not. >>> >> >> That is rubbish. We are using 128 optical splits and 64 users per OLT and >> a mix of users buying either 100 or 1000 Mbit/s service. This just works. >> The system is very far from being overloaded. We would put even more users >> on the OLT if our vendor would allow this (they only support a max of 64 >> users per OLT). >> >> Remember the very first thing users do when you sell 1000 Mbit/s internet >> is to run a speedtest. Our users do that too and they do get the expected >> 940-950 Mbit/s (=gigabit ethernet wire speed) speedtest result at all time >> of day, also at peak usage. >> >> Regards, >> >> Baldur >> >> >> >> >> > From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 9 04:57:32 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:57:32 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <212111788.7432.1452313595545.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <212111788.7432.1452313595545.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: You are assuming a 4? display. First, lots of phones these days (mine include) larger than 4? displays. Even more phones, again, mine included, have HDMI output. And you better believe I notice the difference on a 32? TV in a hotel room. Owen > On Jan 8, 2016, at 20:25 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering or larger bills? > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > To: "Valdis Kletnieks" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. > > On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: >> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether >> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... >> >> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing >> doesn't match what they said it was... >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies >> >> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, >> or why they're giving him a hard time. >> >> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why >> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie >> >> /me makes popcorn.... > > I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the > record straight, once and for all. > > T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! > > Here's my comment on > https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya > > 2015-11-11: ?Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go > at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra > step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?? > > I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me > make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! > > https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm > >> Los Angeles, California ? November 10, 2015 > ... > >> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile?s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice. > > Here it is again, the relevant bits: > >> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan > > Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! > > HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! > > Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. > Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB > to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't > include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) > > Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: > > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s > >>>>> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video. > > It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but > that's most certainly what was meant. > > Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to > 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", > and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and > quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). > > That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his > own consumers this time around. The only truth from his > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and > Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers > indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! > > Cheers, > Constantine.SU. > From nanog at ics-il.net Sat Jan 9 05:16:54 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:16:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1520181533.7450.1452316663710.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Mine has a 6" display and I know it's rare... because people always comment on how big it is. Many\most do HDMI out. About 14 people know about it. Maybe 4 actually do it with any level of regularity. Opt out if it's an issue for you. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:57:32 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. You are assuming a 4? display. First, lots of phones these days (mine include) larger than 4? displays. Even more phones, again, mine included, have HDMI output. And you better believe I notice the difference on a 32? TV in a hotel room. Owen > On Jan 8, 2016, at 20:25 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering or larger bills? > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > To: "Valdis Kletnieks" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. > > On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: >> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether >> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... >> >> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing >> doesn't match what they said it was... >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies >> >> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, >> or why they're giving him a hard time. >> >> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why >> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie >> >> /me makes popcorn.... > > I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the > record straight, once and for all. > > T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! > > Here's my comment on > https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya > > 2015-11-11: ?Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go > at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra > step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?? > > I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me > make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! > > https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm > >> Los Angeles, California ? November 10, 2015 > ... > >> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile?s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice. > > Here it is again, the relevant bits: > >> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan > > Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! > > HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! > > Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. > Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB > to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't > include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) > > Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: > > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s > >>>>> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video. > > It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but > that's most certainly what was meant. > > Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to > 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", > and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and > quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). > > That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his > own consumers this time around. The only truth from his > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and > Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers > indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! > > Cheers, > Constantine.SU. > From josh at kyneticwifi.com Sat Jan 9 06:45:53 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 00:45:53 -0600 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You might be surprised... Our upstreams want to simply bypass 40Gbps waves and want us to move straight to 100Gbps. The cost difference is minimal. We are set up where each customer can DVR or watch up to 6 shows at once, per household. There's a reason Google did 16 way splits, and yes, we have two paths we are looking at for NG-PON2. One with Calix, another with another vendor. On Jan 8, 2016 10:57 PM, "Baldur Norddahl" wrote: > We do not sell TV but that means our customers are cable cutters that do a > ton of Netflix, HBO Nordic, ViaSat, SBS, DR TV etc streaming. Our traffic > level per customer is about the double of what others report. > > VoIP is not very popular, but people do that too. In either case traffic > levels from VoIP is so low that it is below the noise floor. When you can > get 940 Mbit/s transfer rates with 1 ms latency and no jitter, a single 64 > Kbit/s voice stream is not going to be a problem. We point customers to > third party SIP providers and everyone are happy with that. > > Do the math: a Netflix HD stream is about 5 Mbit/s. How many such stream > can you have with 2,4 Gbit/s capacity on a GPON OLT? Yes a lot. You might > say but every home has at least 5 TVs now, so with 64 users you need to be > able to do 5 times 64 times 5 Mbit/s (*). But it simply does not work that > way. We are very far from a situation where it works that way. Instead we > monitor the traffic levels, and if sometime in the future the peak traffic > becomes a problem, we are ready to either lower the split ratio or invest > in the next technology (probably some kind of x*10 Gbit/s PON). Until then > we take the cost savings of using a split ratio that works in the real > world. > > (*) nobody has a backbone that can cope with that kind of traffic either. > > Regards, > > Baldur > > > > On 9 January 2016 at 05:41, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > > And you are doing 6+ stream IPTV and VoIP as well? > > On Jan 8, 2016 9:58 PM, "Baldur Norddahl" > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 8 January 2016 at 13:56, Josh Reynolds wrote: > >> > >>> A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards > >>> are > >>> 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps > LAG > >>> working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not. > >>> > >> > >> That is rubbish. We are using 128 optical splits and 64 users per OLT > and > >> a mix of users buying either 100 or 1000 Mbit/s service. This just > works. > >> The system is very far from being overloaded. We would put even more > users > >> on the OLT if our vendor would allow this (they only support a max of 64 > >> users per OLT). > >> > >> Remember the very first thing users do when you sell 1000 Mbit/s > internet > >> is to run a speedtest. Our users do that too and they do get the > expected > >> 940-950 Mbit/s (=gigabit ethernet wire speed) speedtest result at all > time > >> of day, also at peak usage. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Baldur > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Sat Jan 9 08:33:27 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:33:27 +0100 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 January 2016 at 07:45, Josh Reynolds wrote: > You might be surprised... > > > It is hard to be surprised when you have hard numbers. I run a network and unsurprisingly know exactly how much traffic my users cause. That number is currently about 2 Mbit/s peak aggregated per household. Do you need 100 Gbit/s instead of 40 Gbit/s? Yes you do if you carry traffic from more than 20,000 users or perhaps you have 10,000 users but want to plan for expected traffic increase over the next two years. But nobody plans their backbone so it can carry 20-30 Mbit/s aggregated per household. Well if you do, you have no competition, because otherwise someone else will figure out how to run a network at 1/10 the cost of what you do, and you will go out of business. Before someone points out the obvious: That math does not carry over to GPON OLT planning (too few users for the aggregation). You will have higher peak than 64x 2 Mbit/s on your OLT. But still, 2.4 Gbit/s shared among 64 users is currently more than sufficient that nobody is going to see any limits on their download rate, even during peak. And that is with users on 1000 Mbit/s plans. I have no idea what Google did or why. I have a feeling that my own hard earned experiences overrides any hear say on that matter... Of course what I am telling you might also be hear say (although directly from a primary source) so do what you think is best. I am just sharing our experiences in the spirit of this forum. Regards, Baldur From A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk Sat Jan 9 10:38:58 2016 From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk (Alan Buxey) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:38:58 +0000 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <1520181533.7450.1452316663710.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1520181533.7450.1452316663710.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. Where does it stop? 320x240 ? Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good. alan From nanog at ics-il.net Sat Jan 9 14:06:33 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 08:06:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Valid points. The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Buxey" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 4:38:58 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. Where does it stop? 320x240 ? Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good. alan From reuben-nanog at reub.net Sat Jan 9 04:02:35 2016 From: reuben-nanog at reub.net (Reuben Farrelly) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:02:35 +1100 Subject: 5GHz Wifi [Was: Re: GPON vs. GEPON] In-Reply-To: References: <38A83167-3D18-4A7A-90A3-74EB3FA3C4F7@delong.com> Message-ID: <5690865B.2080404@reub.net> On 9/01/2016 2:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > But 5 GHz usage is still low because people have a ton of devices that are > 2,4 GHz only. Even brand new laptops are sold without a 5 GHz radio. People > don't know that they have to check - it is oh but it has wifi and it is > brand new, therefore it must have support for the new standard you are > talking about! Sometimes we have to send someone out to the customer to > demonstrate how crappy his new purchase is. Unfortunately almost all of the Internet of Things (IoT) client devices I have come across or purchased lately are 2.4GHz only: - Belkin Wemo - Airconsole - Sense Sleep Tracker - LIFX - Ninjasphere (now defunct, but this was interesting because these appear to have a 5GHz radio in them but don't have the antenna to support it) The explanation I have been given a few times is that the antenna requirements for 5GHz are just too difficult to achieve in what are often small and low powered devices. We're mostly there with phones and PCs though. Reuben From jhaustin at gmail.com Sat Jan 9 16:01:47 2016 From: jhaustin at gmail.com (Jeremy Austin) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 07:01:47 -0900 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse > to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have > shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based > on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal coverage, but I'll abstain. Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that it's the best model for everybody. Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in general: The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?" I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a 'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it. In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general. -- Jeremy Austin From rsk at gsp.org Sat Jan 9 16:09:03 2016 From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:09:03 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <20160108171151.GA16973@bamboo.slabnet.com> References: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160108171151.GA16973@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: <20160109160903.GA15757@gsp.org> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:11:51AM -0800, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > ...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile > by lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". It's not just video. Per comments on Techdirt, this also affects other traffic being transmitted via HTTPS, if that traffic is sufficiently large and/or persists for a sufficient period of time. ---rsk From nanog at ics-il.net Sat Jan 9 16:11:29 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2007465440.7604.1452355945630.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Austin" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:01:47 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog at ics-il.net > wrote: The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal coverage, but I'll abstain. Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that it's the best model for everybody. Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in general: The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?" I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a 'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it. In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general. -- Jeremy Austin From rwebb at ropeguru.com Sat Jan 9 16:37:23 2016 From: rwebb at ropeguru.com (Robert Webb) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:37:23 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <2007465440.7604.1452355945630.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <2007465440.7604.1452355945630.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: > My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but >to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig >certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay >variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. > > Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what >their usage costs? > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com From nanog at ics-il.net Sat Jan 9 16:46:29 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1025097530.7673.1452358045857.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing. There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now? (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: > My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but >to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig >certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay >variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. > > Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what >their usage costs? > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com From rwebb at ropeguru.com Sat Jan 9 17:04:05 2016 From: rwebb at ropeguru.com (Robert Webb) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:04:05 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <1025097530.7673.1452358045857.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1025097530.7673.1452358045857.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players. There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration?and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.) Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: > The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the >consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, >industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or >ridiculous pricing. > > There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are >any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so >why start now? > > > (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the >industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Robert Webb" > To: "Mike Hammett" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the >fan. > > The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is >as the > providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. >proprietary > secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what >the ISP > actually pays for regarding bits! > > Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" >for > measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. > > Robert Webb > > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) > Mike Hammett wrote: >> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but >>to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig >>certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay >>variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. >> >> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what >>their usage costs? >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com > > From nanog at ics-il.net Sat Jan 9 17:12:16 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not. I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players. There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.) Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: > The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the >consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, >industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or >ridiculous pricing. > > There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are >any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so >why start now? > > > (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the >industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Robert Webb" > To: "Mike Hammett" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the >fan. > > The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is >as the > providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. >proprietary > secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what >the ISP > actually pays for regarding bits! > > Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" >for > measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. > > Robert Webb > > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) > Mike Hammett wrote: >> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but >>to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig >>certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay >>variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. >> >> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what >>their usage costs? >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com > > From rwebb at ropeguru.com Sat Jan 9 17:44:24 2016 From: rwebb at ropeguru.com (Robert Webb) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:44:24 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: So you are all for supporting having to pay for data the bloatware programs, installed by most all providers, which most consumers do not want or use? When providers start putting out equipment that has the pure phone OS installed, not the bloatware laden crap that is sold today, then I might agree with you a bit more. But we all know from the history of providers that they will never provide a reasonable per byte cost. Everywhere I have lived, providers will come out and replace meters. Some do it better then others, especially if you are seeing anomalies in usage. In the case of normal utilities though, you can pretty much judge your usage. However with internet based per byte billing, one never knows what is going on under the hood of the device in places where the user has zero access to. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: > Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. >Initiated by you or not. > > I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or >calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've >never seen it regularly done anywhere. > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Robert Webb" > To: "Mike Hammett" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the >fan. > > Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, >even > though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be >gouged > given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the >other does. > In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So >there will > never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the >current > players. > > There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my >bill is > going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water >meter, > etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular >utility > will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. > > Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't >wireless, but > their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I >do not > think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe >exactly how > their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am >not a > wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more >difficult to > accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. > > (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps >either. > But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones >these > days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, >then I > certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open >to me for > review.) > > Robert Webb > > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) > Mike Hammett wrote: >> The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the >>consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, >>industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or >>ridiculous pricing. >> >> There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are >>any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so >>why start now? >> >> >> (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the >>industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>From: "Robert Webb" >> To: "Mike Hammett" >> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" >> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM >> Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the >>fan. >> >> The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is >>as the >> providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. >>proprietary >> secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what >>the ISP >> actually pays for regarding bits! >> >> Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" >>for >> measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. >> >> Robert Webb >> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) >> Mike Hammett wrote: >>> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but >>>to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig >>>certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay >>>variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. >>> >>> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what >>>their usage costs? >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> From johnl at iecc.com Sat Jan 9 18:33:16 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 9 Jan 2016 18:33:16 -0000 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <20160109183316.38442.qmail@ary.lan> In article <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett at ThunderFuck> you write: >Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not. As should be obvious to people on NANOG, of all places, mobile networks and fixed networks are different. On a mobile network, every bit of infrastructure you use other than your phone is shared and tends to be heavily used. Metered usage makes economic sense, although it's well documented that users hate it and would rather pay for a fixed bundle even if on average metered would be cheaper. On fixed networks, a significant chunk is unshared (such as the wire to your house) and while there may be hotspots, there tends to be a lot of slack capacity within the network. That means that fixed network traffic outside of peak times literally costs the network nothing. >I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. I suppose they should upon >reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere. Now you have. When I was municipal water commissioner, one of our annual tasks was to buy new meters to swap for the oldest ones. Water meters have a lot of moving parts and when they get old, they tend to underreport usage. R's, John From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sat Jan 9 19:56:34 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 14:56:34 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <73003.1452369394@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said: > Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by > you or not. You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8 machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com Sat Jan 9 20:40:23 2016 From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:40:23 +0000 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. [Comcast meter Q] Message-ID: On 1/9/16, 12:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Robert Webb" wrote: >Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, >but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I >do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe >exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards >usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even >more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable >nature. Since my day job is at Comcast and part of that job is ensuring that the usage meter is technically accurate I figured I would chime in. A few bits of information that may be helpful follow below. **I am happy to answer any questions you or others have.** And I have also copied our independent auditor should there be questions for his firm. 1 - Comcast does byte counting via the IPDR standard (IP Detail Records). I would think any other DOCSIS-based network that performs byte counting would also use IPDR (and all the ones of which I am aware do so). You can find some more information about the IPDR specification here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Detail_Record https://www.incognito.com/tips-and-tutorials/faq-bandwidth-monitoring-with- ipdr/ http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1603814~d44a19780841cdc79abf840b6066d 52d/ipdr-usage-counters.pdf http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/specdocs/CM-SP-OSSIv3.0-I14-110 210.pdf 2 - Comcast first made mention of the use of IPDR in a 2008 FCC filing, as part of a deployment of a protocol-agnostic congestion management system. See these documents: http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment_B_Future_Practices.pdf https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6057 3 - Comcast engaged a 3rd party auditor called NetForecast (http://www.netforecast.com/) to regularly, independently audit the accuracy of our usage meter. We usually announce those audits on our Network Management page (ex: http://networkmanagement.xfinity.com/index.php/8-network-management-news/55 -2015-comcast-usage-meter-accuracy-report) and NetForecast publishes these reports on their website. See the following documents: - First accuracy report, 2009: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage _Meter_Accuracy_Original.pdf - Second accuracy report, 2010: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage _Meter_Accuracy.pdf - Third accuracy report, 2014: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NFR5116_Comcast_Meter _Accuracy_Report.pdf - Fourth accuracy report, 2015: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5120_Fourth_Comcas t_Meter_Accuracy_Validation_Report.pdf - ISP best practice report: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5119_General_ISP_D ata_Usage_Meter_Specification.pdf 4 - In terms of what is counted, all Internet traffic is counted (what is now known as Title-II traffic). Title-VI video traffic and Xfinity Voice traffic, which may use the IP protocol but are not Internet services, are not counted. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, Jason From mureninc at gmail.com Sat Jan 9 22:00:21 2016 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:00:21 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <212111788.7432.1452313595545.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <212111788.7432.1452313595545.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: This is not a lossless 480p we're talking about, and most Android phones have been through quite a few generations of having at least 720p, if not 1080p or 1440p, and 5" displays. I wouldn't at all be so quick to dismiss that there's no difference. Also, according to http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/, for a high-quality 480p, you're supposed to have a 2.5Mbps link to accommodate a 1.6Mbps stream; and a few providers already stream at or above 1.5Mbps for 480p, including BBC at 1500, ESPN at 2000, iTunes at 1500 and Netflix at 1050 or 1750 (1050 results in lower quality 480p). Being throttled at 1.5Mbps would mean that 480p video from any of these provides, if forced at 480p, would either result in just enough stuttering or buffering issues to ruin the experience, or will be automatically downgraded to 360p (which is still 1400 for ESPN, meaning, it might even go to 240p). Moreover, I have a feeling that on HSPA+ their new throttling results in below 480p resolution, because the network is no longer afforded to have the bursts to compensate for the occasional variability of the connection. (Google Galaxy Nexus is HSPA+ and 720p.) So much for 480p and the DVD quality. C. On 8 January 2016 at 20:25, Mike Hammett wrote: > I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering or larger bills? > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > To: "Valdis Kletnieks" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. > > On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: >> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether >> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... >> >> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing >> doesn't match what they said it was... >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies >> >> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, >> or why they're giving him a hard time. >> >> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why >> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie >> >> /me makes popcorn.... > > I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the > record straight, once and for all. > > T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! > > Here's my comment on > https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya > > 2015-11-11: ?Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go > at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra > step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?? > > I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me > make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! > > https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm > >> Los Angeles, California ? November 10, 2015 > ... > >> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile?s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice. > > Here it is again, the relevant bits: > >> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan > > Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! > > HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! > > Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. > Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB > to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't > include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) > > Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: > > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s > >>>>> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video. > > It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but > that's most certainly what was meant. > > Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to > 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", > and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and > quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). > > That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his > own consumers this time around. The only truth from his > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and > Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers > indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! > > Cheers, > Constantine.SU. From frnkblk at iname.com Sat Jan 9 23:00:07 2016 From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:00:07 -0600 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, needing a reboot every few months, but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. Frank -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Hubbard Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:36 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: SMS gateways Hey all, was curious if anyone has opinions on the FoxBox vs SMS Eagle boxes for sending SMS alerts directly to the cell network? http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-iq.html/ http://www.smseagle.eu/store/en/devices/1-sms-eagle.html Any alternative options would be appreciated too. I saw Microcom?s iSMS modem mentioned in the list archives but it?s only 2G so likely won?t be viable much longer. The other question, given the fact that they?re both GSM-based, is whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ?machine? plans for use by these types of devices. We have all of our OpenGear out of band console servers on Verizon and they have these special ?machine? plans for $10/mo with very limited bandwidth, so that has allowed us to deploy a bunch of them without worrying about a huge phone bill. Thanks, David From johnl at iecc.com Sat Jan 9 23:23:59 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 9 Jan 2016 23:23:59 -0000 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> Message-ID: <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, needing a reboot every few months, >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. What do you plan to do instead next year? From khelms at zcorum.com Sat Jan 9 23:52:03 2016 From: khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 18:52:03 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <1025097530.7673.1452358045857.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: Comcast uses a standardized protocol called IPDR for their accounting and if they're still using the same software collector that they were a few years ago it was independently verified for accuracy. IPDR had been part of the DOCSIS protocol for nearly a decade and is publicly documented. Now, what (if anything) they choose to zero rate or otherwise manipulate I can't speak on, but the collection of the usage is well understood, independent of the CPE, and extremely accurate. On Jan 9, 2016 12:05 PM, "Robert Webb" wrote: > Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even > though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged > given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. > In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will > never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current > players. > > There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is > going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, > etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility > will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. > > Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, > but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do > not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly > how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am > not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult > to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. > > (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. > But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these > days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I > certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me > for review.) > > Robert Webb > > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) > Mike Hammett wrote: > >> The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the >> consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, >> industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous >> pricing. >> There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any >> certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start >> now? >> >> (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry >> makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) >> >> ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" < >> nanog at ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" < >> nanog at nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: >> Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. >> The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as >> the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary >> secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the >> ISP actually pays for regarding bits! >> Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for >> measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. >> Robert Webb >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett >> wrote: >> >>> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to >>> provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly >>> isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for >>> water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. >>> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their >>> usage costs? >>> >>> ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com >>> >> >> >> > > From jared at puck.Nether.net Sun Jan 10 00:15:49 2016 From: jared at puck.Nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:15:49 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <20160110001548.GA30712@puck.nether.net> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 11:23:59PM -0000, John Levine wrote: > In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: > >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > > > >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, needing a reboot every few months, > >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. > > It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a > 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off > their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is > already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. > > What do you plan to do instead next year? I last purchased a USB "3G modem" for around $12 including shipping which supports SMS. it doesn't need to use the 3G part for data though, just for the control channel. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Unlocked-ZTE-MF110-3G-850-1900-2100-Mhz-GSM-USB-Mobile-Broadband-Modem-/121822901176 There are cheaper ones to be had, but this isn't exactly something that is a budget breaker. Get a good provider and life will be just fine for you. I have a T-Mobile SIM in mine and they don't charge for most international texts like other carriers so makes a perfect SMS device. (Looks like HSPA+ LTE ones can be had around $40 without putting much effort into it). The biggsest problem I had was setting the AT command to make it default to the right mode vs using usbmodeswitch in Linux, but mostly because this was the first device I used like this in over a decade myself. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. From cb.list6 at gmail.com Sun Jan 10 03:00:48 2016 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:00:48 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <212111788.7432.1452313595545.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > This is not a lossless 480p we're talking about, and most Android > phones have been through quite a few generations of having at least > 720p, if not 1080p or 1440p, and 5" displays. I wouldn't at all be so > quick to dismiss that there's no difference. > > Also, according to http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/, > for a high-quality 480p, you're supposed to have a 2.5Mbps link to > accommodate a 1.6Mbps stream; and a few providers already stream at or > above 1.5Mbps for 480p, including BBC at 1500, ESPN at 2000, iTunes at > 1500 and Netflix at 1050 or 1750 (1050 results in lower quality 480p). > Being throttled at 1.5Mbps would mean that 480p video from any of > these provides, if forced at 480p, would either result in just enough > stuttering or buffering issues to ruin the experience, or will be > automatically downgraded to 360p (which is still 1400 for ESPN, > meaning, it might even go to 240p). > > Moreover, I have a feeling that on HSPA+ their new throttling results > in below 480p resolution, because the network is no longer afforded to > have the bursts to compensate for the occasional variability of the > connection. (Google Galaxy Nexus is HSPA+ and 720p.) So much for > 480p and the DVD quality. > > C. > > To disabuse anyone on this list about how video is treated in mobile, Page 11 has a good reality check on how every major mobile provider in the usa actively adjusts video https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~phillipa/papers/traffic-diff_imc15.pdf Given that world, my opinion is stepping down abr is the least intrusive method, verses active transcoding .... Which modifies a copywrited work between origin and consumer. According to this tweet, "partners" control the bitrate to avoid exercising abr , and thus no buffering https://twitter.com/slidefuse/status/685373665882599424 So, that is a reasonable e2e approach given the world of mobile video.... Just talking from an engineering perspective. The alternative is that there is quiet arms race between access providers and video providers as described in the first link. On 8 January 2016 at 20:25, Mike Hammett > > wrote: > > I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can > notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice > the buffering or larger bills? > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Mike Hammett > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > > > To: "Valdis Kletnieks" > > > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > > > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM > > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. > > > > On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks > wrote: > >> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and > whether > >> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... > >> > >> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually > doing > >> doesn't match what they said it was... > >> > >> > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies > >> > >> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, > >> or why they're giving him a hard time. > >> > >> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere > said. "Why > >> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" > >> > >> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie > >> > >> /me makes popcorn.... > > > > I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the > > record straight, once and for all. > > > > T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! > > > > Here's my comment on > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya > > > > 2015-11-11: ?Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go > > at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra > > step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?? > > > > I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me > > make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! > > > > https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm > > > >> Los Angeles, California ? November 10, 2015 > > ... > > > >> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile?s network, Binge On > optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still > delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more > reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for > almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch > up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile > has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate > Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about > customer choice. > > > > Here it is again, the relevant bits: > > > >> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers > can watch up to three times more video from their data plan > > > > Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! > > > > HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! > > > > Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. > > Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB > > to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't > > include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) > > > > Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: > > > > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s > > > >>>>> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were > watching 12% more video. > > > > It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but > > that's most certainly what was meant. > > > > Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to > > 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", > > and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and > > quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). > > > > That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his > > own consumers this time around. The only truth from his > > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and > > Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers > > indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! > > > > Cheers, > > Constantine.SU. > From todd.crane at n5tech.com Sat Jan 9 20:57:51 2016 From: todd.crane at n5tech.com (Todd Crane) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:57:51 -0700 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <73003.1452369394@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <73003.1452369394@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: At least Microsoft would get heat for unsolicited downloads. Why does Microsoft (allegedly) think they can download (unwanted or at least unsolicited) software to unsuspecting users computer, just to upsell them, at our expense? 20Gigs per household is a lot of data across a market. If it was metered, there would be at least some accountability. > On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > > On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said: >> Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by >> you or not. > > You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they > got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8 > machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From alex.buie at frozenfeline.net Sun Jan 10 10:51:44 2016 From: alex.buie at frozenfeline.net (Alex Buie) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 05:51:44 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <73003.1452369394@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Ugh, I had to deal with this almost daily at $large_metered_us_carrier. We have WiFi hotspots and USB modems and inevitably the customers who usually use <2GB and have plans based on that usage got slapped with huge Windows 10 overages. Explaining that no, your "geebee" meter isn't broken, Microsoft just shafted you got so tiring, especially when they don't have the faintest clue what Windows Update or data or anything of the sort mean, just barely enough to sign into their AOL account and check the weather. The bad part is how aggressively Microsoft is downloading it to your HD even if you don't accept it. (See Windows.BT folder, &c) I am "eagerly" awaiting the next wave of update renaming/repushing. > On Jan 9, 2016 2:57 PM, wrote: >> >> On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said: >> > Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by >> > you or not. >> >> You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they >> got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8 >> machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them? From A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk Sun Jan 10 14:04:13 2016 From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk (Alan Buxey) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:04:13 +0000 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <73003.1452369394@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <8C2E929C-0FC9-4388-82FD-A39559A03466@lboro.ac.uk> For the sake of security of all internet connected hosts - especially in this new era of even more IOT junk , security updates, firmware and new OS updates should be granted libre data rates so that users who keep their devices updated are not penalised. as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up then eg OS updates could be streamed out on regular updates alan From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Sun Jan 10 18:46:42 2016 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 13:46:42 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <8C2E929C-0FC9-4388-82FD-A39559A03466@lboro.ac.uk> References: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <73003.1452369394@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <8C2E929C-0FC9-4388-82FD-A39559A03466@lboro.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Alan Buxey wrote: > For the sake of security of all internet connected hosts - especially in this new era of even more IOT junk , security updates, firmware and new OS updates should be granted libre data rates so that users who keep their devices updated are not penalised. so, just for the sake of the discussion, how would you do this? Keep in mind that you probably can't (as a carrier) prefer one 'os' over another, and you will likely have to deal with everything from Windows to gentoo and all the tiny raspbian/etc in the middle. How would a carrier identify and track over time the sources of this traffic? (note that a 'registry of update sources' probably also won't fly) > as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up then eg OS updates could be streamed out on regular updates multicast, yes, of course. So... it hasn't worked yet in the last ~20 yrs of the internet, it'll work now because? From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sun Jan 10 19:14:39 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:14:39 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <8C2E929C-0FC9-4388-82FD-A39559A03466@lboro.ac.uk> References: <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <73003.1452369394@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <8C2E929C-0FC9-4388-82FD-A39559A03466@lboro.ac.uk> Message-ID: <173323.1452453279@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:04:13 +0000, Alan Buxey said: > as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up then eg OS > updates could be streamed out on regular updates You can multicast the Super Bowl, because to a rather high rate of accuracy you can assume that everybody who wants to watch the Super Bowl in real time is tuned in and catching the stream. It doesn't work as well for software updates, because while I know I'm in a "No cellular coverage" area hiking the south side of Mt Rogers during the Super Bowl, and I don't care because I'm no a big pro football fan, my cell phone may care if it misses an update because of it. Actually - it probably *won't*, because I'll likely be hiking long enough that my phone will *never notice* that it missed an update. So now you need to find a way to make *reverse* multicast work, so that the update server doesn't get pounded with several million requests once an hour asking "Did I miss an update?: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maxtul at netassist.ua Sun Jan 10 20:10:02 2016 From: maxtul at netassist.ua (Max Tulyev) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 22:10:02 +0200 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <5692BA9A.1070303@netassist.ua> (chewing my pop-corn) Eh... I would like to have that kind of problems! Here we sell a residental 1Gbps for $5/mo with really unlimited traffic, and have a lot of complaint calls if there is slightly less than 1Gbps for that particular users. THAT is how the high competitive market works! ;) On 09.01.16 16:06, Mike Hammett wrote: > Valid points. > > The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alan Buxey" > To: "Mike Hammett" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 4:38:58 AM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. > > You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice > > We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. Where does it stop? 320x240 ? > > Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good. > > alan > From johnl at iecc.com Sun Jan 10 21:21:33 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 10 Jan 2016 21:21:33 -0000 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <173323.1452453279@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <20160110212133.43022.qmail@ary.lan> >> as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up then eg OS >> updates could be streamed out on regular updates Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background without any interaction with the users, I'd think they'd be ideal for network-un-neutral traffic shaping, throttle them when people are doing something else, open them up at 3 AM. In a more reasonable world, I agree that multicasting Windows Update would make sense, but that would require a whole lot of agreements from people who aren't inclined to agree. Also remember that multicasting only gets you so far, and I would be surprised if you could multicast over the wireless last mile more efficiently than unicasting. R's, John From randy at psg.com Sun Jan 10 22:54:34 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:54:34 +0900 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <20160110212133.43022.qmail@ary.lan> References: <173323.1452453279@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160110212133.43022.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: >>> as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up >>> then eg OS updates could be streamed out on regular updates > > Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background > without any interaction with the users maybe for your customers, but not so true for our user base or others with which i have experience. wise folk want control of patching. and it's not only IT departments, but end users. cheeringly, even end users are becoming more cautious, at least those who have survived :) otoh, smart devices may tilt this over time. the security aspects of this are an amusing and horrifying subject of discussion in the opsec and other communities. randy From ecrogers at precisionds.com Sun Jan 10 22:59:22 2016 From: ecrogers at precisionds.com (Eric Rogers) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 17:59:22 -0500 Subject: Anonymous Threats Message-ID: Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several surrounding schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. He/she is taunting them, local and federal. I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the source. Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably off-list if you do respond... Thanks in advance. Eric Rogers www.pdsconnect.me (317) 831-3000 x200 From josh at kyneticwifi.com Sun Jan 10 23:12:40 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 17:12:40 -0600 Subject: Anonymous Threats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Even if you find somebody running TOR, you can't see inside it. They also could simply be running an exit node, or $reason. On Jan 10, 2016 5:02 PM, "Eric Rogers" wrote: > Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a > FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several surrounding > schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This > is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI > raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. > He/she is taunting them, local and federal. > > > > I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or > something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic > on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the > source. > > > > Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it > is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably off-list > if you do respond... > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Eric Rogers > > > > > > www.pdsconnect.me > > (317) 831-3000 x200 > > > > From sakamura at gmail.com Sun Jan 10 23:23:34 2016 From: sakamura at gmail.com (Ishmael Rufus) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:23:34 +0000 Subject: Anonymous Threats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'll keep a look out On Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 5:02 PM Eric Rogers wrote: > Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a > FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several surrounding > schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This > is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI > raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. > He/she is taunting them, local and federal. > > > > I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or > something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic > on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the > source. > > > > Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it > is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably off-list > if you do respond... > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Eric Rogers > > > > > > www.pdsconnect.me > > (317) 831-3000 x200 > > > > From todd.crane at n5tech.com Sun Jan 10 23:28:34 2016 From: todd.crane at n5tech.com (Todd Crane) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:28:34 -0700 Subject: Anonymous Threats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I?m pretty sure that is what TOR was designed to prevent. While your intent may be altruistic, technologically speaking, there is no difference between that and say Iran or China sniffing out traffic. > On Jan 10, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: > > Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic > on my network? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From networkhood at gmail.com Sun Jan 10 23:31:00 2016 From: networkhood at gmail.com (Notmatt Pleaseignore) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:31:00 -0500 Subject: Anonymous Threats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think if the FBI wants your help, they'll let you know. In the meantime, I would probably avoid anything that looked like you are spying on your customers, especially if you are explicitly targeting customers who are attempting to anonymize their traffic (for whatever reason). No matter how well intentioned. I can see a number of downsides... But in simple terms, if its Facebook, its HTTPS, and seems you are basically done there. Regardless what anonymous transport they use, you wouldn't be able to see what they are up to... On Jan 10, 2016 6:14 PM, "Josh Reynolds" wrote: > Even if you find somebody running TOR, you can't see inside it. They also > could simply be running an exit node, or $reason. > On Jan 10, 2016 5:02 PM, "Eric Rogers" wrote: > > > Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a > > FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several surrounding > > schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This > > is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI > > raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. > > He/she is taunting them, local and federal. > > > > > > > > I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or > > something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic > > on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the > > source. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it > > is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably off-list > > if you do respond... > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > > > Eric Rogers > > > > > > > > > > > > www.pdsconnect.me > > > > (317) 831-3000 x200 > > > > > > > > > From nanog at ics-il.net Mon Jan 11 00:15:32 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:15:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <337051780.256.1452471426550.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> John Doe end user doesn't even know what updating is, much less wants to control it.... or even do it. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" To: "John Levine" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 4:54:34 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. >>> as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up >>> then eg OS updates could be streamed out on regular updates > > Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background > without any interaction with the users maybe for your customers, but not so true for our user base or others with which i have experience. wise folk want control of patching. and it's not only IT departments, but end users. cheeringly, even end users are becoming more cautious, at least those who have survived :) otoh, smart devices may tilt this over time. the security aspects of this are an amusing and horrifying subject of discussion in the opsec and other communities. randy From johnl at iecc.com Mon Jan 11 01:12:38 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 10 Jan 2016 20:12:38 -0500 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <173323.1452453279@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20160110212133.43022.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: >> Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background >> without any interaction with the users > > maybe for your customers, but not so true for our user base or others > with which i have experience. wise folk want control of patching. and > it's not only IT departments, but end users. The Windows 10 stuff generally downloads in the background, then it pops up and tells you how wonderful it is. Most of the end users I know have Windows Update set to do its thing automatically, and even if it's not installed automatically it'll often download and then ask whether you want to install it. > otoh, smart devices may tilt this over time. the security aspects of > this are an amusing and horrifying subject of discussion in the opsec > and other communities. No kidding. R's, John From littlefishguy at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 01:30:29 2016 From: littlefishguy at gmail.com (Scott Fisher) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:30:29 -0500 Subject: Anonymous Threats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Report it to the authorities and trust that they can handle it,..no matter how difficult that is. Remember your place that you are just the admin/operator and not the hero. If they need your help, law enforcement will ask for it. Sucks but what would you do if you found his IP address? Go to his house? No matter what, law enforcement needs to own the problem. Thanks, Scott On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Notmatt Pleaseignore wrote: > I think if the FBI wants your help, they'll let you know. > > In the meantime, I would probably avoid anything that looked like you are > spying on your customers, especially if you are explicitly targeting > customers who are attempting to anonymize their traffic (for whatever > reason). No matter how well intentioned. I can see a number of downsides... > > But in simple terms, if its Facebook, its HTTPS, and seems you are > basically done there. Regardless what anonymous transport they use, you > wouldn't be able to see what they are up to... > On Jan 10, 2016 6:14 PM, "Josh Reynolds" > wrote: > > > Even if you find somebody running TOR, you can't see inside it. They also > > could simply be running an exit node, or $reason. > > On Jan 10, 2016 5:02 PM, "Eric Rogers" > wrote: > > > > > Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a > > > FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several > surrounding > > > schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This > > > is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI > > > raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. > > > He/she is taunting them, local and federal. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or > > > something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic > > > on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the > > > source. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it > > > is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably > off-list > > > if you do respond... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Rogers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.pdsconnect.me > > > > > > (317) 831-3000 x200 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Scott From ecrogers at precisionds.com Mon Jan 11 01:45:25 2016 From: ecrogers at precisionds.com (Eric Rogers) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:45:25 -0500 Subject: Anonymous Threats References: Message-ID: Thank you for all that have responded, and this response has been the majority, to leave well enough alone. I guess I was hoping that maybe I could offer a new way to help narrow this search down. It has been extremely frustrating to see someone so blatantly cocky in how he is taunting the authorities, yet threaten people's lives...this person is taking pictures of "intended targets" and their young children saying "maybe they won't make it home tonight" and much, much worse...I have reached out to local authorities to offer any help, and I haven't had any response, so at this point I am not going to do anything to slow or interfere with any investigation... this person needs caught. As a secondary, I was thinking that by looking at the type of traffic, by using a sniffer/IDS or some mechanism to generate a list of possible users so if authorities came knocking I could help them ask for the correct information for a warrant. My personal guess is that they are not from this area, possibly overseas from the US and using proxies that are nearby the target community. That means any looking into my network won't do any good except find any "exit nodes" in the TOR world, but there are several other ways to do the same thing, and too many to keep up. Eric Rogers PDS Connect www.pdsconnect.me (317) 831-3000 x200 -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 8:30 PM To: Notmatt Pleaseignore Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Anonymous Threats Report it to the authorities and trust that they can handle it,..no matter how difficult that is. Remember your place that you are just the admin/operator and not the hero. If they need your help, law enforcement will ask for it. Sucks but what would you do if you found his IP address? Go to his house? No matter what, law enforcement needs to own the problem. Thanks, Scott On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Notmatt Pleaseignore wrote: > I think if the FBI wants your help, they'll let you know. > > In the meantime, I would probably avoid anything that looked like you > are spying on your customers, especially if you are explicitly > targeting customers who are attempting to anonymize their traffic (for > whatever reason). No matter how well intentioned. I can see a number of downsides... > > But in simple terms, if its Facebook, its HTTPS, and seems you are > basically done there. Regardless what anonymous transport they use, > you wouldn't be able to see what they are up to... > On Jan 10, 2016 6:14 PM, "Josh Reynolds" > wrote: > > > Even if you find somebody running TOR, you can't see inside it. They > > also could simply be running an exit node, or $reason. > > On Jan 10, 2016 5:02 PM, "Eric Rogers" > wrote: > > > > > Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a > > > FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several > surrounding > > > schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... > > > This is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several > > > police/FBI raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. > > > He/she is taunting them, local and federal. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as > > > TOR or something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type > > > of traffic on my network? I want to make sure that they are not > > > using us as the source. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, > > > and it is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. > > > Preferably > off-list > > > if you do respond... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Rogers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.pdsconnect.me > > > > > > (317) 831-3000 x200 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Scott From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jan 11 02:25:07 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:25:07 -0500 Subject: Anonymous Threats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <203025.1452479107@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:45:25 -0500, "Eric Rogers" said: > Thank you for all that have responded, and this response has been the > majority, to leave well enough alone. I guess I was hoping that maybe I could > offer a new way to help narrow this search down. The only thing that's more likely to get you into trouble that acting "under color of law" (meaning doing it at the express request of law enforcement) is taking the same actions *not* under color of law (at which point it's your problem, not law enforcement's, if you break any laws). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From trelane at trelane.net Mon Jan 11 03:56:25 2016 From: trelane at trelane.net (Andrew Kirch) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 22:56:25 -0500 Subject: Anonymous Threats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have an idea. Indianapolis Cybercrime should stop playing politics and treat people like me who are willing to help, and were hugely successful with respect, and not like a mob informant. That said, post Snowden, I doubt I would go back... even with Brian Kils bullshit. Andrew D Kirch. On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Eric Rogers wrote: > Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a > FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several surrounding > schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This > is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI > raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. > He/she is taunting them, local and federal. > > > > I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or > something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic > on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the > source. > > > > Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it > is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably off-list > if you do respond... > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Eric Rogers > > > > > > www.pdsconnect.me > > (317) 831-3000 x200 > > > > From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 11 04:12:48 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:12:48 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> > On Jan 9, 2016, at 08:01 , Jeremy Austin wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> >> The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse >> to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have >> shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based >> on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) > > > I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal > coverage, but I'll abstain. > > Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users > using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. > > As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer > have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail > happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think > I disagree that it's the best model for everybody. As much as I love to criticize T-Mo for what they do wrong (and there?s plenty), this is one area where I think T-Mo has actually done something admirable. They have (sort of) usage-based billing. For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to 128kbps. You don?t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down. If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase additional data within that month on a one-time basis. I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming their prices weren?t too far out of line compared to T-Mo. > Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers > are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put > good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic > updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage > your bandwidth, in general: > > The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding > usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two > prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based > model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you > $4/week. Is this OK?? Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks. That?s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools, the customer has full choice and control about ?overage? costs even if their data usage remains somewhat opaque. > I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, > but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a > 'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and > you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it. Because their operating costs overall exceeded the value perceived by consumers. As a result, they could not sell their product to a critical mass of consumers at a price that would allow them to continue operations. > In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from > overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as > it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users > won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive > to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting > the growth of video or usage in general. How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are doing usage-based billing? If you?ve got an AYCE plan, you don?t have overages. If you don?t, then you have some form of usage based billing. The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less interesting exercise. Owen From swmike at swm.pp.se Mon Jan 11 06:27:15 2016 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:27:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Jeremy Austin wrote: > Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers > are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put > good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic > updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage > your bandwidth, in general: I encourage people to start engaging in the IETF MIF working group, that could be one piece of the puzzle to create this toolset for the customer. It would mean one can communicate properties for different network connections. Imagine you setting the mobile connection to "metered" and that you want to keep bw usage low on this link, then your applications could be configured (hopefully they would come with this as default) so that backups won't happen over this connection, and lower video bitrate is used than what TCP could indicate to the application is available. It's of course better if the application do these choices than for the ISP to have an middle-box that tries to affect applications by means of TCP rate-adaptation trickery. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From josh at kyneticwifi.com Mon Jan 11 09:04:05 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 03:04:05 -0600 Subject: Anonymous Threats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Was this intended for the list? It's a bit confusing. On Jan 10, 2016 9:58 PM, "Andrew Kirch" wrote: > I have an idea. Indianapolis Cybercrime should stop playing politics and > treat people like me who are willing to help, and were hugely successful > with respect, and not like a mob informant. > That said, post Snowden, I doubt I would go back... even with Brian Kils > bullshit. > > Andrew D Kirch. > > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Eric Rogers wrote: > > > Our local community has recently had threats where the user has a > > FaceBook profile and is threatening the schools, and several surrounding > > schools, saying he is going to shoot everyone and blow them up... This > > is an investigation, but it is getting out of hand. Several police/FBI > > raids, but yielded no results, and/or did not catch the right person. > > He/she is taunting them, local and federal. > > > > > > > > I would ASSUME he is using some sort of proxy/anonymizer such as TOR or > > something similar. Is there any way to sniff for that type of traffic > > on my network? I want to make sure that they are not using us as the > > source. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on how to catch this person? Even if it isn't us, and it > > is somewhere else I would like to put a stop to it. Preferably off-list > > if you do respond... > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > > > Eric Rogers > > > > > > > > > > > > www.pdsconnect.me > > > > (317) 831-3000 x200 > > > > > > > > > From dot at dotat.at Mon Jan 11 11:10:10 2016 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:10:10 +0000 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> References: <1520181533.7450.1452316663710.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> Message-ID: Alan Buxey wrote: > > Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly > by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my > phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and > itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in > the background. Audio and video need to be good. If throttling makes the data transfer take longer then it will hurt battery life. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Biscay, Fitzroy: West veering northwest, gale 8 to storm 10, decreasing 5 to 7. Very rough or high, becoming rough or very rough. Showers, thundery at first. Good, occasionally poor. From mstorck at voipgate.com Mon Jan 11 12:25:17 2016 From: mstorck at voipgate.com (Marc Storck) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:25:17 +0000 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact Message-ID: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> Hello, I?m looking for a Yahoo email administrator who could contact me offlist. I have a customer with a clean record that is getting thsi error: Error: "421 4.7.1 [TS03] All messages from x.x.x.x permanently deferred" when sending email to Yahoo The customer is a local non-profit and sends a very limited amount of emails to members, suppliers and other contacts. Mailing-lists are only used to contact members of the NPO. I checked the recommendation listed at https://help.yahoo.com/kb/postmaster/SLN3436.html and checked his IP address on several ?multi-rbl? lookup sites. All looks clean. So I need more input to understand what we need to correct. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards, Marc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From sander at steffann.nl Mon Jan 11 12:41:56 2016 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:41:56 +0100 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Hi Vint, > Op 11 jan. 2016, om 12:47 heeft Vint Cerf het volgende geschreven: > > since google is a major implementor of IPv6, some people might claim this is an attempt to artificially inflate scores for Google sites. Sigh. Sigh indeed. On the other hand: IPv6 is getting enough traction that it can't be considered a "Google thing". A thought: Maybe Google could announce that because of the increasing scarcity of IPv4 addresses and the rise of global IPv6 deployment Google is considering to start taking IPv6 reachability into account later this year. That would give the possibility for Google to watch how people respond before actually changing anything, it would take away some arguments of those that blame Google for artificially inflating scores (they have been warned long in advance) and it would make SEO companies more aware of IPv6 so they can start pushing the ISPs and hosters to support IPv6. Google already provides webmaster tools. Maybe showing a warning for websites that aren't reachable over IPv6 (or even worse: that have completely different content on IPv6) would be nice. Even if IPv6 reachability doesn't affect the page rank (yet) the number of users with IPv6+IPv4-CGN is growing so enabling IPv6 will have a positive impact on a growing number of eyeballs (see Facebook's experience with IPv6 performance). Showing warning messages on Google Webmaster Tools when the site is not reachable over IPv6 (and error messages when the IPv4 content is very different from the IPv6 content) would be nice. Even if Google gets so much pushback that they decide not to go forward with this at this point in time it might already cause some good awareness for IPv6. Even though IPv6 is growing all over the world I still think Google doing something like this would help a lot. Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nicolas.even at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 10:48:36 2016 From: nicolas.even at gmail.com (Nicolas Even) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:48:36 +0100 Subject: [TECH] PPPoE server on ASR 920 Message-ID: Hi. I need some help. I hope some of you are able to help me :) I configured a pppoe server on a brand new asr 920 plateform (advanced metro ip access) but it's not working. My set up is trivial : 1/ Add a bba-group and a virtual template : bba-group pppoe BBAPPPOE virtual-template 1 sessions per-mac limit 2 interface Virtual-Template1 ip unnumbered Loopback0 no peer default ip address ppp authentication pap CPE_USER 2/ Then, configure the Radius : aaa group server radius server auth-port 1812 acct-port 1813 ip radius source-interface Loopback0 ! aaa authentication ppp CPE_USER group aaa authorization network default group removed> radius-server host auth-port 1812 acct-port 1813 key 7 3/ Finally, I configured an interface accepting pppoe : interface GigabitEthernet0/0/4 description TEST-PPPOE no ip address media-type rj45 negotiation auto pppoe enable group BBAPPPOE A router, plugged on the interface Gi 0/0/4, is sending pado packets but ASR920 is not seeing these packets : Counters does not increment, debug says nothing. ASR920-ALE-1#sh pppoe statistics But I can see input packets with ASR920-ALE-1# sh interfaces Gi 0/0/4 Has anyone have experience with pppoe server on a ASR920 ? Thanks a lot :) Nicolas. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 11 13:37:51 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:37:51 +0200 Subject: GPON vs. GEPON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5693B02F.8090000@seacom.mu> On 9/Jan/16 08:45, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > There's a reason Google did 16 way splits, and yes, we have two paths we > are looking at for NG-PON2. One with Calix, another with another vendor. At previous job, we did 24x splits to guarantee 100Mbps to each home; up to 50Mbps for Internet Access, 26Mbps for two 1080p IPTV HD streams, and another 24Mbps for margin (which covered VoIP). At present job, we'll stick with Active-E. Mark. From sander at steffann.nl Mon Jan 11 14:07:16 2016 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:07:16 +0100 Subject: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration In-Reply-To: References: <50AB49EA.3030101@cis.vutbr.cz> <5687EE2E.4060709@cis.vutbr.cz> <568A56D4.1040800@tonal.clara.co.uk> <201C563E-5546-434A-B806-83C91184CC24@delong.com> <97867.1451942516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <101658.1451945370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <104672.1451947686@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: > Op 11 jan. 2016, om 15:05 heeft Vint Cerf het volgende geschreven: > > sounds like the Federal Reserve testing the waters with hints of increasing discount rate... :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Lee at asgard.org Mon Jan 11 16:28:15 2016 From: Lee at asgard.org (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:28:15 -0500 Subject: Nat In-Reply-To: <568F0540.1040200@dougbarton.us> References: <5E0884E1-952F-434D-B2F9-FDA87814A7EC@hrins.net> <770D0609-0A3A-4142-854F-210410682D69@isc.org> <6B6686E3-D30B-4E42-8F06-F8077D62894F@isc.org> <568F0540.1040200@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: On 1/7/16, 7:39 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Doug Barton" wrote: >On 12/18/2015 01:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote: >> >> >> On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach" > >>> I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around >>> to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 >>> when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not >>> allowing the DHCP server to assign a default >>> gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling >>> point for at least one large enterprise I'm aware >>> of. >> >> >> Tell me again why you want this, and not routing information from the >> router? > >C'mon Lee, stop pretending that you're interested in the answer to this >question, and wasting everyone's time in the process. You know the >answers, just as well as the people who would give them. I?m flattered that you think I know so much. Jared gave a useful reply, and I?m doing research before writing an internet-draft. > >>> Right now, the biggest obstacle to IPv6 >>> deployment seems to be the ivory-tower types >>> in the IETF that want to keep it pristine, vs >>> allowing it to work in the real world. >> >> There?s a mix of people at IETF, but more operator input there would be >> helpful. I have a particular draft in mind that is stuck between ?we?d >> rather delay IPv6 than do it wrong? and ?be realistic about how people >> will deploy it." > >On this topic the operator input has been clear for over a decade, and >yet the purists have blocked progress this whole time. The biggest >roadblock to IPv6 deployment are its most ardent "supporters." I don?t think IPv6 evangelists are in the way. I do think many enterprises don?t care about IPv6, and no protocol changes will make a difference. Some enterprise administrators wouldn?t mind deploying IPv6 as long as they don?t have to think about it. I think this is foolish: deploying a new Internet Protocol will not be simpler than deploying a new Spanning Tree or a new routing protocol. There are also enterprise administrators who have technical concerns; those are the ones I want to help. Lee From johnstong at westmancom.com Mon Jan 11 17:01:15 2016 From: johnstong at westmancom.com (Graham Johnston) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:01:15 +0000 Subject: IPv6 Implementation and CPE Behavior Message-ID: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B013694D930@MSG6.westman.int> Hi nanog, We are little behind in our IPv6 rollout are pushing to make big strides by the end of Q2. We have all of our core network and primary infrastructure dual-stack enabled at this point and our next step will be to move to dual-stack on our CMTSs. For those retail operators that have enabled dual-stack can you comment on behavior that you observed from customer CPE equipment after flipping the switch? Are most CPE devices generally not IPv6 capable in the first place? For those that are capable are they usually still configured with IPv6 disabled, requiring the customer to enable it? For those CPE that are capable and enabled, is there a common configuration such as full blown DHCPv6 with PD? For those that are responding I am primarily concerned about customer routers. I have followed the many discussions about Android phones that don't perform DHCPv6, and I am really concerned about these kind of issues as these devices basically won't be seen at the edge of the customer's network. If you have something else that you think is noteworthy, I'm all ears. Thanks, Graham Johnston Network Planner Westman Communications Group 204.717.2829 johnstong at westmancom.com P think green; don't print this email. From tarko at lanparty.ee Mon Jan 11 17:16:44 2016 From: tarko at lanparty.ee (Tarko Tikan) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:16:44 +0200 Subject: IPv6 Implementation and CPE Behavior In-Reply-To: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B013694D930@MSG6.westman.int> References: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B013694D930@MSG6.westman.int> Message-ID: <5693E37C.3020509@lanparty.ee> hey, > Are most CPE devices generally not IPv6 capable in the first place? For those that are capable are they usually still configured with IPv6 disabled, requiring the customer to enable it? For those CPE that are capable and enabled, is there a common configuration such as full blown DHCPv6 with PD? In my experience, IPv6 is mostly disabled. But this will vary from region to region due to different vendors on the market. When IPv6 is already enabled, it mostly is DHCPv6 PD, otherways it'll not really make sense as CPE. Some routers will also need M-bit set in the RA, others will just blindly do DHCPv6. But it tends to be PD _and_ NA, NA can or can not be annoying depending on your network setup. We have also seen issues with DHCP timers, make sure you have a way to protect your DHCP servers and relays when CPE starts sending out request every millisecond. -- tarko From zwicky at yahoo-inc.com Mon Jan 11 17:21:04 2016 From: zwicky at yahoo-inc.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:21:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> Message-ID: <1063345470.7983.1452532864518.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> http://postmaster.yahoo.com,?click on "Contact Us" at the top since your question isn't one of the giant ones in the middle of the page. Elizabeth Zwicky On Monday, January 11, 2016 4:28 AM, Marc Storck wrote: Hello, I?m looking for a Yahoo email administrator who could contact me offlist. I have a customer with a clean record that is getting thsi error: Error: "421 4.7.1 [TS03] All messages from x.x.x.x permanently deferred" when sending email to Yahoo The customer is a local non-profit and sends a very limited amount of emails to members, suppliers and other contacts. Mailing-lists are only used to contact members of the NPO. I checked the recommendation listed at https://help.yahoo.com/kb/postmaster/SLN3436.html and checked his IP address on several ?multi-rbl? lookup sites. All looks clean. So I need more input to understand what we need to correct. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards, Marc From jhaustin at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 18:00:55 2016 From: jhaustin at gmail.com (Jeremy Austin) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:00:55 -0900 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to > 128kbps. > > You don?t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down. > > If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase > additional > data within that month on a one-time basis. > > I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If > Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming > their prices weren?t too far out of line compared to T-Mo. > > This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy). I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite. > > > > The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a > free-feeding > > usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two > > prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based > > model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost > you > > $4/week. Is this OK?? > > Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce > stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control > pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without > warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks. > > That?s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools, > the customer has full choice and control about ?overage? costs even if > their data usage remains somewhat opaque. > >From what I understand, the controversy around T-Mo is that the technique itself was opaque, correct? If the Internet as a whole *had* an "SD" knob, like Netflix on AppleTV/etc., usage-billed customers would benefit ? as long as it was plainly spelled out. > > > > In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue > from > > overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as > > it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of > users > > won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little > incentive > > to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in > inhibiting > > the growth of video or usage in general. > > How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are > doing usage-based billing? If you?ve got an AYCE plan, you don?t have > overages. If you don?t, then you have some form of usage based billing. > > The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less > interesting exercise. > > Owen > > On a continuum, AYCE at one end, pay-by-the-bit at the other, and in between, usage caps. For the majority of customers on $provider network, caps are unnecessary; for them, the flat rate they pay is effectively an AYCE. Smaller stomachs, and they are paying a higher $/bit as they use less. Those who incur overages are experiencing usage-based billing. I agree it is uninteresting, but there it is. How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per customer referred to recently? From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 11 18:15:02 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:15:02 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:00 , Jeremy Austin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to 128kbps. > > You don?t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down. > > If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase additional > data within that month on a one-time basis. > > I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If > Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming > their prices weren?t too far out of line compared to T-Mo. > > > This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy). > > I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite. What is your favorite? > > > > > The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding > > usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two > > prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based > > model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you > > $4/week. Is this OK?? > > Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce > stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control > pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without > warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks. > > That?s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools, > the customer has full choice and control about ?overage? costs even if > their data usage remains somewhat opaque. > > From what I understand, the controversy around T-Mo is that the technique itself was opaque, correct? If the Internet as a whole *had* an "SD" knob, like Netflix on AppleTV/etc., usage-billed customers would benefit ? as long as it was plainly spelled out. Yes? And I?m in line criticizing T-Mobile for this. However, when it comes to the pricing model for data overages, there?s is the best I?ve seen yet. > > > > > In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from > > overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as > > it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users > > won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive > > to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting > > the growth of video or usage in general. > > How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are > doing usage-based billing? If you?ve got an AYCE plan, you don?t have > overages. If you don?t, then you have some form of usage based billing. > > The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less > interesting exercise. > > Owen > > > On a continuum, AYCE at one end, pay-by-the-bit at the other, and in between, usage caps. For the majority of customers on $provider network, caps are unnecessary; for them, the flat rate they pay is effectively an AYCE. Smaller stomachs, and they are paying a higher $/bit as they use less. Those who incur overages are experiencing usage-based billing. Another term for usage caps is ?usage tiers? where you select a tier that you live in and you pay a fine if you exceed your usage tier. However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your ?continuum? to be simply variations of usage-based billing. Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks like AYCE (until it doesn?t), but it certainly isn?t actually. > > I agree it is uninteresting, but there it is. > > How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per customer referred to recently? I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so that?s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide. Owen From james.cutler at consultant.com Mon Jan 11 18:23:10 2016 From: james.cutler at consultant.com (James R Cutler) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:23:10 -0500 Subject: IPv6 Implementation and CPE Behavior In-Reply-To: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B013694D930@MSG6.westman.int> References: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B013694D930@MSG6.westman.int> Message-ID: <4ADBA315-1048-40DF-8AD3-466B909ED515@consultant.com> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Graham Johnston wrote: > > Are most CPE devices generally not IPv6 capable in the first place? For those that are capable are they usually still configured with IPv6 disabled, requiring the customer to enable it? For those CPE that are capable and enabled, is there a common configuration such as full blown DHCPv6 with PD? I can?t speak regarding ?most CPE devices? but for CPE = Apple Airport Extreme ? At least since the AirPort Extreme 802.11n (AirPort5,117) was released in 2011, the hardware has supported native IPv6 routing and acceptance of PD from the WAN. ? The default configuration for firmware 7.7.3 is automatic WAN IPv6 configuration, native IPv6 routing, and, acceptance of PD from the WAN. End systems on the single LAN receive a /64. ? No DHCPv6 is provided to the LAN through firmware up to the current version 7.7.3. For all recent Windows, OS X, and. IOS versions, IPv6 ?just works? with the Airport default IPv6 configuration. Most users can not tell the difference. For those connected to ISPs that still can?t spell IPv6, I do manually set Internet Options to Configure IPv6: Link-local only. This should not make any difference, but it makes me and some eyeballs happier. James R. Cutler James.cutler at consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu From jhaustin at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 18:31:30 2016 From: jhaustin at gmail.com (Jeremy Austin) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:31:30 -0900 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> >> > This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access > Policy). > > I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness > models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite. > > > What is your favorite? > Does a dog have the Buddha nature? My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile. Pre-Title II classification, I had excellent success with per-flow equalization/fairness, but this is expensive and makes bandwidth guarantees difficult to manage. After, I've also had success with a) maintaining sane oversubscription ratios and b) using per-customer-class fairness balancing, and c) some experimentation with FQ-CODEL, although this is less neutral and still a gray area ? at least until I understand it better. > > > However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your > ?continuum? to be simply variations of usage-based billing. > > Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks > like AYCE (until it doesn?t), but it certainly isn?t actually. > I agree. > > > > How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per > customer referred to recently? > > > I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so > that?s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide. > Heh. Gary said it better ? it's about user density. All 7 billion aren't on one set of sectors. The architecture for "repeaters", as Gary pointed out, is suboptimal, which is why we rely so heavily on Wifi, and why the WISP world is up in arms over LTE-U. Or so it seems to me. And NYC is just now getting wifi in the tunnels? I apologize if this has grown off-topic. From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 11 18:37:51 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:37:51 -0800 Subject: IPv6 Implementation and CPE Behavior In-Reply-To: <4ADBA315-1048-40DF-8AD3-466B909ED515@consultant.com> References: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B013694D930@MSG6.westman.int> <4ADBA315-1048-40DF-8AD3-466B909ED515@consultant.com> Message-ID: <3C7A85BE-821B-4EA7-AF74-D2B707346FED@delong.com> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:23 , James R Cutler wrote: > >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Graham Johnston wrote: >> >> Are most CPE devices generally not IPv6 capable in the first place? For those that are capable are they usually still configured with IPv6 disabled, requiring the customer to enable it? For those CPE that are capable and enabled, is there a common configuration such as full blown DHCPv6 with PD? > > I can?t speak regarding ?most CPE devices? but for CPE = Apple Airport Extreme > > ? At least since the AirPort Extreme 802.11n (AirPort5,117) was released in 2011, the hardware has supported native IPv6 routing and acceptance of PD from the WAN. > > ? The default configuration for firmware 7.7.3 is automatic WAN IPv6 configuration, native IPv6 routing, and, acceptance of PD from the WAN. End systems on the single LAN receive a /64. To be more clear? The LAN receives a /64 from which end systems are able to construct one or more end system addresses using SLAAC. > > ? No DHCPv6 is provided to the LAN through firmware up to the current version 7.7.3. > The good news is that RDNSS is allegedly supported in recent firmware releases. Owen From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 11 18:40:09 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:40:09 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> Message-ID: <1AF6212D-7E69-4015-AACE-9A04CD87B694@delong.com> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:31 , Jeremy Austin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> >> >> >> This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy). >> >> I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite. > > What is your favorite? > > Does a dog have the Buddha nature? > > My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile. That?s not a billing model? We were talking about billing models. What?s your favorite billing model? > Pre-Title II classification, I had excellent success with per-flow equalization/fairness, but this is expensive and makes bandwidth guarantees difficult to manage. > > After, I've also had success with a) maintaining sane oversubscription ratios and b) using per-customer-class fairness balancing, and c) some experimentation with FQ-CODEL, although this is less neutral and still a gray area ? at least until I understand it better. Again, we are apparently talking apples and oranges. I?m talking about billing models and you?re talking about service delivery techniques. > However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your ?continuum? to be simply variations of usage-based billing. > > Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks like AYCE (until it doesn?t), but it certainly isn?t actually. > > I agree. > > >> >> >> How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per customer referred to recently? > > I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so that?s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide. > > Heh. Gary said it better ? it's about user density. All 7 billion aren't on one set of sectors. > > The architecture for "repeaters", as Gary pointed out, is suboptimal, which is why we rely so heavily on Wifi, and why the WISP world is up in arms over LTE-U. Or so it seems to me. > > And NYC is just now getting wifi in the tunnels? > > I apologize if this has grown off-topic. Meh, most useful threads wander significantly. Owen From jhaustin at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 19:07:08 2016 From: jhaustin at gmail.com (Jeremy Austin) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:07:08 -0900 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <1AF6212D-7E69-4015-AACE-9A04CD87B694@delong.com> References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> <1AF6212D-7E69-4015-AACE-9A04CD87B694@delong.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a > concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of > spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile. > > > That?s not a billing model? We were talking about billing models. > > What?s your favorite billing model? > Heh. I had said "fairness" ? perhaps we both support unfair billing but fair supply? Two sides of the same tarnished coin, supply and demand. Which model I prefer? Diogenes, when asked what kind of wine he liked best, replied "The wine of others." As a user in that top 10%, I like my bandwidth subsidized by my unwitting peers. As an ISP, I'm managing to sell it AYCE, but I'm small potatoes. My opinions are my own but largely informed by what I observe for customer satisfaction, contrasting models in an uncompetitive market. From mhardeman at ipifony.com Mon Jan 11 19:19:00 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:19:00 -0600 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 Message-ID: I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ray at orsiniit.com Mon Jan 11 19:21:36 2016 From: ray at orsiniit.com (Ray Orsini) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:21:36 -0500 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5fd85384e7c270ae1de5cf789d4901b9@mail.gmail.com> Ditto here. Seems like Matthew beat me to the question Regards, Ray Orsini ? CEO Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew D. Hardeman Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 2:19 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 11 19:21:08 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:21:08 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> <1AF6212D-7E69-4015-AACE-9A04CD87B694@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:07 , Jeremy Austin wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> >> >> My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile. > > That?s not a billing model? We were talking about billing models. > > What?s your favorite billing model? > > Heh. I had said "fairness" ? perhaps we both support unfair billing but fair supply? > > Two sides of the same tarnished coin, supply and demand. > > Which model I prefer? Diogenes, when asked what kind of wine he liked best, replied "The wine of others." > > As a user in that top 10%, I like my bandwidth subsidized by my unwitting peers. As an ISP, I'm managing to sell it AYCE, but I'm small potatoes. My opinions are my own but largely informed by what I observe for customer satisfaction, contrasting models in an uncompetitive market. As another user in that top 10%, I don?t mind paying the freight for the data I use and I pay the extra $30/month for an unlimited plan vs. the lower tiers at lower prices. OTOH, the other 4 lines on my account as lesser users, I?m accepting the free 1GB of LTE and then they run at 128k for the rest of the month. Two of these lines, however, are in the hands of teenagers, so I?m not willing to risk having to pay exhorbitant overage fees if they go over. That?s what keeps me on T-Mo at the moment. There?s no way to get on Verizon and not take an overage risk (short of just paying up front for huge amounts of data every month). With T-Mo, when they run out of data, they run out of fast data, but stuff doesn?t completely break. That?s a very nice solution for my niche. Owen From bjorn at mork.no Mon Jan 11 19:37:15 2016 From: bjorn at mork.no (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:37:15 +0100 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <1063345470.7983.1452532864518.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> (Elizabeth Zwicky via NANOG's message of "Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:21:04 +0000 (UTC)") References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> <1063345470.7983.1452532864518.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8760yzykk4.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Elizabeth Zwicky via NANOG writes: > "permanently deferred" Does not compute :) Bj?rn From chris.dye at paragon.net Mon Jan 11 20:01:42 2016 From: chris.dye at paragon.net (Christopher Dye) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:01:42 +0000 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: <5fd85384e7c270ae1de5cf789d4901b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <5fd85384e7c270ae1de5cf789d4901b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I just paid way too much from Hilco Streambank on Auction. I think I ended up spending about $2500 + ARIN fees (but I really needed it). www.ipv4auctions.com Christopher Dye Chief Technology Officer Paragon Solutions Group, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ray Orsini Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:22 PM To: Matthew D. Hardeman ; nanog at nanog.org Subject: RE: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 Ditto here. Seems like Matthew beat me to the question Regards, Ray Orsini ? CEO Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew D. Hardeman Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 2:19 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5669 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mhardeman at ipifony.com Mon Jan 11 20:07:08 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:07:08 -0600 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: <5fd85384e7c270ae1de5cf789d4901b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5ABF668D-C49E-4B2B-BB22-55D297265A2B@ipifony.com> So far, some of the off-list responses that I?ve seen from my inquiry are beating out the pricing that shows on Hilco Streambank?s site. > On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Christopher Dye wrote: > > I just paid way too much from Hilco Streambank on Auction. I think I ended up spending about $2500 + ARIN fees (but I really needed it). www.ipv4auctions.com > > Christopher Dye > Chief Technology Officer > Paragon Solutions Group, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ray Orsini > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:22 PM > To: Matthew D. Hardeman ; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: RE: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > Ditto here. Seems like Matthew beat me to the question > > Regards, > Ray Orsini ? CEO > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants > VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew D. > Hardeman > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 2:19 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nanog at ics-il.net Mon Jan 11 20:10:55 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:10:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Some expansions under my ISP hat may lead to needing some address space, so I'd be interested in where people are getting space from as well. Smaller blocks, though, /22 and smaller. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew D. Hardeman" To: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:19:00 PM Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? From jhaustin at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 20:24:44 2016 From: jhaustin at gmail.com (Jeremy Austin) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:24:44 -0900 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Some expansions under my ISP hat may lead to needing some address space, > so I'd be interested in where people are getting space from as well. > Smaller blocks, though, /22 and smaller. > Me too, but "will" instead of "may". Jeremy Austin From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jan 11 20:27:48 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:27:48 -0500 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> Message-ID: <11863.1452544068@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:25:17 +0000, Marc Storck said: > I'm looking for a Yahoo email administrator who could contact me offlist. > Error: "421 4.7.1 [TS03] All messages from x.x.x.x permanently deferred" If you find one, tell them to go look up the difference between 4xx and 5xx return codes. :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 11 21:42:21 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:42:21 -0800 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: <5fd85384e7c270ae1de5cf789d4901b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <957B28AF-35FE-4D35-AD63-5579997B90B0@delong.com> About $10/address seems to be the going rate, so why do you say you paid too much? Owen > On Jan 11, 2016, at 12:01 , Christopher Dye wrote: > > I just paid way too much from Hilco Streambank on Auction. I think I ended up spending about $2500 + ARIN fees (but I really needed it). www.ipv4auctions.com > > Christopher Dye > Chief Technology Officer > Paragon Solutions Group, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ray Orsini > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:22 PM > To: Matthew D. Hardeman ; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: RE: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > Ditto here. Seems like Matthew beat me to the question > > Regards, > Ray Orsini ? CEO > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants > VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew D. > Hardeman > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 2:19 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? From mureninc at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 21:54:42 2016 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:54:42 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> References: <48F8E80F-54C8-4A43-8E5E-9AE58156D68A@lboro.ac.uk> <1684836789.7512.1452348460438.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com> Message-ID: On 10 January 2016 at 20:12, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2016, at 08:01 , Jeremy Austin wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> >>> The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse >>> to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have >>> shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based >>> on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) >> >> >> I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal >> coverage, but I'll abstain. >> >> Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users >> using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. >> >> As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer >> have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail >> happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think >> I disagree that it's the best model for everybody. > > As much as I love to criticize T-Mo for what they do wrong (and there?s plenty), > this is one area where I think T-Mo has actually done something admirable. > > They have (sort of) usage-based billing. > > For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to 128kbps. > > You don?t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down. > > If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase additional > data within that month on a one-time basis. > > I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If > Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming > their prices weren?t too far out of line compared to T-Mo. Since you're bringing up 128kbps and Verizon, let me mention that a company by the name of RokMobile appears to be offering an unlimited 256kbps throttling over on Verizon network, with 5GB of (non-throttled?) 4G LTE, for 52,24 USD/mo after the 2,25 fees over the 49,99 list price (the fees appear to be identical regardless of the ZIP Code, go figure!). http://RokMobile.com/ http://reddit.com/r/RokMobile I haven't tried them yet, but I'm getting kinda sick of paying ~79$/mo for my 70$/mo Unlimited 4G plan with T-Mobile US, all the while they keep throttling my hotspot at 128kbps after 5GB now, all whilst effectively offering unlimited 1,5Mbps for all those chosen video providers. With the average web-pages being in the 3MB these days -- http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm -- it takes a whole lot of time to load up anything over 0.128Mbps (0.016MB/s). The unlimited 128kbps part gets less and less useful these days. There's now really little technical reason they can't bump 0.128Mbps to 1.5Mbps if you're on LTE. Nowadays, even 1.5Mbps is already slow enough that people will still notice that their connection is throttled. And it'll also be an incentive to move up to LTE -- right now, I have none, and I might as well be using as much spectrum at 128kbps on non-LTE as 1Mbps would cost on LTE. BTW, with the minimum transmissions sizes on airtime and such, I'm actually curious whether offering something like 256kbps, 512kbps or even 1Mbps over LTE might in reality cost exactly the same amount of airtime/spectrum as 128kbps over LTE. Anyone knows? Cheers, Constantine.SU. From selliott at getunwired.com Mon Jan 11 20:16:21 2016 From: selliott at getunwired.com (Shon Elliott) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:16:21 +0000 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> I also am interested in where people are finding blocks of /22 or smaller just in case. We have some blocks from Level 3, but eventually, we're going to be out. That being said, we did get our IPv6 /32 allocation from ARIN. If anyone has any ideas on how to properly deploy this in an ISP environment, I'd love to learn. I've read some whitepapers on the subject, but most of those deal with enterprise based networks, and not so much as a service provider. Kind Regards, Shon Elliott, KK6TOO unWired Broadband, Inc. www.getunwired.com -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:11 PM To: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 Some expansions under my ISP hat may lead to needing some address space, so I'd be interested in where people are getting space from as well. Smaller blocks, though, /22 and smaller. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew D. Hardeman" To: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:19:00 PM Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? From brough at netblazr.com Mon Jan 11 21:38:46 2016 From: brough at netblazr.com (Brough Turner) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:38:46 -0500 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: <5fd85384e7c270ae1de5cf789d4901b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Note that ARIN has a list of "Registered Transfer Facilitators" at: https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html I've just started look into buying a /20. So far, Hilco Streambank auction prices seemed better than the two other facilitators I have communicated with. If this whole topic is off target for this list, off list responses would be welcome..., also pointers to any other appropriate forum. Thanks, Brough Brough Turner netBlazr Inc. ? Free your Broadband! Mobile: 617-285-0433 Skype: brough netBlazr Inc. | Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Blog | Personal website On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Christopher Dye wrote: > I just paid way too much from Hilco Streambank on Auction. I think I ended > up spending about $2500 + ARIN fees (but I really needed it). > www.ipv4auctions.com > > Christopher Dye > Chief Technology Officer > Paragon Solutions Group, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ray Orsini > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:22 PM > To: Matthew D. Hardeman ; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: RE: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > Ditto here. Seems like Matthew beat me to the question > > Regards, > Ray Orsini ? CEO > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants > VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | > View Your Tickets > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew D. > Hardeman > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 2:19 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the > ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best > places to shop? > From hugo at slabnet.com Tue Jan 12 00:21:09 2016 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:21:09 -0800 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> Message-ID: <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> On Mon 2016-Jan-11 20:16:21 +0000, Shon Elliott wrote: >I also am interested in where people are finding blocks of /22 or smaller just in case. We have some blocks from Level 3, but eventually, we're going to be out. > >That being said, we did get our IPv6 /32 allocation from ARIN. If anyone has any ideas on how to properly deploy this in an ISP environment, I'd love to learn. I've read some whitepapers on the subject, but most of those deal with enterprise based networks, and not so much as a service provider. Probably others as well, but afaik RIPE NCC's courses are targeting the SP side a bit more to start getting your feet wet: https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses/ipv6/outline https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses/advanced-ipv6/outline How that interacts with your particular equipment etc. is a bigger question... > >Kind Regards, >Shon Elliott, KK6TOO >unWired Broadband, Inc. >www.getunwired.com > > -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett >Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:11 PM >To: North American Network Operators' Group >Subject: Re: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > >Some expansions under my ISP hat may lead to needing some address space, so I'd be interested in where people are getting space from as well. Smaller blocks, though, /22 and smaller. > > > > >----- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >Midwest Internet Exchange >http://www.midwest-ix.com > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Matthew D. Hardeman" >To: nanog at nanog.org >Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:19:00 PM >Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > >I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From selliott at getunwired.com Tue Jan 12 00:34:23 2016 From: selliott at getunwired.com (Shon Elliott) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:34:23 +0000 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE91C@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> Hi Hugo, Thanks for the response to the IPv6 part of my e-mail. Unfortunately, I don't think our company will send anyone to London for training. I would hope that there would be something in the United States that would be available. I know the IPv6 basics, just not real plan on deploying it on a service provider network. Kind Regards, Shon Elliott, KK6TOO unWired Broadband, Inc. www.getunwired.com -----Original Message----- From: Hugo Slabbert [mailto:hugo at slabnet.com] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:21 PM To: Shon Elliott Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] On Mon 2016-Jan-11 20:16:21 +0000, Shon Elliott wrote: >I also am interested in where people are finding blocks of /22 or smaller just in case. We have some blocks from Level 3, but eventually, we're going to be out. > >That being said, we did get our IPv6 /32 allocation from ARIN. If anyone has any ideas on how to properly deploy this in an ISP environment, I'd love to learn. I've read some whitepapers on the subject, but most of those deal with enterprise based networks, and not so much as a service provider. Probably others as well, but afaik RIPE NCC's courses are targeting the SP side a bit more to start getting your feet wet: https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses/ipv6/outline https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses/advanced-ipv6/outline How that interacts with your particular equipment etc. is a bigger question... > >Kind Regards, >Shon Elliott, KK6TOO >unWired Broadband, Inc. >www.getunwired.com > > -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett >Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:11 PM >To: North American Network Operators' Group >Subject: Re: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > >Some expansions under my ISP hat may lead to needing some address space, so I'd be interested in where people are getting space from as well. Smaller blocks, though, /22 and smaller. > > > > >----- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >Midwest Internet Exchange >http://www.midwest-ix.com > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Matthew D. Hardeman" >To: nanog at nanog.org >Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:19:00 PM >Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > >I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? > > From hugo at slabnet.com Tue Jan 12 00:43:18 2016 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:43:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE91C@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE91C@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> Message-ID: <12ada1f9.kqhkiG.15233497743@slabnet.com> Apologies; I had looked at some of the NCC's online material and got stuck in the "it's all online these days, right?" bubble... Excuse the noise... -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber also on Signal ---- From: Shon Elliott -- Sent: 2016-01-11 - 16:34 ---- > Hi Hugo, > > Thanks for the response to the IPv6 part of my e-mail. Unfortunately, I don't think our company will send anyone to London for training. I would hope that there would be something in the United States that would be available. I know the IPv6 basics, just not real plan on deploying it on a service provider network. > > Kind Regards, > Shon Elliott, KK6TOO > unWired Broadband, Inc. > www.getunwired.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hugo Slabbert [mailto:hugo at slabnet.com] > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:21 PM > To: Shon Elliott > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] > > On Mon 2016-Jan-11 20:16:21 +0000, Shon Elliott wrote: > >>I also am interested in where people are finding blocks of /22 or smaller just in case. We have some blocks from Level 3, but eventually, we're going to be out. >> >>That being said, we did get our IPv6 /32 allocation from ARIN. If anyone has any ideas on how to properly deploy this in an ISP environment, I'd love to learn. I've read some whitepapers on the subject, but most of those deal with enterprise based networks, and not so much as a service provider. > > Probably others as well, but afaik RIPE NCC's courses are targeting the SP side a bit more to start getting your feet wet: > > https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses/ipv6/outline > https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses/advanced-ipv6/outline > > How that interacts with your particular equipment etc. is a bigger question... > >> >>Kind Regards, >>Shon Elliott, KK6TOO >>unWired Broadband, Inc. >>www.getunwired.com >> >> > > -- > Hugo > > hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber > PGP fingerprint (B178313E): > CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E > > (also on Signal) > >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:11 PM >>To: North American Network Operators' Group >>Subject: Re: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 >> >>Some expansions under my ISP hat may lead to needing some address space, so I'd be interested in where people are getting space from as well. Smaller blocks, though, /22 and smaller. >> >> >> >> >>----- >>Mike Hammett >>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >>Midwest Internet Exchange >>http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >> >>From: "Matthew D. Hardeman" >>To: nanog at nanog.org >>Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:19:00 PM >>Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 >> >>I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 870 bytes Desc: PGP/MIME digital signature URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 12 00:52:06 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:52:06 -0800 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 11, 2016, at 16:21 , Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > On Mon 2016-Jan-11 20:16:21 +0000, Shon Elliott wrote: > >> I also am interested in where people are finding blocks of /22 or smaller just in case. We have some blocks from Level 3, but eventually, we're going to be out. >> >> That being said, we did get our IPv6 /32 allocation from ARIN. If anyone has any ideas on how to properly deploy this in an ISP environment, I'd love to learn. I've read some whitepapers on the subject, but most of those deal with enterprise based networks, and not so much as a service provider. Step 1: Figure out what size block you should have requested and go back and get that. Sure, that?s a little bit flip, but I?m actually serious. Most ISPs will need more than a /32 unless they are fairly trivial. Instead of starting from a /32 and figuring out how to squeeze your customers into it, you should start from the number of end-sites you expect to serve from your largest serving site (POP or other aggregation point in your network) in the next, say 5 years. Round that up to a nibble boundary with 25% free. For example, if your largest site has fewer than 192 end-sites served, 8 bits is enough. If you have 192 or more but less than 3072, 12 bits is enough. IF you have a million customers in your largest serving site, you?re looking at 20 bits or more per serving site. Next, figure out the number of serving sites you expect to have in the next 5 years and round that up to a nibble boundary (again with 25% free). So, if you expect to have more than 12, but fewer than 192 serving sites, 8 bits is enough. Fewer than 12, you can get by with 4 bits. From 192-3071, 12 bits. Now, add those two sets of bits together and subtract from 48. That?s your prefix size that you need to ask for. I?m quite certain you can get that size prefix if you?ve done the exercise correctly because that?s exactly how the policy is written. Owen From james.cutler at consultant.com Tue Jan 12 01:19:32 2016 From: james.cutler at consultant.com (James R Cutler) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:19:32 -0500 Subject: IPv6 Implementation and CPE Behavior In-Reply-To: <3C7A85BE-821B-4EA7-AF74-D2B707346FED@delong.com> References: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B013694D930@MSG6.westman.int> <4ADBA315-1048-40DF-8AD3-466B909ED515@consultant.com> <3C7A85BE-821B-4EA7-AF74-D2B707346FED@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 11, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:23 , James R Cutler wrote: >> >>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Graham Johnston wrote: >>> >>> Are most CPE devices generally not IPv6 capable in the first place? For those that are capable are they usually still configured with IPv6 disabled, requiring the customer to enable it? For those CPE that are capable and enabled, is there a common configuration such as full blown DHCPv6 with PD? >> >> I can?t speak regarding ?most CPE devices? but for CPE = Apple Airport Extreme >> >> ? At least since the AirPort Extreme 802.11n (AirPort5,117) was released in 2011, the hardware has supported native IPv6 routing and acceptance of PD from the WAN. >> >> ? The default configuration for firmware 7.7.3 is automatic WAN IPv6 configuration, native IPv6 routing, and, acceptance of PD from the WAN. End systems on the single LAN receive a /64. > > To be more clear? The LAN receives a /64 from which end systems are able to construct one or more end system addresses using SLAAC. I tried to keep it simple - my original draft said ?All end systems on the LAN receive the same /64 prefix in RAs, even if the ISP has delegated a /56, for example. It was altogether too wordy so I excised about half of the original text. Maybe I went too far. > >> >> ? No DHCPv6 is provided to the LAN through firmware up to the current version 7.7.3. >> > > The good news is that RDNSS is allegedly supported in recent firmware releases. I have found no documentation from Apple or in the Airport Utility GUI that mentions it. I have figured out some of IPv6 entries in .baseconfig files, but none for RDNSS. The bad news is that I have yet to really understand RDNSS in the context of OS X. I don?t find any recognizable mention in sysctl inet6 parameters. OS X El Capitan systems autoconfigure the LAN/64:EUI-64 address of the Airport Extreme along with the IPv4 nnn.nnn.nnn..1 address as DNS server addresses. Windows 10 appears to do the same. (I haven?t bothered to look into Windows internals. I don?t get paid to do that anymore.) I keep IPv6 disabled on my Snow Leopard Server instances, both because no IPv6 DNS server address is ever autoconfigured and because none of those instances should ever get incoming IPv6 traffic. > > Owen Thanks for your comments. James R. Cutler James.cutler at consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu From nanog at ics-il.net Tue Jan 12 01:41:49 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:41:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1871173532.1132.1452562940204.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> I spent about five minutes looking for that list earlier today and couldn't find it. Thanks, Brough. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brough Turner" To: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 3:38:46 PM Subject: Re: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 Note that ARIN has a list of "Registered Transfer Facilitators" at: https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html I've just started look into buying a /20. So far, Hilco Streambank auction prices seemed better than the two other facilitators I have communicated with. If this whole topic is off target for this list, off list responses would be welcome..., also pointers to any other appropriate forum. Thanks, Brough Brough Turner netBlazr Inc. ? Free your Broadband! Mobile: 617-285-0433 Skype: brough netBlazr Inc. | Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Blog | Personal website On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Christopher Dye wrote: > I just paid way too much from Hilco Streambank on Auction. I think I ended > up spending about $2500 + ARIN fees (but I really needed it). > www.ipv4auctions.com > > Christopher Dye > Chief Technology Officer > Paragon Solutions Group, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ray Orsini > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:22 PM > To: Matthew D. Hardeman ; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: RE: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > Ditto here. Seems like Matthew beat me to the question > > Regards, > Ray Orsini ? CEO > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants > VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | > View Your Tickets > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew D. > Hardeman > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 2:19 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the > ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best > places to shop? > From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 01:57:19 2016 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:57:19 -0500 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: <1871173532.1132.1452562940204.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1871173532.1132.1452562940204.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: If you aren't advised to at least analyze the potential to avoid buying and using v6, you'd be getting bad advice. With that said: For large blocks, >/16, you're going to want to work with a *reputable* broker that understands how the market works. The two I am consistent in pointing to are Addrex and Hilco Streambank. They seem to be both reputable and knowledgeable. There are many others. You can speak with each if necessary and ask about experiences. Being registered with an RIR is not a requirement to participate in the market as a broker. For the smallish blocks, < /16, I'd point to the Hilco auction platform. Appears to be able to process small transactions reliably and you can price track with the public data. And it's automated. There are pitfalls when acquiring IPv4 addresses, including whether you want them to be assets or to be leases. The regions are treating legacy addresses and transfers differently. V4 addresses are usable globally and there are enough people here as well as broker knowledge to help you navigate that as well. Brokers can guide you through these decisions and which markets to acquire them in based on your needs and objectives, which RIRs to work with and how to transfer addresses. I've been recommending folks avoid transferring space from friends. Failed transactions can be costly in many ways. YMMV. Best, -M< On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Shon Elliott wrote: > I also am interested in where people are finding blocks of /22 or smaller > just in case. We have some blocks from Level 3, but eventually, we're going > to be out. > > That being said, we did get our IPv6 /32 allocation from ARIN. If anyone > has any ideas on how to properly deploy this in an ISP environment, I'd > love to learn. I've read some whitepapers on the subject, but most of those > deal with enterprise based networks, and not so much as a service provider. > > Kind Regards, > Shon Elliott, KK6TOO > unWired Broadband, Inc. > www.getunwired.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:11 PM > To: North American Network Operators' Group > Subject: Re: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > Some expansions under my ISP hat may lead to needing some address space, > so I'd be interested in where people are getting space from as well. > Smaller blocks, though, /22 and smaller. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Matthew D. Hardeman" > To: nanog at nanog.org > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:19:00 PM > Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 > > I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the > ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best > places to shop? > > > From rafaelpossa at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 02:00:55 2016 From: rafaelpossa at gmail.com (Rafael Possamai) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:00:55 -0600 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you apply for an IPv6 block, as an ISP, and you have the intention of truly utilizing it, then you can apply for a /24 to facilitate that transition. It will cost you about $1500 or so, which is about half of what a /24 is going for in the transfer market. Thing is, if you take the IPv6 block just to use the /24 they give you, then one could argue you are cheating the system. On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the > ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best > places to shop? > > From mhardeman at ipifony.com Tue Jan 12 02:35:45 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:35:45 -0600 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I?m aware of the /24 block for facilitation concept, but my client?s use case can qualify as an end-user rather than as an ISP, thus their annual operating cost is smaller than even the X-SMALL ISP category, which they?d land in ? if they opted for the smaller /36 initial IPv6 direct allocation, rather than the default /32 direct allocation. That seems to balance toward buying an existing /24. > On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote: > > If you apply for an IPv6 block, as an ISP, and you have the intention of truly utilizing it, then you can apply for a /24 to facilitate that transition. > > It will cost you about $1500 or so, which is about half of what a /24 is going for in the transfer market. > > Thing is, if you take the IPv6 block just to use the /24 they give you, then one could argue you are cheating the system. > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman > wrote: > I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafaelpossa at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 02:43:32 2016 From: rafaelpossa at gmail.com (Rafael Possamai) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:43:32 -0600 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Makes sense. In that case, I think only way out is to go through a broker to find a suitable party for a transfer. I would read the rules and regulations regarding transfer of ARIN blocks, they have some details and the process requires some paperwork. On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > I?m aware of the /24 block for facilitation concept, but my client?s use > case can qualify as an end-user rather than as an ISP, thus their annual > operating cost is smaller than even the X-SMALL ISP category, which they?d > land in ? if they opted for the smaller /36 initial IPv6 direct allocation, > rather than the default /32 direct allocation. > > That seems to balance toward buying an existing /24. > > > On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Rafael Possamai > wrote: > > If you apply for an IPv6 block, as an ISP, and you have the intention of > truly utilizing it, then you can apply for a /24 to facilitate that > transition. > > It will cost you about $1500 or so, which is about half of what a /24 is > going for in the transfer market. > > Thing is, if you take the IPv6 block just to use the /24 they give you, > then one could argue you are cheating the system. > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < > mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote: > >> I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the >> ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best >> places to shop? >> >> > > From dougb at dougbarton.us Tue Jan 12 04:01:00 2016 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:01:00 -0800 Subject: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. In-Reply-To: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <11769.1452224600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <56947A7C.6040709@dougbarton.us> T-Mobile CEO Apologizes For ?Offending? EFF And Its Supporters After an aggressive response to his company, T-Mobile, being called out for being anti-Net Neutrality on its new ?Binge On? product by the EFF, CEO John Legere has backtracked a bit. In case you missed it, he flippantly asked ?Who the fuck is the EFF?? during a Twitter Q&A last week. http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/11/t-mobile-ceo-apologizes-for-offending-eff-and-its-supporters/ From frnkblk at iname.com Tue Jan 12 04:38:43 2016 From: frnkblk at iname.com (frnkblk at iname.com) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:38:43 -0600 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <002e01d14cf3$1f5568b0$5e003a10$@iname.com> I plan to continue living in a rural area with a GSM provider that will support 2G. =) Frank -----Original Message----- From: John Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com] Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 5:24 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Cc: frnkblk at iname.com Subject: Re: SMS gateways In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, needing a reboot every few months, >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. What do you plan to do instead next year? From mstorck at voipgate.com Tue Jan 12 09:46:04 2016 From: mstorck at voipgate.com (Marc Storck) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:46:04 +0000 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <11863.1452544068@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> <11863.1452544068@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <9BB8810A-422F-445D-852A-0DCB77667123@voipgate.com> Yes this one intrigued me as well, especially as one of the suggestions provided: https://help.yahoo.com/kb/postmaster/review-practices-senders-sln3435.html Which states: If your messages are being blocked, look closely at any SMTP error codes our mail servers are returning and make sure you're addressing the problem: [?] Retry 4xx messages - This is a temporary error. (sic) [?] Regards, Marc > On 11 Jan 2016, at 21:27, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:25:17 +0000, Marc Storck said: >> I'm looking for a Yahoo email administrator who could contact me offlist. > >> Error: "421 4.7.1 [TS03] All messages from x.x.x.x permanently deferred" > > If you find one, tell them to go look up the difference between 4xx and 5xx > return codes. :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mstorck at voipgate.com Tue Jan 12 09:47:51 2016 From: mstorck at voipgate.com (Marc Storck) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:47:51 +0000 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> Message-ID: Today the situation cleared on it?s own as it appears. (at least I haven?t been notified of any human action) Thanks to all those replying on and off list. Regards, Marc > On 11 Jan 2016, at 13:25, Marc Storck wrote: > > Hello, > > I?m looking for a Yahoo email administrator who could contact me offlist. > > I have a customer with a clean record that is getting thsi error: > > Error: "421 4.7.1 [TS03] All messages from x.x.x.x permanently deferred" when sending email to Yahoo > > The customer is a local non-profit and sends a very limited amount of emails to members, suppliers and other contacts. Mailing-lists are only used to contact members of the NPO. > > I checked the recommendation listed at > https://help.yahoo.com/kb/postmaster/SLN3436.html > > and checked his IP address on several ?multi-rbl? lookup sites. All looks clean. > > So I need more input to understand what we need to correct. > > Thank you very much in advance. > > Best regards, > > Marc > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From adamkennedy at watchcomm.net Tue Jan 12 05:56:22 2016 From: adamkennedy at watchcomm.net (Adam Kennedy) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:56:22 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> <002e01d14cf3$1f5568b0$5e003a10$@iname.com> Message-ID: I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network. Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to send SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's were $20 I think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan. Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer Broadband Networks A Watch Communications Company PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com www.broadbandnetworks.com On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Adam Kennedy wrote: > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network. > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that > makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a Debian box > and I'm able to use smstools open source software to send SMS from the unit > directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's were $20 I think and cost us > about $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan. > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > Broadband Networks > > A Watch Communications Company > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38 PM, wrote: > >> I plan to continue living in a rural area with a GSM provider that will >> support 2G. =) >> >> Frank >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com] >> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 5:24 PM >> To: nanog at nanog.org >> Cc: frnkblk at iname.com >> Subject: Re: SMS gateways >> >> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: >> >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: >> http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms >> > >> >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, >> needing a reboot every few months, >> >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. >> >> It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a >> 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off >> their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is >> already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. >> >> What do you plan to do instead next year? >> >> >> >> > From max at stucchi.ch Tue Jan 12 10:34:13 2016 From: max at stucchi.ch (Massimiliano Stucchi) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:34:13 +0100 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: <12ada1f9.kqhkiG.15233497743@slabnet.com> References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE91C@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <12ada1f9.kqhkiG.15233497743@slabnet.com> Message-ID: <5694D6A5.107@stucchi.ch> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi, On 12/01/16 01:43, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > Apologies; I had looked at some of the NCC's online material and > got stuck in the "it's all online these days, right?" bubble... the RIPE NCC does have material that anybody can use, and is available online. There are webinars about how to prepare an IPv6 Addressing Plan (https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/webinars/ipv6-addres sing-plan), also available as a recording here: https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/webinars/webinar-reco rdings/webinar-ipv6-addressing-plan More important, there's the RIPE NCC Academy: https://academy.ripe.net Which has an IPv6 Training Course, and is available to everyone for free . While these resources are not covering everything you need to know in order to implement IPv6 in an ISP environment, I'm sure they really help getting you started. Disclaimer: I work in the training department at the RIPE NCC (and yes, it's me in the Addressing Plan webinar video!), but I'm not representing RIPE NCC here. If you have any other question on the material/courses/anything, please feel free to email me. Ciao! - -- Massimiliano Stucchi MS16801-RIPE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWlNalAAoJEM8nRl51Qbrl+CoIAIs2qS8ZHCX4CcFx0mVtT0Lu VvOBf5pGQ8CKaBI8kGS5o0nTS+2INj3o5Xn4SDBOy90V+QM1q+IjivuQQSSqhxTx 261wxP6aR4b4RMaL6ZuTOFXSPdIEQ3mEV0wI1YIo2W38cYNQBBFf84GEtc6U7wVo 8ygrIeSOmUUdyEUa33vr+RzxHuiwbOC60A4w+wKpRe+hvSuyMDDKSChieN8Dt08B ZcQ6HlerkfuwX25xO5E4dXHYsk329GBA5bXgT7sjlXotarUaCwCQlM6spwelON9b 6pgxEYpLuOA2HfYZ6tU/WfoO+cKHIUV+dAF5RxPB93Y+g3E3iooBs0362ZDA0J4= =K/7Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ray at orsiniit.com Tue Jan 12 13:08:10 2016 From: ray at orsiniit.com (Ray Orsini) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:08:10 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> <002e01d14cf3$1f5568b0$5e003a10$@iname.com> Message-ID: We use those a lot with mobile hotspots. Where did you find them for $20? We usually pay about 2x that much for used untis. Regards, Ray Orsini ? CEO Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:56 AM To: frnkblk at iname.com Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: SMS gateways I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network. Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to send SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's were $20 I think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan. Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer Broadband Networks A Watch Communications Company PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com www.broadbandnetworks.com On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Adam Kennedy wrote: > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network. > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that > makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a > Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to send > SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's were $20 I > think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan. > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > Broadband Networks > > A Watch Communications Company > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38 PM, wrote: > >> I plan to continue living in a rural area with a GSM provider that >> will support 2G. =) >> >> Frank >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com] >> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 5:24 PM >> To: nanog at nanog.org >> Cc: frnkblk at iname.com >> Subject: Re: SMS gateways >> >> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: >> >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: >> http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms >> > >> >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't >> >stable, >> needing a reboot every few months, >> >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. >> >> It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a >> 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off >> their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is >> already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. >> >> What do you plan to do instead next year? >> >> >> >> > From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jan 12 14:04:54 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:04:54 +0200 Subject: [TECH] PPPoE server on ASR 920 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56950806.6090502@seacom.mu> On 11/Jan/16 12:48, Nicolas Even wrote: > > Has anyone have experience with pppoe server on a ASR920 ? I can't say for sure, but I'm almost certain you can't configure the ASR920 as a BRAS. The ASR920 is a Metro-E platform first and foremost. It is running IOS XE, so it's possible that some commands exist, but do nothing. Of course, I could be wrong. Check with your SE. Mark. From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 15:08:59 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:08:59 +0100 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: Do you seek information on how to plan subnetting or on more technical issues like how to dual stack your network? In the later case, you would need to tell more about your network. Eg. if you have a MPLS network (like we do) and you have your internet in a L3VPN enabling IPv6 is really easy and has almost no impact on the network. As an alternative to the plan that Owen describes, I can offer the way we did it: Our IPv6 address plan is tied to our IPv4 addressing, such that there is a mapping from IPv4 address to IPv6 /48 prefix. That way we do not need to allocate IPv6 as such. The mapping is a database with IPv4 /24 as key and IPv6 /40 as value. Example: 85.204.120.0/24 maps to 2a00:7660:500::/40. Take the user with the IPv4 address 85.204.120.12. This address maps to 2a00:7660:50b::/48. Note that 12 is "0b" in hexadecimal. We are an eyeball network where most users have only one single IPv4 address. We assign the IPv4 addresses statically (never changes). A few users bought extra IPv4 address and that creates a hole in our address plan, but we do not care. Officially the extra /48 is not assigned to the user, because that would be against the rules. Our address plan creates a very efficient allocation scheme, that is not strictly needed as you have the more loose ARIN rules (we are in RIPE). Regards, Baldur From bjorn at mork.no Tue Jan 12 15:30:05 2016 From: bjorn at mork.no (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:30:05 +0100 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: (Adam Kennedy's message of "Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:56:22 -0500") References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> <002e01d14cf3$1f5568b0$5e003a10$@iname.com> Message-ID: <87oacqvmrm.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Adam Kennedy writes: > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network. > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that > makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a Debian box > and I'm able to use smstools open source software to send SMS from the unit > directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's were $20 I think and cost us > about $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan. Note that messaging in LTE networks tend to use IP, just like voice in LTE networks. It seems a little awkward having to use an LTE device just to set up a dedicated IP VPN for SMS delivery if you have any other fixed IP access at the site... But I guess hiding all the nasty IMS implementation details in the LTE module firmware, controlling it by standard GSM AT commands, has some benefit here. At least the firmware source code is unavailable so you don't see how hideous it is :) Bj?rn From bjorn at mork.no Tue Jan 12 15:33:00 2016 From: bjorn at mork.no (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:33:00 +0100 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: (Baldur Norddahl's message of "Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:08:59 +0100") References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: <87k2nevmmr.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Baldur Norddahl writes: > Note that 12 is "0b" in hexadecimal. Only when gravity is negative IIRC. Bj?rn From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 17:18:40 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:18:40 +0100 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: <87k2nevmmr.fsf@nemi.mork.no> References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> <87k2nevmmr.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Message-ID: Yes sorry I have program to do the calculation in production. Correcting the bug is left as an exercise for the reader. Regards Baldur Den 12/01/2016 16.33 skrev "Bj?rn Mork" : > Baldur Norddahl writes: > > > Note that 12 is "0b" in hexadecimal. > > Only when gravity is negative IIRC. > > > Bj?rn > From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 12 18:03:09 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:03:09 -0800 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 12, 2016, at 07:08 , Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > Do you seek information on how to plan subnetting or on more technical > issues like how to dual stack your network? In the later case, you would > need to tell more about your network. Eg. if you have a MPLS network (like > we do) and you have your internet in a L3VPN enabling IPv6 is really easy > and has almost no impact on the network. > > As an alternative to the plan that Owen describes, I can offer the way we > did it: Our IPv6 address plan is tied to our IPv4 addressing, such that > there is a mapping from IPv4 address to IPv6 /48 prefix. That way we do not > need to allocate IPv6 as such. How do you expect that to work out when you have customers without IPv4 addresses or once you start having to share IPv4 addresses among customers? > > The mapping is a database with IPv4 /24 as key and IPv6 /40 as value. > Example: > > 85.204.120.0/24 maps to 2a00:7660:500::/40. > > Take the user with the IPv4 address 85.204.120.12. This address maps to > 2a00:7660:50b::/48. Note that 12 is "0b" in hexadecimal. > > We are an eyeball network where most users have only one single IPv4 > address. We assign the IPv4 addresses statically (never changes). A few > users bought extra IPv4 address and that creates a hole in our address > plan, but we do not care. Officially the extra /48 is not assigned to the > user, because that would be against the rules. > > Our address plan creates a very efficient allocation scheme, that is not > strictly needed as you have the more loose ARIN rules (we are in RIPE). Your address plan ties your future to your legacy technology that you should be looking forward to deprecating and places limitations on your future addressing that are coupled to the shortcomings of the legacy addressing capabilities. I encourage my competitors to attempt this strategy. Owen From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 18:44:06 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:44:06 +0100 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: On 12 January 2016 at 19:03, Owen DeLong wrote: > > As an alternative to the plan that Owen describes, I can offer the way we > > did it: Our IPv6 address plan is tied to our IPv4 addressing, such that > > there is a mapping from IPv4 address to IPv6 /48 prefix. That way we do > not > > need to allocate IPv6 as such. > > How do you expect that to work out when you have customers without IPv4 > addresses > or once you start having to share IPv4 addresses among customers? > > I fear I will be retired before the first happens. As to the second, even with CGN they will have an internal IPv4 that can be used for the mapping. Please also take notice that there is nothing that prevents you from reversing the mapping: assign /48 to customers and then calculate the IPv4 from that. The point here is just that you do not really need to do the work twice. The limitation of the system is that it requires a dense scheme for allocating /48 to customers. Unfortunately that is already a requirement in RIPE land, so it does not add something new. > Your address plan ties your future to your legacy technology that you > should > be looking forward to deprecating and places limitations on your future > addressing that are coupled to the shortcomings of the legacy addressing > capabilities. > > I would say it saves you from doing a lot of work. It will be a long time before you can skip the IPv4 part entirely and just do IPv6. The exception being if you use certain transition technologies that tunnels IPv4 on top of an IPv6 only network, in which case I would probably do something different (or maybe not). My scheme works for our network, which uses L3VPN and MPLS. > I encourage my competitors to attempt this strategy. > I do not believe we have ever been competitors... Regards, Baldur From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 12 18:54:49 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:54:49 -0800 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201E8FEB-3571-4C6F-AC4E-0C9080C2F544@delong.com> As an end user, you can get an IPv6 /48 and still qualify for the /24 of transitional space as well. Owen > On Jan 11, 2016, at 18:35 , Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > > I?m aware of the /24 block for facilitation concept, but my client?s use case can qualify as an end-user rather than as an ISP, thus their annual operating cost is smaller than even the X-SMALL ISP category, which they?d land in ? if they opted for the smaller /36 initial IPv6 direct allocation, rather than the default /32 direct allocation. > > That seems to balance toward buying an existing /24. > >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote: >> >> If you apply for an IPv6 block, as an ISP, and you have the intention of truly utilizing it, then you can apply for a /24 to facilitate that transition. >> >> It will cost you about $1500 or so, which is about half of what a /24 is going for in the transfer market. >> >> Thing is, if you take the IPv6 block just to use the /24 they give you, then one could argue you are cheating the system. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman > wrote: >> I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? >> >> > From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 12 19:03:33 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:03:33 -0800 Subject: Deploying IPv6 in an ISP network [ was: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 ] In-Reply-To: References: <2048326078.131.1452543114019.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <2FC66B6EEF733844895E94A7FEE4FA527DE169@mbx032-e1-va-4.exch032.serverpod.net> <20160112002109.GA20890@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:44 , Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > On 12 January 2016 at 19:03, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> As an alternative to the plan that Owen describes, I can offer the way we >>> did it: Our IPv6 address plan is tied to our IPv4 addressing, such that >>> there is a mapping from IPv4 address to IPv6 /48 prefix. That way we do >> not >>> need to allocate IPv6 as such. >> >> How do you expect that to work out when you have customers without IPv4 >> addresses >> or once you start having to share IPv4 addresses among customers? >> >> > I fear I will be retired before the first happens. As to the second, even > with CGN they will have an internal IPv4 that can be used for the mapping. Sure, there are ways to work around whatever you need. > > Please also take notice that there is nothing that prevents you from > reversing the mapping: assign /48 to customers and then calculate the IPv4 > from that. The point here is just that you do not really need to do the > work twice. OK? Now you?ve got a customer that has their own internal network serving a campus with 12 buildings and also they have a WAN connecting 18 remote sites. All of this is behind NAT with a single IPv4 from you. How do you give them the 30 /48s that they should be receiving for that network with your current scheme? > The limitation of the system is that it requires a dense scheme for > allocating /48 to customers. Unfortunately that is already a requirement in > RIPE land, so it does not add something new. Actuallly, it isn?t. You can use a sparse allocation scheme in RIPE land, but in all RIRs, the only limitation is that you don?t get more space until your sparse scheme gets relatively densely packed. Thats intentional and it?s not a bad thing. >> Your address plan ties your future to your legacy technology that you >> should >> be looking forward to deprecating and places limitations on your future >> addressing that are coupled to the shortcomings of the legacy addressing >> capabilities. >> >> > I would say it saves you from doing a lot of work. It will be a long time > before you can skip the IPv4 part entirely and just do IPv6. The exception > being if you use certain transition technologies that tunnels IPv4 on top > of an IPv6 only network, in which case I would probably do something > different (or maybe not). My scheme works for our network, which uses L3VPN > and MPLS. I expect it will be about 4 years before we start seeing eyeball networks discontinuing support for IPv4 or at least charging a premium for it. There are already a growing number of networks that are, in fact, providing IPv4 only as a tunnel over IPv6. > > >> I encourage my competitors to attempt this strategy. >> > > I do not believe we have ever been competitors? We haven?t. I didn?t say I was encouraging you to attempt this strategy. I did say that I believe my competitors applying this strategy would work out in my favor. Owen From jim at reptiles.org Tue Jan 12 19:15:28 2016 From: jim at reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:15:28 -0500 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: <201E8FEB-3571-4C6F-AC4E-0C9080C2F544@delong.com> References: <201E8FEB-3571-4C6F-AC4E-0C9080C2F544@delong.com> Message-ID: <20160112191528.GA63167@reptiles.org> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:54:49AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > As an end user, you can get an IPv6 /48 and still qualify for the /24 of transitional space as well. did ARIN hold back some blocks to service the 'transitional space', or would that be going to the STLS list? --jim > > Owen > > > On Jan 11, 2016, at 18:35 , Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > > > > I???m aware of the /24 block for facilitation concept, but my client???s use case can qualify as an end-user rather than as an ISP, thus their annual operating cost is smaller than even the X-SMALL ISP category, which they???d land in ??? if they opted for the smaller /36 initial IPv6 direct allocation, rather than the default /32 direct allocation. > > > > That seems to balance toward buying an existing /24. > > > >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote: > >> > >> If you apply for an IPv6 block, as an ISP, and you have the intention of truly utilizing it, then you can apply for a /24 to facilitate that transition. > >> > >> It will cost you about $1500 or so, which is about half of what a /24 is going for in the transfer market. > >> > >> Thing is, if you take the IPv6 block just to use the /24 they give you, then one could argue you are cheating the system. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman > wrote: > >> I???m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? > >> > >> > > -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim at reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" -- Hunter S. Thompson From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 19:15:23 2016 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:15:23 -0500 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There's an option that I forgot to mention: You can still use an RIR and get a last /22 in the RIPE region provided you follow their rules, and no, you do not have to be in Europe. Read carefully: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03 Best, -M< On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote: > Makes sense. In that case, I think only way out is to go through a broker > to find a suitable party for a transfer. I would read the rules and > regulations regarding transfer of ARIN blocks, they have some details and > the process requires some paperwork. > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < > mhardeman at ipifony.com> > wrote: > > > I?m aware of the /24 block for facilitation concept, but my client?s use > > case can qualify as an end-user rather than as an ISP, thus their annual > > operating cost is smaller than even the X-SMALL ISP category, which > they?d > > land in ? if they opted for the smaller /36 initial IPv6 direct > allocation, > > rather than the default /32 direct allocation. > > > > That seems to balance toward buying an existing /24. > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Rafael Possamai > > wrote: > > > > If you apply for an IPv6 block, as an ISP, and you have the intention of > > truly utilizing it, then you can apply for a /24 to facilitate that > > transition. > > > > It will cost you about $1500 or so, which is about half of what a /24 is > > going for in the transfer market. > > > > Thing is, if you take the IPv6 block just to use the /24 they give you, > > then one could argue you are cheating the system. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < > > mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote: > > > >> I?m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the > >> ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and > best > >> places to shop? > >> > >> > > > > > From jake.mertel at ubiquityhosting.com Tue Jan 12 19:17:41 2016 From: jake.mertel at ubiquityhosting.com (Jake Mertel) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:17:41 -0700 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: <20160112191528.GA63167@reptiles.org> References: <201E8FEB-3571-4C6F-AC4E-0C9080C2F544@delong.com> <20160112191528.GA63167@reptiles.org> Message-ID: The held back a /10 from their final /8 allocation. Details @ https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10 . -- Regards, Jake Mertel Ubiquity Hosting Web: https://www.ubiquityhosting.com Phone (direct): 1-480-478-1510 Mail: 5350 East High Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ 85054 On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Jim Mercer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:54:49AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> As an end user, you can get an IPv6 /48 and still qualify for the /24 of transitional space as well. > > did ARIN hold back some blocks to service the 'transitional space', or would > that be going to the STLS list? > > --jim > > > >> >> Owen >> >> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 18:35 , Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >> > >> > I???m aware of the /24 block for facilitation concept, but my client???s use case can qualify as an end-user rather than as an ISP, thus their annual operating cost is smaller than even the X-SMALL ISP category, which they???d land in ??? if they opted for the smaller /36 initial IPv6 direct allocation, rather than the default /32 direct allocation. >> > >> > That seems to balance toward buying an existing /24. >> > >> >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote: >> >> >> >> If you apply for an IPv6 block, as an ISP, and you have the intention of truly utilizing it, then you can apply for a /24 to facilitate that transition. >> >> >> >> It will cost you about $1500 or so, which is about half of what a /24 is going for in the transfer market. >> >> >> >> Thing is, if you take the IPv6 block just to use the /24 they give you, then one could argue you are cheating the system. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman > wrote: >> >> I???m looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best places to shop? >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim at reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 > > Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of > arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather > to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, > totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" > -- Hunter S. Thompson From larrysheldon at cox.net Tue Jan 12 21:11:01 2016 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:11:01 -0600 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> Message-ID: <56956BE5.2050106@cox.net> On 1/12/2016 03:47, Marc Storck wrote: > Today the situation cleared on it?s own as it appears. (at least I > haven?t been notified of any human action) Ancient wire-line telephone and telegraph (aka "data" in the latter days) technology, trouble ticket code "CCWT" ("Came Clear While Testing"). -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal) From larrysheldon at cox.net Wed Jan 13 01:04:38 2016 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:04:38 -0600 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> <56956BE5.2050106@cox.net> Message-ID: <5695A2A6.3080006@cox.net> On 1/12/2016 15:15, Jonathan Smith wrote: > Wait I thought that was NTF, (No Trouble Found), as it magically cleared > up. Amazing what was/is done to avoid reporting issues/problems to the > PUC or the like. "NTF" is valid only if the reported condition was not observed by the reporter at all. "CCWT" means the reporter observed the reported condition that disappeared while inserting or removing test cords, thumping on the bay iron, or correcting an unrelated adjustment. Couple of short war stories--we had a scandal and investigation of the proportion of tickets that were closed "NTF". Turns out that the night equipment man, as a matter of habit, every night when he arrived for work, retrieved a piece of 2 X 4 he had hidden, and whacked the end of every lineup on his way in. In a different office, but the same kind of problem, one day the tool crib clerk stopped me and asked about a stack of tickets in an "analysis" project she had been assigned. All of the tickets in the stack were mine, and they all referred to equipment that day-shift patched-out and wrote up that night-shift cleared as NTF or CCWT. I had gotten tired of writing up the sad and detailed story every day and had started reporing them as "AFU"-- she wanted to know what "AFU" meant. I told her it meant "All Fouled Up", where upon she picked up another stack, also mine, marked "NFG". I told her those were the same at the AFU ones. > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Larry Sheldon > wrote: > > On 1/12/2016 03:47, Marc Storck wrote: > > Today the situation cleared on it?s own as it appears. (at least I > haven?t been notified of any human action) > > > Ancient wire-line telephone and telegraph (aka "data" in the latter > days) technology, trouble ticket code "CCWT" ("Came Clear While > Testing"). > > > -- > sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal) > > -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal) From larrysheldon at cox.net Wed Jan 13 01:53:15 2016 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:53:15 -0600 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <5695A2A6.3080006@cox.net> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> <56956BE5.2050106@cox.net> <5695A2A6.3080006@cox.net> Message-ID: <5695AE0B.4040703@cox.net> On 1/12/2016 19:04, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 1/12/2016 15:15, Jonathan Smith wrote: >> Wait I thought that was NTF, (No Trouble Found), as it magically cleared >> up. Amazing what was/is done to avoid reporting issues/problems to the >> PUC or the like. > > "NTF" is valid only if the reported condition was not observed by the > reporter at all. "CCWT" means the reporter observed the reported > condition that disappeared while inserting or removing test cords, > thumping on the bay iron, or correcting an unrelated adjustment. That is a really muddy statement--should have said: "NTF" is valid only if the reported condition was not observed by the tester at all. "CCWT" means the tester observed the reported condition, but disappeared while inserting or removing test cords, thumping on the bay iron, or correcting an unrelated adjustment and not as a result of a palliative action. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal) From motamedi at cs.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 13 17:36:03 2016 From: motamedi at cs.uoregon.edu (Reza Motamedi) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:36:03 -0800 Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks Message-ID: Hi NANOG, I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet measurement so I know how things work in theory. My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer. Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange between AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" and "show ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands. If yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records showing iBGP vs eBGP. On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show commands? Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that gateway router in SF? Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon From ray at orsiniit.com Wed Jan 13 17:46:27 2016 From: ray at orsiniit.com (Ray Orsini) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:46:27 -0500 Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c36cb370cfda2bb4e6a77c0cdf9e8af@mail.gmail.com> The fastest way to get this information first-hand would be to set up a network in an emulator (GNS3, VIRL, PacketTracer, etc). There are hundreds of guides online to do this. Then you could do the same show commands and record the output. Regards, Ray Orsini ? CEO Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Reza Motamedi Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:36 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks Hi NANOG, I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet measurement so I know how things work in theory. My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer. Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange between AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" and "show ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands. If yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records showing iBGP vs eBGP. On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show commands? Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that gateway router in SF? Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon From joelja at bogus.com Wed Jan 13 18:02:40 2016 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:02:40 -0800 Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56969140.9080003@bogus.com> On 1/13/16 9:36 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote: > Hi NANOG, > > I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather > primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet > measurement so I know how things work in theory. > > My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of > different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two > networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on > Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer. > > Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange between > AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" show bgp summary just tells you about your bgp neighbors. > and "show > ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering > between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands. You see AS path, and the nexthop the route was learned from (which is probably (nexthop self) the router on which the prefix is learned) in san francisco. that route is probably resolved by your igp. so in an extremely simple example Network Next Hop Metric LocPref Weight Path * > 8.8.8.0/24 72.14.202.50 96 56 0 15169 i the nexthop happens to be an attached google peer the as path is 15169 i > If > yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged > locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records > showing iBGP vs eBGP. If the router in LA sees the path as being through a router in san francisco that is the direction it will forward it in. > On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the > border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show > commands? > > Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that > gateway router in SF? > > Best Regards > Reza Motamedi (R.M) > Graduate Research Fellow > Oregon Network Research Group > Computer and Information Science > University of Oregon > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 229 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From motamedi at cs.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 13 18:15:23 2016 From: motamedi at cs.uoregon.edu (Reza Motamedi) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:15:23 -0800 Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks In-Reply-To: <56969140.9080003@bogus.com> References: <56969140.9080003@bogus.com> Message-ID: Thanks Joel. I like examples. :) So say I issue the command on a router that is not the gateway. Would I get the following? Network Next Hop Metric LocPref Weight Path * > 8.8.8.0/24 96 56 0 15169 i With respect to "show bgp summary", if I know the location of the router and the router shows the BGP neighbor in the output, can I just rely on this info and say the point of exchange is where the router is located? For example the following show output from a router in city say "X" BGP4 Summary Router ID: 192.65.184.1 Local AS Number: 513 Confederation Identifier: not configured Confederation Peers: Cluster ID: 513 Maximum Number of IP ECMP Paths Supported for Load Sharing: 4 Number of Neighbors Configured: 18, UP: 18 Number of Routes Installed: 997637, Uses 85796782 bytes Number of Routes Advertising to All Neighbors: 2196009 (569816 entries), Uses 27351168 bytes Number of Attribute Entries Installed: 305962, Uses 27536580 bytes Neighbor Address AS# State Time Rt:Accepted Filtered Sent ToSend 62.40.124.157 20965 ESTAB 76d23h58m 140497 0 28 0 83.97.88.33 21320 ESTAB 49d 5h11m 0 0 28 0 192.65.184.2 513 ESTAB 365d12h24m 243346 0 493626 0 192.65.184.3 513 ESTAB 405d12h31m 7010 0 562695 0 192.65.184.4 513 ESTAB 317d 9h 1m 0 0 569704 0 192.65.184.24 513 ESTAB 54d16h26m 0 0 569704 0 tells me that 513 is peering with 20965 that city, right? Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:02 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 1/13/16 9:36 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote: > > Hi NANOG, > > > > I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather > > primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet > > measurement so I know how things work in theory. > > > > My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of > > different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two > > networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on > > Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer. > > > > Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange > between > > AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" > > show bgp summary just tells you about your bgp neighbors. > > > and "show > > ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering > > between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands. > > You see AS path, and the nexthop the route was learned from (which is > probably (nexthop self) the router on which the prefix is learned) in > san francisco. that route is probably resolved by your igp. > > so in an extremely simple example > > Network Next Hop Metric LocPref Weight Path > * > 8.8.8.0/24 72.14.202.50 96 56 0 15169 > i > > the nexthop happens to be an attached google peer > > the as path is > 15169 i > > > If > > yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged > > locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records > > showing iBGP vs eBGP. > > If the router in LA sees the path as being through a router in san > francisco that is the direction it will forward it in. > > > On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the > > border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show > > commands? > > > > Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that > > gateway router in SF? > > > > Best Regards > > Reza Motamedi (R.M) > > Graduate Research Fellow > > Oregon Network Research Group > > Computer and Information Science > > University of Oregon > > > > > From joelja at bogus.com Wed Jan 13 18:57:32 2016 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:57:32 -0800 Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks In-Reply-To: References: <56969140.9080003@bogus.com> Message-ID: <56969E1C.3070101@bogus.com> On 1/13/16 10:15 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote: > Thanks Joel. I like examples. :) > > So say I issue the command on a router that is not the gateway. Would I > get the following? > > Network Next Hop Metric LocPref Weight Path > * > 8.8.8.0/24 96 > 56 0 15169 i It should be the nexthop self (loopback ip) of the originating router, unless you don't do it that way and your provider numbered interfaces are passively included in your igp. > With respect to "show bgp summary", if I know the location of the router > and the router shows the BGP neighbor in the output, can I just rely on > this info and say the point of exchange is where the router is located? > For example the following show output from a router in city say "X" if you elide the existence of long-haul-paths, distributed exchange fabrics, ebgp multihop sessions, l2 vpn and so on. it is certainly not the case with ibgp sessions which could include things like route reflectors. topological adjacency might imply proximity but it's not an assurance. > BGP4 Summary > Router ID: 192.65.184.1 Local AS Number: 513 > Confederation Identifier: not configured > Confederation Peers: > Cluster ID: 513 > Maximum Number of IP ECMP Paths Supported for Load Sharing: 4 > Number of Neighbors Configured: 18, UP: 18 > Number of Routes Installed: 997637, Uses 85796782 bytes > Number of Routes Advertising to All Neighbors: 2196009 (569816 entries), Uses 27351168 bytes > Number of Attribute Entries Installed: 305962, Uses 27536580 bytes > Neighbor Address AS# State Time Rt:Accepted Filtered Sent ToSend > 62.40.124.157 20965 ESTAB 76d23h58m 140497 0 28 0 > 83.97.88.33 21320 ESTAB 49d 5h11m 0 0 28 0 > 192.65.184.2 513 ESTAB 365d12h24m 243346 0 493626 0 > 192.65.184.3 513 ESTAB 405d12h31m 7010 0 562695 0 > 192.65.184.4 513 ESTAB 317d 9h 1m 0 0 569704 0 > 192.65.184.24 513 ESTAB 54d16h26m 0 0 569704 0 > > tells me that 513 is peering with 20965 that city, right? > > Best Regards > Reza Motamedi (R.M) > Graduate Research Fellow > Oregon Network Research Group > Computer and Information Science > University of Oregon > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:02 AM, joel jaeggli > wrote: > > On 1/13/16 9:36 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote: > > Hi NANOG, > > > > I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather > > primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet > > measurement so I know how things work in theory. > > > > My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of > > different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two > > networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on > > Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer. > > > > Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange between > > AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" > > show bgp summary just tells you about your bgp neighbors. > > > and "show > > ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering > > between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands. > > You see AS path, and the nexthop the route was learned from (which is > probably (nexthop self) the router on which the prefix is learned) in > san francisco. that route is probably resolved by your igp. > > so in an extremely simple example > > Network Next Hop Metric LocPref Weight Path > * > 8.8.8.0/24 72.14.202.50 96 > 56 0 15169 i > > the nexthop happens to be an attached google peer > > the as path is > 15169 i > > > If > > yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged > > locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records > > showing iBGP vs eBGP. > > If the router in LA sees the path as being through a router in san > francisco that is the direction it will forward it in. > > > On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the > > border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output > of show > > commands? > > > > Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that > > gateway router in SF? > > > > Best Regards > > Reza Motamedi (R.M) > > Graduate Research Fellow > > Oregon Network Research Group > > Computer and Information Science > > University of Oregon > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 229 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From cook at cookreport.com Wed Jan 13 20:46:55 2016 From: cook at cookreport.com (Gordon Cook) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:46:55 -0500 Subject: verizon fios bounced a legit private email of mine telling me it was spam and they would not allow it Message-ID: dear Nanog Sorry to bother you, I am sitting here in shock, I have been a Verizon to FiOS customer for about the past six years at least I think maybe eight. every now and then the Verizon server will bounce an email back and tell me that it?s busy or not functioning but just now it bounced one back and I?m sorry I don?t have a screenshot of what it said but it clearly said that it considered me to be a spammer. I may be a lot of things but a spammer I am not. ;-) when I get an email bounced back Apple OS X always volunteers to use the pair networks server and I always automatically take that choice giving it never a second thought. it also reminded me that there was a limit on the amount of private emails a customer could send. And it said I needed to take the alleged spam and send it to spamdetector.update at verizon.net and if I remember correctly wait at least an hour and then try to send the message again. Stating very clearly that no human being would talk to me. what in God?s name is going on? Please a year and a half or two years ago when a route to Ecuador was being filtered a couple of NANOG folk knew whom to contact and the problem was fixed in record time. I am hoping that I will experience the same thing. I should not be a stranger to any old time Nanog-ers. but right now I?m feeling really paranoid! From dave-nanog at pooserville.com Thu Jan 14 00:23:20 2016 From: dave-nanog at pooserville.com (Dave Pooser) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:23:20 -0600 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <5695A2A6.3080006@cox.net> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> <56956BE5.2050106@cox.net> <5695A2A6.3080006@cox.net> Message-ID: On 1/12/16, 7:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Larry Sheldon" wrote: >I told her it meant "All Fouled Up", where upon she picked up another >stack, also mine, marked "NFG". At $DAYJOB we often ship audio/video equipment via air counter to counter for same-day delivery. On Southwest those deliveries are coded "Next Flight Guaranteed" and stickered NFG. Occasionally a client will see a highly expensive piece of gear arrive with an NFG sticker on the case and come unglued asking why he paid tens of thousands of dollars if we're sending him gear that is "No F*ing Good." Hilarity ensues.... -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com From adamkennedy at watchcomm.net Thu Jan 14 06:26:11 2016 From: adamkennedy at watchcomm.net (Adam Kennedy) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 01:26:11 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> <002e01d14cf3$1f5568b0$5e003a10$@iname.com> Message-ID: It was some special offer on our AT&T small business site. Maybe they were $40 each. I wasn't the one that ordered them but I know they were pretty cheap and so far working fine! Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer Broadband Networks A Watch Communications Company PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com www.broadbandnetworks.com On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ray Orsini wrote: > We use those a lot with mobile hotspots. Where did you find them for $20? > We > usually pay about 2x that much for used untis. > > Regards, > Ray Orsini ? CEO > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants > VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View > Your Tickets > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:56 AM > To: frnkblk at iname.com > Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network. > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that > makes > them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a Debian box and > I'm able to use smstools open source software to send SMS from the unit > directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's were $20 I think and cost us > about > $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan. > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > Broadband Networks > > A Watch Communications Company > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Adam Kennedy > wrote: > > > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE network. > > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that > > makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a > > Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to send > > SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's were $20 I > > think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate plan. > > > > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > > > Broadband Networks > > > > A Watch Communications Company > > > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38 PM, wrote: > > > >> I plan to continue living in a rural area with a GSM provider that > >> will support 2G. =) > >> > >> Frank > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 5:24 PM > >> To: nanog at nanog.org > >> Cc: frnkblk at iname.com > >> Subject: Re: SMS gateways > >> > >> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: > >> >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: > >> http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > >> > > >> >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't > >> >stable, > >> needing a reboot every few months, > >> >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. > >> > >> It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a > >> 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off > >> their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is > >> already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. > >> > >> What do you plan to do instead next year? > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > From mhuff at ox.com Thu Jan 14 14:46:02 2016 From: mhuff at ox.com (Matthew Huff) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:46:02 +0000 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> <002e01d14cf3$1f5568b0$5e003a10$@iname.com> Message-ID: According to AT&T sales, the Netgear Beam is a "data-only" device and cannot send SMS when I just tried to order one. I wouldn't care what they thought, but they won't let me set up a plan that includes text. Anyone have any suggestions? ---- Matthew Huff???????????? | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations???| Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC?????? | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff??????? | Fax:?? 914-694-5669 > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:26 AM > To: Ray Orsini > Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > It was some special offer on our AT&T small business site. Maybe they > were > $40 each. I wasn't the one that ordered them but I know they were pretty > cheap and so far working fine! > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > Broadband Networks > > A Watch Communications Company > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ray Orsini wrote: > > > We use those a lot with mobile hotspots. Where did you find them for > $20? > > We > > usually pay about 2x that much for used untis. > > > > Regards, > > Ray Orsini ? CEO > > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? > > SECURITY ? SUPPORT > > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | > > View Your Tickets > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy > > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:56 AM > > To: frnkblk at iname.com > > Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org > > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > > > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE > network. > > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units that > > makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into a > > Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to send > > SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's were $20 I > > think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our corporate > > plan. > > > > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > > > Broadband Networks > > > > A Watch Communications Company > > > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Adam Kennedy > > > > wrote: > > > > > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE > network. > > > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units > > > that makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into > > > a Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to > > > send SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's > > > were $20 I think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our > corporate plan. > > > > > > > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > > > > > Broadband Networks > > > > > > A Watch Communications Company > > > > > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > > > > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > > > > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > > > > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38 PM, wrote: > > > > > >> I plan to continue living in a rural area with a GSM provider that > > >> will support 2G. =) > > >> > > >> Frank > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: John Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com] > > >> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 5:24 PM > > >> To: nanog at nanog.org > > >> Cc: frnkblk at iname.com > > >> Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > >> > > >> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: > > >> >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: > > >> http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > > >> > > > >> >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't > > >> >stable, > > >> needing a reboot every few months, > > >> >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. > > >> > > >> It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses > > >> a 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off > > >> their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is > > >> already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. > > >> > > >> What do you plan to do instead next year? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > From ray at orsiniit.com Thu Jan 14 14:53:10 2016 From: ray at orsiniit.com (Ray Orsini) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:53:10 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> <002e01d14cf3$1f5568b0$5e003a10$@iname.com> Message-ID: <4d642461aeca9f80f05908b1c58b2cc4@mail.gmail.com> I can confirm that the device can send texts. I use the same 320U and 340U with AT&T and T-Mobile sims. Text is actually how they reset your account password if you need it. I use the prepaid plans. Regards, Ray Orsini ? CEO Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mhuff at ox.com] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:46 AM To: Adam Kennedy ; Ray Orsini Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org Subject: RE: SMS gateways According to AT&T sales, the Netgear Beam is a "data-only" device and cannot send SMS when I just tried to order one. I wouldn't care what they thought, but they won't let me set up a plan that includes text. Anyone have any suggestions? ---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669 > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:26 AM > To: Ray Orsini > Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > It was some special offer on our AT&T small business site. Maybe they > were > $40 each. I wasn't the one that ordered them but I know they were > pretty cheap and so far working fine! > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > Broadband Networks > > A Watch Communications Company > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ray Orsini wrote: > > > We use those a lot with mobile hotspots. Where did you find them for > $20? > > We > > usually pay about 2x that much for used untis. > > > > Regards, > > Ray Orsini ? CEO > > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? > > SECURITY ? SUPPORT > > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices > > | View Your Tickets > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam > > Kennedy > > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:56 AM > > To: frnkblk at iname.com > > Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org > > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > > > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE > network. > > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units > > that makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into > > a Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to > > send SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's > > were $20 I think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our > > corporate plan. > > > > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > > > Broadband Networks > > > > A Watch Communications Company > > > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Adam Kennedy > > > > wrote: > > > > > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE > network. > > > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units > > > that makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those > > > into a Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source > > > software to send SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The > > > AT&T Beam's were $20 I think and cost us about $15/mo as > > > additional lines on our > corporate plan. > > > > > > > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > > > > > Broadband Networks > > > > > > A Watch Communications Company > > > > > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > > > > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > > > > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > > > > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38 PM, wrote: > > > > > >> I plan to continue living in a rural area with a GSM provider > > >> that will support 2G. =) > > >> > > >> Frank > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: John Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com] > > >> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 5:24 PM > > >> To: nanog at nanog.org > > >> Cc: frnkblk at iname.com > > >> Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > >> > > >> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: > > >> >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: > > >> http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > > >> > > > >> >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't > > >> >stable, > > >> needing a reboot every few months, > > >> >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. > > >> > > >> It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it > > >> uses a 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will > > >> turn off their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that > > >> T-Mobile is already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. > > >> > > >> What do you plan to do instead next year? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > From seth.mos at dds.nl Thu Jan 14 15:04:54 2016 From: seth.mos at dds.nl (Seth Mos) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:04:54 +0100 Subject: Youtube CDN unreachable over IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <563C5DE5.60505@dds.nl> <20151106141403.GG3097@excession.tpb.net> Message-ID: <5697B916.5040107@dds.nl> Op 6-11-2015 om 19:17 schreef Christopher Schmidt via NANOG: > Hi all, > > Thanks for the reports. > > To the best of our knowledge, this issue has been resolved at this > time. If you are still having problems connecting to YouTube CDN > nodes, please feel free to let me know, and I will investigate > further. It's here again since this tuesday. lsintra:~# host r2---sn-8xgn5uxa-i5he.googlevideo.com r2---sn-8xgn5uxa-i5he.googlevideo.com is an alias for r2.sn-8xgn5uxa-i5he.googlevideo.com. r2.sn-8xgn5uxa-i5he.googlevideo.com has address 62.214.62.205 r2.sn-8xgn5uxa-i5he.googlevideo.com has IPv6 address 2001:1438:1:2::d lsintra:~# telnet 62.214.62.205 443 Trying 62.214.62.205... Connected to cache.google.com (62.214.62.205). Escape character is '^]'. ^] telnet> quit Connection closed. lsintra:~# telnet 2001:1438:1:2::d 443 Trying 2001:1438:1:2::d... ^]quit ^]^[^]^C lsintra:~# Is it possible for Google to realize some form of internal monitoring to catch these defunct dual stack nodes? Kind regards, Seth > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: >> This was happening two weeks ago in the Bay Area as well. It happens quite >> a lot, actually...search for my old threads. I gave up trying to get it >> noticed. > > Blair, > > I'm not aware of a similar issue with IPv6 being unavailable while > IPv4 is available recently. > > I did not see any threads with information in them with the name > "Blair" attached in either the October archive > (http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-October/thread.html) or > the September archive > (http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-September/thread.html) > . > > If this issue is ongoing, I would be happy to look into this; > otherwise, I don't believe there is any action I can take to assist at > this time. > > All the best. > > >>> * seth.mos at dds.nl (Seth Mos) [Fri 06 Nov 2015, 09:00 CET]: >>>> Dear Google, >>>> >>>> It appears that one of the Youtube CDN's (in Europe, NL) is not >>>> reachable over IPv6 from AS 20844. Can someone get back to us on this, >>>> the company can't access any of the videos currently, although the >>>> mainpage loads fine (over IPv6). >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> telnet r6---sn-5hne6n76.googlevideo.com 443 >>>> Trying 2a00:1450:401c:4::b... >>>> telnet: connect to address 2a00:1450:401c:4::b: Connection timed out >>>> Trying 74.125.100.203... >>>> Connected to r6.sn-5hne6n76.googlevideo.com (74.125.100.203). >>>> Escape character is '^]'. >>>> Connection closed by foreign host. >>>> >>>> telnet www.youtube.com 443 >>>> Trying 2a00:1450:4013:c01::5d... >>>> Connected to youtube-ui.l.google.com (2a00:1450:4013:c01::5d). >>>> Escape character is '^]'. >>>> Connection closed by foreign host. >>> > From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Thu Jan 14 15:37:16 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: Youtube CDN unreachable over IPv6 In-Reply-To: <5697B916.5040107@dds.nl> References: <563C5DE5.60505@dds.nl> <20151106141403.GG3097@excession.tpb.net> <5697B916.5040107@dds.nl> Message-ID: <7115.1452785836@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:04:54 +0100, Seth Mos said: > lsintra:~# telnet 62.214.62.205 443 > lsintra:~# telnet 2001:1438:1:2::d 443 > Is it possible for Google to realize some form of internal monitoring to > catch these defunct dual stack nodes? A traceroute to both would help greatly in determining whether it's really Google's fault, or if your ipv6 routing is borked. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seth.mos at dds.nl Thu Jan 14 15:42:14 2016 From: seth.mos at dds.nl (Seth Mos) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:42:14 +0100 Subject: Youtube CDN unreachable over IPv6 In-Reply-To: <7115.1452785836@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <563C5DE5.60505@dds.nl> <20151106141403.GG3097@excession.tpb.net> <5697B916.5040107@dds.nl> <7115.1452785836@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <5697C1D6.8060609@dds.nl> Op 14-1-2016 om 16:37 schreef Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:04:54 +0100, Seth Mos said: > >> lsintra:~# telnet 62.214.62.205 443 > >> lsintra:~# telnet 2001:1438:1:2::d 443 > >> Is it possible for Google to realize some form of internal >> monitoring to catch these defunct dual stack nodes? > > A traceroute to both would help greatly in determining whether it's > really Google's fault, or if your ipv6 routing is borked. > I can reach the rest of the Google IPv6 services over IPv6, the player loads, but the video stream does not. I've pasted the traceroute below. seth at ratchet:~$ traceroute 62.214.62.205 traceroute to 62.214.62.205 (62.214.62.205), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 edge-c2f.coltex.nl (91.227.27.41) 88.901 ms 88.932 ms 89.008 ms 2 91.227.27.3 (91.227.27.3) 0.522 ms 0.568 ms 0.628 ms 3 90-145-28-101.network.unet.nl (90.145.28.101) 2.104 ms 3.673 ms 3.665 ms 4 dus002isp005.versatel.de (80.249.209.109) 11.773 ms 11.612 ms 11.594 ms 5 10g-9-4.esn001isp005.versatel.de (62.214.110.234) 12.181 ms 12.306 ms 12. 416 ms 6 ge-05-01-803.dor002isp005.versatel.de (62.214.111.26) 12.174 ms ge-5-1-853. dor002isp006.versatel.de (62.214.111.30) 12.252 ms ge-05-01-803.dor002isp005.ve rsatel.de (62.214.111.26) 12.069 ms 7 dor2is2.versatel.de (62.214.104.170) 13.174 ms fra20ip6.versatel.de (62.214 .104.174) 12.954 ms 13.159 ms 8 10g-9-4.hhb002isp005.versatel.de (62.214.110.110) 18.732 ms 10g-8-4.hhb002i sp005.versatel.de (62.214.110.122) 19.051 ms 18.653 ms 9 * * * seth at ratchet:~$ traceroute 2001:1438:1:2::d traceroute to 2001:1438:1:2::d (2001:1438:1:2::d), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets 1 * * cltx-gw.coltex.nl (2001:67c:226c:ff00::1) 4.302 ms 2 2001:67c:226c:ff01::3 (2001:67c:226c:ff01::3) 0.418 ms 0.418 ms 0.451 ms 3 2a02:120:0:200::3:1 (2a02:120:0:200::3:1) 2.205 ms 2.376 ms 2.360 ms 4 dus002isp005.versatel.de (2001:7f8:1::a500:8881:1) 11.594 ms 11.364 ms 11.523 ms 5 2001:1438:0:1::4e2 (2001:1438:0:1::4e2) 12.522 ms 2001:1438:0:1::212 (2001:1438:0:1::212) 12.704 ms 2001:1438:0:1::222 (2001:1438:0:1::222) 12.676 ms 6 2001:1438:0:1::2a2 (2001:1438:0:1::2a2) 63.452 ms 2001:1438:0:1::2b2 (2001:1438:0:1::2b2) 63.572 ms 2001:1438:0:1::2a2 (2001:1438:0:1::2a2) 63.538 ms 7 2001:1438:0:1::112 (2001:1438:0:1::112) 13.318 ms 13.225 ms 2001:1438:0:1::522 (2001:1438:0:1::522) 13.087 ms 8 2001:1438:0:1::92 (2001:1438:0:1::92) 18.879 ms 2001:1438:0:1::172 (2001:1438:0:1::172) 19.088 ms 2001:1438:0:1::92 (2001:1438:0:1::92) 18.959 ms 9 * * * From beowulfdance at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 21:15:12 2016 From: beowulfdance at gmail.com (Jonathan Smith) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:15:12 -0700 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <56956BE5.2050106@cox.net> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> <56956BE5.2050106@cox.net> Message-ID: Wait I thought that was NTF, (No Trouble Found), as it magically cleared up. Amazing what was/is done to avoid reporting issues/problems to the PUC or the like. On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 1/12/2016 03:47, Marc Storck wrote: > >> Today the situation cleared on it?s own as it appears. (at least I >> haven?t been notified of any human action) >> > > Ancient wire-line telephone and telegraph (aka "data" in the latter days) > technology, trouble ticket code "CCWT" ("Came Clear While Testing"). > > > -- > sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal) > From mh at xalto.net Wed Jan 13 21:14:08 2016 From: mh at xalto.net (Michael Hallgren) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:14:08 +0100 Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5696BE20.1050403@xalto.net> Le 13/01/2016 18:36, Reza Motamedi a ?crit : > Hi NANOG, > > I am researcher at the University of Oregon and my question is rather > primitive. My research background is in networked systems and Internet > measurement so I know how things work in theory. > > My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of > different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two > networks with different ASNs. I tried going through the some samples on > Juniper and Cisco documentations but I did not get my answer. > > Consider the following scenario; Say the point of traffic exchange between > AS_a and AS_b is in San Francisco and we run "show bgp summary" and "show > ip bgp "on a BGP router of AS_a in LA. Do we see the peering > between AS_a and AS_b in San Francisco using any of the two commands. If > yes is there a way to infer that in fact the traffic is not exchanged > locally in LA? I think there should be a flag to differentiate records > showing iBGP vs eBGP. > > On the same note, if we issue the commands on a router other than the > border router in San Fran, is there any difference in the output of show > commands? > > Now how are things different if we actually run the commands on that > gateway router in SF? Hi Reza, A reasonably recent paper discussing AS relationships: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2417. Cheers, mh > > Best Regards > Reza Motamedi (R.M) > Graduate Research Fellow > Oregon Network Research Group > Computer and Information Science > University of Oregon From goemon at sasami.anime.net Wed Jan 13 21:55:49 2016 From: goemon at sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: verizon fios bounced a legit private email of mine telling me it was spam and they would not allow it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is what's going on at verizon. http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/726/ -Dan On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Gordon Cook wrote: > dear Nanog > > Sorry to bother you, I am sitting here in shock, I have been a Verizon to FiOS customer for about the past six years at least I think maybe eight. every now and then the Verizon server will bounce an email back and tell me that it?s busy or not functioning but just now it bounced one back and I?m sorry I don?t have a screenshot of what it said but it clearly said that it considered me to be a spammer. I may be a lot of things but a spammer I am not. ;-) when I get an email bounced back Apple OS X always volunteers to use the pair networks server and I always automatically take that choice giving it never a second thought. > > it also reminded me that there was a limit on the amount of private emails a customer could send. > > And it said I needed to take the alleged spam and send it to > > spamdetector.update at verizon.net and if I remember correctly wait at least an hour and then try to send the message again. > > Stating very clearly that no human being would talk to me. > > what in God?s name is going on? Please a year and a half or two years ago when a route to Ecuador was being filtered a couple of NANOG folk knew whom to contact and the problem was fixed in record time. I am hoping that I will experience the same thing. I should not be a stranger to any old time Nanog-ers. but right now I?m feeling really paranoid! > From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 16:20:13 2016 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:20:13 -0500 Subject: verizon fios bounced a legit private email of mine telling me it was spam and they would not allow it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: '4 MILLION IP ADDRESSES!!!' On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Dan Hollis wrote: > This is what's going on at verizon. > > http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/726/ > > -Dan > > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Gordon Cook wrote: > >> dear Nanog >> >> Sorry to bother you, I am sitting here in shock, I have been a Verizon >> to FiOS customer for about the past six years at least I think maybe eight. >> every now and then the Verizon server will bounce an email back and tell me >> that it?s busy or not functioning but just now it bounced one back and I?m >> sorry I don?t have a screenshot of what it said but it clearly said that it >> considered me to be a spammer. I may be a lot of things but a spammer I am >> not. ;-) when I get an email bounced back Apple OS X always volunteers >> to use the pair networks server and I always automatically take that choice >> giving it never a second thought. >> >> it also reminded me that there was a limit on the amount of private emails >> a customer could send. >> >> And it said I needed to take the alleged spam and send it to >> >> spamdetector.update at verizon.net and if I remember correctly wait at least >> an hour and then try to send the message again. >> >> Stating very clearly that no human being would talk to me. >> >> what in God?s name is going on? Please a year and a half or two years >> ago when a route to Ecuador was being filtered a couple of NANOG folk knew >> whom to contact and the problem was fixed in record time. I am hoping >> that I will experience the same thing. I should not be a stranger to any >> old time Nanog-ers. but right now I?m feeling really paranoid! >> > From eric.oosting at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 17:05:42 2016 From: eric.oosting at gmail.com (Eric Oosting) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:05:42 -0500 Subject: verizon fios bounced a legit private email of mine telling me it was spam and they would not allow it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Christopher Morrow < morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > '4 MILLION IP ADDRESSES!!!' > What is that, an /106? -e > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Dan Hollis > wrote: > > This is what's going on at verizon. > > > > http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/726/ > > > > -Dan > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > >> dear Nanog > >> > >> Sorry to bother you, I am sitting here in shock, I have been a > Verizon > >> to FiOS customer for about the past six years at least I think maybe > eight. > >> every now and then the Verizon server will bounce an email back and > tell me > >> that it?s busy or not functioning but just now it bounced one back and > I?m > >> sorry I don?t have a screenshot of what it said but it clearly said > that it > >> considered me to be a spammer. I may be a lot of things but a spammer > I am > >> not. ;-) when I get an email bounced back Apple OS X always > volunteers > >> to use the pair networks server and I always automatically take that > choice > >> giving it never a second thought. > >> > >> it also reminded me that there was a limit on the amount of private > emails > >> a customer could send. > >> > >> And it said I needed to take the alleged spam and send it to > >> > >> spamdetector.update at verizon.net and if I remember correctly wait at > least > >> an hour and then try to send the message again. > >> > >> Stating very clearly that no human being would talk to me. > >> > >> what in God?s name is going on? Please a year and a half or two years > >> ago when a route to Ecuador was being filtered a couple of NANOG folk > knew > >> whom to contact and the problem was fixed in record time. I am hoping > >> that I will experience the same thing. I should not be a stranger to > any > >> old time Nanog-ers. but right now I?m feeling really paranoid! > >> > > > From rafaelpossa at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 17:08:53 2016 From: rafaelpossa at gmail.com (Rafael Possamai) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:08:53 -0600 Subject: verizon fios bounced a legit private email of mine telling me it was spam and they would not allow it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What a disgrace. On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Dan Hollis wrote: > This is what's going on at verizon. > > http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/726/ > > -Dan > > From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 17:30:46 2016 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:30:46 -0500 Subject: verizon fios bounced a legit private email of mine telling me it was spam and they would not allow it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Eric Oosting wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: >> >> '4 MILLION IP ADDRESSES!!!' > > > What is that, an /106? FALSE! only ipv4 on fios!! silly people and their 'more than 32 bits' addresses... ha! fiction I say!! > -e > >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Dan Hollis >> wrote: >> > This is what's going on at verizon. >> > >> > http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/726/ >> > >> > -Dan >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Gordon Cook wrote: >> > >> >> dear Nanog >> >> >> >> Sorry to bother you, I am sitting here in shock, I have been a >> >> Verizon >> >> to FiOS customer for about the past six years at least I think maybe >> >> eight. >> >> every now and then the Verizon server will bounce an email back and >> >> tell me >> >> that it?s busy or not functioning but just now it bounced one back and >> >> I?m >> >> sorry I don?t have a screenshot of what it said but it clearly said >> >> that it >> >> considered me to be a spammer. I may be a lot of things but a spammer >> >> I am >> >> not. ;-) when I get an email bounced back Apple OS X always >> >> volunteers >> >> to use the pair networks server and I always automatically take that >> >> choice >> >> giving it never a second thought. >> >> >> >> it also reminded me that there was a limit on the amount of private >> >> emails >> >> a customer could send. >> >> >> >> And it said I needed to take the alleged spam and send it to >> >> >> >> spamdetector.update at verizon.net and if I remember correctly wait at >> >> least >> >> an hour and then try to send the message again. >> >> >> >> Stating very clearly that no human being would talk to me. >> >> >> >> what in God?s name is going on? Please a year and a half or two years >> >> ago when a route to Ecuador was being filtered a couple of NANOG folk >> >> knew >> >> whom to contact and the problem was fixed in record time. I am hoping >> >> that I will experience the same thing. I should not be a stranger to >> >> any >> >> old time Nanog-ers. but right now I?m feeling really paranoid! >> >> >> > > > From betty at nanog.org Thu Jan 14 19:20:07 2016 From: betty at nanog.org (Betty Burke ) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:20:07 -0500 Subject: [NANOG-announce] NANOG 66 Update Message-ID: NANOGers, We are beginning our final preparations in support of NANOG 66, February 8-9, 2016 in San Diego, CA. It is our hope the following highlights and reminders will be of help to you. The NANOG Program Committee has once again presented a great program. The NANOG 66 Agenda is posted, with updates being provided as warranted. Consider attending, the Conference Registration will increase soon! Also, take a moment to join NANOG or renew your existing Membership. ? Early Bird Registration starting October 26, 2015 (member $425, non-member $450, student $100) ? Standard Registration starting January 15, 2016 (member $500, non-member $525, student $100) ? Late Registration starting January 23, 2016 (member $575, non-member $600, student $100) ? On-Site Registration starting February 5, 2016 (member $650, non-member $675, student $100) The conference hotel (Sheraton San Diego Hotel & Marina ) has a few rooms remaining, and the secondary room block hotel, (Hilton San Diego ) is available. However, both room blocks are set to expire very soon. Be sure to get your reservation made ASAP. We welcome those attendees and conference sponsors already planning to join us for an exiting NANOG 66 program and the evening social events. Also, another reminder, the NANOG Communications and Program Committee Nominations are open through noon Eastern February 8, 2016. The engagement of NANOG Committee members is very important, please do consider volunteering. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact nanog-support at nanog.org or email directly. Sincerely, Betty Betty J. Burke NANOG Executive Director 2864 Carpenter Rd., Ste 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 +1 866-902-1336 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce at mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce From lists at mtin.net Thu Jan 14 23:24:53 2016 From: lists at mtin.net (Justin Wilson) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:24:53 -0500 Subject: USPS web/network admin Message-ID: <6300F92D-A4B8-4015-9A88-0E1F1D2F522C@mtin.net> Any chance someone responsible for the USPS web-site and access is on here? I have a ticket open and was making progress but then it was dropped. Justin Wilson j2sw at mtin.net --- http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO xISP Solutions- Consulting ? Data Centers - Bandwidth http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman From goemon at sasami.anime.net Thu Jan 14 23:55:56 2016 From: goemon at sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:55:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: verizon fios bounced a legit private email of mine telling me it was spam and they would not allow it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: complacency. it's a winning formula. -Dan On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Christopher Morrow wrote: > '4 MILLION IP ADDRESSES!!!' > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Dan Hollis wrote: >> This is what's going on at verizon. >> >> http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/726/ >> >> -Dan >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Gordon Cook wrote: >> >>> dear Nanog >>> >>> Sorry to bother you, I am sitting here in shock, I have been a Verizon >>> to FiOS customer for about the past six years at least I think maybe eight. >>> every now and then the Verizon server will bounce an email back and tell me >>> that it?s busy or not functioning but just now it bounced one back and I?m >>> sorry I don?t have a screenshot of what it said but it clearly said that it >>> considered me to be a spammer. I may be a lot of things but a spammer I am >>> not. ;-) when I get an email bounced back Apple OS X always volunteers >>> to use the pair networks server and I always automatically take that choice >>> giving it never a second thought. >>> >>> it also reminded me that there was a limit on the amount of private emails >>> a customer could send. >>> >>> And it said I needed to take the alleged spam and send it to >>> >>> spamdetector.update at verizon.net and if I remember correctly wait at least >>> an hour and then try to send the message again. >>> >>> Stating very clearly that no human being would talk to me. >>> >>> what in God?s name is going on? Please a year and a half or two years >>> ago when a route to Ecuador was being filtered a couple of NANOG folk knew >>> whom to contact and the problem was fixed in record time. I am hoping >>> that I will experience the same thing. I should not be a stranger to any >>> old time Nanog-ers. but right now I?m feeling really paranoid! >>> >> > From jerome at ceriz.fr Fri Jan 15 10:42:45 2016 From: jerome at ceriz.fr (=?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=a9r=c3=b4me_Nicolle?=) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:42:45 +0100 Subject: Inferring the location points of traffic exchange between two networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5698CD25.3030801@ceriz.fr> Hi Reza, Le 13/01/2016 18:36, Reza Motamedi a ?crit : > My question is about BGP and what can be inferred from the output of > different "show" commands, regarding the point of traffic exchange of two > networks with different ASNs. Unless you have a tremendous amount of peers and feeds to work with, you'll have a hard time building a valid interconnection graph from BGP cli outputs. The best mapping outputs I have seen for now have been built using probe clusters (either RIPE ATLAS or NLNOG Ring) with traceroutes, by merging data from the observed routes AND both DNS and BGP. DNS is quite usefull here as most of us use location codes in router's FQDN. BGP will only help in matching subnets within ASes and corroborate some discrete relationships. Also note that each node in the directed graph may expose multiple addresses, and that latency between routers isn't a reliable metric (still a usefull indicator, YMMV) Best regards, -- J?r?me Nicolle From adamkennedy at watchcomm.net Fri Jan 15 16:08:19 2016 From: adamkennedy at watchcomm.net (Adam Kennedy) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:08:19 -0500 Subject: SMS gateways In-Reply-To: <4d642461aeca9f80f05908b1c58b2cc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> <20160109232359.39138.qmail@ary.lan> <002e01d14cf3$1f5568b0$5e003a10$@iname.com> <4d642461aeca9f80f05908b1c58b2cc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The device can definitely send texts. I had to purchase the device as a data only device, then I contacted support and told them I was working with Cisco on a project where the router uses these devices but needs text capability. They did some magic on the number in their system and got it up and running. Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer Broadband Networks A Watch Communications Company PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com www.broadbandnetworks.com On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Ray Orsini wrote: > I can confirm that the device can send texts. I use the same 320U and 340U > with AT&T and T-Mobile sims. Text is actually how they reset your account > password if you need it. I use the prepaid plans. > > Regards, > > Ray Orsini ? CEO > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants > VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? SECURITY ? SUPPORT > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View > Your Tickets > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mhuff at ox.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:46 AM > To: Adam Kennedy ; Ray Orsini > > Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: RE: SMS gateways > > According to AT&T sales, the Netgear Beam is a "data-only" device and > cannot > send SMS when I just tried to order one. I wouldn't care what they thought, > but they won't let me set up a plan that includes text. Anyone have any > suggestions? > > > ---- > Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | > Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 > aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy > > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:26 AM > > To: Ray Orsini > > Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org > > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > > > It was some special offer on our AT&T small business site. Maybe they > > were > > $40 each. I wasn't the one that ordered them but I know they were > > pretty cheap and so far working fine! > > > > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > > > Broadband Networks > > > > A Watch Communications Company > > > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ray Orsini wrote: > > > > > We use those a lot with mobile hotspots. Where did you find them for > > $20? > > > We > > > usually pay about 2x that much for used untis. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ray Orsini ? CEO > > > Orsini IT, LLC ? Technology Consultants VOICE ?DATA ? BANDWIDTH ? > > > SECURITY ? SUPPORT > > > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray at orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > > > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > > > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices > > > | View Your Tickets > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Adam > > > Kennedy > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:56 AM > > > To: frnkblk at iname.com > > > Cc: John Levine ; nanog at nanog.org > > > Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > > > > > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE > > network. > > > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units > > > that makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those into > > > a Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source software to > > > send SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The AT&T Beam's > > > were $20 I think and cost us about $15/mo as additional lines on our > > > corporate plan. > > > > > > > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > > > > > Broadband Networks > > > > > > A Watch Communications Company > > > > > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > > > > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > > > > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > > > > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Adam Kennedy > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I picked up two of the AT&T "Beam" USB devices that use the LTE > > network. > > > > Netgear is the listed manufacturer and has firmware for the units > > > > that makes them usable on Linux. I loaded the driver for those > > > > into a Debian box and I'm able to use smstools open source > > > > software to send SMS from the unit directly to cell network. The > > > > AT&T Beam's were $20 I think and cost us about $15/mo as > > > > additional lines on our > > corporate plan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Adam Kennedy | Network & Systems Engineer > > > > > > > > Broadband Networks > > > > > > > > A Watch Communications Company > > > > > > > > PO Box 8 | Rushville, Indiana | 46173 > > > > > > > > Tel - 866-586-1518 | Fax - 866-567-3897 > > > > > > > > adamkennedy at broadbandnetworks.com > > > > > > > > www.broadbandnetworks.com > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38 PM, wrote: > > > > > > > >> I plan to continue living in a rural area with a GSM provider > > > >> that will support 2G. =) > > > >> > > > >> Frank > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: John Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com] > > > >> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 5:24 PM > > > >> To: nanog at nanog.org > > > >> Cc: frnkblk at iname.com > > > >> Subject: Re: SMS gateways > > > >> > > > >> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: > > > >> >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: > > > >> http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > > > >> > > > > >> >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't > > > >> >stable, > > > >> needing a reboot every few months, > > > >> >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. > > > >> > > > >> It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it > > > >> uses a 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will > > > >> turn off their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that > > > >> T-Mobile is already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. > > > >> > > > >> What do you plan to do instead next year? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > From cscora at apnic.net Fri Jan 15 18:11:16 2016 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 04:11:16 +1000 (AEST) Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <201601151811.u0FIBGid015973@thyme.rand.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 16 Jan, 2016 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 579243 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 214165 Deaggregation factor: 2.70 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 287310 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 52514 Prefixes per ASN: 11.03 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 36606 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15851 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6420 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 166 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.4 Max AS path length visible: 39 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 40285) 34 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1011 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 359 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 12365 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 9488 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 36286 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 16 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 414 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2804584132 Equivalent to 167 /8s, 42 /16s and 142 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 75.8 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 75.8 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 97.9 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 189977 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 147506 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 40730 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.62 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 156287 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 63033 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5127 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.48 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1181 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 903 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 35 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1799 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 756473220 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 22 /16s and 221 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 88.4 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 181505 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 89204 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.03 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 184920 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 92086 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16450 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 11.24 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5923 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1711 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 37 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 938 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1100217536 Equivalent to 65 /8s, 147 /16s and 252 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 58.2 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 64198-64296, 393216-395164 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 138794 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 69063 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 146870 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 90884 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18054 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.14 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7968 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3013 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 30 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4366 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 702490240 Equivalent to 41 /8s, 223 /16s and 38 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 102.1 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-204287 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 61110 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 11950 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.11 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 74383 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 34513 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2468 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.14 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 588 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 543 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 22 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2202 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 170669568 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 44 /16s and 54 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 101.7 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-265628 + ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 13958 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3177 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.39 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 16369 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 6454 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 735 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.27 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 191 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 173 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 183 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 74363648 Equivalent to 4 /8s, 110 /16s and 179 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 73.9 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5592 4192 76 China Education and Research 7545 3129 348 159 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3017 11136 1005 Korea Telecom 17974 2859 914 96 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 9829 2294 1430 370 National Internet Backbone 4755 2076 432 234 TATA Communications formerly 9808 1725 8717 29 Guangdong Mobile Communicatio 4808 1611 2278 506 CNCGROUP IP network China169 9583 1515 121 560 Sify Limited 38197 1423 89 189 Sun Network (Hong Kong) Limit Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 22773 3292 2948 145 Cox Communications Inc. 3356 2603 10691 547 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 6389 2508 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 18566 2209 394 277 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1907 1908 409 Charter Communications 6983 1696 849 238 EarthLink, Inc. 30036 1679 333 325 Mediacom Communications Corp 4323 1580 1021 393 tw telecom holdings, inc. 209 1471 4339 1234 Qwest Communications Company, 701 1385 11450 656 MCI Communications Services, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 39891 2515 135 9 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 20940 2322 917 1659 Akamai International B.V. 34984 1940 322 412 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 8551 1224 376 53 Bezeq International-Ltd 8402 1084 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 13188 1076 97 77 TOV "Bank-Inform" 12479 1072 965 80 France Telecom Espana SA 31148 1043 48 42 Freenet Ltd. 9198 976 352 24 JSC Kazakhtelecom 6830 895 2712 465 Liberty Global Operations B.V Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 3412 540 144 Telmex Colombia S.A. 8151 2175 3384 523 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 7303 1588 943 243 Telecom Argentina S.A. 11830 1434 366 25 Instituto Costarricense de El 6503 1400 437 56 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 28573 1161 2170 144 NET Servi?os de Comunica??o S 6147 1037 376 34 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 7738 994 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 3816 981 459 186 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S 26615 943 2325 34 Tim Celular S.A. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8452 1275 1472 15 TE-AS 24863 1173 403 36 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 37611 584 39 42 Afrihost-Brevis Computer Serv 36903 553 278 106 Office National des Postes et 36992 450 1237 34 ETISALAT MISR 37492 335 213 63 Orange Tunisie 24835 331 146 12 Vodafone Data 29571 264 21 11 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 3741 221 837 183 Internet Solutions 36947 177 807 13 Telecom Algeria Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5592 4192 76 China Education and Research 10620 3412 540 144 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3292 2948 145 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3129 348 159 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3017 11136 1005 Korea Telecom 17974 2859 914 96 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 3356 2603 10691 547 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 39891 2515 135 9 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 6389 2508 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 20940 2322 917 1659 Akamai International B.V. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 10620 3412 3268 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3292 3147 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3129 2970 TPG Telecom Limited 17974 2859 2763 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 39891 2515 2506 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 6389 2508 2466 BellSouth.net Inc. 3356 2603 2056 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 4766 3017 2012 Korea Telecom 18566 2209 1932 MegaPath Corporation 9829 2294 1924 National Internet Backbone Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46467 UNALLOCATED 8.19.192.0/24 46887 Lightower Fiber Netw 18985 UNALLOCATED 8.21.68.0/22 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 15347 UNALLOCATED 8.224.147.0/24 12064 Cox Communications I 33628 UNALLOCATED 12.0.239.0/24 1239 Sprint 32805 UNALLOCATED 12.1.225.0/24 7018 AT&T Services, Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.112.0/20 62788 >>UNKNOWN<< 23.249.144.0/20 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.144.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.152.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 37.46.10.0/23 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.14.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.15.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 41.73.1.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.2.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:16 /9:13 /10:35 /11:99 /12:263 /13:506 /14:1016 /15:1756 /16:12972 /17:7430 /18:12631 /19:25611 /20:37962 /21:40069 /22:63974 /23:55455 /24:317867 /25:544 /26:577 /27:386 /28:15 /29:16 /30:9 /31:0 /32:21 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 22773 2475 3292 Cox Communications Inc. 39891 2472 2515 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 18566 2111 2209 MegaPath Corporation 6389 1553 2508 BellSouth.net Inc. 30036 1496 1679 Mediacom Communications Corp 6983 1342 1696 EarthLink, Inc. 10620 1292 3412 Telmex Colombia S.A. 34984 1226 1940 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 11492 1152 1244 CABLE ONE, INC. 31148 960 1043 Freenet Ltd. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1622 2:670 4:101 5:2073 6:26 8:1432 12:1783 13:33 14:1614 15:22 16:2 17:58 18:19 20:48 22:1 23:1339 24:1747 27:2215 31:1721 32:54 33:2 34:4 35:5 36:209 37:2331 38:1136 39:23 40:81 41:3097 42:374 43:1649 44:38 45:1627 46:2381 47:66 49:1077 50:827 51:3 52:42 54:136 55:6 56:8 57:44 58:1470 59:847 60:535 61:1777 62:1436 63:1915 64:4466 65:2175 66:4081 67:2109 68:1101 69:3282 70:1042 71:462 72:1984 74:2545 75:358 76:421 77:1366 78:1273 79:797 80:1313 81:1349 82:857 83:670 84:783 85:1522 86:455 87:1048 88:551 89:1933 90:150 91:5972 92:866 93:2306 94:2249 95:2262 96:472 97:352 98:944 99:45 100:75 101:877 103:9365 104:2206 105:94 106:373 107:1106 108:642 109:2172 110:1261 111:1595 112:888 113:1209 114:945 115:1573 116:1518 117:1363 118:2019 119:1534 120:494 121:1166 122:2277 123:2010 124:1590 125:1741 128:684 129:356 130:424 131:1304 132:603 133:170 134:450 135:117 136:345 137:325 138:1633 139:200 140:251 141:471 142:637 143:797 144:579 145:152 146:840 147:600 148:1407 149:453 150:639 151:802 152:583 153:266 154:539 155:913 156:451 157:419 158:348 159:1071 160:419 161:711 162:2234 163:528 164:717 165:1123 166:316 167:954 168:1355 169:566 170:1479 171:264 172:399 173:1586 174:708 175:820 176:1493 177:4082 178:2228 179:1080 180:2055 181:1636 182:1921 183:619 184:798 185:5393 186:3038 187:1905 188:2113 189:1735 190:7602 191:1270 192:8775 193:5728 194:4321 195:3721 196:2298 197:1149 198:5505 199:5535 200:6807 201:3695 202:9995 203:9348 204:4577 205:2720 206:2965 207:3030 208:4012 209:3963 210:3776 211:2005 212:2613 213:2131 214:827 215:73 216:5693 217:1886 218:742 219:557 220:1641 221:848 222:667 223:908 End of report From shortdudey123 at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 20:58:58 2016 From: shortdudey123 at gmail.com (Grant Ridder) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:58:58 -0800 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? Message-ID: Hi, Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. -Grant From dovid at telecurve.com Fri Jan 15 21:31:33 2016 From: dovid at telecurve.com (Dovid Bender) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:31:33 +0000 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Grant, We have been having issues for a few weeks now with instances that randomly stop getting their IP from DHCP. Did you see any dhcp errors? Regards, Dovid -----Original Message----- From: Grant Ridder Sender: "NANOG" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:58:58 To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? Hi, Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. -Grant From shortdudey123 at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 21:54:39 2016 From: shortdudey123 at gmail.com (Grant Ridder) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:54:39 -0800 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? In-Reply-To: References: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Neil / Dovid, How long ago did your issues start? Symptoms are the same, but the issue for me started early this morning at an alarming rate. -Grant On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Neil Robst wrote: > Hi David and Grant, > > We have been experiencing exactly the same issue also now whereby > our > instances randomly stop getting their DHCP reservation and then drop > offline. A simple reboot in the AWS console usually sorts it but as yet we > do not know the root cause. > > Regards, > Neil > > On 1/15/16, 1:31 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender" > wrote: > > >Grant, > > > >We have been having issues for a few weeks now with instances that > >randomly stop getting their IP from DHCP. Did you see any dhcp errors? > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Dovid > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Grant Ridder > >Sender: "NANOG" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:58:58 > >To: nanog at nanog.org > >Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > > > >Hi, > > > >Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 > >Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console > >solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network > >connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? > > > >Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. > > > >-Grant > > From shortdudey123 at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 22:02:06 2016 From: shortdudey123 at gmail.com (Grant Ridder) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:02:06 -0800 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? In-Reply-To: References: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Gotcha, thanks for the info. I am at 128 instances and counting in the last 8 hrs -Grant On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Neil Robst wrote: > Hi Grant, > We saw the first confirmed issue last week. So far only > experienced 2 > confirmed - that last week and one this morning, but its possible there > have been others. > > Neil > > From: Grant Ridder > Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM > To: Neil Robst > Cc: "dovid at telecurve.com" , NANOG > , "nanog at nanog.org" > Subject: Re: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > > > Neil / Dovid, > How long ago did your issues start? Symptoms are the same, but the issue > for me started early this morning at an alarming rate. > > -Grant > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Neil Robst > wrote: > > Hi David and Grant, > > We have been experiencing exactly the same issue also now whereby > our > instances randomly stop getting their DHCP reservation and then drop > offline. A simple reboot in the AWS console usually sorts it but as yet we > do not know the root cause. > > Regards, > Neil > > On 1/15/16, 1:31 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender" > dovid at telecurve.com> wrote: > > >Grant, > > > >We have been having issues for a few weeks now with instances that > >randomly stop getting their IP from DHCP. Did you see any dhcp errors? > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Dovid > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Grant Ridder > >Sender: "NANOG" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:58:58 > >To: nanog at nanog.org > >Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > > > >Hi, > > > >Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 > >Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console > >solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network > >connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? > > > >Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. > > > >-Grant > > > > > > > > > From shortdudey123 at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 05:49:27 2016 From: shortdudey123 at gmail.com (Grant Ridder) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:49:27 -0800 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? In-Reply-To: References: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Thanks to all the replied on and off list! tl;dr dhclient died and the instances gave up their IP's Turns out this one was inadvertently my fault. I got bit by a bug in an old version of NetworkManager. Something triggered an update of a package on some of my instances, which lead to this bug showing up. The bug appears in versions of NetworkManage prior to NetworkManager-1.0.0-14.git2015012 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285974 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136836 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-0311.html Thanks! Grant On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Grant Ridder wrote: > Gotcha, thanks for the info. > I am at 128 instances and counting in the last 8 hrs > > -Grant > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Neil Robst wrote: > >> Hi Grant, >> We saw the first confirmed issue last week. So far only >> experienced 2 >> confirmed - that last week and one this morning, but its possible there >> have been others. >> >> Neil >> >> From: Grant Ridder >> Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM >> To: Neil Robst >> Cc: "dovid at telecurve.com" , NANOG >> , "nanog at nanog.org" >> Subject: Re: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? >> >> >> Neil / Dovid, >> How long ago did your issues start? Symptoms are the same, but the issue >> for me started early this morning at an alarming rate. >> >> -Grant >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Neil Robst >> wrote: >> >> Hi David and Grant, >> >> We have been experiencing exactly the same issue also now whereby >> our >> instances randomly stop getting their DHCP reservation and then drop >> offline. A simple reboot in the AWS console usually sorts it but as yet we >> do not know the root cause. >> >> Regards, >> Neil >> >> On 1/15/16, 1:31 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender" >> > dovid at telecurve.com> wrote: >> >> >Grant, >> > >> >We have been having issues for a few weeks now with instances that >> >randomly stop getting their IP from DHCP. Did you see any dhcp errors? >> > >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Dovid >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Grant Ridder >> >Sender: "NANOG" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:58:58 >> >To: nanog at nanog.org >> >Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 >> >Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console >> >solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network >> >connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? >> > >> >Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. >> > >> >-Grant >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > From rsk at gsp.org Sat Jan 16 11:13:32 2016 From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 06:13:32 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> Message-ID: <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:44:10PM +0000, Colin Johnston wrote: > We really need to ask if China and Russia for that matter will not > take abuse reports seriously why allow them to network to the internet ? One could ask the exact same question about Amazon -- which, as of the moment, is the worst spam-supporting operation on the planet: https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks/ Are they merely incompetent? negligent? stupid? lazy? Or are they taking payoffs and bribes from spammers? Of course from outside there's no way to know. But this is not how responsible, ethical, professional operations behave: those operations promptly read, analyze, answer, and act on every single abuse report that they get. ---rsk From yossigi at bu.edu Fri Jan 15 17:35:27 2016 From: yossigi at bu.edu (Gilad, Yossi) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:35:27 +0000 Subject: RPKI Deployment Study Message-ID: <12C68B899192714CA88C75034115682CC5AE01BE@IST-EX10MBX-2.ad.bu.edu> Hi NANOG! To improve academic research on interdomain routing security by better understanding network operators' practices and concerns, we've created a short survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XHxWfUFP1lZRF0lhyDY9wZDGU81I7--65AnzhPF6cfc/viewform Survey data will be kept anonymous and will be used to improve research on interdomain routing security. Aggregated results will also be posted to the NANOG list. We appreciate any and all responses to the survey. Thank you, Avichai Cohen (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Yossi Gilad (Boston University and MIT), Amir Herzberg (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Schapira (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Haya Shulman (Fraunhofer SIT) From neil.robst at piksel.com Fri Jan 15 21:45:19 2016 From: neil.robst at piksel.com (Neil Robst) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:45:19 +0000 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? In-Reply-To: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> References: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Hi David and Grant, We have been experiencing exactly the same issue also now whereby our instances randomly stop getting their DHCP reservation and then drop offline. A simple reboot in the AWS console usually sorts it but as yet we do not know the root cause. Regards, Neil On 1/15/16, 1:31 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender" wrote: >Grant, > >We have been having issues for a few weeks now with instances that >randomly stop getting their IP from DHCP. Did you see any dhcp errors? > > >Regards, > >Dovid > >-----Original Message----- >From: Grant Ridder >Sender: "NANOG" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:58:58 >To: nanog at nanog.org >Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > >Hi, > >Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 >Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console >solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network >connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? > >Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. > >-Grant From neil.robst at piksel.com Fri Jan 15 21:58:46 2016 From: neil.robst at piksel.com (Neil Robst) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:58:46 +0000 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? In-Reply-To: References: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Hi Grant, We saw the first confirmed issue last week. So far only experienced 2 confirmed - that last week and one this morning, but its possible there have been others. Neil From: Grant Ridder Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM To: Neil Robst Cc: "dovid at telecurve.com" , NANOG , "nanog at nanog.org" Subject: Re: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? Neil / Dovid, How long ago did your issues start? Symptoms are the same, but the issue for me started early this morning at an alarming rate. -Grant On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Neil Robst wrote: Hi David and Grant, We have been experiencing exactly the same issue also now whereby our instances randomly stop getting their DHCP reservation and then drop offline. A simple reboot in the AWS console usually sorts it but as yet we do not know the root cause. Regards, Neil On 1/15/16, 1:31 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender" wrote: >Grant, > >We have been having issues for a few weeks now with instances that >randomly stop getting their IP from DHCP. Did you see any dhcp errors? > > >Regards, > >Dovid > >-----Original Message----- >From: Grant Ridder >Sender: "NANOG" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:58:58 >To: nanog at nanog.org >Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > >Hi, > >Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 >Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console >solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network >connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? > >Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. > >-Grant From bryan at blockcypher.com Fri Jan 15 22:52:18 2016 From: bryan at blockcypher.com (Bryan Cheng) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:52:18 -0800 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? In-Reply-To: References: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Could be residual from this incident yesterday? AWS claims it's been resolved, though. [RESOLVED] Instance Connectivity 3:13 PM PST We are investigating connectivity issues for some instances in the US-EAST-1 Region. 3:33 PM PST We can confirm connectivity issues when using public IP addresses for some instances within the EC2-Classic network in the US-EAST-1 Region. Connectivity between instances when using private IP addresses is not affected. We continue to work on resolution. 4:00 PM PST We continue to work on resolving the connectivity issues when using public IP addresses for some instances within the EC2-Classic network in the US-EAST-1 Region. For instances with an associated Elastic IP address (EIP), we have confirmed that re-associating the EIP address will restore connectivity. For instances using EC2 provided public IP addresses, associating a new EIP address will restore connectivity. 6:19 PM PST We continue to work on resolving public IP address connectivity for some EC2-Classic instances in the US-EAST-1 Region. We have started to see recovery for some of the affected instances and continue to work towards full recovery. 7:11 PM PST Between 2:26 PM and 7:10 PM PST we experienced connectivity issues when using public IP addresses for some instances within the EC2 Classic network in the US-EAST-1 Region. Connectivity between instances using the private IP address was not affected. The issue has been resolved and the service is operating normally. On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Grant Ridder wrote: > Gotcha, thanks for the info. > I am at 128 instances and counting in the last 8 hrs > > -Grant > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Neil Robst wrote: > > > Hi Grant, > > We saw the first confirmed issue last week. So far only > > experienced 2 > > confirmed - that last week and one this morning, but its possible there > > have been others. > > > > Neil > > > > From: Grant Ridder > > Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM > > To: Neil Robst > > Cc: "dovid at telecurve.com" , NANOG > > , "nanog at nanog.org" > > Subject: Re: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > > > > > > Neil / Dovid, > > How long ago did your issues start? Symptoms are the same, but the issue > > for me started early this morning at an alarming rate. > > > > -Grant > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Neil Robst > > wrote: > > > > Hi David and Grant, > > > > We have been experiencing exactly the same issue also now whereby > > our > > instances randomly stop getting their DHCP reservation and then drop > > offline. A simple reboot in the AWS console usually sorts it but as yet > we > > do not know the root cause. > > > > Regards, > > Neil > > > > On 1/15/16, 1:31 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender" > > > dovid at telecurve.com> wrote: > > > > >Grant, > > > > > >We have been having issues for a few weeks now with instances that > > >randomly stop getting their IP from DHCP. Did you see any dhcp errors? > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Dovid > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Grant Ridder > > >Sender: "NANOG" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 > 12:58:58 > > >To: nanog at nanog.org > > >Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 > > >Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console > > >solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network > > >connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? > > > > > >Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. > > > > > >-Grant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From cb.list6 at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 13:43:56 2016 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 05:43:56 -0800 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> Message-ID: On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:44:10PM +0000, Colin Johnston wrote: > > We really need to ask if China and Russia for that matter will not > > take abuse reports seriously why allow them to network to the internet ? > > One could ask the exact same question about Amazon -- which, as of > the moment, is the worst spam-supporting operation on the planet: > > https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks/ > > Are they merely incompetent? negligent? stupid? lazy? Or are they > taking payoffs and bribes from spammers? Of course from outside there's > no way to know. But this is not how responsible, ethical, professional > operations behave: those operations promptly read, analyze, answer, and > act on every single abuse report that they get. > > ---rsk > I really like what spamhaus has done here. I see a great deal of folks on nanog clamoring to buy ddos gear. Packets are starting to become like spam email, where 90% are pure rubbish, and us good guys have to spend a lot of money and time sorting signal from noise. Can Cloudflare, Akamai, and the others in the ddos protection racket please do as spamhaus has done? It would really be a great service to aggregate and release high level data on where these ddos bots are hosted. The pessimistic side of me believes cloudflare and akamai want the internet to be choked with bots such that everyone must pay their toll, so the information on the bots is a trade secret... But please prove me wrong so we can drive higher accountability on the internet. From nanog at ics-il.net Sat Jan 16 13:54:16 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 07:54:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1399177146.9298.1452952535736.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Agreed. A "Top 10" report would be awesome. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ca By" To: "Rich Kulawiec" Cc: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 7:43:56 AM Subject: Re: de-peering for security sake On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:44:10PM +0000, Colin Johnston wrote: > > We really need to ask if China and Russia for that matter will not > > take abuse reports seriously why allow them to network to the internet ? > > One could ask the exact same question about Amazon -- which, as of > the moment, is the worst spam-supporting operation on the planet: > > https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks/ > > Are they merely incompetent? negligent? stupid? lazy? Or are they > taking payoffs and bribes from spammers? Of course from outside there's > no way to know. But this is not how responsible, ethical, professional > operations behave: those operations promptly read, analyze, answer, and > act on every single abuse report that they get. > > ---rsk > I really like what spamhaus has done here. I see a great deal of folks on nanog clamoring to buy ddos gear. Packets are starting to become like spam email, where 90% are pure rubbish, and us good guys have to spend a lot of money and time sorting signal from noise. Can Cloudflare, Akamai, and the others in the ddos protection racket please do as spamhaus has done? It would really be a great service to aggregate and release high level data on where these ddos bots are hosted. The pessimistic side of me believes cloudflare and akamai want the internet to be choked with bots such that everyone must pay their toll, so the information on the bots is a trade secret... But please prove me wrong so we can drive higher accountability on the internet. From rsk at gsp.org Sat Jan 16 14:53:40 2016 From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:53:40 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> Message-ID: <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 05:43:56AM -0800, Ca By wrote: > I see a great deal of folks on nanog clamoring to buy ddos gear. Packets > are starting to become like spam email, where 90% are pure rubbish, and > us good guys have to spend a lot of money and time sorting signal from > noise. I've said this many times: abuse does not magically fall out of the sky. It comes from hosts, on networks, run by people. It is time -- well past time -- to hold those people *personally* acountable. Not doing so leaves us where we are today: millions -- heck, hundreds of millions -- of dollars are being spent on defenses THAT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY if those people performed their jobs at a mere baseline level of competence and diligence. ---rsk From patrick at ianai.net Sat Jan 16 15:15:06 2016 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 10:15:06 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> Message-ID: <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> On Jan 16, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 05:43:56AM -0800, Ca By wrote: >> I see a great deal of folks on nanog clamoring to buy ddos gear. Packets >> are starting to become like spam email, where 90% are pure rubbish, and >> us good guys have to spend a lot of money and time sorting signal from >> noise. > > I've said this many times: abuse does not magically fall out of the sky. > It comes from hosts, on networks, run by people. It is time -- well > past time -- to hold those people *personally* acountable. > > Not doing so leaves us where we are today: millions -- heck, hundreds > of millions -- of dollars are being spent on defenses THAT WOULD NOT > BE NECESSARY if those people performed their jobs at a mere baseline > level of competence and diligence. Shared fate systems suck in some ways. But I disagree that ?a mere baseline level of competence and diligence? is even close to what is required. Making the owner of the host responsible for an attack -personally- responsible would require every grandma & 6 year old to have insurance before buying a laptop or Xbox. And would bankrupt your favorite startup no matter how smart & competent the first time a zero-day caught them by surprise. Of course, forcing Uncle Bob to call his insurance carrier before buying a smartphone, and having San Hill Road take even greater risks when investing, and giving lawyers yet another vector for frivolous lawsuits, wouldn?t have the slightest effect on the global economy. On the other hand, that 100s of millions of dollars is a rounding error in the wealth & public good created by that same shared fate system. Overall, I think we?re doing well. Before anyone pounces on me, I hate spam, dos, etc. as much as anyone else. (You know how much personal, unpaid time I?ve put into fighting both, Rich.) If we can find the originators of these things, we should hang them by their thumbs and beat them senseless. We should do everything we can to make ISPs implement BCP38, get software vendors to QA better, and educate users to be less, well, idiotic. But I am also pragmatic. Life sucks, it is not fair. But the idea of making either grandma or the network engineer at an ISP or even the CEO of a hosting company personally responsible for things like zero-days or minor errors which can be exploited to the tune of greater than their personal wealth or even their corporate market cap is a recipe for bringing everything to a screeching halt. I kinda like the ride we?re on, bumps and all. Let?s not bring it to a screeching halt. -- TTFN, patrick From cb.list6 at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 15:50:10 2016 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 07:50:10 -0800 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> Message-ID: On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Jan 16, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Rich Kulawiec > > wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 05:43:56AM -0800, Ca By wrote: > > >> I see a great deal of folks on nanog clamoring to buy ddos gear. Packets > >> are starting to become like spam email, where 90% are pure rubbish, > and > >> us good guys have to spend a lot of money and time sorting signal from > >> noise. > > > > I've said this many times: abuse does not magically fall out of the sky. > > It comes from hosts, on networks, run by people. It is time -- well > > past time -- to hold those people *personally* acountable. > > > > Not doing so leaves us where we are today: millions -- heck, hundreds > > of millions -- of dollars are being spent on defenses THAT WOULD NOT > > BE NECESSARY if those people performed their jobs at a mere baseline > > level of competence and diligence. > > Shared fate systems suck in some ways. But I disagree that ?a mere > baseline level of competence and diligence? is even close to what is > required. > > Making the owner of the host responsible for an attack -personally- > responsible would require every grandma & 6 year old to have insurance > before buying a laptop or Xbox. And would bankrupt your favorite startup no > matter how smart & competent the first time a zero-day caught them by > surprise. > > Of course, forcing Uncle Bob to call his insurance carrier before buying a > smartphone, and having San Hill Road take even greater risks when > investing, and giving lawyers yet another vector for frivolous lawsuits, > wouldn?t have the slightest effect on the global economy. > > On the other hand, that 100s of millions of dollars is a rounding error in > the wealth & public good created by that same shared fate system. > > Overall, I think we?re doing well. > > > Before anyone pounces on me, I hate spam, dos, etc. as much as anyone > else. (You know how much personal, unpaid time I?ve put into fighting both, > Rich.) If we can find the originators of these things, we should hang them > by their thumbs and beat them senseless. We should do everything we can to > make ISPs implement BCP38, get software vendors to QA better, and educate > users to be less, well, idiotic. > > But I am also pragmatic. Life sucks, it is not fair. But the idea of > making either grandma or the network engineer at an ISP or even the CEO of > a hosting company personally responsible for things like zero-days or minor > errors which can be exploited to the tune of greater than their personal > wealth or even their corporate market cap is a recipe for bringing > everything to a screeching halt. > > I kinda like the ride we?re on, bumps and all. Let?s not bring it to a > screeching halt. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > Tar and feather bad, yes. Name and shame so i can sick my "enterpise account manager" on the shamed = good. For example, i have an aws account manager. He likes to come in quartly and tell me and the exec team about how great aws is and how we need to buy more reserved instances. Like with ipv6, I will make his life hell with my execs on our quartly business review citing spamhaus. My account manager will squeel in a very unsatifying way, but he will muster his sales org muscle to pass on the discomfort to the folks who can increase accountability and address abuse internally. That is how transparency and accountability work, put $ and reputation on the line with big spenders. So, thanks Spamhaus. Now, looking at the ddos protection folks to do something similar so we can get to the root of this ddos epidemic instead of constantly applying network chemo CB From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 16 19:01:36 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:01:36 -0800 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> Message-ID: <3B9A87A6-2D8E-4BF7-AAAD-68F4BD3EA070@delong.com> > The pessimistic side of me believes cloudflare and akamai want the internet > to be choked with bots such that everyone must pay their toll, so the > information on the bots is a trade secret... But please prove me wrong so > we can drive higher accountability on the internet. I am not speaking for Akamai here and I have nothing to do with dDOS product development there. However, I will say that there is great expense involved in collecting the kind of data you are now asking them to aggregate and release for free and there is commercial value in selling protection services. However, just as there is great value in providing health care services, I doubt that physicians are out there cheering for disease and affliction. I?m quite certain we would all be happy to market other services in the absence of a need for dDOS mitigation services. However, if you want to see this kind of data captured and disseminated for free, I suggest you build a consortium to do so and find a way to fund it. I have no input into the decision, but I think it would be absurd for a commercial entity to give away data which is so expensive to obtain. Owen From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 16 19:09:27 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:09:27 -0800 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> Message-ID: <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> > On Jan 16, 2016, at 07:15 , Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Rich Kulawiec > wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 05:43:56AM -0800, Ca By wrote: > >>> I see a great deal of folks on nanog clamoring to buy ddos gear. Packets >>> are starting to become like spam email, where 90% are pure rubbish, and >>> us good guys have to spend a lot of money and time sorting signal from >>> noise. >> >> I've said this many times: abuse does not magically fall out of the sky. >> It comes from hosts, on networks, run by people. It is time -- well >> past time -- to hold those people *personally* acountable. >> >> Not doing so leaves us where we are today: millions -- heck, hundreds >> of millions -- of dollars are being spent on defenses THAT WOULD NOT >> BE NECESSARY if those people performed their jobs at a mere baseline >> level of competence and diligence. > > Shared fate systems suck in some ways. But I disagree that ?a mere baseline level of competence and diligence? is even close to what is required. > > Making the owner of the host responsible for an attack -personally- responsible would require every grandma & 6 year old to have insurance before buying a laptop or Xbox. And would bankrupt your favorite startup no matter how smart & competent the first time a zero-day caught them by surprise. Agreed? I think, instead, that the commercial purveyors of vulnerable software should be held liable. > Of course, forcing Uncle Bob to call his insurance carrier before buying a smartphone, and having San Hill Road take even greater risks when investing, and giving lawyers yet another vector for frivolous lawsuits, wouldn?t have the slightest effect on the global economy. > > On the other hand, that 100s of millions of dollars is a rounding error in the wealth & public good created by that same shared fate system. > > Overall, I think we?re doing well. While I agree with you (scary, huh) about most of this, I do think that there is legitimate liability to be had by commercial software vendors that have so far held themselves immune to prosecution. We have already seen that vulnerabilities in open source software tend to get corrected much faster than in closed commercial software. We?ve also seen that opening up source code to inspection by the community tends to make the vulnerabilities known faster (which is a double-edge sword to be certain). I?m not saying we should eliminate closed commercial software, but I do think giving it a free pass on the liability for the damage it inflicts is something that should no longer be tolerated. > Before anyone pounces on me, I hate spam, dos, etc. as much as anyone else. (You know how much personal, unpaid time I?ve put into fighting both, Rich.) If we can find the originators of these things, we should hang them by their thumbs and beat them senseless. We should do everything we can to make ISPs implement BCP38, get software vendors to QA better, and educate users to be less, well, idiotic. +1 > But I am also pragmatic. Life sucks, it is not fair. But the idea of making either grandma or the network engineer at an ISP or even the CEO of a hosting company personally responsible for things like zero-days or minor errors which can be exploited to the tune of greater than their personal wealth or even their corporate market cap is a recipe for bringing everything to a screeching halt. Agreed. Perhaps liability with some sort of safe harbor provision for corrections released within 30 days of notification of vulnerability would be a better choice than outright complete liability. However, if you want to sell software without giving users the ability to plug the holes you created, whether by design or by accident, should come with a responsibility to plug them on a timely basis. > I kinda like the ride we?re on, bumps and all. Let?s not bring it to a screeching halt. Meh? If we did, a new ride would soon take its place. Owen From dougb at dougbarton.us Sun Jan 17 01:44:03 2016 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:44:03 -0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Real_Customer_Choice_For_T-Mobile=e2=80=99s_Binge_On_Requ?= =?UTF-8?Q?ires_Transparency=2c_Opt-In?= Message-ID: <569AF1E3.4040004@dougbarton.us> If you?ve been paying attention, you probably noticed the recent headlines about T-Mobile CEO John Legere and his anti-EFF mini-rant on Twitter. Legere was responding to a question we had asked about T-Mobile?s Binge On service: ?Does Binge On alter the video stream in any way, or just limit its bandwidth?? But it apparently made him angry enough to drop an f-bomb on us. http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/16/real-customer-choice-for-t-mobiles-binge-on-requires-transparency-opt-in/ From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sun Jan 17 02:40:26 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:40:26 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> Message-ID: <199797.1452998426@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:53:40 -0500, Rich Kulawiec said: > I've said this many times: abuse does not magically fall out of the sky. > It comes from hosts, on networks, run by people. It is time -- well > past time -- to hold those people *personally* acountable. And who, *exactly*, are you planning to hold *personally* accountable? The Joe Sixpack who didn't patch his system? The guy who's doing as much as he can with the resources he's given? The guy above him who didn't hire 3 more people because his group isn't given the budget for it? The CFO who didn't give budget for 3 more people because 3 qualified people plus benefits would wipe out the small ISP's profits and then somee? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sun Jan 17 02:48:38 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:48:38 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> Message-ID: <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:09:27 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > > Making the owner of the host responsible for an attack -personally- > > responsible would require every grandma & 6 year old to have insurance before > > buying a laptop or Xbox. And would bankrupt your favorite startup no matter how > > smart & competent the first time a zero-day caught them by surprise. > Agreed??? I think, instead, that the commercial purveyors of vulnerable software > should be held liable. And this is another one that needs *really* careful definitions. How much time does Redhat get to patch a bug in (say) OpenSSH or the kernel or any other package from upstream, before you want to hold them liable? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bzs at theworld.com Sun Jan 17 20:44:34 2016 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:44:34 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> When all you have is a hammer the whole world looks like a nail. That's what "de-peering for security sake" sounds like to me. Sure, you have your hands on BGP etc, so what router commands (hammer) can effect international policy (nail)? This is fundamentally a social and political issue and needs to be dealt with on that level, not with changes in router configs. We need an effective forum with effective participation perhaps eventually leading to signed contractual obligations agreed to by all parties. Perhaps way at the end of that process router commands can be used to enforce agreed contracts and respond to adjudicated breeches, if and when necessary. Otherwise it's just rule by an angry mob. The internet has gotten way too big and critical for that sort of approach. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From goemon at sasami.anime.net Sun Jan 17 21:06:02 2016 From: goemon at sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:06:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, bzs at theworld.com wrote: > Sure, you have your hands on BGP etc, so what router commands (hammer) > can effect international policy (nail)? > > This is fundamentally a social and political issue and needs to be > dealt with on that level, not with changes in router configs. bgp blackhole fed by rbl? at the very least, scavenger queue packets by rbl. complacency / willful negligence needs to have a monetary cost. -Dan From dougb at dougbarton.us Sun Jan 17 21:09:15 2016 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:09:15 -0800 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> On 1/17/2016 12:44 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote: > We need an effective forum with effective participation perhaps > eventually leading to signed contractual obligations agreed to by all > parties. Not gonna help. The same people who have no incentive to do the right thing now will still have no incentive to join the group you propose. I've said it before, and it's an unpopular option, but the only way that this will change is to make it more expensive to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing. That means lawsuits filed by companies that have been harmed as a result of those that are not doing the right thing. That will produce the incentives which will be recognized and understood by all layers of management, and result in real action for the better. As nice as it would be if everyone were to do the right thing because it's the right thing, we already have ample evidence that won't happen. Time to stop pretending otherwise. Doug From goemon at sasami.anime.net Sun Jan 17 21:15:36 2016 From: goemon at sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:15:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, Doug Barton wrote: > On 1/17/2016 12:44 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote: >> We need an effective forum with effective participation perhaps >> eventually leading to signed contractual obligations agreed to by all >> parties. > Not gonna help. The same people who have no incentive to do the right thing > now will still have no incentive to join the group you propose. > > I've said it before, and it's an unpopular option, but the only way that this > will change is to make it more expensive to do the wrong thing than it is to > do the right thing. I think it can happen without lawsuits. look at RBLs and spamhaus. a bit sad that spamhaus has to exist in order to motivate operators to clean up their cesspools, but it does work to a certain extent. -Dan From cb.list6 at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 21:32:44 2016 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:32:44 -0800 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: On Sunday, January 17, 2016, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, bzs at theworld.com wrote: > >> Sure, you have your hands on BGP etc, so what router commands (hammer) >> can effect international policy (nail)? >> >> This is fundamentally a social and political issue and needs to be >> dealt with on that level, not with changes in router configs. >> > > bgp blackhole fed by rbl? > > at the very least, scavenger queue packets by rbl. > > If you are not already scoring packets by reputation, you are at very least behind what AWS is doing for volumetric ddos mitigation Check out around minute 12 and 13 http://youtu.be/Ys0gG1koqJA As stated earlier, ip packets are going the way of spam mail :( complacency / willful negligence needs to have a monetary cost. > > -Dan > From colton.conor at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 23:15:31 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 17:15:31 -0600 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX Message-ID: Does anyone know when the switching and router vendors will release their new models with the Broadcom BCM88370 and BCM88670 chips? It looks like these chips could be used as a carrier grade router and/or metro E device. More information here: http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s902223 and here: http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/03/19/new-dune-chips-enable-heftier-switches/ From bzs at theworld.com Mon Jan 18 00:23:13 2016 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:23:13 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: <22172.12401.876606.103100@pcls8.std.com> On January 17, 2016 at 13:06 goemon at sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis) wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, bzs at theworld.com wrote: > > Sure, you have your hands on BGP etc, so what router commands (hammer) > > can effect international policy (nail)? > > > > This is fundamentally a social and political issue and needs to be > > dealt with on that level, not with changes in router configs. > > bgp blackhole fed by rbl? > > at the very least, scavenger queue packets by rbl. > > complacency / willful negligence needs to have a monetary cost. How well is this approach working so far? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From bzs at theworld.com Mon Jan 18 00:39:52 2016 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: <22172.13400.899948.1320@pcls8.std.com> On January 17, 2016 at 13:09 dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) wrote: > On 1/17/2016 12:44 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote: > > We need an effective forum with effective participation perhaps > > eventually leading to signed contractual obligations agreed to by all > > parties. > > Not gonna help. The same people who have no incentive to do the right > thing now will still have no incentive to join the group you propose. How about if backed by an agreement with the 5 RIRs stating no new resource allocations or transfers etc unless a contract is signed and enforced? Or similar. Anyhow the point is that the same methods can be used, it's just that if one uses a contractual obligation (or refusal to sign thereto) and some process for adjudication at least it can take on the appearance of transparent fair play and violation of rules everyone has agreed to abide by rather than vigilantism. > > I've said it before, and it's an unpopular option, but the only way that > this will change is to make it more expensive to do the wrong thing than > it is to do the right thing. That means lawsuits filed by companies that > have been harmed as a result of those that are not doing the right > thing. That will produce the incentives which will be recognized and > understood by all layers of management, and result in real action for > the better. Lawsuits are just looking for some external authority (a court, of what jurisdiction?) to do what should have been done within the industry itself. So now we'd have a court, and a jury of bus drivers and senior citizens, trying to figure out what the problem really is? I thought a lot of this started over international problems. Ever tried to get a court order or subpoena enforced in Lower Slobbovia? (no, because there is no such place as Lower Slobbovia, but you can fill in that blank I'm sure.) > As nice as it would be if everyone were to do the right thing because > it's the right thing, we already have ample evidence that won't happen. > Time to stop pretending otherwise. Might have something to do with the unsophisticated way this is being approached? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From dovid at telecurve.com Mon Jan 18 02:10:07 2016 From: dovid at telecurve.com (Dovid Bender) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 02:10:07 +0000 Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? In-Reply-To: References: <1294380769-1452893493-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-743461128-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <1844048957-1453083008-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-476377781-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Sorry for the delayed reply. It's been going on for about two weeks. The last few days have been ok but unless we know it's been fixed we will keep looking. How has it been for you the last few days? Regards, Dovid -----Original Message----- From: Grant Ridder Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:02:06 To: Neil Robst Cc: dovid at telecurve.com; NANOG; nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? Gotcha, thanks for the info. I am at 128 instances and counting in the last 8 hrs -Grant On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Neil Robst wrote: > Hi Grant, > We saw the first confirmed issue last week. So far only > experienced 2 > confirmed - that last week and one this morning, but its possible there > have been others. > > Neil > > From: Grant Ridder > Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM > To: Neil Robst > Cc: "dovid at telecurve.com" , NANOG > , "nanog at nanog.org" > Subject: Re: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > > > Neil / Dovid, > How long ago did your issues start? Symptoms are the same, but the issue > for me started early this morning at an alarming rate. > > -Grant > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Neil Robst > wrote: > > Hi David and Grant, > > We have been experiencing exactly the same issue also now whereby > our > instances randomly stop getting their DHCP reservation and then drop > offline. A simple reboot in the AWS console usually sorts it but as yet we > do not know the root cause. > > Regards, > Neil > > On 1/15/16, 1:31 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Dovid Bender" > dovid at telecurve.com> wrote: > > >Grant, > > > >We have been having issues for a few weeks now with instances that > >randomly stop getting their IP from DHCP. Did you see any dhcp errors? > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Dovid > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Grant Ridder > >Sender: "NANOG" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:58:58 > >To: nanog at nanog.org > >Subject: network issue on ec2 classic us-east-1?? > > > >Hi, > > > >Over the last 6 hrs i have had over 100 instances in us-east-1 in EC2 > >Classic fail their instance health checks and a reboot via the console > >solves them. Logs on the host point to a loss of all network > >connectivity. Anyone else experiencing something like this? > > > >Reached out to AWS support and haven't gotten anywhere with that yet. > > > >-Grant > > > > > > > > > From randy at psg.com Mon Jan 18 02:16:42 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:16:42 +0900 Subject: Sao Tome and Principe off net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: anyone know why Sao Tome and Principe fell off the net at 01:04? https://stat.ripe.net/ST#tabId=routing randy From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Jan 18 05:21:22 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:21:22 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <22172.13400.899948.1320@pcls8.std.com> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> <22172.13400.899948.1320@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: <48536.1453094482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500, bzs at theworld.com said: > How about if backed by an agreement with the 5 RIRs stating no new > resource allocations or transfers etc unless a contract is signed and > enforced? Or similar. Then they'd just resort to hijacking address space. Oh wait, they already do that and get away with it.... (And a threat of withholding IP address space from long-haul providers isn't as credible - they have much less need for publicly routed IP addresses than either eyeball farms or content farms, so you'll have to find some other way to motivate them to not accept a hijacked route announcement...) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidsandel at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 20:55:21 2016 From: davidsandel at gmail.com (David Sandel) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:55:21 -0600 Subject: St. Louis Region - SCIX Internet Exchange Meetup - Thursday January 21st Message-ID: *WELCOME - SCIX-STL Internet Exchange Meetup !* *Join us January 21st at the T-REX for a regional design review for the SCIX-STL **Internet Exchange point for the greater St. Louis area.* SCIX is working to provide a single peering fabric and peering services for local service providers, data centers, and carrier hotels. SCIX will also provide a second fabric for Smart City IoE, regional sensor networks, advanced security services and high speed wireless networks. Bill Woodcock from the Packet Clearing House , SCIX team members and Sandel & Associates will be providing a full day presentation regarding design, operation, governance and operational issues for SCIX-STL. PCH has offered to provide SCIX-STL with switch gear to make this a reality for the St. Louis area. For more information and to get a ticket, check out Eventbrite Thank you, Dave Sandel From bruns at 2mbit.com Mon Jan 18 17:38:02 2016 From: bruns at 2mbit.com (Brielle Bruns) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:38:02 -0700 Subject: Verizon E-Mail Contact Message-ID: <569D22FA.9010901@2mbit.com> Hello, Don't suppose anyone has a contact for Verizon's e-mail department? Filled out a request on their whitelist page, and they only checked the last IP address in the list that I provided. Naturally, I responded back with a copy of the reject showing that their system is blocking on at least one of the IP addresses, asking them to check again. From my mail logs: 80B2C43087 8958 Mon Jan 18 10:19:12 brielle at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (host outbound.bizmailsrvcs.net[206.46.232.21] refused to talk to me: 550-Email from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is currently blocked by Verizon Online's 550-anti-spam system. The email sender or Email Service Provider may visit 550 http://www.verizon.net/whitelist and request removal of the block. 160118) whitelist at verizononline.net *double Picard / Riker facepalm* -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org From mstorck at voipgate.com Mon Jan 18 18:09:42 2016 From: mstorck at voipgate.com (Marc Storck) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:09:42 +0000 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com>, Message-ID: <42E0F0207938744EB3DA31C28FC221CF01369464E7@LCEXMBX02.cmsad.local> Yahoo is again "permanently" deferring mails with a persistent transient (sic) failure codes. I followed all the instructions provided online, on and off-list. Not sure what they expect operators to do in that case... Regards, Marc ________________________________________ Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:47 To: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact Today the situation cleared on it?s own as it appears. (at least I haven?t been notified of any human action) Thanks to all those replying on and off list. Regards, Marc From ryan at hack.net Mon Jan 18 18:40:17 2016 From: ryan at hack.net (Ryan K. Brooks) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 12:40:17 -0600 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <42E0F0207938744EB3DA31C28FC221CF01369464E7@LCEXMBX02.cmsad.local> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> <42E0F0207938744EB3DA31C28FC221CF01369464E7@LCEXMBX02.cmsad.local> Message-ID: <569D3191.8010202@hack.net> On 1/18/16 12:09 PM, Marc Storck wrote: > Yahoo is again "permanently" deferring mails with a persistent transient (sic) failure codes. > > I followed all the instructions provided online, on and off-list. > > Not sure what they expect operators to do in that case... > > Regards, Marc > ________________________________________ > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:47 > To: North American Network Operators' Group > Subject: Re: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact > > Today the situation cleared on it?s own as it appears. (at least I haven?t been notified of any human action) > > Thanks to all those replying on and off list. > > Regards, > > Marc > Yahoo and Hotmail have always caused us problems with list delivery. The issue comes and goes and nothing seems to fix it. I've _assumed_ that subscribers mark list traffic as spam instead of unsubscribing and some sort of score increases, shunting us, and then the score tapers off and delivery resumes. In the meantime, Mailman unsubs piles of *@yahoo accounts. Yay, Ryan From colton.conor at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 19:02:08 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:02:08 -0600 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers Message-ID: What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? So far I have found both https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, but I could be wrong. From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Mon Jan 18 19:08:45 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:08:45 -0500 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jan 18, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? > So far I have found both > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and > http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html > Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? > > > I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, > but I could be wrong. > Menara also makes a tunable XFP+ which supports FEC and OTN framing. http://menaranet.com/ -Daniel From gerardo.perales at axtel.com.mx Mon Jan 18 19:28:58 2016 From: gerardo.perales at axtel.com.mx (Jose Gerardo Perales Soto) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 19:28:58 +0000 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://precisionot.com/ I got to know about them at a MEF event and their transceiver line seems to be very flexible. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 1:02 PM To: NANOG Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? So far I have found both https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, but I could be wrong. ________________________________ El contenido del presente correo electr?nico es de car?cter confidencial, privado y propiedad de AXTEL, S.A.B. de C.V., por lo que en caso de haber recibido el presente por error, o de no ser el destinatario del mismo, por favor h?galo saber al remitente, e igualmente elimine y no almacene en forma alguna la informaci?n aqu? contenida. As? mismo, el contenido del presente correo no genera obligaci?n alguna a cargo de AXTEL, S.A.B. de C.V., de cualquiera de sus subsidiarias o del remitente. From bzs at theworld.com Mon Jan 18 19:31:10 2016 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:31:10 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <48536.1453094482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> <22172.13400.899948.1320@pcls8.std.com> <48536.1453094482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <22173.15742.139078.536314@pcls8.std.com> On January 18, 2016 at 00:21 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500, bzs at theworld.com said: > > How about if backed by an agreement with the 5 RIRs stating no new > > resource allocations or transfers etc unless a contract is signed and > > enforced? Or similar. > > Then they'd just resort to hijacking address space. > > Oh wait, they already do that and get away with it.... I think we're talking about two different problems, both valid. One is legitimate operators who probably mostly want to do the right thing but are negligent, disagree (perhaps with many one this list) on what is an actionable problem, etc. The other are those actors prone to criminality. I was addressing the first problem though I'd assert that progress on the first problem would likely yield progress on the second, or cooperation anyhow. > > (And a threat of withholding IP address space from long-haul providers isn't as > credible - they have much less need for publicly routed IP addresses than > either eyeball farms or content farms, so you'll have to find some other way to > motivate them to not accept a hijacked route announcement...) > No man is an island entire of himself -- John Donne. First one has to agree to the concept of creating a network based on contractual agreements. I gave some examples of how to encourage actors to enter into those contracts, my list wasn't intended to be exhaustive, it was intended to be an existence proof, some pressure points exist and are easy to understand even if not complete. Besides, why make the perfect the enemy of the good? If many, perhaps not all (or not at first), agreed to a common set of contractual obligations that would be progress, no? Is there even a document which describes what a "hijacked" net block is and why it is bad? Obvious? No, it is not obvious. The best one can say is there exist obvious cases. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Mon Jan 18 19:44:03 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:44:03 -0500 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: <854B8D8A-1336-4581-9311-95388F44D29B@lumaoptics.net> References: <854B8D8A-1336-4581-9311-95388F44D29B@lumaoptics.net> Message-ID: <59462632-C34A-47B9-9A68-423EFD8D6346@hammerfiber.com> Eric, If you?ve got something to relevant to add to the discussion, feel free to reply to the list yourself. I?m not endorsing Menara?s pluggables any more than I?m endorsing yours. I?m just simply stating that I?m aware that Menara exists as a company. I took a quick look at your site and Luma?s products do indeed bear some relevance to this topic. Best, Daniel > On Jan 18, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Eric Litvin wrote: > > Hi Daniel- we have a programmable tool called Cloudcode. I'd appreciate you updating the board about it. Also, it's free! > > Eric Litvin > Luma > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 18, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: > >>> On Jan 18, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote: >>> >>> What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? >>> So far I have found both >>> https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and >>> http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html >>> Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? >>> >>> >>> I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, >>> but I could be wrong. >> >> Menara also makes a tunable XFP+ which supports FEC and OTN framing. >> >> http://menaranet.com/ >> >> -Daniel >> >> > From nellermann at broadaspect.com Mon Jan 18 19:50:00 2016 From: nellermann at broadaspect.com (Nick Ellermann) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 19:50:00 +0000 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b9393dab3f24995b766e37352fae014@exchange.broadaspect.local> We have purchased a lot through the Solid-Optics US team. Very happy with their pricing, reliability and support. We have their multi-fiber tool and have reprogrammed optics as needed to go between MFG equipment. I can only recommend that you give them a try. Sincerely, Nick Ellermann ? CTO & VP Cloud Services BroadAspect ? E: nellermann at broadaspect.com P: 703-297-4639 F: 703-996-4443 ? THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 2:02 PM To: NANOG Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? So far I have found both https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, but I could be wrong. From eric at lumaoptics.net Mon Jan 18 20:07:47 2016 From: eric at lumaoptics.net (Eric Litvin) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 12:07:47 -0800 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Luma Optics in California has re-progammable transceivers along with a coding platform called CLOUDCODE. In addition to re-programming, the tool can also be used for DWDM tuning. Eric Luma Optics On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Colton Conor wrote: > What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? > So far I have found both > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and > > http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html > Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? > > > I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, > but I could be wrong. > -- Eric Litvin President eric at lumaoptics.net Direct: (650)440-4382 Mobile:(*650)996-7270* Fax: (650) 618-1870 From jared at puck.Nether.net Mon Jan 18 23:53:26 2016 From: jared at puck.Nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:53:26 -0500 Subject: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact In-Reply-To: <569D3191.8010202@hack.net> References: <3D3E1C5A-4C0A-45B5-8FF1-BD16951BF4AA@voipgate.com> <42E0F0207938744EB3DA31C28FC221CF01369464E7@LCEXMBX02.cmsad.local> <569D3191.8010202@hack.net> Message-ID: <20160118235326.GB7593@puck.nether.net> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:40:17PM -0600, Ryan K. Brooks wrote: > > On 1/18/16 12:09 PM, Marc Storck wrote: > >Yahoo is again "permanently" deferring mails with a persistent transient (sic) failure codes. > > > >I followed all the instructions provided online, on and off-list. > > > >Not sure what they expect operators to do in that case... > > > >Regards, Marc > >________________________________________ > >Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:47 > >To: North American Network Operators' Group > >Subject: Re: Looking for Yahoo eMail contact > > > >Today the situation cleared on it?s own as it appears. (at least I haven?t been notified of any human action) > > > >Thanks to all those replying on and off list. > > > >Regards, > > > >Marc > > > Yahoo and Hotmail have always caused us problems with list delivery. The > issue comes and goes and nothing seems to fix it. I've _assumed_ that > subscribers mark list traffic as spam instead of unsubscribing and some sort > of score increases, shunting us, and then the score tapers off and delivery > resumes. > > In the meantime, Mailman unsubs piles of *@yahoo accounts. I've seen this often on the feedback loop i get from aol, namely their users similarly mark stuff as spam they meant to delete. the best is when they mark the monthly mailman item as spam. i've taken the approach of removing and blocking the user if I can ID them, but mostly just ignoring the spam report. much easier that way. you can't fix the users sadly, they arrived in a broken state. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jan 19 06:27:26 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:27:26 +0200 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <569DD74E.8030404@seacom.mu> On 18/Jan/16 01:15, Colton Conor wrote: > Does anyone know when the switching and router vendors will release their > new models with the Broadcom BCM88370 and BCM88670 chips? It looks like > these chips could be used as a carrier grade router and/or metro E device. > > More information here: http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s902223 > > and here: > http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/03/19/new-dune-chips-enable-heftier-switches/ I should dig around for more information around these. Merchant chips have focused on bandwidth scaling at the expense of key features available in custom silicon. This has forced me to avoid certain hardware from even the big vendors. Bandwidth is not everything... if the approach with this new chip is different, I'd be interested. Time to hunt... Mark. From bedard.phil at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 07:01:46 2016 From: bedard.phil at gmail.com (Phil Bedard) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:01:46 -0500 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> The BCM88670 (Jericho) is what powers the new Cisco NCS55XX devices. The processor is linerate above around 100 bytes per packet without external TCAM, supports 256K IPv4/64K IPv6 FIB entries (or mixed amounts). These chips are being used for high scale 100G, the initial NCS5508 linecard is a 36x100G QSFP28 one. Juniper has chosen to use their own silicon for most of their dense 100G platforms, but you?ll see these chips used by pretty much everyone else I imagine at some point in the next year. Phil -----Original Message----- From: NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor Date: Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 18:15 To: NANOG Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX >Does anyone know when the switching and router vendors will release their >new models with the Broadcom BCM88370 and BCM88670 chips? It looks like >these chips could be used as a carrier grade router and/or metro E device. > >More information here: http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s902223 > >and here: >http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/03/19/new-dune-chips-enable-heftier-switches/ From tarko at lanparty.ee Tue Jan 19 11:54:27 2016 From: tarko at lanparty.ee (Tarko Tikan) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:54:27 +0200 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> References: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <569E23F3.7020104@lanparty.ee> hey, > Juniper has chosen to use their own silicon for most of their dense 100G platforms, but you?ll see these chips used by pretty much everyone else I imagine at some point in the next year. Juniper silicon has one big advantage over BCM88670 - it supports 2M FIB entries. This makes PTX1000 (and QFX10002) very attractive platform for SPs. -- tarko From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jan 19 12:46:26 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:46:26 +0200 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: <569E23F3.7020104@lanparty.ee> References: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> <569E23F3.7020104@lanparty.ee> Message-ID: <569E3022.9030200@seacom.mu> On 19/Jan/16 13:54, Tarko Tikan wrote: > > Juniper silicon has one big advantage over BCM88670 - it supports 2M > FIB entries. This makes PTX1000 (and QFX10002) very attractive > platform for SPs. Vendor-owned silicon will always provide better all-round performance. It's just pricier. Mark. From colton.conor at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 14:29:09 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:29:09 -0600 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> References: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> Message-ID: I was hoping this new Broadcom chip would be able to support enough routes to hold a full BGP table, and be used for something like cumulus linux. I have no need for 100G, but 10G and 40G on a platform with deeper buffers sounds nice. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Phil Bedard wrote: > The BCM88670 (Jericho) is what powers the new Cisco NCS55XX devices. The > processor is linerate above around 100 bytes per packet without external > TCAM, supports 256K IPv4/64K IPv6 FIB entries (or mixed amounts). These > chips are being used for high scale 100G, the initial NCS5508 linecard is a > 36x100G QSFP28 one. > > Juniper has chosen to use their own silicon for most of their dense 100G > platforms, but you?ll see these chips used by pretty much everyone else I > imagine at some point in the next year. > > > > Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor < > colton.conor at gmail.com> > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 18:15 > To: NANOG > Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX > > >Does anyone know when the switching and router vendors will release their > >new models with the Broadcom BCM88370 and BCM88670 chips? It looks like > >these chips could be used as a carrier grade router and/or metro E device. > > > >More information here: > http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s902223 > > > >and here: > > > http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/03/19/new-dune-chips-enable-heftier-switches/ > > From bedard.phil at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 15:09:04 2016 From: bedard.phil at gmail.com (Phil Bedard) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:09:04 -0500 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: References: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <34954E0A-1F21-43E7-803D-3B0A50F1BD99@gmail.com> It does support a path to use an external TCAM if vendors do that, and will support 1M+ entries. It will be more expensive and the datapath will be slower which will impact the performance a bit. I think you?ll see this make its way into something like a 48x10G/4x100G (or 40G) type platform but we?ll see. Phil From: Colton Conor Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 09:29 To: Phil B Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX I was hoping this new Broadcom chip would be able to support enough routes to hold a full BGP table, and be used for something like cumulus linux. I have no need for 100G, but 10G and 40G on a platform with deeper buffers sounds nice. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Phil Bedard wrote: The BCM88670 (Jericho) is what powers the new Cisco NCS55XX devices. The processor is linerate above around 100 bytes per packet without external TCAM, supports 256K IPv4/64K IPv6 FIB entries (or mixed amounts). These chips are being used for high scale 100G, the initial NCS5508 linecard is a 36x100G QSFP28 one. Juniper has chosen to use their own silicon for most of their dense 100G platforms, but you?ll see these chips used by pretty much everyone else I imagine at some point in the next year. Phil -----Original Message----- From: NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor Date: Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 18:15 To: NANOG Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX >Does anyone know when the switching and router vendors will release their >new models with the Broadcom BCM88370 and BCM88670 chips? It looks like >these chips could be used as a carrier grade router and/or metro E device. > >More information here: http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s902223 > >and here: >http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/03/19/new-dune-chips-enable-heftier-switches/ From jra at baylink.com Tue Jan 19 15:47:03 2016 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay R. Ashworth) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:47:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl Message-ID: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> FBI agents, like most cops, aren't inclined to believe in coincidence. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/fbi-mulls-connection-between-super-bowl-ca-fiber-optic-cable-cuttings/ Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com Tue Jan 19 16:46:39 2016 From: jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com (Jeff Tantsura) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:46:39 +0000 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: References: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Some points: 1.DNX SDK is significantly different from SGX, adopted by Cumulus and such, yet to be done, and this is not negligible amount of work 2.if you are not interested in capacity but in scale, there?re other BCM chips, perhaps more suitable 3.you don?t have to have all the forwarding entries populated in silicon, as an example - take a look at http://sdn-internet-router-sir.readthedocs.org, code at https://github.com/dbarrosop/sir, one could also leverage approach we have taken in EVPN - decoupling RIB from FIB completely 4.NG silicon will do 1M+ LPM's Cheers, Jeff On 1/19/16, 06:29, "NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor" wrote: >I was hoping this new Broadcom chip would be able to support enough routes >to hold a full BGP table, and be used for something like cumulus linux. I >have no need for 100G, but 10G and 40G on a platform with deeper buffers >sounds nice. > >On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Phil Bedard wrote: > >> The BCM88670 (Jericho) is what powers the new Cisco NCS55XX devices. The >> processor is linerate above around 100 bytes per packet without external >> TCAM, supports 256K IPv4/64K IPv6 FIB entries (or mixed amounts). These >> chips are being used for high scale 100G, the initial NCS5508 linecard is a >> 36x100G QSFP28 one. >> >> Juniper has chosen to use their own silicon for most of their dense 100G >> platforms, but you?ll see these chips used by pretty much everyone else I >> imagine at some point in the next year. >> >> >> >> Phil >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor < >> colton.conor at gmail.com> >> Date: Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 18:15 >> To: NANOG >> Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX >> >> >Does anyone know when the switching and router vendors will release their >> >new models with the Broadcom BCM88370 and BCM88670 chips? It looks like >> >these chips could be used as a carrier grade router and/or metro E device. >> > >> >More information here: >> http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s902223 >> > >> >and here: >> > >> http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/03/19/new-dune-chips-enable-heftier-switches/ >> From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 19 19:12:37 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:12:37 -0800 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: Correct me if I?m wrong, but these FO vandalisms have been going on in the bay area since before the stadium was even funded. This leads me to believe that this is just another example of an LE landgrab. Owen > On Jan 19, 2016, at 07:47 , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > FBI agents, like most cops, aren't inclined to believe in coincidence. > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/fbi-mulls-connection-between-super-bowl-ca-fiber-optic-cable-cuttings/ > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From sean at donelan.com Tue Jan 19 19:47:06 2016 From: sean at donelan.com (Sean Donelan) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:47:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: > Correct me if I?m wrong, but these FO vandalisms have been going on in the bay area since before the stadium > was even funded. > > This leads me to believe that this is just another example of an LE landgrab. Or a media site generating click bait. Before significant public events, as part of their planning, law enforcement and security folks prepare long lists of potential things that could happen. There are often hundreds of potential things that could happen. They range from reuniting lost parents/childen and first aid stations up to earthquakes and mass casualty events. Potential loss of telecommunications due to an accident, natural hazard or malicious actors seems like something that should be on the planning list. Proper Planning and Practice Prevents Piss Poor Performance. From jra at baylink.com Tue Jan 19 20:12:09 2016 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay R. Ashworth) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:12:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" > Correct me if I?m wrong, but these FO vandalisms have been going on in the bay > area since before the stadium > was even funded. > > This leads me to believe that this is just another example of an LE landgrab. How old's the stadium? The article does mention late '14. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From shortdudey123 at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 20:30:07 2016 From: shortdudey123 at gmail.com (Grant Ridder) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:30:07 -0800 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: Broke ground in April 2012 http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_20434376/49ers-break-ground-this-evening-stadium-at-center -Grant On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Owen DeLong" > > > Correct me if I?m wrong, but these FO vandalisms have been going on in > the bay > > area since before the stadium > > was even funded. > > > > This leads me to believe that this is just another example of an LE > landgrab. > > How old's the stadium? The article does mention late '14. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > jra at baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 > From baconzombie at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 20:37:00 2016 From: baconzombie at gmail.com (Bacon Zombie) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:37:00 +0100 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: Am I the only one who thinks the below line is BS? "...pose a risk of injury to event-goers if an operator loses control." If there is not safeguards in-place for "normal" network issues then we would of heard of injuries before. On 19 January 2016 at 21:30, Grant Ridder wrote: > Broke ground in April 2012 > http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_20434376/49ers-break-ground-this-evening-stadium-at-center > > -Grant > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Owen DeLong" >> >> > Correct me if I?m wrong, but these FO vandalisms have been going on in >> the bay >> > area since before the stadium >> > was even funded. >> > >> > This leads me to believe that this is just another example of an LE >> landgrab. >> >> How old's the stadium? The article does mention late '14. >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra >> -- >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink >> jra at baylink.com >> Designer The Things I Think RFC >> 2100 >> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land >> Rover DII >> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 >> 1274 >> -- BaconZombie 55:55:44:44:4C:52:4C:52:42:41 LOAD "*",8,1 From dougb at dougbarton.us Tue Jan 19 20:57:33 2016 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:57:33 -0800 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: <569EA33D.9080809@dougbarton.us> On 01/19/2016 12:37 PM, Bacon Zombie wrote: > Am I the only one who thinks the below line is BS? > > "...pose a risk of injury to event-goers if an operator loses control." > > If there is not safeguards in-place for "normal" network issues then > we would of heard of injuries before. I think that line refers to drone operators ... From ahebert at pubnix.net Tue Jan 19 20:42:45 2016 From: ahebert at pubnix.net (Alain Hebert) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:42:45 -0500 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: <569E9FC5.4080801@pubnix.net> Well, ( In context ) I can tell you that a 4 propeller's drone to the face kinda hurt. Because that was the context where that quote was ripped from. ----- What's more, the memo also asserted that drones used by "malicious" actors "may present a low-altitude hazard to aviation assets supporting the event, allow unauthorized video coverage of events, or pose a risk of injury to event-goers if an operator loses control." ----- Alain Hebert ahebert at pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 01/19/16 15:37, Bacon Zombie wrote: > Am I the only one who thinks the below line is BS? > > "...pose a risk of injury to event-goers if an operator loses control." > > If there is not safeguards in-place for "normal" network issues then > we would of heard of injuries before. > > On 19 January 2016 at 21:30, Grant Ridder wrote: >> Broke ground in April 2012 >> http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_20434376/49ers-break-ground-this-evening-stadium-at-center >> >> -Grant >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Owen DeLong" >>>> Correct me if I?m wrong, but these FO vandalisms have been going on in >>> the bay >>>> area since before the stadium >>>> was even funded. >>>> >>>> This leads me to believe that this is just another example of an LE >>> landgrab. >>> >>> How old's the stadium? The article does mention late '14. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -- jra >>> -- >>> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink >>> jra at baylink.com >>> Designer The Things I Think RFC >>> 2100 >>> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land >>> Rover DII >>> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 >>> 1274 >>> > > From Brent.Crier at nsight.com Tue Jan 19 15:04:29 2016 From: Brent.Crier at nsight.com (Crier, Brent) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:04:29 +0000 Subject: Lawful Intercept Trusted 3rd Party Message-ID: <26025270799940b4a6fdf189710dce60@NSWP-E2013-MBX1.Nsight.com> Just wondering if anyone has had success with trusted 3rd party vendors for ISP/Telco CALEA compliance? If so any recommendations? Thanks, -Brent From moc at es.net Tue Jan 19 15:12:31 2016 From: moc at es.net (Michael O'Connor) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:12:31 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: <22173.15742.139078.536314@pcls8.std.com> References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> <22172.13400.899948.1320@pcls8.std.com> <48536.1453094482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22173.15742.139078.536314@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: Why do we believe network administrators can advocate perfectly for customer access? I couldn't control my own children's access without making us all miserable. Nation state access control in a free country at the network layer is bound to fail, way too many cats to herd. On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:31 PM, wrote: > > On January 18, 2016 at 00:21 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu ( > Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500, bzs at theworld.com said: > > > How about if backed by an agreement with the 5 RIRs stating no new > > > resource allocations or transfers etc unless a contract is signed and > > > enforced? Or similar. > > > > Then they'd just resort to hijacking address space. > > > > Oh wait, they already do that and get away with it.... > > I think we're talking about two different problems, both valid. > > One is legitimate operators who probably mostly want to do the right > thing but are negligent, disagree (perhaps with many one this list) on > what is an actionable problem, etc. > > The other are those actors prone to criminality. > > I was addressing the first problem though I'd assert that progress on > the first problem would likely yield progress on the second, or > cooperation anyhow. > > > > > (And a threat of withholding IP address space from long-haul providers > isn't as > > credible - they have much less need for publicly routed IP addresses > than > > either eyeball farms or content farms, so you'll have to find some > other way to > > motivate them to not accept a hijacked route announcement...) > > > > No man is an island entire of himself -- John Donne. > > First one has to agree to the concept of creating a network based on > contractual agreements. > > I gave some examples of how to encourage actors to enter into those > contracts, my list wasn't intended to be exhaustive, it was intended > to be an existence proof, some pressure points exist and are easy to > understand even if not complete. > > Besides, why make the perfect the enemy of the good? If many, perhaps > not all (or not at first), agreed to a common set of contractual > obligations that would be progress, no? > > Is there even a document which describes what a "hijacked" net block > is and why it is bad? Obvious? No, it is not obvious. The best one can > say is there exist obvious cases. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* > -- Michael O'Connor ESnet Network Engineering moc at es.net 631 344-7410 From shawnl at up.net Tue Jan 19 21:27:22 2016 From: shawnl at up.net (Shawn L) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:27:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lawful Intercept Trusted 3rd Party In-Reply-To: <26025270799940b4a6fdf189710dce60@NSWP-E2013-MBX1.Nsight.com> References: <26025270799940b4a6fdf189710dce60@NSWP-E2013-MBX1.Nsight.com> Message-ID: <1453238842.945332225@upnet.mymailsrvr.com> We're currently using Vantage Point out of North Dakota. Haven't had to actually put anything into production as of yet though. -----Original Message----- From: "Crier, Brent" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 10:04am To: "nanog at nanog.org" Subject: Lawful Intercept Trusted 3rd Party Just wondering if anyone has had success with trusted 3rd party vendors for ISP/Telco CALEA compliance? If so any recommendations? Thanks, -Brent From rafaelpossa at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 21:41:31 2016 From: rafaelpossa at gmail.com (Rafael Possamai) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:41:31 -0600 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <569E9FC5.4080801@pubnix.net> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569E9FC5.4080801@pubnix.net> Message-ID: I fail to see how drones relate to fiber cuts and the superbowl. Did the article author just throw that in there? The news helicopter getting aerial footage also poses a risk, so not sure what's special about drones. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Alain Hebert wrote: > Well, > > ( In context ) > > I can tell you that a 4 propeller's drone to the face kinda hurt. > > Because that was the context where that quote was ripped from. > > ----- > > What's more, the memo also asserted that drones used by "malicious" > actors "may present a low-altitude hazard to aviation assets supporting > the event, allow unauthorized video coverage of events, or pose a risk > of injury to event-goers if an operator loses control." > > ----- > Alain Hebert ahebert at pubnix.net > PubNIX Inc. > 50 boul. St-Charles > P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 > Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 > > On 01/19/16 15:37, Bacon Zombie wrote: > > Am I the only one who thinks the below line is BS? > > > > "...pose a risk of injury to event-goers if an operator loses control." > > > > If there is not safeguards in-place for "normal" network issues then > > we would of heard of injuries before. > > > > On 19 January 2016 at 21:30, Grant Ridder > wrote: > >> Broke ground in April 2012 > >> > http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_20434376/49ers-break-ground-this-evening-stadium-at-center > >> > >> -Grant > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jay R. Ashworth > wrote: > >> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Owen DeLong" > >>>> Correct me if I?m wrong, but these FO vandalisms have been going on in > >>> the bay > >>>> area since before the stadium > >>>> was even funded. > >>>> > >>>> This leads me to believe that this is just another example of an LE > >>> landgrab. > >>> > >>> How old's the stadium? The article does mention late '14. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> -- jra > >>> -- > >>> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > >>> jra at baylink.com > >>> Designer The Things I Think > RFC > >>> 2100 > >>> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > >>> Rover DII > >>> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 > 647 > >>> 1274 > >>> > > > > > > From bedard.phil at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 22:17:44 2016 From: bedard.phil at gmail.com (Phil Bedard) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:17:44 -0500 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: References: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1EF6F817-0959-4EAE-9AD9-26984D93C5FB@gmail.com> Good point, there are many people looking at what I call FIB optimization right now. The key is having the programmability on the device to make it happen. Juniper/Cisco support it using policies to filter RIB->FIB and I believe both also do per-NPU/PFE localized FIBs now. I am not sure if that?s something supported on this new Broadcom chipset. Depends on your network of course and where you are looking to position the router. Phil -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Tantsura Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 11:46 To: Colton Conor , Phil B Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX >Hi, > >Some points: >1.DNX SDK is significantly different from SGX, adopted by Cumulus and such, yet to be done, and this is not negligible amount of work >2.if you are not interested in capacity but in scale, there?re other BCM chips, perhaps more suitable >3.you don?t have to have all the forwarding entries populated in silicon, as an example - take a look at http://sdn-internet-router-sir.readthedocs.org, code at https://github.com/dbarrosop/sir, one could also leverage approach we have taken in EVPN - decoupling RIB from FIB completely >4.NG silicon will do 1M+ LPM's > >Cheers, >Jeff > > > > > > > >On 1/19/16, 06:29, "NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor" wrote: > >>I was hoping this new Broadcom chip would be able to support enough routes >>to hold a full BGP table, and be used for something like cumulus linux. I >>have no need for 100G, but 10G and 40G on a platform with deeper buffers >>sounds nice. >> >>On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Phil Bedard wrote: >> >>> The BCM88670 (Jericho) is what powers the new Cisco NCS55XX devices. The >>> processor is linerate above around 100 bytes per packet without external >>> TCAM, supports 256K IPv4/64K IPv6 FIB entries (or mixed amounts). These >>> chips are being used for high scale 100G, the initial NCS5508 linecard is a >>> 36x100G QSFP28 one. >>> >>> Juniper has chosen to use their own silicon for most of their dense 100G >>> platforms, but you?ll see these chips used by pretty much everyone else I >>> imagine at some point in the next year. >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor < >>> colton.conor at gmail.com> >>> Date: Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 18:15 >>> To: NANOG >>> Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX >>> >>> >Does anyone know when the switching and router vendors will release their >>> >new models with the Broadcom BCM88370 and BCM88670 chips? It looks like >>> >these chips could be used as a carrier grade router and/or metro E device. >>> > >>> >More information here: >>> http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s902223 >>> > >>> >and here: >>> > >>> http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/03/19/new-dune-chips-enable-heftier-switches/ >>> From bruns at 2mbit.com Tue Jan 19 22:39:04 2016 From: bruns at 2mbit.com (Brielle Bruns) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:39:04 -0700 Subject: Verizon E-Mail Contact In-Reply-To: <569D22FA.9010901@2mbit.com> References: <569D22FA.9010901@2mbit.com> Message-ID: <569EBB08.6090009@2mbit.com> On 1/18/16 10:38 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > Hello, > > Don't suppose anyone has a contact for Verizon's e-mail department? > > Filled out a request on their whitelist page, and they only checked the > last IP address in the list that I provided. Naturally, I responded > back with a copy of the reject showing that their system is blocking on > at least one of the IP addresses, asking them to check again. > > From my mail logs: > > 80B2C43087 8958 Mon Jan 18 10:19:12 brielle at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > (host outbound.bizmailsrvcs.net[206.46.232.21] refused to talk to me: > 550-Email from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is currently blocked by Verizon Online's > 550-anti-spam system. The email sender or Email Service Provider may > visit 550 http://www.verizon.net/whitelist and request removal of the > block. 160118) > whitelist at verizononline.net > > *double Picard / Riker facepalm* > > > Got the issue resolved by going through their social media team (kudos to them for being prompt in getting back to me!) It's really really hard to contact your support department, Verizon, if you have the same filters in place on your whitelist@ address as you do on the rest of your e-mail addresses. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org From egon at egon.cc Tue Jan 19 23:12:32 2016 From: egon at egon.cc (James Downs) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:12:32 -0800 Subject: Verizon E-Mail Contact In-Reply-To: <569EBB08.6090009@2mbit.com> References: <569D22FA.9010901@2mbit.com> <569EBB08.6090009@2mbit.com> Message-ID: <3501733B-DD52-4433-8A47-7482F87C9264@egon.cc> > On Jan 19, 2016, at 14:39, Brielle Bruns wrote: > > On 1/18/16 10:38 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote: >> visit 550 http://www.verizon.net/whitelist and request removal of the >> block. 160118) > It's really really hard to contact your support department, Verizon, if you have the same filters in place on your whitelist@ address as you do on the rest of your e-mail addresses. Also, "The requested URL /whitelist/ was not found on this server.? From meirea at charterschoolit.com Wed Jan 20 00:33:41 2016 From: meirea at charterschoolit.com (Mario Eirea) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:33:41 +0000 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <569EA33D.9080809@dougbarton.us> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569EA33D.9080809@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: I'm fairly certain they are most concerned with this specific section: "allow unauthorized video coverage of events". It's not surprising they threw a drone into the story, seems to be all anyone talks about these days... -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Doug Barton Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:58 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl On 01/19/2016 12:37 PM, Bacon Zombie wrote: > Am I the only one who thinks the below line is BS? > > "...pose a risk of injury to event-goers if an operator loses control." > > If there is not safeguards in-place for "normal" network issues then > we would of heard of injuries before. I think that line refers to drone operators ... From fergdawgster at mykolab.com Wed Jan 20 00:41:44 2016 From: fergdawgster at mykolab.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:41:44 -0800 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569EA33D.9080809@dougbarton.us> Message-ID: <569ED7C8.2060804@mykolab.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 1/19/2016 4:33 PM, Mario Eirea wrote: > I'm fairly certain they are most concerned with this specific > section: "allow unauthorized video coverage of events". It's not > surprising they threw a drone into the story, seems to be all > anyone talks about these days... > While I agree that the broadcast networks are concerned about unauthorized recording and/or rebroadcasting of the event, there's also a precedent on a drone crashing during a high-profile sporting event in the U.S.: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/us-open-tennis-drone-arrest/index.html $.02, - - ferg > -----Original Message----- From: NANOG > [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Doug Barton Sent: > Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:58 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: > ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl > > On 01/19/2016 12:37 PM, Bacon Zombie wrote: >> Am I the only one who thinks the below line is BS? >> >> "...pose a risk of injury to event-goers if an operator loses >> control." >> >> If there is not safeguards in-place for "normal" network issues >> then we would of heard of injuries before. > > I think that line refers to drone operators ... > - -- Paul Ferguson PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlae18gACgkQKJasdVTchbKcgwEA1erPchMF1EXl4rVnW5HTO/Jv Uv4GOtkNZUQf4/llrBoBALbmry6CLumAEeNFZEhaHZcr0QWQtYTtlZJk5l5pvujS =3a32 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bzs at theworld.com Wed Jan 20 06:06:13 2016 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:06:13 -0500 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> <22172.13400.899948.1320@pcls8.std.com> <48536.1453094482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22173.15742.139078.536314@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: <22175.9173.344815.96589@pcls8.std.com> On January 19, 2016 at 10:12 moc at es.net (Michael O'Connor) wrote: > Why do we believe network administrators can advocate perfectly for > customer access? Which is why I was advocating for some sort of generally agreed upon standards and process written into contractual agreements. This doesn't mean that someone has any inherent right to a private company's (typically) resources, one could block whatever they please, or nothing. But when there's some agreement that there's been a consistent breech of agreed-upon standards of behavior which should be responded to by the broader community at least there'd be some guidance and process beyond just urging everyone else to "de-peer" some sites on an operations mailing list. The goal would be setting standards for what is reasonable to send (e.g., not DDoS), not what is received. > I couldn't control my own children's access without making us all > miserable. > > Nation state access control in a free country at the network layer is bound > to fail, way too many cats to herd. > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:31 PM, wrote: > > > > > On January 18, 2016 at 00:21 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu ( > > Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500, bzs at theworld.com said: > > > > How about if backed by an agreement with the 5 RIRs stating no new > > > > resource allocations or transfers etc unless a contract is signed and > > > > enforced? Or similar. > > > > > > Then they'd just resort to hijacking address space. > > > > > > Oh wait, they already do that and get away with it.... > > > > I think we're talking about two different problems, both valid. > > > > One is legitimate operators who probably mostly want to do the right > > thing but are negligent, disagree (perhaps with many one this list) on > > what is an actionable problem, etc. > > > > The other are those actors prone to criminality. > > > > I was addressing the first problem though I'd assert that progress on > > the first problem would likely yield progress on the second, or > > cooperation anyhow. > > > > > > > > (And a threat of withholding IP address space from long-haul providers > > isn't as > > > credible - they have much less need for publicly routed IP addresses > > than > > > either eyeball farms or content farms, so you'll have to find some > > other way to > > > motivate them to not accept a hijacked route announcement...) > > > > > > > No man is an island entire of himself -- John Donne. > > > > First one has to agree to the concept of creating a network based on > > contractual agreements. > > > > I gave some examples of how to encourage actors to enter into those > > contracts, my list wasn't intended to be exhaustive, it was intended > > to be an existence proof, some pressure points exist and are easy to > > understand even if not complete. > > > > Besides, why make the perfect the enemy of the good? If many, perhaps > > not all (or not at first), agreed to a common set of contractual > > obligations that would be progress, no? > > > > Is there even a document which describes what a "hijacked" net block > > is and why it is bad? Obvious? No, it is not obvious. The best one can > > say is there exist obvious cases. > > > > -- > > -Barry Shein > > > > Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | > > http://www.TheWorld.com > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* > > > > > > -- > Michael O'Connor > ESnet Network Engineering > moc at es.net > 631 344-7410 -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jan 20 06:10:42 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:10:42 +0200 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: <1EF6F817-0959-4EAE-9AD9-26984D93C5FB@gmail.com> References: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> <1EF6F817-0959-4EAE-9AD9-26984D93C5FB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <569F24E2.8020101@seacom.mu> On 20/Jan/16 00:17, Phil Bedard wrote: > Good point, there are many people looking at what I call FIB optimization right now. The key is having the programmability on the device to make it happen. Juniper/Cisco support it using policies to filter RIB->FIB and I believe both also do per-NPU/PFE localized FIBs now. I am not sure if that?s something supported on this new Broadcom chipset. Depends on your network of course and where you are looking to position the router. I don't think the FIB needs to have specific support for selective programming. I think that comes in the code to instruct the control plane what it should download to the FIB. Cisco's and Juniper's support of this is on FIB that has been in production long before the feature became available. It was just added to code. Mark. From colinj at gt86car.org.uk Wed Jan 20 08:17:02 2016 From: colinj at gt86car.org.uk (Colin Johnston) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:17:02 +0000 Subject: de-peering for security sake In-Reply-To: References: <7EA71342-A03A-4E50-AD13-4C84664032E4@hathcock.org> <56D2F17E-3D8C-427D-A7D6-A6C354863383@seastrom.com> <80B5A72F-29E8-4D40-9F0A-D5A32237B581@mtin.net> <20160116111332.GA32533@gsp.org> <20160116145340.GA7803@gsp.org> <0BA33EDB-D8F8-405B-8987-CC8DA1BE5D03@ianai.net> <22A6FA1E-4468-4C6F-8945-0B66140FBD87@delong.com> <201146.1452998918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22171.64818.450203.735607@pcls8.std.com> <569C02FB.8010707@dougbarton.us> <22172.13400.899948.1320@pcls8.std.com> <48536.1453094482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <22173.15742.139078.536314@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: cats are nice colin Sent from my iPhone > On 19 Jan 2016, at 15:12, "Michael O'Connor" wrote: > > Why do we believe network administrators can advocate perfectly for > customer access? > I couldn't control my own children's access without making us all > miserable. > > Nation state access control in a free country at the network layer is bound > to fail, way too many cats to herd. > > > >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:31 PM, wrote: >> >> >> On January 18, 2016 at 00:21 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu ( >> Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500, bzs at theworld.com said: >>>> How about if backed by an agreement with the 5 RIRs stating no new >>>> resource allocations or transfers etc unless a contract is signed and >>>> enforced? Or similar. >>> >>> Then they'd just resort to hijacking address space. >>> >>> Oh wait, they already do that and get away with it.... >> >> I think we're talking about two different problems, both valid. >> >> One is legitimate operators who probably mostly want to do the right >> thing but are negligent, disagree (perhaps with many one this list) on >> what is an actionable problem, etc. >> >> The other are those actors prone to criminality. >> >> I was addressing the first problem though I'd assert that progress on >> the first problem would likely yield progress on the second, or >> cooperation anyhow. >> >>> >>> (And a threat of withholding IP address space from long-haul providers >> isn't as >>> credible - they have much less need for publicly routed IP addresses >> than >>> either eyeball farms or content farms, so you'll have to find some >> other way to >>> motivate them to not accept a hijacked route announcement...) >>> >> >> No man is an island entire of himself -- John Donne. >> >> First one has to agree to the concept of creating a network based on >> contractual agreements. >> >> I gave some examples of how to encourage actors to enter into those >> contracts, my list wasn't intended to be exhaustive, it was intended >> to be an existence proof, some pressure points exist and are easy to >> understand even if not complete. >> >> Besides, why make the perfect the enemy of the good? If many, perhaps >> not all (or not at first), agreed to a common set of contractual >> obligations that would be progress, no? >> >> Is there even a document which describes what a "hijacked" net block >> is and why it is bad? Obvious? No, it is not obvious. The best one can >> say is there exist obvious cases. >> >> -- >> -Barry Shein >> >> Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | >> http://www.TheWorld.com >> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD >> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* >> > > > > -- > Michael O'Connor > ESnet Network Engineering > moc at es.net > 631 344-7410 From tim at pelican.org Wed Jan 20 10:02:57 2016 From: tim at pelican.org (tim at pelican.org) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:02:57 -0000 (GMT) Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1453284177.5553334@apps.rackspace.com> On Monday, 18 January, 2016 19:02, "Colton Conor" said: > What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? > So far I have found both > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and > http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html > Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? Satisfied customer of Flexoptix, largely for pre-coded transceivers, although my team have used their programmer in anger and are happy with it. No issues to date with C or J kit refusing to believe in the resulting transceivers - and obviously at a fraction of the price of blessed optics. Regards, Tim. From nanog-isp at mail.com Wed Jan 20 12:14:42 2016 From: nanog-isp at mail.com (nanog-isp at mail.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:14:42 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? Message-ID: Hello all, Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their percentage of IPv6 traffic? Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and Facebook? Some public information I've found so far: - Comcast around 25% IPv6 traffic ( http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-is-a-real-world-big-deal/a/d-id/718395 ) - Comcast has over 1 Tb/s (of mostly YouTube traffic) over IPv6 ( http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network ) - Swisscom 26% IPv6 traffic, 60% YouTube ( http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog27/p/01_Martin_Gysi.pdf ) I'd be very much interested in hearing from smaller ISPs, especially those having a very limited number of IPv4 addresses and/or running out. Thanks, Jared From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jan 20 12:20:37 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:20:37 -0500 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 7:14 AM, nanog-isp at mail.com wrote: > > Hello all, > > Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their percentage of IPv6 traffic? > > Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and Facebook? > > Some public information I've found so far: > - Comcast around 25% IPv6 traffic ( http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-is-a-real-world-big-deal/a/d-id/718395 ) > - Comcast has over 1 Tb/s (of mostly YouTube traffic) over IPv6 ( http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network ) > - Swisscom 26% IPv6 traffic, 60% YouTube ( http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog27/p/01_Martin_Gysi.pdf ) > > I'd be very much interested in hearing from smaller ISPs, especially those having a very limited number of IPv4 addresses and/or running out. > > > Thanks, > > Jared ^^^^^^^ Not me ;) I currently see around 56.4:1 with the timing of peaks the same in v4 and v6. I am talking with a few local wireless ISPs in my area that are going to be running fiber, they currently provide a NAT44 experience and I?m pushing them to deploy IPv6 to preserve their CGN state. This is mostly an exercise in them making the time to enable it vs needing convincing. - [another] Jared From nanog-isp at mail.com Wed Jan 20 12:32:11 2016 From: nanog-isp at mail.com (nanog-isp at mail.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:32:11 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> References: , <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Jared Mauch wrote: > I currently see around 56.4:1 with the timing of peaks the same in v4 and v6. So that's more in line with AMS-IX (70G/4T) than Comcast/Swisscom then. AMS-IX: https://ams-ix.net/technical/statistics/sflow-stats/ipv6-traffic - Jared (the First of his name :) From job at instituut.net Wed Jan 20 12:41:00 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:41:00 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:32:11PM +0100, nanog-isp at mail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Jared Mauch wrote: > > I currently see around 56.4:1 with the timing of peaks the same in v4 and v6. > So that's more in line with AMS-IX (70G/4T) than Comcast/Swisscom > then. AMS-IX: > https://ams-ix.net/technical/statistics/sflow-stats/ipv6-traffic I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet. Kind regards, Job From niels=nanog at bakker.net Wed Jan 20 13:44:39 2016 From: niels=nanog at bakker.net (Niels Bakker) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:44:39 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160120134439.GK3097@excession.tpb.net> * nanog-isp at mail.com [Wed 20 Jan 2016, 13:15 CET]: >Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on >their percentage of IPv6 traffic? https://www.stateoftheinternet.com/trends-visualizations-ipv6-adoption-ipv4-exhaustion-global-heat-map-network-country-growth-data.html -- Niels. From randy at psg.com Wed Jan 20 14:13:41 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:13:41 +0900 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: > I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a > packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet. that is a hypothesis not an axiom, especially without considerable measurement to back it up. but an interesting hypothesis. how do you propose to test it? randy From job at instituut.net Wed Jan 20 14:31:32 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:31:32 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:13:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a > > packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet. > > that is a hypothesis not an axiom [...] Thanks. > but an interesting hypothesis. how do you propose to test it? We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled. Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packets received from the internet ('inbound') at the next NANOG or IETF? Kind regards, Job From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jan 20 14:45:06 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:45:06 -0500 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <300B5B06-C099-4515-8648-A30F1DF79759@puck.nether.net> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:13:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: >>> I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a >>> packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet. >> >> that is a hypothesis not an axiom [...] > > Thanks. > >> but an interesting hypothesis. how do you propose to test it? > > We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled. > > Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packets > received from the internet ('inbound') at the next NANOG or IETF? One could likely just watch the traffic from CPE at a home of any DS user and track the TTLs there. The problem of course is networks that do not do TTL decrement, or are doing 6PE over an IPv4 only core. It makes this a less scientific study IMHO. These need to be weighted appropriately in results analysis. Might be an interesting discussion on the mat list, I know we can do SSL cert checks, but can we do http checks yet? (forgot the outcome). Could take the top N names from something like DITL and fetch them. - Jared From jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com Wed Jan 20 15:34:49 2016 From: jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com (Jeff Tantsura) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:34:49 +0000 Subject: New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX In-Reply-To: <569F24E2.8020101@seacom.mu> References: <21968C2D-DCEA-4010-9E2D-31C31294D68C@gmail.com> <1EF6F817-0959-4EAE-9AD9-26984D93C5FB@gmail.com>, <569F24E2.8020101@seacom.mu> Message-ID: That's right, logic is in programming chips, not their property. You just need to know what to program ;-) Regards, Jeff > On Jan 19, 2016, at 10:10 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > >> On 20/Jan/16 00:17, Phil Bedard wrote: >> >> Good point, there are many people looking at what I call FIB optimization right now. The key is having the programmability on the device to make it happen. Juniper/Cisco support it using policies to filter RIB->FIB and I believe both also do per-NPU/PFE localized FIBs now. I am not sure if that?s something supported on this new Broadcom chipset. Depends on your network of course and where you are looking to position the router. > > I don't think the FIB needs to have specific support for selective > programming. > > I think that comes in the code to instruct the control plane what it > should download to the FIB. > > Cisco's and Juniper's support of this is on FIB that has been in > production long before the feature became available. It was just added > to code. > > Mark. From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Wed Jan 20 15:46:21 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:46:21 -0500 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569E9FC5.4080801@pubnix.net> Message-ID: <6528.1453304781@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:41:31 -0600, Rafael Possamai said: > I fail to see how drones relate to fiber cuts and the superbowl. Did the > article author just throw that in there? The news helicopter getting aerial > footage also poses a risk, so not sure what's special about drones. Drones don't cost $200 per hour to keep in the air, and they're not as obvious as a helicopter. So it becomes a lot easier to get in there and grab some unauthorized video.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From SNaslund at medline.com Wed Jan 20 16:25:47 2016 From: SNaslund at medline.com (Naslund, Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:25:47 +0000 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <6528.1453304781@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569E9FC5.4080801@pubnix.net> <6528.1453304781@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401C9BCDD29@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Helicopters near the Super Bowl are cleared to be there and are flown by vetted professional pilots. A human pilot in a helicopter presumably has some kind of qualification to be there while a drone (although I don't like that word) could be flown by any moron with a couple hundred bucks. I also think the government is going completely overboard with the "drone threat" but in the case of the Super Bowl, there should definitely be a reasonable restriction on drone flights, ANY flight for that matter. I think reasonable drone pilots would agree with that. Steven Naslund Chicago IL -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:46 AM To: Rafael Possamai Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:41:31 -0600, Rafael Possamai said: > I fail to see how drones relate to fiber cuts and the superbowl. Did > the article author just throw that in there? The news helicopter > getting aerial footage also poses a risk, so not sure what's special about drones. Drones don't cost $200 per hour to keep in the air, and they're not as obvious as a helicopter. So it becomes a lot easier to get in there and grab some unauthorized video.... From alex at alexforster.com Wed Jan 20 16:39:21 2016 From: alex at alexforster.com (Alex Forster) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:39:21 +0000 Subject: Arista optics Message-ID: Hi everyone! I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. Thanks! Alex Forster From swhyte at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 16:41:48 2016 From: swhyte at gmail.com (Scott Whyte) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:41:48 -0800 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401C9BCDD29@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569E9FC5.4080801@pubnix.net> <6528.1453304781@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401C9BCDD29@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: <569FB8CC.6040800@gmail.com> On 1/20/16 08:25, Naslund, Steve wrote: > Helicopters near the Super Bowl are cleared to be there and are flown by vetted professional pilots. A human pilot in a helicopter presumably has some kind of qualification to be there while a drone (although I don't like that word) could be flown by any moron with a couple hundred bucks. I also think the government is going completely overboard with the "drone threat" but in the case of the Super Bowl, there should definitely be a reasonable restriction on drone flights, ANY flight for that matter. I think reasonable drone pilots would agree with that. Can't wait for autonomous drones in the $50 range. And the autonomous counter-drones. > > Steven Naslund > Chicago IL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:46 AM > To: Rafael Possamai > Cc: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:41:31 -0600, Rafael Possamai said: >> I fail to see how drones relate to fiber cuts and the superbowl. Did >> the article author just throw that in there? The news helicopter >> getting aerial footage also poses a risk, so not sure what's special about drones. > Drones don't cost $200 per hour to keep in the air, and they're not as obvious as a helicopter. So it becomes a lot easier to get in there and grab some unauthorized video.... From jj at anexia.at Wed Jan 20 16:47:49 2016 From: jj at anexia.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Jaritsch?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:47:49 +0000 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9638ff5c72304865bd5b06fe7ede18c9@anx-i-dag02.anx.local> Go with Solid Optics (www.solid-optics.com). I can share a good sales contact offlist. Best regards J?rgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: jj at anexia.at Web: http://www.anexia.at Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 -----Original Message----- From: Alex Forster [alex at alexforster.com] Received: Mittwoch, 20 J?n. 2016, 17:41 To: North American Network Operators' Group [nanog at nanog.org] Subject: Arista optics Hi everyone! I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. Thanks! Alex Forster From jlk at thrashyour.com Wed Jan 20 16:55:30 2016 From: jlk at thrashyour.com (John Kinsella) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:55:30 -0800 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D04BF89-912D-4FD7-9FFF-BD800B3798DD@thrashyour.com> Last I heard, EOS locks out non-Arista optics by default. You have to contact support for instructions to enable 3rd party modules. I?m running all Arista cables/optics - at the point when we ordered the pricing was competitive with 3rd party, but that was several years ago and the vendor was hungry. John > On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. > > The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? > > Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. > > Thanks! > > Alex Forster From jeroen.wunnink at hibernianetworks.com Wed Jan 20 16:56:43 2016 From: jeroen.wunnink at hibernianetworks.com (Jeroen Wunnink) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:56:43 +0100 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <569FBC4B.8000200@hibernianetworks.com> We have good experience with Flexoptix. You can brand them yourself using their (free?) USB box to any vendor you want, including Arista. Not sure if they have QSFP's yet, but we have CFP-LR4's running successfully on multiple paths of our backbone. On 20/01/16 17:39, Alex Forster wrote: > Hi everyone! > > I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. > > The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? > > Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. > > Thanks! > > Alex Forster -- Jeroen Wunnink IP Engineering Manager - Hibernia Networks Main numbers (Ext: 1011): USA +1.908.516.4200 | UK +44.1704.322.300 Netherlands +31.208.200.622 | 24/7 IP NOC Phone: +31.20.82.00.623 jeroen.wunnink at hibernianetworks.com www.hibernianetworks.com This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. From tom at ninjabadger.net Wed Jan 20 17:36:19 2016 From: tom at ninjabadger.net (Tom Hill) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:36:19 +0000 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: <569FBC4B.8000200@hibernianetworks.com> References: <569FBC4B.8000200@hibernianetworks.com> Message-ID: <569FC593.80608@ninjabadger.net> On 20/01/16 16:56, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > We have good experience with Flexoptix. You can brand them yourself > using their (free?) USB box to any vendor you want, including Arista. > Not sure if they have QSFP's yet, but we have CFP-LR4's running > successfully on multiple paths of our backbone. https://www.flexoptix.net/en/qsfp28-lr4-transceiver-100-gigabit-sm-4-waves-1295-1310nm-10km-6db-ddm-dom.html Note that if you see something you don't like (the price, the compatibility, or whatever) then do get in touch with them; they can be extremely accommodating. :) -- Tom From eric at lumaoptics.net Wed Jan 20 17:40:10 2016 From: eric at lumaoptics.net (Eric Litvin) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:40:10 -0800 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61B58188-8E0A-4009-AF2B-1F687A1DE80E@lumaoptics.net> Luma Optics has Arista Compatibles available. Please bear in mind some versions of Arista OS do not accept compatibles. We are happy to discuss our findings with you. Eric Luma Optics 650 996 7270 Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. > > The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? > > Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. > > Thanks! > > Alex Forster From colton.conor at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 18:42:07 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:42:07 -0600 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: <1453284177.5553334@apps.rackspace.com> References: <1453284177.5553334@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: The only downside I see to Flexoptix is that their pricing for their SFPs, and you must use their SFPs, are much more expensive than already programmed SFP's from low cost providers. For example, a regualr 10GBASE-LR SFP+ 1310nm 10km from Fiberstore is $34 ( http://www.fs.com/10gbase-lr-sfp-1310nm-10km-dom-transceiver-p-11591.html). The same type of SFP+ from Flexoptics is $136.80 https://www.flexoptix.net/en/produkte/transceiver/sfp-plus-lr-transceiver-10-gigabit-stm64-sm-1310nm-10km-8db-ddm-dom.html I know there should be a littler premium for using FlexOptics are you can program on your own, but not 4X the amount. How does Solid Optics compare on pricing? They don't list them on their website. On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:02 AM, tim at pelican.org wrote: > On Monday, 18 January, 2016 19:02, "Colton Conor" > said: > > > What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? > > So far I have found both > > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and > > > http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html > > Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? > > Satisfied customer of Flexoptix, largely for pre-coded transceivers, > although my team have used their programmer in anger and are happy with > it. No issues to date with C or J kit refusing to believe in the resulting > transceivers - and obviously at a fraction of the price of blessed optics. > > Regards, > Tim. > > From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 20 18:42:43 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:42:43 -0800 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <968F51C6-911F-47D7-9B33-457293CC34A7@delong.com> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 04:41 , Job Snijders wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:32:11PM +0100, nanog-isp at mail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Jared Mauch wrote: >>> I currently see around 56.4:1 with the timing of peaks the same in v4 and v6. >> So that's more in line with AMS-IX (70G/4T) than Comcast/Swisscom >> then. AMS-IX: >> https://ams-ix.net/technical/statistics/sflow-stats/ipv6-traffic > > I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a > packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet. > > Kind regards, > > Job I?m not sure that is the issue so much as packets outside of North America are less likely to be IPv6 packets than packets traversing networks entirely within North America. Packets outside of North America and Europe are less likely than packets within those two continents. Asia is more likely than Mexico or Africa, and about equally likely with most of South America. I can see how this circumstance could lead one to believe that there is a correlation with distance, but I draw the distinction because I want to avoid the introduction of ?Post hoc ergo propter hoc? based errors into decisions about how to improve the situation. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 20 18:44:27 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:44:27 -0800 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <300B5B06-C099-4515-8648-A30F1DF79759@puck.nether.net> References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <300B5B06-C099-4515-8648-A30F1DF79759@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <93FBDD4A-5B20-469E-B230-E9C5D861DBFC@delong.com> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 06:45 , Jared Mauch wrote: > >> >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:13:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: >>>> I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a >>>> packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet. >>> >>> that is a hypothesis not an axiom [...] >> >> Thanks. >> >>> but an interesting hypothesis. how do you propose to test it? >> >> We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled. >> >> Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packets >> received from the internet ('inbound') at the next NANOG or IETF? > > One could likely just watch the traffic from CPE at a home of any > DS user and track the TTLs there. > > The problem of course is networks that do not do TTL decrement, or > are doing 6PE over an IPv4 only core. It makes this a less scientific > study IMHO. I think that?s actually in the noise since we are using TTL as a proxy for distance traveled. The networks you are describing are by and large not international or even continental transit networks. Owen From baconzombie at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 18:56:31 2016 From: baconzombie at gmail.com (Bacon Zombie) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:56:31 +0100 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <569FB8CC.6040800@gmail.com> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569E9FC5.4080801@pubnix.net> <6528.1453304781@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401C9BCDD29@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> <569FB8CC.6040800@gmail.com> Message-ID: *Twitch **Plays* Super Bowl Drone needs to be a thing. On 20 Jan 2016 17:43, "Scott Whyte" wrote: > > > On 1/20/16 08:25, Naslund, Steve wrote: > >> Helicopters near the Super Bowl are cleared to be there and are flown by >> vetted professional pilots. A human pilot in a helicopter presumably has >> some kind of qualification to be there while a drone (although I don't like >> that word) could be flown by any moron with a couple hundred bucks. I also >> think the government is going completely overboard with the "drone threat" >> but in the case of the Super Bowl, there should definitely be a reasonable >> restriction on drone flights, ANY flight for that matter. I think >> reasonable drone pilots would agree with that. >> > Can't wait for autonomous drones in the $50 range. And the autonomous > counter-drones. > >> >> Steven Naslund >> Chicago IL >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of >> Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu >> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:46 AM >> To: Rafael Possamai >> Cc: nanog at nanog.org >> Subject: Re: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl >> >> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:41:31 -0600, Rafael Possamai said: >> >>> I fail to see how drones relate to fiber cuts and the superbowl. Did >>> the article author just throw that in there? The news helicopter >>> getting aerial footage also poses a risk, so not sure what's special >>> about drones. >>> >> Drones don't cost $200 per hour to keep in the air, and they're not as >> obvious as a helicopter. So it becomes a lot easier to get in there and >> grab some unauthorized video.... >> > > From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 20 19:01:05 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:01:05 -0800 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401C9BCDD29@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569E9FC5.4080801@pubnix.net> <6528.1453304781@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401C9BCDD29@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com> Message-ID: Unmanned aircraft systems are subject to the same Temporary Flight Restrictions(TFR) as manned aircraft. While the TFRs for Superbowl 50 are not yet published, you can be assured that the FAA will issue some and likely several. Most likely everything below at least 10,000 feet for at least a 5 nautical mile radius of the stadium will be closed to all but the following: 1. Flight operations in support of the superbowl authorized by superbowl management 2. Scheduled Air Carriers 3. Military 4. Law Enforcement 5. Medical/Emergency Services 6. Possibly certain other flights authorized by ATC and on a discrete transponder code. It?s not unlikely that this will go to 18,000 instead of just 10,000 and also not unlikely that this could extend to 10 or even 15 nautical miles. Personally, I?m planning to drive out of the area on the 5th and not return until the 11th or maybe even the 12th to avoid the whole mess. I want nothing to do with the first Superbowl in the worst possible place to put a stadium in the bay area. Whatever idiot(s) thought putting a major stadium at the confluence of the most congested freeways in the bay area was a good idea should be flayed. The only good thing I can say about the stadium is that unlike the San Jose Arena, I am not being forced to subsidize Levi?s advertising through taxes to the best of my knowledge. I expect the traffic on the ground to be a nightmare and everything related to aviation in the area to be even worse. There will likely be limited landing and parking reservation slots allocated at all surrounding airports (SJC, HWD, RHV, E16, PAO, and possibly even SQL, SFO, OAK, CVH, SNS). According to preliminary data, the Superbowl will affect operations at APC, CCR, CVH, HWD, LVK, MRY, OAK, PAO, RHV, SCK, SFO, SNS, SQL, STS, and WVI. (Not sure why E16 didn?t make the list, but I guarantee you it will be affected). ?Special security provisions? whatever that means will be implmented in the San Jose and San Francisco areas three to five days prior to the Super Bowl. More information can be found here: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2016/January/05/Super-Bowl-50-flight-advisory-coming Owen Commercial Pilot, Airplane Single Engine Land, Instrument Airplane Drone enthusiast AOPA Member > On Jan 20, 2016, at 08:25 , Naslund, Steve wrote: > > Helicopters near the Super Bowl are cleared to be there and are flown by vetted professional pilots. A human pilot in a helicopter presumably has some kind of qualification to be there while a drone (although I don't like that word) could be flown by any moron with a couple hundred bucks. I also think the government is going completely overboard with the "drone threat" but in the case of the Super Bowl, there should definitely be a reasonable restriction on drone flights, ANY flight for that matter. I think reasonable drone pilots would agree with that. > > Steven Naslund > Chicago IL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:46 AM > To: Rafael Possamai > Cc: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:41:31 -0600, Rafael Possamai said: >> I fail to see how drones relate to fiber cuts and the superbowl. Did >> the article author just throw that in there? The news helicopter >> getting aerial footage also poses a risk, so not sure what's special about drones. > > Drones don't cost $200 per hour to keep in the air, and they're not as obvious as a helicopter. So it becomes a lot easier to get in there and grab some unauthorized video.... From xxnog at ledeuns.net Wed Jan 20 19:11:25 2016 From: xxnog at ledeuns.net (Denis Fondras) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:11:25 +0100 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: <1453284177.5553334@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: <20160120191125.GC1249@jigai> > How does Solid Optics compare on pricing? They don't list them on their > website. > Last time I checked, it was roughly US$90 for a SFP-10G-LR+-SO. From yossigi at bu.edu Wed Jan 20 19:18:15 2016 From: yossigi at bu.edu (Gilad, Yossi) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:18:15 +0000 Subject: RPKI Deployment Study In-Reply-To: <12C68B899192714CA88C75034115682CC5AE01BE@IST-EX10MBX-2.ad.bu.edu> References: <12C68B899192714CA88C75034115682CC5AE01BE@IST-EX10MBX-2.ad.bu.edu> Message-ID: <12C68B899192714CA88C75034115682CCEE56FC5@IST-EX10MBX-2.ad.bu.edu> Dear Forum, To improve academic research on interdomain routing security by better understanding network operators' practices and concerns, we've created a short survey, sent to this mailing list last week: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XHxWfUFP1lZRF0lhyDY9wZDGU81I7--65AnzhPF6cfc/viewform If you have not done so already please take a few minutes to complete the survey. Survey data will be kept anonymous and will be used to improve research on interdomain routing security. Aggregated results will also be posted to this mailing list. We appreciate any and all responses to the survey. Thank you, Avichai Cohen (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Yossi Gilad (Boston University and MIT), Amir Herzberg (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Schapira (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Haya Shulman (Fraunhofer SIT) ________________________________ From: Gilad, Yossi Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 12:35 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: RPKI Deployment Study Hi NANOG! To improve academic research on interdomain routing security by better understanding network operators' practices and concerns, we've created a short survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XHxWfUFP1lZRF0lhyDY9wZDGU81I7--65AnzhPF6cfc/viewform Survey data will be kept anonymous and will be used to improve research on interdomain routing security. Aggregated results will also be posted to the NANOG list. We appreciate any and all responses to the survey. Thank you, Avichai Cohen (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Yossi Gilad (Boston University and MIT), Amir Herzberg (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Schapira (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Haya Shulman (Fraunhofer SIT) From surfer at mauigateway.com Wed Jan 20 19:28:47 2016 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:28:47 -0800 Subject: NANOG a petri dish? Message-ID: <20160120112847.37CD828D@m0087796.ppops.net> --- yossigi at bu.edu wrote: From: "Gilad, Yossi" ...by better understanding network operators' practices and concerns, we've created a short survey... --------------------------------- Anyone feeling like we're in a petri dish lately? scott From nanog-isp at mail.com Wed Jan 20 20:08:06 2016 From: nanog-isp at mail.com (nanog-isp at mail.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:08:06 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> References: , <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Niels Bakker wrote: > https://www.stateoftheinternet.com/trends-visualizations-ipv6-adoption-ipv4-exhaustion-global-heat-map-network-country-growth-data.html Thanks, I looked at that link before I posted. Unfortunately the data is both too coarse and too narrow to be of much use. I'm sure it tells us something about Akamai's and their customers' IPv6 efforts, but it does not tell ISPs anything about what kind of IPv6 flows and volumes to expect. >From what I've learned so far IPv6 percentages of total traffic for ISPs vary between very little to a small amount. This pretty much gives lie to the claims that IPv6 efforts will reduce pressure on CGNAT resources. Jared From nellermann at broadaspect.com Wed Jan 20 20:17:08 2016 From: nellermann at broadaspect.com (Nick Ellermann) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:17:08 +0000 Subject: Comcast operator? Message-ID: <383b6cae3c094eccba4f4434e62cf17e@exchange.broadaspect.local> Is there a Comcast network opts person that could reach me off list? I have a routing question that makes zero sense to us, while trying to customer's issue at their office in Leesburg, VA where Comcast is their upstream network service. It's a simple question, looking for a simple response, but I know the rabbit hole I would go down if I asked Comcast technical support since none of them really know anything about networking and just read a script. Thanks! Sincerely, Nick Ellermann - CTO & VP Cloud Services BroadAspect E: nellermann at broadaspect.com P: 703-297-4639 F: 703-996-4443 THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. From jj at anexia.at Wed Jan 20 20:22:19 2016 From: jj at anexia.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Jaritsch?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:22:19 +0000 Subject: AW: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: <20160120191125.GC1249@jigai> References: <1453284177.5553334@apps.rackspace.com> <20160120191125.GC1249@jigai> Message-ID: <37bd8d3ed3d54508bca074896dcd8850@anx-i-dag02.anx.local> I don't know the US pricing ... but in the EU get it for less :). I buy hundreds of optics per year from them - since 18 months they are our exclusive partner for optic deliveries. I've to work with Juniper, Extreme Networks, Cisco, Brocade, Fortinet, Radware and HP. Whatever you need: they make it happen :). Best regards J?rgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: JJaritsch at anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Denis Fondras Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. J?nner 2016 20:11 An: nanog at nanog.org Betreff: Re: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers > How does Solid Optics compare on pricing? They don't list them on their > website. > Last time I checked, it was roughly US$90 for a SFP-10G-LR+-SO. From jneiberger at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 20:23:24 2016 From: jneiberger at gmail.com (John Neiberger) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:23:24 -0700 Subject: Comcast operator? In-Reply-To: <383b6cae3c094eccba4f4434e62cf17e@exchange.broadaspect.local> References: <383b6cae3c094eccba4f4434e62cf17e@exchange.broadaspect.local> Message-ID: Send me a note off-list and I can help. John On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Nick Ellermann wrote: > Is there a Comcast network opts person that could reach me off list? > I have a routing question that makes zero sense to us, while trying to > customer's issue at their office in Leesburg, VA where Comcast is their > upstream network service. It's a simple question, looking for a simple > response, but I know the rabbit hole I would go down if I asked Comcast > technical support since none of them really know anything about networking > and just read a script. > > Thanks! > > > Sincerely, > Nick Ellermann - CTO & VP Cloud Services > BroadAspect > > E: nellermann at broadaspect.com > P: 703-297-4639 > F: 703-996-4443 > > THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY > MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you > received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and > its attachments from all computers. > > From jim at reptiles.org Wed Jan 20 20:31:52 2016 From: jim at reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:31:52 -0500 Subject: Best Source for ARIN Region /24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160120203150.GA84405@reptiles.org> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:19:00PM -0600, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > I'm looking to buy a /24 of space for a new multi-homed network in the ARIN > region. Can anyone out there speak to going rates for a /24 and best > places to shop? if anyone is interested, i have some legacy ARIN space that i'm selling off. it is registered in the ARIN STLS marketplace, and the easiest way to follow through would be by pre-qualifying: https://www.arin.net/resources/transfers/preapproval.html contact me to negotiate pricing. this is a direct sale, i'm not an agent. i can currently do blocks from /24 to /16. --jim -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim at reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" -- Hunter S. Thompson From mpalmer at hezmatt.org Wed Jan 20 20:34:56 2016 From: mpalmer at hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:34:56 +1100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160120203456.GA5062@hezmatt.org> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:14:42PM +0100, nanog-isp at mail.com wrote: > Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their percentage of IPv6 traffic? https://twitter.com/discourse/status/679808652128030720 We're a smallish content source. - Matt From randy at psg.com Wed Jan 20 23:23:09 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:23:09 +0900 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: > We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled. you might hypothesize it. but the wide variance in per-hop rtt would seem to belie that. > Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packets > received from the internet ('inbound') at the next NANOG or IETF? we have large bodies of traceroute and ping results in various stores, mlab, atlas, mawi, ... it is the analysis to test your original hypothesis which baffles me. randy From job at instituut.net Wed Jan 20 23:35:54 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:35:54 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 08:23:09AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled. > > you might hypothesize it. but the wide variance in per-hop rtt would > seem to belie that. > > > Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packets > > received from the internet ('inbound') at the next NANOG or IETF? > > we have large bodies of traceroute and ping results in various stores, > mlab, atlas, mawi, ... it is the analysis to test your original > hypothesis which baffles me. I'm not sure if milions traceroutes to all kinds of places are a good dataset to begin with. I'd try to look at natural / organic traffic, such as can be caught at a dual-stacked CPE or webserver. The majority of the traffic my employer carriers is not traceroute packets but other stuff. When will you have the paper ready for publishing? :) From Matthew.Black at csulb.edu Wed Jan 20 23:56:43 2016 From: Matthew.Black at csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:56:43 +0000 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <569ED7C8.2060804@mykolab.com> References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569EA33D.9080809@dougbarton.us> <569ED7C8.2060804@mykolab.com> Message-ID: Enclosed stadiums won't have to worry about remote drones until they get smart enough to open doors on their own. Not sure why the NFL gets uptight about unauthorized recording. Most sporting events have little value once the event is over. matthew black -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:42 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl While I agree that the broadcast networks are concerned about unauthorized recording and/or rebroadcasting of the event, there's also a precedent on a drone crashing during a high-profile sporting event in the U.S.: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/us-open-tennis-drone-arrest/index.html $.02, - - ferg From randy at psg.com Thu Jan 21 00:38:13 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:38:13 +0900 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: >>> We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled. >> >> you might hypothesize it. but the wide variance in per-hop rtt would >> seem to belie that. >> >>> Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packets >>> received from the internet ('inbound') at the next NANOG or IETF? >> >> we have large bodies of traceroute and ping results in various stores, >> mlab, atlas, mawi, ... it is the analysis to test your original >> hypothesis which baffles me. > > I'm not sure if milions traceroutes to all kinds of places are a good > dataset to begin with. all depends on what the actual means by which you intend to test your hypothesis, which you have yet to reveal. all i have heard so far is ttl, which we know is no measure of distance. randy From spedersen.lists at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 17:04:26 2016 From: spedersen.lists at gmail.com (Sean) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:04:26 -0700 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: <3D04BF89-912D-4FD7-9FFF-BD800B3798DD@thrashyour.com> References: <3D04BF89-912D-4FD7-9FFF-BD800B3798DD@thrashyour.com> Message-ID: No support ticket needed: localhost login: admin localhost>ena localhost#bash Arista Networks EOS shell [admin at localhost ~]$ touch /mnt/flash/enable3px [admin at localhost ~]$ sudo reboot As for the OP?s question, I?ve run Cisco OEM, Brocade OEM, and a number of different 3rd party SFP/SFP+s in the few Arista switches we operate with no issues. Arista OEM is likely the same 2-3 vendors that make or have made Cisco?s optics. It?s all been 10GBASE-SR, -LR, and 1000BASE-T, though. No 40GbE or 100GbE. On 1/20/16, 9:55 AM, "NANOG on behalf of John Kinsella" wrote: >Last I heard, EOS locks out non-Arista optics by default. You have to contact support for instructions to enable 3rd party modules. > >I?m running all Arista cables/optics - at the point when we ordered the pricing was competitive with 3rd party, but that was several years ago and the vendor was hungry. > >John > >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Alex Forster wrote: >> >> Hi everyone! >> >> I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. >> >> The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? >> >> Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Alex Forster > From achatz at forthnet.gr Wed Jan 20 19:25:50 2016 From: achatz at forthnet.gr (Tassos Chatzithomaoglou) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:25:50 +0200 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <569FDF3E.4010007@forthnet.gr> In our case IPv6 traffic is ~27% of total, with ~58% dual-stack subscribers and ~7% ds-lite subscribers. -- Tassos nanog-isp at mail.com wrote on 20/1/16 14:14: > Hello all, > > Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their percentage of IPv6 traffic? > > Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and Facebook? > > Some public information I've found so far: > - Comcast around 25% IPv6 traffic ( http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-is-a-real-world-big-deal/a/d-id/718395 ) > - Comcast has over 1 Tb/s (of mostly YouTube traffic) over IPv6 ( http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network ) > - Swisscom 26% IPv6 traffic, 60% YouTube ( http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog27/p/01_Martin_Gysi.pdf ) > > I'd be very much interested in hearing from smaller ISPs, especially those having a very limited number of IPv4 addresses and/or running out. > > > Thanks, > > Jared > From randy at psg.com Thu Jan 21 00:48:19 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:48:19 +0900 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: > jokes aside, Its a hypothesis worth testing. It has qualities which > make it plausible. > > So please, between you, find a way to specify and test it! although the hypothesis has some intuitive appeal, how to test it is far from obvious. and i note that, as a senior member of the measurement community, you're saying "you guys do it." thanks a lot. :) i considered rtt from a service such as goog to their querriers. there are the problems of their distributed caches, the politics of getting their data, and the eyeball bias. maybe find a platform with less of those biases. dns is far too biased in all sorts of dimensions. your add clicks? i have found no usable coffee here in nagoya, so i may be missing something obvious. randy From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 21 09:49:32 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:49:32 -0800 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569EA33D.9080809@dougbarton.us> <569ED7C8.2060804@mykolab.com> Message-ID: <33E9E4EA-3BF1-413C-9320-C9C0869F3B09@delong.com> Drones could do unauthorized streaming just as well as unauthorized recording. Also, the Santa Clara stadium is not enclosed. Owen > On Jan 20, 2016, at 15:56 , Matthew Black wrote: > > Enclosed stadiums won't have to worry about remote drones until they get smart enough to open doors on their own. Not sure why the NFL gets uptight about unauthorized recording. Most sporting events have little value once the event is over. > > matthew black > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:42 PM > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl > > > While I agree that the broadcast networks are concerned about > unauthorized recording and/or rebroadcasting of the event, there's > also a precedent on a drone crashing during a high-profile sporting > event in the U.S.: > > http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/us-open-tennis-drone-arrest/index.html > > $.02, > > - - ferg From job at instituut.net Thu Jan 21 13:56:46 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:56:46 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <20160121135646.GC54204@22.rev.meerval.net> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:48:19AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > jokes aside, Its a hypothesis worth testing. It has qualities which > > make it plausible. > > > > So please, between you, find a way to specify and test it! > > although the hypothesis has some intuitive appeal, how to test it is far > from obvious. and i note that, as a senior member of the measurement > community, you're saying "you guys do it." thanks a lot. :) > > i considered rtt from a service such as goog to their querriers. there > are the problems of their distributed caches, the politics of getting > their data, and the eyeball bias. maybe find a platform with less of > those biases. dns is far too biased in all sorts of dimensions. your > add clicks? i have found no usable coffee here in nagoya, so i may be > missing something obvious. Looking at my employers network... We know the GPS coordinates for each BGP next-hop in the network, and traffic is sampled on ingress at the edge of the network and reported to pmacct (*flow), which also receives a RR-style BGP feed for correlation. We can know where (geographically) a packet enters the network, where it leaves the network and to what address family it belongs. However, this would be just one network's (biased) view on things. From randy at psg.com Thu Jan 21 14:00:46 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:00:46 +0900 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <20160121135646.GC54204@22.rev.meerval.net> References: <6EDBE3F4-E5D4-4961-9936-792B3A29871E@puck.nether.net> <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121135646.GC54204@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: > We know the GPS coordinates for each BGP next-hop in the network, and > traffic is sampled on ingress at the edge of the network and reported > to pmacct (*flow), which also receives a RR-style BGP feed for > correlation. > > We can know where (geographically) a packet enters the network, where > it leaves the network and to what address family it belongs. i have only seen pmacct used for aggregated flow/traffic. you actually know where each packet enters and leaves? randy From job at instituut.net Thu Jan 21 14:31:30 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:31:30 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121135646.GC54204@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <20160121143130.GD54204@22.rev.meerval.net> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:00:46PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > We know the GPS coordinates for each BGP next-hop in the network, and > > traffic is sampled on ingress at the edge of the network and reported > > to pmacct (*flow), which also receives a RR-style BGP feed for > > correlation. > > > > We can know where (geographically) a packet enters the network, where > > it leaves the network and to what address family it belongs. > > i have only seen pmacct used for aggregated flow/traffic. you actually > know where each packet enters and leaves? No, not each individual packet. That's too much data. (Taking into consideration that anything reported through flowbased telemetry to the pmacct instances is heavily sampled) You can configure pmacct to specify on which properties of the received flow data it should aggregate its output data, one could configure pmacct to store data using the following primitives: ($timeperiod, $entrypoint_router_id, $bgp_nexthop, $packet_count) Where $timeperiod is something like 5 minute ranges, and the post processing software calculates the distance between the entrypoint router and where the flow would leave the network ($bgp_nexthop). See 'aggregate' on http://wiki.pmacct.net/OfficialConfigKeys In short: you configure pmacct to throw away everything you don't need (maybe after some light pre-processing), and hope that what remains is small enough to fit in your cluster and at the same time offers enough insight to answer the question you set out to resolve. Kind regards, Job From randy at psg.com Thu Jan 21 14:44:34 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:44:34 +0900 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <20160121143130.GD54204@22.rev.meerval.net> References: <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121135646.GC54204@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121143130.GD54204@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: > You can configure pmacct to specify on which properties of the received > flow data it should aggregate its output data, one could configure > pmacct to store data using the following primitives: > > ($timeperiod, $entrypoint_router_id, $bgp_nexthop, $packet_count) > > Where $timeperiod is something like 5 minute ranges, and the post > processing software calculates the distance between the entrypoint > router and where the flow would leave the network ($bgp_nexthop). > > See 'aggregate' on http://wiki.pmacct.net/OfficialConfigKeys > > In short: you configure pmacct to throw away everything you don't need > (maybe after some light pre-processing), and hope that what remains is > small enough to fit in your cluster and at the same time offers enough > insight to answer the question you set out to resolve. it's late here, so i am a bit slower than usual. but could you explain in detail how this tests the hypothesis? even of all your traffic entered on a bgp hop and exited on a bgp hop, and all bgp entries set next_hop (which i think you do), you would be ignoring the 'distance' the packet traveled from source to get to your entry and traveled from your exit to get to the final destination. randy From job at instituut.net Thu Jan 21 14:55:39 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:39 +0100 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121135646.GC54204@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121143130.GD54204@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <20160121145539.GF54204@22.rev.meerval.net> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:44:34PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > You can configure pmacct to specify on which properties of the received > > flow data it should aggregate its output data, one could configure > > pmacct to store data using the following primitives: > > > > ($timeperiod, $entrypoint_router_id, $bgp_nexthop, $packet_count) > > > > Where $timeperiod is something like 5 minute ranges, and the post > > processing software calculates the distance between the entrypoint > > router and where the flow would leave the network ($bgp_nexthop). > > > > See 'aggregate' on http://wiki.pmacct.net/OfficialConfigKeys > > > > In short: you configure pmacct to throw away everything you don't need > > (maybe after some light pre-processing), and hope that what remains is > > small enough to fit in your cluster and at the same time offers enough > > insight to answer the question you set out to resolve. > > but could you explain in detail how this tests the hypothesis? > > even of all your traffic entered on a bgp hop and exited on a bgp hop, > and all bgp entries set next_hop (which i think you do), you would be > ignoring the 'distance' the packet traveled from source to get to your > entry and traveled from your exit to get to the final destination. Yes, correct. This is why I mentioned before: "However, this would be just one network's (biased) view on things." With this I meant that I can measure something, but only within a subset of the entire path a packet might traverse. (just that one routing domain), so not end-to-end. And what might be true for us might not be true for others. From jra at baylink.com Thu Jan 21 15:49:10 2016 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay R. Ashworth) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:49:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Happy Squirrel Appreciation Day! Message-ID: <921198858.121119.1453391350665.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> I've just learned that this holiday is today, and I can't think of any holiday NANOGers would appreciate more... unless it was National Backhoe Day. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From bzs at theworld.com Thu Jan 21 18:03:44 2016 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:03:44 -0500 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <1834095277.114825.1453218423370.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <1507243566.115969.1453234329878.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> <569EA33D.9080809@dougbarton.us> <569ED7C8.2060804@mykolab.com> Message-ID: <22177.7552.209566.523650@pcls8.std.com> On January 20, 2016 at 23:56 Matthew.Black at csulb.edu (Matthew Black) wrote: > Enclosed stadiums won't have to worry about remote drones until they get smart enough to open doors on their own. Not sure why the NFL gets uptight about unauthorized recording. Most sporting events have little value once the event is over. Control. Which might include contractual obligations like against showing some big-shot coach or player picking his nose or crying or whatever (tho spitting seems ok even on artificial turf yuck!), upskirts, whatever. Maybe certain people in attendance particularly in the expensive boxes don't want to be shown (e.g., with their, um, girlfriends), etc etc etc. At least some money would be in bloopers or scandals. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From mhardeman at ipifony.com Thu Jan 21 18:07:37 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:07:37 -0600 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Message-ID: Hi everyone, I know the long and storied history of Cogent and HE failing to peer for IPv6 and failing to provide (from either side) for IPv6 transit between their two networks has been mentioned and covered on this list before, but I am rather surprised it has not garnered much attention. Until recently, that is. I notice an increasing number of people tweeting at both HE and Cogent about the problem. From HE?s public statements on the matter, it?s pretty clear that they would gladly peer with Cogent for IPv6 but that Cogent declines to do this. I simply cannot understand Cogent?s logic on this. Cogent is the one loosing out here, to my way of thinking. They have far less IPv6 coverage than HE. I myself, on behalf of my employers, am a direct customer of IP transit services from both Cogent and HE. I don?t know about others similarly positioned, but my Cogent rep tries to call me at least twice a month. I?m going to start taking (more of) his calls and letting him know his account with us is in jeopardy come renewal time if Cogent can?t get a full IPv6 route table to happen. Today, with Cogent & HE as peers, I am world reachable via IPv6. If either peer went down however, part of the internet couldn?t reach me via IPv6 because either HE wouldn?t have a route or Cogent wouldn?t have a route. That?s ridiculous. Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they?d love to peer with Cogent), I?m giving serious consideration to dropping Cogent come renewal time and utilizing NTT or Zayo instead. While that would not immediately solve the problem that if the NTT or Zayo link went down, single-homed Cogent customers would loose access to me via IPv6, I?m actually ok with that. It at least lets ensures that when there is a problem, the problem affects only single-home Cogent clients. Thus, the problem is borne exclusively by the people who pay the bad actor who is causing this problem. That tends to get uncomfortable for the payee (i.e. Cogent). I intend to email my Cogent sales guy regarding this matter and make this a sticking point in every phone conversation I have with him. I call on others similarly situated to consider whether you may like to follow suit in this approach. I?ve come to believe that it?s best for my interests and I also believe that it?s best for the internet community at large, as ubiquitous worldwide routing of IPv6 becomes more essential with each passing day. In closing, I further add that it?s a mystery to me why Cogent wouldn?t desire an IPv6 peering with HE. Let?s face it, if any of us had to choose a single-home IPv6 internet experience, between HE or Cogent, we?d all choose HE. If those were the two options, HE is the ?real? IPv6 internet and Cogent is a tiny sliver of the IPv6 internet. I have actually wondered if HE is holding IPv6 peering with Cogent hostage, contingent on peering all protocols (IPv4 and IPv6) with Cogent. There, I could see why Cogent might hesitate. To my knowledge, however, this is not the case and I have heard no public accusation that HE is imposing such a constraint. I would love to hear anyone from HE tell as much of the story as they are able. PS - As an aside, has anyone noticed HE?s been growing their network by leaps and bounds this past year? Direct peerings with AT&T and CenturyLink, more domestic US and Canadian POPs, and I believe the number of pathways across the North American continent has been improved substantially, too. Thanks, Matt Hardeman IPiFony Systems, Inc. AS6082 From mhardeman at ipifony.com Thu Jan 21 18:37:20 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:37:20 -0600 Subject: New peerings between Hurricane Electric and Level3? Message-ID: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356. I know they already peer IPv6, though not at those sites. Is this the first hint that HE and Level3 are coming around on an IPv4 and IPv6 peering agreement? From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Thu Jan 21 18:40:03 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > > Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they?d love to peer with Cogent), I?m giving serious consideration to dropping Cogent come renewal time and utilizing NTT or Zayo instead. > > While that would not immediately solve the problem that if the NTT or Zayo link went down, single-homed Cogent customers would loose access to me via IPv6, I?m actually ok with that. It at least lets ensures that when there is a problem, the problem affects only single-home Cogent clients. Thus, the problem is borne exclusively by the people who pay the bad actor who is causing this problem. That tends to get uncomfortable for the payee (i.e. Cogent). > > Take two transit providers that aren?t in the group of (HE, Cogent). Cogent is probably banking on this being the response; figuring that they have the financial resources to outlast HE if they?re both shedding customers. If you really wanted to stick it to Cogent, take 3 transit providers: HE and two of any other providers besides Cogent. Cogent clearly aren?t going to cave to their own customers asking them to peer with HE. Otherwise it would have happened by now. Cogent sucks for lots of reasons and this one isn?t even in the top 5 IMHO. From mhardeman at ipifony.com Thu Jan 21 18:44:56 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:44:56 -0600 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9332155D-37E6-4387-BEB1-F371B82145BE@ipifony.com> I?m inclined to agree with you, subject to some caveats: 1. I think more Cogent customers need to be more vocal about it. There hasn?t been an impetus to do so until recently. Now real people (not network engineer sorts) are starting to use IPv6 for real. 2. I agree with you in principle. In an idea world, take HE and two others. I would however still say that if you could only take two, take HE and take something other than Cogent. It?s a win-win if the experience of single-home Cogent customers gets to be worse as a result. Perhaps having things occasionally break ? only for single-home Cogent customers ? is a benefit. > On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Daniel Corbe wrote: > > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >> >> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they?d love to peer with Cogent), I?m giving serious consideration to dropping Cogent come renewal time and utilizing NTT or Zayo instead. >> >> While that would not immediately solve the problem that if the NTT or Zayo link went down, single-homed Cogent customers would loose access to me via IPv6, I?m actually ok with that. It at least lets ensures that when there is a problem, the problem affects only single-home Cogent clients. Thus, the problem is borne exclusively by the people who pay the bad actor who is causing this problem. That tends to get uncomfortable for the payee (i.e. Cogent). >> >> > > Take two transit providers that aren?t in the group of (HE, Cogent). Cogent is probably banking on this being the response; figuring that they have the financial resources to outlast HE if they?re both shedding customers. > > If you really wanted to stick it to Cogent, take 3 transit providers: HE and two of any other providers besides Cogent. > > Cogent clearly aren?t going to cave to their own customers asking them to peer with HE. Otherwise it would have happened by now. > > Cogent sucks for lots of reasons and this one isn?t even in the top 5 IMHO. > > From robertg at garlic.com Thu Jan 21 18:47:14 2016 From: robertg at garlic.com (Robert Glover) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:47:14 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >> >> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they?d love to peer with Cogent), I?m giving serious consideration to dropping Cogent come renewal time and utilizing NTT or Zayo instead. >> >> While that would not immediately solve the problem that if the NTT or Zayo link went down, single-homed Cogent customers would loose access to me via IPv6, I?m actually ok with that. It at least lets ensures that when there is a problem, the problem affects only single-home Cogent clients. Thus, the problem is borne exclusively by the people who pay the bad actor who is causing this problem. That tends to get uncomfortable for the payee (i.e. Cogent). >> >> > Take two transit providers that aren?t in the group of (HE, Cogent). Cogent is probably banking on this being the response; figuring that they have the financial resources to outlast HE if they?re both shedding customers. > > If you really wanted to stick it to Cogent, take 3 transit providers: HE and two of any other providers besides Cogent. > > Cogent clearly aren?t going to cave to their own customers asking them to peer with HE. Otherwise it would have happened by now. > > Cogent sucks for lots of reasons and this one isn?t even in the top 5 IMHO. > > Let's hear the top 5. Peering disputes are up there, but what else? We've had them as one of our providers going on 8 years, and we can only complain about the occasional peering disputes. -Robert From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Thu Jan 21 18:52:33 2016 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:52:33 GMT Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Message-ID: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > > Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being > > Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying > > that theyd love to peer with Cogent) I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as they won't. HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the offer. Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something properly bad. brandon From mhardeman at ipifony.com Thu Jan 21 19:02:38 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:02:38 -0600 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <41EC8242-EC5B-49FB-BF29-73F25FECFE49@ipifony.com> I hear you. Taken to extremes, I can see how the argument sounds like that. However? I have some thoughts on what you?ve said. Most of us would never get peerings to all the Tier 1s. But? Hurricane Electric already has IPv6 peering to every network that matters, save for Cogent?s. Every other accepted Tier 1 peers with HE on IPv6. Even SPRINT. If we got back historically, they (Sprint) were among the most coveted and hardest to get IP peerings. Even they recognized HE?s dominance of the IPv6 space early on. I?m not bashing Cogent. I?m a customer of theirs and they?ve generally served me well. The trouble I have in accepting Cogent?s behavior in this matter is that it just seems irrational. If a typical, public forum peering dispute arose between HE & Cogent regarding IPv6, frankly and pretty objectively, you?d expect it to be Hurricane Electric questioning the value of peering Cogent IPv6 rather than Cogent questioning HE. I don?t question these parties? rights not to peer, but I do question the logic behind it. I think Cogent is hurting themselves on this more than HE is getting hurt by it. > On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being >>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying >>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent) > > I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as > they won't. > > HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on > a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish > this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the > offer. > > Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something > properly bad. > > brandon From cb.list6 at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 19:05:02 2016 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:05:02 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < > mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote: > > > Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being > > > Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying > > > that theyd love to peer with Cogent) > > I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as > they won't. > > HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on > a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish > this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the > offer. > > Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something > properly bad. > > brandon > Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full internet access is generally considered properly bad. I would not do business with either company, since neither of them provide a full view. CB From marty at cloudflare.com Thu Jan 21 19:08:01 2016 From: marty at cloudflare.com (Marty Strong) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:08:01 +0000 Subject: New peerings between Hurricane Electric and Level3? In-Reply-To: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> References: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> Message-ID: I?ve heard from the grape vine that this is due to the GBLX to Level3 transition, and it?s in fact paid IP transit. Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- CloudFlare - AS13335 Network Engineer marty at cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 > On 21 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > > Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356. > > I know they already peer IPv6, though not at those sites. Is this the first hint that HE and Level3 are coming around on an IPv4 and IPv6 peering agreement? From mhardeman at ipifony.com Thu Jan 21 19:12:08 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:12:08 -0600 Subject: New peerings between Hurricane Electric and Level3? In-Reply-To: References: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> Message-ID: <7760A950-F5EA-4FAA-AE1A-B097BD072278@ipifony.com> Intriguing. If it were only that though, wouldn?t they just still pick it up via TeliaSonera IC? I did notice that in the past few months, TeliaSonera has been dropping AS3549 from spots where they had session with both AS3549 and with AS3356 and now reaches AS3549 via AS3356. > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Marty Strong wrote: > > I?ve heard from the grape vine that this is due to the GBLX to Level3 transition, and it?s in fact paid IP transit. > > Regards, > Marty Strong > -------------------------------------- > CloudFlare - AS13335 > Network Engineer > marty at cloudflare.com > +44 7584 906 055 > smartflare (Skype) > > http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 > >> On 21 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >> >> Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356. >> >> I know they already peer IPv6, though not at those sites. Is this the first hint that HE and Level3 are coming around on an IPv4 and IPv6 peering agreement? > From marty at cloudflare.com Thu Jan 21 19:13:36 2016 From: marty at cloudflare.com (Marty Strong) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:13:36 +0000 Subject: New peerings between Hurricane Electric and Level3? In-Reply-To: <7760A950-F5EA-4FAA-AE1A-B097BD072278@ipifony.com> References: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> <7760A950-F5EA-4FAA-AE1A-B097BD072278@ipifony.com> Message-ID: Depends on the market and how far along their migration is going. In experience with GTT (AS4436) they?re still not finished migrating everything to AS3257. Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- CloudFlare - AS13335 Network Engineer marty at cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 > On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:12, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > > Intriguing. If it were only that though, wouldn?t they just still pick it up via TeliaSonera IC? > > I did notice that in the past few months, TeliaSonera has been dropping AS3549 from spots where they had session with both AS3549 and with AS3356 and now reaches AS3549 via AS3356. > > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Marty Strong wrote: >> >> I?ve heard from the grape vine that this is due to the GBLX to Level3 transition, and it?s in fact paid IP transit. >> >> Regards, >> Marty Strong >> -------------------------------------- >> CloudFlare - AS13335 >> Network Engineer >> marty at cloudflare.com >> +44 7584 906 055 >> smartflare (Skype) >> >> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 >> >>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>> >>> Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356. >>> >>> I know they already peer IPv6, though not at those sites. Is this the first hint that HE and Level3 are coming around on an IPv4 and IPv6 peering agreement? >> > From mhardeman at ipifony.com Thu Jan 21 19:22:26 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:22:26 -0600 Subject: New peerings between Hurricane Electric and Level3? In-Reply-To: References: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> <7760A950-F5EA-4FAA-AE1A-B097BD072278@ipifony.com> Message-ID: I was actually surprised they didn?t just leave GBLX customers on AS3549, kill all external AS3549 peerings, and treat AS3549 downline as a Level3 customer, accepting L3 and GBLX communities from GBLX customers. That seems more along the lines of what they?re doing with the AS4323 TW Telecom customers. (Though, in fairness, AS3356 has always carried AS4323 as a customer as far as I recall.) It will be interesting to see if whether they kill off AS4323 peerings. > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Marty Strong wrote: > > Depends on the market and how far along their migration is going. In experience with GTT (AS4436) they?re still not finished migrating everything to AS3257. > > Regards, > Marty Strong > -------------------------------------- > CloudFlare - AS13335 > Network Engineer > marty at cloudflare.com > +44 7584 906 055 > smartflare (Skype) > > http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 > >> On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:12, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >> >> Intriguing. If it were only that though, wouldn?t they just still pick it up via TeliaSonera IC? >> >> I did notice that in the past few months, TeliaSonera has been dropping AS3549 from spots where they had session with both AS3549 and with AS3356 and now reaches AS3549 via AS3356. >> >> >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Marty Strong wrote: >>> >>> I?ve heard from the grape vine that this is due to the GBLX to Level3 transition, and it?s in fact paid IP transit. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Marty Strong >>> -------------------------------------- >>> CloudFlare - AS13335 >>> Network Engineer >>> marty at cloudflare.com >>> +44 7584 906 055 >>> smartflare (Skype) >>> >>> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 >>> >>>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>>> >>>> Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356. >>>> >>>> I know they already peer IPv6, though not at those sites. Is this the first hint that HE and Level3 are coming around on an IPv4 and IPv6 peering agreement? >>> >> > From patrick at ianai.net Thu Jan 21 19:45:05 2016 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:45:05 -0500 Subject: New peerings between Hurricane Electric and Level3? In-Reply-To: References: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> <7760A950-F5EA-4FAA-AE1A-B097BD072278@ipifony.com> Message-ID: Make the AS path longer, losing traffic, and therefore revenue? Why would they do that? The twtelecom customers cannot multi-home (most of them anyway). Most of 3549?s traffic has other paths to the Internet. -- TTFN, patrick > On Jan 21, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > > I was actually surprised they didn?t just leave GBLX customers on AS3549, kill all external AS3549 peerings, and treat AS3549 downline as a Level3 customer, accepting L3 and GBLX communities from GBLX customers. > > That seems more along the lines of what they?re doing with the AS4323 TW Telecom customers. (Though, in fairness, AS3356 has always carried AS4323 as a customer as far as I recall.) It will be interesting to see if whether they kill off AS4323 peerings. > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Marty Strong wrote: >> >> Depends on the market and how far along their migration is going. In experience with GTT (AS4436) they?re still not finished migrating everything to AS3257. >> >> Regards, >> Marty Strong >> -------------------------------------- >> CloudFlare - AS13335 >> Network Engineer >> marty at cloudflare.com >> +44 7584 906 055 >> smartflare (Skype) >> >> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 >> >>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:12, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>> >>> Intriguing. If it were only that though, wouldn?t they just still pick it up via TeliaSonera IC? >>> >>> I did notice that in the past few months, TeliaSonera has been dropping AS3549 from spots where they had session with both AS3549 and with AS3356 and now reaches AS3549 via AS3356. >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Marty Strong wrote: >>>> >>>> I?ve heard from the grape vine that this is due to the GBLX to Level3 transition, and it?s in fact paid IP transit. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Marty Strong >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> CloudFlare - AS13335 >>>> Network Engineer >>>> marty at cloudflare.com >>>> +44 7584 906 055 >>>> smartflare (Skype) >>>> >>>> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 >>>> >>>>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356. >>>>> >>>>> I know they already peer IPv6, though not at those sites. Is this the first hint that HE and Level3 are coming around on an IPv4 and IPv6 peering agreement? >>>> >>> >> From mhardeman at ipifony.com Thu Jan 21 19:48:23 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:48:23 -0600 Subject: New peerings between Hurricane Electric and Level3? In-Reply-To: References: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> <7760A950-F5EA-4FAA-AE1A-B097BD072278@ipifony.com> Message-ID: <46F9D04C-96F1-4186-B372-E83317B7B1B3@ipifony.com> That?s an excellent point, actually. > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > Make the AS path longer, losing traffic, and therefore revenue? > > Why would they do that? > > The twtelecom customers cannot multi-home (most of them anyway). Most of 3549?s traffic has other paths to the Internet. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >> >> I was actually surprised they didn?t just leave GBLX customers on AS3549, kill all external AS3549 peerings, and treat AS3549 downline as a Level3 customer, accepting L3 and GBLX communities from GBLX customers. >> >> That seems more along the lines of what they?re doing with the AS4323 TW Telecom customers. (Though, in fairness, AS3356 has always carried AS4323 as a customer as far as I recall.) It will be interesting to see if whether they kill off AS4323 peerings. >> >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Marty Strong wrote: >>> >>> Depends on the market and how far along their migration is going. In experience with GTT (AS4436) they?re still not finished migrating everything to AS3257. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Marty Strong >>> -------------------------------------- >>> CloudFlare - AS13335 >>> Network Engineer >>> marty at cloudflare.com >>> +44 7584 906 055 >>> smartflare (Skype) >>> >>> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 >>> >>>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:12, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>>> >>>> Intriguing. If it were only that though, wouldn?t they just still pick it up via TeliaSonera IC? >>>> >>>> I did notice that in the past few months, TeliaSonera has been dropping AS3549 from spots where they had session with both AS3549 and with AS3356 and now reaches AS3549 via AS3356. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Marty Strong wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I?ve heard from the grape vine that this is due to the GBLX to Level3 transition, and it?s in fact paid IP transit. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Marty Strong >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> CloudFlare - AS13335 >>>>> Network Engineer >>>>> marty at cloudflare.com >>>>> +44 7584 906 055 >>>>> smartflare (Skype) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 >>>>> >>>>>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356. >>>>>> >>>>>> I know they already peer IPv6, though not at those sites. Is this the first hint that HE and Level3 are coming around on an IPv4 and IPv6 peering agreement? >>>>> >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From keith at kouzmanoff.com Thu Jan 21 19:58:35 2016 From: keith at kouzmanoff.com (Keith Kouzmanoff) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:58:35 -0600 Subject: Forecasted: Ongoing Severe Weather - Winter Storm Jonas East Coast IDCs Message-ID: <56A1386B.5010202@kouzmanoff.com> Heads up. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Forecasted: Ongoing Severe Weather - Winter Storm Jonas East Coast IDCs Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:37:35 -0600 From: donotreply at gcs.att-mail.com AT&T is on high alert as we closely monitor the path of Winter Storm Jonas, which is tracking up the Ashburn,VA, Annapolis, MD, Piscataway, NJ, Secaucus, NJ, 8/11 10th Ave. (NYC), and Watertown, MA, IDC areas. AT&T has activated our emergency preparedness process and we are carefully following our checklist to help keep our customers and employees safe, our facilities protected, and our communications consistent. All facilities and IDCs in the Winter Storm's projected path have completed their pre-planned checklist. We have staffing plans in place to address weather contingencies. Generator fuel tanks and make-up water tanks (HVAC) have been topped off and each center has multiple days of fuel on site. If the building goes to emergency generators, provisions for the delivery of additional fuel have been made. Additionally, our Client management teams are actively responding to customer questions and alert notifications. AT&T?s main concern is for the safety of our customers and our employees. Please do not take chances with the safety of your employees. The IDC will remain open to customers unless weather conditions occur that requires the building to be locked down. We will send out periodic updates as the storm progresses. -- Keith From jbates at paradoxnetworks.net Thu Jan 21 21:00:21 2016 From: jbates at paradoxnetworks.net (Jack Bates) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:00:21 -0600 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <9332155D-37E6-4387-BEB1-F371B82145BE@ipifony.com> References: <9332155D-37E6-4387-BEB1-F371B82145BE@ipifony.com> Message-ID: <56A146E5.7030209@paradoxnetworks.net> On 1/21/2016 12:44 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > I?m inclined to agree with you, subject to some caveats: > > 1. I think more Cogent customers need to be more vocal about it. There hasn?t been an impetus to do so until recently. Now real people (not network engineer sorts) are starting to use IPv6 for real. > > 2. I agree with you in principle. In an idea world, take HE and two others. I would however still say that if you could only take two, take HE and take something other than Cogent. It?s a win-win if the experience of single-home Cogent customers gets to be worse as a result. Perhaps having things occasionally break ? only for single-home Cogent customers ? is a benefit. > Honestly, don't take HE or Cogent if you can help it. Neither deserves to be rewarded in this dispute. That being said, there are plenty of small customers that are single homed to both. Unfortunately, I doubt their voices matter. Jack From mhuff at ox.com Thu Jan 21 21:14:32 2016 From: mhuff at ox.com (Matthew Huff) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:14:32 +0000 Subject: Netgear AC340U (AT&T Beam) for sms messages Message-ID: <01143a0e19834dc3baee95712bd17579@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com> We purchased the AT&T Beam and I've configured smstools under linux and everything looks okay (no error messages). Although text messages are accepted by the modem, no texts show up. I've learned that some carrier's mobile data sim don't support text. We have the sim that came with the box we ordered from AT&T. AT&T is clueless and transferred me to netgear support. Does anyone have a suggestion where I can get a carrier/plan/sim that will work with the AC340U and text messages? I would prefer a plan rather than a pre-paid card that I have to re-fill. If you suggest a carrier, what magic words do I need to speak to have them order the right thing? ---- Matthew Huff???????????? | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations???| Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC?????? | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff??????? | Fax:?? 914-694-5669 From bz_siege_01 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 21 21:26:40 2016 From: bz_siege_01 at hotmail.com (c b) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:26:40 -0700 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? Message-ID: We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a well-known name) Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they still won't provide it. I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now we have to explain why some lines say TBD! Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just provide it ahead of time? Thanks in advance. CWB From sean at donelan.com Thu Jan 21 21:31:19 2016 From: sean at donelan.com (Sean Donelan) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:31:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, c b wrote: > Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just provide it ahead of time? Carrier saves costs by not having a clue, and has no idea which router will have an open port until they try to plug you in. Hope its not a long contract, because customer service never gets better ... only worse. From spedersen.lists at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 21:55:01 2016 From: spedersen.lists at gmail.com (Sean) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:55:01 -0700 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I?d be concerned. IMHO, it?s not normal to withhold such information. Doing so suggests that they are disorganized at best. When we sign a BGP customer, we collect their ASN and the networks they want to advertise up front. With that information, we complete a network setup document that is forwarded to the customer. The document contains all of the information they provided, the transit network(s) we?ve assigned, and port info. This is done weeks/months before turn-up. On 1/21/16, 2:26 PM, "NANOG on behalf of c b" wrote: >We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. >(I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a well-known name) >Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they still won't provide it. >I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now we have to explain why some lines say TBD! >Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just provide it ahead of time? >Thanks in advance. >CWB From bill at herrin.us Thu Jan 21 22:13:33 2016 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:13:33 -0500 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote: > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our > accounting people did some shopping and found that there was > a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and > leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. That's the first mistake. Internet w/ BGP is not a mass-market service. Accounting people have no business searching out highly technical custom products and services. Custom services are highly variable in terms of what the service actually delivers. Accounting people are not at all equipped to evaluate them. > Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked > for the BGP peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier > said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut. It's not unusual for smaller providers who do less BGP to have the engineer work with the customer on the phone to turn up the session without collecting or preparing a bunch of documentation ahead of time. This can be a good thing or a bad thing. They'll have more outages but if they're willing to reprogram routers on the fly they may also be more responsive when you have a problem. And they mayy be more willing to customize your configuration. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From fw at deneb.enyo.de Thu Jan 21 22:20:18 2016 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:20:18 +0100 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: (William Herrin's message of "Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:13:33 -0500") References: Message-ID: <87d1suwp5p.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * William Herrin: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote: >> We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our >> accounting people did some shopping and found that there was >> a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and >> leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. > > That's the first mistake. Internet w/ BGP is not a mass-market > service. Accounting people have no business searching out highly > technical custom products and services. I guess that's why so many customers keep paying for circuits that have long been shut down. :) From bryan at digitalocean.com Thu Jan 21 22:27:41 2016 From: bryan at digitalocean.com (Bryan Socha) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:27:41 -0500 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know of 2 larger providers that have strange provisioning processes. Both of them do layer 0/line testing and then their bgp group gets the order to finish the routing. It's not that they are withholding the info, they haven't done the bgp policy yet and it happens during turnup testing. But the data is fairly standard, what were you missing that wasn't on the tech/bgp form you fill out at the start of setup? Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote: > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting > people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in > substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most > expensive circuit to the new carrier. > (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a > well-known name) > Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP > peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they > don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 > times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first > one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they > still won't provide it. > I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can > prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change > Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now > we have to explain why some lines say TBD! > Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't > just provide it ahead of time? > Thanks in advance. > CWB From randy at psg.com Thu Jan 21 22:33:48 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:33:48 +0900 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <20160121145539.GF54204@22.rev.meerval.net> References: <20160120143132.GF1038@57.rev.meerval.net> <20160120233554.GD47423@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121135646.GC54204@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121143130.GD54204@22.rev.meerval.net> <20160121145539.GF54204@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: > With this I meant that I can measure something, but only within a subset > of the entire path a packet might traverse. considering your original hypothesis was about length of paths, this seems a kind of dead end. you might get a modest improvement by turning off hot potato :) > so not end-to-end which is the problem > And what might be true for us might not be true for others. yes. but if it actually measured what we wanted, it would be a useful measurement. but it doesn't. randy From marty at cloudflare.com Thu Jan 21 22:58:23 2016 From: marty at cloudflare.com (Marty Strong) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:58:23 +0000 Subject: New peerings between Hurricane Electric and Level3? In-Reply-To: <46F9D04C-96F1-4186-B372-E83317B7B1B3@ipifony.com> References: <157EB9E3-7EE2-46A6-9780-C7714997555F@ipifony.com> <7760A950-F5EA-4FAA-AE1A-B097BD072278@ipifony.com> <46F9D04C-96F1-4186-B372-E83317B7B1B3@ipifony.com> Message-ID: Turns out my information from the grape vine was wrong *bows head in shame*. Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- CloudFlare - AS13335 Network Engineer marty at cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 > On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:48, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > > That?s an excellent point, actually. > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> >> Make the AS path longer, losing traffic, and therefore revenue? >> >> Why would they do that? >> >> The twtelecom customers cannot multi-home (most of them anyway). Most of 3549?s traffic has other paths to the Internet. >> >> -- >> TTFN, >> patrick >> >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>> >>> I was actually surprised they didn?t just leave GBLX customers on AS3549, kill all external AS3549 peerings, and treat AS3549 downline as a Level3 customer, accepting L3 and GBLX communities from GBLX customers. >>> >>> That seems more along the lines of what they?re doing with the AS4323 TW Telecom customers. (Though, in fairness, AS3356 has always carried AS4323 as a customer as far as I recall.) It will be interesting to see if whether they kill off AS4323 peerings. >>> >>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Marty Strong wrote: >>>> >>>> Depends on the market and how far along their migration is going. In experience with GTT (AS4436) they?re still not finished migrating everything to AS3257. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Marty Strong >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> CloudFlare - AS13335 >>>> Network Engineer >>>> marty at cloudflare.com >>>> +44 7584 906 055 >>>> smartflare (Skype) >>>> >>>> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 >>>> >>>>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:12, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Intriguing. If it were only that though, wouldn?t they just still pick it up via TeliaSonera IC? >>>>> >>>>> I did notice that in the past few months, TeliaSonera has been dropping AS3549 from spots where they had session with both AS3549 and with AS3356 and now reaches AS3549 via AS3356. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Marty Strong wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I?ve heard from the grape vine that this is due to the GBLX to Level3 transition, and it?s in fact paid IP transit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Marty Strong >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> CloudFlare - AS13335 >>>>>> Network Engineer >>>>>> marty at cloudflare.com >>>>>> +44 7584 906 055 >>>>>> smartflare (Skype) >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 18:37, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know they already peer IPv6, though not at those sites. Is this the first hint that HE and Level3 are coming around on an IPv4 and IPv6 peering agreement? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > From ianm at fairwaymc.com Thu Jan 21 23:13:22 2016 From: ianm at fairwaymc.com (Ian Mock) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:13:22 +0000 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <783C627CF58B9948866C2A5DD8C7A90793076798@COLOMBX07.fairwaymc.com> Sounds like you need a little posturing with your sales team and account manager on the phone. Threaten to cancel the contract and site their lack of support and willingness to help you be successful. Say they're interfering with your company's ability to do business. If their sales team is worth anything they'll jump all over trying to fix the problem. If not, cancel the contract and move on. Do you and your company's mgmt want to deal with someone that unhelpful? Imagine what happens when you have a problem.. Ian Mock -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of c b Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 3:27 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a well-known name) Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they still won't provide it. I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now we have to explain why some lines say TBD! Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just provide it ahead of time? Thanks in advance. CWB From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Thu Jan 21 23:19:52 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:19:52 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Robert Glover wrote: > > On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>> >>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they?d love to peer with Cogent), I?m giving serious consideration to dropping Cogent come renewal time and utilizing NTT or Zayo instead. >>> >>> While that would not immediately solve the problem that if the NTT or Zayo link went down, single-homed Cogent customers would loose access to me via IPv6, I?m actually ok with that. It at least lets ensures that when there is a problem, the problem affects only single-home Cogent clients. Thus, the problem is borne exclusively by the people who pay the bad actor who is causing this problem. That tends to get uncomfortable for the payee (i.e. Cogent). >>> >>> >> Take two transit providers that aren?t in the group of (HE, Cogent). Cogent is probably banking on this being the response; figuring that they have the financial resources to outlast HE if they?re both shedding customers. >> >> If you really wanted to stick it to Cogent, take 3 transit providers: HE and two of any other providers besides Cogent. >> >> Cogent clearly aren?t going to cave to their own customers asking them to peer with HE. Otherwise it would have happened by now. >> >> Cogent sucks for lots of reasons and this one isn?t even in the top 5 IMHO. >> >> > Let's hear the top 5. Peering disputes are up there, but what else? > > We've had them as one of our providers going on 8 years, and we can only complain about the occasional peering disputes. > > -Robert > I don?t really have 5 reasons to hate cogent but I?ve got 3 big ones. If you?ve had static transit with Cogent for 8 years at one or just a handful of locations, none of these will apply. But.. 1) They charge per IPv4 BGP session per month 2) They constantly screw up our orders. 3) It then takes days for them to fix their own screw ups in their order system. From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Thu Jan 21 23:35:05 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:35:05 -0500 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: <783C627CF58B9948866C2A5DD8C7A90793076798@COLOMBX07.fairwaymc.com> References: <783C627CF58B9948866C2A5DD8C7A90793076798@COLOMBX07.fairwaymc.com> Message-ID: <78BBA00C-DFB1-4790-B4A1-A3A6256E8F3B@hammerfiber.com> > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. > (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a well-known name) Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they still won't provide it. > I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now we have to explain why some lines say TBD! > Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just provide it ahead of time? > Thanks in advance. > CWB > My question to the OP would be why didn?t you schedule the turndown of the old circuit to overlap with the turnup of the new circuit? That way you could perform your cut independently of turn-up testing with your new provider. Why is it that you MUST perform both activities on the same night? You can always turn up a circuit, make sure it works and then turn it back down on your end until you?re actually ready to use it. From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Fri Jan 22 00:13:00 2016 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:13:00 -0800 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9783cb87bcfbcbaf2d3f5d25d8698fbd.squirrel@66.201.44.180> I agree with Sean. Poor planning always leads to poor service. It sure makes for a fast clumsy cut over. But, you now know that you the customer are not a priority or better planning steps would have been taken for your consideration in advance. Thank You Bob Evans CTO > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, c b wrote: >> Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't >> just provide it ahead of time? > > Carrier saves costs by not having a clue, and has no idea which router > will have an open port until they try to plug you in. > > Hope its not a long contract, because customer service never gets better > ... only worse. > > > From dovid at telecurve.com Fri Jan 22 00:13:41 2016 From: dovid at telecurve.com (Dovid Bender) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:13:41 +0000 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: <78BBA00C-DFB1-4790-B4A1-A3A6256E8F3B@hammerfiber.com> References: <783C627CF58B9948866C2A5DD8C7A90793076798@COLOMBX07.fairwaymc.com> <78BBA00C-DFB1-4790-B4A1-A3A6256E8F3B@hammerfiber.com> Message-ID: <1997622480-1453421620-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2053851670-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> I was wondering the same. Most likely because it's accounting that's making the decision and they don't want to spend a penny more than they have to$ Regards, Dovid -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Corbe Sender: "NANOG" Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:35:05 To: Ian Mock Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. > (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a well-known name) Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they still won't provide it. > I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now we have to explain why some lines say TBD! > Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just provide it ahead of time? > Thanks in advance. > CWB > My question to the OP would be why didn?t you schedule the turndown of the old circuit to overlap with the turnup of the new circuit? That way you could perform your cut independently of turn-up testing with your new provider. Why is it that you MUST perform both activities on the same night? You can always turn up a circuit, make sure it works and then turn it back down on your end until you?re actually ready to use it. From fearghas at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 14:14:19 2016 From: fearghas at gmail.com (Fearghas Mckay) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:14:19 +0000 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: <569FBC4B.8000200@hibernianetworks.com> References: <569FBC4B.8000200@hibernianetworks.com> Message-ID: > On 20 Jan 2016, at 16:56, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > > We have good experience with Flexoptix. You can brand them yourself > using their (free?) USB box to any vendor you want, including Arista. > Not sure if they have QSFP's yet, but we have CFP-LR4's running > successfully on multiple paths of our backbone. Wearing my Flexoptix hat I can confirm that we do QSFP & QSFP28 available. f From kraig at enguity.com Thu Jan 21 21:33:30 2016 From: kraig at enguity.com (Kraig Beahn) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:33:30 -0500 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut." / "Is this a common SOP nowadays?" - Not in our experience. On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote: > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting > people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in > substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most > expensive circuit to the new carrier. > (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a > well-known name) > Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP > peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they > don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 > times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first > one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they > still won't provide it. > I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can > prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change > Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now > we have to explain why some lines say TBD! > Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't > just provide it ahead of time? > Thanks in advance. > CWB From larrysheldon at cox.net Fri Jan 22 01:05:02 2016 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:05:02 -0600 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56A1803E.8010207@cox.net> On 1/21/2016 15:33, Kraig Beahn wrote: > "This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the > cut." / "Is this a common SOP nowadays?" - Not in our experience. > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote: > >> We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting >> people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in >> substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most >> expensive circuit to the new carrier. >> (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a >> well-known name) >> Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP >> peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they >> don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 >> times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first >> one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they >> still won't provide it. >> I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can >> prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change >> Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now >> we have to explain why some lines say TBD! >> Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't >> just provide it ahead of time? >> Thanks in advance. >> CWB > I have not been following this thread closely, but I'll bet I klnow why the new vendor is cheaper. I have this theory that says accounting may not be the best place for technical OR engineering decision making (it destroyed the company I worked for for many years). My theory (see the scientific usage of the word) is that "cheapest" is rarely "best" in any dimension INCLUDING "total cost". -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal) From randy at psg.com Fri Jan 22 01:23:50 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:23:50 +0900 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: welcome to the commercial internet. get over it. randy From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jan 22 02:30:51 2016 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:30:51 -0600 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth > wrote: > >>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < >> mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote: >>>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being >>>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying >>>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent) >> >> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as >> they won't. >> >> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on >> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish >> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the >> offer. >> >> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something >> properly bad. >> >> brandon > > Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full > internet access is generally considered properly bad. > > I would not do business with either company, since neither of them provide > a full view. > > CB I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have gotten away with it for so long. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) From eric.sieg at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 03:40:01 2016 From: eric.sieg at gmail.com (Eric Sieg) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:40:01 -0500 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My first question is, is this the first request for the information which resulted in this information? Almost wonder if you're currently dealing with someone that does only a certain part of the setup and instead of saying " I don't know " attempted to give an answer that he really has no idea about. While they may not be able to provide it today, I can't believe they can't provide it in advance of the activation. That being said, we tend to cut the IP allocation anywhere from a day to a week before the scheduled activation. You mentioned they were a major player, shouldn't be to difficult to identify their ASN and then all you need is a placeholder for your peering IP once they get those allocated to you. Certainly not as clean as I can understand mgmt wanting it, but few seconds of replacing x.x.x.x with 1.2.3.4 might be worth the X dollars you're saving. On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote: > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting > people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in > substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most > expensive circuit to the new carrier. > (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a > well-known name) > Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP > peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they > don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 > times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first > one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they > still won't provide it. > I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can > prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change > Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now > we have to explain why some lines say TBD! > Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't > just provide it ahead of time? > Thanks in advance. > CWB From mhardeman at ipifony.com Fri Jan 22 03:42:48 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:42:48 -0600 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com> An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we?ll be seeing less tolerance for this behavior. > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth >> wrote: >> >>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < >>> mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote: >>>>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being >>>>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying >>>>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent) >>> >>> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as >>> they won't. >>> >>> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on >>> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish >>> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the >>> offer. >>> >>> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something >>> properly bad. >>> >>> brandon >> >> Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full >> internet access is generally considered properly bad. >> >> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them provide >> a full view. >> >> CB > > I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have gotten away with it for so long. > > Matthew Kaufman > > (Sent from my iPhone) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From morrowc.lists at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 04:27:57 2016 From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:27:57 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. > > That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we?ll be seeing less tolerance for this behavior. pop your popcorn... From tore at fud.no Fri Jan 22 06:35:26 2016 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:35:26 +0100 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <20160122073526.129e28a8@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> * Ca By > Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver > full internet access is generally considered properly bad. > > I would not do business with either company, since neither of them > provide a full view. +1 Both networks are in a position to easily remedy the situation if they were pragmatically inclined. For example, Cogent could simply accept HE's offer to peer; HE could simply pick up Cogent's IPv6 routes from their existing transit provider TSIC. Instead they both choose to continue their game of chicken to the detriment of both of their customer bases. Fortunately there's no shortage of competitors to HE and Cogent who prioritise providing connectivity higher than engaging in such nonsense. Vote with your wallets, folks. Tore From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 22 10:23:28 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:23:28 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Robert Glover wrote: > > On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>> >>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they?d love to peer with Cogent), I?m giving serious consideration to dropping Cogent come renewal time and utilizing NTT or Zayo instead. >>> >>> While that would not immediately solve the problem that if the NTT or Zayo link went down, single-homed Cogent customers would loose access to me via IPv6, I?m actually ok with that. It at least lets ensures that when there is a problem, the problem affects only single-home Cogent clients. Thus, the problem is borne exclusively by the people who pay the bad actor who is causing this problem. That tends to get uncomfortable for the payee (i.e. Cogent). >>> >>> >> Take two transit providers that aren?t in the group of (HE, Cogent). Cogent is probably banking on this being the response; figuring that they have the financial resources to outlast HE if they?re both shedding customers. >> >> If you really wanted to stick it to Cogent, take 3 transit providers: HE and two of any other providers besides Cogent. >> >> Cogent clearly aren?t going to cave to their own customers asking them to peer with HE. Otherwise it would have happened by now. >> >> Cogent sucks for lots of reasons and this one isn?t even in the top 5 IMHO. >> >> > Let's hear the top 5. Peering disputes are up there, but what else? > > We've had them as one of our providers going on 8 years, and we can only complain about the occasional peering disputes. Crazy multihop BGP setups because they don?t do BGP on many (most?) of their customer facing routers? Frequent outages in many locations (maybe not where you are, seems to be certain problem areas on their network and not others) Spamtastic sales force? Overly aggressive sales calls? I?m sure there are more, but as I?ve never been a Cogent customer (thankfully) due to their history of bad peering policies, peering disputes, generally obnoxious conduct as a company, etc. it is difficult for me to know much about the customer experience beyond what I hear from others, most of whom are former Cogent customers. Interestingly, when I worked for HE, I wasn?t allowed to speak my mind about Cogent lest it ?reflect badly? on HE. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 22 10:26:05 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:26:05 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <29D96E18-A5C8-4009-9032-CB1583C45B7B@delong.com> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being >>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying >>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent) > > I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as > they won't. > > HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on > a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish > this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the > offer. > > Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something > properly bad. > > brandon You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I assure you that I am fully cognizant of the fact that HE is not without its faults. However, I think your description of the scenario is rather heavily skewed, especially when you consider that Cogent is basically the only remaining major (I find it hard to call them a tier 1 given their behavior) provider that still refuses SFI of any form with HE. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 22 10:31:58 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:31:58 -0800 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FCF0FD-388E-4DD3-B4B3-9611BED5D949@delong.com> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, c b wrote: > > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. > (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a well-known name) > Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they still won't provide it. > I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now we have to explain why some lines say TBD! > Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just provide it ahead of time? > Thanks in advance. > CWB They probably make it up as they go along during the turn-up. Owen From deleskie at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 12:03:17 2016 From: deleskie at gmail.com (jim deleskie) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:03:17 -0400 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com> Message-ID: Was part of my first peering spat, probably 95/96? since then many more, couple even big enough they made nanog/ industry news, end of day they are all the same. If you need to reach every where have more then one provider, it's good practice anyway, a single cust or even a bunch of cust are NOT going to influence peer decisions, so build your network so any 2 sides not playing not, will not impact you cust's, so at least they don't have reason to complain to you. -jim On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those > disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. > > That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we?ll be seeing > less tolerance for this behavior. > > > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth < > brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < > >>> mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote: > >>>>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being > >>>>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as > saying > >>>>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent) > >>> > >>> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as > >>> they won't. > >>> > >>> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on > >>> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish > >>> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the > >>> offer. > >>> > >>> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something > >>> properly bad. > >>> > >>> brandon > >> > >> Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full > >> internet access is generally considered properly bad. > >> > >> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them > provide > >> a full view. > >> > >> CB > > > > I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have > gotten away with it for so long. > > > > Matthew Kaufman > > > > (Sent from my iPhone) > > From frederik at kriewitz.eu Fri Jan 22 12:03:34 2016 From: frederik at kriewitz.eu (Frederik Kriewitz) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:03:34 +0100 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? > So far I have found both > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and > http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html > Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? > > > I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, > but I could be wrong. You're right, both companies programmers only work with their own transceiver. We've some transceivers from FlexOptix including the FlexBoxv3. We never had a problem with them. They have very good engineers. >From the pricing SolidOptics list prices are better than FlexOptics, but just talk to them and see if they can meet your pricing requirements. In our case we ended up with FlexOptix but we're only ordering there when we need something urgent (same/next day). Otherwise we're buying directly from China (Fiberstore). Neither Solid Optics or FlexOptix could beat their prices. We're buying all the expensive stuff stuff and larger quantities from them. So far we never had a problem with them either. After reaching a sales volume of 30000 USD they will give you a programmer for their transceivers too. Best Regards, Freddy From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Fri Jan 22 12:28:01 2016 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:28:01 GMT Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Message-ID: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 22 10:25:26 2016 > However, I think your description of the scenario is rather > heavily skewed Most posts are bashing Cogent so it's bad of me to say they are equally free to do whatever they want with their network? Mob rule... I favour neither side. Nobody has to buy from either of them. > especially when you consider that Cogent is basically the only > remaining major (I find it hard to call them a tier 1 given > their behavior) provider that still refuses SFI of any form > with HE. tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal. brandon From nanog at ics-il.net Fri Jan 22 13:16:43 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:16:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1176432541.18251.1453468683968.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Motivated sales departments always get whatever they want. Always. If they aren't getting what they (or you as customer) want, they aren't motivated enough. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "jim deleskie" To: "Matthew D. Hardeman" Cc: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 6:03:17 AM Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Was part of my first peering spat, probably 95/96? since then many more, couple even big enough they made nanog/ industry news, end of day they are all the same. If you need to reach every where have more then one provider, it's good practice anyway, a single cust or even a bunch of cust are NOT going to influence peer decisions, so build your network so any 2 sides not playing not, will not impact you cust's, so at least they don't have reason to complain to you. -jim On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those > disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. > > That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we?ll be seeing > less tolerance for this behavior. > > > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth < > brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < > >>> mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote: > >>>>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being > >>>>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as > saying > >>>>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent) > >>> > >>> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as > >>> they won't. > >>> > >>> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on > >>> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish > >>> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the > >>> offer. > >>> > >>> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something > >>> properly bad. > >>> > >>> brandon > >> > >> Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full > >> internet access is generally considered properly bad. > >> > >> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them > provide > >> a full view. > >> > >> CB > > > > I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have > gotten away with it for so long. > > > > Matthew Kaufman > > > > (Sent from my iPhone) > > From jacques.latour at cira.ca Fri Jan 22 16:51:59 2016 From: jacques.latour at cira.ca (Jacques Latour) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:51:59 +0000 Subject: Pinging TELUS: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration Message-ID: Hi, Can someone from Telus ping me off-list re:IPv6 deployment. Jack > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jacques > Latour > Sent: January-04-16 11:45 AM > To: Jared Mauch; Ca By; nanog at nanog.org > Subject: RE: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration > > Great news and even more impressive is that Canada is the fastest adopter > with ~8% IPv6 penetration, growing from almost 0.5% to 8% in 3 months!!!. > See http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CA > > Telus is making a big difference in Canada as the IPv6 adoption leader @ > ~45% IPv6 adoption. > http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS852?c=CA&g=&w=1&x=1 > > Hint, hint, subliminal message here for all Canadian ISPs, IPv6 works ;-) > > So let's shutdown IPv4 on April 4, 2024 > > Bonne Ann?e! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared > Mauch > > Sent: January-04-16 11:28 AM > > To: Ca By > > Cc: nanog at nanog.org > > Subject: Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Ca By wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> according to Google's statistics > > >>> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st > > >>> December > > >>> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. > > >>> Just a little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In > > >>> December we also celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 > > >>> standardization - RFC > > 1883. > > >>> > > >>> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% > > >>> :-) > > >>> > > >>> Tomas > > >> Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is > > >> following a logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for > > neatness, I get: > > >> > > >> Jan 2016: 10% > > >> Jan 2017: 20% > > >> Jan 2018: 33% > > >> Jan 2019: 50% > > >> Jan 2020: 67% > > >> Jan 2021: 80% > > >> Jan 2022: 90% > > >> > > >> with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4 > > >> switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027. > > >> > > >> Neil > > > Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. > > > > > > The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices. > > > > > > Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply > > > extends the past onto the future. It does not account for > > > purposeful engineering design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates. > > > > > > For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 > > > as they have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS > > > updates, you may see substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, > > > possibly meaningful moving that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts > weeks. > > > > > > This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy > > > protocol for all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet. > > > > I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to > > my phone, or at least v4v6 APN setting. > > > > I keep hearing rumors it is "coming soon". > > > > This could have a similar step function in the traffic and graphs. From cscora at apnic.net Fri Jan 22 18:10:58 2016 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 04:10:58 +1000 (AEST) Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <201601221810.u0MIAwUO006533@thyme.rand.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 23 Jan, 2016 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 579746 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 214134 Deaggregation factor: 2.71 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 282531 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 52577 Prefixes per ASN: 11.03 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 36609 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15838 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6413 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 167 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.4 Max AS path length visible: 37 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 40285) 34 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1056 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 366 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 12449 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 9555 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 36644 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 16 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 417 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2802443204 Equivalent to 167 /8s, 9 /16s and 227 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 75.7 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 75.7 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 98.0 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 190414 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 147851 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 40754 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.63 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 156774 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 63465 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5127 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.58 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1183 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 906 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 35 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1815 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 751777924 Equivalent to 44 /8s, 207 /16s and 56 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 87.9 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 180927 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 89114 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.03 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 185146 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 86893 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16447 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 11.26 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5921 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1707 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 37 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 952 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1101450176 Equivalent to 65 /8s, 166 /16s and 203 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 58.3 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 64198-64296, 393216-395164 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 139183 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 69135 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 147347 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 91063 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18051 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.16 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7951 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3010 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 33 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4388 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 702693760 Equivalent to 41 /8s, 226 /16s and 65 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 102.2 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-204287 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 60979 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 11925 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.11 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 74275 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 34519 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2471 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.06 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 592 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 547 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2217 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 170578688 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 42 /16s and 211 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 101.7 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-265628 + ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 14081 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3166 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.45 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 15787 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 6245 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 734 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.51 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 191 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 169 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 183 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 75555584 Equivalent to 4 /8s, 128 /16s and 227 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 75.1 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5599 4192 76 China Education and Research 7545 3138 348 162 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3115 11143 1094 Korea Telecom 17974 2855 914 96 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 9829 2316 1435 385 National Internet Backbone 4755 2077 432 234 TATA Communications formerly 9808 1763 8717 29 Guangdong Mobile Communicatio 4808 1620 2280 509 CNCGROUP IP network China169 9583 1515 121 560 Sify Limited 38197 1426 89 202 Sun Network (Hong Kong) Limit Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 22773 3297 2949 147 Cox Communications Inc. 3356 2601 10692 532 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 6389 2475 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 18566 2209 394 277 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1906 1908 409 Charter Communications 6983 1696 849 238 EarthLink, Inc. 30036 1671 332 350 Mediacom Communications Corp 4323 1585 1021 395 tw telecom holdings, inc. 209 1470 4339 1233 Qwest Communications Company, 701 1389 11450 657 MCI Communications Services, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 39891 2515 135 9 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 20940 2342 924 1669 Akamai International B.V. 34984 1939 322 414 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 8551 1225 376 53 Bezeq International-Ltd 12479 1099 965 81 France Telecom Espana SA 8402 1084 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 13188 1077 97 78 TOV "Bank-Inform" 31148 1043 48 42 Freenet Ltd. 9198 974 352 24 JSC Kazakhtelecom 6830 895 2712 465 Liberty Global Operations B.V Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 3413 540 146 Telmex Colombia S.A. 8151 2176 3386 519 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 7303 1588 943 243 Telecom Argentina S.A. 11830 1434 366 25 Instituto Costarricense de El 6503 1399 437 56 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 28573 1072 2171 156 NET Servi?os de Comunica??o S 6147 1036 376 34 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 7738 994 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 3816 984 460 182 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S 26615 937 2325 34 Tim Celular S.A. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8452 1294 1472 15 TE-AS 24863 1176 403 36 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 37611 590 40 41 Afrihost-Brevis Computer Serv 36903 552 278 103 Office National des Postes et 36992 455 1237 34 ETISALAT MISR 37492 355 213 63 Orange Tunisie 24835 331 146 12 Vodafone Data 29571 265 21 11 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 3741 221 837 183 Internet Solutions 36947 176 807 13 Telecom Algeria Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5599 4192 76 China Education and Research 10620 3413 540 146 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3297 2949 147 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3138 348 162 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3115 11143 1094 Korea Telecom 17974 2855 914 96 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 3356 2601 10692 532 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 39891 2515 135 9 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 6389 2475 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 20940 2342 924 1669 Akamai International B.V. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 10620 3413 3267 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3297 3150 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3138 2976 TPG Telecom Limited 17974 2855 2759 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 39891 2515 2506 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 6389 2475 2433 BellSouth.net Inc. 3356 2601 2069 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 4766 3115 2021 Korea Telecom 18566 2209 1932 MegaPath Corporation 9829 2316 1931 National Internet Backbone Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46467 UNALLOCATED 8.19.192.0/24 46887 Lightower Fiber Netw 18985 UNALLOCATED 8.21.68.0/22 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 15347 UNALLOCATED 8.224.147.0/24 12064 Cox Communications I 33628 UNALLOCATED 12.0.239.0/24 1239 Sprint 32805 UNALLOCATED 12.1.225.0/24 7018 AT&T Services, Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.112.0/20 62788 >>UNKNOWN<< 23.249.144.0/20 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.144.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.152.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 37.46.10.0/23 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.14.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.15.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 41.73.1.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.2.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:16 /9:13 /10:36 /11:101 /12:265 /13:507 /14:1015 /15:1750 /16:12967 /17:7441 /18:12623 /19:25573 /20:37986 /21:40093 /22:64083 /23:55571 /24:318140 /25:543 /26:570 /27:391 /28:16 /29:16 /30:9 /31:0 /32:21 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 22773 2479 3297 Cox Communications Inc. 39891 2472 2515 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 18566 2111 2209 MegaPath Corporation 6389 1542 2475 BellSouth.net Inc. 30036 1488 1671 Mediacom Communications Corp 6983 1342 1696 EarthLink, Inc. 10620 1295 3413 Telmex Colombia S.A. 34984 1228 1939 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 11492 1157 1249 CABLE ONE, INC. 31148 960 1043 Freenet Ltd. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1616 2:673 4:101 5:2078 6:26 8:1432 12:1784 13:34 14:1621 15:22 16:2 17:58 18:19 20:48 22:1 23:1351 24:1749 27:2229 31:1718 32:54 33:2 34:4 35:5 36:210 37:2341 38:1132 39:23 40:81 41:3112 42:378 43:1686 44:38 45:1652 46:2396 47:67 49:1092 50:829 51:3 52:38 54:138 55:3 56:8 57:44 58:1473 59:846 60:533 61:1777 62:1438 63:1927 64:4464 65:2181 66:4085 67:2104 68:1101 69:3289 70:1044 71:462 72:1982 74:2540 75:359 76:422 77:1368 78:1276 79:807 80:1312 81:1355 82:859 83:673 84:788 85:1555 86:458 87:1043 88:548 89:1930 90:165 91:5981 92:872 93:2310 94:2261 95:2263 96:472 97:351 98:943 99:45 100:75 101:882 103:9473 104:2211 105:95 106:377 107:1122 108:648 109:2183 110:1265 111:1590 112:908 113:1221 114:1034 115:1588 116:1511 117:1383 118:2018 119:1538 120:508 121:1165 122:2281 123:2019 124:1584 125:1736 128:677 129:358 130:423 131:1288 132:597 133:171 134:452 135:118 136:345 137:323 138:1631 139:198 140:252 141:468 142:624 143:821 144:591 145:151 146:837 147:609 148:1413 149:453 150:640 151:811 152:588 153:268 154:521 155:914 156:456 157:423 158:344 159:1075 160:419 161:718 162:2251 163:530 164:720 165:1104 166:316 167:976 168:1373 169:579 170:1483 171:263 172:406 173:1598 174:712 175:830 176:1509 177:4005 178:2227 179:1073 180:2028 181:1643 182:1922 183:670 184:778 185:5479 186:3045 187:1926 188:2129 189:1744 190:7585 191:1286 192:8829 193:5732 194:4327 195:3717 196:1601 197:1229 198:5504 199:5551 200:6812 201:3680 202:9966 203:9360 204:4582 205:2722 206:2976 207:3026 208:4018 209:3966 210:3777 211:2008 212:2621 213:2141 214:808 215:73 216:5693 217:1901 218:744 219:558 220:1643 221:848 222:671 223:914 End of report From bz_siege_01 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 22 19:20:09 2016 From: bz_siege_01 at hotmail.com (c b) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:20:09 -0700 Subject: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? In-Reply-To: <78BBA00C-DFB1-4790-B4A1-A3A6256E8F3B@hammerfiber.com> References: <783C627CF58B9948866C2A5DD8C7A90793076798@COLOMBX07.fairwaymc.com>, <78BBA00C-DFB1-4790-B4A1-A3A6256E8F3B@hammerfiber.com> Message-ID: Oh, we don't. Typically when we turn up a new circuit, the old is left in place for 2 weeks in case we need to roll back. This is simply a matter of them giving us their peering info ahead of time so that we can prestage the configs. Someone else responded that there are probably two teams involved on the carrier's side (and I'm guessing some automated systems?) which may explain some of this, but I can't understand why they couldn't just punch in the info earlier than the night of the change. These guys are not a small carrier. Anyways, it's just an inconvenience and it struck me as odd, so I thought I'd ask if this is normal or not. Thanks for the feedback everyone. > Subject: Re: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut? > From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com > Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:35:05 -0500 > CC: bz_siege_01 at hotmail.com; nanog at nanog.org > To: ianm at fairwaymc.com > > > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the new carrier. > > (I don't know what etiquette is, so I won't name the carrier... but it's a well-known name) Anyways, we were preparing for the circuit cutover and asked for the BGP peering info up front like we normally do. This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the cut. Now, we've done this 5 or 6 times over the years with all of our other carriers and this is the first one to ever do this. We even escalated to our account manager and they still won't provide it. > > I know it's not a huge deal, but life is so much easier when you can prestage your cut and rollback commands. In fact, our internal Change Management process mandates peer review all proposed config changes and now we have to explain why some lines say TBD! > > Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just provide it ahead of time? > > Thanks in advance. > > CWB > > > > My question to the OP would be why didn?t you schedule the turndown of the old circuit to overlap with the turnup of the new circuit? That way you could perform your cut independently of turn-up testing with your new provider. Why is it that you MUST perform both activities on the same night? You can always turn up a circuit, make sure it works and then turn it back down on your end until you?re actually ready to use it. > > From jmaimon at ttec.com Fri Jan 22 20:28:19 2016 From: jmaimon at ttec.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:28:19 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> Message-ID: <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> Owen DeLong wrote: > > > Crazy multihop BGP setups I like that setup. And it never struck me as crazy. In fact, their implementation avoids all multihop setup shortcuts and is quite purist from a routing standpoint. The multihop approach gives you the option of where to slice and dice your full table direct from ebgp. In essence, that setup enables you as a customer to have a setup exactly like Cogent had as a vendor. If thats what you want. > because they don?t do BGP on many (most?) of their customer facing routers? I have a pending request to get that multi-hop setup. I was told that it was now a special request and they would "try" to get it done and these days all their routers had full table capacity and they no longer used the multi-hop. > Frequent outages in many locations (maybe not where you are, seems to be certain problem areas on their network and not others) > Spamtastic sales force? > Overly aggressive sales calls? > > I?m sure there are more, but as I?ve never been a Cogent customer (thankfully) due to their history of bad peering policies, peering disputes, generally obnoxious conduct as a company, etc. it is difficult for me to know much about the customer experience beyond what I hear from others, most of whom are former Cogent customers. > > Interestingly, when I worked for HE, I wasn?t allowed to speak my mind about Cogent lest it ?reflect badly? on HE. > > Owen > From brak at gameservers.com Fri Jan 22 22:27:51 2016 From: brak at gameservers.com (Brian Rak) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:27:51 -0500 Subject: RADb Outage? Message-ID: <56A2ACE7.4080401@gameservers.com> whois.radb.net seems to have been down since sometime last night, has anyone else seen problems with this? It seems the web interface still works, but that's not very useful for scripts. From colton.conor at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 22:55:58 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:55:58 -0600 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Freddy, So are you saying if you order enough from Fiberstore.com they will give you a programmer? That seems like the best solution. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Frederik Kriewitz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Colton Conor > wrote: > > What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? > > So far I have found both > > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and > > > http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html > > Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? > > > > > > I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program > them, > > but I could be wrong. > > You're right, both companies programmers only work with their own > transceiver. > We've some transceivers from FlexOptix including the FlexBoxv3. We > never had a problem with them. They have very good engineers. > From the pricing SolidOptics list prices are better than FlexOptics, > but just talk to them and see if they can meet your pricing > requirements. > In our case we ended up with FlexOptix but we're only ordering there > when we need something urgent (same/next day). > Otherwise we're buying directly from China (Fiberstore). Neither Solid > Optics or FlexOptix could beat their prices. We're buying all the > expensive stuff stuff and larger quantities from them. So far we never > had a problem with them either. After reaching a sales volume of 30000 > USD they will give you a programmer for their transceivers too. > > Best Regards, > Freddy > From sf at lists.esoteric.ca Fri Jan 22 23:42:42 2016 From: sf at lists.esoteric.ca (Stephen Fulton) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:42:42 -0500 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <56A2ACE7.4080401@gameservers.com> References: <56A2ACE7.4080401@gameservers.com> Message-ID: <56A2BE72.1060607@lists.esoteric.ca> Same here, whois.radb.net still appears down as of this message. -- Stephen On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, Brian Rak wrote: > whois.radb.net seems to have been down since sometime last night, has > anyone else seen problems with this? > > It seems the web interface still works, but that's not very useful for > scripts. From matthew at corp.crocker.com Sat Jan 23 00:47:41 2016 From: matthew at corp.crocker.com (Matthew Crocker) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:47:41 -0500 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50559857-1D73-443C-B2AE-7B473ECA93FE@corp.crocker.com> https://www.flexoptix.net/en/ will give you a programmer on your first order if you post something about it on social media. They also send some candy with every order :) I?ve had very good luck with Flexoptics for SFP, SFP+ & XFP, Juniper, Cisco, HP all work perfectly. ? Matthew Crocker President - Crocker Communications, Inc. Managing Partner - Crocker Telecommunications, LLC E: matthew at corp.crocker.com E: matthew at crocker.com > On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > Freddy, > > So are you saying if you order enough from Fiberstore.com they will give > you a programmer? That seems like the best solution. > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Frederik Kriewitz > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Colton Conor >> wrote: >>> What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? >>> So far I have found both >>> https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and >>> >> http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html >>> Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? >>> >>> >>> I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program >> them, >>> but I could be wrong. >> >> You're right, both companies programmers only work with their own >> transceiver. >> We've some transceivers from FlexOptix including the FlexBoxv3. We >> never had a problem with them. They have very good engineers. >> From the pricing SolidOptics list prices are better than FlexOptics, >> but just talk to them and see if they can meet your pricing >> requirements. >> In our case we ended up with FlexOptix but we're only ordering there >> when we need something urgent (same/next day). >> Otherwise we're buying directly from China (Fiberstore). Neither Solid >> Optics or FlexOptix could beat their prices. We're buying all the >> expensive stuff stuff and larger quantities from them. So far we never >> had a problem with them either. After reaching a sales volume of 30000 >> USD they will give you a programmer for their transceivers too. >> >> Best Regards, >> Freddy >> > From nick at foobar.org Sat Jan 23 00:59:52 2016 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:59:52 +0000 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <56A2ACE7.4080401@gameservers.com> References: <56A2ACE7.4080401@gameservers.com> Message-ID: <56A2D088.9020903@foobar.org> Brian Rak wrote: > whois.radb.net seems to have been down since sometime last night, has > anyone else seen problems with this? since at least 2016-01-21, 20:30 UTC. It would be great if someone from RADB could give an update on what's happening because this downtime is causing operational problems. Nick From bill at herrin.us Sat Jan 23 01:03:34 2016 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:03:34 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as > they won't. Correct. I've said it before and I'll say it again: an ISP's refusal to maintain a settlement-free open peering policy is directly linked with said company's fraudulent double-billing for services. In case you don't see it, I'll explain: whatever fictions you may tell yourselves, your customers pay you to connect them to the entire Internet. So do the other guy's customers. Settlement free peering means that at no _additional_ charge to anyone, you accept the packets your customers have paid you to accept from the other guy's customers. And vice versa. Peering does not trade packets you haven't been paid for. That's another fiction. Peering only trades packets one of your customers has paid you for. I get from there to double-billing because the alternative to settlement free peering is a paid relationship. The other guy has to buy from you directly (becoming the second payer for each packet) or he has to buy from one of the peers you've accepted But the peers you've accepted are constrained by ratios an related technical requirements which functionally prevent them from adding a sizable amount of traffic from that other guy, so unless he's doing a trifling business he pretty much has to buy service from you. Even though another customer has already paid you to perform that activity, you refuse to do the job unless the second party also becomes your customer and pays you. Fraud. Hidden behind a wall of technical minutiae but fraud all the same. Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes. An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're designed only to exclude the powerless. Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple: Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From mhardeman at ipifony.com Sat Jan 23 01:27:57 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:27:57 -0600 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <794EE3CF-98B6-458C-8B6C-DCE30A1508D6@ipifony.com> Bill, I find that I agree with much of what you?ve said. If we further constrain the arguments that you set forth so as to cover only that traffic which the customers of the two networks would be able to exchange in any event, by way of transit services purchased by one or the other of the two networks, then I agree wholeheartedly, at least on a purely logical basis. In that instance, the traffic is exchanged regardless (though often over links that saturate at peaks) and furthermore at additional expense to one or both of the networks involved. From a logical perspective, if two networks will permit their subscribers to exchange data, why would those two networks not elect the least cost, highest quality mechanism for exchanging that traffic? I can only think of economic reasons, and specifically the hope for potential revenue from the other networks? customer, because the parties have been unable to exchange data reliably over congested transit links. Look, for example, to what was quite obviously the intentional peak-period congestion on various Comcast transit and peering links. I?ve personally acted in a technical and administrative capacity in helping clients of mine (voice service providers) add private paid peering / paid customer links into Comcast just to overcome voice quality issues during peak periods resulting from clearly congested transit and peering links. It was obvious during those arrangements that Comcast had chosen to allow those links to congest as a policy matter in order to extract additional revenue by charging desperate ?new customers? a premium toll for access to their subscribers behind the wall-of-congestion. What?s fundamentally different in this IPv6 only Hurricane Electric <-> Cogent matter is that rather than have the traffic flow via transit (whether congested or not), there is quite simply no path between those two IPv6 networks. Hurricane Electric, clearly the IPv6 leader refuses to engage in the purchase of transit services for IPv6, and Cogent refuses to peer with HE on either protocol no matter what. Thus, no flow of traffic between the two networks on IPv6. Presumably Cogent?s policy is mostly about denying Hurricane Electric to the ?Tier 1? club, on IPv6 that ship has sailed. Let?s face it: when the really tough Tier 1s are peering with you (like Sprint, Level 3, AT&T), you?re in. Even Sprint peers with HE on IPv6 (though they do not on IPv4). Honestly, I think Cogent is the only hold-out. At least the only one that matters. In as far as HE maintains an open peering policy both for IPv4 and IPv6, it?s clear that Cogent is the bad actor, denying their customers a path to Hurricane Electric customers. I think the only reason this has been tolerated so far is that IPv6 has been a fringe matter until now. Even today it?s a minority of network traffic, but it?s gaining fast. If I were Cogent, I?d be more worried about denying my customers access to HE?s IPv6 network than the other way around. Matt Hardeman > On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:03 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth > wrote: >> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as >> they won't. > > Correct. > > I've said it before and I'll say it again: an ISP's refusal to > maintain a settlement-free open peering policy is directly linked with > said company's fraudulent double-billing for services. > > In case you don't see it, I'll explain: whatever fictions you may tell > yourselves, your customers pay you to connect them to the entire > Internet. So do the other guy's customers. Settlement free peering > means that at no _additional_ charge to anyone, you accept the packets > your customers have paid you to accept from the other guy's customers. > And vice versa. Peering does not trade packets you haven't been paid > for. That's another fiction. Peering only trades packets one of your > customers has paid you for. > > I get from there to double-billing because the alternative to > settlement free peering is a paid relationship. The other guy has to > buy from you directly (becoming the second payer for each packet) or > he has to buy from one of the peers you've accepted But the peers > you've accepted are constrained by ratios an related technical > requirements which functionally prevent them from adding a sizable > amount of traffic from that other guy, so unless he's doing a trifling > business he pretty much has to buy service from you. Even though > another customer has already paid you to perform that activity, you > refuse to do the job unless the second party also becomes your > customer and pays you. Fraud. Hidden behind a wall of technical > minutiae but fraud all the same. > > > Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes. > An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the > other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware > you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your > network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral > locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to > them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering > policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your > international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of > your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not > ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're > designed only to exclude the powerless. > > Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple: > Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From mureninc at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 01:53:31 2016 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:31 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com> Message-ID: On 21 January 2016 at 19:42, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. > > That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we?ll be seeing less tolerance for this behavior. Nope. Most user-facing apps are in support of Happy Eyeballs. When Facebook's FB.ME was down on IPv6 just a short while ago in 2013, it took DAYS for anyone to notice. http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2013-May/005571.html Lots of popular sites publish AAAA with non-reachable services all the time, and still noone notices to this day. The old school command line tools are the only ones affected. One may also notice it with `ssh -D` SOCKS5 proxying, but only if one's browser doesn't decide to leak out hostname resolution and operate directly with IPv4-addresses to start with, like Chrome does. Cheers, Constantine.SU. From mhardeman at ipifony.com Sat Jan 23 02:02:35 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:02:35 -0600 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com> Message-ID: While I agree it?s still going to be a while before it becomes a critical issue, more and more environments are going IPv6 first with IPv4 as a NAT?ed service? I think the mobile carriers are going to be the ones to really push adoption. > On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:53 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > On 21 January 2016 at 19:42, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: >> An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. >> >> That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we?ll be seeing less tolerance for this behavior. > > Nope. Most user-facing apps are in support of Happy Eyeballs. > > When Facebook's FB.ME was down on IPv6 just a short while ago in 2013, > it took DAYS for anyone to notice. > > http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2013-May/005571.html > > Lots of popular sites publish AAAA with non-reachable services all the > time, and still noone notices to this day. > > The old school command line tools are the only ones affected. One may > also notice it with `ssh -D` SOCKS5 proxying, but only if one's > browser doesn't decide to leak out hostname resolution and operate > directly with IPv4-addresses to start with, like Chrome does. > > Cheers, > Constantine.SU. From adrian.minta at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 22:10:02 2016 From: adrian.minta at gmail.com (Adrian Minta) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:10:02 +0200 Subject: whois.radb.net down ? Message-ID: <56A2A8BA.20201@gmail.com> Anyone else seeing the radb.net whois server as being down? $ date Sat Jan 23 00:04:29 EET 2016 $ ping whois.radb.net PING whois.radb.net (207.75.117.18) 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- whois.radb.net ping statistics --- 7 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 6047ms $ telnet whois.radb.net 43 Trying 207.75.117.18... ^C -- Best regards, Adrian Minta From venki1616 at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 00:06:03 2016 From: venki1616 at gmail.com (Venkee) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:06:03 +0000 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <56A2BE72.1060607@lists.esoteric.ca> References: <56A2ACE7.4080401@gameservers.com> <56A2BE72.1060607@lists.esoteric.ca> Message-ID: Same here, could not contact when I tried earlier today On Fri 22 Jan 2016 at 23:44 Stephen Fulton wrote: > Same here, whois.radb.net still appears down as of this message. > > -- Stephen > > > On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, Brian Rak wrote: > > whois.radb.net seems to have been down since sometime last night, has > > anyone else seen problems with this? > > > > It seems the web interface still works, but that's not very useful for > > scripts. > From Ashley.Kitto at nominum.com Sat Jan 23 02:19:06 2016 From: Ashley.Kitto at nominum.com (Ashley Kitto) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:19:06 +0000 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: <50559857-1D73-443C-B2AE-7B473ECA93FE@corp.crocker.com> References: <50559857-1D73-443C-B2AE-7B473ECA93FE@corp.crocker.com> Message-ID: <0ACFA41B-9AE5-4770-9AC5-BE81B4110C53@nominum.com> I haven?t had to actually reprogram any, but have a bunch of flexoptics modules preprogrammed for Arista which have been working great. Very easy people to deal with, and yes, candy. :> Ashley Kitto Nominum > On Jan 22, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/ will give you a programmer on your first order if you post something about it on social media. They also send some candy with every order :) > > I?ve had very good luck with Flexoptics for SFP, SFP+ & XFP, Juniper, Cisco, HP all work perfectly. > > > > ? > > Matthew Crocker > President - Crocker Communications, Inc. > Managing Partner - Crocker Telecommunications, LLC > E: matthew at corp.crocker.com > E: matthew at crocker.com > > >> On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Colton Conor wrote: >> >> Freddy, >> >> So are you saying if you order enough from Fiberstore.com they will give >> you a programmer? That seems like the best solution. >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Frederik Kriewitz >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Colton Conor >>> wrote: >>>> What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? >>>> So far I have found both >>>> https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and >>>> >>> http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html >>>> Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program >>> them, >>>> but I could be wrong. >>> >>> You're right, both companies programmers only work with their own >>> transceiver. >>> We've some transceivers from FlexOptix including the FlexBoxv3. We >>> never had a problem with them. They have very good engineers. >>> From the pricing SolidOptics list prices are better than FlexOptics, >>> but just talk to them and see if they can meet your pricing >>> requirements. >>> In our case we ended up with FlexOptix but we're only ordering there >>> when we need something urgent (same/next day). >>> Otherwise we're buying directly from China (Fiberstore). Neither Solid >>> Optics or FlexOptix could beat their prices. We're buying all the >>> expensive stuff stuff and larger quantities from them. So far we never >>> had a problem with them either. After reaching a sales volume of 30000 >>> USD they will give you a programmer for their transceivers too. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Freddy >>> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ljb at merit.edu Sat Jan 23 05:42:07 2016 From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry J. Blunk) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:42:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <1129733513.12180169.1453527145723.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> Message-ID: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> Service for the RADb whois protocol has now been restored. We were experiencing extensive DDOS activity directed at the whois service host(s). Regards, Larry Blunk Merit From tore at fud.no Sat Jan 23 10:43:09 2016 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:43:09 +0100 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <20160123114309.628c6236@envy.w5.y.home> William, > Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes. > An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the > other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware > you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your > network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral > locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to > them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering > policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your > international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of > your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not > ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're > designed only to exclude the powerless. > > Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple: > Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%. I'm curious: How do you know that Cogent didn't offer to peer under terms such as the ones you mention, but that those were refused by HE? Tore From nanog at ics-il.net Sat Jan 23 14:31:41 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 08:31:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1250952203.19829.1453559586582.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> "I've said it before and I'll say it again: an ISP's refusal to maintain a settlement-free open peering policy is directly linked with said company's fraudulent double-billing for services." aaannnddd.. I'm done with that post. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" To: "Brandon Butterworth" Cc: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 7:03:34 PM Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as > they won't. Correct. I've said it before and I'll say it again: an ISP's refusal to maintain a settlement-free open peering policy is directly linked with said company's fraudulent double-billing for services. In case you don't see it, I'll explain: whatever fictions you may tell yourselves, your customers pay you to connect them to the entire Internet. So do the other guy's customers. Settlement free peering means that at no _additional_ charge to anyone, you accept the packets your customers have paid you to accept from the other guy's customers. And vice versa. Peering does not trade packets you haven't been paid for. That's another fiction. Peering only trades packets one of your customers has paid you for. I get from there to double-billing because the alternative to settlement free peering is a paid relationship. The other guy has to buy from you directly (becoming the second payer for each packet) or he has to buy from one of the peers you've accepted But the peers you've accepted are constrained by ratios an related technical requirements which functionally prevent them from adding a sizable amount of traffic from that other guy, so unless he's doing a trifling business he pretty much has to buy service from you. Even though another customer has already paid you to perform that activity, you refuse to do the job unless the second party also becomes your customer and pays you. Fraud. Hidden behind a wall of technical minutiae but fraud all the same. Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes. An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're designed only to exclude the powerless. Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple: Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From kmedcalf at dessus.com Sat Jan 23 16:35:24 2016 From: kmedcalf at dessus.com (Keith Medcalf) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:35:24 -0500 Subject: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl In-Reply-To: <22177.7552.209566.523650@pcls8.std.com> Message-ID: <205880d4ce02c74ea63dc69ef95068d1@mail.dessus.com> WHo cares? TOG (your third party shooting what you loosly call un-authorized video) is not a party to the contract and therefore does not give a flying fuck what it says. Nor do the parties to the contract have anything to say about the matter. So in other words, TOG is free to do whatever he pleases and there is nothing that anyone can legally do about it. Get that down your gullet and choke on it. In fact, TOG can sue anyone who attempts to unlawfully prevent him from exercizing his unrestricted rights. Get that in ya, you fascist commie bastard. > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus.com at nanog.org] On Behalf > Of bzs at theworld.com > Sent: Thursday, 21 January, 2016 13:04 > To: Matthew Black > Cc: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: RE: ICYMI: FBI looking into LA fiber cuts, Super Bowl > > > On January 20, 2016 at 23:56 Matthew.Black at csulb.edu (Matthew Black) > wrote: > > Enclosed stadiums won't have to worry about remote drones until they > get smart enough to open doors on their own. Not sure why the NFL gets > uptight about unauthorized recording. Most sporting events have little > value once the event is over. > > Control. Which might include contractual obligations like against > showing some big-shot coach or player picking his nose or crying or > whatever (tho spitting seems ok even on artificial turf yuck!), > upskirts, whatever. Maybe certain people in attendance particularly in > the expensive boxes don't want to be shown (e.g., with their, um, > girlfriends), etc etc etc. > > At least some money would be in bloopers or scandals. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From rubensk at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 16:37:24 2016 From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:37:24 -0200 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> References: <1129733513.12180169.1453527145723.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> Message-ID: NTT also seemed to suffer, I wonder if it's the same issue there... Rubens On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > > Service for the RADb whois protocol has now been restored. We were > experiencing > extensive DDOS activity directed at the whois service host(s). > > Regards, > Larry Blunk > Merit > > From mureninc at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 17:13:59 2016 From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 09:13:59 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <20160123114309.628c6236@envy.w5.y.home> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160123114309.628c6236@envy.w5.y.home> Message-ID: On 23 January 2016 at 02:43, Tore Anderson wrote: > William, > >> Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes. >> An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the >> other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware >> you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your >> network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral >> locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to >> them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering >> policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your >> international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of >> your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not >> ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're >> designed only to exclude the powerless. >> >> Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple: >> Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%. > > I'm curious: How do you know that Cogent didn't offer to peer under > terms such as the ones you mention, but that those were refused by HE? Have you never seen the photos of the "Cogent (AS 174) Pleas IPv6 Peer With Us" cake? Just a random find of the day from the image search: http://assets.fiercemarkets.net/files/telecom/fierceimages/cogent_cake.jpg http://www.fiercetelecom.com/special-reports/six-faces-ipv6/owen-delong-hurricane-electric-evangelizing-ipv6-and-challenges-ahead Also, I would guess not many people realise it, but HE.net actually offers FREE IPv6 transit, including free international IPv6 transit, e.g., if you don't need any IPv4 somehow, then you can get away with NOT paying ANYTHING for your transit! E.g., one can't possibly have a more open of a peering policy than HE! And from what I've been told, they supposedly don't even limit this to the tunnels, so you can even have an IC, too, even without paying them for any IPv4 transit, either (of course, HE being a value provider, I guess it's rather unlikely that anyone has such asymmetrical setups, however). C. From maxtul at netassist.ua Sat Jan 23 18:50:35 2016 From: maxtul at netassist.ua (Max Tulyev) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:50:35 +0200 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> References: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> Message-ID: <56A3CB7B.7000205@netassist.ua> People do prefix filtering based on *DB may think twice... On 23.01.16 07:42, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > > Service for the RADb whois protocol has now been restored. We were experiencing > extensive DDOS activity directed at the whois service host(s). > > Regards, > Larry Blunk > Merit > > From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Sat Jan 23 19:02:52 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:02:52 -0500 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <56A3CB7B.7000205@netassist.ua> References: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> <56A3CB7B.7000205@netassist.ua> Message-ID: How come? What situations would you run into that are so urgent about updating prefix lists that the task can?t be put off for a few hours? > On Jan 23, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > > People do prefix filtering based on *DB may think twice... > > On 23.01.16 07:42, Larry J. Blunk wrote: >> >> Service for the RADb whois protocol has now been restored. We were experiencing >> extensive DDOS activity directed at the whois service host(s). >> >> Regards, >> Larry Blunk >> Merit >> >> > From job at instituut.net Sat Jan 23 19:32:47 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:32:47 +0100 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> References: <1129733513.12180169.1453527145723.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> Message-ID: <20160123193247.GU54204@22.rev.meerval.net> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:42:07AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > Service for the RADb whois protocol has now been restored. We were > experiencing extensive DDOS activity directed at the whois service > host(s). The whois.radb.net IPv4 address changed earlier today, the new IP is 129.250.120.86. If you mirror RADB through NRTM, I recommend you verify that your mirror software picked up the DNS change! (IRRd for instance might require a reseed & restart) Kind regards, Job From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Sat Jan 23 20:14:38 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:14:38 -0500 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: References: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> <56A3CB7B.7000205@netassist.ua> Message-ID: <176353.1453580078@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:02:52 -0500, Daniel Corbe said: > How come? What situations would you run into that are so urgent about updating > prefix lists that the task can???t be put off for a few hours? Those of you who have cron jobs doing an automatic pull can be quite surprised by scenarios like this. And of *course* you're doing it from a cron job. Depending on a NOC monkey to do it every day to pick up newly created prefixes is just *asking* for trouble tickets to get created when you're not accepting a perfectly valid but only two week old prefix..... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dougb at dougbarton.us Sat Jan 23 20:21:09 2016 From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:21:09 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <20160123114309.628c6236@envy.w5.y.home> References: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160123114309.628c6236@envy.w5.y.home> Message-ID: <56A3E0B5.90409@dougbarton.us> On 01/23/2016 02:43 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: > William, > >> Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes. >> An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the >> other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware >> you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your >> network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral >> locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to >> them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering >> policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your >> international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of >> your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not >> ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're >> designed only to exclude the powerless. >> >> Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple: >> Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%. > > I'm curious: How do you know that Cogent didn't offer to peer under > terms such as the ones you mention, but that those were refused by HE? Because Cogent has repeatedly stated that they refuse to peer, period? Doug From randy at psg.com Sun Jan 24 01:13:24 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:13:24 +0900 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <176353.1453580078@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> <56A3CB7B.7000205@netassist.ua> <176353.1453580078@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: >> How come? What situations would you run into that are so urgent >> about updating prefix lists that the task can?t be put off >> for a few hours? > Those of you who have cron jobs doing an automatic pull can be quite > surprised by scenarios like this. doing it from cron, smart. installing result with no checks, not so smart. randy From bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu Sun Jan 24 15:23:33 2016 From: bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu (Bruce Curtis) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:23:33 +0000 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A85328F-044E-4E47-8C94-3DE177BB2A24@ndsu.edu> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:14 AM, nanog-isp at mail.com wrote: > > Hello all, > > Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their percentage of IPv6 traffic? > > Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and Facebook? > > Some public information I've found so far: > - Comcast around 25% IPv6 traffic ( http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-is-a-real-world-big-deal/a/d-id/718395 ) > - Comcast has over 1 Tb/s (of mostly YouTube traffic) over IPv6 ( http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network ) > - Swisscom 26% IPv6 traffic, 60% YouTube ( http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog27/p/01_Martin_Gysi.pdf ) > > I'd be very much interested in hearing from smaller ISPs, especially those having a very limited number of IPv4 addresses and/or running out. > > > Thanks, > > Jared This is some more public info. On this page click to sort on IPv6 deployment. http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ About 40% of traffic inbound to our University is IPv6. I see several Universities on the list above at more than 60%. There are more links to public info sites at the bottom of the page. You can add Apple and Microsoft to the list of usual suspects, but for state in NAT boxes rather than traffic. With happy eyeballs devices query both IPv4 and IPv6 so end up creating state in the NAT box even if the client ultimately chooses IPv6 for the connection. We have lots of devices that like to check with Apple whenever they wake up and the staff here use Microsoft Exchange in the cloud which is available via IPv6. I don?t have any verified data but I have noticed a relation between Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will see that my latency to Google via IPv6 dropped from 40 ms to 20 ms. http://mcnet.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/smokeping/?target=Internet.Google_IPv6 If I compare some days before and after the change I see a decrease in my peak NAT pool usage. However on other days I don?t see a difference. The theory is that after my latency dropped to 20 ms that should be less than the magical 25 ms for Apple devices to receive an answer via IPv6 so they don?t even send out an IPv4 query. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22455.html This link mentions that Microsoft is already preferring IPv6 over IPv4 95% of the time when both are available. http://labs.apnic.net/?p=657 I?m 30 ms away from Facebook so 95% of Microsoft clients would use IPv6 but for Apple devices it?s a gamble. But it?s not clear if 95% of Microsoft clients would only send an IPv6 SYN and not send an IPv4 SYN (saving NAT table size). The top of our wish list would be for twitter and AWS to support IPv6, I think that those would make the biggest reduction in our NAT table size. If you hover your mouse over the US on this page http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/ it lists 47% for content. What that 47% means is explained here. http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/information.php#content It is fun to play with the type of regression on this page and project 730 days or so in the future. https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php --- Bruce Curtis bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu Certified NetAnalyst II 701-231-8527 North Dakota State University From davidsandel at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 21:13:43 2016 From: davidsandel at gmail.com (David Sandel) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:13:43 -0600 Subject: St. Louis Region - SCIX-STL Internet Exchange Update Message-ID: Good afternoon, Thank you for attending SCIX-STL Design Review meeting Friday at the T-REX !! *RECAP:* A quick recap of our Smart City Internet Exchange - STL meeting: a). Fabric # 1 will be used for service provider and data center peering. b). Fabric #2 will be used for Smart City services, sensor networks, IoE, advanced security services, innovation districts and neighborhoods. c). SCIX-STL will have several Root nameservers, approximately 300 Top Level Domain nameservers, and other standard services for the exchange *NEXT STEPS:* We are also looking for other participants or IX initiatives to join the exchange. If you, or another interested interested party would be interested to join please feel free to respond to this message. As of yesterday, we have two letters of intent in hand and several more on the way. We would also like to thank Bill Woodcock from PCH who did a great job of walking us through the issues related to the history, design, operation, maintenance and governance issues central to the success of IX's around the globe. Thank again Bill ! *THANKS TO ALL:* We look forward with great anticipation to this landmark achievement in networking the midwest and realizing the economic, social, and entrepreneurial benefits that this will bring to the our region. Have a great weekend ! Dave -- David Sandel iPhone 314-435-3658 Fax 800-640-8643 Twitter @dsandel @ Loopmediahub President Sandel & Associates LLC 6900 Delmar St. Louis, MO. 63130 *The Loop Media Hub * My LinkedIn Profile From cenzatti at hush.com Sat Jan 23 06:01:39 2016 From: cenzatti at hush.com (Marcus Cenzatti) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 04:01:39 -0200 Subject: whois.radb.net down ? In-Reply-To: <56A2A8BA.20201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160123060140.04E1DA0121@smtp.hushmail.com> Possibly a routing issue, since it looks good to me: % date Sat Jan 23 03:58:18 BRST 2016 % telnet whois.radb.net 43 Trying 129.250.120.86... Connected to whois.radb.net. Escape character is '^]'. AS8805 aut-num: AS8805 as-name: ASN-ISC-DE descr: iSC internet Service Center GmbH descr: Postfach 570561 descr: D-22774 Hamburg descr: Germany descr: http://www.isc.de org: ORG-iiSC1-RIPE remarks: -UPSTREAMS------------------------------------------- import: from AS174 # COGENT ...[truncate]... On the other hand I noticed my DNS got a different IP address. % host whois.radb.net whois.radb.net has address 129.250.120.86 On 1/23/2016 at 3:51 AM, "Adrian Minta" wrote: > >Anyone else seeing the radb.net whois server as being down? > > >$ date >Sat Jan 23 00:04:29 EET 2016 > >$ ping whois.radb.net >PING whois.radb.net (207.75.117.18) 56(84) bytes of data. >^C >--- whois.radb.net ping statistics --- >7 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 6047ms > >$ telnet whois.radb.net 43 >Trying 207.75.117.18... >^C > >-- >Best regards, >Adrian Minta From jared at puck.nether.net Sun Jan 24 17:50:10 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:50:10 -0500 Subject: RADb Outage? In-Reply-To: <56A3CB7B.7000205@netassist.ua> References: <1038087231.12180206.1453527727254.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu> <56A3CB7B.7000205@netassist.ua> Message-ID: <788CAB55-F04D-47A2-8292-35048B8C44D9@puck.nether.net> > On Jan 23, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > > People do prefix filtering based on *DB may think twice... Ideally you would have your own local mirror or similar. Since there is the near realtime mirroring that occurs, other servers get the data within 5-30 minutes. This means you can point at one of the other IRR servers. - Jared From lorell at hathcock.org Sun Jan 24 19:06:17 2016 From: lorell at hathcock.org (Lorell Hathcock) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:06:17 -0600 Subject: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's Message-ID: All: Does anyone out there have some valuable OID's for a Cisco CMTS? The ones I am looking for are: Signal to Noise per upstream channel Cable Modem counts of all kinds connected / online ranging offline I opened a ticket through Cisco's help desk. I have a SmartNET contract for the unit, but they were not very helpful. The OIDs they suggested did not yield any useful data. ("0" when I know there are CMs connected, etc). Thanks in advance. Lorell Hathcock From jhellenthal at dataix.net Sun Jan 24 20:20:59 2016 From: jhellenthal at dataix.net (Jason Hellenthal) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:20:59 -0600 Subject: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <188DDC70-74D9-40D6-A78C-F8F142932EFC@dataix.net> Not that you wouldn't have looked already but at the moment too much information for me to consume I figured it would be worthwhile mentioning I case you didn't know or maybe others as well. ftp://ftp.cisco.com/pub/mibs/oid/ I've had some custom ones around in the past and if I can figure out where they are held I'll shoot them your way. -- Jason Hellenthal JJH48-ARIN On Jan 24, 2016, at 13:06, Lorell Hathcock wrote: All: Does anyone out there have some valuable OID's for a Cisco CMTS? The ones I am looking for are: Signal to Noise per upstream channel Cable Modem counts of all kinds connected / online ranging offline I opened a ticket through Cisco's help desk. I have a SmartNET contract for the unit, but they were not very helpful. The OIDs they suggested did not yield any useful data. ("0" when I know there are CMs connected, etc). Thanks in advance. Lorell Hathcock From list at satchell.net Sun Jan 24 23:01:49 2016 From: list at satchell.net (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:01:49 -0800 Subject: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56A557DD.4070104@satchell.net> On 01/24/2016 11:06 AM, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > All: > > Does anyone out there have some valuable OID's for a Cisco CMTS? > > The ones I am looking for are: > Signal to Noise per upstream channel > Cable Modem counts of all kinds > connected / online > ranging > offline > > I opened a ticket through Cisco's help desk. I have a SmartNET contract for the unit, but they were not very helpful. The OIDs they suggested did not yield any useful data. ("0" when I know there are CMs connected, etc). 1. Did you get the MIB for the CMTS from the Cisco web site? 2. What did you see when you did a SNMPWALK of the device? From yang.yu.list at gmail.com Sun Jan 24 23:11:17 2016 From: yang.yu.list at gmail.com (Yang Yu) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:11:17 -0600 Subject: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > Signal to Noise per upstream channel CISCO-CABLE-SPECTRUM-MIB::ccsUpSpecMgmtSNR http://tools.cisco.com/Support/SNMP/do/BrowseOID.do?local=en&translate=Translate&objectInput=ccsUpSpecMgmtSNR > Cable Modem counts of all kinds > connected / online > ranging > offline Not there if there are OIDs for `show cable modem docsis version summary` From nanog at ics-il.net Mon Jan 25 02:04:16 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 20:04:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: Equinix 350 E. Cermak In-Reply-To: <1724571746.3033.1453687419297.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <1888916034.3038.1453687517404.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Do any of you have excess space within Equinix at 350 E. Cermak? It needs to be both of those due to the number of cross connects to other players within Equinix 350 E. Cermak. Equinix direct is pricing full cabs at a ridiculous price. Given that we need 1/4 cab or less, it's hard to justify the full thing at those rates. Every time we think we've got someone lined up, their space is actually Equinix out in Elk Grove or 350 E. Cermak, but in TelX or Steadfast instead. I see a lot of partially filled cabinets when I walk through to our existing space. Come on now.... ;-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From josh at kyneticwifi.com Mon Jan 25 02:18:59 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 20:18:59 -0600 Subject: Equinix 350 E. Cermak In-Reply-To: <1888916034.3038.1453687517404.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1724571746.3033.1453687419297.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <1888916034.3038.1453687517404.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: If you wanted 1/4 cab out of 1102 Grand in KC we might be able to accommodate you as well. On Jan 24, 2016 8:06 PM, "Mike Hammett" wrote: > Do any of you have excess space within Equinix at 350 E. Cermak? It needs > to be both of those due to the number of cross connects to other players > within Equinix 350 E. Cermak. > > Equinix direct is pricing full cabs at a ridiculous price. Given that we > need 1/4 cab or less, it's hard to justify the full thing at those rates. > > Every time we think we've got someone lined up, their space is actually > Equinix out in Elk Grove or 350 E. Cermak, but in TelX or Steadfast instead. > > I see a lot of partially filled cabinets when I walk through to our > existing space. Come on now.... ;-) > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > From nanog at ics-il.net Mon Jan 25 02:30:13 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 20:30:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Equinix 350 E. Cermak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1206259126.3086.1453689070215.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Hah. You know that I know that. :-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Reynolds" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 8:18:59 PM Subject: Re: Equinix 350 E. Cermak If you wanted 1/4 cab out of 1102 Grand in KC we might be able to accommodate you as well. On Jan 24, 2016 8:06 PM, "Mike Hammett" < nanog at ics-il.net > wrote: Do any of you have excess space within Equinix at 350 E. Cermak? It needs to be both of those due to the number of cross connects to other players within Equinix 350 E. Cermak. Equinix direct is pricing full cabs at a ridiculous price. Given that we need 1/4 cab or less, it's hard to justify the full thing at those rates. Every time we think we've got someone lined up, their space is actually Equinix out in Elk Grove or 350 E. Cermak, but in TelX or Steadfast instead. I see a lot of partially filled cabinets when I walk through to our existing space. Come on now.... ;-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From mkaipov at outlook.com Mon Jan 25 08:48:47 2016 From: mkaipov at outlook.com (Murat Kaipov) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:48:47 +0400 Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools Message-ID: Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion. I looking for usefull multicast stream monitoring tool now. Any suggestion?Thank you! From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 10:01:46 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:01:46 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> Message-ID: <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> On 22/Jan/16 22:28, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > I like that setup. And it never struck me as crazy. In fact, their > implementation avoids all multihop setup shortcuts and is quite purist > from a routing standpoint. First time I've heard that... Mark. From jmaimon at ttec.com Mon Jan 25 10:15:39 2016 From: jmaimon at ttec.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 05:15:39 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 22/Jan/16 22:28, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> >> >> I like that setup. And it never struck me as crazy. In fact, their >> implementation avoids all multihop setup shortcuts and is quite purist >> from a routing standpoint. > > First time I've heard that... > > Mark. > No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which session. Its gone about very properly. In my opinion, that setup is a very good example of how and when to properly take advantage of a BGP feature that has been with us from the start. And really, whats wrong with the ability on your side to decide when and where on your network you will take a full feed of ever expanding internet routes. On your edge? On a purpose built route server? Or do you think the only paths forward for everyone's edges is continuous forklifting and/or selective filtering? I suspect that people are as much wary of the flexibility made available to them as they are to the "complexity" imposed via this approach. Joe From frederik at kriewitz.eu Mon Jan 25 10:36:24 2016 From: frederik at kriewitz.eu (Frederik Kriewitz) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:36:24 +0100 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > Freddy, > > So are you saying if you order enough from Fiberstore.com they will give you > a programmer? That seems like the best solution. Yes, the magic number seems to be 30000 USD for fiberstore. I looked into this compatibility magic some time ago. It's all based on a simple I?C EEPROM. Which is read and values like vendor/product ID is compared to check compatibility. Some vendors apparently spend some extra effort making their optics incompatible. E.g. HP/3COM protect their 10G SFP+ modules with proprietary validation algorithms which require a micro controller to emulate it (a basic EEPROM is not enough). To prevent EEPROM modifications it's possible to set a password/code sequence for write access. Apparently that's what e.g. flexOptix/solid optics are doing to implement their own kind of vendor lock-in. Their programmer only can program their own optics and their optics can be only programmed by their programmer. If you buy optics from china they are either not password protected at all or they will provide you with the password if you ask for it so you can use any generic programmer. If you prefer super cheap optics over easy re-programming usability have a look at the following generic EEPROM programmers (I've no experience with any of these): http://sfptotal.com/ https://dimiks.com/en/programmers http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/tinout2018/product-detailUvTmnWbPvLVh/China-Compatible-Coding-Editor-Programmer-Test-Board-for-GBIC-SFP-SFP-Optical-Transceivers.html http://www.optics-home.com/pro_details.asp?id=105 http://www.reveltronics.com/en/shop/52/12/chip-programmers/accessories-and-adapters/sfp-module-optical-transceiver-adapter-detail Or if you prefer the do-it-yourself approach using a Raspberry Pi: http://eoinpk.blogspot.com/2014/05/raspberry-pi-and-programming-eeproms-on.html If someone has time to start a nice open source/community supported generic programmer tool+database which provides the same usability as e.g. FlexOptix we most likely would support it. From jared at puck.nether.net Mon Jan 25 13:35:49 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:35:49 -0500 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <108B68DA-F993-4460-870D-E041F50CE751@puck.nether.net> I've done small runs of boards that can do this and also do the OEO part. Let me know off list if you are interested. Jared Mauch > On Jan 25, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Frederik Kriewitz wrote: > > Or if you prefer the do-it-yourself approach using a Raspberry Pi: > http://eoinpk.blogspot.com/2014/05/raspberry-pi-and-programming-eeproms-on.html > > If someone has time to start a nice open source/community supported > generic programmer tool+database which provides the same usability as > e.g. FlexOptix we most likely would support it. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 14:02:51 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:02:51 +0200 Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56A62B0B.6070604@seacom.mu> On 25/Jan/16 10:48, Murat Kaipov wrote: > Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion. I looking for usefull multicast stream monitoring tool now. Any suggestion?Thank you! EXFO. It will cost some money, but is worth it. Mark. From jtk at cymru.com Mon Jan 25 14:18:32 2016 From: jtk at cymru.com (John Kristoff) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:18:32 -0600 Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160125081832.15e0f223@localhost> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:48:47 +0400 Murat Kaipov wrote: > Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some > reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage > peak times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there > wasn't any oversubscribtion. I looking for usefull multicast stream > monitoring tool now. Any suggestion? If it is not capacity saturation, it may have something be membership stability. Not knowing anything about your IP multicast configuration, it is impossible to say anything concretely with certainty This is to say however, you may want to also be sure to monitor membership, interface, port, PIM, ..., states. All the way down to spanning tree recalculation, you may not notice it with unicast, but anything that might prevent a stream from being forwarded due to a join state disruption are sometimes the causes of these types of events. It is a bit old and may not be the latest copy, but here is a copy of Bill Nickless' very handy troubleshooting methodology you should have handy: Unfortunately there isn't much in that paper about Layer-2 related issues as I alluded to above, but hopefully it gets you part of the way there. John From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 14:31:10 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:31:10 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> Message-ID: <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> On 25/Jan/16 12:15, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an > allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which > session. Its gone about very properly. And all of this is simpler than having a native BGP session that runs across a point-to-point link? > > In my opinion, that setup is a very good example of how and when to > properly take advantage of a BGP feature that has been with us from > the start. My philosophy: if I could run a router with only one command in its configuration, I would. I realize some commands make a router more secure than them being absent (and vice versa), while some commands make a router perform better than them being absent (and vice versa). My point - just because a feature is there, does not mean you have to use it. > > And really, whats wrong with the ability on your side to decide when > and where on your network you will take a full feed of ever expanding > internet routes. On your edge? On a purpose built route server? Personally, I abhor tunnels (and things that resemble them) as well as centralized networking. But that's just me. > > Or do you think the only paths forward for everyone's edges is > continuous forklifting and/or selective filtering? Can't speak for others, just myself. Mark. From rblayzor.bulk at inoc.net Mon Jan 25 15:49:22 2016 From: rblayzor.bulk at inoc.net (Robert Blayzor) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:49:22 -0500 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3B5248-DC4D-4D8E-BCC4-6B4E5C784D6E@inoc.net> On Jan 18, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? > So far I have found both > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and > http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html > Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? > > > I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, > but I could be wrong. Another choice out there as well. I?ve not yet tried their SmartCoder, but have been using their transceivers for years. They have been great. http://integraoptics.com/SmartCoder.html -- Robert inoc.net!rblayzor XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net PGP Key: 78BEDCE1 @ pgp.mit.edu From jeroen.wunnink at hibernianetworks.com Mon Jan 25 15:54:43 2016 From: jeroen.wunnink at hibernianetworks.com (Jeroen Wunnink) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:54:43 +0100 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: <4F3B5248-DC4D-4D8E-BCC4-6B4E5C784D6E@inoc.net> References: <4F3B5248-DC4D-4D8E-BCC4-6B4E5C784D6E@inoc.net> Message-ID: <56A64543.9000403@hibernianetworks.com> Flexopitix allows 3rd party vendor rebranding by buying credits for the branding box/account. On 25/01/16 16:49, Robert Blayzor via NANOG wrote: > On Jan 18, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote: >> What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? >> So far I have found both >> https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and >> http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.html >> Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? >> >> >> I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, >> but I could be wrong. > > Another choice out there as well. I?ve not yet tried their SmartCoder, but have been using their transceivers for years. They have been great. > > http://integraoptics.com/SmartCoder.html > > > -- > Robert > inoc.net!rblayzor > XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net > PGP Key: 78BEDCE1 @ pgp.mit.edu > -- Jeroen Wunnink IP Engineering Manager - Hibernia Networks Main numbers (Ext: 1011): USA +1.908.516.4200 | UK +44.1704.322.300 Netherlands +31.208.200.622 | 24/7 IP NOC Phone: +31.20.82.00.623 jeroen.wunnink at hibernianetworks.com www.hibernianetworks.com This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. From saku at ytti.fi Mon Jan 25 16:23:54 2016 From: saku at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:23:54 +0200 Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 25 January 2016 at 10:48, Murat Kaipov wrote: Hey, > Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion. I looking for usefull multicast stream monitoring tool now. Any suggestion?Thank you! How are you monitoring this for oversub? SNMP graphs for pps/bps are not useful nor his looking at CLI pps/bps counters. You should monitor if there are queue drops on egress. If possible also monitor queue length, but not all platforms offer this information. My friend Occam says you're probably dropping packets. You could also subscribe to the stream with monitoring PC which runs something like this https://github.com/tarko/CCmon -- ++ytti From sam at themerritts.org Mon Jan 25 16:47:05 2016 From: sam at themerritts.org (Sam H. Merritt, III) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:47:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Jan 2016, Yang Yu wrote: >> Cable Modem counts of all kinds >> connected / online >> ranging >> offline > > Not there if there are OIDs for `show cable modem docsis version summary` http://tools.cisco.com/Support/SNMP/do/BrowseOID.do?local=en&translate=Translate&objectInput=1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.9 I don't know of an OID that will say 'X number of modems online', if anyone does, please share. What I currently do is take the walk of the above OID and get all that are a 6 and call that online modems. sam From mkaipov at outlook.com Mon Jan 25 17:50:18 2016 From: mkaipov at outlook.com (Murat Kaipov) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:50:18 +0400 Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Yes, it is may be effect of microburst in our network or in link between our ISP and TV carrier.Thank you. > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:23:54 +0200 > Subject: Re: Multicast stream monitoring tools > From: saku at ytti.fi > To: mkaipov at outlook.com > CC: nanog at nanog.org > > On 25 January 2016 at 10:48, Murat Kaipov wrote: > > Hey, > > > Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion. I looking for usefull multicast stream monitoring tool now. Any suggestion?Thank you! > > How are you monitoring this for oversub? SNMP graphs for pps/bps are > not useful nor his looking at CLI pps/bps counters. You should monitor > if there are queue drops on egress. If possible also monitor queue > length, but not all platforms offer this information. > My friend Occam says you're probably dropping packets. > > You could also subscribe to the stream with monitoring PC which runs > something like this https://github.com/tarko/CCmon > > -- > ++ytti From jmaimon at ttec.com Mon Jan 25 18:13:15 2016 From: jmaimon at ttec.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:13:15 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 25/Jan/16 12:15, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> >> >> No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an >> allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which >> session. Its gone about very properly. > > And all of this is simpler than having a native BGP session that runs > across a point-to-point link? Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why one extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking folk. > My philosophy: if I could run a router with only one command in its > configuration, I would. They sell those routers at your nearest staples, they require zero commands. > > Personally, I abhor tunnels (and things that resemble them) as well as > centralized networking. But that's just me. > I know you know better. What does this have to do with tunnels? Or how centralized your network is built or not? Joe From nick at foobar.org Mon Jan 25 18:26:48 2016 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:26:48 +0000 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> Message-ID: <56A668E8.1060009@foobar.org> Joe Maimon wrote: > Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why one > extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking folk. multihop bgp means that you don't have synchronised ethernet carrier status between the provider and customer routers. This in turn means that if there's an intermediate connectivity problem, bgp will need to time out before it notices and reroutes. During this period, traffic will be black-holed. This is a crock. Nick From surfer at mauigateway.com Mon Jan 25 18:54:37 2016 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (Scott Weeks) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:54:37 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Message-ID: <20160125105437.37C50EA2@m0087795.ppops.net> --- nick at foobar.org wrote: multihop bgp means that you don't have synchronised ethernet carrier status between the provider and customer routers. This in turn means that if there's an intermediate connectivity problem, bgp will need to time out before it notices and reroutes. During this period, traffic will be black-holed. This is a crock. ------------------------------------------- Unless BFD is able to be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_Forwarding_Detection scott From jared at puck.nether.net Mon Jan 25 19:06:12 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> Message-ID: <887B1D5C-9901-4EEC-9442-10FAB7E8D106@puck.nether.net> My understanding is this was mostly legacy from devices that did not carry full Rib and fib. There were tricks to avoid ending up on these skinny devices if you wanted. Life in the core has changed a lot in recent years from 6500/7600 and foundry/brocade class devices to a more interesting set in the pipeline or released. There are some limited rib-> fib download boxes that could slice traffic in cost effective ways that the price conscious consumer will likely push the market to. Jared Mauch > On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > I have a pending request to get that multi-hop setup. I was told that it was now a special request and they would "try" to get it done and these days all their routers had full table capacity and they no longer used the multi-hop. From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Mon Jan 25 19:28:20 2016 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:28:20 GMT Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Message-ID: <201601251928.TAA27140@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > From: Nick Hilliard > multihop bgp means that you don't have synchronised ethernet carrier > status between the provider and customer routers. This in turn means > that if there's an intermediate connectivity problem, bgp will need to > time out before it notices and reroutes. During this period, traffic > will be black-holed. This is a crock. It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits. brandon From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 19:55:04 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:55:04 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> Message-ID: <56A67D98.8030202@seacom.mu> On 25/Jan/16 20:13, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why > one extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking > folk. It's not that novel - I share my view of the Internet with various industry initiatives this way. But for a commercial service, the decoupling between the state of the physical link and the control plane in this case creates an opportunity for various forwarding issues that are avoidable. The BFD argument could be made, but it is not yet a basic feature one can expect with one's customers. > > > > They sell those routers at your nearest staples, they require zero > commands. No Staples this side of the world... > > > I know you know better. What does this have to do with tunnels? Or how > centralized your network is built or not? Not everyone has the luxury of carrying a full table at the edge, for various reasons, and I get that (even though in 2016, selective BGP FIB downloads is a reality). But if you can avoid it, determining one or two boxes in your core that are your full BGP table reference puts a great deal of burden on those devices to run and maintain routability for and within your network. If I had the ability not to do this, I would, despite how sexy eBGP Multi-Hop might be. Mark. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 19:56:22 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:56:22 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <20160125105437.37C50EA2@m0087795.ppops.net> References: <20160125105437.37C50EA2@m0087795.ppops.net> Message-ID: <56A67DE6.7030600@seacom.mu> On 25/Jan/16 20:54, Scott Weeks wrote: > > > Unless BFD is able to be used. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_Forwarding_Detection Not many customers can support this. And even if they did, not all implementations are executed in hardware on either side of the BGP session. Mark. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 19:58:21 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:58:21 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601251928.TAA27140@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601251928.TAA27140@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <56A67E5D.3090403@seacom.mu> On 25/Jan/16 21:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX > carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits. Yes, but if those go belly-up, you have another exchange point to fall back to, a bi-lateral peering session, or an upstream provider. Or all three. A "critical" device falling over in my network is far worse prospect to experience. Mark. From jra at baylink.com Mon Jan 25 20:01:33 2016 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay R. Ashworth) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 20:01:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: OT: ID/RFC formatting Message-ID: <742477857.137063.1453752093634.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> I know we have to have a few people on here who've written technical RFCs (as opposed to 1 April ones like my RFC 2100)... Any tips on 1) how to do inline boldface and 2) what to do with ASCIIart illustrations that are too wide for the page? I'm using Stefan Santteson's nroffEdit (since I'm presently stuck on Windows), but it doesn't seem to like .B/.R or \fB / \fP for the former, and on the latter point, it's simple unclear how I should approach the thing (a four-column time-sequence diagram of a network transaction, similar to that of the four-point SIP call. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 From nick at foobar.org Mon Jan 25 20:42:48 2016 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 20:42:48 +0000 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601251928.TAA27140@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601251928.TAA27140@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <56A688C8.90409@foobar.org> Brandon Butterworth wrote: > It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX > carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits. more sessions for sure, but rarely more traffic. The issue at hand is that multihop bgp at the isp edge is relatively straightforward to fix by using big boxes, or mpls PW head-end to tunnel to a big box, or by using small-fib boxes with large RIBs and selective fib download. IXPs solve a different set of problems, namely how to interconnect with large numbers of third party organisations with low admin overhead. There aren't easy solutions here. Nick From jmaimon at ttec.com Mon Jan 25 21:01:13 2016 From: jmaimon at ttec.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:01:13 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A67D98.8030202@seacom.mu> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> <56A67D98.8030202@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <56A68D19.8000901@ttec.com> Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 25/Jan/16 20:13, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> >> >> Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why >> one extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking >> folk. > > It's not that novel - I share my view of the Internet with various > industry initiatives this way. It appears that to route on the edge with multihop is viewed as novel. And going further, multihop is quite novel to BGP Engineers in many a location, as per personal experience. > > But for a commercial service, the decoupling between the state of the > physical link and the control plane in this case creates an opportunity > for various forwarding issues that are avoidable. The BFD argument could > be made, but it is not yet a basic feature one can expect with one's > customers. > Before BFD, we had keepalives right in BGP. Whats wrong with that? I suppose you also advocate that each provider use a phy port directly on the ege, no switches in between, so that the full table can be yanked out as quickly as possible and that it be flooded back in as soon as possible, as many times as possible... > > >> >> >> I know you know better. What does this have to do with tunnels? Or how >> centralized your network is built or not? > > Not everyone has the luxury of carrying a full table at the edge, for > various reasons, and I get that (even though in 2016, selective BGP FIB > downloads is a reality). The question is whether it is a reality for gear that already cannot support full tables (likely EoS), or that is projected not to support them in the future. And which is practical to obtain and operate. Further, FIB is one part. Collecting multiple full tables can also impose a dram burden on an edge router. And churn on its CPU. Crypto, policy, etc. Lets face it. An edge device control processor and memory is not the ideal location for all this. It does not compare with the GP hardware available for that task and it never will. > > But if you can avoid it, determining one or two boxes in your core that > are your full BGP table reference puts a great deal of burden on those > devices to run and maintain routability for and within your network. If > I had the ability not to do this, I would, despite how sexy eBGP > Multi-Hop might be. > > Mark. > Who says it must be that way? You could go the other extreme, it is quite feasible to have multiple RR's per pop (if thats what you want) and you can even segregate each eBGP feed into its own BGP router process, using a fraction of the hardware resources available to you in todays 1U server, available at a fraction of the cost of yesterday's edge. It is not too hard to see that this approach offers a degree of design freedom that coupling your ebgp directly to your edge does not. Joe From benno at NLnetLabs.nl Mon Jan 25 22:09:19 2016 From: benno at NLnetLabs.nl (Benno Overeinder) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 23:09:19 +0100 Subject: Call for presentations RIPE 72 Message-ID: <56A69D0F.1040308@NLnetLabs.nl> Dear colleagues, Please find the CFP for RIPE 72 below or at https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/. The deadline for submissions is 13 March 2016. Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder RIPE PC Chair https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/pc -------------------->>><<<-------------------- Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 72 will take place from 23-27 May 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary sessions, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 72. See the full descriptions of the different presentation formats, https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. Proposals for plenary sessions, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than 13 March 2016. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered depending on the remaining available space in the programme. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations - Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses - Data centre technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange Submissions RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general, the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows: - Plenary presentations: 20-25 minutes presentation with 5-10 minutes discussion - Tutorials: up to two hours (Monday morning) - Workshops: one hour (during evening sessions) to two hours (Monday morning) - BoFs: approximately one hour - Lightning talks: 10 minutes The following general requirements apply: - Proposals must be submitted using the meeting submission system, https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/. - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) and can be submitted any time up to and including the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talks will be announced on short notice---in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the time slot allocated. - Presenters who propose a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. - All presentation proposals will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators. - Due to potential technical issues, presenters/panellists should be physically present at the RIPE Meeting. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net. -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Mon Jan 25 22:28:12 2016 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:28:12 GMT Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Message-ID: <201601252228.WAA13974@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 19:56:46 2016 > > On 25/Jan/16 21:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > > It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX > > carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits. > > Yes, but if those go belly-up, you have another exchange point to fall > back to, a bi-lateral peering session, or an upstream provider. Or all > three. Doesn't matter, if traffic is blackholed at an ix then it won't be failing over to another one. Same effect > A "critical" device falling over in my network is far worse prospect to > experience. The general case doesn't care about your network, it assumes you'd engineer that appropriately for the criticality and do something different/better if you need to. brandon From saper at saper.info Mon Jan 25 22:38:21 2016 From: saper at saper.info (Marcin Cieslak) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:38:21 +0000 Subject: OT: ID/RFC formatting In-Reply-To: <742477857.137063.1453752093634.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> References: <742477857.137063.1453752093634.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > I know we have to have a few people on here who've written technical RFCs > (as opposed to 1 April ones like my RFC 2100)... > > Any tips on 1) how to do inline boldface and 2) what to do with ASCIIart > illustrations that are too wide for the page? > > I'm using Stefan Santteson's nroffEdit (since I'm presently stuck on Windows), > but it doesn't seem to like .B/.R or \fB / \fP for the former, and on the latter point, > it's simple unclear how I should approach the thing (a four-column time-sequence > diagram of a network transaction, similar to that of the four-point SIP call. Those days I think the things are done with the help of xml2rfc, I have used xxe Personal Edition with the xxe-xml2rfc plugin, so no nroff needed really anymore. Marcin From johnl at iecc.com Mon Jan 25 22:40:40 2016 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 25 Jan 2016 22:40:40 -0000 Subject: OT: ID/RFC formatting In-Reply-To: <742477857.137063.1453752093634.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com> Message-ID: <20160125224040.34855.qmail@ary.lan> >Any tips on 1) how to do inline boldface and 2) what to do with ASCIIart >illustrations that are too wide for the page? Even though there's more work the first time, your life will be a lot easier if you write them in xml2rfc, since that's what's going to be the canonical format in the future. Specific answers: 1) use very important which won't do anything in the current line printer image format*, but will emphasize the text in HTML and other output. 2) Reformat it so it fits in 72 columns. Really. If you don't, someone else will have to. In the future you'll be able to use SVG to do real line art. R's, John * - don't even think about backspacing and overprinting From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 25 23:01:37 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:01:37 -0800 Subject: IPv6 traffic percentages? In-Reply-To: <4A85328F-044E-4E47-8C94-3DE177BB2A24@ndsu.edu> References: <4A85328F-044E-4E47-8C94-3DE177BB2A24@ndsu.edu> Message-ID: Not to put any sort of damper on wild speculation, but at the Southern California Linux Expo, with native IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack support enabled on the wifi for the show, we saw close to 50% of all traffic on IPv6. Owen > On Jan 24, 2016, at 07:23 , Bruce Curtis wrote: > > >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:14 AM, nanog-isp at mail.com wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their percentage of IPv6 traffic? >> >> Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and Facebook? >> >> Some public information I've found so far: >> - Comcast around 25% IPv6 traffic ( http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-is-a-real-world-big-deal/a/d-id/718395 ) >> - Comcast has over 1 Tb/s (of mostly YouTube traffic) over IPv6 ( http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network ) >> - Swisscom 26% IPv6 traffic, 60% YouTube ( http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog27/p/01_Martin_Gysi.pdf ) >> >> I'd be very much interested in hearing from smaller ISPs, especially those having a very limited number of IPv4 addresses and/or running out. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jared > > > This is some more public info. > > > On this page click to sort on IPv6 deployment. > > http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ > > About 40% of traffic inbound to our University is IPv6. I see several Universities on the list above at more than 60%. > > There are more links to public info sites at the bottom of the page. > > You can add Apple and Microsoft to the list of usual suspects, but for state in NAT boxes rather than traffic. With happy eyeballs devices query both IPv4 and IPv6 so end up creating state in the NAT box even if the client ultimately chooses IPv6 for the connection. We have lots of devices that like to check with Apple whenever they wake up and the staff here use Microsoft Exchange in the cloud which is available via IPv6. I don?t have any verified data but I have noticed a relation between > > Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will see that my latency to Google via IPv6 dropped from 40 ms to 20 ms. > > http://mcnet.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/smokeping/?target=Internet.Google_IPv6 > > > If I compare some days before and after the change I see a decrease in my peak NAT pool usage. However on other days I don?t see a difference. The theory is that after my latency dropped to 20 ms that should be less than the magical 25 ms for Apple devices to receive an answer via IPv6 so they don?t even send out an IPv4 query. > > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22455.html > > This link mentions that Microsoft is already preferring IPv6 over IPv4 95% of the time when both are available. > > http://labs.apnic.net/?p=657 > > I?m 30 ms away from Facebook so 95% of Microsoft clients would use IPv6 but for Apple devices it?s a gamble. But it?s not clear if 95% of Microsoft clients would only send an IPv6 SYN and not send an IPv4 SYN (saving NAT table size). > > The top of our wish list would be for twitter and AWS to support IPv6, I think that those would make the biggest reduction in our NAT table size. > > > If you hover your mouse over the US on this page > > http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/ > > it lists 47% for content. What that 47% means is explained here. > > http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/information.php#content > > > It is fun to play with the type of regression on this page and project 730 days or so in the future. > > https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php > > > > > --- > Bruce Curtis bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu > Certified NetAnalyst II 701-231-8527 > North Dakota State University > From lorell at hathcock.org Mon Jan 25 23:45:00 2016 From: lorell at hathcock.org (Lorell Hathcock) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:45:00 -0600 Subject: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05b401d157ca$684ef3b0$38ecdb10$@hathcock.org> Thanks all for your suggestions. I am now successfully graphing SNR for each upstream channel. -----Original Message----- From: Yang Yu [mailto:yang.yu.list at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 5:11 PM To: Lorell Hathcock Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > Signal to Noise per upstream channel CISCO-CABLE-SPECTRUM-MIB::ccsUpSpecMgmtSNR http://tools.cisco.com/Support/SNMP/do/BrowseOID.do?local=en&translate=Translate&objectInput=ccsUpSpecMgmtSNR > Cable Modem counts of all kinds > connected / online > ranging > offline Not there if there are OIDs for `show cable modem docsis version summary` From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 25 23:45:47 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:45:47 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601252228.WAA13974@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601252228.WAA13974@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <0A970B1E-6B87-466C-B836-E2F48B040A4B@delong.com> Actually, where I have mostly seen the biggest problems with the Cogent remote BGP hacks is when their forwarding decisions in between your router and their BGP speaking router don?t actually deliver your packets to the BGP speaking router and your traffic starts veering wildly off course to god knows where. Likely they?ve gotten better at avoiding this over the years, but there were times when it resulted in very interesting loops and very strange paths that often did not ever reach the intended destination. Worse, when you encountered one of these hairballs, finding someone at AS174 with enough clue to understand your traceroutes let alone fix anything was an additional challenge. Owen From jra at baylink.com Tue Jan 26 02:56:30 2016 From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:56:30 -0500 Subject: RIP Marvin Minsky Message-ID: <9674F50F-BDBE-45B5-A40A-FC167F87AD5F@baylink.com> Lauren Weinstein passes along that AI pioneer Minsky died Sunday night in New York. He was 88. Condolences to those who knew him. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/marvin-minsky-pioneer-in-artificial-intelligence-dies-at-88.html -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From rdrake at direcpath.com Tue Jan 26 02:58:14 2016 From: rdrake at direcpath.com (Robert Drake) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:58:14 -0500 Subject: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's In-Reply-To: <05b401d157ca$684ef3b0$38ecdb10$@hathcock.org> References: <05b401d157ca$684ef3b0$38ecdb10$@hathcock.org> Message-ID: <56A6E0C6.9000009@direcpath.com> This is from some internal PHP thing that isn't very good (well, it's lovely actually.. the problem is that it uses a forking method to query everything and isn't that fast. I'm trying to rewrite it) Throw any of these into google if you're confused about them. It should return the correct MIB (except for the Casa ones. I'm not sure how I found those but you can ignore them if you don't have any Casa CMTS) '.1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.2' => 'macs', '.1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.3' => 'ips', '.1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.6' => 'rxpwr', '.1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.9' => 'status', // genericstatus 0-7 '.1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.13' => 'snr', '.1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.5' => 'dwnchnl', // this is actually upchannel ifindex '.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.1' => 'ifname', // this is probably for any Cisco Docsis3 CMTS if ($cmts['DeviceModel']['name'] == 'UBR7225VXR') { unset($oids['.1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.5']); // remove dwnchnl, we'll get that from SNR unset($oids['.1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1.13']); $oids['.1.3.6.1.4.1.4491.2.1.20.1.4.1.4'] = 'snr'; } switch ($cmts['DeviceType']['name']) { case 'cisco': '.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.116.1.3.2.1.1' => 'status2', // cisco specific status cdxCmtsCmStatusValue '.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.114.1.1.5.1.18' => 'flapcount', '.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.114.1.1.5.1.10' => 'flaptime' break; case 'Casa': '.3.6.1.4.1.20858.10.22.2.1.1.1' => 'status3', // casa specific status (totally different values from cisco) '.1.3.6.1.4.1.20858.10.11.1.2.1.10' => 'flaptime', '.1.3.6.1.4.1.20858.10.11.1.2.1.9' => 'flapcount' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- things you need to pull from each cable modem: system.sysUpTime.0 transmission.127.1.1.1.1.6.3 down_pwr transmission.127.1.2.2.1.3.2 up_pwr transmission.127.1.1.4.1.5.3 down_snr You can also pull the modems log via an OID but I don't have that one handy. On 1/25/2016 6:45 PM, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > Thanks all for your suggestions. I am now successfully graphing SNR for each upstream channel. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yang Yu [mailto:yang.yu.list at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 5:11 PM > To: Lorell Hathcock > Cc: NANOG list > Subject: Re: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > >> Signal to Noise per upstream channel > CISCO-CABLE-SPECTRUM-MIB::ccsUpSpecMgmtSNR > http://tools.cisco.com/Support/SNMP/do/BrowseOID.do?local=en&translate=Translate&objectInput=ccsUpSpecMgmtSNR > >> Cable Modem counts of all kinds >> connected / online >> ranging >> offline > Not there if there are OIDs for `show cable modem docsis version summary` > From colton.conor at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 03:21:37 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:21:37 -0600 Subject: Peering Exchange Message-ID: If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix, then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the exchange? Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit from multiple providers, and a BGP router that can accept and hold full routes. You can see the members of the exchange on peeringdb.com. Many of the members say their policy is Open with little to no traffic requirements. So does just ordering a port to the exchange automatically connect you with all of these open providers, or do you have to contact each on individually? From faisal at snappytelecom.net Tue Jan 26 03:34:17 2016 From: faisal at snappytelecom.net (Faisal Imtiaz) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:34:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1076399759.2095102.1453779257424.JavaMail.zimbra@snappytelecom.net> Hi Colton, There are three ways to peer with another entity on any exchange. 1) peer via the exchange provided route-servers. 2) peer directly with other members the exchange's provided IP address. 3) peer via a private vlan service provided by the exchange. To setup # 1, you have to ask the peering exchange provider to setup the bgp session with you for your asn. You will get all the routes from those who have chosen to peer via the route server. To setup # 2, just ask the appropriate person/entity listed in the peeringdb for that entity, the desire/willingness to establish a direct bpg peering session. Most common is to do # 1 and/or # 2. Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Colton Conor" > To: "nanog list" > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:21:37 PM > Subject: Peering Exchange > If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global > Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix, > then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the > exchange? > > Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit from multiple > providers, and a BGP router that can accept and hold full routes. > > You can see the members of the exchange on peeringdb.com. Many of the > members say their policy is Open with little to no traffic requirements. So > does just ordering a port to the exchange automatically connect you with > all of these open providers, or do you have to contact each on individually? From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jan 26 05:44:25 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:44:25 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A68D19.8000901@ttec.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> <56A67D98.8030202@seacom.mu> <56A68D19.8000901@ttec.com> Message-ID: <56A707B9.1080908@seacom.mu> On 25/Jan/16 23:01, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Before BFD, we had keepalives right in BGP. Whats wrong with that? You may want to signal failure more quickly than BGP's own timers can handle. > > I suppose you also advocate that each provider use a phy port directly > on the ege, no switches in between, so that the full table can be > yanked out as quickly as possible and that it be flooded back in as > soon as possible, as many times as possible... Not how I run my network. I aggregate customer ports to a Layer 2 switch, which upstreams to the edge router for service. Router ports are expensive. The only time I'll terminate customer links to a router is if they are buying 100Gbps native services. > > > The question is whether it is a reality for gear that already cannot > support full tables (likely EoS), or that is projected not to support > them in the future. And which is practical to obtain and operate. If your gear does not have the latest capabilities, then using what it has to achieve the best possible outcome is a well understood strategy. What we are talking about here is options in current state-of-the-art that you would want to ignore for older options if you have the opportunity not to. But, your network, your rules. > > Further, FIB is one part. Collecting multiple full tables can also > impose a dram burden on an edge router. > > And churn on its CPU. Crypto, policy, etc. > > Lets face it. An edge device control processor and memory is not the > ideal location for all this. It does not compare with the GP hardware > available for that task and it never will. Not from what I see in my network. I have virtual routers running on x86_64 servers chugging along just as well as the routing engines on my Juniper and Cisco edge routers. Admittedly, the control planes in those routers are high-end, and I can't expect that everyone can afford them, but to say the brains in modern routers are not up to the task is simply not true. In fact, the control plane on some of these boxes is not yet being fully exploited because code is still slowly evolving to take advantage of multi-core architecture, and 64-bit memory, particularly for routing processes. The headroom and performance on these has been phenomenal, and I can take that to the bank. > > > Who says it must be that way? You could go the other extreme, it is > quite feasible to have multiple RR's per pop (if thats what you want) > and you can even segregate each eBGP feed into its own BGP router > process, using a fraction of the hardware resources available to you > in todays 1U server, available at a fraction of the cost of > yesterday's edge. > > It is not too hard to see that this approach offers a degree of design > freedom that coupling your ebgp directly to your edge does not. Not the way I'd do it, but like I said, your network, your rules. Mark. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jan 26 05:47:00 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:47:00 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601252228.WAA13974@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601252228.WAA13974@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <56A70854.9030004@seacom.mu> On 26/Jan/16 00:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > Doesn't matter, if traffic is blackholed at an ix then it > won't be failing over to another one. Same effect Route servers do not participating in the forwarding plane. If they fail, you lose routes from that exchange point which show up elsewhere. If peers are originating routes at exchange points and lose their backhauls, that's another set of problems your NOC can fix. If the exchange point switch runs out of ideas, that's another set of problems your NOC can fix. > The general case doesn't care about your network, it assumes you'd > engineer that appropriately for the criticality and do something > different/better if you need to. Big assumption to make. Mark. From jmaimon at ttec.com Tue Jan 26 06:34:47 2016 From: jmaimon at ttec.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:34:47 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A707B9.1080908@seacom.mu> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> <56A67D98.8030202@seacom.mu> <56A68D19.8000901@ttec.com> <56A707B9.1080908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <56A71387.2090307@ttec.com> Mark Tinka wrote: > > > You may want to signal failure more quickly than BGP's own timers can > handle. I dont want to churn a full table any quicker then BGP timers. And if you choose to run that ebgp loopback multihop on the same router, you can track routes and interfaces in realtime, to the extent your CP SW supports it. Choice is yours. > > Not how I run my network. I aggregate customer ports to a Layer 2 > switch, which upstreams to the edge router for service. Router ports are > expensive. That was my point. Phy signalling is easily and often sacrificed for density and flexibility. > If your gear does not have the latest capabilities, then using what it > has to achieve the best possible outcome is a well understood strategy. And when you can use a design that offers advantages either way, so much the better. To return to the topic on hand, Cogent seemed to do quite well in the transit wars with this approach. So perhaps there is something to it. Maybe they were not constrained by the pricing for the gear with the latest capabilities and capacities as their competitors were? Perhaps this approach enabled them to more rapidly build out and light up their network to catch up to their competitors, to the point that they now sound more like them than they do their previous selves? > > I have virtual routers running on x86_64 servers chugging along just as > well as the routing engines on my Juniper and Cisco edge routers. Or better? And how do those routers get their full tables to munch on? > Admittedly, the control planes in those routers are high-end, and I > can't expect that everyone can afford them, but to say the brains in > modern routers are not up to the task is simply not true. What I said is that they do not compare. Or is the control plane hardware specs in the latest and greatest C/J box identical to what you would be getting for the latest and greatest x86_64 server? My, times have changed. > In fact, the > control plane on some of these boxes is not yet being fully exploited > because code is still slowly evolving to take advantage of multi-core > architecture, and 64-bit memory, particularly for routing processes. The > headroom and performance on these has been phenomenal, and I can take > that to the bank. Are you saying that the control plane experience lags behind general purpose computing? Simply because you can afford the inflated pricing of the latest and greatest gear does not mean you should and it also does not mean the techniques available and in use to do so are in and of themselves suspect. No matter the temptation to do so. To a certain extent, the market for the hardware probably accounts for and takes advantage of any such unwillingness to engineer around cost, whether it is due to pure design concerns or tinged with psychological suggestion. Joe From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jan 26 07:17:19 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:17:19 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A71387.2090307@ttec.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> <56A67D98.8030202@seacom.mu> <56A68D19.8000901@ttec.com> <56A707B9.1080908@seacom.mu> <56A71387.2090307@ttec.com> Message-ID: <56A71D7F.4040803@seacom.mu> On 26/Jan/16 08:34, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > I dont want to churn a full table any quicker then BGP timers. You don't have to churn the whole table, you just have to churn the (indirect) next-hop. > And if you choose to run that ebgp loopback multihop on the same > router, you can track routes and interfaces in realtime, to the extent > your CP SW supports it. Choice is yours. This feature is not unique to eBGP Multi-Hop. Search for Next-Hop Address Tracking and/or Indirect Next-Hop. > > That was my point. Phy signalling is easily and often sacrificed for > density and flexibility. We have not had to sacrifice performance with our customers in these types of topologies. In the Metro, BGP sessions instantiate directly on the Ethernet switch, so we don't lose performance there either. > > To return to the topic on hand, Cogent seemed to do quite well in the > transit wars with this approach. So perhaps there is something to it. It allowed them to use cheap switches in the Access. That makes a lot of difference when you're undercutting the competition. In 2016, you can still use cheap switches to keep your Access costs down, but you don't have to sacrifice edge-based BGP routing if it's your thing. > > Maybe they were not constrained by the pricing for the gear with the > latest capabilities and capacities as their competitors were? Perhaps > this approach enabled them to more rapidly build out and light up > their network to catch up to their competitors, to the point that they > now sound more like them than they do their previous selves? Yes, and yes. Cheap switches that you can deploy rapidly make for a good business case. > > Or better? Not necessarily. I can hold more tables because the servers have 512GB of RAM, but won't because the code can only address 16GB max. today (some of which goes to the code itself at boot). Work in progress, the code started at 4GB only last year, so we'll get there. CPU performance also still needs to get better. 12x cores in the chassis, but because of code limitations, they aren't yet fully optimized. Overall, still better than using a dedicated router for RR functions. > And how do those routers get their full tables to munch on? From a bunch of purpose-built edge, peering and border routers. > > What I said is that they do not compare. Or is the control plane > hardware specs in the latest and greatest C/J box identical to what > you would be getting for the latest and greatest x86_64 server? My, > times have changed. My Juniper routers are running x86_64-based 1.8GHz Quad-Core CPU's with 16GB of RAM. 32GB RAM options are now available. Not cheap, but with several full IPv4/IPv6 views, dozens of customers taking full feeds, I am not struggling for grunt. As Junos gets cleverer, those additional cores will come to life (fingers crossed). > > > Are you saying that the control plane experience lags behind general > purpose computing? Nope - I'm saying if you have some cash to burn, you're now in a position where one option is not automatically better than the other. I use servers with virtual routers for my RR's because the prospect of sticking 1TB of RAM in a router is not yet feasible. At the same time, I'm comfortable running BGP natively in the edge because the control planes on the routers I have are nowhere near saturation, running tech. 2x years old now. > > Simply because you can afford the inflated pricing of the latest and > greatest gear does not mean you should and it also does not mean the > techniques available and in use to do so are in and of themselves > suspect. No matter the temptation to do so. Agree, but BGP routing is not the only reason we need the control planes. There are other elements to our business that drive that spec. > > To a certain extent, the market for the hardware probably accounts for > and takes advantage of any such unwillingness to engineer around cost, > whether it is due to pure design concerns or tinged with psychological > suggestion. We spend if we have to, and don't if we don't have to. For our RR deployment, for example, it was either dedicated routers for the task, or a long-term view on servers + a hypervisor. We chose the latter. Mark. From frederik at kriewitz.eu Tue Jan 26 10:27:37 2016 From: frederik at kriewitz.eu (Frederik Kriewitz) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:27:37 +0100 Subject: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers In-Reply-To: <56A64543.9000403@hibernianetworks.com> References: <4F3B5248-DC4D-4D8E-BCC4-6B4E5C784D6E@inoc.net> <56A64543.9000403@hibernianetworks.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > Flexopitix allows 3rd party vendor rebranding by buying credits for the > branding box/account. AFAIK you have to buy their transceivers, then you can use their FlexBox to change the programming of the transceivers to be compatible with $vendor. In the past you had to buy credits or the Flatrate package in order to reprogram their transceivers but at the beginning of the year they announced "Unlimited reprogramming with your FLEXBOX in 2016". So for at least this year reprogramming is free. But AFAIK you can't easily reprogram third party transceivers (e.g. from fiberstore). I guess if you've an emergency and contact them they could help you to reprogram pretty much any transceiver, but that would be an exception. Best Regards, Freddy From lists at mtin.net Tue Jan 26 12:45:15 2016 From: lists at mtin.net (Justin Wilson) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:45:15 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <887B1D5C-9901-4EEC-9442-10FAB7E8D106@puck.nether.net> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <887B1D5C-9901-4EEC-9442-10FAB7E8D106@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <3D3191A3-D4B4-4891-9CF8-19433AA14065@mtin.net> From an IX perspective HE is much more receptive to peering at an IX. Last I knew cogent outright says no. In our Indianapolis market a ton of capacity would be saved if Cogent would peer. I understand the reasoning, but having a provider that is more willing to peer is a draw to the end user networks we work with. Justin Wilson j2sw at mtin.net --- http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO xISP Solutions- Consulting ? Data Centers - Bandwidth http://www.midwest-ix.com Internet Exchange - Peering From randy at psg.com Tue Jan 26 15:28:16 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:28:16 +0100 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A688C8.90409@foobar.org> References: <201601251928.TAA27140@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <56A688C8.90409@foobar.org> Message-ID: > IXPs solve a different set of problems, namely how to interconnect with > large numbers of third party organisations with low admin overhead. and low port count From randy at psg.com Tue Jan 26 15:30:26 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:30:26 +0100 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A68D19.8000901@ttec.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <56A5F28A.8070705@seacom.mu> <56A5F5CB.90007@ttec.com> <56A631AE.4070604@seacom.mu> <56A665BB.7050000@ttec.com> <56A67D98.8030202@seacom.mu> <56A68D19.8000901@ttec.com> Message-ID: > It appears that to route on the edge with multihop is viewed as novel. might have been novel in 1990, not now. other adjectives apply, and not nice ones randy From nellermann at broadaspect.com Tue Jan 26 18:48:13 2016 From: nellermann at broadaspect.com (Nick Ellermann) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:48:13 +0000 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c3debe686984948bebdbc33ce98f93d@exchange.broadaspect.local> Colton, We are a member on the Equinix IX. Maybe best for you to speak to an Equinix SE on the topic, but there are two main connection methods. In laymen's terms you can be a member on the switch and then build peering relationships within any other network that will have you. Meaning, you reach out to them or they reach out to you via their contacts in PeeringDB and setup a typical BGP session but usually only exchanging private routes. Therefore you are are not providing transit to the other. The other option Equinix offers is their MLPE (Multi-Lateral Peering Exchange). Essentially from what we understand you peer once to Equinix's router and all other participants and you are able to exchange traffic. It's not an all or none, you can use filtering to exclude specific ASNs. We are not a member of this service today. Sincerely, Nick Ellermann ? CTO & VP Cloud Services BroadAspect ? E: nellermann at broadaspect.com P: 703-297-4639 F: 703-996-4443 ? THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:22 PM To: NANOG Subject: Peering Exchange If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix, then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the exchange? Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit from multiple providers, and a BGP router that can accept and hold full routes. You can see the members of the exchange on peeringdb.com. Many of the members say their policy is Open with little to no traffic requirements. So does just ordering a port to the exchange automatically connect you with all of these open providers, or do you have to contact each on individually? From jlewis at lewis.org Tue Jan 26 19:12:13 2016 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:12:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <0c3debe686984948bebdbc33ce98f93d@exchange.broadaspect.local> References: <0c3debe686984948bebdbc33ce98f93d@exchange.broadaspect.local> Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Nick Ellermann wrote: > Colton, > > We are a member on the Equinix IX. Maybe best for you to speak to an > Equinix SE on the topic, but there are two main connection methods. In > laymen's terms you can be a member on the switch and then build peering > relationships within any other network that will have you. Meaning, you > reach out to them or they reach out to you via their contacts in > PeeringDB and setup a typical BGP session but usually only exchanging > private routes. Therefore you are are not providing transit to the > other. > > The other option Equinix offers is their MLPE (Multi-Lateral Peering > Exchange). Essentially from what we understand you peer once to > Equinix's router and all other participants and you are able to exchange > traffic. It's not an all or none, you can use filtering to exclude > specific ASNs. We are not a member of this service today. It's reasonably common to do both, since not everyone on the IX will peer with or advertise all their peering routes to the route-servers. Peering with the route servers (what Equinix calls MPLE) is a good way to "jump start" your use of the IX by immediately getting at least a degree of peering with multiple networks established without the coordination and config needed to peer with each network individually. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From nellermann at broadaspect.com Tue Jan 26 19:19:53 2016 From: nellermann at broadaspect.com (Nick Ellermann) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:19:53 +0000 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> Colton, Sorry, hit send before I was done! You mentioned an enterprise, if that was the case you may want to look at Equinix's Cloud Exchange. The Equinix IX is really meant for like-minded Network operators and Content providers to exchange routes on an exchange so that we don't require multiple dedicated cross-connects to each network at Equinix which can be cost prohibitive in some cases. Each network operator has different peering criteria, and it's not likely that for example a Google or Facebook is going to peer with you on the Equinix IX if that was your end goal. The Cloud Exchange is meant for those Equinix customers wanting to connect to one or more cloud service providers. The larger Cloud providers now also have 'Direct Connect' services at Equinix as well as another option. Sincerely, Nick Ellermann ? CTO & VP Cloud Services BroadAspect ? E: nellermann at broadaspect.com P: 703-297-4639 F: 703-996-4443 ? THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:22 PM To: NANOG Subject: Peering Exchange If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix, then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the exchange? Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit from multiple providers, and a BGP router that can accept and hold full routes. You can see the members of the exchange on peeringdb.com. Many of the members say their policy is Open with little to no traffic requirements. So does just ordering a port to the exchange automatically connect you with all of these open providers, or do you have to contact each on individually? From nanog at ics-il.net Tue Jan 26 19:30:41 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:30:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> Message-ID: <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Google or Facebook are exactly who you would want to connect with and I'm fairly sure they're on the route servers. Other than driving additional revenue by needing to buy ports to both or possible regulatory concerns, I'm not sure why these companies spin up an exchange for every new fad that comes along. They all just boil down to an Ethernet fabric. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Ellermann" To: "Colton Conor" , "NANOG" Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 1:19:53 PM Subject: RE: Peering Exchange Colton, Sorry, hit send before I was done! You mentioned an enterprise, if that was the case you may want to look at Equinix's Cloud Exchange. The Equinix IX is really meant for like-minded Network operators and Content providers to exchange routes on an exchange so that we don't require multiple dedicated cross-connects to each network at Equinix which can be cost prohibitive in some cases. Each network operator has different peering criteria, and it's not likely that for example a Google or Facebook is going to peer with you on the Equinix IX if that was your end goal. The Cloud Exchange is meant for those Equinix customers wanting to connect to one or more cloud service providers. The larger Cloud providers now also have 'Direct Connect' services at Equinix as well as another option. Sincerely, Nick Ellermann ? CTO & VP Cloud Services BroadAspect E: nellermann at broadaspect.com P: 703-297-4639 F: 703-996-4443 THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:22 PM To: NANOG Subject: Peering Exchange If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix, then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the exchange? Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit from multiple providers, and a BGP router that can accept and hold full routes. You can see the members of the exchange on peeringdb.com. Many of the members say their policy is Open with little to no traffic requirements. So does just ordering a port to the exchange automatically connect you with all of these open providers, or do you have to contact each on individually? From Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com Tue Jan 26 19:41:24 2016 From: Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com (Steve Mikulasik) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:41:24 +0000 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: They are targeting a different market with cloud exchanges. Usually the direct connect services are for hooking up your MPLS to the cloud provider. Many cloud providers connect to their customers with RFC1918 addresses as well. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 12:31 PM Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Peering Exchange Google or Facebook are exactly who you would want to connect with and I'm fairly sure they're on the route servers. Other than driving additional revenue by needing to buy ports to both or possible regulatory concerns, I'm not sure why these companies spin up an exchange for every new fad that comes along. They all just boil down to an Ethernet fabric. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Ellermann" To: "Colton Conor" , "NANOG" Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 1:19:53 PM Subject: RE: Peering Exchange Colton, Sorry, hit send before I was done! You mentioned an enterprise, if that was the case you may want to look at Equinix's Cloud Exchange. The Equinix IX is really meant for like-minded Network operators and Content providers to exchange routes on an exchange so that we don't require multiple dedicated cross-connects to each network at Equinix which can be cost prohibitive in some cases. Each network operator has different peering criteria, and it's not likely that for example a Google or Facebook is going to peer with you on the Equinix IX if that was your end goal. The Cloud Exchange is meant for those Equinix customers wanting to connect to one or more cloud service providers. The larger Cloud providers now also have 'Direct Connect' services at Equinix as well as another option. Sincerely, Nick Ellermann ? CTO & VP Cloud Services BroadAspect E: nellermann at broadaspect.com P: 703-297-4639 F: 703-996-4443 THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:22 PM To: NANOG Subject: Peering Exchange If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix, then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the exchange? Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit from multiple providers, and a BGP router that can accept and hold full routes. You can see the members of the exchange on peeringdb.com. Many of the members say their policy is Open with little to no traffic requirements. So does just ordering a port to the exchange automatically connect you with all of these open providers, or do you have to contact each on individually? From nikm at cyberflunk.com Sun Jan 24 21:47:11 2016 From: nikm at cyberflunk.com (Nikos Mouat) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:47:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Lorell, Here's ones that I used to use for DOCSIS 2 UBR's years ago. For the remote query table, you will obviously need to turn on remote query. remote query table: .1.3.6.1.4.1.9.10.59.1.2.1 cable modem registrations: .1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.3.3.1 if you don't have remote query capability, then you can load the cable modem ip from the registered list, and hit it with: transmission.127.1.2.2.1.3.2 transmission.127.1.1.4.1.5.3 which gives you transmit power and SNR from the modem, which was all that I cared about tracking. I would keep historical logs of the values and graph over time - but never cleared it when the modem was returned and re-issued, which yielded interesting graphs as the modem moved from different plants over its lifetime. For CMTS upstream errors, I graphed the following via MRTG: 1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.4.%d&1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.4.%d and for SNR: 1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.%d&1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.%d with %d being the ifindex of the upstream interface(s). Your mileage may vary - this was from my toolsets for DOCSIS 1 and DOCSIS 2 environments, and I was out of the cable business when DOCSIS 3 became affordable for smaller operators, so never had to worry about updating tools. Nikos Mouat On Sun, 24 Jan 2016, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > All: > > Does anyone out there have some valuable OID's for a Cisco CMTS? > > The ones I am looking for are: > Signal to Noise per upstream channel > Cable Modem counts of all kinds > connected / online > ranging > offline > > I opened a ticket through Cisco's help desk. I have a SmartNET contract for the unit, but they were not very helpful. The OIDs they suggested did not yield any useful data. ("0" when I know there are CMs connected, etc). > > Thanks in advance. > > Lorell Hathcock > > From ryangard at gmail.com Mon Jan 25 03:32:42 2016 From: ryangard at gmail.com (Ryan Gard) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:32:42 -0500 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? Message-ID: Hey, Per chance if someone @ Netflix could reach me off list? Seems that as of this weekend there's a number of our clients (residential internet) who are unable to utilize Netflix directly, instead being presented with a message advising them they're using a VPN service... Have a feeling that our IP blocks were lumped in with someone somehow... Thanks! -- Ryan Gard From rjacobs at pslightwave.com Mon Jan 25 14:41:25 2016 From: rjacobs at pslightwave.com (Robert Jacobs) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:41:25 +0000 Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools In-Reply-To: <20160125081832.15e0f223@localhost> References: <20160125081832.15e0f223@localhost> Message-ID: If you are in the Video content delivery business using mcast then these folks are one of the leaders. You can put multiple probes and make sure your mcast coming off source is solid, through the core router solid, and at the edge... http://www.ineoquest.com/ they are not cheap but worth every dollar -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of John Kristoff Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:19 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Multicast stream monitoring tools On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:48:47 +0400 Murat Kaipov wrote: > Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some > reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak > times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any > oversubscribtion. I looking for usefull multicast stream monitoring > tool now. Any suggestion? If it is not capacity saturation, it may have something be membership stability. Not knowing anything about your IP multicast configuration, it is impossible to say anything concretely with certainty This is to say however, you may want to also be sure to monitor membership, interface, port, PIM, ..., states. All the way down to spanning tree recalculation, you may not notice it with unicast, but anything that might prevent a stream from being forwarded due to a join state disruption are sometimes the causes of these types of events. It is a bit old and may not be the latest copy, but here is a copy of Bill Nickless' very handy troubleshooting methodology you should have handy: Unfortunately there isn't much in that paper about Layer-2 related issues as I alluded to above, but hopefully it gets you part of the way there. John From dog-lists at schrimnir.net Tue Jan 26 02:28:56 2016 From: dog-lists at schrimnir.net (David Lucey) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:28:56 -0800 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: <3D04BF89-912D-4FD7-9FFF-BD800B3798DD@thrashyour.com> References: <3D04BF89-912D-4FD7-9FFF-BD800B3798DD@thrashyour.com> Message-ID: They used to lock in, but optics have gotten so competitive that they aren't pushing it anymore. They have a list of optics they interop with, and will give you an unlock code with your order. Cheers, David --- Keys mashed on a very tiny keyboard. > On Jan 20, 2016, at 08:55, John Kinsella wrote: > > Last I heard, EOS locks out non-Arista optics by default. You have to contact support for instructions to enable 3rd party modules. > > I?m running all Arista cables/optics - at the point when we ordered the pricing was competitive with 3rd party, but that was several years ago and the vendor was hungry. > > John > >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Alex Forster wrote: >> >> Hi everyone! >> >> I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. >> >> The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? >> >> Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Alex Forster > From adam.loveless at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 17:40:06 2016 From: adam.loveless at gmail.com (Adam Loveless) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:40:06 -0500 Subject: Google Contact Message-ID: Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address space has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them now. From ck-lists at cksoft.de Mon Jan 25 10:44:18 2016 From: ck-lists at cksoft.de (Christian Kratzer) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:44:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Murat Kaipov wrote: > Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion. I looking for usefull multicast stream monitoring tool now. Any suggestion?Thank you! one of my customers had issues with their iptv distribution and we consulted this guy. http://lutz.donnerhacke.de/Blog/Ueberwachung-von-Fernsehen-IPTV The solution he has, subscribes iptv channels on monitoring boxes and uses all kinds of heuristics to look into not just the packates but also the video inside the multicast streams. It turned out that in the specific customers case packet reordering was the issue which was easily eliminated. Hacing monitoring in place is also great for finger pointing issues where you want to prove that it's not your network but the tv station screwing up the signal. Greetings Christian -- Christian Kratzer CK Software GmbH Email: ck at cksoft.de Wildberger Weg 24/2 Phone: +49 7032 893 997 - 0 D-71126 Gaeufelden Fax: +49 7032 893 997 - 9 HRB 245288, Amtsgericht Stuttgart Mobile: +49 171 1947 843 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Kratzer Web: http://www.cksoft.de/ From hugo at slabnet.com Tue Jan 26 19:46:11 2016 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:46:11 -0800 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> On Tue 2016-Jan-26 13:30:41 -0600, Mike Hammett wrote: >Google or Facebook are exactly who you would want to connect with and I'm fairly sure they're on the route servers. ...and have open peering policies with pretty low requirements. https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html https://www.facebook.com/peering/ Gist: Google (in NA and EU) asks for >100 mbps peak for bilateral peering, but are on route servers where present and are happy to dish out & pick up routes that way for anyone not pushing enough bits for direct sessions. Facebook wants >50 mbps peak for bilateral peering, though I don't see them on route servers at e.g. the SIX. -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) >Other than driving additional revenue by needing to buy ports to both or possible regulatory concerns, I'm not sure why these companies spin up an exchange for every new fad that comes along. They all just boil down to an Ethernet fabric. > > > > >----- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From josh at imaginenetworksllc.com Tue Jan 26 19:49:54 2016 From: josh at imaginenetworksllc.com (Josh Luthman) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:49:54 -0500 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Use cdnetops at netflix.com Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Gard wrote: > Hey, > > Per chance if someone @ Netflix could reach me off list? Seems that as of > this weekend there's a number of our clients (residential internet) who are > unable to utilize Netflix directly, instead being presented with a message > advising them they're using a VPN service... Have a feeling that our IP > blocks were lumped in with someone somehow... > > Thanks! > > -- > Ryan Gard > From hugo at slabnet.com Tue Jan 26 20:03:46 2016 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:03:46 -0800 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160126200346.GC26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> On Sun 2016-Jan-24 22:32:42 -0500, Ryan Gard wrote: >Hey, > >Per chance if someone @ Netflix could reach me off list? Seems that as of >this weekend there's a number of our clients (residential internet) who are >unable to utilize Netflix directly, instead being presented with a message >advising them they're using a VPN service... Have a feeling that our IP >blocks were lumped in with someone somehow... > >Thanks! We had a similar issue, though in that case we found: 1. The user had been sharing the account between 3 different households across (a) 2 different IP blocks within our network and (b) with a 3rd user on an entirely different ISP in the US (we're in Canada), with multiple devices in use by some locations. 2. The sites across which the same account was being shared had different connectivity options, with one of those having a decent chunk of MTU overhead on the connection (l2tp + pppoe etc.), perhaps raising some flags in Netflix's detection due to smaller MSS? 3. Using the same account on different IPs on the same provider also got blocked. 4. Using a different account on the *exact same IPs* did not have any streaming issues, suggesting Netflix was flagging the account rather than (just) the IPs. Dunno if that helps, but it may be beneficial if Netflix can provide some guidance on the logic in the "this is behind a VPN/proxy" detection (though I am assuming they likely won't disclose that so as not to give away secrets to the other party in the arms race). > >-- >Ryan Gard -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hugo at slabnet.com Tue Jan 26 20:07:38 2016 From: hugo at slabnet.com (Hugo Slabbert) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:07:38 -0800 Subject: Google Contact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160126200738.GD26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> On Tue 2016-Jan-26 12:40:06 -0500, Adam Loveless wrote: >Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address space >has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them now. v6 or v4? We had a round of issues with v6 traffic getting the CAPTCHA treatment for a while: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-November/082256.html -- Hugo hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From colton.conor at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 20:09:14 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:09:14 -0600 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: Is there a way to browse a route server at certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > On Tue 2016-Jan-26 13:30:41 -0600, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Google or Facebook are exactly who you would want to connect with and I'm >> fairly sure they're on the route servers. >> > > ...and have open peering policies with pretty low requirements. > > https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html > https://www.facebook.com/peering/ > > Gist: > > Google (in NA and EU) asks for >100 mbps peak for bilateral peering, but > are on route servers where present and are happy to dish out & pick up > routes that way for anyone not pushing enough bits for direct sessions. > > Facebook wants >50 mbps peak for bilateral peering, though I don't see > them on route servers at e.g. the SIX. > > -- > Hugo > > hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber > PGP fingerprint (B178313E): > CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E > > (also on Signal) > > > Other than driving additional revenue by needing to buy ports to both or >> possible regulatory concerns, I'm not sure why these companies spin up an >> exchange for every new fad that comes along. They all just boil down to an >> Ethernet fabric. >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> From egon at egon.cc Tue Jan 26 20:08:40 2016 From: egon at egon.cc (James Downs) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:08:40 -0800 Subject: Google Contact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jan 26, 2016, at 09:40, Adam Loveless wrote: > > Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address space > has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them now. Is that the capture that happens in front of certain websites? I had that happen for two totally unrelated IP blocks. They eventually cleared within a day or two, but I think they?re having problems with the detection systems. The captcha also didn?t work right for the site I was trying to access (hackernews). From colton.conor at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 20:10:40 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:10:40 -0600 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: References: <3D04BF89-912D-4FD7-9FFF-BD800B3798DD@thrashyour.com> Message-ID: Who are you referring to David? Are you mentioning flexoptix? Is for are are saying I can recode a fiberstore sfp using a flexoptics programmer? On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:28 PM, David Lucey wrote: > They used to lock in, but optics have gotten so competitive that they > aren't pushing it anymore. They have a list of optics they interop with, > and will give you an unlock code with your order. > > Cheers, > David > > > --- > Keys mashed on a very tiny keyboard. > > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 08:55, John Kinsella wrote: > > > > Last I heard, EOS locks out non-Arista optics by default. You have to > contact support for instructions to enable 3rd party modules. > > > > I?m running all Arista cables/optics - at the point when we ordered the > pricing was competitive with 3rd party, but that was several years ago and > the vendor was hungry. > > > > John > > > >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > >> > >> Hi everyone! > >> > >> I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, > but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at > "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using > Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many > Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. > >> > >> The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and > SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for > Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party > comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? > >> > >> Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if > you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Alex Forster > > > From adam.loveless at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 20:16:29 2016 From: adam.loveless at gmail.com (Adam Loveless) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:16:29 -0500 Subject: Google Contact In-Reply-To: <20160126200738.GD26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> References: <20160126200738.GD26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > On Tue 2016-Jan-26 12:40:06 -0500, Adam Loveless > wrote: > > Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address space >> has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them now. >> > > v6 or v4? We had a round of issues with v6 traffic getting the CAPTCHA > treatment for a while: > > http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-November/082256.html > > > We are a v4 only shop for now. From adam.loveless at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 20:18:06 2016 From: adam.loveless at gmail.com (Adam Loveless) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:18:06 -0500 Subject: Google Contact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:08 PM, James Downs wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 09:40, Adam Loveless > wrote: > > > > Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address > space > > has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them > now. > > Is that the capture that happens in front of certain websites? I had that > happen for two totally unrelated IP blocks. They eventually cleared within > a day or two, but I think they?re having problems with the detection > systems. The captcha also didn?t work right for the site I was trying to > access (hackernews). > > > That is exactly the captcha we are getting. We are trying to go through the official channels but seems hard to get to a human being. From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Tue Jan 26 20:22:55 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:22:55 -0500 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: <84D6F4D9-433A-4ACF-8C1A-14206928A91B@hammerfiber.com> > On Jan 26, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > Is there a way to browse a route server at certain exchanges, and see who > is and is not on the route server? > Publicly? No. Best way is to peer with one and see what routes it?s giving you. Some exchanges (like Equinix) do publish information about who is on their route servers, but they only make that information available to other customers. -Daniel From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Tue Jan 26 20:24:31 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:24:31 -0500 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <84D6F4D9-433A-4ACF-8C1A-14206928A91B@hammerfiber.com> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> <84D6F4D9-433A-4ACF-8C1A-14206928A91B@hammerfiber.com> Message-ID: <724B8629-56DA-47D4-86F3-B30128E931EC@hammerfiber.com> > On Jan 26, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Daniel Corbe wrote: > > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Colton Conor wrote: >> >> Is there a way to browse a route server at certain exchanges, and see who >> is and is not on the route server? >> > > Publicly? No. > > Best way is to peer with one and see what routes it?s giving you. > > Some exchanges (like Equinix) do publish information about who is on their route servers, but they only make that information available to other customers. > > -Daniel > > You could also peruse the information people individually publish in PeeringDB. It won?t give you a comprehensive list but it will give you a sense of who is where. http://www.peeringdb.com From jk at ip-clear.de Tue Jan 26 20:29:32 2016 From: jk at ip-clear.de (=?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rg?= Kost) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:29:32 +0100 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: <92EB9C79-750A-4DD4-8B0B-CA29D1AEAAF3@ip-clear.de> Some exchanges run an open looking glass with BGP summary access, e.g. DE-CIX Frankfurt route servers: https://lg.de-cix.net/ Else you could also take a look in the common route registry databases. Regards Joerg On 26 Jan 2016, at 21:09, Colton Conor wrote: > Is there a way to browse a route server at certain exchanges, and see > who > is and is not on the route server? From lists at mtin.net Tue Jan 26 21:18:32 2016 From: lists at mtin.net (Justin Wilson) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:18:32 -0500 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <92B60AB7-844B-499A-88BF-77BD2E07B5ED@mtin.net> You have a couple of things to consider. Most exchanges have route servers. Some folks peer with those and pretty much anyone can gain access to these route servers. Not everyone peers with these however. In the large IXes it?s typically the small to medium folks who are on the route servers. The ?big folks? typically want you to peer with them directly. In the case of Equinix you will probably get some requests sent to you as soon you are in the database for that location. We typically see he.net one of the fastest folks. Sometimes within an hour. Many folks can lookup and see how much traffic would be exchanged with your ASN and decide if it?s worth it. Also, the Content folks are more likely to peer with you on a public exchange instead of directly. Not everyone is listed on peeringdb. It would be great if they were. Equinix has a list of who is on their exchanges. This is typically where information is scraped from. Justin Wilson j2sw at mtin.net --- http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO xISP Solutions- Consulting ? Data Centers - Bandwidth http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman > On Jan 25, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global > Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix, > then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the > exchange? > > Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit from multiple > providers, and a BGP router that can accept and hold full routes. > > You can see the members of the exchange on peeringdb.com. Many of the > members say their policy is Open with little to no traffic requirements. So > does just ordering a port to the exchange automatically connect you with > all of these open providers, or do you have to contact each on individually? > From bryan at digitalocean.com Tue Jan 26 21:32:55 2016 From: bryan at digitalocean.com (Bryan Socha) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:32:55 -0500 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: Check out nl nog's the ring (they have a looking glass), routeviews or ripe's RIS project (bgplay) being an interface to the data). You should be able to find someone sending up bgp data to these projects that include the route servers on different IX points. Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > Is there a way to browse a route server at certain exchanges, and see who > is and is not on the route server? > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > > On Tue 2016-Jan-26 13:30:41 -0600, Mike Hammett > wrote: > > > > Google or Facebook are exactly who you would want to connect with and I'm > >> fairly sure they're on the route servers. > >> > > > > ...and have open peering policies with pretty low requirements. > > > > https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html > > https://www.facebook.com/peering/ > > > > Gist: > > > > Google (in NA and EU) asks for >100 mbps peak for bilateral peering, but > > are on route servers where present and are happy to dish out & pick up > > routes that way for anyone not pushing enough bits for direct sessions. > > > > Facebook wants >50 mbps peak for bilateral peering, though I don't see > > them on route servers at e.g. the SIX. > > > > -- > > Hugo > > > > hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber > > PGP fingerprint (B178313E): > > CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E > > > > (also on Signal) > > > > > > Other than driving additional revenue by needing to buy ports to both or > >> possible regulatory concerns, I'm not sure why these companies spin up > an > >> exchange for every new fad that comes along. They all just boil down to > an > >> Ethernet fabric. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> Mike Hammett > >> Intelligent Computing Solutions > >> http://www.ics-il.com > >> > >> > From idafe.houghton at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 21:36:27 2016 From: idafe.houghton at gmail.com (Idafe Houghton) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:36:27 +0100 Subject: Google Contact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While it was as an home-user level, I also experienced the same issues for the past few days, however those warning haven't appeared today. If you do accomplish clearing yourself from blacklist, may you please give feedback as to how (apart from this list) alternatively contact them? I do remember a business I was giving service that had the same issues, and I would like to know how to solve that next-time. 2016-01-26 21:18 GMT+01:00 Adam Loveless : > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:08 PM, James Downs wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 09:40, Adam Loveless > > wrote: > > > > > > Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address > > space > > > has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them > > now. > > > > Is that the capture that happens in front of certain websites? I had that > > happen for two totally unrelated IP blocks. They eventually cleared > within > > a day or two, but I think they?re having problems with the detection > > systems. The captcha also didn?t work right for the site I was trying to > > access (hackernews). > > > > > > That is exactly the captcha we are getting. We are trying to go through > the official channels but seems hard to get to a human being. > From bernd.spiess at ip-it.com Tue Jan 26 21:00:40 2016 From: bernd.spiess at ip-it.com (Bernd Spiess) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:00:40 +0000 Subject: AW: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: > Is there a way to browse a route server at > certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? Quite many ixp?s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... Typical offer of a looking glass: You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more on these prefixes E.g.: https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl etc... not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a login ... Bernd (yes ... I do work for de-cix) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5411 bytes Desc: not available URL: From colton.conor at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 01:00:48 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:00:48 -0600 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: Someone actually sent me a list from Equinix. If it says MLPE next to the IP address of the provider then I assume they are using the MLPE route server, and if not I assume you have to reach out to peer with them. Does that sound accurate? On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Bryan Socha wrote: > Check out nl nog's the ring (they have a looking glass), routeviews or > ripe's RIS project (bgplay) being an interface to the data). You should > be able to find someone sending up bgp data to these projects that include > the route servers on different IX points. > > > Bryan Socha > Network Engineer > DigitalOcean > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Colton Conor > wrote: > >> Is there a way to browse a route server at certain exchanges, and see who >> is and is not on the route server? >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: >> >> > On Tue 2016-Jan-26 13:30:41 -0600, Mike Hammett >> wrote: >> > >> > Google or Facebook are exactly who you would want to connect with and >> I'm >> >> fairly sure they're on the route servers. >> >> >> > >> > ...and have open peering policies with pretty low requirements. >> > >> > https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html >> > https://www.facebook.com/peering/ >> > >> > Gist: >> > >> > Google (in NA and EU) asks for >100 mbps peak for bilateral peering, but >> > are on route servers where present and are happy to dish out & pick up >> > routes that way for anyone not pushing enough bits for direct sessions. >> > >> > Facebook wants >50 mbps peak for bilateral peering, though I don't see >> > them on route servers at e.g. the SIX. >> > >> > -- >> > Hugo >> > >> > hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber >> > PGP fingerprint (B178313E): >> > CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E >> > >> > (also on Signal) >> > >> > >> > Other than driving additional revenue by needing to buy ports to both or >> >> possible regulatory concerns, I'm not sure why these companies spin up >> an >> >> exchange for every new fad that comes along. They all just boil down >> to an >> >> Ethernet fabric. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> Mike Hammett >> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> >> > > From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jan 27 05:36:07 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:36:07 +0200 Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools In-Reply-To: References: <20160125081832.15e0f223@localhost> Message-ID: <56A85747.3000904@seacom.mu> On 25/Jan/16 16:41, Robert Jacobs wrote: > If you are in the Video content delivery business using mcast then these folks are one of the leaders. You can put multiple probes and make sure your mcast coming off source is solid, through the core router solid, and at the edge... http://www.ineoquest.com/ they are not cheap but worth every dollar When evaluating Ineoquest against EXFO a couple of years at ago at previous employer, EXFO came out shining. I'll give Ineoquest another chance next time I'm running an IPTV network and see how far they've come since then. Mark. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jan 27 05:40:50 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:40:50 +0200 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <84D6F4D9-433A-4ACF-8C1A-14206928A91B@hammerfiber.com> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> <84D6F4D9-433A-4ACF-8C1A-14206928A91B@hammerfiber.com> Message-ID: <56A85862.6080708@seacom.mu> On 26/Jan/16 22:22, Daniel Corbe wrote: > Some exchanges (like Equinix) do publish information about who is on their route servers, but they only make that information available to other customers. Some exchange points provide that information publicly as well. Different strokes. Mark. From nanog at studio442.com.au Wed Jan 27 06:37:11 2016 From: nanog at studio442.com.au (Julien Goodwin) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:37:11 +1100 Subject: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <56A86597.4070809@studio442.com.au> On 27/01/16 06:30, Mike Hammett wrote: > Google or Facebook are exactly who you would want to connect with and I'm fairly sure they're on the route servers. Google (AS15169) should be present on route servers at all exchanges they're present at that have them. Generally as missing cases are noticed they're fixed. (Making this true was a project of mine a few years back now) From joelja at bogus.com Wed Jan 27 07:31:57 2016 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:31:57 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <887B1D5C-9901-4EEC-9442-10FAB7E8D106@puck.nether.net> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <887B1D5C-9901-4EEC-9442-10FAB7E8D106@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <56A8726D.60309@bogus.com> On 1/25/16 11:06 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: > My understanding is this was mostly legacy from devices that did not > carry full Rib and fib. There were tricks to avoid ending up on these > skinny devices if you wanted. > > Life in the core has changed a lot in recent years from 6500/7600 and > foundry/brocade class devices to a more interesting set in the > pipeline or released. > > There are some limited rib-> fib download boxes that could slice > traffic in cost effective ways that the price conscious consumer will > likely push the market to. There are also of course variations on this. An an aggregation router may have quite limited FIB, e.g. enough for customer routes yet still have a full rib in it's control-plane, at which point it needs to default towards devices which do have a FIB in place. assuming a single hob peering it would be rather hard to identify this case as a customer, though if your neighbor has an Arista mac address for example that might be a logical conclusion. > Jared Mauch > >> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: >> >> >> I have a pending request to get that multi-hop setup. I was told >> that it was now a special request and they would "try" to get it >> done and these days all their routers had full table capacity and >> they no longer used the multi-hop. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 229 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jan 27 07:37:46 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:37:46 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A8726D.60309@bogus.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <887B1D5C-9901-4EEC-9442-10FAB7E8D106@puck.nether.net> <56A8726D.60309@bogus.com> Message-ID: <56A873CA.9060805@seacom.mu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 27/Jan/16 09:31, joel jaeggli wrote: > > > There are also of course variations on this. An an aggregation router > may have quite limited FIB, e.g. enough for customer routes yet still > have a full rib in it's control-plane, at which point it needs to > default towards devices which do have a FIB in place. assuming a single > hob peering it would be rather hard to identify this case as a customer, > though if your neighbor has an Arista mac address for example that might > be a logical conclusion. In all our Metro-E deployments, where we have enough RIB to hold multiple full feeds, but a limited FIB for forwarding, there is no discernible difference in performance both at the routing and forwarding levels to our customers that take full BGP feeds natively from these devices. Mark. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWqHPKAAoJEGcZuYTeKm+GgPgP/2v9PaX7cfg7re6jAhbbWkzp sw5jsPdF0eCmJAOICvv74ZymRzW8fAmlt98XWpmAJh/8WqDKkn/H1lEt1hvsyuYE 9PC3PRsT2+Qhb26Erlz1LB+95dS6PzZyNzHC6YRRbB2j3aZkazkOHCZTl4lWZeIP ZsiafWQl3LDCUOrgO4JsqVg3r4D4DhMATKxQuP5siXOiEpwVk1zWSa+MfydrUrg7 jlGzwkH1Igh1UmsMy2oSW9azjQizSyBl6/fdbx3sbCHqHrtXbAt7TSrF0kJ//1lm JHYhGM1vovpxKCOxY74AiemrSXFbkDCSc8LgiMRPL3l5VfquYVy6jXFpiPM/H9sU xKUS3uKEJ4IgIIl6URMfusWTirmPC6f7mvqwOGNn/qabU4AKq+WsPshFMfb3+9Ry v0+3/o3i/hNOc+neL6oE8mHZ24pilbKltCYFD7pPTKS8lROoXfaHv4d52FMXPMUL oqdvLtRYjSb5RXpkX5hzMzJkqKJ5oVIm+Oj+KP4ekiNGRedEgiEfAPcwJG54NQgv M8Ji8cgAfwcd2lhIZXfDg1y7N4Jl5k48C1KBJV0y6nPFjtonqrufW7PEUWX17dqq ih0pcvy4dAv81hSY9jdRJucS/Kev3xLbikRA5f8vHN4h9jH7OnXh4VNrCXnetUb5 VhtsoJ6/yiz/PKJ/zEu4 =QPdU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tarko at lanparty.ee Wed Jan 27 07:39:45 2016 From: tarko at lanparty.ee (Tarko Tikan) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:39:45 +0200 Subject: Multicast stream monitoring tools In-Reply-To: <56A85747.3000904@seacom.mu> References: <20160125081832.15e0f223@localhost> <56A85747.3000904@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <56A87441.7030702@lanparty.ee> hey, >> If you are in the Video content delivery business using mcast then >> these folks are one of the leaders. You can put multiple probes >> and make sure your mcast coming off source is solid, through the >> core router solid, and at the edge... http://www.ineoquest.com/ >> they are not cheap but worth every dollar I can recommend http://www.agama.tv/ We use it for general purpose monitoring but not so much for interactive debugging. Shameless plug: for debugging I wrote https://github.com/tarko/CCmon some years ago and it works great. Wanted to have alternative to all windows based software out there that will just report number of CC errors but will not support multiple streams (or copies of the software running), will not produce useful logs for correlation etc. -- tarko From andy.yakov at ya.ru Wed Jan 27 00:33:34 2016 From: andy.yakov at ya.ru (Andrey Yakovlev) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:33:34 -0200 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> 26.01.2016, 17:49, "Ryan Gard" : > Hey, > > Per chance if someone @ Netflix could reach me off list? Seems that as of > this weekend there's a number of our clients (residential internet) who are > unable to utilize Netflix directly, instead being presented with a message > advising them they're using a VPN service... Have a feeling that our IP > blocks were lumped in with someone somehow... > > Thanks! > > -- > Ryan Gard We have noticed the same issue in the last hours, a couple users complaining they were seeing the "You seem to be using an unblocker or proxy. Please turn off any of these services and try again." message. We have worked with Netflix's open connect support guys and found out essentially netflix is trying to determine if the account is reaching their systems from different region other than the contracted one or if from multiple regios at a short period of time, which one could not fly thousand miles in that time window. So how to explain the blocks? Different explanations on different users. One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while on a conference to Europe (same account, different countries). One other case was related to a user who was at tor, in fact he was an exit node for tor with his share / natted ip address and it looks like someone was else from another account used his ip address as an exit node or he used tor with his account. In the end it was the same case of being at two regions with the same account in a short time window. We also had good insights via telephone support by Netflix at 0800-096-6379 (europe). From andy.yakov at ya.ru Wed Jan 27 01:23:46 2016 From: andy.yakov at ya.ru (Andrey Yakovlev) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:23:46 -0200 Subject: AW: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> Message-ID: <507881453857826@web13j.yandex.ru> Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be listed at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's simply their police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the same for everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you reach >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where someone demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because his competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company had no real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port would just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a barely better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering policy to become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better explanation and some people just don't want to accept a different policy to different players. We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the club. --? ./andy 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" : >> ??Is there a way to browse a route server at >> ??certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? > > ?Quite many ixp?s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... > ?Typical offer of a looking glass: > ?You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, > ?You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more > ?on these prefixes > > ?E.g.: > ?https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ > ?https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ > ?https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... > ?https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html > ?https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl > ?etc... > > ?not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some > ?ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a > ?login ... > > ?Bernd > ?(yes ... I do work for de-cix) From nanog at ics-il.net Wed Jan 27 13:56:39 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:56:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: AW: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <507881453857826@web13j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <44527785.9417.1453902998935.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Peering with someone via an IX shouldn't be consuming any additional ports. Emotional rather than technical concerns are typically why someone won't peer. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrey Yakovlev" To: "Bernd Spiess" , "Colton Conor" , "Hugo Slabbert" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 7:23:46 PM Subject: Re: AW: Peering Exchange Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be listed at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's simply their police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the same for everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you reach >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where someone demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because his competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company had no real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port would just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a barely better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering policy to become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better explanation and some people just don't want to accept a different policy to different players. We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the club. -- ./andy 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" : >> Is there a way to browse a route server at >> certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? > > Quite many ixp?s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... > Typical offer of a looking glass: > You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, > You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more > on these prefixes > > E.g.: > https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ > https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ > https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... > https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html > https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl > etc... > > not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some > ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a > login ... > > Bernd > (yes ... I do work for de-cix) From martijnschmidt at i3d.net Wed Jan 27 14:00:57 2016 From: martijnschmidt at i3d.net (i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:00:57 +0100 Subject: AW: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <507881453857826@web13j.yandex.ru> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> <507881453857826@web13j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <56A8CD99.9010207@i3d.net> "We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location." That's a fairly normal request. I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in the way you're describing it here (e.g. prepending and no-export to certain peers/upstreams). Of course outbound traffic from your customer to "the rest of the world" can not be controlled that way. Best regards, Martijn On 01/27/2016 02:23 AM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: > Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be listed at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's simply their police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the same for everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you reach >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where someone demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because his competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company had no real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port would just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a barely better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering policy to become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better explanation and some people just don't want to accept a different policy to different players. > We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the club. > > -- > ./andy > > > 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" : >>> Is there a way to browse a route server at >>> certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? >> Quite many ixp?s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... >> Typical offer of a looking glass: >> You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, >> You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more >> on these prefixes >> >> E.g.: >> https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... >> https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html >> https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl >> etc... >> >> not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some >> ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a >> login ... >> >> Bernd >> (yes ... I do work for de-cix) From jj at anexia.at Wed Jan 27 14:20:31 2016 From: jj at anexia.at (=?utf-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBKYXJpdHNjaA==?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:20:31 +0000 Subject: AW: AW: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <56A8CD99.9010207@i3d.net> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> <507881453857826@web13j.yandex.ru> <56A8CD99.9010207@i3d.net> Message-ID: Hi Martjin, > I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in That?s also what I thought but the truth is: there are MANY major transit providers who simply doesn't support any community ... one of the most famous is Hurricane Electric :( J?rgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: JJaritsch at anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] Im Auftrag von i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. J?nner 2016 15:01 An: Andrey Yakovlev ; Bernd Spiess ; Colton Conor ; Hugo Slabbert Cc: NANOG Betreff: Re: AW: Peering Exchange "We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location." That's a fairly normal request. I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in the way you're describing it here (e.g. prepending and no-export to certain peers/upstreams). Of course outbound traffic from your customer to "the rest of the world" can not be controlled that way. Best regards, Martijn On 01/27/2016 02:23 AM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: > Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be listed at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's simply their police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the same for everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you reach >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where someone demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because his competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company had no real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port would just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a barely better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering policy to become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better explanation and some people just don't want to accept a different policy to different players. > We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the club. > > -- > ./andy > > > 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" : >>> Is there a way to browse a route server at >>> certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? >> Quite many ixp?s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... >> Typical offer of a looking glass: >> You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, >> You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more >> on these prefixes >> >> E.g.: >> https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... >> https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html >> https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl >> etc... >> >> not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some >> ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a >> login ... >> >> Bernd >> (yes ... I do work for de-cix) From dovid at telecurve.com Wed Jan 27 14:22:48 2016 From: dovid at telecurve.com (Dovid Bender) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:22:48 +0000 Subject: AW: AW: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> <507881453857826@web13j.yandex.ru> <56A8CD99.9010207@i3d.net> Message-ID: <183876363-1453904569-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-958746566-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> HE will if you know who to speak to... Regards, Dovid -----Original Message----- From: J?rgen Jaritsch Sender: "NANOG" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:20:31 To: i3D net - Martijn Schmidt; Andrey Yakovlev; Bernd Spiess; Colton Conor; Hugo Slabbert Cc: NANOG Subject: AW: AW: Peering Exchange Hi Martjin, > I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in That?s also what I thought but the truth is: there are MANY major transit providers who simply doesn't support any community ... one of the most famous is Hurricane Electric :( J?rgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: JJaritsch at anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] Im Auftrag von i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. J?nner 2016 15:01 An: Andrey Yakovlev ; Bernd Spiess ; Colton Conor ; Hugo Slabbert Cc: NANOG Betreff: Re: AW: Peering Exchange "We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location." That's a fairly normal request. I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in the way you're describing it here (e.g. prepending and no-export to certain peers/upstreams). Of course outbound traffic from your customer to "the rest of the world" can not be controlled that way. Best regards, Martijn On 01/27/2016 02:23 AM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: > Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be listed at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's simply their police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the same for everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you reach >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where someone demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because his competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company had no real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port would just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a barely better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering policy to become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better explanation and some people just don't want to accept a different policy to different players. > We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the club. > > -- > ./andy > > > 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" : >>> Is there a way to browse a route server at >>> certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? >> Quite many ixp?s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... >> Typical offer of a looking glass: >> You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, >> You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more >> on these prefixes >> >> E.g.: >> https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... >> https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html >> https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl >> etc... >> >> not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some >> ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a >> login ... >> >> Bernd >> (yes ... I do work for de-cix) From jj at anexia.at Wed Jan 27 14:31:10 2016 From: jj at anexia.at (=?utf-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBKYXJpdHNjaA==?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:31:10 +0000 Subject: AW: AW: AW: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <183876363-1453904569-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-958746566-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> <507881453857826@web13j.yandex.ru> <56A8CD99.9010207@i3d.net> <183876363-1453904569-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-958746566-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <7ab0d33a66954ff1826c97b51f1ce50d@anx-i-dag02.anx.local> Hi Dovid, Yes, vitamin B often helps. But it doesn't matter - if the transit provider doesn't support it on an official way you do net get an SLA for the communities. They could stop working from one day to another ... J?rgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: JJaritsch at anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dovid Bender [mailto:dovid at telecurve.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. J?nner 2016 15:23 An: J?rgen Jaritsch ; NANOG ; i3D net - Martijn Schmidt ; Andrey Yakovlev ; Bernd Spiess ; Colton Conor ; Hugo Slabbert Cc: NANOG Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Peering Exchange HE will if you know who to speak to... Regards, Dovid -----Original Message----- From: J?rgen Jaritsch Sender: "NANOG" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:20:31 To: i3D net - Martijn Schmidt; Andrey Yakovlev; Bernd Spiess; Colton Conor; Hugo Slabbert Cc: NANOG Subject: AW: AW: Peering Exchange Hi Martjin, > I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in That?s also what I thought but the truth is: there are MANY major transit providers who simply doesn't support any community ... one of the most famous is Hurricane Electric :( J?rgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: JJaritsch at anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] Im Auftrag von i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. J?nner 2016 15:01 An: Andrey Yakovlev ; Bernd Spiess ; Colton Conor ; Hugo Slabbert Cc: NANOG Betreff: Re: AW: Peering Exchange "We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location." That's a fairly normal request. I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in the way you're describing it here (e.g. prepending and no-export to certain peers/upstreams). Of course outbound traffic from your customer to "the rest of the world" can not be controlled that way. Best regards, Martijn On 01/27/2016 02:23 AM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: > Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be listed at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's simply their police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the same for everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you reach >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where someone demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because his competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company had no real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port would just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a barely better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering policy to become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better explanation and some people just don't want to accept a different policy to different players. > We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the club. > > -- > ./andy > > > 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" : >>> Is there a way to browse a route server at >>> certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? >> Quite many ixp?s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... >> Typical offer of a looking glass: >> You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, >> You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more >> on these prefixes >> >> E.g.: >> https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... >> https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html >> https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl >> etc... >> >> not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some >> ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a >> login ... >> >> Bernd >> (yes ... I do work for de-cix) From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jan 27 15:12:59 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:12:59 -0500 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> > On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: > > One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while on a conference to Europe (same account, different countries). Hmm, I seem to think this one might be quite common, so perhaps should be tied closer to the device vs account level. - Jared From JKrejci at usinternet.com Wed Jan 27 19:49:08 2016 From: JKrejci at usinternet.com (Justin Krejci) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:49:08 +0000 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps Message-ID: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e for these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the wide popularity of it in many buildings. Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? Thanks. From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 27 20:15:46 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:15:46 -0800 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> > On Jan 27, 2016, at 07:12 , Jared Mauch wrote: > > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: >> >> One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while on a conference to Europe (same account, different countries). > > Hmm, I seem to think this one might be quite common, so perhaps should be tied closer to the device vs account level. > > - Jared This is all going to get a whole lot more entertaining with the combination of MIP6 and IPv4 CGNAT. Owen From cra at WPI.EDU Wed Jan 27 20:29:45 2016 From: cra at WPI.EDU (Chuck Anderson) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:29:45 -0500 Subject: small automatic transfer switches Message-ID: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? (I know, pick two, you can't have all three) I'm looking for something to power one or two 120V out-of-band network device(s) in each location with a single power supply each, much less than 10 amps total, with two 120v input cords. The primary input cord will go to the UPS and the other directly to a wall outlet to be able to access the UPS when if fails to turn on after the power returns :-) I found the usual suspects, APC, TrippLite, ServerTech, etc. but they are mostly 8 or more outlets and upwards of $300-$900 each. I also found this neat one, Zonit uATS, which is a small box that piggybacks onto the powered device's C14 input and has two power cords coming out of it. But it seems to cost just as much as the bigger ones... From josh at kyneticwifi.com Wed Jan 27 20:32:35 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:32:35 -0600 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: http://www.amazon.com/CyberPower-PDU15M10AT-Metered-Power-Distribution/dp/B00NEHUX08 $205 On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? > (I know, pick two, you can't have all three) I'm looking for something > to power one or two 120V out-of-band network device(s) in each > location with a single power supply each, much less than 10 amps > total, with two 120v input cords. The primary input cord will go to > the UPS and the other directly to a wall outlet to be able to access > the UPS when if fails to turn on after the power returns :-) > > I found the usual suspects, APC, TrippLite, ServerTech, etc. but they > are mostly 8 or more outlets and upwards of $300-$900 each. > > I also found this neat one, Zonit uATS, which is a small box that > piggybacks onto the powered device's C14 input and has two power cords > coming out of it. But it seems to cost just as much as the bigger > ones... From josh at kyneticwifi.com Wed Jan 27 20:33:39 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:33:39 -0600 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: better yet, $134 http://www.amazon.com/CyberPower-PDU20MHVT10AT-Metered-Power-Distribution/dp/B00NEHXESQ/ref=sr_1_17?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1453926782&sr=1-17&keywords=cyberpower+ats On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? > (I know, pick two, you can't have all three) I'm looking for something > to power one or two 120V out-of-band network device(s) in each > location with a single power supply each, much less than 10 amps > total, with two 120v input cords. The primary input cord will go to > the UPS and the other directly to a wall outlet to be able to access > the UPS when if fails to turn on after the power returns :-) > > I found the usual suspects, APC, TrippLite, ServerTech, etc. but they > are mostly 8 or more outlets and upwards of $300-$900 each. > > I also found this neat one, Zonit uATS, which is a small box that > piggybacks onto the powered device's C14 input and has two power cords > coming out of it. But it seems to cost just as much as the bigger > ones... From tknchris at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 20:36:45 2016 From: tknchris at gmail.com (chris) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> Message-ID: especially if these types of situations are handled on par with the way abuse and spam reports are handled customer will report being blocked to netflix, netflix will tell end user to contact isp, customer will call isp and level 1 call center rep will say "we can ping your modem and your service is up we dont see a problem, if you are having a issue with a specific service please contact your service provider" and the infinite loop begins, customer gets frustrated, everyone loses welcome to hell :) On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 2016, at 07:12 , Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: > >> > >> One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while on > a conference to Europe (same account, different countries). > > > > Hmm, I seem to think this one might be quite common, so perhaps should > be tied closer to the device vs account level. > > > > - Jared > > This is all going to get a whole lot more entertaining with the > combination of MIP6 and IPv4 CGNAT. > > Owen > > From Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com Wed Jan 27 20:37:38 2016 From: Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com (Steve Mikulasik) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:37:38 +0000 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> Message-ID: It is really early days for this spec. I know there are a few SKUs are Cisco 3850 that have multi-gig support, but I don't know of anything else yet. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Justin Krejci Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 12:49 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e for these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the wide popularity of it in many buildings. Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? Thanks. From jcrowe215 at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 13:30:50 2016 From: jcrowe215 at gmail.com (J Crowe) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:30:50 -0500 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: References: <3D04BF89-912D-4FD7-9FFF-BD800B3798DD@thrashyour.com> Message-ID: If you are going to be using Flexoptics copper SFPs, be aware that if you are on the latest code revision 4.15.x that you may have to manually reseat the flexoptics SFPs for them to work. I have run into this issue recently in our lab. I can confirm that if you use 4.14.x that you will not have to reseat them. Thanks Joe Crowe On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > Who are you referring to David? Are you mentioning flexoptix? Is for are > are saying I can recode a fiberstore sfp using a flexoptics programmer? > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:28 PM, David Lucey > wrote: > > > They used to lock in, but optics have gotten so competitive that they > > aren't pushing it anymore. They have a list of optics they interop with, > > and will give you an unlock code with your order. > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > > > --- > > Keys mashed on a very tiny keyboard. > > > > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 08:55, John Kinsella wrote: > > > > > > Last I heard, EOS locks out non-Arista optics by default. You have to > > contact support for instructions to enable 3rd party modules. > > > > > > I?m running all Arista cables/optics - at the point when we ordered the > > pricing was competitive with 3rd party, but that was several years ago > and > > the vendor was hungry. > > > > > > John > > > > > >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Alex Forster > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi everyone! > > >> > > >> I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new > infrastructure, > > but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at > > "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using > > Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many > > Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. > > >> > > >> The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and > > SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics > for > > Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party > > comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? > > >> > > >> Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose > if > > you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> Alex Forster > > > > > > From horsezip at earthlink.net Wed Jan 27 14:11:59 2016 From: horsezip at earthlink.net (jimmy keffer) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:11:59 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A873CA.9060805@seacom.mu> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <887B1D5C-9901-4EEC-9442-10FAB7E8D106@puck.nether.net> <56A8726D.60309@bogus.com> <56A873CA.9060805@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <2ojhab1utn024spf6i35s9mi1e44t8uh6c@4ax.com> does ntt peer with he for ip6? From jcrowe215 at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 16:38:34 2016 From: jcrowe215 at gmail.com (J Crowe) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:38:34 -0500 Subject: Arista optics In-Reply-To: References: <3D04BF89-912D-4FD7-9FFF-BD800B3798DD@thrashyour.com> Message-ID: *edit* be aware that if you are on the latest code revision 4.15.x that you may have to manually reseat the flexoptics SFPs for them to work --- this is after you reboot/reload the switch. On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM, J Crowe wrote: > If you are going to be using Flexoptics copper SFPs, be aware that if you > are on the latest code revision 4.15.x that you may have to manually reseat > the flexoptics SFPs for them to work. I have run into this issue recently > in our lab. I can confirm that if you use 4.14.x that you will not have to > reseat them. > > Thanks > Joe Crowe > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Colton Conor > wrote: > >> Who are you referring to David? Are you mentioning flexoptix? Is for are >> are saying I can recode a fiberstore sfp using a flexoptics programmer? >> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:28 PM, David Lucey >> wrote: >> >> > They used to lock in, but optics have gotten so competitive that they >> > aren't pushing it anymore. They have a list of optics they interop >> with, >> > and will give you an unlock code with your order. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > David >> > >> > >> > --- >> > Keys mashed on a very tiny keyboard. >> > >> > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 08:55, John Kinsella wrote: >> > > >> > > Last I heard, EOS locks out non-Arista optics by default. You have to >> > contact support for instructions to enable 3rd party modules. >> > > >> > > I?m running all Arista cables/optics - at the point when we ordered >> the >> > pricing was competitive with 3rd party, but that was several years ago >> and >> > the vendor was hungry. >> > > >> > > John >> > > >> > >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Alex Forster >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Hi everyone! >> > >> >> > >> I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new >> infrastructure, >> > but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at >> > "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using >> > Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many >> > Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. >> > >> >> > >> The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and >> > SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics >> for >> > Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party >> > comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? >> > >> >> > >> Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose >> if >> > you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks! >> > >> >> > >> Alex Forster >> > > >> > >> > > From thomas_a_krenn at optum.com Wed Jan 27 20:36:19 2016 From: thomas_a_krenn at optum.com (Krenn, Thomas A) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:36:19 +0000 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: I have had good luck with BayTech in the past. http://www.baytech.net/ ____________________________ Tom Krenn | Optum IT Network Services -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:30 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: small automatic transfer switches Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? (I know, pick two, you can't have all three) I'm looking for something to power one or two 120V out-of-band network device(s) in each location with a single power supply each, much less than 10 amps total, with two 120v input cords. The primary input cord will go to the UPS and the other directly to a wall outlet to be able to access the UPS when if fails to turn on after the power returns :-) I found the usual suspects, APC, TrippLite, ServerTech, etc. but they are mostly 8 or more outlets and upwards of $300-$900 each. I also found this neat one, Zonit uATS, which is a small box that piggybacks onto the powered device's C14 input and has two power cords coming out of it. But it seems to cost just as much as the bigger ones... This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. From mike.lyon at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 20:42:24 2016 From: mike.lyon at gmail.com (mike.lyon at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:42:24 -0800 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: Doesnt the packetflux sitemonitor generator controller do that? > On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:33, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > better yet, $134 > http://www.amazon.com/CyberPower-PDU20MHVT10AT-Metered-Power-Distribution/dp/B00NEHXESQ/ref=sr_1_17?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1453926782&sr=1-17&keywords=cyberpower+ats > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: >> Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? >> (I know, pick two, you can't have all three) I'm looking for something >> to power one or two 120V out-of-band network device(s) in each >> location with a single power supply each, much less than 10 amps >> total, with two 120v input cords. The primary input cord will go to >> the UPS and the other directly to a wall outlet to be able to access >> the UPS when if fails to turn on after the power returns :-) >> >> I found the usual suspects, APC, TrippLite, ServerTech, etc. but they >> are mostly 8 or more outlets and upwards of $300-$900 each. >> >> I also found this neat one, Zonit uATS, which is a small box that >> piggybacks onto the powered device's C14 input and has two power cords >> coming out of it. But it seems to cost just as much as the bigger >> ones... From jhaustin at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 20:47:15 2016 From: jhaustin at gmail.com (Jeremy Austin) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:47:15 -0900 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > better yet, $134 > http://www.amazon.com/CyberPower-PDU20MHVT10AT-Metered-Power-Distribution/dp/B00NEHXESQ/ref=sr_1_17?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1453926782&sr=1-17&keywords=cyberpower+ats That unit is 220V. I bought it once by mistake. Josh' first link is the 15A/120V version. If all you need is a single port (still 15A limit), and can handle a 70ms switching time, I've had success with this marine transfer switch: http://www.amazon.com/Xantrex-Inline-Transfer-Relay-PROwatt/dp/B00JGXAE62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453927515&sr=8-1&keywords=xantrex+in-line+transfer You'll have to add your own ends/outlets, as it is intended to be hardwired in place. From job at instituut.net Wed Jan 27 20:51:59 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:51:59 +0100 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <2ojhab1utn024spf6i35s9mi1e44t8uh6c@4ax.com> References: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com> <56A290E3.8040202@ttec.com> <887B1D5C-9901-4EEC-9442-10FAB7E8D106@puck.nether.net> <56A8726D.60309@bogus.com> <56A873CA.9060805@seacom.mu> <2ojhab1utn024spf6i35s9mi1e44t8uh6c@4ax.com> Message-ID: <20160127205159.GD1086@57.rev.meerval.net> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:11:59AM -0500, jimmy keffer wrote: > does ntt peer with he for ip6? You can review sites like: https://radar.qrator.net/as2914/ipv6-peerings#startDate=2015-10-10&endDate=2016-01-27&tab=current or http://bgp.he.net/AS2914#_peers6 to get a sense of what relations exist. Kind regards, Job From Andrew.White2 at charter.com Wed Jan 27 20:58:46 2016 From: Andrew.White2 at charter.com (White, Andrew) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:58:46 -0600 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: <678FDBA32DA0DD4A8EFB6D1C2FDC268A020BD851A0@KSTLMEXCP02MBX.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM> +1 on Baytech -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Krenn, Thomas A Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:36 PM To: Chuck Anderson; nanog at nanog.org Subject: RE: small automatic transfer switches I have had good luck with BayTech in the past. http://www.baytech.net/ ____________________________ Tom Krenn | Optum IT Network Services -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:30 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: small automatic transfer switches Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? (I know, pick two, you can't have all three) I'm looking for something to power one or two 120V out-of-band network device(s) in each location with a single power supply each, much less than 10 amps total, with two 120v input cords. The primary input cord will go to the UPS and the other directly to a wall outlet to be able to access the UPS when if fails to turn on after the power returns :-) I found the usual suspects, APC, TrippLite, ServerTech, etc. but they are mostly 8 or more outlets and upwards of $300-$900 each. I also found this neat one, Zonit uATS, which is a small box that piggybacks onto the powered device's C14 input and has two power cords coming out of it. But it seems to cost just as much as the bigger ones... This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. From martijnschmidt at i3d.net Wed Jan 27 20:59:50 2016 From: martijnschmidt at i3d.net (i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:59:50 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: AW: Peering Exchange In-Reply-To: <7ab0d33a66954ff1826c97b51f1ce50d@anx-i-dag02.anx.local> References: <5e6a58ca22684c7a8266eeaaed466d8a@exchange.broadaspect.local> <1336829897.8150.1453836640186.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com> <507881453857826@web13j.yandex.ru> <56A8CD99.9010207@i3d.net> <183876363-1453904569-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-958746566-@b11.c1.bise6.blackberry> <7ab0d33a66954ff1826c97b51f1ce50d@anx-i-dag02.anx.local> Message-ID: <56A92FC6.3050805@i3d.net> Hi J?rgen, Well, I did say "nearly" every major IP transit provider.. :-) If BGP action communities are important to your network and your existing upstream(s) don't support them, then maybe it is time to start looking for a different transit provider. Best regards, Martijn On 01/27/2016 03:31 PM, J?rgen Jaritsch wrote: > Hi Dovid, > > Yes, vitamin B often helps. But it doesn't matter - if the transit provider doesn't support it on an official way you do net get an SLA for the communities. They could stop working from one day to another ... > > > > J?rgen Jaritsch > Head of Network & Infrastructure > > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 > Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 > > E-Mail: JJaritsch at anexia-it.com > Web: http://www.anexia-it.com > > Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler > Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Dovid Bender [mailto:dovid at telecurve.com] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. J?nner 2016 15:23 > An: J?rgen Jaritsch ; NANOG ; i3D net - Martijn Schmidt ; Andrey Yakovlev ; Bernd Spiess ; Colton Conor ; Hugo Slabbert > Cc: NANOG > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Peering Exchange > > HE will if you know who to speak to... > > Regards, > > Dovid > > -----Original Message----- > From: J?rgen Jaritsch > Sender: "NANOG" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:20:31 > To: i3D net - Martijn Schmidt; Andrey Yakovlev; Bernd Spiess; Colton Conor; Hugo Slabbert > Cc: NANOG > Subject: AW: AW: Peering Exchange > > Hi Martjin, > >> I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in > That?s also what I thought but the truth is: there are MANY major transit providers who simply doesn't support any community ... one of the most famous is Hurricane Electric :( > > > > J?rgen Jaritsch > Head of Network & Infrastructure > > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 > Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 > > E-Mail: JJaritsch at anexia-it.com > Web: http://www.anexia-it.com > > Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler > Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] Im Auftrag von i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. J?nner 2016 15:01 > An: Andrey Yakovlev ; Bernd Spiess ; Colton Conor ; Hugo Slabbert > Cc: NANOG > Betreff: Re: AW: Peering Exchange > > "We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be > exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be > exported at a different location." > > That's a fairly normal request. I think nearly every major IP transit > provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their > customers to control prefix announcements in the way you're describing > it here (e.g. prepending and no-export to certain peers/upstreams). Of > course outbound traffic from your customer to "the rest of the world" > can not be controlled that way. > > Best regards, > Martijn > > On 01/27/2016 02:23 AM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: >> Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be listed at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's simply their police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the same for everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you reach >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where someone demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because his competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company had no real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port would just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a barely better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering policy to become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better explanation and some people just don't want to accept a different policy to different players. >> We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the club. >> >> -- >> ./andy >> >> >> 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" : >>>> Is there a way to browse a route server at >>>> certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? >>> Quite many ixp?s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... >>> Typical offer of a looking glass: >>> You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, >>> You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more >>> on these prefixes >>> >>> E.g.: >>> https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ >>> https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ >>> https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... >>> https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html >>> https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl >>> etc... >>> >>> not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some >>> ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a >>> login ... >>> >>> Bernd >>> (yes ... I do work for de-cix) > > From bill at herrin.us Wed Jan 27 21:16:12 2016 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:16:12 -0500 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? The APC SU042 series sell for dirt on ebay. -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From volists at staff.velocityonline.net Wed Jan 27 21:32:55 2016 From: volists at staff.velocityonline.net (Velocity Lists) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:32:55 -0500 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: If you are not looking for "monitoring" of it. A DPDT 120v 10amp Relay with three power cords cut and attached will make an ATS for under $30. Velocity Online 850-205-4638 On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? > > The APC SU042 series sell for dirt on ebay. > > -Bill > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > From dave at temk.in Wed Jan 27 21:37:37 2016 From: dave at temk.in (Dave Temkin) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 06:37:37 +0900 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> Message-ID: Our (Netflix) call center has been trained on how to handle calls for false positive issues with proxy/VPNs. If you don't achieve an acceptable result, please feel free to reach out - but believe it or not, they are the best ones to handle. -Dave On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:36 AM, chris wrote: > especially if these types of situations are handled on par with the way > abuse and spam reports are handled > > customer will report being blocked to netflix, netflix will tell end user > to contact isp, customer will call isp and level 1 call center rep will > say "we can ping your modem and your service is up we dont see a problem, > if you are having a issue with a specific service please contact your > service provider" > > and the infinite loop begins, customer gets frustrated, everyone loses > > welcome to hell :) > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 27, 2016, at 07:12 , Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Andrey Yakovlev > wrote: > > >> > > >> One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while on > > a conference to Europe (same account, different countries). > > > > > > Hmm, I seem to think this one might be quite common, so perhaps should > > be tied closer to the device vs account level. > > > > > > - Jared > > > > This is all going to get a whole lot more entertaining with the > > combination of MIP6 and IPv4 CGNAT. > > > > Owen > > > > > From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 21:40:24 2016 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:40:24 +0000 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: >> Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? > > The APC SU042 series sell for dirt on ebay. Or the SU041 if you have some patience to wait for a motivated seller and only need/want NEMA 5-15. Although as all of these used devices are getting up there in age, the reliability number is likely going downwards (so, which two are the priority again?) From josh at imaginenetworksllc.com Wed Jan 27 21:41:20 2016 From: josh at imaginenetworksllc.com (Josh Luthman) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:41:20 -0500 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> Message-ID: Are you talking about the same people that respond with "What is an IP?" Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Temkin wrote: > Our (Netflix) call center has been trained on how to handle calls for false > positive issues with proxy/VPNs. If you don't achieve an acceptable result, > please feel free to reach out - but believe it or not, they are the best > ones to handle. > > -Dave > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:36 AM, chris wrote: > > > especially if these types of situations are handled on par with the way > > abuse and spam reports are handled > > > > customer will report being blocked to netflix, netflix will tell end user > > to contact isp, customer will call isp and level 1 call center rep will > > say "we can ping your modem and your service is up we dont see a problem, > > if you are having a issue with a specific service please contact your > > service provider" > > > > and the infinite loop begins, customer gets frustrated, everyone loses > > > > welcome to hell :) > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 2016, at 07:12 , Jared Mauch > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Andrey Yakovlev > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while > on > > > a conference to Europe (same account, different countries). > > > > > > > > Hmm, I seem to think this one might be quite common, so perhaps > should > > > be tied closer to the device vs account level. > > > > > > > > - Jared > > > > > > This is all going to get a whole lot more entertaining with the > > > combination of MIP6 and IPv4 CGNAT. > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > From A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk Wed Jan 27 21:45:27 2016 From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk (A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:45:27 +0000 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> Message-ID: <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> Hi, > I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e for these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the wide popularity of it in many buildings. > > Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? well, until the standard is ratified, these Multi-Gig offerings are quite proprietary.. there are 2 competing camps....hopefully they will be compatible and not end up like beta/vhs once the dust settles camp 1 - http://www.nbaset.org/ camp 2 - http://www.mgbasetalliance.org/ look at those vendors..... I think they hope by avoiding IEEE int he early stages and taping silicon they'll get the job done quicker - the drive mainly being faster wireless APs and cheaper data centre interconnects... alan From ghankins at mindspring.com Wed Jan 27 21:59:24 2016 From: ghankins at mindspring.com (Greg Hankins) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:59:24 -0500 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> Fortunately the two groups came together in the IEEE, and there are no competing standards. IEEE P802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T Task Force stared in March 2015: - 2.5GBASE-T: 4 x 625 Mb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling - 5GBASE-T: 4 x 1.250 Gb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling - MultiGBASE-T auto-negotiation between 2.5GBASE-T, 5GBASE-T, 10GBASE-T, 25GBASE-T, 40GBASE-T - Automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration - PoE support including IEEE 802.3bt amendment (power over 4 pairs) - Optional Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) support - Standard expected in September 2016 - Interfaces expected on the market in 2016 - Task Force web page http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/ You might have seen my Ethernet speeds presentation... the most recent one is here: http://ix.br/pttforum/9/slides/ixbr9-ethernet.pdf (December 2015) It's slightly out of date as the IEEE Interim was just last week. Greg -- Greg Hankins -----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:45:27 +0000 From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk To: Justin Krejci Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps Hi, > I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e for these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the wide popularity of it in many buildings. > > Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? well, until the standard is ratified, these Multi-Gig offerings are quite proprietary.. there are 2 competing camps....hopefully they will be compatible and not end up like beta/vhs once the dust settles camp 1 - http://www.nbaset.org/ camp 2 - http://www.mgbasetalliance.org/ look at those vendors..... I think they hope by avoiding IEEE int he early stages and taping silicon they'll get the job done quicker - the drive mainly being faster wireless APs and cheaper data centre interconnects... alan From jared at puck.nether.net Wed Jan 27 22:21:53 2016 From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:21:53 -0500 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> Message-ID: <38A04472-6153-400A-A6DB-E46968E6A160@puck.nether.net> Having them visit the excellent test-IPv6.com is the best and easiest way to get that info. Jared Mauch > On Jan 27, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > Are you talking about the same people that respond with "What is an IP?" > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Temkin wrote: >> >> Our (Netflix) call center has been trained on how to handle calls for false >> positive issues with proxy/VPNs. If you don't achieve an acceptable result, >> please feel free to reach out - but believe it or not, they are the best >> ones to handle. >> >> -Dave >> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:36 AM, chris wrote: >>> >>> especially if these types of situations are handled on par with the way >>> abuse and spam reports are handled >>> >>> customer will report being blocked to netflix, netflix will tell end user >>> to contact isp, customer will call isp and level 1 call center rep will >>> say "we can ping your modem and your service is up we dont see a problem, >>> if you are having a issue with a specific service please contact your >>> service provider" >>> >>> and the infinite loop begins, customer gets frustrated, everyone loses >>> >>> welcome to hell :) >>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 27, 2016, at 07:12 , Jared Mauch >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Andrey Yakovlev >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while >> on >>>> a conference to Europe (same account, different countries). >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, I seem to think this one might be quite common, so perhaps >> should >>>> be tied closer to the device vs account level. >>>>> >>>>> - Jared >>>> >>>> This is all going to get a whole lot more entertaining with the >>>> combination of MIP6 and IPv4 CGNAT. >>>> >>>> Owen >> From mansaxel at besserwisser.org Wed Jan 27 22:43:20 2016 From: mansaxel at besserwisser.org (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:43:20 +0100 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28:01PM +0000 Quoting Brandon Butterworth (brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk): > tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal. one does not become a tier 1 by refusing to peer. an actual tier 1 will of course most of the time refuse settlement-free interconnection with smaller actors to protect their revenue stream, but the traffic volumes and short settlement-free paths to large parts of the Internet are what make them a tier-1. do you hear me, medium-sized swedish isp full of clued people but with a serious case of peering reality distorsion? -- M?ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Can you MAIL a BEAN CAKE? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk Thu Jan 28 00:10:51 2016 From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk (A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:10:51 +0000 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20160128001051.GC17161@lboro.ac.uk> Hi, > Fortunately the two groups came together in the IEEE, and there are no > competing standards. right! so why do both keep updating their own marketing and web pages each month? ;-) thanks for the info though - our future world isnt messed up for multigig > - Optional Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) support *optional* - in our current energy efficiency/green aligned world this should be mandatory > - Standard expected in September 2016 okay.. so buying now is like buying pre-N 802.11 kit - it should work with final standard but theres no cast-iron guarantee....new silicon might be required ? thanks for the info though! :) alan From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 00:51:06 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:51:06 +0100 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it? Regards Baldur Den 27. jan. 2016 23.00 skrev "Greg Hankins" : > Fortunately the two groups came together in the IEEE, and there are no > competing standards. > > IEEE P802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T Task Force stared in March 2015: > - 2.5GBASE-T: 4 x 625 Mb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling > - 5GBASE-T: 4 x 1.250 Gb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling > - MultiGBASE-T auto-negotiation between 2.5GBASE-T, 5GBASE-T, 10GBASE-T, > 25GBASE-T, 40GBASE-T > - Automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration > - PoE support including IEEE 802.3bt amendment (power over 4 pairs) > - Optional Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) support > - Standard expected in September 2016 > - Interfaces expected on the market in 2016 > - Task Force web page http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/ > > You might have seen my Ethernet speeds presentation... the most recent > one is here: > http://ix.br/pttforum/9/slides/ixbr9-ethernet.pdf (December 2015) > > It's slightly out of date as the IEEE Interim was just last week. > > Greg > > -- > Greg Hankins > > -----Original Message----- > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:45:27 +0000 > From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk > To: Justin Krejci > Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" > Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps > > Hi, > > I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over > cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with > offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e for > these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the wide > popularity of it in many buildings. > > > > Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, > switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? > > well, until the standard is ratified, these Multi-Gig offerings are quite > proprietary.. > > there are 2 competing camps....hopefully they will be compatible and not > end up like beta/vhs once the dust settles > > > camp 1 - http://www.nbaset.org/ > > > camp 2 - http://www.mgbasetalliance.org/ > > > look at those vendors..... I think they hope by avoiding IEEE int he early > stages and taping silicon they'll > get the job done quicker - the drive mainly being faster wireless APs and > cheaper data centre interconnects... > > alan > From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 28 01:02:04 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:02:04 -0800 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: <25D46178-2033-4400-BC85-3BF6DCDE9DA1@delong.com> If you?re willing to risk that solution, and want monitoring, a $10 Microcontroller and ~$1.00 worth of ancillary resistors and diodes will get you monitoring. If you want to get really fancy, you could mount it all to a custom designed PCB for around $10 ($5/sq.in. for 3 copies of the PCB) from oshpark.com . If you want to get really fancy, you can change out the power cords for real PCB mount IEC outlets and put the whole thing in sheet metal for ~$45 more, yielding a total cost of <$100 + whatever you value your time at. The software for the MC would be dirt simple and probably take less than an hour to write and fully integrate into your monitoring system. The time to design the PCB for the fully loaded version is probably a couple of hours with Eagle (if you use an MC, relays, and outlets that have Eagle Libraries for their parts). Takes 10 days+shipping from Oregon to get the PCBs. For an extra $5, they?ll ship USPS Priority. One really nice thing about Eagle and OSH Park is that you can do small stuff in the free version of Eagle and you can submit the Eagle .BRD file directly to OSH without having to turn it into gerber files. OSH gives you a very accurate preview of your boards which is a nice final check before submitting the job for fabrication. Note: I DO NOT RECOMMEND using this solution. It has a number f shortcomings. 1. It depends on some external force to make the decsion about starting or stopping the generator. 2. It can lead to a really rough phase transition when switching. If you?re just feeding a UPS and you can make sure that one side is down well before you switch to the other side, this is probably OK. If you?re feeding some sort of motor and there?s potential for a live switch, this can be very hard on said motor and can lead to graphic and spectacular failures of said motor as it attempts to change it?s armature position instantaneously to match the phase of the new power source. 3. It would almost certainly never pass UL, CSA, or any other certification. 4. It?s the kind of thing NEBS was developed to prevent. 5. The potential for combustion if the world ever violates your expectations is not insignificant. Now, with the same hardware, if you have the MC do some additional detecting and control the switchover process, you?ll add a few failure modes into the system, but you can make the whole thing a lot safer and actually more reliable. You can at least build something that will not damage your equipment or catch fire. The cost would be about the same (same hardware, after all), but you?d need to wire up a few more pins (more traces on the PCB) to the MCU and you might need a couple more resistors and diodes. Owen > On Jan 27, 2016, at 13:32 , Velocity Lists wrote: > > If you are not looking for "monitoring" of it. > A DPDT 120v 10amp Relay with three power cords cut and attached will make > an ATS for under $30. > > > Velocity Online > 850-205-4638 > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: >>> Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? >> >> The APC SU042 series sell for dirt on ebay. >> >> -Bill >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >> From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 28 01:36:13 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:36:13 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> References: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> Message-ID: > On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:43 , M?ns Nilsson wrote: > > Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28:01PM +0000 Quoting Brandon Butterworth (brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk): > >> tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal. > > one does not become a tier 1 by refusing to peer. an actual tier 1 will > of course most of the time refuse settlement-free interconnection with > smaller actors to protect their revenue stream, but the traffic volumes > and short settlement-free paths to large parts of the Internet are what > make them a tier-1. I disagree with this last part. I realize that the common wisdom among execs at so-called tier-1 providers is that refusing SFI protects their revenue stream, but I believe it?s not true. In fact, I think that a willingness to peer with your customers and anyone else on the internet wherever you can do so for very little cost (for example, where it?s just one more peering session at an IXP, no additional port cost, circuit, XC, etc.) settlement free can only increase your business. IMHO, a truly good tier-1 will charge for transit, set their metrics and prefs such that their paid ports are preferred over their non-revenue ports, and provides peer routes only on the SFIs. This turns out to be mostly a win-win situation for everyone, including the tier-1 in the long run. OTOH, look what happened to SPRINT when they went on their depeering binge. They went from the cat-bird seat of being the top Tier-1 provider on the planet to the modern day status of ?also ran?. I suspect the only reason Cogent isn?t losing ground as fast as SPRINT did has to do with two things: 1. They aren?t turning off existing peers as aggressively as SPRINT did. 2. They have the cheapest transit prices of just about anyone except possibly HE (why they are in a race to the bottom with). However, even at their current rate, this will likely catch up with them sooner or later and cause them some discomfort. YMMV. Owen From alex at alexforster.com Thu Jan 28 02:19:11 2016 From: alex at alexforster.com (Alex Forster) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:19:11 +0000 Subject: GitHub outage - idle speculation thread Message-ID: Github has been down for about two hours now. No good public information that I can find so far, except that they mention a "network disruption" in early status updates. However, nothing interesting is showing up in BGPlay (like a shift over to Prolexic due to a DDoS). Their colocation provider is Rackspace, but Rackspace hasn't posted about any wider issues. https://status.github.com/graphs/past_day Alex Forster From shortdudey123 at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 02:28:05 2016 From: shortdudey123 at gmail.com (Grant Ridder) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:28:05 -0800 Subject: GitHub outage - idle speculation thread In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I haven't had any issues w/ push and pull via SSH so far during the outage. Appears to be only HTTP based interactions. -Grant On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Alex Forster wrote: > Github has been down for about two hours now. No good public information > that I can find so far, except that they mention a "network disruption" in > early status updates. However, nothing interesting is showing up in BGPlay > (like a shift over to Prolexic due to a DDoS). Their colocation provider > is Rackspace, but Rackspace hasn't posted about any wider issues. > > https://status.github.com/graphs/past_day > > > Alex Forster > > From nanog at ics-il.net Thu Jan 28 02:40:54 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:40:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: GitHub outage - idle speculation thread In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <608254016.11421.1453948850114.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> It seems to be back now. I can get back to checking out the new version of IXP Manager. :-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Ridder" To: "Alex Forster" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:28:05 PM Subject: Re: GitHub outage - idle speculation thread I haven't had any issues w/ push and pull via SSH so far during the outage. Appears to be only HTTP based interactions. -Grant On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Alex Forster wrote: > Github has been down for about two hours now. No good public information > that I can find so far, except that they mention a "network disruption" in > early status updates. However, nothing interesting is showing up in BGPlay > (like a shift over to Prolexic due to a DDoS). Their colocation provider > is Rackspace, but Rackspace hasn't posted about any wider issues. > > https://status.github.com/graphs/past_day > > > Alex Forster > > From nanog at ics-il.net Thu Jan 28 03:02:16 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:02:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: IX ARP Timeout In-Reply-To: <1241933342.11429.1453949242033.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> So I'm looking at the policies, recommended configurations, etc. of other IXes. We try to model a lot of ourselves on what the Europeans do (even if we come up short in some areas). I was reading through the AMS-IX guide. https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/config-guide#3.1 They recommend a four hour ARP timeout. Thoughts? Seems a bit excessive, but I don't have over 700 networks on my IX. That said, I don't have over 700 members on my IX generating a ton of ARP traffic, so I'm probably fine recommending a smaller value. I understand it's a balance between stale records and ARP volume. Just trying to gauge what the community thinks. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Jan 28 05:52:36 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:52:36 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> Message-ID: <56A9ACA4.80602@seacom.mu> On 28/Jan/16 03:36, Owen DeLong wrote: > I disagree with this last part. > > I realize that the common wisdom among execs at so-called tier-1 providers > is that refusing SFI protects their revenue stream, but I believe it?s not > true. > > In fact, I think that a willingness to peer with your customers and anyone > else on the internet wherever you can do so for very little cost (for example, > where it?s just one more peering session at an IXP, no additional port cost, > circuit, XC, etc.) settlement free can only increase your business. > > IMHO, a truly good tier-1 will charge for transit, set their metrics and > prefs such that their paid ports are preferred over their non-revenue > ports, and provides peer routes only on the SFIs. > > This turns out to be mostly a win-win situation for everyone, including the > tier-1 in the long run. I tend to agree with Owen on this one. We, last year, transitioned from selective to open peering - despite our scope - in the region we serve (primarily Africa). It has only improved the quality of our service (a great deal of Africa still exchanges traffic in Europe), lowered costs, made customers happy and generated a lot of community goodwill. Obviously, we do not provide free transit across SFI ports, and we have practical implementations in place to ensure that we only handle customer traffic through customer-facing links, removing the potential of handling customer traffic through peering links (particularly with customers who are multi-homed to you and another SFI peer of yours). While I do not disagree that larger providers looking to protect their revenues is an economically-sound objective, I think the typical peering policies of old do not entirely hold up in 2016. Mark. From sthaug at nethelp.no Thu Jan 28 07:06:12 2016 From: sthaug at nethelp.no (sthaug at nethelp.no) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:06:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: IX ARP Timeout In-Reply-To: <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1241933342.11429.1453949242033.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <20160128.080612.74693684.sthaug@nethelp.no> > So I'm looking at the policies, recommended configurations, etc. of other IXes. We try to model a lot of ourselves on what the Europeans do (even if we come up short in some areas). I was reading through the AMS-IX guide. > > https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/config-guide#3.1 > > They recommend a four hour ARP timeout. Thoughts? Seems a bit excessive, but I don't have over 700 networks on my IX. That said, I don't have over 700 members on my IX generating a ton of ARP traffic, so I'm probably fine recommending a smaller value. As far as I know 4 hours has been the Cisco IOS default for many years. So you'll find millions of routers around the world with that value. I agree that it may be excessive in some situations. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 28 09:07:06 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:07:06 -0800 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> Message-ID: <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> IPv4 will become a progressively deeper version of hell until we finally turn it off. Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you?re an ISP and you?re not allowing them to reach Netflix via IPv6, then you?re part of the problem rather than the solution. Owen > On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:36 , chris wrote: > > especially if these types of situations are handled on par with the way abuse and spam reports are handled > > customer will report being blocked to netflix, netflix will tell end user to contact isp, customer will call isp and level 1 call center rep will say "we can ping your modem and your service is up we dont see a problem, if you are having a issue with a specific service please contact your service provider" > > and the infinite loop begins, customer gets frustrated, everyone loses > > welcome to hell :) > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 2016, at 07:12 , Jared Mauch > wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Andrey Yakovlev > wrote: > >> > >> One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while on a conference to Europe (same account, different countries). > > > > Hmm, I seem to think this one might be quite common, so perhaps should be tied closer to the device vs account level. > > > > - Jared > > This is all going to get a whole lot more entertaining with the combination of MIP6 and IPv4 CGNAT. > > Owen > > From jwbensley at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 09:11:55 2016 From: jwbensley at gmail.com (James Bensley) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:11:55 +0000 Subject: IX ARP Timeout In-Reply-To: <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1241933342.11429.1453949242033.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: How often does your peering router change IP address? For the majority of people I would expect the answer to be almost nevery/very rarely. James. From savage at savage.za.org Thu Jan 28 09:13:41 2016 From: savage at savage.za.org (Chris Knipe) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:13:41 +0200 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you?re an > ISP and you?re not > allowing them to reach Netflix via IPv6, then you?re part of the problem > rather than the solution. > > Sure. Easy to say when you have access to IPv6, and your transit providers actually PROVIDE IPv6 services. So sick and tired of this IPv6 preaching. There are HUGE obstacles in huge parts of the world preventing the use of IPv6. Simply throwing IPv6 as a solution to absolutely everything, is hardly an solution at all I'm afraid. -- Chris. From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 28 09:16:34 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:16:34 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <56A9ACA4.80602@seacom.mu> References: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> <56A9ACA4.80602@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <720E410F-DB08-47C9-A3BC-5421234C8513@delong.com> > While I do not disagree that larger providers looking to protect their > revenues is an economically-sound objective, I think the typical peering > policies of old do not entirely hold up in 2016. I?m pretty convinced that they never really did. I realize they?ve been popular conventional wisdom for some time now, but that was brought about when Telcos started being the dominant players in the ISP market and I always regarded it as an artifact of ?carrier mentality? where they were so used to the settlement mechanisms of the traditional telephone network. The reality is that the traditional telephone network has been getting slowly superseded by the internet largely because of the differences in the settlement model. If TDM and its settlement model were cheaper than VOIP, there would be little reason to spend money deploying VOIP. Unified communications has some benefits, but not really enough in most real world implementations to overcome the costs if it wasn?t reducing the corporate phone-spend. For many years, telcos tried all kinds of strange things and in some remote regions these are still happening. For example in some places, they sought regulatory protection of their ?right to revenue? for voice calls by actually getting laws against VOIP services and the like. Those laws still exist in some areas and their economies are suffering for it. Bottom line, I?ve never seen a case where any ISP has definitively benefited from a restrictive peering policy. At best, it?s a neutral factor that most people just sort of accept. Routinely, it drives business away from such ISPs towards Tier-2s with good transit relationships and a better peering policy. At worst, I?ve seen it create active bad will in various communities as is the current case with Cogent and is a demonstrable factor in the decline of SPRINT. Owen From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 28 09:20:22 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:20:22 -0800 Subject: IX ARP Timeout In-Reply-To: <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <0B071FBF-1B0A-4A3E-B2E4-81F1118C2BC2@delong.com> Unless your IX has an unusual amount of churn, a four hour timeout really shouldn?t be a problem. Stale records really shouldn?t be a problem as they should get overwritten with gratuitous ARPs when needed. OTOH, having the ARP be somewhat sticky can not only reduce broadcast traffic, but also preserve visibility of what was when trying to troubleshoot. I?m trying to think of a downside to a 400 second ARP timeout for an XP and I guess I?m short of creativity at the moment because I?m coming up blank. Owen > On Jan 27, 2016, at 19:02 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > So I'm looking at the policies, recommended configurations, etc. of other IXes. We try to model a lot of ourselves on what the Europeans do (even if we come up short in some areas). I was reading through the AMS-IX guide. > > https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/config-guide#3.1 > > They recommend a four hour ARP timeout. Thoughts? Seems a bit excessive, but I don't have over 700 networks on my IX. That said, I don't have over 700 members on my IX generating a ton of ARP traffic, so I'm probably fine recommending a smaller value. > > I understand it's a balance between stale records and ARP volume. Just trying to gauge what the community thinks. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com From jerome at ceriz.fr Thu Jan 28 09:44:42 2016 From: jerome at ceriz.fr (=?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=a9r=c3=b4me_Nicolle?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:44:42 +0100 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <56A9E30A.3040405@ceriz.fr> Le 28/01/2016 01:51, Baldur Norddahl a ?crit : > Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it? Why wouldn't you go straight to 10G ? -- J?r?me Nicolle From mansaxel at besserwisser.org Thu Jan 28 10:02:26 2016 From: mansaxel at besserwisser.org (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:02:26 +0100 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> Message-ID: <20160128100226.GF32545@besserwisser.org> Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:36:13PM -0800 Quoting Owen DeLong (owen at delong.com): > > > On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:43 , M?ns Nilsson wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28:01PM +0000 Quoting Brandon Butterworth (brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk): > > > >> tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal. > > > > one does not become a tier 1 by refusing to peer. an actual tier 1 will > > of course most of the time refuse settlement-free interconnection with > > smaller actors to protect their revenue stream, but the traffic volumes > > and short settlement-free paths to large parts of the Internet are what > > make them a tier-1. > > I disagree with this last part. So do I, actually. I was just reporting what Tier-1 operators might feel be good for business. Not that I believe that they're right. -- M?ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 On SECOND thought, maybe I'll heat up some BAKED BEANS and watch REGIS PHILBIN ... It's GREAT to be ALIVE!! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From saku at ytti.fi Thu Jan 28 11:44:28 2016 From: saku at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:44:28 +0200 Subject: IX ARP Timeout In-Reply-To: <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1241933342.11429.1453949242033.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> <662200281.11447.1453950132791.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: Hey, > So I'm looking at the policies, recommended configurations, etc. of other IXes. We try to model a lot of ourselves on what the Europeans do (even if we come up short in some areas). I was reading through the AMS-IX guide. > > https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/config-guide#3.1 > > They recommend a four hour ARP timeout. Thoughts? Seems a bit excessive, but I don't have over 700 networks on my IX. That said, I don't have over 700 members on my IX generating a ton of ARP traffic, so I'm probably fine recommending a smaller value. > > I understand it's a balance between stale records and ARP volume. Just trying to gauge what the community thinks. I don't think it matters much and at any rate you can't enforce it. Someone more relevant is that MAC timeout is greater than ARP timeout. And on IXP even this is not very important, provided no one is static routing. On environments I do control, I tend to configure ARP timeout under 300s, as usually MAC timeouts are 300s. By default Cisco is 4h, JunOS is 20min, Linux is 60s. -- ++ytti From tom at ninjabadger.net Thu Jan 28 13:05:32 2016 From: tom at ninjabadger.net (Tom Hill) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <56A9E30A.3040405@ceriz.fr> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <56A9E30A.3040405@ceriz.fr> Message-ID: <56AA121C.3060609@ninjabadger.net> On 28/01/16 09:44, J?r?me Nicolle wrote: > > Le 28/01/2016 01:51, Baldur Norddahl a ?crit : >> > Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it? > Why wouldn't you go straight to 10G ? The 2.5/5G standards were born *entirely* on the rationale that someone wanted to get more out of the existing Cat5/Cat5e installed in buildings, so yes, you should go to 10G if you're on fibre. :) -- Tom From randy at psg.com Thu Jan 28 13:45:32 2016 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:45:32 +0100 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <20160128100226.GF32545@besserwisser.org> References: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> <20160128100226.GF32545@besserwisser.org> Message-ID: almost all top tier providers have closed peering policies, many outright draconian. folk can rant on nanog all they want if it makes them feel good or self-righteous. won't change a damned thing. bunch of whiners, whining about something that has been a reality for over 20 years and is not about to change. but like spam, nanog bandwidth is cheap. so rant away. randy From baconzombie at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 13:46:33 2016 From: baconzombie at gmail.com (Bacon Zombie) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:46:33 +0100 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> Message-ID: Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? On 28 Jan 2016 10:17, "Chris Knipe" wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you?re an > > ISP and you?re not > > allowing them to reach Netflix via IPv6, then you?re part of the problem > > rather than the solution. > > > > > Sure. Easy to say when you have access to IPv6, and your transit providers > actually PROVIDE IPv6 services. > > So sick and tired of this IPv6 preaching. There are HUGE obstacles in huge > parts of the world preventing the use of IPv6. > > Simply throwing IPv6 as a solution to absolutely everything, is hardly an > solution at all I'm afraid. > > -- > Chris. > From savage at savage.za.org Thu Jan 28 13:48:03 2016 From: savage at savage.za.org (Chris Knipe) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:48:03 +0200 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> Message-ID: Highly unlikely... On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Bacon Zombie wrote: > Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? > On 28 Jan 2016 10:17, "Chris Knipe" wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> > >> > Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you?re >> an >> > ISP and you?re not >> > allowing them to reach Netflix via IPv6, then you?re part of the problem >> > rather than the solution. >> > >> > >> Sure. Easy to say when you have access to IPv6, and your transit >> providers >> actually PROVIDE IPv6 services. >> >> So sick and tired of this IPv6 preaching. There are HUGE obstacles in >> huge >> parts of the world preventing the use of IPv6. >> >> Simply throwing IPv6 as a solution to absolutely everything, is hardly an >> solution at all I'm afraid. >> >> -- >> Chris. >> > -- Regards, Chris Knipe From nanog at ics-il.net Thu Jan 28 13:54:45 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:54:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <21461545.11715.1453989285384.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> It is best start with any before moving to all. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bacon Zombie" To: "Chris Knipe" Cc: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 7:46:33 AM Subject: Re: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? On 28 Jan 2016 10:17, "Chris Knipe" wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you?re an > > ISP and you?re not > > allowing them to reach Netflix via IPv6, then you?re part of the problem > > rather than the solution. > > > > > Sure. Easy to say when you have access to IPv6, and your transit providers > actually PROVIDE IPv6 services. > > So sick and tired of this IPv6 preaching. There are HUGE obstacles in huge > parts of the world preventing the use of IPv6. > > Simply throwing IPv6 as a solution to absolutely everything, is hardly an > solution at all I'm afraid. > > -- > Chris. > From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Jan 28 14:12:24 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:12:24 +0200 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <720E410F-DB08-47C9-A3BC-5421234C8513@delong.com> References: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> <56A9ACA4.80602@seacom.mu> <720E410F-DB08-47C9-A3BC-5421234C8513@delong.com> Message-ID: <56AA21C8.3020000@seacom.mu> On 28/Jan/16 11:16, Owen DeLong wrote: > Bottom line, I?ve never seen a case where any ISP has definitively benefited > from a restrictive peering policy. At best, it?s a neutral factor that most > people just sort of accept. Routinely, it drives business away from such > ISPs towards Tier-2s with good transit relationships and a better peering > policy. At worst, I?ve seen it create active bad will in various communities > as is the current case with Cogent and is a demonstrable factor in the > decline of SPRINT. Agree. Mark. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Jan 28 14:18:58 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:18:58 +0200 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> Message-ID: <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> On 28/Jan/16 15:46, Bacon Zombie wrote: > Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? The number is not non-zero, but it's not worth talking about based on the small sample I did in 2015. Particularly for TV's, software update support goes from trickles to non-existent two years after initial model manufacture. This has been the case with proprietary software. Not sure about more open systems such as WebOS. Mark. From ghankins at mindspring.com Thu Jan 28 14:23:21 2016 From: ghankins at mindspring.com (Greg Hankins) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:23:21 -0500 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> The goals of these BASE-T projects are specifically to extend the life of the large installed base of Cat 5e/6 cabling with higher speeds. I wouldn't expect there to be a fiber interface, because we already have much higher speeds that are supported on MMF/SMF at better costs (ie if you had a fiber cable, would you really want to run 2.5 GE when 10 GE is so affordable now). Anything is possible though, if there is enough demand and a market then someone will make it. Greg -- Greg Hankins -----Original Message----- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:51:06 +0100 From: Baldur Norddahl To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it? Regards Baldur Den 27. jan. 2016 23.00 skrev "Greg Hankins" : > Fortunately the two groups came together in the IEEE, and there are no > competing standards. > > IEEE P802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T Task Force stared in March 2015: > - 2.5GBASE-T: 4 x 625 Mb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling > - 5GBASE-T: 4 x 1.250 Gb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling > - MultiGBASE-T auto-negotiation between 2.5GBASE-T, 5GBASE-T, 10GBASE-T, > 25GBASE-T, 40GBASE-T > - Automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration > - PoE support including IEEE 802.3bt amendment (power over 4 pairs) > - Optional Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) support > - Standard expected in September 2016 > - Interfaces expected on the market in 2016 > - Task Force web page http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/ > > You might have seen my Ethernet speeds presentation... the most recent > one is here: > http://ix.br/pttforum/9/slides/ixbr9-ethernet.pdf (December 2015) > > It's slightly out of date as the IEEE Interim was just last week. > > Greg > > -- > Greg Hankins > > -----Original Message----- > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:45:27 +0000 > From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk > To: Justin Krejci > Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" > Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps > > Hi, > > I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over > cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with > offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e for > these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the wide > popularity of it in many buildings. > > > > Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, > switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? > > well, until the standard is ratified, these Multi-Gig offerings are quite > proprietary.. > > there are 2 competing camps....hopefully they will be compatible and not > end up like beta/vhs once the dust settles > > > camp 1 - http://www.nbaset.org/ > > > camp 2 - http://www.mgbasetalliance.org/ > > > look at those vendors..... I think they hope by avoiding IEEE int he early > stages and taping silicon they'll > get the job done quicker - the drive mainly being faster wireless APs and > cheaper data centre interconnects... > > alan > From list at satchell.net Thu Jan 28 15:27:03 2016 From: list at satchell.net (Stephen Satchell) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:27:03 -0800 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <56AA3347.7070102@satchell.net> It depends on whether the exact model is being sold after a couple of years, and not superseded by new models. This is the case in the wireless router world, where product churn leaves last year's model an orphan when it comes to updates. Not so much in the OS world, only because the OS doesn't churn that quickly. But look at Windows and its history on support being withdrawn long before the product is useless (or the "new" product is worthless, causing people to hang back on upgrades). I shudder to think what will happen when IoT ramps up significantly. Will the stories we hear today about thermostats failing after a botched upgrade continue, or will the vendors get their act together? On 01/28/2016 06:18 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 28/Jan/16 15:46, Bacon Zombie wrote: > >> Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? > > The number is not non-zero, but it's not worth talking about based on > the small sample I did in 2015. > > Particularly for TV's, software update support goes from trickles to > non-existent two years after initial model manufacture. This has been > the case with proprietary software. Not sure about more open systems > such as WebOS. > > Mark. > From baldur.norddahl at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 15:52:59 2016 From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:52:59 +0100 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> Message-ID: The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only useful on fibrechannel ports. It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. Regards, Baldur On 28 January 2016 at 15:23, Greg Hankins wrote: > The goals of these BASE-T projects are specifically to extend the life > of the large installed base of Cat 5e/6 cabling with higher speeds. > I wouldn't expect there to be a fiber interface, because we already have > much higher speeds that are supported on MMF/SMF at better costs (ie if > you had a fiber cable, would you really want to run 2.5 GE when 10 GE > is so affordable now). Anything is possible though, if there is enough > demand and a market then someone will make it. > > Greg > > -- > Greg Hankins > > -----Original Message----- > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:51:06 +0100 > From: Baldur Norddahl > To: nanog at nanog.org > Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps > > Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it? > > Regards > > Baldur > Den 27. jan. 2016 23.00 skrev "Greg Hankins" : > > > Fortunately the two groups came together in the IEEE, and there are no > > competing standards. > > > > IEEE P802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T Task Force stared in March 2015: > > - 2.5GBASE-T: 4 x 625 Mb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) > > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling > > - 5GBASE-T: 4 x 1.250 Gb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) > > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling > > - MultiGBASE-T auto-negotiation between 2.5GBASE-T, 5GBASE-T, 10GBASE-T, > > 25GBASE-T, 40GBASE-T > > - Automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration > > - PoE support including IEEE 802.3bt amendment (power over 4 pairs) > > - Optional Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) support > > - Standard expected in September 2016 > > - Interfaces expected on the market in 2016 > > - Task Force web page http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/ > > > > You might have seen my Ethernet speeds presentation... the most recent > > one is here: > > http://ix.br/pttforum/9/slides/ixbr9-ethernet.pdf (December 2015) > > > > It's slightly out of date as the IEEE Interim was just last week. > > > > Greg > > > > -- > > Greg Hankins > > > > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:45:27 +0000 > > From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk > > To: Justin Krejci > > Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" > > Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps > > > > Hi, > > > I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over > > cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with > > offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e for > > these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the > wide > > popularity of it in many buildings. > > > > > > Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, > > switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? > > > > well, until the standard is ratified, these Multi-Gig offerings are quite > > proprietary.. > > > > there are 2 competing camps....hopefully they will be compatible and not > > end up like beta/vhs once the dust settles > > > > > > camp 1 - http://www.nbaset.org/ > > > > > > camp 2 - http://www.mgbasetalliance.org/ > > > > > > look at those vendors..... I think they hope by avoiding IEEE int he > early > > stages and taping silicon they'll > > get the job done quicker - the drive mainly being faster wireless APs and > > cheaper data centre interconnects... > > > > alan > > > From josh at kyneticwifi.com Thu Jan 28 16:08:06 2016 From: josh at kyneticwifi.com (Josh Reynolds) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:08:06 -0600 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> Message-ID: You're buying your switches and optics in the wrong places. An SFP+ 10K w/ DOM is running me a little under $34. An SFP+ port runs me slightly over $102. (Juniper) On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the > equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. > > 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that > ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only > useful on fibrechannel ports. > > It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP > instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. > > Regards, > > Baldur > > > > > On 28 January 2016 at 15:23, Greg Hankins wrote: > >> The goals of these BASE-T projects are specifically to extend the life >> of the large installed base of Cat 5e/6 cabling with higher speeds. >> I wouldn't expect there to be a fiber interface, because we already have >> much higher speeds that are supported on MMF/SMF at better costs (ie if >> you had a fiber cable, would you really want to run 2.5 GE when 10 GE >> is so affordable now). Anything is possible though, if there is enough >> demand and a market then someone will make it. >> >> Greg >> >> -- >> Greg Hankins >> >> -----Original Message----- >> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:51:06 +0100 >> From: Baldur Norddahl >> To: nanog at nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps >> >> Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it? >> >> Regards >> >> Baldur >> Den 27. jan. 2016 23.00 skrev "Greg Hankins" : >> >> > Fortunately the two groups came together in the IEEE, and there are no >> > competing standards. >> > >> > IEEE P802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T Task Force stared in March 2015: >> > - 2.5GBASE-T: 4 x 625 Mb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) >> > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling >> > - 5GBASE-T: 4 x 1.250 Gb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 (Class E) >> > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling >> > - MultiGBASE-T auto-negotiation between 2.5GBASE-T, 5GBASE-T, 10GBASE-T, >> > 25GBASE-T, 40GBASE-T >> > - Automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration >> > - PoE support including IEEE 802.3bt amendment (power over 4 pairs) >> > - Optional Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) support >> > - Standard expected in September 2016 >> > - Interfaces expected on the market in 2016 >> > - Task Force web page http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/ >> > >> > You might have seen my Ethernet speeds presentation... the most recent >> > one is here: >> > http://ix.br/pttforum/9/slides/ixbr9-ethernet.pdf (December 2015) >> > >> > It's slightly out of date as the IEEE Interim was just last week. >> > >> > Greg >> > >> > -- >> > Greg Hankins >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:45:27 +0000 >> > From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk >> > To: Justin Krejci >> > Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" >> > Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps >> > >> > Hi, >> > > I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over >> > cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with >> > offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e for >> > these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the >> wide >> > popularity of it in many buildings. >> > > >> > > Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, >> > switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? >> > >> > well, until the standard is ratified, these Multi-Gig offerings are quite >> > proprietary.. >> > >> > there are 2 competing camps....hopefully they will be compatible and not >> > end up like beta/vhs once the dust settles >> > >> > >> > camp 1 - http://www.nbaset.org/ >> > >> > >> > camp 2 - http://www.mgbasetalliance.org/ >> > >> > >> > look at those vendors..... I think they hope by avoiding IEEE int he >> early >> > stages and taping silicon they'll >> > get the job done quicker - the drive mainly being faster wireless APs and >> > cheaper data centre interconnects... >> > >> > alan >> > >> From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Thu Jan 28 16:10:44 2016 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:10:44 GMT Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps Message-ID: <201601281610.QAA28191@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the > equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. I never saw many cheap 48port 1U sfp switches as people bought copper at that speed so the ones that were around were relatively expensive. With 10G it's been the opposite, nobody was using copper so SFP+ is cheap. Only recently has copper 10G started to become common, a bit too late to be worth bothering with now and as there are no copper SFP+ Having new servers switch to copper instead of sfp is a nuisance Optic price depends on volume, 10G are cheap now so 1G being the old line that's about to become rare are dirt cheap. > 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that > ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. Yes, they likely need new chips so may end up closer to 10G switch price > It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP > instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. I disagree, stick to 10G get the volume up and hence price down. Splitting the market enables the market to be tiered to keep some prices higher than they might have been. Same needs to happen with mm fibre, stop buying that junk and make SM even cheaper. brandon From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Jan 28 16:23:44 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:23:44 +0200 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <56AA3347.7070102@satchell.net> References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> <56AA3347.7070102@satchell.net> Message-ID: <56AA4090.9000807@seacom.mu> On 28/Jan/16 17:27, Stephen Satchell wrote: > It depends on whether the exact model is being sold after a couple of > years, and not superseded by new models. This is the case in the > wireless router world, where product churn leaves last year's model an > orphan when it comes to updates. Display manufacturers are pushing new products every year. A product you buy today will be reasonably obsolete 24x months later (by obsolete I mostly mean no more software updates for it). The hope is that if display manufacturers move to more a "common" OS platform, then feature support such as IPv6 and others could be supported on "obsolete" models as long as newer releases of the OS still support the hardware in the older displays (depending on the level of independence between the OS and the hardware vendor, or the openness of the hardware vendor to allow users do what they please with supported OS's). For now, that looks like WebOS, Tizen, e.t.c. Devices that last a little longer (such as game consoles) will receive major updates in the first few years of sale. When the next gaming console is released, the older ones will still be relevant, but then updates will taper to useless things like "disabling of this with Facebook" or "changed the default splash screen". Nothing to improve the fundamental usability of the actual device such as IPv6. > > Not so much in the OS world, only because the OS doesn't churn that > quickly. But look at Windows and its history on support being > withdrawn long before the product is useless (or the "new" product is > worthless, causing people to hang back on upgrades). True, but with Windows, you don't have to change your computer in order to support the newer features. You just have to upgrade to the newer Windows release. My home PC which I bought in 2008 when Windows XP was the thing is now running Windows 10, happily, with full IPv6 support. You can't say the same for hardware made with proprietary OS's that will not get future support because newer hardware is now shipping. Much like the majority of TV's today, as well as the home CPE's you speak of. Mark. From mcn4 at leicester.ac.uk Thu Jan 28 16:42:43 2016 From: mcn4 at leicester.ac.uk (Matthew Newton) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:42:43 +0000 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20160128164243.GE27387@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk> Hi, On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:52:59PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the > equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. > > 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that > ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only > useful on fibrechannel ports. > > It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP > instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. The issue that causes the need for 2.5 and 4Gbps is older cable (cat5) that can't do anything faster, not the switches. You still need to replace the switches to use the faster speeds. This isn't the same issue with fibre, which can already support 10Gbps+. So it's the same difference. Upgrade switch on copper to go from 1 to 2.5/4 Gbps; upgrade switch on fibre to go from 1 to 10Gbps. The only possibility is if you got a 2.5/4Gbps SFP that would work in a current generation switch. I very much doubt that's going to work (but happy to be proven wrong by those in the know). In my experience 10Gbps switches now cost about the same as 1Gbps switches did a few years ago, so it's only the optics that are pricey. Unless you get them from one of the many cheap suppliers around, in which case there's essentially no difference in cost. Cheers, Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, From tmorizot at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 16:50:15 2016 From: tmorizot at gmail.com (Scott Morizot) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:50:15 -0600 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2016 08:21, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > On 28/Jan/16 15:46, Bacon Zombie wrote: > > > Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? > > The number is not non-zero, but it's not worth talking about based on > the small sample I did in 2015. I'm curious how you conducted this sample. I happened to have set up a number of Smart TVs at home and for extended family over the past couple of years. They've all supported IPv6 out of the box. It's not a 'feature' any of them listed on their feature list. It was just part of their networking. My home is IPv6 enabled and my TVs are running it just fine. My personal, purely anecdotal experience is limited to Sony, Samsung, and LG smart TVs. But that's a much larger than simply 'non-zero' segment of the smart TV market. And smart TVs as a category aren't all that old. Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6? Scott From todd.crane at n5tech.com Thu Jan 28 17:05:52 2016 From: todd.crane at n5tech.com (Crane, Todd) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:05:52 -0700 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: If we are still talking about Netflix issues, eventually many of the issues will sort themselves out. As more and more "smart" devices are IPv6 enabled, IPv4 only devices will become rarer and rarer. Thus the CGNAT pools will be shared by less and less accounts. Then again... we may run into the issue Apple ran into with the iPads. They made iPads such that there was no good reason to upgrade. Now 5+ years later, you have a lot of original iPads running around. Imagine the issues if EoL'ed and EoS'ed those iPads. On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Scott Morizot wrote: > On Jan 28, 2016 08:21, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > On 28/Jan/16 15:46, Bacon Zombie wrote: > > > > > Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? > > > > The number is not non-zero, but it's not worth talking about based on > > the small sample I did in 2015. > > I'm curious how you conducted this sample. I happened to have set up a > number of Smart TVs at home and for extended family over the past couple of > years. They've all supported IPv6 out of the box. It's not a 'feature' any > of them listed on their feature list. It was just part of their networking. > My home is IPv6 enabled and my TVs are running it just fine. > > My personal, purely anecdotal experience is limited to Sony, Samsung, and > LG smart TVs. But that's a much larger than simply 'non-zero' segment of > the smart TV market. And smart TVs as a category aren't all that old. > > Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6? > > Scott > From rdobbins at arbor.net Thu Jan 28 17:29:40 2016 From: rdobbins at arbor.net (Roland Dobbins) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:29:40 +0700 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <4BEAD18F-DB92-4E38-A439-32E94D5E876B@arbor.net> On 29 Jan 2016, at 0:05, Crane, Todd wrote: > Imagine the issues if EoL'ed and EoS'ed those iPads. Um, I think they are . . . ----------------------------------- Roland Dobbins From damian at google.com Thu Jan 28 17:33:02 2016 From: damian at google.com (Damian Menscher) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:33:02 -0800 Subject: Google Contact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, James Downs wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 09:40, Adam Loveless > wrote: > > > > Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address > space > > has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them > now. > Blacklisting IP space is rare (blocks will expire), but sometimes if abuse is seen from a broad range of IPs they can all be blocked (to handle hosting providers that give customers lots of IPs). Is that the capture that happens in front of certain websites? I had that > happen for two totally unrelated IP blocks. They eventually cleared within > a day or two, but I think they?re having problems with the detection > systems. The detection systems are working as intended. The captcha also didn?t work right for the site I was trying to access > (hackernews). > Please send details off-list including: URL, timestamp, source IP, observed behavior, and anything unusual about your setup (like disabling cookies). Damian From nanog at ics-il.net Thu Jan 28 17:40:29 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:40:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1117917562.12119.1454002827658.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so many TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Crane" To: "Scott Morizot" Cc: "NANOG list" Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 11:05:52 AM Subject: Re: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? If we are still talking about Netflix issues, eventually many of the issues will sort themselves out. As more and more "smart" devices are IPv6 enabled, IPv4 only devices will become rarer and rarer. Thus the CGNAT pools will be shared by less and less accounts. Then again... we may run into the issue Apple ran into with the iPads. They made iPads such that there was no good reason to upgrade. Now 5+ years later, you have a lot of original iPads running around. Imagine the issues if EoL'ed and EoS'ed those iPads. On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Scott Morizot wrote: > On Jan 28, 2016 08:21, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > On 28/Jan/16 15:46, Bacon Zombie wrote: > > > > > Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? > > > > The number is not non-zero, but it's not worth talking about based on > > the small sample I did in 2015. > > I'm curious how you conducted this sample. I happened to have set up a > number of Smart TVs at home and for extended family over the past couple of > years. They've all supported IPv6 out of the box. It's not a 'feature' any > of them listed on their feature list. It was just part of their networking. > My home is IPv6 enabled and my TVs are running it just fine. > > My personal, purely anecdotal experience is limited to Sony, Samsung, and > LG smart TVs. But that's a much larger than simply 'non-zero' segment of > the smart TV market. And smart TVs as a category aren't all that old. > > Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6? > > Scott > From savage at savage.za.org Thu Jan 28 17:45:34 2016 From: savage at savage.za.org (Chris Knipe) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:45:34 +0200 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <1117917562.12119.1454002827658.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <1117917562.12119.1454002827658.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so > many TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware. > > Well the TV is also meaningless if the CPE, and (at the very least) service provider don't support IPv6. And yes, that is unfortunately reality. If you look beyond the US and EU, and maybe Brazil, the rest of the world, unfortunately, is FAR from IPv6 adoption, and that *is* reality. Hence my initial comments... It's going to be many more years, before IPv6 is the "fix" for any real problems currently experienced with IPv4. Sad, but unfortunately, true. -- Chris. From yang.yu.list at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 18:07:16 2016 From: yang.yu.list at gmail.com (Yang Yu) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:07:16 -0600 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <201601281610.QAA28191@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201601281610.QAA28191@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > With 10G it's been the opposite, nobody was using copper so SFP+ is > cheap. Only recently has copper 10G started to become common, a bit too > late to be worth bothering with now and as there are no copper SFP+ > Having new servers switch to copper instead of sfp is a nuisance SFP+ Copper Twinax is another option for 10G to save on the transceivers From tmorizot at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 18:12:15 2016 From: tmorizot at gmail.com (Scott Morizot) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:12:15 -0600 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <1117917562.12119.1454002827658.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: Well, I live in the US and this is a North American specific list (NANOG) and IPv6 is the resolution of those issues for us. I'm not particularly familiar with the state of networking in the rest of the world, so have no idea how much of an issue it is for them. And yes, TVs stick around for a long time, but Smart TV (the kind that does its own streaming) is relatively new category. I haven't personally encountered one that doesn't do IPv6. I'm sure there are some models that don't, but I'm wondering if there's any actual data available on that question. On Jan 28, 2016 11:46, "Chris Knipe" wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > > There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so > > many TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware. > > > > > Well the TV is also meaningless if the CPE, and (at the very least) service > provider don't support IPv6. And yes, that is unfortunately reality. If > you look beyond the US and EU, and maybe Brazil, the rest of the world, > unfortunately, is FAR from IPv6 adoption, and that *is* reality. > > Hence my initial comments... It's going to be many more years, before IPv6 > is the "fix" for any real problems currently experienced with IPv4. Sad, > but unfortunately, true. > > -- > Chris. > From swmike at swm.pp.se Thu Jan 28 18:27:07 2016 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:27:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Scott Morizot wrote: > Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6? I just checked a Samsung "smart TV", it's new enough to have 5GHz wifi, I believe the model is 3 years old. http://specsen.com/televisions-samsung/samsung-ue55es6535/ There is no sight of any IPv6 anything in the setup menus, it only displays IPv4 information etc. It's smart enough to support Skype, Youtube and so on, but not smart enough to support IPv6. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From rcarpen at network1.net Thu Jan 28 18:29:54 2016 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:29:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, but I can't imagine what you could be talking about for $102/port. I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You can't even get a 24-port 1GbE for that. thanks, -Randy ----- On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds josh at kyneticwifi.com wrote: > You're buying your switches and optics in the wrong places. > > An SFP+ 10K w/ DOM is running me a little under $34. An SFP+ port runs > me slightly over $102. (Juniper) > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: >> The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the >> equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. >> >> 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that >> ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only >> useful on fibrechannel ports. >> >> It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP >> instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. >> >> Regards, >> >> Baldur From nanog at ics-il.net Thu Jan 28 18:33:14 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:33:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> Message-ID: <1252869884.12413.1454005991807.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Used? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Carpenter" To: "Josh Reynolds" Cc: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:29:54 PM Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, but I can't imagine what you could be talking about for $102/port. I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You can't even get a 24-port 1GbE for that. thanks, -Randy ----- On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds josh at kyneticwifi.com wrote: > You're buying your switches and optics in the wrong places. > > An SFP+ 10K w/ DOM is running me a little under $34. An SFP+ port runs > me slightly over $102. (Juniper) > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: >> The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the >> equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. >> >> 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that >> ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only >> useful on fibrechannel ports. >> >> It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP >> instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. >> >> Regards, >> >> Baldur From mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com Thu Jan 28 18:35:55 2016 From: mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:35:55 -0800 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> Message-ID: <56AA5F8B.5020901@tiedyenetworks.com> On 01/28/2016 10:29 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, but I can't imagine what you could be talking about for $102/port. > > I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You can't even get a 24-port 1GbE for that. +1, me too! From joelja at bogus.com Thu Jan 28 18:39:23 2016 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:39:23 -0800 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> Message-ID: <56AA605B.1040501@bogus.com> On 1/28/16 10:29 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per > 10GbE port and where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch > is the EX4600, which lists at more like $850 per port. You can get > higher-end ones with much larger port counts and get the cost/port > down to about half that, but I can't imagine what you could be > talking about for $102/port. > > I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You > can't even get a 24-port 1GbE for that. a single asic trident+ switch with 56 10Gb/s ports is in the neighborhood of 5k, less in volume... trident 2 is more. lopping ports off doesn't make the asic any cheaper. > thanks, -Randy > > > > ----- On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds > josh at kyneticwifi.com wrote: > >> You're buying your switches and optics in the wrong places. >> >> An SFP+ 10K w/ DOM is running me a little under $34. An SFP+ port >> runs me slightly over $102. (Juniper) >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Baldur Norddahl >> wrote: >>> The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of >>> the equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true >>> for the optics. >>> >>> 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just >>> that ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. >>> So it is only useful on fibrechannel ports. >>> >>> It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet >>> on SFP instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Baldur > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 229 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 28 18:40:05 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:40:05 -0800 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> Message-ID: <23868B00-F7D5-44BC-BB35-3EC37717D420@delong.com> > On Jan 28, 2016, at 05:46 , Bacon Zombie wrote: > > Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? > Sadly, hardly any so far. A few models from Sony is all so far to the best of my knowledge. However, there is effort continuing on that front and my hat?s off to JJB from Comcast for his effective efforts in this regard. I?ve made some efforts and ARIN has made several efforts as well. The situation is slowly getting better. I believe IPv6 support will be coming to Apple TV soon. I don?t know what the plans (if any) are at TiVO. I?m overdue to hammer on them again. > On 28 Jan 2016 10:17, "Chris Knipe" > wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > > > Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you?re an > > ISP and you?re not > > allowing them to reach Netflix via IPv6, then you?re part of the problem > > rather than the solution. > > > > > Sure. Easy to say when you have access to IPv6, and your transit providers > actually PROVIDE IPv6 services. If you are subscribing to transit providers that don?t provide IPv6, then you should be doing something about that. It?s not like there are no transit providers in ZA that support IPv6. I know for a fact that at least Liquid can deliver IPv6 there. I suspect there are others as well. > So sick and tired of this IPv6 preaching. There are HUGE obstacles in huge > parts of the world preventing the use of IPv6. Such as? The only way this gets better is if we actually start taking actions to knock those obstacles down. I?ve done that in lots of places. I?ll continue to do so where I can. There are huge obstacles coming to continuing to use IPv4, too. The difference is that we _CAN_ overcome the obstacles to IPv6 deployment. IPv4 has no such hope. > Simply throwing IPv6 as a solution to absolutely everything, is hardly an > solution at all I'm afraid. IPv6 doesn?t solve everything. It solves the shortage of addresses and allows us to side-step the problems with IPv4 CGN and certain other issues that arise as a result of address shortages in IPv4. I?ve never suggested that IPv6 is a solution to anything other than this specific set of problems. However, the set of problems being discussed in this thread does seem to specifically relate to that particular issue. Owen From swmike at swm.pp.se Thu Jan 28 18:53:31 2016 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:53:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: <23868B00-F7D5-44BC-BB35-3EC37717D420@delong.com> References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <23868B00-F7D5-44BC-BB35-3EC37717D420@delong.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: > I believe IPv6 support will be coming to Apple TV soon. I don?t know > what the plans (if any) are at TiVO. I?m overdue to hammer on them > again. Apple TV has had support for IPv6, at least my ATV3 has that. Enough support to confuse the hell out of Netflix GeoIP when some connections came from a swedish IPv4 address and some came from HE IPv6 space that geoIPed to the US for some reason. This was 6+ months ago. I had my space "fixed" by means of someone reporting it manually to their GeoIP provider which seems to have fixed Netflix as well. Haven't had any problems since. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Thu Jan 28 18:57:10 2016 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:57:10 GMT Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps Message-ID: <201601281857.SAA14720@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > > With 10G it's been the opposite, nobody was using copper so SFP+ is > > cheap. Only recently has copper 10G started to become common, a bit too > > late to be worth bothering with now and as there are no copper SFP+ > > Having new servers switch to copper instead of sfp is a nuisance > > SFP+ Copper Twinax is another option for 10G to save on the transceivers I should have been more precise with terms. The context here is doing less than 10G to support old cat5/6 installations. I didn't mention Twinax as if you could use that you'd not need a 2.5 or 5g standard nor have a problem with recent servers coming with 10GbaseT instead of sfp+ when all your previous ones are connected to a SFP+ only switch with fibre or twinax cables. brandon From rcarpen at network1.net Thu Jan 28 19:13:58 2016 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:13:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> Message-ID: <1126053333.347948.1454008438827.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> I wouldn't say that used or grey market really count as viable options. If we count that, I can get 1GbE for free. The reality is that for a unit that is supported (both software releases and warranty) properly for deployment in mission critical situations, 10GbE costs ~10x 1GbE. While the options you mention have their place, I would not say that any of them are "supported properly" The ubiquiti unit would be very interesting to see, but the lack of support structure would steer me away for anything mission critical. Might be great for test-bed or home use, though. Back on the original topic, I could certainly see a potential for 2.5 or 5 GbE (even optical) if the pricing was better than 10GbE. My guess is that by the time 2.5/5 is really available, 10GbE will be enough more affordable to skip over the 2.5/5 stuff. thanks, -Randy ----- On Jan 28, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Josh Reynolds josh at kyneticwifi.com wrote: > EX4500 runs me about $3200-3600 on the gray market, with 2 AC power > supplies and licensing for MPLS. > > Working SFP+ optics from fiberstore.com from $6 on up. > > Also Quanta BMS T3048-LY8 w/ Cumulus Linux, between $3,800-$4,500. > > Ubiquiti is also working on releasing a 12 port SFP+ with 4x10GBaseT, > pricing will be very low. > > It's out there, you just have to look for it. > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: >> >> I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and >> where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which >> lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger >> port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, but I can't imagine >> what you could be talking about for $102/port. >> >> I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You can't even get >> a 24-port 1GbE for that. >> >> thanks, >> -Randy >> >> >> >> ----- On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds josh at kyneticwifi.com wrote: >> >>> You're buying your switches and optics in the wrong places. >>> >>> An SFP+ 10K w/ DOM is running me a little under $34. An SFP+ port runs >>> me slightly over $102. (Juniper) >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Baldur Norddahl >>> wrote: >>>> The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the >>>> equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. >>>> >>>> 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that >>>> ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only >>>> useful on fibrechannel ports. >>>> >>>> It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP >>>> instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> > >>> Baldur From A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk Thu Jan 28 19:25:18 2016 From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk (Alan Buxey) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:25:18 +0000 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <1126053333.347948.1454008438827.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> <1126053333.347948.1454008438827.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> Message-ID: Um. You don't have an option for old copper plants. This stuff gives you 2.5gig or 5gig on cat5/cat5e (depending on distance). If you can do 10g you really shouldn't be carrying about this stuff. In the optical world just jump to using 10Gig (where you can) alan From jason+nanog at lixfeld.ca Thu Jan 28 19:44:03 2016 From: jason+nanog at lixfeld.ca (Jason Lixfeld) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:44:03 -0500 Subject: BCM SOC based IPTV STBs Message-ID: Howdy, What are folks using for BCM SOC (7424 gen, or newer) based IPTV STBs?[1] I?m looking for something pretty simple - HDMI, S/PDIF (optical and 1/8? digital coax) and an Ethernet port is all I?m really interested in. No RCA audio, component video or Wifi. Nice and simple. If GreenPeak RF4CE were baked in, that?d be cool too. Informir and Airties have some interesting stuff, but I?m curious as to what other are using. Thanks in advance. [1] I?m assuming that *IP*TV based discussion is considered relevant conversation? If not, forgive the intrusion, but I?d welcome any pointers on where one might go to discuss this sort of thing if this is considered off-topic. From tmorizot at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 20:15:15 2016 From: tmorizot at gmail.com (Scott Morizot) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:15:15 -0600 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2016 12:27, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Scott Morizot wrote: > >> Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6? > > > I just checked a Samsung "smart TV", it's new enough to have 5GHz wifi, I believe the model is 3 years old. > I must have just lucked out on the Sony and LG TVs I bought (2014 and 2015). IPv6 was not one of my purchasing criteria. It was just a pleasant surprise. I could have sworn the two Samsung TVs I set up for extended family last year had IPv6 options, but they didn't have v6 running on their home networks, so I didn't pay that much attention. An odd coincidence, though, especially if most brands/models still don't support v6. Scott From Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com Thu Jan 28 21:13:43 2016 From: Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com (Steve Mikulasik) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:13:43 +0000 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: How is IPv6 adoption in Korean and Japan? Maybe that would push these vendors to care more if it impacted them where they lived. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Scott Morizot Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:15 PM To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? On Jan 28, 2016 12:27, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Scott Morizot wrote: > >> Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6? > > > I just checked a Samsung "smart TV", it's new enough to have 5GHz > wifi, I believe the model is 3 years old. > I must have just lucked out on the Sony and LG TVs I bought (2014 and 2015). IPv6 was not one of my purchasing criteria. It was just a pleasant surprise. I could have sworn the two Samsung TVs I set up for extended family last year had IPv6 options, but they didn't have v6 running on their home networks, so I didn't pay that much attention. An odd coincidence, though, especially if most brands/models still don't support v6. Scott From Chris.Adams at ung.edu Thu Jan 28 21:27:00 2016 From: Chris.Adams at ung.edu (Chris Adams (IT)) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:27:00 +0000 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> <56AA2352.80908@seacom.mu> Message-ID: If you feel that Google's IPV6 statistics are accurate, this provides a view: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption Japan: 9.49% South Korea: 1.96% Both of which are significantly better than North Korea's adoption rate of 0% Chris -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:14 PM To: NANOG list Subject: RE: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? How is IPv6 adoption in Korean and Japan? Maybe that would push these vendors to care more if it impacted them where they lived. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Scott Morizot Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:15 PM To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? On Jan 28, 2016 12:27, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Scott Morizot wrote: > >> Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6? > > > I just checked a Samsung "smart TV", it's new enough to have 5GHz > wifi, I believe the model is 3 years old. > I must have just lucked out on the Sony and LG TVs I bought (2014 and 2015). IPv6 was not one of my purchasing criteria. It was just a pleasant surprise. I could have sworn the two Samsung TVs I set up for extended family last year had IPv6 options, but they didn't have v6 running on their home networks, so I didn't pay that much attention. An odd coincidence, though, especially if most brands/models still don't support v6. Scott -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4805 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 28 22:17:46 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:17:46 -0800 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <1117917562.12119.1454002827658.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: > On Jan 28, 2016, at 09:45 , Chris Knipe wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so >> many TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware. >> >> > Well the TV is also meaningless if the CPE, and (at the very least) service > provider don't support IPv6. And yes, that is unfortunately reality. If > you look beyond the US and EU, and maybe Brazil, the rest of the world, > unfortunately, is FAR from IPv6 adoption, and that *is* reality. Not so much as you claim? It?s true that Africa, middle east, and Russia are in a horrible state. It?s true that India IPv6 deployment is non-existant. However, Canada, Japan, Indonesia and Malaysia have significant IPv6 deployment. China has some (thought not as much as we would all like. Ecuador is doing quite well. Peru has good penetration, but their IPv6 is about as reliable as their IPv4. > Hence my initial comments... It's going to be many more years, before IPv6 > is the "fix" for any real problems currently experienced with IPv4. Sad, > but unfortunately, true. I think that the adoption rate in those places will accelerate rather quickly as the true cost of maintaining IPv4 becomes more visible to them. In the US, for example, there were several small deployments at first, then, after trials and such, Comcast and several other large providers went from very little deployment to general availability to nearly 100% of their customers within a few months. I don?t see any reason that can?t happen elsewhere. Especially as the path to IPv6 deployment is becoming more and more well known and more and more experience is shared among operators and technicians. Owen From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Thu Jan 28 22:22:40 2016 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:22:40 -0500 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: References: <457761453854814@web7o.yandex.ru> <8517618C-F270-4D7C-8E02-130E356BAB55@puck.nether.net> <7B33FFBE-A284-4E74-907B-B1FEDCB92632@delong.com> <35163325-7FC6-4610-8CEF-976AE8431A78@delong.com> Message-ID: <201128.1454019760@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:46:33 +0100, Bacon Zombie said: > Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box? Specific data points: The PS/3 and PS/4 consoles do *not* do so. My Vizio TV also apparently does not - it *does* dhcp for an ipv4, but does naught that produces an entry in 'ip neighbor show' on my router on the ipv6 side. I found a Microsoft document that says the Xbox/360 does not do IPv6, but the Xbox One does: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/hh994905.aspx That's a lot of legacy consoles. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marka at isc.org Thu Jan 28 22:31:03 2016 From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:31:03 +1100 Subject: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:45:34 +0200." References: <1117917562.12119.1454002827658.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <20160128223104.176614105CB8@rock.dv.isc.org> In message , Chris Knipe writes: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > > There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so > > many TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware. > > Well the TV is also meaningless if the CPE, and (at the very least) service > provider don't support IPv6. And yes, that is unfortunately reality. If > you look beyond the US and EU, and maybe Brazil, the rest of the world, > unfortunately, is FAR from IPv6 adoption, and that *is* reality. $CPE << $TV and CPE are easily replaced with one that supports IPv6 even if it is only via a tunnel initially while you wait for the ISP to deliver IPv6 natively. So requesting IPv6 support in the TV isn't meaningless. The TV will also most probably still be in use when the ISP finally delivers IPv6. Having the devices in the home support IPv6 before the ISP does is how we get 50+% IPv6 traffic the moment the ISP switches on IPv6 / CPE is replaced with one that supports IPv6. The world is waiting for the ISP's to get off their collective backsides and deliver IPv6. > Hence my initial comments... It's going to be many more years, before IPv6 > is the "fix" for any real problems currently experienced with IPv4. Sad, > but unfortunately, true. It will only be years if the ISP's let it be years. Your cell phones support IPv6, your desktop/laptop supports IPv6, increasing numbers of TVs, game devices, printers all support IPv6. If random IoT doesn't support IPv6 DON'T BUY IT and complain to the sales person that it doesn't support IPv6. Getting IPv6 support doesn't cost anymore, it just requires one to be a little choosy. > -- > Chris. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org From bill at herrin.us Thu Jan 28 23:25:47 2016 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:25:47 -0500 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: References: <201601221228.MAA12225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160127224320.GE32545@besserwisser.org> <20160128100226.GF32545@besserwisser.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > folk can rant on nanog all they want if it > makes them feel good or self-righteous. Hi Randy, It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous. > won't change a damned thing. Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that they're not terribly far from concluding that closed peering policies are anti-competitive. When I have such impressions I'm usually off by years. Still, it would be nice if just once an industry cleaned itself up -before- regulators forced the issue. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From nanog at ics-il.net Fri Jan 29 02:01:11 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:01:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <418446062.13084.1454032867016.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Nothing says a better Internet than one the government pokes their nose around in. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" To: "Randy Bush" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:25:47 PM Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > folk can rant on nanog all they want if it > makes them feel good or self-righteous. Hi Randy, It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous. > won't change a damned thing. Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that they're not terribly far from concluding that closed peering policies are anti-competitive. When I have such impressions I'm usually off by years. Still, it would be nice if just once an industry cleaned itself up -before- regulators forced the issue. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 29 02:04:44 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:04:44 -0800 Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it In-Reply-To: <418446062.13084.1454032867016.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <418446062.13084.1454032867016.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <241F0A5E-A5AC-443B-B821-707BB6323280@delong.com> Sadly, the law firms with big routers seem to prefer a regulatory environment that they can manipulate, so it?s a tough situation to achieve a good outcome. They are the ones that are blocking the industry from arriving at a good outcome without regulation and they will likely be the ones driving regulation in ridiculous directions away from good outcomes once we start to see regulation. The way lawyers redefine terms and obfuscate to make regulations say what they want instead of what any normal person would think they actually say is truly impressive. Owen > On Jan 28, 2016, at 18:01 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > Nothing says a better Internet than one the government pokes their nose around in. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "William Herrin" > To: "Randy Bush" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:25:47 PM > Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> folk can rant on nanog all they want if it >> makes them feel good or self-righteous. > > Hi Randy, > > It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous. > >> won't change a damned thing. > > Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that they're not > terribly far from concluding that closed peering policies are > anti-competitive. When I have such impressions I'm usually off by > years. Still, it would be nice if just once an industry cleaned itself > up -before- regulators forced the issue. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com Fri Jan 29 04:05:36 2016 From: mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:05:36 -0800 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: <56AAE510.9040405@tiedyenetworks.com> On 1/27/16, 12:42 PM, mike.lyon at gmail.com wrote: > Doesnt the packetflux sitemonitor generator controller do that? > > I have packetflux deployed and find it buggy and of little actual value, im sorry I spent the money. From nanog at ics-il.net Fri Jan 29 04:19:23 2016 From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:19:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: <56AAE510.9040405@tiedyenetworks.com> Message-ID: <706613223.13236.1454041161595.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> have you reached out to support? I wish all vendors stood behind their products as much as Forest does. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike" To: nanog at nanog.org Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 10:05:36 PM Subject: Re: small automatic transfer switches On 1/27/16, 12:42 PM, mike.lyon at gmail.com wrote: > Doesnt the packetflux sitemonitor generator controller do that? > > I have packetflux deployed and find it buggy and of little actual value, im sorry I spent the money. From mike.lyon at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 04:23:36 2016 From: mike.lyon at gmail.com (mike.lyon at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:23:36 -0800 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: <706613223.13236.1454041161595.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> References: <706613223.13236.1454041161595.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Message-ID: <2F4B5714-A1A9-44AE-AAE6-926A9E0EF618@gmail.com> I love mine, i have them deployed at all my sites. -Mike > On Jan 28, 2016, at 20:19, Mike Hammett wrote: > > have you reached out to support? I wish all vendors stood behind their products as much as Forest does. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike" > To: nanog at nanog.org > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 10:05:36 PM > Subject: Re: small automatic transfer switches > > >> On 1/27/16, 12:42 PM, mike.lyon at gmail.com wrote: >> Doesnt the packetflux sitemonitor generator controller do that? > > I have packetflux deployed and find it buggy and of little actual value, > im sorry I spent the money. > From admin at coldnorthadmin.com Fri Jan 29 06:14:00 2016 From: admin at coldnorthadmin.com (Laurent Dumont) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 01:14:00 -0500 Subject: Twitch contact Message-ID: <56AB0328.8000401@coldnorthadmin.com> Long shot, but if anyone from Twitch could poke me offlist for a few questions regarding it's policy with multiple streamers per IP address (if it's even something we need to consider) We are running a large-ish LAN event and are slightly worried about that. Thanks! From jared at puck.Nether.net Fri Jan 29 12:24:10 2016 From: jared at puck.Nether.net (Jared Mauch) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:24:10 -0500 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <201601281610.QAA28191@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <20160129122410.GA32337@puck.nether.net> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:07:16PM -0600, Yang Yu wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Brandon Butterworth > wrote: > > > With 10G it's been the opposite, nobody was using copper so SFP+ is > > cheap. Only recently has copper 10G started to become common, a bit too > > late to be worth bothering with now and as there are no copper SFP+ > > Having new servers switch to copper instead of sfp is a nuisance > > SFP+ Copper Twinax is another option for 10G to save on the transceivers Not really. You can get 10G optics for sub-$10 and patch cords for cheap too, so why spend >$50 on DAC cables when you can go fiber and save space and money? Walking into a colo and seeing orange or aqua cables always makes me sad as people overpaid and created themselves a future problem. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. From jackson.tim at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 12:58:51 2016 From: jackson.tim at gmail.com (Tim Jackson) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:58:51 -0600 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <20160129122410.GA32337@puck.nether.net> References: <201601281610.QAA28191@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160129122410.GA32337@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2016 6:29 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote: > > SFP+ Copper Twinax is another option for 10G to save on the transceivers > > Not really. > > You can get 10G optics for sub-$10 and patch cords for cheap too, > so why spend >$50 on DAC cables when you can go fiber and save > space and money? > > Walking into a colo and seeing orange or aqua cables always > makes me sad as people overpaid and created themselves a future problem. 2x 850nm SFP+ @ $16 2m multimode jumper @ $3.16 Vs 2m SFP+ DAC @ $18 (From Fiberstore) Then you have the issue of Intel NICs refusing to support any optical modules that dont show up as Intel (and the associated work arounds, etc) DACs are usually about 40% cheaper for server interconnect. From nanog1 at roadrunner.com Fri Jan 29 15:18:46 2016 From: nanog1 at roadrunner.com (nanog1 at roadrunner.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:18:46 -0800 Subject: Remote Sites Message-ID: <20160129151845.GA31754@bludgeon.org> For those of you in an enterprise setting who have remote or satellite locations, how do you have your network access set up? In the past a hub/spoke type model was fairly prevalent. In theory, gives you some extra control and a more consolidated location to deploy infrastructure at (security and monitoring tools mainly), but introduces greater impact when there are outages as well as a latency penalty. I like having an Internet egress point at most of my sites in addition to an MPLS for voice and inter-site communications, but this can complicate monitoring as it's tough to justify spending $$ to install security equipment at every location. Perhaps could rely on a layered service offering from an ISP? Interested to hear what others are doing. Thanks! From Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com Fri Jan 29 17:48:13 2016 From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: ICYMI: Princeton Conference on Interconnection Message-ID: I figured this might interest a few folks here: https://citp.princeton.edu/event/interconnection/ Jason From cscora at apnic.net Fri Jan 29 18:10:59 2016 From: cscora at apnic.net (Routing Analysis Role Account) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 04:10:59 +1000 (AEST) Subject: Weekly Routing Table Report Message-ID: <201601291810.u0TIAxeG026905@thyme.rand.apnic.net> This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats at lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 30 Jan, 2016 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 580432 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 214504 Deaggregation factor: 2.71 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 288829 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 52637 Prefixes per ASN: 11.03 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 36591 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15810 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6415 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 168 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.4 Max AS path length visible: 37 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 40285) 34 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 986 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 361 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 12540 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 9631 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 36887 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 15 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 399 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2801150916 Equivalent to 166 /8s, 246 /16s and 43 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 75.7 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 75.7 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 98.0 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 190275 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 148369 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 40852 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.63 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 157218 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 63577 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5126 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.67 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1175 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 904 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 35 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 1834 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 751946372 Equivalent to 44 /8s, 209 /16s and 202 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 87.9 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 180788 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 89245 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.03 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 185220 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 92814 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16433 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 11.27 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5910 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1710 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 37 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 973 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1099537088 Equivalent to 65 /8s, 137 /16s and 154 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 58.2 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 64198-64296, 393216-395164 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 138919 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 69271 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 147088 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 91125 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18048 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.15 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7943 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3011 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.8 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 30 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4407 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 702673280 Equivalent to 41 /8s, 225 /16s and 241 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 102.2 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 196608-204287 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 61117 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 11929 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.12 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 74467 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 34709 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2470 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 30.15 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 591 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 542 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 27 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2231 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 170885120 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 47 /16s and 128 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 101.9 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-265628 + ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 14276 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3167 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.51 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 16040 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 6261 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 736 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.79 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 191 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 172 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 186 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 75711744 Equivalent to 4 /8s, 131 /16s and 69 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 75.2 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5594 4192 76 China Education and Research 7545 3141 347 163 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3128 11143 1100 Korea Telecom 17974 2859 914 96 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 9829 2304 1434 387 National Internet Backbone 4755 2079 432 236 TATA Communications formerly 9808 1787 8717 29 Guangdong Mobile Communicatio 4808 1618 2279 509 CNCGROUP IP network China169 9583 1517 122 557 Sify Limited 17488 1444 230 229 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 22773 3302 2949 148 Cox Communications Inc. 3356 2599 10692 525 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 6389 2443 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 18566 2210 394 278 MegaPath Corporation 20115 1908 1912 410 Charter Communications 6983 1699 849 238 EarthLink, Inc. 30036 1673 334 349 Mediacom Communications Corp 4323 1586 1023 396 tw telecom holdings, inc. 209 1471 4340 1234 Qwest Communications Company, 701 1391 11451 659 MCI Communications Services, Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 39891 2515 135 9 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 20940 2362 928 1680 Akamai International B.V. 34984 1942 322 412 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 8551 1225 376 53 Bezeq International-Ltd 12479 1111 981 82 France Telecom Espana SA 13188 1076 97 84 TOV "Bank-Inform" 8402 1048 544 15 OJSC "Vimpelcom" 31148 1041 47 41 Freenet Ltd. 9198 969 352 24 JSC Kazakhtelecom 6830 895 2712 465 Liberty Global Operations B.V Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 3421 541 141 Telmex Colombia S.A. 8151 2179 3387 521 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 7303 1588 943 243 Telecom Argentina S.A. 11830 1437 366 25 Instituto Costarricense de El 6503 1394 437 56 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V. 28573 1037 2171 155 NET Servi?os de Comunica??o S 6147 1033 376 34 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A. 26615 1002 2325 34 Tim Celular S.A. 7738 994 1882 41 Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 3816 988 479 182 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8452 1275 1472 15 TE-AS 24863 1177 403 36 Link Egypt (Link.NET) 37611 594 40 44 Afrihost-Brevis Computer Serv 36903 552 278 103 Office National des Postes et 36992 456 1235 34 ETISALAT MISR 37492 358 215 64 Orange Tunisie 24835 331 146 12 Vodafone Data 29571 266 21 12 Cote d'Ivoire Telecom 37054 262 20 7 Data Telecom Service 2018 226 323 73 TENET (The UNINET Project) Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4538 5594 4192 76 China Education and Research 10620 3421 541 141 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3302 2949 148 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3141 347 163 TPG Telecom Limited 4766 3128 11143 1100 Korea Telecom 17974 2859 914 96 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 3356 2599 10692 525 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 39891 2515 135 9 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 6389 2443 3687 42 BellSouth.net Inc. 20940 2362 928 1680 Akamai International B.V. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 10620 3421 3280 Telmex Colombia S.A. 22773 3302 3154 Cox Communications Inc. 7545 3141 2978 TPG Telecom Limited 17974 2859 2763 PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 39891 2515 2506 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 6389 2443 2401 BellSouth.net Inc. 3356 2599 2074 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 4766 3128 2028 Korea Telecom 18566 2210 1932 MegaPath Corporation 9829 2304 1917 National Internet Backbone Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 30662 UNALLOCATED 8.2.129.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 53506 UNALLOCATED 8.17.102.0/23 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46467 UNALLOCATED 8.19.192.0/24 46887 Lightower Fiber Netw 18985 UNALLOCATED 8.21.68.0/22 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.122.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 46473 UNALLOCATED 8.27.124.0/24 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 3356 Level 3 Communicatio 15347 UNALLOCATED 8.224.147.0/24 12064 Cox Communications I 33628 UNALLOCATED 12.0.239.0/24 1239 Sprint 32805 UNALLOCATED 12.1.225.0/24 7018 AT&T Services, Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.226.112.0/20 62788 >>UNKNOWN<< 23.249.144.0/20 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.144.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 23.249.152.0/21 40430 colo4jax, LLC 27.100.7.0/24 56096 >>UNKNOWN<< 37.46.10.0/23 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.14.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 37.46.15.0/24 36351 SoftLayer Technologies Inc. 41.73.1.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.73.2.0/24 37004 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:16 /9:13 /10:35 /11:99 /12:263 /13:505 /14:1014 /15:1744 /16:12967 /17:7449 /18:12530 /19:25686 /20:38055 /21:40106 /22:64231 /23:55657 /24:318511 /25:537 /26:568 /27:384 /28:16 /29:16 /30:9 /31:0 /32:21 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 22773 2483 3302 Cox Communications Inc. 39891 2472 2515 SaudiNet, Saudi Telecom Compa 18566 2112 2210 MegaPath Corporation 6389 1542 2443 BellSouth.net Inc. 30036 1489 1673 Mediacom Communications Corp 6983 1343 1699 EarthLink, Inc. 10620 1299 3421 Telmex Colombia S.A. 34984 1229 1942 TELLCOM ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A 11492 1157 1249 CABLE ONE, INC. 31148 960 1041 Freenet Ltd. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1614 2:673 4:101 5:2082 6:26 8:1440 12:1790 13:33 14:1626 15:22 16:2 17:58 18:19 20:48 22:1 23:1355 24:1741 27:2245 31:1715 32:54 33:2 34:2 35:4 36:212 37:2327 38:1152 39:23 40:81 41:3141 42:379 43:1664 44:38 45:1638 46:2395 47:67 49:1100 50:840 51:3 52:38 54:138 55:7 56:6 57:44 58:1473 59:851 60:542 61:1771 62:1441 63:1927 64:4456 65:2180 66:4080 67:2109 68:1099 69:3279 70:1041 71:464 72:1983 74:2541 75:357 76:420 77:1330 78:1271 79:803 80:1298 81:1362 82:850 83:669 84:775 85:1556 86:459 87:1031 88:550 89:1919 90:163 91:6008 92:872 93:2313 94:2232 95:2254 96:471 97:351 98:944 99:45 100:67 101:886 103:9552 104:2234 105:98 106:380 107:1126 108:649 109:2095 110:1265 111:1601 112:931 113:1220 114:1113 115:1612 116:1518 117:1398 118:2016 119:1536 120:510 121:1162 122:2282 123:2004 124:1587 125:1746 128:662 129:361 130:417 131:1285 132:593 133:173 134:451 135:112 136:346 137:327 138:1655 139:199 140:248 141:466 142:625 143:818 144:584 145:150 146:832 147:612 148:1442 149:448 150:637 151:821 152:592 153:265 154:561 155:916 156:464 157:425 158:343 159:1082 160:420 161:747 162:2248 163:522 164:722 165:1106 166:315 167:976 168:1442 169:582 170:1479 171:260 172:420 173:1598 174:712 175:833 176:1512 177:3978 178:2225 179:1085 180:2022 181:1621 182:1925 183:678 184:780 185:5536 186:3073 187:1931 188:2055 189:1791 190:7554 191:1273 192:8866 193:5730 194:4338 195:3722 196:1638 197:1296 198:5536 199:5500 200:6836 201:3677 202:9955 203:9365 204:4506 205:2724 206:2976 207:3027 208:4016 209:3977 210:3777 211:2013 212:2605 213:2149 214:819 215:73 216:5700 217:1900 218:744 219:558 220:1649 221:848 222:671 223:913 End of report From reichert at numachi.com Fri Jan 29 20:08:19 2016 From: reichert at numachi.com (Brian Reichert) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:08:19 -0500 Subject: T-Mobile's Binge On violates net neutrality, says Stanford report Message-ID: <20160129200819.GO28495@numachi.com> Presumably, this is getting some eyes: http://www.tmonews.com/2016/01/t-mobiles-binge-on-violates-net-neutrality-says-stanford-report/ T-Mobile's Binge On violates net neutrality, says Stanford report In a new report published today - and filed to the FCC, as well - van Schewick says that Binge on "violates key net neutrality principles" and "is likely to violate the FCC's general conduct rule." -- Brian Reichert BSD admin/developer at large From nanog-isp at mail.com Fri Jan 29 20:36:30 2016 From: nanog-isp at mail.com (nanog-isp at mail.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:36:30 +0100 Subject: T-Mobile's Binge On violates net neutrality, says Stanford report Message-ID: > In a new report published today - and filed to the FCC, as well > - van Schewick says that Binge on "violates key net neutrality > principles" and "is likely to violate the FCC's general conduct > rule." Sure it does, but will anything ever be done about it? Jared From ahargrove at cgresd.net Fri Jan 29 17:15:57 2016 From: ahargrove at cgresd.net (Alex Hargrove) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:15:57 -0500 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <201601281610.QAA28191@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160129122410.GA32337@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <56AB57FE020000BD0004C1E7@gwia01.cgresd.net> > Then you have the issue of Intel NICs refusing to support any optical modules that dont show up as Intel (and the associated work arounds, etc) I just purchased some empty Intel X520-DA2 cards and then picked up the E10GSFPSR-compatible optics for them from Fiberstore. I was worried about the compatibility issues, but they working great between my vSphere hosts and an HP Procurve 5406R V2 with J9538A 8p 10G-GbE SFP+ v2 zl modules (which happens to be filled with J9150A X132 compatible optics also from Fiberstore). The switch complains that they are 3rd party and throws a big scary warning that HP will shun you for support, but they light up and pass traffic just the same. >>> Tim Jackson 1/29/2016 7:58 AM >>> On Jan 29, 2016 6:29 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote: > > SFP+ Copper Twinax is another option for 10G to save on the transceivers > > Not really. > > You can get 10G optics for sub-$10 and patch cords for cheap too, > so why spend >$50 on DAC cables when you can go fiber and save > space and money? > > Walking into a colo and seeing orange or aqua cables always > makes me sad as people overpaid and created themselves a future problem. 2x 850nm SFP+ @ $16 2m multimode jumper @ $3.16 Vs 2m SFP+ DAC @ $18 (From Fiberstore) Then you have the issue of Intel NICs refusing to support any optical modules that dont show up as Intel (and the associated work arounds, etc) DACs are usually about 40% cheaper for server interconnect. From frnkblk at iname.com Sat Jan 30 05:15:11 2016 From: frnkblk at iname.com (frnkblk at iname.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 23:15:11 -0600 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Message-ID: <004801d15b1d$32b77c80$98267580$@iname.com> There's also WTI, which we use: http://www.wti.com/c-41-automatic-transfer-switch.aspx Frank -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:30 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: small automatic transfer switches Does anyone have any recommendations for a small, cheap, reliable ATS? (I know, pick two, you can't have all three) I'm looking for something to power one or two 120V out-of-band network device(s) in each location with a single power supply each, much less than 10 amps total, with two 120v input cords. The primary input cord will go to the UPS and the other directly to a wall outlet to be able to access the UPS when if fails to turn on after the power returns :-) I found the usual suspects, APC, TrippLite, ServerTech, etc. but they are mostly 8 or more outlets and upwards of $300-$900 each. I also found this neat one, Zonit uATS, which is a small box that piggybacks onto the powered device's C14 input and has two power cords coming out of it. But it seems to cost just as much as the bigger ones... From mr.jonas.bjork at me.com Sat Jan 30 08:03:00 2016 From: mr.jonas.bjork at me.com (Jonas Bjork) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:03:00 +0100 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <56AA5F8B.5020901@tiedyenetworks.com> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> <56AA5F8B.5020901@tiedyenetworks.com> Message-ID: <3130A53A-BE4F-4D5F-BD05-CB1F92433E8E@me.com> Dear Mr. Carpenter, Juniper is expensive. If you buy a new 48 x 10GbE/SFP+ fiberswitch from an H3C based vendor like Huawei, you get the whole unit for $10,000. All you need in addition to that are the lasers and these will set you back a hundred bucks per port in case you select 1310nm SFP+ modules (SMF 80km duplex), rendering a total price of less than $300 per interface, Best regards, Jonas Bjork ISP Senior Network Engineer > On 28 Jan 2016, at 19:35, Mike wrote: > > > >> On 01/28/2016 10:29 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: >> I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, but I can't imagine what you could be talking about for $102/port. >> >> I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You can't even get a 24-port 1GbE for that. > > +1, me too! > From contact at winterei.se Sat Jan 30 12:50:38 2016 From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:50:38 +0900 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <3130A53A-BE4F-4D5F-BD05-CB1F92433E8E@me.com> References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> <1484088789.347727.1454005794877.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net> <56AA5F8B.5020901@tiedyenetworks.com> <3130A53A-BE4F-4D5F-BD05-CB1F92433E8E@me.com> Message-ID: <56ACB19E.2070400@winterei.se> >> I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You can't even get a 24-port 1GbE for that. EX4200s are abundant for much less in Ebay (for the 24port 1g requirement). In the 10G space though, indeed, Juniper is expensive. On 1/30/2016 05:03 PM, Jonas Bjork wrote: > Dear Mr. Carpenter, > > Juniper is expensive. If you buy a new 48 x 10GbE/SFP+ fiberswitch from an H3C based vendor like Huawei, you get the whole unit for $10,000. All you need in addition to that are the lasers and these will set you back a hundred bucks per port in case you select 1310nm SFP+ modules (SMF 80km duplex), rendering a total price of less than $300 per interface, > > Best regards, > > Jonas Bjork > ISP Senior Network Engineer > > >> On 28 Jan 2016, at 19:35, Mike wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 01/28/2016 10:29 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: >>> I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, but I can't imagine what you could be talking about for $102/port. >>> >>> I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You can't even get a 24-port 1GbE for that. >> +1, me too! >> From colton.conor at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 19:06:46 2016 From: colton.conor at gmail.com (Colton Conor) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:06:46 -0600 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: References: <3E9C67DA261AC349B60FF3609F5E211D775C53F3@USI-2K10EX01-MT.usicorp.usinternet.com> <20160127214527.GA16927@lboro.ac.uk> <20160127215924.GB18565@mindspring.com> <20160128142321.GA21435@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Josh, Which Juniper switch are you referring to that is $102 per 10G port? On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > You're buying your switches and optics in the wrong places. > > An SFP+ 10K w/ DOM is running me a little under $34. An SFP+ port runs > me slightly over $102. (Juniper) > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the > > equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the > optics. > > > > 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that > > ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only > > useful on fibrechannel ports. > > > > It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP > > instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. > > > > Regards, > > > > Baldur > > > > > > > > > > On 28 January 2016 at 15:23, Greg Hankins > wrote: > > > >> The goals of these BASE-T projects are specifically to extend the life > >> of the large installed base of Cat 5e/6 cabling with higher speeds. > >> I wouldn't expect there to be a fiber interface, because we already have > >> much higher speeds that are supported on MMF/SMF at better costs (ie if > >> you had a fiber cable, would you really want to run 2.5 GE when 10 GE > >> is so affordable now). Anything is possible though, if there is enough > >> demand and a market then someone will make it. > >> > >> Greg > >> > >> -- > >> Greg Hankins > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:51:06 +0100 > >> From: Baldur Norddahl > >> To: nanog at nanog.org > >> Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps > >> > >> Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it? > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Baldur > >> Den 27. jan. 2016 23.00 skrev "Greg Hankins" : > >> > >> > Fortunately the two groups came together in the IEEE, and there are no > >> > competing standards. > >> > > >> > IEEE P802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T Task Force stared in March 2015: > >> > - 2.5GBASE-T: 4 x 625 Mb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 > (Class E) > >> > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling > >> > - 5GBASE-T: 4 x 1.250 Gb/s over 100 m Cat 5e (Class D) or Cat 6 > (Class E) > >> > unshielded twisted-pair copper cabling > >> > - MultiGBASE-T auto-negotiation between 2.5GBASE-T, 5GBASE-T, > 10GBASE-T, > >> > 25GBASE-T, 40GBASE-T > >> > - Automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration > >> > - PoE support including IEEE 802.3bt amendment (power over 4 pairs) > >> > - Optional Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) support > >> > - Standard expected in September 2016 > >> > - Interfaces expected on the market in 2016 > >> > - Task Force web page http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/ > >> > > >> > You might have seen my Ethernet speeds presentation... the most recent > >> > one is here: > >> > http://ix.br/pttforum/9/slides/ixbr9-ethernet.pdf (December 2015) > >> > > >> > It's slightly out of date as the IEEE Interim was just last week. > >> > > >> > Greg > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Greg Hankins > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:45:27 +0000 > >> > From: A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk > >> > To: Justin Krejci > >> > Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" > >> > Subject: Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > I've a couple 10 port Cisco switches that support 2.5 and 5gbps over > >> > cat5e, just wondering if there are any other vendors out there with > >> > offerings that support these newer ethernet speeds. Supporting cat5e > for > >> > these multi-gig speeds is a real boon in many circumstances given the > >> wide > >> > popularity of it in many buildings. > >> > > > >> > > Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of other products, > >> > switches in particular, supporting 2.5 and 5 gbps? > >> > > >> > well, until the standard is ratified, these Multi-Gig offerings are > quite > >> > proprietary.. > >> > > >> > there are 2 competing camps....hopefully they will be compatible and > not > >> > end up like beta/vhs once the dust settles > >> > > >> > > >> > camp 1 - http://www.nbaset.org/ > >> > > >> > > >> > camp 2 - http://www.mgbasetalliance.org/ > >> > > >> > > >> > look at those vendors..... I think they hope by avoiding IEEE int he > >> early > >> > stages and taping silicon they'll > >> > get the job done quicker - the drive mainly being faster wireless APs > and > >> > cheaper data centre interconnects... > >> > > >> > alan > >> > > >> > From bjorn at mork.no Sat Jan 30 19:55:10 2016 From: bjorn at mork.no (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:55:10 +0100 Subject: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps In-Reply-To: <56AB57FE020000BD0004C1E7@gwia01.cgresd.net> (Alex Hargrove's message of "Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:15:57 -0500") References: <201601281610.QAA28191@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20160129122410.GA32337@puck.nether.net> <56AB57FE020000BD0004C1E7@gwia01.cgresd.net> Message-ID: <87twluvo4h.fsf@nemi.mork.no> "Alex Hargrove" writes: > I just purchased some empty Intel X520-DA2 cards and then picked up > the E10GSFPSR-compatible optics for them from Fiberstore. Note that this requirement is implemented in the driver. YMMV depending on OS, but in Linux you can disable it with the usual warnings by setting 'allow_unsupported_sfp=1' : bjorn at canardo:~$ modinfo -p ixgbe max_vfs:Maximum number of virtual functions to allocate per physical function - default is zero and maximum value is 63. (Deprecated) (uint) allow_unsupported_sfp:Allow unsupported and untested SFP+ modules on 82599-based adapters (uint) debug:Debug level (0=none,...,16=all) (int) Bj?rn From george at cbcast.com Sat Jan 30 04:51:05 2016 From: george at cbcast.com (George Skorup) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:51:05 -0600 Subject: Dear Windstream engineers Message-ID: <56AC4139.4030107@cbcast.com> Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be impossible to implement. From job at instituut.net Sat Jan 30 20:33:35 2016 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:33:35 +0100 Subject: Dear Windstream engineers In-Reply-To: <56AC4139.4030107@cbcast.com> References: <56AC4139.4030107@cbcast.com> Message-ID: <20160130203335.GZ54204@22.rev.meerval.net> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:51:05PM -0600, George Skorup wrote: > Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be > impossible to implement. vote with your wallet? From sander at steffann.nl Sat Jan 30 22:28:29 2016 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 23:28:29 +0100 Subject: small automatic transfer switches In-Reply-To: <004801d15b1d$32b77c80$98267580$@iname.com> References: <20160127202945.GQ3677@angus.ind.wpi.edu> <004801d15b1d$32b77c80$98267580$@iname.com> Message-ID: <71ED690F-01CC-4459-8AF5-244F3DB8682E@steffann.nl> Hi, > There's also WTI, which we use: > http://www.wti.com/c-41-automatic-transfer-switch.aspx And for the small deployments their RSM series is great as well: automatic transfer switch, remote power switching and remote serial console all in one box. Those boxes are more expensive, but if you need all of that functionality in 1U they can be really useful. Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mhardeman at ipifony.com Sat Jan 30 22:29:08 2016 From: mhardeman at ipifony.com (Matthew D. Hardeman) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 16:29:08 -0600 Subject: Dear Windstream engineers In-Reply-To: <56AC4139.4030107@cbcast.com> References: <56AC4139.4030107@cbcast.com> Message-ID: <005C3894-72C9-4B38-81A2-76235BE9A8B4@ipifony.com> You offer this service to your customers, don?t you? ;-) Seriously, it?s a good question. Most IP transit providers offering BGP services do offer RTBH. > On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:51 PM, George Skorup wrote: > > Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be impossible to implement. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mhuff at ox.com Sun Jan 31 16:44:33 2016 From: mhuff at ox.com (Matthew Huff) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? Message-ID: Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? From colinj at gt86car.org.uk Sun Jan 31 17:13:55 2016 From: colinj at gt86car.org.uk (Colin Johnston) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:13:55 +0000 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <06AC662C-B2B2-444A-8403-76ED2BC69E12@gt86car.org.uk> no idea down from bt as in uk though colin Sent from my iPhone > On 31 Jan 2016, at 16:44, Matthew Huff wrote: > > Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? From dcorbe at hammerfiber.com Sun Jan 31 17:19:03 2016 From: dcorbe at hammerfiber.com (Daniel Corbe) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:19:03 -0500 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jan 31, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: > > Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? Their website appears to be down as well. I?m guessing network outage? Maybe something more sinister? From royce at techsolvency.com Sun Jan 31 17:20:26 2016 From: royce at techsolvency.com (Royce Williams) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:20:26 -0900 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No direct knowledge, but from comments on another list, it may be intermittent. Jason Fesler of test-ipv6.com reported on Jan 30 2016 at 2:08 PM PST that his Team Cymru API connections for ISP ASN and Name checks broke, and pushed a workaround to all test nodes. He then reported at 7:30 PM PST that they were back up. Royce On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: > Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? From littlefishguy at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 17:50:19 2016 From: littlefishguy at gmail.com (Scott Fisher) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:50:19 -0500 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey guys, I am the the Team Lead of the Ops team at Team Cymru. It looks like we are having issues in one of our datacenters. I am getting the team involved and hitting up our network engineers as we speak. Stay tuned. Thanks, Scott On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Royce Williams wrote: > No direct knowledge, but from comments on another list, it may be > intermittent. > > Jason Fesler of test-ipv6.com reported on Jan 30 2016 at 2:08 PM PST > that his Team Cymru API connections for ISP ASN and Name checks broke, > and pushed a workaround to all test nodes. He then reported at 7:30 > PM PST that they were back up. > > Royce > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: > > Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to > Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two > routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other > providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from > either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? > -- Scott From mhuff at ox.com Sun Jan 31 17:55:46 2016 From: mhuff at ox.com (Matthew Huff) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:55:46 +0000 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <819B11CD-3CA7-4339-B021-60D253BF1755@ox.com> Traceroute from Verizon Fios macpro:~ mhuff$ traceroute 38.229.66.20 traceroute to 38.229.66.20 (38.229.66.20), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 firewall (10.1.1.1) 0.444 ms 0.191 ms 0.234 ms 2 lo0-100.nycmny-vfttp-369.verizon-gni.net (96.246.46.1) 58.317 ms 48.413 ms 67.140 ms 3 t0-8-0-0.nycmny-lcr-21.verizon-gni.net (130.81.16.100) 62.175 ms 63.223 ms t0-8-0-0.nycmny-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.16.102) 37.320 ms 4 * * * 5 0.ae2.br2.nyc4.alter.net (140.222.229.93) 18.697 ms 0.ae3.br2.nyc4.alter.net (140.222.231.133) 3.791 ms 0.ae1.br2.nyc4.alter.net (140.222.229.91) 2.985 ms 6 204.255.168.110 (204.255.168.110) 12.558 ms 14.904 ms 17.009 ms 7 be2060.ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.31.9) 17.248 ms 21.324 ms 16.526 ms 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * Traceroute via Lightpath [root at burr ~]# traceroute -I 38.229.66.20 traceroute to 38.229.66.20 (38.229.66.20), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 switch-core1.ox.com (129.77.108.252) 0.376 ms 0.385 ms 0.432 ms 2 switch-user2.ox.com (129.77.154.249) 0.424 ms 0.539 ms 0.571 ms 3 rtr-inet1.ox.com (129.77.1.253) 0.480 ms 0.484 ms 0.488 ms 4 189d20f9.cst.lightpath.net (24.157.32.249) 4.875 ms 4.952 ms 4.956 ms 5 18267502.cst.lightpath.net (24.38.117.2) 4.951 ms 4.962 ms 4.963 ms 6 hunt183-146.optonline.net (167.206.183.146) 5.843 ms 5.625 ms 5.613 ms 7 * * * 8 be3030.ccr21.jfk04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.11.249) 8.945 ms 9.234 ms 9.816 ms 9 be2324.ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.47.17) 6.456 ms 6.534 ms 6.533 ms 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * IPv6 vial Lightpath [root at burr ~]# traceroute -I 2620:0:6b0::26e5:4207 traceroute to 2620:0:6b0::26e5:4207 (2620:0:6b0::26e5:4207), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets 1 switch-core1.ox.com (2620:0:2810:16c::fffd) 0.429 ms 0.534 ms 0.612 ms 2 switch-user2.ox.com (2620:0:2810:e002::253) 0.429 ms 0.532 ms 0.643 ms 3 rtr-inet1.ox.com (2620:0:2810:101::fffd) 0.510 ms 0.515 ms 0.518 ms 4 2607:fda8:8::2 (2607:fda8:8::2) 4.882 ms 4.889 ms 4.892 ms 5 2607:fda8:2::2c (2607:fda8:2::2c) 71.000 ms 71.011 ms 71.014 ms 6 2607:fda8:2::85 (2607:fda8:2::85) 5.868 ms 5.837 ms 5.823 ms 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * On Jan 31, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Matthew Huff > wrote: Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? From littlefishguy at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 22:09:07 2016 From: littlefishguy at gmail.com (Scott Fisher) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:09:07 -0500 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? In-Reply-To: <819B11CD-3CA7-4339-B021-60D253BF1755@ox.com> References: <819B11CD-3CA7-4339-B021-60D253BF1755@ox.com> Message-ID: Everyone, Our site totalhash.cymru.com experienced a DDOS hit and caused our main route to be null routed by our upstream provider. Things are coming online but the IP that is being attacked will remain down for the time being. Reply to this thread with any questions. Thanks, Scott On Sunday, January 31, 2016, Matthew Huff wrote: > Traceroute from Verizon Fios > > > macpro:~ mhuff$ traceroute 38.229.66.20 > > traceroute to 38.229.66.20 (38.229.66.20), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets > > 1 firewall (10.1.1.1) 0.444 ms 0.191 ms 0.234 ms > > 2 lo0-100.nycmny-vfttp-369.verizon-gni.net< > http://lo0-100.nycmny-vfttp-369.verizon-gni.net> (96.246.46.1) 58.317 > ms 48.413 ms 67.140 ms > > 3 t0-8-0-0.nycmny-lcr-21.verizon-gni.net< > http://t0-8-0-0.nycmny-lcr-21.verizon-gni.net> (130.81.16.100) 62.175 > ms 63.223 ms > > t0-8-0-0.nycmny-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net< > http://t0-8-0-0.nycmny-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net> (130.81.16.102) 37.320 ms > > 4 * * * > > 5 0.ae2.br2.nyc4.alter.net > (140.222.229.93) 18.697 ms > > 0.ae3.br2.nyc4.alter.net > (140.222.231.133) 3.791 ms > > 0.ae1.br2.nyc4.alter.net > (140.222.229.91) 2.985 ms > > 6 204.255.168.110 (204.255.168.110) 12.558 ms 14.904 ms 17.009 ms > > 7 be2060.ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com< > http://ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com> (154.54.31.9) 17.248 ms 21.324 > ms 16.526 ms > > 8 * * * > > 9 * * * > > 10 * * * > > 11 * * * > > 12 * * * > > 13 * * * > > 14 * * * > > 15 * * * > > 16 * * * > > 17 * * * > > 18 * * * > > 19 * * * > > > Traceroute via Lightpath > > > [root at burr ~]# traceroute -I 38.229.66.20 > > traceroute to 38.229.66.20 (38.229.66.20), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets > > 1 switch-core1.ox.com (129.77.108.252) > 0.376 ms 0.385 ms 0.432 ms > > 2 switch-user2.ox.com (129.77.154.249) > 0.424 ms 0.539 ms 0.571 ms > > 3 rtr-inet1.ox.com (129.77.1.253) 0.480 ms > 0.484 ms 0.488 ms > > 4 189d20f9.cst.lightpath.net > (24.157.32.249) 4.875 ms 4.952 ms 4.956 ms > > 5 18267502.cst.lightpath.net > (24.38.117.2) 4.951 ms 4.962 ms 4.963 ms > > 6 hunt183-146.optonline.net > (167.206.183.146) 5.843 ms 5.625 ms 5.613 ms > > 7 * * * > > 8 be3030.ccr21.jfk04.atlas.cogentco.com< > http://ccr21.jfk04.atlas.cogentco.com> (154.54.11.249) 8.945 ms 9.234 > ms 9.816 ms > > 9 be2324.ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com< > http://ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com> (154.54.47.17) 6.456 ms 6.534 > ms 6.533 ms > > 10 * * * > > 11 * * * > > 12 * * * > > 13 * * * > > 14 * * * > > 15 * * * > > 16 * * * > > 17 * * * > > 18 * * * > > 19 * * * > > 20 * * * > > 21 * * * > > 22 * * * > > 23 * * * > > 24 * * * > > 25 * * * > > 26 * * * > > 27 * * * > > 28 * * * > > 29 * * * > > 30 * * * > > IPv6 vial Lightpath > > [root at burr ~]# traceroute -I 2620:0:6b0::26e5:4207 > > traceroute to 2620:0:6b0::26e5:4207 (2620:0:6b0::26e5:4207), 30 hops max, > 80 byte packets > > 1 switch-core1.ox.com > (2620:0:2810:16c::fffd) 0.429 ms 0.534 ms 0.612 ms > > 2 switch-user2.ox.com > (2620:0:2810:e002::253) 0.429 ms 0.532 ms 0.643 ms > > 3 rtr-inet1.ox.com (2620:0:2810:101::fffd) > 0.510 ms 0.515 ms 0.518 ms > > 4 2607:fda8:8::2 (2607:fda8:8::2) 4.882 ms 4.889 ms 4.892 ms > > 5 2607:fda8:2::2c (2607:fda8:2::2c) 71.000 ms 71.011 ms 71.014 ms > > 6 2607:fda8:2::85 (2607:fda8:2::85) 5.868 ms 5.837 ms 5.823 ms > > 7 * * * > > 8 * * * > > 9 * * * > > 10 * * * > > 11 * * * > > 12 * * * > > 13 * * * > > 14 * * * > > 15 * * * > > 16 * * * > > 17 * * * > > 18 * * * > > 19 * * * > > 20 * * * > > 21 * * * > > 22 * * * > > 23 * * * > > 24 * * * > > 25 * * * > > 26 * * * > > 27 * * * > > 28 * * * > > 29 * * * > > 30 * * * > > > On Jan 31, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Matthew Huff > >> wrote: > > Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to > Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two > routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other > providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from > either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? > > -- Scott From george at cbcast.com Sat Jan 30 23:19:55 2016 From: george at cbcast.com (George Skorup) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:19:55 -0600 Subject: Dear Windstream engineers In-Reply-To: <20160130203335.GZ54204@22.rev.meerval.net> References: <56AC4139.4030107@cbcast.com> <20160130203335.GZ54204@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <56AD451B.9000700@cbcast.com> On 1/30/2016 2:33 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > vote with your wallet? If this doesn't change, then that's the plan at the conclusion of the contract. On 1/30/2016 4:29 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > Seriously, it?s a good question. Most IP transit providers offering BGP services do offer RTBH. Our other peer right now is GTT. The merged AS4436/3257's BGP is freakin amazing, I love it. From rob at esecuredata.com Sun Jan 31 17:21:01 2016 From: rob at esecuredata.com (Rob Duffy) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:21:01 +0000 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Our IPv4 connection to Cymru UTRS is still active and has been for several weeks, without any disruptions. I am also able to access http://www.team-cymru.org/ from my location (Vancouver, Canada). On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:44 AM Matthew Huff wrote: > Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to > Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two > routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other > providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from > either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? > From tom at snnap.net Sun Jan 31 17:23:56 2016 From: tom at snnap.net (Tom Storey) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:23:56 +0000 Subject: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Working just fine from Virgin Media. On 31 January 2016 at 17:19, Daniel Corbe wrote: >> On Jan 31, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: >> >> Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other providing 0 prefixes. I can?t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from either work or home. Anyone know what?s up? > > Their website appears to be down as well. I?m guessing network outage? Maybe something more sinister? > >