What I want to see is reasonably priced 40G single mode transceivers.
I have no idea why 40G and now 100G wasn't rolled out with single mode as the
preference. The argument that there's a large multimode install base doesn't
hold water.
For one thing, you're using enormous amounts of MM fiber
On Jan 30, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 384bf687-ad8a-4919-9eab-723a09854...@puck.nether.net, Jared
Mauch
writes:
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
as
IRRToolset 5.0.1 (rtconfig really) finally gave out on a pretty
messy RPSL parse.
After a few hours of research, it seems that its dead since 2009 :(.
There is some effort at http://irrtoolset.isc.org to reboot
development, its pretty dead since 2012-07-31.
Beside home made
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 08:58:06AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote:
IRRToolset 5.0.1 (rtconfig really) finally gave out on a pretty
messy RPSL parse.
After a few hours of research, it seems that its dead since 2009 :(.
There is some effort at http://irrtoolset.isc.org to reboot
+1 Easiest to use by far.
Only thing I see as lacking for easy adoption is canned solution for
managing the push to the routers.
On 1/31/2014 9:04 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 08:58:06AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote:
IRRToolset 5.0.1 (rtconfig really) finally gave
There's also for example
http://www.silicom-usa.com/Intelligent_Bypass_Switches/IBS10G-Intelligent_10G_Bypass_Switch_33
//jb
2014-01-27 Keyser, Philip pkey...@fibertech.com:
Does anyone have any recommendations for a fiber bypass switch? I am looking
for something capable of 10G that when
On 31/01/2014 13:58, Alain Hebert wrote:
IRRToolset 5.0.1 (rtconfig really) finally gave out on a pretty
messy RPSL parse.
of direct relevance to this:
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/irrtoolset/2011-April/000736.html
tl;dr: rpsl itself is a mess = no point in fixing irrtoolset
There is
On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I figure there will be similar problem for other business in other
countries and they will fight a similar battles. Eventually the
regulators will step in because it is bad for small businesses to
be shut out of the Internet.
On 01/31/14 10:02, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 31/01/2014 13:58, Alain Hebert wrote:
IRRToolset 5.0.1 (rtconfig really) finally gave out on a pretty
messy RPSL parse.
of direct relevance to this:
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/irrtoolset/2011-April/000736.html
tl;dr: rpsl itself is a mess
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:32:17AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote:
bgpq3 works great the as-set that was borking rtlookup generate a
~183k long prefix list =D.
I recommend using it like this, to enable aggregation where possible: bgpq3 -A
Kind regards,
Job
pgpjISSQ47YFj.pgp
Description:
Yes, its the first thing I tried.
Iti's still ~82k =D
The as-set included some of his peering as export too.
We're both looking into it.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770
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, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
Are there anyone from Level3 here, who can tell me if there are issues with
Level3 in Las Vegas area?
We're hosted out of the Switch SuperNAP, and we're having high packet loss on
two different Internet circuits. And at 9:30 AM PST we had no connectivity to
all our 70+ remote locations spread
Folks,
I'm wondering about the following two aspects of different DHCPv6
implementations out there:
1) What's the pattern with which addresses are generated/assigned? Are
they sequential (fc00::1, fc00::2, etc.)? Random? Something else?
2) What about their stability? Is there any
Hail NANOGers!
Per approval of the NANOG Board in February 2013, a community effort to
develop a NANOG sponsored regional BCOP effort was engaged. NANOG BCOP
Tracks and updates were provided at RIPE, ARIN, NANOG 57, 58, and 59.
In November of 2013, sufficient interest and momentum in the NANOG
Hi, Bill,
On 01/31/2014 05:59 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
i in my bespoke version:
Is there any reference I could use for it?
1- psudo-random within a /32 space
2- not stable, unless coded to a fixed address
Regarding 2), do you mean they are only stable if you ahve a
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:09:43AM -0500, John Curran wrote:
better utilization. It would be nice if there was a way to fairly
settle up for the imputed cost of adding a given route to the
routing table, as this would provide some proportionate backpressure
on growth, would
I've used shared hosting from Rimuhosting (www.rimuhosting.com) for years.
They have dedicated servers in Brisbane. Looks like they are colo'ed with
Oz Servers.
sam
This report has been generated at Fri Jan 31 21:13:37 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
BGP Update Report
Interval: 23-Jan-14 -to- 30-Jan-14 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS12301 41185 2.0% 352.0 -- INVITEL Invitel Tavkozlesi Zrt.
2 - AS840231749
In message 0a78151e-0fdb-4276-9b14-6a88e2941...@istaff.org, John Curran
writes:
On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I figure there will be similar problem for other business in other
countries and they will fight a similar battles. Eventually the
regulators
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
Imagine one of the big players saying, we're going to charge you $X per
route you send to us (just like transit agreements that state, we will
charge you $X/GB of traffic), or your contract allows you to send us N
routes
On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote:
Folks,
I'm wondering about the following two aspects of different DHCPv6
implementations out there:
1) What's the pattern with which addresses are generated/assigned? Are
they sequential (fc00::1, fc00::2, etc.)?
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:09:43AM -0500, John Curran wrote:
better utilization. It would be nice if there was a way to fairly
settle up for the imputed cost of adding a given route to the
routing table, as this
* Mark Andrews
I understand this but this block changes the status quo. It is a
policy changer. AFAIK ARIN hasn't done allocations to the /28 level
like this in the past. This is all new territory.
It's not exactly new. Like I've mentioned earlier in this thread, the
RIPE NCC has granted
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
What I fail to understand from this thread is the apparent expectation
that these smaller-than-/24 microscopic delegations from ARIN will be
popular.
Hi Tore,
There is every expectation that they will be unpopular. They're a
has it be clarified by arin on why they are going to allocate /28s? seems
a faster way to waste ipv4 space with unusable ip addresses? The only
thing I can think of is micro allocations for IX points.
*Bryan Socha*
Network Engineer
646.450.0472 | *br...@serverstack.com
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:10:51AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
A /8 slot costs as much as a /28 slot to hold process etc. A routing
slot is a routing slot. The *only* reason this isn't a legal problems
at the moment is people can still get /24s. The moment /24's aren't
readily available
I will attempt to clarify this once more...
When I wrote the policy which created this set-aside space, it was, as Bill has
said, intended as a hedge to provide minimal resources for organizations that
are unable to obtain larger IPv4 blocks through any normal mechanism (standard
I get the idea behind it, but it really has no real world usage. I can
still find 15 year old swips from people with /8s who keep getting more
addresses. Break out the audits before their next blocks.
Without making a policy proposal, (yet), it might make sense to have a
suggestion to ARIN that if it *does* end up allocating multiple /28s from one
/24 intermediate, that the /24 be regionally reserved so that all sub-blocks
are physically nearby and could collaborate on a cooperative /24
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:10:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
Imagine one of the big players saying, we're going to charge you $X per
route you send to us (just like transit agreements that state, we will
charge you $X/GB of
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:10:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
Thats the optimistic outcome. The pessimistic outcome is that they get
rapidly depeered by everyone unwilling to pay $X/GB and then start losing
customers because their customers can no longer reach anyone elses
customers through them.
On Jan 31, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:10:51AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
A /8 slot costs as much as a /28 slot to hold process etc. A routing
slot is a routing slot. The *only* reason this isn't a legal problems
at the
34 matches
Mail list logo
