Re: IP Planning and Modelling Tools

2023-08-23 Thread Andrew Latham
Pascal

Could you elaborate a bit more? Maybe some desired features or industry.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:04 AM Pascal Masha  wrote:

> Hello Folks,
>
> Any good alternatives to Ciena Blue Planet out there?
>
> Regards,
> Paschal Masha
>


-- 
- Andrew "lathama" Latham -


Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

2023-08-23 Thread Mark Tinka




On 8/23/23 18:29, t...@pelican.org wrote:


Not Trio, and different PLM :)


Yes, aware... I was just speaking in general for what is likely to be a 
very popular platform :-).




MX304 (well, strictly LMIC16) has the same restriction, and a need for another entry in the 
magic port checker (https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html) for restrictions 
beyond "SUM(port-speeds) <= 1.6T".


Yep.

That trick they did where you can live with one RE and get 3 MIC's in 
the MX304 is... well, I guess everyone will have their own opinion.




They make sense once you've looked at the block diagram for the thing and followed the 
lines, but things like "4x10G breakout can only go in odd-numbered ports, and you 
have to leave the corresponding next-lowest even-numbered port empty" are not 
instantly obvious.


They do take some getting used to. But this is what comes with all the 
flexibility operators often seek.


Mark.


Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

2023-08-23 Thread Aaron Gould
some of these port capabilities are weird to me.  like on the 
ACX7100-48L you can do 4x100 or 8x50, but ONLY one 40g ?!


me@7100> show chassis pic pic-slot 0 fpc-slot 0 | find 400
  48 0   1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 
4x10G 3x100G
  49 0   1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 
4x10G 3x100G
  50 0   1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 
4x10G 3x100G
  51 0   1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 
4x10G 3x100G
  52 0   1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 
4x10G 3x100G
  53 0   1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 
4x10G 3x100G

  54 NA  1x10G




On 8/23/2023 11:29 AM, t...@pelican.org wrote:

On Wednesday, 23 August, 2023 16:33, "Mark Tinka"  said:

[faceplate oversubscription]


On the new ACX line, yes.

Not Trio, and different PLM :)


We don't mess around with any other MX products, so not sure (although
we are still yet to deploy the MPC10E's and the MX304).

MX304 (well, strictly LMIC16) has the same restriction, and a need for another entry in the 
magic port checker (https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html) for restrictions 
beyond "SUM(port-speeds) <= 1.6T".

They make sense once you've looked at the block diagram for the thing and followed the 
lines, but things like "4x10G breakout can only go in odd-numbered ports, and you 
have to leave the corresponding next-lowest even-numbered port empty" are not 
instantly obvious.

Thanks,
Tim.



--
-Aaron



Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

2023-08-23 Thread t...@pelican.org
On Wednesday, 23 August, 2023 16:33, "Mark Tinka"  said:

[faceplate oversubscription]

> On the new ACX line, yes.

Not Trio, and different PLM :)

> We don't mess around with any other MX products, so not sure (although
> we are still yet to deploy the MPC10E's and the MX304).

MX304 (well, strictly LMIC16) has the same restriction, and a need for another 
entry in the magic port checker 
(https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html) for restrictions beyond 
"SUM(port-speeds) <= 1.6T".

They make sense once you've looked at the block diagram for the thing and 
followed the lines, but things like "4x10G breakout can only go in odd-numbered 
ports, and you have to leave the corresponding next-lowest even-numbered port 
empty" are not instantly obvious.

Thanks,
Tim.




Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

2023-08-23 Thread Mark Tinka




On 8/23/23 17:01, Tom Beecher wrote:

I'm not sure they allow oversubscription on anything in the MX line 
anymore honestly. I could be wrong, I've been face down in a specific 
subset of equipment for a while, someone please correct me if I am.


On the new ACX line, yes.

If I look at the MPC7E, MPC10E, MX10003 and MX304, no oversubscription 
is allowed.


Even the LC2103 MPC on the MX10003 which has more ports than Trio 
capacity, won't let you use more than 1.2Tbps (3x Trio 3 chips on it).


We don't mess around with any other MX products, so not sure (although 
we are still yet to deploy the MPC10E's and the MX304).


Mark.


Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

2023-08-23 Thread Matt Erculiani
Does Fusion not make sense in this case? I've not had a ton of experience
with it, but it does well to add a crazy port count to an otherwise very
port limited device.

-Matt

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 9:01 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of
>> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than
>> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio.
>>
>
> You're restricted to 400G because they did fixed lane allocations to the
> EA chip on the PFE to each port group. Doing an MRATE setup to let you
> access all 480G would have increased electrical complexity, and
> dramatically increased the price point of the box. There are tradeoffs. The
> more flexibility you want, the more expensive the box is going to be.
>
> I'm not sure they allow oversubscription on anything in the MX line
> anymore honestly. I could be wrong, I've been face down in a specific
> subset of equipment for a while, someone please correct me if I am.
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 2:11 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/23/23 08:00, Pascal Masha wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature.
>>
>> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of
>> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than
>> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio.
>>
>> In some cases, we deploy more of these in the same PoP just because we
>> need more ports, not because we need more capacity; and a chassis would
>> not make sense for the function, yet.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>

-- 
Matt Erculiani, NREMT
ERCUL-ARIN


Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

2023-08-23 Thread Tom Beecher
>
> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of
> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than
> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio.
>

You're restricted to 400G because they did fixed lane allocations to the EA
chip on the PFE to each port group. Doing an MRATE setup to let you access
all 480G would have increased electrical complexity, and dramatically
increased the price point of the box. There are tradeoffs. The more
flexibility you want, the more expensive the box is going to be.

I'm not sure they allow oversubscription on anything in the MX line anymore
honestly. I could be wrong, I've been face down in a specific subset of
equipment for a while, someone please correct me if I am.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 2:11 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/23/23 08:00, Pascal Masha wrote:
>
> > Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature.
>
> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of
> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than
> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio.
>
> In some cases, we deploy more of these in the same PoP just because we
> need more ports, not because we need more capacity; and a chassis would
> not make sense for the function, yet.
>
> Mark.
>


Re: Internet Exchange Visualization

2023-08-23 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)
I don't think any of us really understand what you're hoping to find.  I
sure don't.I think that this might be a result of a disconnect between
your understanding of how these should be monitored and how they are
monitored.

Specifically, of your two statements below,  one is true and one is false.
Just because there are no free "visualization" tools available doesn't mean
that there isn't an understanding of the infrastructure.

I struggle to see how a visualization tool would help with a big picture
view.  The scale of interconnection is so staggering that any visualization
would of necessity be incomplete so mere mortals could process it with our
visual sensors.  Unless what you mean by visualization is different than
what I envision, the resulting visualization wouldn't be all that useful to
network operations.

As a result,  every network operator that I'm aware of relies on various
monitoring tools to alert them based on metrics previously set by humans.
 I.E. circuit congestion and peer status and so on.There are advanced
tools which do sort through various data sets or traffic to try to alert
humans to things which seem out of place.  But these are not generally
visualization tools, but instead essentially report and alert generators.
 Some times the reports or tools show pretty graphs but I'm not sure I'd
classify that as visualization.

On the other hand, I wonder if I'm perhaps missing what your end goal is
here.  If you could be more verbose about the types of data you hope to get
out of the tool, then perhaps someone could reply with how that's monitored
today.

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023, 7:43 AM Thomas Beer  wrote:

> Hi All!
>
> to make an (intermediate) summary so far, it's 2023 and there are no tools
> available
> for BGP, ASN and IX interconnection visualization static or dynamic?!
>
> Nobody has a top-level understanding / awareness of the infrastructure
> topology and fixes
> "bottlenecks", route misconfiguration et al. on a peer - to - peer basis?!
>
> Cheers
> Tom
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 at 02:34, Dave Taht  wrote:
>
>> I hear the cybergeography project is making a comeback.
>>
>>
>> https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography/atlas/atlas.html
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 5:17 PM Matthew Petach 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:06 PM Thomas Beer 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Matt,
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> You might mean "exchange inter-connections" as "how are the different
>> internet exchanges connected to each other?"
>> >>> in which case the answer is generally "through the Internet".  ^_^;
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I meant ix internet exchange path visualization and an online tool to
>> take a look at it in (near) real time!
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Ah, thank you for the enlightening clarification.
>> >
>> > No such tool exists, sorry.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxmoBr4cBKg
>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>>
>


Re: Temporary DIA in Equinix MI1

2023-08-23 Thread Mehmet Akcin
We can help you. I will contact offlist


On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:42 Eric C. Miller  wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> We have a circuit in MI1 that we are trying to relocate, but there’s a
> crazy delay. Does anyone have the ability and desire to coordinate a
> Equinix cross connect and sell us DIA for 3-4months? Usage is 2-3Gbps
> Residential, we can use our own IPs/ASN if necessary.
>
>
>
> Eric
>


Temporary DIA in Equinix MI1

2023-08-23 Thread Eric C. Miller
Hello,

We have a circuit in MI1 that we are trying to relocate, but there's a crazy 
delay. Does anyone have the ability and desire to coordinate a Equinix cross 
connect and sell us DIA for 3-4months? Usage is 2-3Gbps Residential, we can use 
our own IPs/ASN if necessary.

Eric


Deployments of Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB)

2023-08-23 Thread Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG
Hello folks,

Based on data I've gathered through quantitative and qualitative surveying,
I can detect no application of Provider Backbone Bridging (MAC-in-MAC).
Please bear with me while I clarify that I am not enquiring about Provider
Bridging (QinQ).

I would like to ask specifically about knowledge of deployments of PBB.
If anyone would care to share data points, on- or off-list, I would love to
know about them.
I am open to anything on the subject of PBB's adoption that you are free to
share with me.
I am bound by GDPR and will anonymize any data that is not open for public
disclosure.

Thank you!

Etienne

-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale