Re: IP4 Space
apples and oranges. When did novell turn orange? I thought they were red. ;-) I'd expect that v4 will still exist in legacy form behind firewalls, but I think its deprecation on the public internet will happen a lot faster than anyone expects. maybe you're right, but... I doubt it. I agree that v6 deployments seem to be getting better/faster/stronger... I think that's good news, but we'll still be paying the v4 piper for a while. Only until v4 becomes more expensive (using whatever metric matters to you) than v6. I have v4, it's not going to be anymore expensive than it is today for me... for new folks sure, but I've got mine. If you start deploying IPv6, then, the cost of maintaining duplicate security policies (v4 and v6), duplicate host mappings, duplicate DNS, duplicate configurations on all your routers, etc. does eventually add up, as does the need for even more TCAM. These costs may be trivial in small environments, but, for major enterprises and large backbones, these costs will become significant. An additional not-yet recognized cost of IPv4 will come to light as the various transfer policies start super-fragmenting the address space and our TCAMs begin exploding with new IPv4 routes. Likely there will be scenarios where ISPs need a /16 but they can only find 240 non-aggregable /24s. They'll snap them up and bam... 240 new IPv4 routes. The ARIN transfer policies has some safeguards against this, but, most of the RIRs passed transfer policies without these safeguards. Owen
RIPE Database Query API on RIPE Labs
Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC implemented a RIPE Database Query API in form of a RESTful Web Service. See a detailed description on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/content/ripe-database-api We are curious to find out if this is useful or if you have any suggestions. You can leave comments in the forum on RIPE Labs or send mail directly to me. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC
Re: IP4 Space
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:35:38AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: Only until v4 becomes more expensive (using whatever metric matters to you) than v6. I have v4, it's not going to be anymore expensive than it is today for me... for new folks sure, but I've got mine. If you start deploying IPv6, then, the cost of maintaining duplicate security policies (v4 and v6), duplicate host mappings, duplicate DNS, duplicate configurations on all your routers, etc. does eventually add up, as does the need for even more TCAM. bingo. to move -from- a single stack system (IPv4) to a dual stack system (v4 v6) is horrifically expensive. and to justify it based on the eventual cost savings of returning to a single-stack system someday might be problematic. one will pay those costs -if- there is an acceptable cost/benefit tradeoff. These costs may be trivial in small environments, but, for major enterprises and large backbones, these costs will become significant. An additional not-yet recognized cost of IPv4 will come to light as the various transfer policies start super-fragmenting the address space and our TCAMs begin exploding with new IPv4 routes. Likely there will be scenarios where ISPs need a /16 but they can only find 240 non-aggregable /24s. They'll snap them up and bam... 240 new IPv4 routes. i will note in passing that an ipv6 /32 is the functional equivalent of an ipv4 /32... with the community accepting /48's, we will exceed the potential route injection capability of ipv4. we will potentially have more ipv6 routes than we could have ipv4... simply because we can't get any finer grained in IPv4 than a /32... while we can in IPv6. The ARIN transfer policies has some safeguards against this, but, most of the RIRs passed transfer policies without these safeguards. last I checked ARIN transfer policies didn't really talk to routing deaggregation much. in part because ARIN has (to date) almost no leverage on who announces what. Owen
Re: Hotmail mail admin
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:27:37AM -0600, fiberOptiC wrote: I'm looking for a hotmail mail admin or someone with the information I'm looking for. I have a client that is trying to block the world, but only allow certain ip addresses through. It looks like hotmail uses a large pool of ip addresses for attachments so we've had a hard time determining what ip addresses to allow. My client specifically is requesting this be allowed. Does anyone know what addresses hotmail users for their attachment servers or would a hotmail admin be willing to contact me off list with this information? Thanks! $ host -t txt hotmail.com hotmail.com descriptive text v=spf1 include:spf-a.hotmail.com include:spf-b.hotmail.com include:spf-c.hotmail.com include:spf-d.hotmail.com ~all $ host -t txt spf-a.hotmail.com spf-a.hotmail.com descriptive text v=spf1 ip4:209.240.192.0/19 ip4:65.52.0.0/14 ip4:131.107.0.0/16 ip4:157.54.0.0/15 ip4:157.56.0.0/14 ip4:157.60.0.0/16 ip4:167.220.0.0/16 ip4:204.79.135.0/24 ip4:204.79.188.0/24 ip4:204.79.252.0/24 ip4:207.46.0.0/16 ip4:199.2.137.0/24 ~all $ host -t txt spf-b.hotmail.com spf-b.hotmail.com descriptive text v=spf1 ip4:199.103.90.0/23 ip4:204.182.144.0/24 ip4:204.255.244.0/23 ip4:206.138.168.0/21 ip4:64.4.0.0/18 ip4:65.54.128.0/17 ip4:207.68.128.0/18 ip4:207.68.192.0/20 ip4:207.82.250.0/23 ip4:207.82.252.0/23 ip4:209.1.112.0/23 ~all $ host -t txt spf-c.hotmail.com spf-c.hotmail.com descriptive text v=spf1 ip4:209.185.128.0/23 ip4:209.185.130.0/23 ip4:209.185.240.0/22 ip4:216.32.180.0/22 ip4:216.32.240.0/22 ip4:216.33.148.0/22 ip4:216.33.151.0/24 ip4:216.33.236.0/22 ip4:216.33.240.0/22 ip4:216.200.206.0/24 ip4:204.95.96.0/20 ~all $ host -t txt spf-d.hotmail.com spf-d.hotmail.com descriptive text v=spf1 ip4:65.59.232.0/23 ip4:65.59.234.0/24 ip4:209.1.15.0/24 ip4:64.41.193.0/24 ip4:216.34.51.0/24 ~all
Earthquakes
I saw a recent(-ish) short thread about a mag. 4 quake in the SF Bay Area. This http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/36.38.-123.-121.php should provide with everything you need to know. I check it on a daily basis and it's been rather quiet the past week or 2 or so. Actually I guess it's been rather quiet ever since the 1989 quake, but then a year or so ago I woke up in the morning from some rattling doors so I guess it all depends on your perspective. So far the worst quake ever I experienced was in the Netherlands back around 1988. Magn. 5.2 or something. Which is interesting considering these happen like once every 6 million years or thereabouts ;-) Actually I slept through it so I don't know if one can call it experiencing. Greetings, Jeroen
Re: Earthquakes
In California, 4s are a regular occurrence and we have 2-3s every day. I rarely notice anything less than a 5, and, often do not notice up to a 5.5 in my area. The worst quake I have personally experienced was the 1989 Loma Prietta quake which was a 7.9 IIRC. It caused some significant damage to some substandard (by modern measure, not when they were built) structures, most notably the bay bridge and the cypress and embarcadero elevated freeways and a brick-and-morter (literally) mall in Santa Cruz. Other than that, the damage from the 7.9 was minimal outside of a relatively contained zone rather close to the epicenter. I've been through more than one quake in the 5.2-5.5 range, so, perhaps they are rare in the Netherlands (6 million years or so), but, in California they are much more frequent, perhaps 5-7 years or so. Owen On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: I saw a recent(-ish) short thread about a mag. 4 quake in the SF Bay Area. This http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/36.38.-123.-121.php should provide with everything you need to know. I check it on a daily basis and it's been rather quiet the past week or 2 or so. Actually I guess it's been rather quiet ever since the 1989 quake, but then a year or so ago I woke up in the morning from some rattling doors so I guess it all depends on your perspective. So far the worst quake ever I experienced was in the Netherlands back around 1988. Magn. 5.2 or something. Which is interesting considering these happen like once every 6 million years or thereabouts ;-) Actually I slept through it so I don't know if one can call it experiencing. Greetings, Jeroen
RE: Earthquakes
When I was living in San Jose/Sunnyvale and we had a 5.2 in 2001? (can't remember the date, was a bit ago). The only effect I felt from it was as if someone had taken the back of my chair and pushed it forward, that was about it. Of course at the same time there was a large Earthquake in Turkey being broadcast on the News, so thought it was just me, but when it came on the news a few minutes later Since than I believe there have been several 5.0+ in that area, obviously none have been as significant as the one in 1988, but I think its only a matter of time till a large one occurs. Regards, -Joe Blanchard
Re: Earthquakes
Something to keep in mind is that raw magnitude isn't the whole story. The ground composition is *much* more important when it comes to destructiveness. A 5.0 earthquake in the Netherlands might be extremely damaging because of liquifaction. Also: California since we get quakes all the time, our rock is more shattered which damps the seismic waves. Back east, on the other hand, the bedrock is more solid which is why the New Madrid earthquakes traveled so far (ringing bells in Boston, IIRC). Of course New Madrid were huge earthquakes by any standard. Mike On 03/24/2010 01:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: In California, 4s are a regular occurrence and we have 2-3s every day. I rarely notice anything less than a 5, and, often do not notice up to a 5.5 in my area. The worst quake I have personally experienced was the 1989 Loma Prietta quake which was a 7.9 IIRC. It caused some significant damage to some substandard (by modern measure, not when they were built) structures, most notably the bay bridge and the cypress and embarcadero elevated freeways and a brick-and-morter (literally) mall in Santa Cruz. Other than that, the damage from the 7.9 was minimal outside of a relatively contained zone rather close to the epicenter. I've been through more than one quake in the 5.2-5.5 range, so, perhaps they are rare in the Netherlands (6 million years or so), but, in California they are much more frequent, perhaps 5-7 years or so. Owen On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: I saw a recent(-ish) short thread about a mag. 4 quake in the SF Bay Area. This http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/36.38.-123.-121.php should provide with everything you need to know. I check it on a daily basis and it's been rather quiet the past week or 2 or so. Actually I guess it's been rather quiet ever since the 1989 quake, but then a year or so ago I woke up in the morning from some rattling doors so I guess it all depends on your perspective. So far the worst quake ever I experienced was in the Netherlands back around 1988. Magn. 5.2 or something. Which is interesting considering these happen like once every 6 million years or thereabouts ;-) Actually I slept through it so I don't know if one can call it experiencing. Greetings, Jeroen
Re: NEED ANY LINK OR SAMPLE TEMPLATE FOR ROUTINE NETWORK (ISP)
Folks, Since the last internet cleaning day, we've discovered that straightening the ethernet cables as much as possible, eliminating unnecessary bends and kinks significantly speeds up the network. Also, taking a cue from my sports car, we've contracted with a supplier to make all our new cabling with steel braided sheathing on the exterior. Now, if I could only figure out how to install a Cooler Master CPU cooler on my AGS+ core router... Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications j...@via.net 650-207-0372 cell 650-213-1302 office 650-969-2124 fax On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: and never forget to check the circuit breakers for good grounding, prefered use an etherkill(tm) cable - but be aware, that there is currently no such cable available for fiber optics. If you are unshure if your fiber cables are properly grounded try to use an optical isolation transformer. Kind regards, ingo flaschberger
Re: IP4 Space
when will you turn off -all- IPv4 in your network? no snmp/aaa, no syslog, no radius, no licensed s/w keyed to a v4 address, no need to keep logs for leos' (whats the data retention law in your jurisdiction?) etc... The same day that we stop using RS-232C point-to-point protocol devices. The day that IPv4 is turned off, is not an interesting date. What *IS* interesting is when IPv4 disappears into the woodwork and is only used inside boxes and on internal management networks. For comparison look at the z-80 CPU which powered the early desktop computers. When the IBM PC came out, people thought that the Intel 8086 would make the Z-80 obsolete. But it didn't. The Z-80 just disappeared into all sorts of electronic devices where it serves as a controller for some function, perhaps the video display or the disk drive servos. And you can still buy them. Here is a development kit in case you want to use Z-80s in new devices: http://www.zilog.com/docs/ez80/devtools/fl0023.pdf The same thing will happen to IPv4. In a hundred years some engineer will be surprised to discover that IPv4 is running inside residential HVAC systems, carrying messages from thermostats and temperature sensors to the heating system, the air conditioners, and the ground heat exchangers. But within 10 years, IPv4 will no longer be doing the heavy-lifting in carrying packets across the public Internet, and that is what counts for most of us. --Michael Dillon P.S. If you are in the market for a buggy whip, here is a list of manufacturers/sellers as well as some advice on choosing the whip. http://home.comcast.net/~a-mcnibble/Links/Link1.HTML
Re: Earthquakes
Owen DeLong wrote: I've been through more than one quake in the 5.2-5.5 range, so, perhaps they are rare in the Netherlands (6 million years or so), but, in California they are much more frequent, perhaps 5-7 years or so. Well, 6 million years was a slight exaggeration to get a point across. The Netherlands doesn't really have any quakes due to faultlines (there aren't any). But it does have the occasional quake due to coal/gas mining. Where the ground compacts or something like it.
RE: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers?
The boxes do alright at low load levels. They do not have an asic tech like the F5s so choke on large amounts of traffic. Management is a bit immature and you will find yourself having to use the CLI and the Gui to accomplish most advanced tasks. When we put them head to head A10 AX3200 vs F5 6400 ltm (note: 6400 was what we were looking to replace) Test: 1000 concurrent users from Gomez's Networks Loadtesting platform hitting as fast as the requests would close, going through our standard vip config on the f5, and the A10 engineering teams 3 best efforts to beat that config that balanced between two Identical Dell 1950 servers serving a php page that responded with a random number (to avoid caching). The 6400 we used was in production at the time, and was older so we were expecting to get blown away, see the results here: F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 360ms average transaction response time If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them out of gomez. Though notable that this was all done a year ago, so things might be different now. ~J -Original Message- From: Welch, Bryan [mailto:bryan.we...@arrisi.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? Does anyone have any experiences good/bad/indifferent with this company and their products? They claim 2x the performance at ½ the cost and am a bit leery as you can imagine. We are looking to replace our aging F5 BigIP LTM's and will be evaluating these along with the Netscaler and new generation F5 boxes. Regards, Bryan
Re: Earthquakes
Michael Thomas wrote: Something to keep in mind is that raw magnitude isn't the whole story. The ground composition is *much* more important when it comes to destructiveness. A 5.0 earthquake in the Netherlands might be extremely damaging because of liquifaction. Yes the one I mentioned from the late 80s damaged buildings quite a bit around the epi centre in the SE. That would be damage such as falling roof tiles and cracks in walls. But then the Dutch do build a lot with brick and mortar. That's a big no no in places like California.
Re: Earthquakes
On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: I've been through more than one quake in the 5.2-5.5 range, so, perhaps they are rare in the Netherlands (6 million years or so), but, in California they are much more frequent, perhaps 5-7 years or so. Well, 6 million years was a slight exaggeration to get a point across. The Netherlands doesn't really have any quakes due to faultlines (there aren't any). But it does have the occasional quake due to coal/gas mining. Where the ground compacts or something like it. LOL @ NL creating artificial earthquake faults because they're Jealous of California's natural seismic events. ;-) Owen
RE: Earthquakes
-Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:48 PM To: Jeroen van Aart Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Earthquakes On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: I've been through more than one quake in the 5.2-5.5 range, so, perhaps they are rare in the Netherlands (6 million years or so), but, in California they are much more frequent, perhaps 5-7 years or so. Well, 6 million years was a slight exaggeration to get a point across. The Netherlands doesn't really have any quakes due to faultlines (there aren't any). But it does have the occasional quake due to coal/gas mining. Where the ground compacts or something like it. LOL @ NL creating artificial earthquake faults because they're Jealous of California's natural seismic events. ;-) Sorry for being jealous ;) At least we create them and in California they just happen. Mark
Re: Earthquakes
On 2010-03-24, at 13:12, Ken Gilmour wrote: We had a 6.2 last year in Costa Rica... We immediately regretted where we had placed our racks and are almost finished a project to move them to a concrete floor (rather than that compressed cardboard stuff). Lost a lot of hard drives that day! We regularly have quakes between the 4-5 region here. By regularly, i mean a minimum of 5 times a year in different parts of the country. If there is interest in data centre provisioning or construction, disaster planning or inside/outside plant strategies intended to mitigate damage by earthquakes then the NZNOG list might well be a good English-language place to get some advice. Earthquakes of magnitude 4 and up happen pretty regularly (several times per week is common). http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/recent_quakes.html http://www.nznog.org/ Joe
Cogeco Contact...?
Can someone from the Cogeco NOC please contact me off-list at roccap2...@yahoo.com? I have tried ipservi...@cogeco.net and 1-905-333-7055 without luck. Thank you.
RE: Cogeco Contact...?
Thanks all, success. -Original Message- From: Peter Rocca [mailto:ro...@start.ca] Sent: March 24, 2010 8:20 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cogeco Contact...? Can someone from the Cogeco NOC please contact me off-list at roccap2...@yahoo.com? I have tried ipservi...@cogeco.net and 1-905-333-7055 without luck. Thank you.
Re: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers?
Very interesting to see about A10's performance- I've heard mixed things about them. Just an FYI, the newer F5 platforms don't utilize the ASIC's- the performance curve of general-purpose CPU's has once again eclipsed what can be done with specialized silicon without aggressive (and expensive) revision cycles. The ASIC's also could only be used in simpler virtual server configurations and with certain subsets of iRules. That said, nothing else I'm aware of provides the functionality of iRules. I've used netscalers only a relatively small amount- and they are nice- particularly if your requirements are within their feature set- but my experience has been that things I take for granted using an iRule are seriously painful to implement on a netscaler. --D On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Justin Horstman jhorst...@adknowledge.comwrote: The boxes do alright at low load levels. They do not have an asic tech like the F5s so choke on large amounts of traffic. Management is a bit immature and you will find yourself having to use the CLI and the Gui to accomplish most advanced tasks. When we put them head to head A10 AX3200 vs F5 6400 ltm (note: 6400 was what we were looking to replace) Test: 1000 concurrent users from Gomez's Networks Loadtesting platform hitting as fast as the requests would close, going through our standard vip config on the f5, and the A10 engineering teams 3 best efforts to beat that config that balanced between two Identical Dell 1950 servers serving a php page that responded with a random number (to avoid caching). The 6400 we used was in production at the time, and was older so we were expecting to get blown away, see the results here: F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 360ms average transaction response time If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them out of gomez. Though notable that this was all done a year ago, so things might be different now. ~J -Original Message- From: Welch, Bryan [mailto:bryan.we...@arrisi.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? Does anyone have any experiences good/bad/indifferent with this company and their products? They claim 2x the performance at ½ the cost and am a bit leery as you can imagine. We are looking to replace our aging F5 BigIP LTM's and will be evaluating these along with the Netscaler and new generation F5 boxes. Regards, Bryan -- -- Darren Bolding -- -- dar...@bolding.org --
RE: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers?
Yes, agreed. I think the Netscaler falls into the category of the Cisco in this respect ducks. Seems the F5 gear is the 1000lb gorilla in this category and for the most part we have no reason to look anywhere else other than doing our own due diligence with respect to the other vendor offerings in this space. Regards, Bryan From: packetmon...@gmail.com [mailto:packetmon...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Darren Bolding Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:46 PM To: Justin Horstman Cc: Welch, Bryan; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? Very interesting to see about A10's performance- I've heard mixed things about them. Just an FYI, the newer F5 platforms don't utilize the ASIC's- the performance curve of general-purpose CPU's has once again eclipsed what can be done with specialized silicon without aggressive (and expensive) revision cycles. The ASIC's also could only be used in simpler virtual server configurations and with certain subsets of iRules. That said, nothing else I'm aware of provides the functionality of iRules. I've used netscalers only a relatively small amount- and they are nice- particularly if your requirements are within their feature set- but my experience has been that things I take for granted using an iRule are seriously painful to implement on a netscaler. --D On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Justin Horstman jhorst...@adknowledge.commailto:jhorst...@adknowledge.com wrote: The boxes do alright at low load levels. They do not have an asic tech like the F5s so choke on large amounts of traffic. Management is a bit immature and you will find yourself having to use the CLI and the Gui to accomplish most advanced tasks. When we put them head to head A10 AX3200 vs F5 6400 ltm (note: 6400 was what we were looking to replace) Test: 1000 concurrent users from Gomez's Networks Loadtesting platform hitting as fast as the requests would close, going through our standard vip config on the f5, and the A10 engineering teams 3 best efforts to beat that config that balanced between two Identical Dell 1950 servers serving a php page that responded with a random number (to avoid caching). The 6400 we used was in production at the time, and was older so we were expecting to get blown away, see the results here: F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 360ms average transaction response time If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them out of gomez. Though notable that this was all done a year ago, so things might be different now. ~J -Original Message- From: Welch, Bryan [mailto:bryan.we...@arrisi.commailto:bryan.we...@arrisi.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? Does anyone have any experiences good/bad/indifferent with this company and their products? They claim 2x the performance at ½ the cost and am a bit leery as you can imagine. We are looking to replace our aging F5 BigIP LTM's and will be evaluating these along with the Netscaler and new generation F5 boxes. Regards, Bryan -- -- Darren Bolding -- -- dar...@bolding.orgmailto:dar...@bolding.org --
Re: IP4 Space
it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least, How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network? Ten years ago we were routing appletalk and IPX. Still doing that now? Ten years ago I was still telling a few customers that Novell Netware had supported TCP/IP since the early 90s and it was really time to shut off IPX, and the Appletalk users were at least running over IP, not LocalTalk, so I didn't have to care much, and the Windows people were probably already arguing about Active Directory and LDAP and whether to do DNS, DLSW was Not Dead Yet, and 1/3 of my X.25 customers acknowledged that it was way obsolete and time to join the 1990s (the other two were state governments who viewed it as Somebody Else's Emulation Problem.) The last time I was dealing with high-end Layer 1 access problems was a couple of years ago, but in addition to normal IPv4 and MPLS, I had customers running Fiber Channel and other SAN protocols on the WAN. There'll be enough IPv4 to keep antiques dealers in business for a while yet. -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: IP4 Space
On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least, How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network? Ten years ago we were routing appletalk and IPX. Still doing that now? Ten years ago I was still telling a few customers that Novell Netware had supported TCP/IP since the early 90s and it was really time to shut off IPX, and the Appletalk users were at least running over IP, not LocalTalk, so I didn't have to care much, and the Windows people were probably already arguing about Active Directory and LDAP and whether to do DNS, DLSW was Not Dead Yet, and 1/3 of my X.25 customers acknowledged that it was way obsolete and time to join the 1990s (the other two were state governments who viewed it as Somebody Else's Emulation Problem.) The last time I was dealing with high-end Layer 1 access problems was a couple of years ago, but in addition to normal IPv4 and MPLS, I had customers running Fiber Channel and other SAN protocols on the WAN. There'll be enough IPv4 to keep antiques dealers in business for a while yet. As of (at least) 2002, the FBI was still using bisync for communications. If you're a data communications professional and haven't heard of bisync, that proves my point... I suspect that some members of this list weren't born by the time it was considered obsolete. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers?
the a10s actually do pretty good at relatively high load levels as well, and they do have an asic(multiple), fyi.. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Justin Horstman jhorst...@adknowledge.comwrote: The boxes do alright at low load levels. They do not have an asic tech like the F5s so choke on large amounts of traffic. Management is a bit immature and you will find yourself having to use the CLI and the Gui to accomplish most advanced tasks. When we put them head to head A10 AX3200 vs F5 6400 ltm (note: 6400 was what we were looking to replace) Test: 1000 concurrent users from Gomez's Networks Loadtesting platform hitting as fast as the requests would close, going through our standard vip config on the f5, and the A10 engineering teams 3 best efforts to beat that config that balanced between two Identical Dell 1950 servers serving a php page that responded with a random number (to avoid caching). The 6400 we used was in production at the time, and was older so we were expecting to get blown away, see the results here: F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 360ms average transaction response time If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them out of gomez. Though notable that this was all done a year ago, so things might be different now. ~J -Original Message- From: Welch, Bryan [mailto:bryan.we...@arrisi.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? Does anyone have any experiences good/bad/indifferent with this company and their products? They claim 2x the performance at ½ the cost and am a bit leery as you can imagine. We are looking to replace our aging F5 BigIP LTM's and will be evaluating these along with the Netscaler and new generation F5 boxes. Regards, Bryan
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 122
Hi Joe You guys ever mount your racks on Barry mounts= vibration mounts..with so many shakes you may need to. RD Message: 6 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:14:12 -0700 From: Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca Subject: Re: Earthquakes To: Ken Gilmour ken.gilm...@gmail.com Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: 69cb2fce-3d0e-44fe-93f4-8f3776dad...@hopcount.ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2010-03-24, at 13:12, Ken Gilmour wrote: We had a 6.2 last year in Costa Rica... We immediately regretted where we had placed our racks and are almost finished a project to move them to a concrete floor (rather than that compressed cardboard stuff). Lost a lot of hard drives that day! We regularly have quakes between the 4-5 region here. By regularly, i mean a minimum of 5 times a year in different parts of the country. If there is interest in data centre provisioning or construction, disaster planning or inside/outside plant strategies intended to mitigate damage by earthquakes then the NZNOG list might well be a good English-language place to get some advice. Earthquakes of magnitude 4 and up happen pretty regularly (several times per week is common). http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/recent_quakes.html http://www.nznog.org/ Joe -- Message: 7 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:54 -0400 From: Peter Rocca ro...@start.ca Subject: Cogeco Contact...? To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: cbc1f36fc255be4b85b08ea17298c78a9ed...@pigeon.start.local Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Can someone from the Cogeco NOC please contact me off-list at roccap2...@yahoo.com? I have tried ipservi...@cogeco.net and 1-905-333-7055 without luck. Thank you. -- Message: 8 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:34:52 -0400 From: Peter Rocca ro...@start.ca Subject: RE: Cogeco Contact...? To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: cbc1f36fc255be4b85b08ea17298c78a9ed...@pigeon.start.local Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks all, success. -Original Message- From: Peter Rocca [mailto:ro...@start.ca] Sent: March 24, 2010 8:20 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cogeco Contact...? Can someone from the Cogeco NOC please contact me off-list at roccap2...@yahoo.com? I have tried ipservi...@cogeco.net and 1-905-333-7055 without luck. Thank you. -- Message: 9 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:46:27 -0700 From: Darren Bolding dar...@bolding.org Subject: Re: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? To: Justin Horstman jhorst...@adknowledge.com Cc: Welch, Bryan bryan.we...@arrisi.com,nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: 5a318d411003241846ue709334icce03515da414...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Very interesting to see about A10's performance- I've heard mixed things about them. Just an FYI, the newer F5 platforms don't utilize the ASIC's- the performance curve of general-purpose CPU's has once again eclipsed what can be done with specialized silicon without aggressive (and expensive) revision cycles. The ASIC's also could only be used in simpler virtual server configurations and with certain subsets of iRules. That said, nothing else I'm aware of provides the functionality of iRules. I've used netscalers only a relatively small amount- and they are nice- particularly if your requirements are within their feature set- but my experience has been that things I take for granted using an iRule are seriously painful to implement on a netscaler. --D On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Justin Horstman jhorst...@adknowledge.comwrote: The boxes do alright at low load levels. They do not have an asic tech like the F5s so choke on large amounts of traffic. Management is a bit immature and you will find yourself having to use the CLI and the Gui to accomplish most advanced tasks. When we put them head to head A10 AX3200 vs F5 6400 ltm (note: 6400 was what we were looking to replace) Test: 1000 concurrent users from Gomez's Networks Loadtesting platform hitting as fast as the requests would close, going through our standard vip config on the f5, and the A10 engineering teams 3 best efforts to beat that config that balanced between two Identical Dell 1950 servers serving a php page that responded with a random number (to avoid caching). The 6400 we used was in production at the time, and was older so we were expecting to get blown away, see the results here: F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 360ms average transaction response time If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them out of gomez. Though notable that this was all done a year
Re: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers?
That said, nothing else I'm aware of provides the functionality of iRules. I'd argue that Zeus' TrafficScript is on par or better than iRules.
RE: Earthquakes
The West Eifel volcanic field (SW of Bonn, Germany) is not far from NL and the last spectacular eruption there was about 9000 or so years ago (rather recently in geological terms). And there have been other significant earthquakes in the region in recorded history. The Lisbon quake in the 18th century was felt across much of Europe. -Original Message- From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jer...@mompl.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:32 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Earthquakes Owen DeLong wrote: I've been through more than one quake in the 5.2-5.5 range, so, perhaps they are rare in the Netherlands (6 million years or so), but, in California they are much more frequent, perhaps 5-7 years or so. Well, 6 million years was a slight exaggeration to get a point across. The Netherlands doesn't really have any quakes due to faultlines (there aren't any). But it does have the occasional quake due to coal/gas mining. Where the ground compacts or something like it.
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 122
On 25/03/2010, at 4:32 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote: Hi Joe You guys ever mount your racks on Barry mounts= vibration mounts..with so many shakes you may need to. RD Nope. Instead, we stick it at the top of big towers that buffer the vibrations as they go up the tower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Tower From memory, we can thank/blame Joe for much of that. Up that tower we have the main switches for the Auckland Peering Exchange (which has in the last few years become a bit more distributed), the (main, or only) POPs for a bunch of offshore transit, including Pacnet and Vocus, and also an F-root instance. From memory it's the highest AGL peering exchange in the world. Probably the highest F-Root instance in the world as well. When there are high winds, the service lift that stops at the right levels cannot run, because it's on a longer shaft and so moves around a lot more. So you have to take the regular tourist glass-bottomed lift and then walk down about 6 flights to the comms floors. Also in moderate winds any unfastened cabinet doors will move with the sway of the tower. Try going up there at 4am after watching a thriller. Also the floor to ceiling glass about 2 feet from the bottom of the ladder you're at the top of a 50RU rack with. Plus the swaying building. You get over your vertigo pretty quickly, or you just don't go up the tower more than once. -- Nathan Ward
