Re: bfd & IPv6 on Cisco 4948E-E / IOS 15.2

On 07/06/2023 04:13, Jason Canady wrote: Using this on the interface of each switch:  ospfv3 1 bfd  ospfv3 1 ipv6 area 0  ospfv3 1 ipv6 bfd  bfd interval 500 min_rx 500 multiplier 40 #show bfd neighbors details IPv6 Sessions NeighAddr  LD/RD RH/RS State 

Re: [External] Open source tool for network map visualization

On 27/05/2022 14:32, Tom Krenn via NANOG wrote: A little simple, but maybe Network Weathermap? https://www.network-weathermap.com/ With some tuning of your variables, it's really easy to automate a very useful topographical network diagram from practically any source of data. You do need to

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

On 08/05/2022 15:28, Laura Smith via NANOG wrote: but poutine most certainly is not. A culinary abomination that deserves to be confined to the history books. It is but the refined variant of 'cheesy chips & [british] gravy' and no-one will convince me otherwise, especially at 3am following

Re: V6 still not supported

Loose translation: On 09/03/2022 22:46, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: “We’re working on it.” they say. "There is only 1.5 of us; we're overworked and underpaid and this allows us to postpone this workstream for a while." “We’re waiting for wider adoption.” they say. "Not enough of you are

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On 09/03/2022 00:25, Tom Beecher wrote: The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where there is some forcing event that requires it to be. In about two years time, IPv4 addresses will be worth on the order of $100/IP, assuming current trends hold. That's a lot of

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 20/11/2021 19:59, Michael Thomas wrote: > but starving the beast doesn't have a great track record. We are talking > about 20% of the address space that's being wasted so it's not nothing. Starving the beast is actively working to make IPv4 cost-prohibitive. I only wish those whom Jay refers

Re: AWS and IPv6

On 29/11/2021 02:23, William Herrin wrote: > This technique does in fact work for IPv6, allowing you to insert a > firewall at the edge. Interestingly though, it won't receive IPv6 > packets for an address that isn't attached to a running instance in > the interior subnet. That sounds remarkably

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 22/10/2021 17:08, t...@pelican.org wrote: > I don't think it'll ever make money, but I think it will reduce > costs. CGNAT boxes cost money, operating them costs money, dealing > with the support fallout from them costs money. Especially in the > residential space, where essentially if the

Re: PowerSwitch S4100 (S4148-ON) chipset

On 20/10/2021 16:50, Tom Hill wrote: > On 19/10/2021 14:50, Tim Jackson wrote: >> It's a lower bandwidth Trident2+ with some different I/O options iirc. >> Same featureset, but a mix of 10G and 25G serdes, targeted at like >> 48x10g+4x100G boxes. > > That was m

Re: PowerSwitch S4100 (S4148-ON) chipset

On 19/10/2021 14:50, Tim Jackson wrote: > It's a lower bandwidth Trident2+ with some different I/O options iirc. > Same featureset, but a mix of 10G and 25G serdes, targeted at like > 48x10g+4x100G boxes. That was my understanding of Maverick... For some reason there's something in my head that

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

On 01/10/2021 17:05, Laura Smith via NANOG wrote: > - $certain_large_cdn publishes routes on route server ? Nope. Many (most?) route servers provide little control over who your routes are advertised toward. This can be fun where DDoS is concerned. I've used some that did have deny-list controls

Re: "Tactical" /24 announcements

On 12/08/2021 18:09, Jon Lewis wrote: >> >> Having an upstream provider that did it, in a very aggressive >> fashion. > > Odds are, they did it wrong, and you had no control and limited, if > any, visibility into what they did. Obviously, if you're going to > blindly filter routes based on

Re: "Tactical" /24 announcements

On 11/08/2021 14:09, Jon Lewis wrote: > What sort of hands-on experience is this opinion based on? Having an upstream provider that did it, in a very aggressive fashion. > I've done this manually in the past (quite some time ago), and done > properly, it works fine. > > At least one major

Re: "Tactical" /24 announcements

On 10/08/2021 07:15, Lukas Tribus wrote: >> Are there any big networks that drop or penalize announcements like this? > It's possible you could get your peering request denied for this. I > have put *reasonable* prefix aggregation into peering requirements for > some years now. If you are a small

Re: "Tactical" /24 announcements

On 10/08/2021 12:31, Mark Tinka wrote: > Been waiting for the day when /27's, /28's and /29's are going to make > it into the DFZ, as was promised 5 or more years ago :-). 2914 permit you to leak prefixes as specific as a /28 between your own ports with them. Someone once referred to it as a

Re: DPDK and energy efficiency

On 05/03/2021 00:26, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > A great deal of this discussion could be resolved by the use of a $20 > in-line 120VAC watt meter [1] plugged into something as simple as a $500 > 1U server with some of the DPDK-enabled network cards connected to its > PCI-E bus, running DANOS. I'm

Re: DPDK and energy efficiency

On 04/03/2021 18:20, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: > *SECTION 2: Survey results* I don't see the embedded images, and there's no way to show them inline. For the sake of simplicity/sharing, are these results presented anywhere on a web page? :) Regards, -- Tom

Re: Famous operational issues

On 16/02/2021 22:08, Jared Mauch wrote: > I was thinking about how we need a war stories nanog track. My favorite was > being on call when the router was stolen. Enough time has (probably) elapsed since my escapades in a small data centre in Manchester. The RFO was ten pages long, and I don't

Re: CGNAT

On 19/02/2021 20:11, Tony Wicks wrote: > Because then a large part of the Internet won't work Hey, look on the bright side: customers won't be able to use Twitter to complain! :D Ofc, IPv4aaS has many good success stories out there; Sky Italia are running MAP-T, many, many mobile ISPs are

Re: Mellanox / Cumulus

On 04/11/2020 16:02, aar...@gvtc.com wrote: > One of my CDN caching providers sent a Mellanox SN2700 with their > servers. Seems to be running well. They manage them, I just give > them rack, power, and a couple 10 gig links into my core At this point, we may descend into a "what does SP mean"

Re: Mellanox / Cumulus

On 02/11/2020 17:52, Bryan Holloway wrote: > Anybody using these in production in an SP environment? And if so, any > opinions, good or bad? I haven't used them in an SP environment precisely because the Mellanox hardware - while miles better than equivalent Broadcom designs - does not cater to

Re: IPv4 Mismanagement

On 04/10/2020 02:17, Wayne Bouchard wrote: > Groups that have such things I can only presume do not do a good job > of periodically going through and auditing their IP allocations or, if > they do, then they don't do a good enough job of cleaning up all the > details. It is a long-winded,

Re: SRv6

On 21/09/2020 19:38, Randy Bush wrote: > newspeak -- 1984 colloquialism /kəˈləʊkwɪəlɪz(ə)m/ noun: a word or phrase that is not formal or literary and is used in ordinary or familiar conversation. -- Tom

Re: SRv6

On 19/09/2020 03:23, Randy Bush wrote: > i know you truely believe the tunnel k00laid. the security > community does not. At this point, I'm beginning to think that you're trolling us with the assertion(s) that the 'P' in "Virtual Private Network" has obviously meant "Privacy" all along, and/or

Re: CenturyLink -> Lumen

On 16/09/2020 11:18, Matt Hoppes wrote: > Quantum Fiber?  Sounds like a misbranding. I highly doubt they are using > Quantum technology.  Very prescient for when it becomes commercially possible though, eh? :) -- Tom

Re: SRv6

On 16/09/2020 01:31, aar...@gvtc.com wrote: > then, yes, I may have and didn't know it. Hey, was it you? LOL Very unlikely. You may do well to peruse some of the objections to the network-programming draft in the SPRING WG. There are many. :) -- Tom

Re: SRv6

On 15/09/2020 18:00, aar...@gvtc.com wrote: > And with this v6 SID being smartly divided into > Locator:Function(Argument), I'm reading that this will carry with it > much more functionality as well, like network programmability, > application-to-network interaction or something like that.

Re: SPAM: Re: Cogent emails

On 14/09/2020 18:13, Simon Lockhart wrote: > We gave in and just bought a small amount of transit from them. Aha! You're the reason they don't stop! :p -- Tom

Re: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24)

On 14/09/2020 22:25, Andrey Khomyakov wrote: > TL;DR I suspect there are middle boxes that don't like IPs ending in > .255. Anyone seen that? Yes, but not for many, MANY years. I would expect that this service might not like addresses ending in .0 either? It was ca. 2010, when I started

Re: Ipv6 help

On 25/08/2020 17:13, Mark Tinka wrote: > If only CPE's could run Android, or Windows :-). I'd wager that a lot of them already build upon a Linux kernel of some flavour. Tore (et al) wrote a CLAT for Linux that builds upon TAYGA's NAT64 functionality: https://github.com/toreanderson/clatd --

Re: 00:aa:bb:01:23:45

On 20/08/2020 09:53, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > By accident I noticed several of my VPLS instances have > 00:aa:bb:01:23:45 in the MAC table. We never sent anything just received > a little traffic from that. Obviously not a real MAC address so I tried > to search Google for it. I find several

Re: Internet Providers in 111 8th Ave, NYC

On 24/07/2020 15:54, Clayton Zekelman wrote: > If you want to post to this list asking for help, then refusing the > help you get because you don't have the energy or inclination to use > one of the suggestions, then move on. > > I'd suggest that you switch from single malt to decaf. I'd suggest

Re: Internet Providers in 111 8th Ave, NYC

On 24/07/2020 15:58, Mehmet Akcin wrote: > Infrapedia is 100% free , all code open source, platform made for > engineers by engineers.  > https://github.com/infrapedia > > I am sure there are lots of room to improve. I appreciate everyone > supporting it. If you want to look at the code and help

Re: Internet Providers in 111 8th Ave, NYC

On 24/07/2020 15:32, Mehmet Akcin wrote: > No harvesting of personal data. > > This was a requirement for us to prevent spam  when requesting quotes > from partner networks.  So your partners demand that you store and process my personal data (anything that can be used to identify an individual)

Re: Internet Providers in 111 8th Ave, NYC

On 24/07/2020 15:16, Mike Hammett wrote: > and? > Meh. I haven't got the energy. But generally speaking, if you're going to harvest personal data, be more honest about it. -- Tom

Re: Internet Providers in 111 8th Ave, NYC

On 24/07/2020 14:45, J. Hellenthal via NANOG wrote: > This might be of assistance…. No, it'll force you to sign-up/sign-in before providing any "assistance". -- Tom

Re: MAP-T in production

On 22/07/2020 22:15, Brian Johnson wrote: > Has anyone implemented a MAP-T solution in production? I am looking > for feedback on this as a deployment strategy for an IPv6 only core > design. My concern is MAP-T CE stability and overhead on the network. > The BR will have to do overloaded NAT

Re: BFD for long haul circuit

On 17/07/2020 16:40, Mark Tinka wrote: > I don't know of "Consumers" that buy l2vpn's. Most consumers usually go > for ADSL, FTTH or 4G... all carrying IP :-). > > We have several customers that buy EoMPLS circuits from us both within > and outside of countries, and between continents. The

Re: BFD for long haul circuit

On 17/07/2020 10:57, Mark Tinka wrote: > I suppose a lot of customers go for it because they need an Ethernet > service slower than 1Gbps, and 1Gbps via a DWDM service is pricier. > > Where I've seen it be popular is in intercontinental circuits that > customers want in order to test a market

Re: Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?

On 17/06/2020 18:38, Saku Ytti wrote: >> Why do we really need SR? Be it SR-MPLS or SRv6 or SRv6+? > I don't like this, SR-MPLS and SRv6 are just utterly different things > to me, and no answer meaningfully applies to both. > > I would ask, why do we need LDP, why not use IGP to carry labels? >

Re: Traffic destined for 100.114.128.0/24

On 08/04/2020 19:42, Drew Weaver wrote: > I’ve noticed over the past couple of weeks that some hosts on a network > I manage appear to be trying to reach hosts in this network 100.114.128.0/24 > Short answer: filter 100.64.0.0/10 from your upstreams, as you would 192.168.0.0/16 or 10.0.0.0/8.

Re: NTT/AS2914 enabled RPKI OV 'invalid = reject' EBGP policies

On 26/03/2020 10:39, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > What are you waiting for, someone to say make it so? I knew someone would come back with the smartarse response ;) I'm certainly not the authority on this, and I'm not tracking the deployments with any great detail. I'm happy to suggest where

Re: NTT/AS2914 enabled RPKI OV 'invalid = reject' EBGP policies

On 26/03/2020 02:05, JASON BOTHE via NANOG wrote: > Excellent work. I’m curious to know how many of the big ASs are > participating to date. If you or anyone on the list knows if this is > published please let me know. I am deeply upset that there isn't yet a Wikipedia article entitled, "List of

Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT residential

On 21/02/2020 23:37, Owen DeLong wrote: > What’s next? Why not simply eliminate port numbers altogether in favor > of a single 16-bit client-side unique session identifier. I see what you did there. -- Tom

Re: CISCO 0-day exploits

On 10/02/2020 18:13, Scott Weeks wrote: > Just because you use cisco devices doesn't mean you have to use > their proprietary protocols, such as EIGRP or CDP. OSPF or LLDP > work just fine and interoperate with other vendors... :) The CDPwn vulnerability covers similar vulnerabilities in LLDP,

Re: CISCO 0-day exploits

On 10/02/2020 13:40, Saku Ytti wrote: > There are various L3 packet of deaths where existing infra can be > crashed with single packet, almost everyone has no or ridiculously > broken iACL and control-plane protection, yet business does not seem > to suffer from it. The cynic in me would suggest

Re: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois

On 09/01/2020 17:09, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > But at least Cogent is not a security and/or anti-spam vendor (or is > it?). A security services company (iThreat) spammed all IANA gTLD > contacts this week, with the ever lasting excuse of "it's opt-out".  Everlasting, unless you're operating under the

Re: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois

On 08/01/2020 13:53, Joe Provo wrote: >> This is a disproportionate response IMHO. $0.02 >> >> YMMV, > > And mine certainly does. Well over a decade of documented > misbehavior with requests for them to cease certainly makes > this an appropriate response. I will always applaud an >

Re: Recommended DDoS mitigation appliance?

On 18/11/2019 13:50, Mike Hammett wrote: > I would like the list to know that not all targets attract such large > attacks. I know many eyeball ISPs that encounter less than 10 gig > attacks, which can be reasonably absorbed\mitigated. Online gamers > looking to boot someone else from the game

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

On 03/10/2019 13:36, Masataka Ohta wrote: >> It also aides the normalisation of an entirely detestable practice. > > IWF does not aide so. No, the normalisation of an entirely detestable practice comes from the opposite of IWF involvement; you suggested that we should permit child pornography

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

On 03/10/2019 12:11, Masataka Ohta wrote: >> Sources, please. (Disclaimer: I'm in the UK.) > > John Levine already mentioned "Internet Watch Foundation". Sure, but the IWF was always intended to stop people accessing paedophilia accidentally. It has always been well understood for there to be

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

On 02/10/2019 21:44, Masataka Ohta wrote: > The Internet was working very well to suppress child porn by > making video freely distributed, which made child porn industry > a lot less profitable. I will say this very clearly: abusing children for sexual gratification doesn't stop when it is

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

On 01/10/2019 08:40, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Note that the UK is probably the country in Europe with the biggest > use of lying DNS resolvers for censorship. No wonder that the people > who censor don't like anti-censorship techniques. Do you have a (reputable) source to go with that claim?

Re: [j-nsp] MX10003 rack size

On 07/08/2019 17:15, Anderson, Charles R wrote: > 1000mm deep. APC AR3100 racks are 600mm x 1070mm. APC also makes > 1200mm deep ones, and 750mm wide ones, and both together. Unsure as to why this was cross-posted, but... Many vendors do these sizes now. 600x1200 is rather useful when you have

Re: Mx204 alternative

On 08/08/2019 04:02, Mehmet Akcin wrote: > > I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.  > > Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full > routing tables from two providers? > > Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. > Min 6-8 10G ports are

Re: UK, NL, & Asia LTE Providers for Opengear Console Servers

On 01/08/2019 15:14, Nick Olsen wrote: > It roams on 3UK. And works fine. Albeit the LTE deployment isn't near as > wide there as it is in the US. And you end up on HSDPA pretty frequently. To the this point, I've a Three contract here (UK). It has slightly been frustrating recently, I'll admit.

Re: UK, NL, & Asia LTE Providers for Opengear Console Servers

On 01/08/2019 03:19, Mehmet Akcin wrote: > Google Fi Are you suggesting Fi because of: "When outside the United States, cellular phone calls cost $0.20 per minute, data costs the same $10 per gigabyte (i.e. there are no extra data charges outside of the US), and texting is free." Ergo, relative

Re: Abuse from Vodaphone AS30722

On 25/07/2019 14:37, John Von Essen wrote: > We are experiencing a massive DDoS from three Vodafone /16’s. The DDoS > is spread throughout the entire range. You say *Distributed*, from that I would expect that this traffic is ingressing at multiple locations in your network? I'd be surprised if

Re: Flexible OTN / fractional 100GbE

On 29/05/2019 15:09, Jérôme Nicolle wrote: > I don't find what I need there. I just want to plug an OTU4 uplink in a > standard QSFP28 port, no fancy photonics are required, and benefit from > inband monitoring and management, FEC and trafic isolation. > > It would idealy be represented in ONL or

Re: Flexible OTN / fractional 100GbE

On 28/05/2019 11:41, Jérôme Nicolle wrote: > I'm looking for a muxponder that would take OTU4s on the network side > and provide 10/40/100GbE on the client side, with some kind of > oversubscription, as to provide a "fractional 100GbE" e.g. starting with > 30-60Gbps commit that could be upgraded

Re: Incoming SSDP UDP 1900 filtering

On 25/03/2019 09:17, Sean Donelan wrote: > Its always a bad idea to do packet filtering at your bgp border. Wild assertion. Why? DoS mitigation, iACLs, BGP security... I can think of lots of very sensible reasons. -- Tom

Re: Cisco ASR's with RSP440 engines...

On 19/02/2019 15:26, Tom Hill wrote: > I know the RSP440 is EOL, but the plan would > be to upgrade to RSP880 within a year. Also, the RSP880-RL is available for the same price as 440 on list. If you certainly need 880 later, I might be wondering if Cisco will 'help' with securing a di

Re: Cisco ASR's with RSP440 engines...

On 18/02/2019 21:50, John Von Essen wrote: > If anyone on here has experience with the ASR series running the > RSP440-SE or -TR, please contact me off-list. I'm trying to better > understand real world performance when it comes to handling a few full > BGP tables on these, it would be running as

Re: RTBH no_export

On 31/01/2019 20:17, Nick Hilliard wrote: > you should implement a different community for upstream blackholing. > This should be stripped at your upstream links and replaced with the > provider's RTBH community.  Your provider will then handle export > restrictions as they see fit. This works

Re: [ROUTING] Settle a pointless debate - more commonly used routing protocol in total deployments - OSPF vs IS-IS

On 25/01/2019 04:47, Steven Bahnsen wrote: > First time poster looking for some input on a debate This won't settle anything. You've just started the same old debate again, from the beginning. Again. :) There are almost certainly indexed threads of this mailing list with enough answers to this

Cheap switch with a couple 100G

On 25/11/2018 22:38, Aled Morris wrote: > Juniper have launched a Trident based switch with 48 x 25G ports (the > QFX5120-48Y.) I very specifically said "Juniper MX". ;) -- Tom

Re: Cheap switch with a couple 100G

On 25/11/2018 21:52, Ben Cannon wrote: > Single Wavelength Coherent or 4x10g coherent? SFP28... So 1x25G, and direct detect. > Actually FS has SFP28 CWDM optics (1270-1330) available but they are > not up on the website, just as an FYI. Missed that original mail, Tony. Good to know, thank

Re: Cheap switch with a couple 100G

On 25/11/2018 21:43, Ben Cannon wrote: > At this point, with 400g coherent in production never mind long-haul > testing; why bother lighting with anything slower than 100g coherent, > especially at essentially the same price. It just makes no sense. > It got skipped. We’re better for it IMO.

Re: Cheap switch with a couple 100G

On 25/11/2018 21:22, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > If it is passive, you could tell them it is for 10G but use it for 25G? The mux isn't the problem, it's that there aren't SFP28 optics commonly available in C/DWDM wavelengths. Yet. If they were, well maybe... ... However, your trouble then is that

Re: Cheap switch with a couple 100G

On 25/11/2018 18:59, Mike Hammett wrote: > It wouldn't be hard to do any standard wavelength, really. They just > need an appropriate mux. I'm really not sure that your statement makes sense by itself. -- Tom

Re: Cheap switch with a couple 100G

On 25/11/2018 18:16, Mike Hammett wrote: > I haven't seen anyone selling 25G or 50G transport. That's because, in active transport at least, 100G makes far more sense. You may start seeing passive 25G WDM soon. Finisar have a DWDM tunable, I believe. -- Tom

Re: Amazon now controls 3.0.0.0/8

On 09/11/2018 00:46, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > 3.4.5.6/24 could be an interesting block to put > easily memorable IP services in... My upbringing in the 90s makes '5.6.7.8' far more memorable. :) -- Tom

Re: Level3 IRR contact

On 17/09/18 15:15, Brian Rak wrote: > I used to use routing@level3 to get this done, however they don't seem > to reply anymore. > > http://www.irr.net/docs/list.html directs me to r...@level3.net, which has > an autoreply that says "open a ticket" You may wish to start by swapping the Level3

Re: 3rd party QSFP-100G-LR4-S for Cisco

On 2018-05-29 13:48, Ryugo Kikuchi wrote: Does anyone have a recommended model of 3rd party's "QSFP-100G-LR4-S" for Cisco ASR and Nexus? Cisco's original 100G SFP costs us an arm and a leg, so we want to try to use 3rd party 100g SFP. But we are not sure which manufacturer's SFP is reliable

Re: Broadcom vs Mellanox based platforms

On 04/06/18 06:41, Kasper Adel wrote: > I’m thinking, how do i validate their claims about capability to do > leaf/spine arch, ToR/Gateways, telemetry, serviceability, facilities to > troubleshoot packet drops or FIB programming misses, hidden tools...etc I'd start with a software vendor that

Re: Curiosity about AS3356 L3/CenturyLink network resiliency (in general)

On 21/05/18 17:10, Large Hadron Collider wrote: > I would go as far as to say that Tier 1 is a derogatory designation, but > I have a beef with Cogent because they're expecting otherwise Tier 1 > IPv6 ISP Hurricane Electric to bow to the altar of Cogent. Owen, is dat yew?! -- Tom

Re: Curiosity about AS3356 L3/CenturyLink network resiliency (in general)

On 18/05/18 14:55, Stephen Satchell wrote: > What happened when you sent out your last RPQ to the vendors with these > requirements? Why bother? There are so few products, with so few vendors, and their list prices & discount levels are easily researchable in less than a day. If you thought

Re: Curiosity about AS3356 L3/CenturyLink network resiliency (in general)

On 19/05/18 21:51, Ben Cannon wrote: > Isn’t that the ASR9010? (And before that 7609?) I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not. -- Tom

Re: Curiosity about AS3356 L3/CenturyLink network resiliency (in general)

On 17/05/18 14:24, Mike Hammett wrote: > There's some industry hard-on with having a few ginormous routers instead of > many smaller ones. "Industry hard-on", ITYM "Greedy vendors". Try finding a 'small' router with a lot of ports (1 & 10GE) for your customers, and the right features/TCAM/CP

Re: 1/2u 100g Metro-E Aggregation Switch

On 14/02/18 19:47, Aaron Gould wrote: > What does this include ? > > 17828 (part#) - X870 MPLS Feature Pack (product name) - ExtremeXOS > X870 MPLS Feature Pack (firmware license) I was going to say, 'JFGI', but Extreme really don't make these things easy to find any more... Features in the

Re: list blockchain

On 28/01/18 18:38, Todd Underwood wrote: > Moderators: even when posts are by long term members of the community can > you remind them of the list purpose when they forget, please? Thanks! Randy's post has provided more commentary on our industry than most of the other drivelling nonsense that

Re: Looking for Cisco ASR9000v feedback

On 06/06/17 15:34, Erik Sundberg wrote: > Looking for the pro's, con's, and the gotcha's of moving our 1G ports to the > 9000V. The nV licenses for one. Talk about printing money. -- Tom

Re: NANOG70 tee shirt mystery

On 05/06/17 00:55, Matthew Petach wrote: > Or is there some other cultural reference at > play that I'm not aware of? It could be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Washington_(state)#Grunge Nirvana & Pearl Jam (amongst others) came out of Seattle, it seems. TIL! -- Tom

Re: Russian diplomats lingering near fiber optic cables

On 04/06/17 23:32, Rod Beck wrote: > And when you get over trying to score cheap points, you can view the map I'm not the one that needs to look at a map ;) -- Tom

Re: Russian diplomats lingering near fiber optic cables

On 01/06/17 20:44, Rod Beck wrote: > There is a website showing where most of the Trans-Atlantic cables land on > the West Coast of Britain at towns like Bude in Wales. Hiding is not an > option. Bude is in Cornwall, a county of England. It's not in Wales. -- Tom

Re: 10G MetroE 1-2U Switch

On 13/04/17 23:47, Aaron Gould wrote: > Pretty sure I looked at the ciena 51xx and I found that it does not have > mpls in it... pretty sure Erik needs mpls... The 5150 will 'do MPLS', which is pretty clear from their website. The references 5160, too. I wouldn't recommend it personally, but it

Re: Anyone using Arista 7280R as edge router?

On 14/04/17 14:51, David Hubbard wrote: > I’m looking at the ASR9001 with add-on ports since I need (10) 10gig. Be careful here; the 9001 won't support IOS-XR 64-bit as far as anyone can make out, and there is a semi-confirmed successor already on its way up ("9901"). Be sure to mention this if

Re: Netflow/sFlow generator for Linux with BGP support

On 29/01/17 06:43, Peter Phaal wrote: > You might want to try pmacct: > http://www.pmacct.net/ That's definitely a good idea. +1 -- Tom

Re: Optical Wave Providers

On 01/09/16 22:45, Matthew Petach wrote: > (I'm half hoping to get a flurry of replies telling me > I'm completely wrong, and then explaining the real > issues to me. If nobody replies, it might mean I'm > not entirely wrong). You were not wrong on any particular point, but I don't think you may

Re: Real world power consumption of a 7604-S or 7606-S

On 28/06/16 00:26, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > Example: > 7604S chassis with dual 2700W DC power - chassis and fans use how much > power? > 2 x RSP720-3CXL at 310W each > WS-X6704 with DFC4 - ???W each Way too much, is the simple answer. I did have a 7604 (non-S) with the same PSUs, 1x SUP720-3BXL, 1x

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 16/06/16 15:40, Dave Temkin wrote: > Nothing in my presentation said "Netflix seeks to get better port fees". > You'll find that I, not once, in my deck or oral presentation, mentioned > Netflix. I spoke at length with LINX after the presentation and pointed out > that I seek to help the entire

Re: NCS5K?

On 26/04/16 14:27, Chris Welti wrote: > Judging from the NCS 5001 configuration guides they (NCS5K) don't support > any VPLS, is that correct? Just EoMPLS? It's not targeted as a full-feature box AFAIK. You've got the ASR9k and ASR9xx series for this sort of thing. I do recall some mention of

Re: NCS5K?

On 26/04/16 15:02, Colton Conor wrote: > Do you actually think that Cisco would sell at NCS 5501 at the price > point that Arista is going to sell a 7280R for? Spec wise they are very > similar (except Arista has 8 more SFP+ ports and two more 100G ports). > Arista is pricing the 7280R inline with

Re: NCS5K?

On 19/04/16 14:46, Chris Welti wrote: > According to some slides from a russian cisco connect event, the > upcoming small-size NCS 5501 and NCS 5502 will support 1M+ FIB and > 50ms per port buffers. Seem to be killer boxes. 48x100GE in 2RU with > large FIB & buffers? Loving it already. I wonder

Re: Arista Routing Solutions

On 20/04/16 15:37, Colton Conor wrote: > Can the Arista EOS software combine with their hardware based on the > Broadcom Jericho chipset truly compete with the custom chipsets and > accompanying software from the big guys? In broad strokes: for your money you're either getting port density, or

Re: NTT Charles

On 13/02/16 20:12, Jared Geiger wrote: > ge-102-0-0-0.happy-trails-Charles.r05.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net *pictures Charles falling off of a building in slow motion* -- Tom

Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps

On 28/01/16 09:44, Jérôme Nicolle wrote: > > Le 28/01/2016 01:51, Baldur Norddahl a écrit : >> > 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

Re: Arista optics

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.

Re: Opinions on Arista 7280?

On 24/11/15 21:16, dco...@hammerfiber.com wrote: > A 7606-S can be purchased refurbished for like 90% off list price. The > market is seriously glutted with them. Not sure the OP was talking about 7600s. They're mostly End-of-Life, and not in any way suited to the OP's requirements (MLAG

Re: Updated Ookla Speedtest Server Requirements

On 09/11/15 22:26, alvin nanog wrote: > also in the meantime, while waiting for the fiber stuff to be built out, > you could use a $400 copper-based 10gigE pci card too PCI's a bit too slow for 10Gbit/sec - I'd definitely opt for PCI-E. -- Tom

  1   2   >