Re: Network Vendor suggestions/reviews, Arista Networks, Dell Force10, Juniper, Extreme Networks etc...
Hi Blake, Purple is the new Green. I would have a vote for Extreme Networks if you look for a high density, low latency, non blocking setup. Their BD X8 could do 768 10G's per chassis (2304 ports per rack). Later this year the BD X8 will also do the new gen 100G. Their switches are one of the fastest switches you can find for a datacenter setup, along with their TOR switch, the 48 port 10G 1U switch, the X670/X670V. From a pricepoint in purchase but also in power consumption and management cost, Extreme Networks will be a clear winner. If you are looking for options like certain sw features, Extreme works like a charm in a MPLS/ VPLS setup, MLAGG, OSPF and v6. They also put a lot of effort in SW API's like perl /XML interfaces for automation, which makes it great to script against. Their CLI has a bit different structure vs Cisco IOS or the Juniper cli, but very easy to pickup. We do a lot with Extreme in our own ISP network, I would recommend them in any Cisco 6509 replacement project. Regards, Erik Bais Op 19 jun. 2013 om 01:53 heeft Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List blake.mailingl...@pfankuch.me het volgende geschreven: Howdy, I have been working on a proposal for the organization I work for to move into the 10gbit datacenter. We have a small datacenter currently of about 1000 ports of 1gbit. We have traditionally been a full Cisco shop, however I was asked to do a price comparison as well as features with other major alternative vendors. I was also asked to do some digging as far as what the real world thinks about these possible vendors. We currently have 2 Cisco 6509's with 8 48 port cards Sup 3BXL, 2 Cisco 4506 with 5x 48 port card and Sup V's and 2 4900M switches providing 10gbit to a very specialized implementation. With all of our technology, we try to not be bleeding edge, but oozing edge. We need 5 9's or more of uptime yearly so stability is preferable to cool features. We currently have single supervisors in all of our switches (not my decision) and it has bit us recently. Everything we are looking at needs to support NSF/SSO/VSS of some kind. What we have been looking to replace it with in Cisco world is Nexus 7004 Core and Nexus 5596UP with 2200 series Fabric extenders for Dist/Access as well as 2200 Fabric Extenders within our Dell Blade Chassis. Realistically we will be under 800 ports of 10gbit (excluding Blades) which puts us in a tough spot from what I can find. Currently everything we have is EOR, however TOR would make more sense allowing us to switch to SFP+ twinax connectivity to servers. With this in mind, I have a few questions... It was mandated that I look at a company Arista Networks and investigate possible options. I had not heard much about them, so I look to the experts. Pro's and Con's? Real world experience? Looks to me they have a lot of cool features, but I'm slightly concerned with how new they might be, how reliable it would be as well as their QA/bugfix history. Also 24x4 support and hardware replacement. Everything in our datacenter currently has a 2 or 4 hour cisco contract on it and critical core components have a cold spare in inventory. Dell Force 10... I know Dell tries to get you to drink the Koolaid on this solution, I was a former Dell Partner and they even pushed me to get demo equipment going... What's the experience with their chassis switches? Stability? Configuration sanity? What do people like? What do people hate? Juniper. What do people like? What do people hate? Have the Layer 2 issues of historical age gone away? Is the config still xml ish? It has been about 5 years since I worked with anything Juniper. Extreme networks. I know very little about them historically. What is good, what is bad? Is the config sane? I would be happy to compile any information I find, as well as our sanitized internal conclusions. On and off list responses welcome. If there is another vendor anyone would suggest, please add them to the list with similarly asked questions. Thanks! Blake
Re: Network Vendor suggestions/reviews, Arista Networks, Dell Force10, Juniper, Extreme Networks etc...
I have worked with both Extreme, Juniper, Cisco and Brocade and Avaya. Extreme. Great boxes stable and afforadable when it comes to 10GE and 40GE. Truly one XOS for all boxes, lowend x440 has the same XOS as 48*10GE device.Support sucks very bad though if you can't get your SE to support you. Juniper Great boxes, very nice CLI, good support with a nice ticketsystem and good kb. However I have found alot of bugs that needs to be corrected in the switch series that are somewhat annoying. Cisco Good boxes, expensive great support and a amazing KB. Brocade Good boxed, a tad expensive. Open to opensoucre when it comes to SDN stuff. Avaya Great boxes, SPB all the way =), not a solid true OS yet but some different ones on different boxes, but to my mind the SPB solution gives you the most flexability in a datacenter today and you can even in the long run mix vendors if you like since it's open and standarized. Short rant =) Hope you find the vendor you like the best and by all means take in a couple of them for test. Med vänlig hälsning Andreas Larsen IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se Den 2013-06-19 05:17 skrev Brent Jones br...@brentrjones.com: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List blake.mailingl...@pfankuch.me wrote: Howdy, I have been working on a proposal for the organization I work for to move into the 10gbit datacenter. We have a small datacenter currently of about 1000 ports of 1gbit. We have traditionally been a full Cisco shop, however I was asked to do a price comparison as well as features with other major alternative vendors. I was also asked to do some digging as far as what the real world thinks about these possible vendors. We currently have 2 Cisco 6509's with 8 48 port cards Sup 3BXL, 2 Cisco 4506 with 5x 48 port card and Sup V's and 2 4900M switches providing 10gbit to a very specialized implementation. With all of our technology, we try to not be bleeding edge, but oozing edge. We need 5 9's or more of uptime yearly so stability is preferable to cool features. We currently have single supervisors in all of our switches (not my decision) and it has bit us recently. Everything we are looking at needs to support NSF/SSO/VSS of some kind. What we have been looking to replace it with in Cisco world is Nexus 7004 Core and Nexus 5596UP with 2200 series Fabric extenders for Dist/Access as well as 2200 Fabric Extenders within our Dell Blade Chassis. Realistically we will be under 800 ports of 10gbit (excluding Blades) which puts us in a tough spot from what I can find. Currently everything we have is EOR, however TOR would make more sense allowing us to switch to SFP+ twinax connectivity to servers. With this in mind, I have a few questions... It was mandated that I look at a company Arista Networks and investigate possible options. I had not heard much about them, so I look to the experts. Pro's and Con's? Real world experience? Looks to me they have a lot of cool features, but I'm slightly concerned with how new they might be, how reliable it would be as well as their QA/bugfix history. Also 24x4 support and hardware replacement. Everything in our datacenter currently has a 2 or 4 hour cisco contract on it and critical core components have a cold spare in inventory. Dell Force 10... I know Dell tries to get you to drink the Koolaid on this solution, I was a former Dell Partner and they even pushed me to get demo equipment going... What's the experience with their chassis switches? Stability? Configuration sanity? What do people like? What do people hate? Juniper. What do people like? What do people hate? Have the Layer 2 issues of historical age gone away? Is the config still xml ish? It has been about 5 years since I worked with anything Juniper. Extreme networks. I know very little about them historically. What is good, what is bad? Is the config sane? I would be happy to compile any information I find, as well as our sanitized internal conclusions. On and off list responses welcome. If there is another vendor anyone would suggest, please add them to the list with similarly asked questions. Thanks! Blake Coming from first hand experience, all network equipment vendors have strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I prefer the Junos CLI and ecosystem, but it is a learning curve, especially with a larger team who may not be familiar with it. But I found once I grasped the Junos way, I'm significantly more productive with less errors, and commit confirmed is much better than Cisco comparable rollback methods. Juniper also offers several methods for automation: Junoscript/SLAX, Netconf, and now Puppet integration. I also have experience with Force10, and minor experience with Arista, both good vendors. They will be
Re: Network Vendor suggestions/reviews, Arista Networks, Dell Force10, Juniper, Extreme Networks etc...
Arista is rock solid they have both an IOS like cli and a standard unix shell you can even run tcpdump on their switches. Arista claim to fame came about 3-4 years back when they had at the time one of the fastest non-blocking cut though 10Gbe switches using the fulcrum asic geared for low latency environments the financial sector ate it up and loved it. Facebook is also a huge Arista shop. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List blake.mailingl...@pfankuch.me wrote: Howdy, I have been working on a proposal for the organization I work for to move into the 10gbit datacenter. We have a small datacenter currently of about 1000 ports of 1gbit. We have traditionally been a full Cisco shop, however I was asked to do a price comparison as well as features with other major alternative vendors. I was also asked to do some digging as far as what the real world thinks about these possible vendors. We currently have 2 Cisco 6509's with 8 48 port cards Sup 3BXL, 2 Cisco 4506 with 5x 48 port card and Sup V's and 2 4900M switches providing 10gbit to a very specialized implementation. With all of our technology, we try to not be bleeding edge, but oozing edge. We need 5 9's or more of uptime yearly so stability is preferable to cool features. We currently have single supervisors in all of our switches (not my decision) and it has bit us recently. Everything we are looking at needs to support NSF/SSO/VSS of some kind. What we have been looking to replace it with in Cisco world is Nexus 7004 Core and Nexus 5596UP with 2200 series Fabric extenders for Dist/Access as well as 2200 Fabric Extenders within our Dell Blade Chassis. Realistically we will be under 800 ports of 10gbit (excluding Blades) which puts us in a tough spot from what I can find. Currently everything we have is EOR, however TOR would make more sense allowing us to switch to SFP+ twinax connectivity to servers. With this in mind, I have a few questions... It was mandated that I look at a company Arista Networks and investigate possible options. I had not heard much about them, so I look to the experts. Pro's and Con's? Real world experience? Looks to me they have a lot of cool features, but I'm slightly concerned with how new they might be, how reliable it would be as well as their QA/bugfix history. Also 24x4 support and hardware replacement. Everything in our datacenter currently has a 2 or 4 hour cisco contract on it and critical core components have a cold spare in inventory. Dell Force 10... I know Dell tries to get you to drink the Koolaid on this solution, I was a former Dell Partner and they even pushed me to get demo equipment going... What's the experience with their chassis switches? Stability? Configuration sanity? What do people like? What do people hate? Juniper. What do people like? What do people hate? Have the Layer 2 issues of historical age gone away? Is the config still xml ish? It has been about 5 years since I worked with anything Juniper. Extreme networks. I know very little about them historically. What is good, what is bad? Is the config sane? I would be happy to compile any information I find, as well as our sanitized internal conclusions. On and off list responses welcome. If there is another vendor anyone would suggest, please add them to the list with similarly asked questions. Thanks! Blake
Re: gTLDs opened up
AfriNIC did not put them on the stage. AIS was not convened by AfriNIC. It is very much like holding APNIC responsible for the content of other parts of an APRICOT meeting. It just doesn't reflect the facts. I agree that these TLD sellers are rather silly, but the organizers of the conference chose to allow free speech. You are, of course, free to criticize as you wish, but ideally, you should at least direct your criticism at those responsible. Owen On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: AfriNIC put these wonderful people on stage at the African Internet Summit. 20130618_101455.jpg In parallel, I should offer /16s from an alternet IP space for USD1,000, buy one and get one free. /sarcasm randy
Re: gTLDs opened up
On 2013-06-19 12:14, Owen DeLong wrote: You are, of course, free to criticize as you wish, but ideally, you should at least direct your criticism at those responsible. Indeed, you should point out the simple fact that anybody with a budget can simply buy their time to sound like they belong somewhere and that people approve of what you do, and being the 'lunch sponsor' gets you there; ergo: verify what those sponsor's message is before letting them pay for spamming at your conference... Greets, Jeroen
Re: [afnog] gTLDs opened up
How is AFRINIC responsible of that? AfriNIC put these wonderful people on stage at the African Internet Summit. afrinic put them on the stage. it is said because you needed to fill slots in the program, but i really do not know why or care. randy
Re: gTLDs opened up
On 6/19/13, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I agree that these TLD sellers are rather silly, but the organizers of the conference chose to allow free speech. I'm not sure it matters. Besides, you can always ignore their presentation, abstain from the meeting, go home, or bitch on NANOG; I'll agree TLD seller speeches are a waste of your time - well, unless the folks are from ICANN, who probably will be selling gTLDs en mass before too long, as they undergo technical feasability studies and of course the answer to a feasibility study is almost always “yes”. (see Robert Glass, Facts and Fallacies) Although, the bitching on NANOG bit only really serves to draw more attention to their existence, which is what the unauthorized 3rd party TLD selllers want anyways. You are, of course, free to criticize as you wish, but ideally, you should at least direct your criticism at those responsible. AfriNic kind of choses to associate themselves, by allowing their meeting to be at a venue, and proximal in time to the TLD sellers' speech. Owen -- -JH
Re: Network Vendor suggestions/reviews, Arista Networks, Dell Force10, Juniper, Extreme Networks etc...
On 06/18/2013 11:51 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote: Arista is rock solid they have both an IOS like cli and a standard unix shell you can even run tcpdump on their switches. Arista claim to fame came about 3-4 years back when they had at the time one of the fastest non-blocking cut though 10Gbe switches using the fulcrum asic geared for low latency environments the financial sector ate it up and loved it. Facebook is also a huge Arista shop. Most of the trading framework is as well - it runs on 7124's in many cases and especially the new 7124FX units which are FPGA based and wickedly fast. The other thing you can get from Juniper is time services. Their TCA gear is the rebranded Juniper-Expanded Brilliant-Telecom technology. Todd Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List blake.mailingl...@pfankuch.me wrote: Howdy, I have been working on a proposal for the organization I work for to move into the 10gbit datacenter. We have a small datacenter currently of about 1000 ports of 1gbit. We have traditionally been a full Cisco shop, however I was asked to do a price comparison as well as features with other major alternative vendors. I was also asked to do some digging as far as what the real world thinks about these possible vendors. We currently have 2 Cisco 6509's with 8 48 port cards Sup 3BXL, 2 Cisco 4506 with 5x 48 port card and Sup V's and 2 4900M switches providing 10gbit to a very specialized implementation. With all of our technology, we try to not be bleeding edge, but oozing edge. We need 5 9's or more of uptime yearly so stability is preferable to cool features. We currently have single supervisors in all of our switches (not my decision) and it has bit us recently. Everything we are looking at needs to support NSF/SSO/VSS of some kind. What we have been looking to replace it with in Cisco world is Nexus 7004 Core and Nexus 5596UP with 2200 series Fabric extenders for Dist/Access as well as 2200 Fabric Extenders within our Dell Blade Chassis. Realistically we will be under 800 ports of 10gbit (excluding Blades) which puts us in a tough spot from what I can find. Currently everything we have is EOR, however TOR would make more sense allowing us to switch to SFP+ twinax connectivity to servers. With this in mind, I have a few questions... It was mandated that I look at a company Arista Networks and investigate possible options. I had not heard much about them, so I look to the experts. Pro's and Con's? Real world experience? Looks to me they have a lot of cool features, but I'm slightly concerned with how new they might be, how reliable it would be as well as their QA/bugfix history. Also 24x4 support and hardware replacement. Everything in our datacenter currently has a 2 or 4 hour cisco contract on it and critical core components have a cold spare in inventory. Dell Force 10... I know Dell tries to get you to drink the Koolaid on this solution, I was a former Dell Partner and they even pushed me to get demo equipment going... What's the experience with their chassis switches? Stability? Configuration sanity? What do people like? What do people hate? Juniper. What do people like? What do people hate? Have the Layer 2 issues of historical age gone away? Is the config still xml ish? It has been about 5 years since I worked with anything Juniper. Extreme networks. I know very little about them historically. What is good, what is bad? Is the config sane? I would be happy to compile any information I find, as well as our sanitized internal conclusions. On and off list responses welcome. If there is another vendor anyone would suggest, please add them to the list with similarly asked questions. Thanks! Blake -- // Standard perasonal email disclaimers apply
RE: NANOG Digest, Vol 65, Issue 74
As stated, every vendor has its merits. If you really put some time into developing a list of requirements and then structure a bakeoff that tests those, you will learn a lot. Some things to think about: * don't let JUNOS or any other CLI deter you. You just need to factor in training and hiring efforts/costs. We switched to Juniper for 50+ campus routers (haven't used their switches yet) because they had way better bang for the buck. The engineers that whined about it not being Cisco were not the ones I cared to keep. The engineers that went out and learned JUNOS then slapped it on their resume were, by far, the more reliable and skilled engineers. Also, when you are hiring, I bet that you will find that engineers with substantial experience in other platforms will also perform very well on the technical interviews. They will probably know advanced BGP, MPLS, tunneling, multicast, QOS and other stuff that your average interviewee does not. It's a mindset. *politics: we replaced a large section of our network with Foundry (a price-per-port) decision. They worked as well as any vendor out there, but their support was... not polished as Cisco or Juniper. But the real problem came from the low level support engineers who had a CCNA and were Cisco-oriented. Now, when we had Cisco blade/power/code failures, it was a network failure. When the Foundry had a problem, it was a Foundry failure. I watched a huge outage due to a poor spanning tree design get branded as a Foundry issue. Management hears this enough and eventually we are told to replace the Foundry switches. I pulled ticket logs and proved that the support team had nearly twice the amount of open tickets and logged failures with Cisco as they did with Foundry, but it didn't matter. *politics again: If you are a big cisco shop and you decide to use another vendor somewhere, I GUARANTEE that a regional sales VP and some ducklings in suits will soon walk directly into the CIO's office. They will argue that the bakeoff was skewed, that price-per-port value doesn't factor in a lot of other value that cisco brings, they will even question the skillset of your engineers who performed the bakeoff, etc... they will instill Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt. They will offer another 2 or 3 % discount, they will throw in free professional services, and so on. Hell, they may put a Cisco employee on your board of directors. Short story - if there's a lot of money involved, you may wind up back with Cisco. I've seen it more than once That being said, I don't dislike Cisco at all. Their support is top notch and their training is pretty good. They take good care of their clients. A LOT of their products are good... some are not. But I did want to prepare you for the fun if you seriously consider another vendor. We have selected Mellanox for a small data warehouse, but that was a point solution due to the Infiniband requirements. We have selected Arista for a large Hadoop deployment. So far, they are a great product and a great value. Support seems good, but we haven't called them much yet. That's a good thing. One other thing to consider is future state and emerging technologies. If you are an architect or if you work with architecture to obtain design direction, ask about future needs for multi-tenancy, SDN, automation and such. I think you'll find that not only is Arista way out ahead of some vendors with this, they are using Open source code, more or less. Cisco has onePK, but their automation and API integration is not only proprietary, it's misleading. I haven't seen the other vendor solutions yet, so I can't say who is BEST at automation, orchestration, and SDN... So... determine what's important to your network today and in 3-5 years, then look at what's being offered. cwb -Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org [mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:18 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 65, Issue 74 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-requ...@nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-ow...@nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of NANOG digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Network Vendor suggestions/reviews, Arista Networks, Dell Force10, Juniper, Extreme Networks etc... (Phil Fagan) 2. Re: Network Vendor suggestions/reviews, Arista Networks, Dell Force10, Juniper, Extreme Networks etc... (Mike Hale) 3. Re: Network Vendor suggestions/reviews, Arista Networks, Dell Force10, Juniper, Extreme Networks etc... (Phil Fagan) 4. Re: Network Vendor suggestions/reviews, Arista Networks, Dell Force10, Juniper, Extreme Networks etc... (Brent
If you thought you had wire management issues in your facilities...
Radio Free Asia, Washington DC. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=485799631503312set=gm.536342003094118type=1 Just remember, you're probably in better shape than them. If you look carefully on the right side you can see where some cables were left abandoned in place because they'd become unremovable from that giant set of dreadlocks. -- -- Tom Morris, KG4CYX Mad Scientist For Hire Chairman, South Florida Tropical Hamboree / Miami Hamfest Engineer, WRGP Radiate FM, Florida International University 786-228-7087 151.820 Megacycles
Re: If you thought you had wire management issues in your facilities...
*shrug* Enh.. Looks pretty much like any colo site I've ever been in that's been maintained by nothing but remote hands for the previous 4 years... (equinix, are you paying attention?) -Wayne On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 01:04:17PM -0400, Tom Morris wrote: Radio Free Asia, Washington DC. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=485799631503312set=gm.536342003094118type=1 Just remember, you're probably in better shape than them. If you look carefully on the right side you can see where some cables were left abandoned in place because they'd become unremovable from that giant set of dreadlocks. -- -- Tom Morris, KG4CYX Mad Scientist For Hire Chairman, South Florida Tropical Hamboree / Miami Hamfest Engineer, WRGP Radiate FM, Florida International University 786-228-7087 151.820 Megacycles --- Wayne Bouchard w...@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Re: If you thought you had wire management issues in your facilities...
That's nothing. I was in a business office colo facility in San Jose in the 2001 timeframe, that had a (as I recall) 12-rack long patch panel setup for the 2 or 3 floors they occupied. All the phones and LANs used the same panels. They'd used red cable for everything. There was no - zero - cable management. There was a literally hand-deep (tip of my fingers to my wrist) spaghetti mess of wire from side to side, top to bottom, across the whole set of racks. Going in every direction. No cable in the entire room had a label on either end. The LAN switches didn't properly handle spanning tree, so if you looped it, under the tangle of wires the whole room's switches would all start blinking in unison, which was your sign to unplug what you just plugged in and figure out what went wrong. I walked in, examined the situation, went to Frys, purchased green and blue cables (for phone and net, respectively, did my new switch, gateway, and phone hookup, labeled both ends of all my cables, and fled. New owners took over as we were leaving for our permanent office six months later. They had a crew in to rewire it. I walked in and was pulling my switch and gateway out, and they commented that mine were the only properly done cables, and profusely thanked us for giving them at least a few ports they could identify both ends of... On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Tom Morris bluen...@gmail.com wrote: Radio Free Asia, Washington DC. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=485799631503312set=gm.536342003094118type=1 Just remember, you're probably in better shape than them. If you look carefully on the right side you can see where some cables were left abandoned in place because they'd become unremovable from that giant set of dreadlocks. -- -- Tom Morris, KG4CYX Mad Scientist For Hire Chairman, South Florida Tropical Hamboree / Miami Hamfest Engineer, WRGP Radiate FM, Florida International University 786-228-7087 151.820 Megacycles -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
net neutrality and peering wars continue
good article by Stacey Higginbotham http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
Even better by Verizon - http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given she attended NANOG in Orlando - http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: good article by Stacey Higginbotham http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
Even better by Verizon - http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given she attended NANOG in Orlando - http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/ as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. randy
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
Or alternately: Verizon wishes money to accept data it requested from other vendors, film at 11. It's all in the application of the angular momentum... -Blake On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Even better by Verizon - http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given she attended NANOG in Orlando - http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/ as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. randy
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. I agree with Randy, but will go one further. Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes your competitors to compete in your home market. You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements? You go into the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one. Google Fiber, anyone? Having a requirement that's basically you must compete with me on all the products I sell is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys use ratio. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote: Verizon wishes money to accept data it requested from other vendors, film at 11. The phrase you're looking for is, double billing. Same byte, two payers. -Bill -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote: On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. I agree with Randy, but will go one further. Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes your competitors to compete in your home market. You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements? You go into the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one. Google Fiber, anyone? Having a requirement that's basically you must compete with me on all the products I sell is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys use ratio. At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business models and the reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public policy interest is due to the wide spread legacy of monopoly driven public investment in the last mile infrastructure. -dorian
Wiki for people doing IPv6-only testing
On a recent IPv6 providers call, there was a desire for participants to share information with each other on what works and what breaks in an IPv6-only environment. I offered to set that up. It was further suggested I should share this with more than just that small community; to anyone who might be doing work to test out IPv6-only scenarios. http://wiki.test-ipv6.com This is distinct from ARIN's wiki in so far that this is less about being a general IPv6 resource and more about the IPv6-only scenario resource. Contributions are welcome, but we're requiring folks to sign up before contributing to keep the spam down. -jfes...@gigo.com / jfes...@test-ipv6.com
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:44:15PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote: On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. I agree with Randy, but will go one further. Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes your competitors to compete in your home market. You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements? You go into the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one. Google Fiber, anyone? Having a requirement that's basically you must compete with me on all the products I sell is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys use ratio. At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business models and the reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public policy interest is due to the wide spread legacy of monopoly driven public investment in the last mile infrastructure. -dorian At the risk of inflaming passions, I'll share my opinion on this whole topic and then disappear back into my cubicle. For my part, peering ratios never made sense anyway except in the pure transit world. I mean, content providers are being punished by eyeball networks because the traffic is one way. Well, DUH! But everyone overlooks two simple facts: 1) Web pages don't generate traffic, users do. Content sits there taking up disk space until a user comes to grab it. (Not quite the case with data miners such as Google, but you get the idea.) 2) Users would not generate traffic unless there were content they want to access. Whether that is web pages, commerce pages such as Amazon or ebay, streams, or peer-to-peer game traffic, if there's nothing interesting, there's nothing happening. So both sides have an equal claim to it's all your fault and one seeking to punish the other is completely moronic. Traffic interchange is good. Period. It puts the users closer to the content and the content closer to the user and everyone wins. So I never once understood why everyone was all fired up about ratios. It just never made any sense to me from the get-go. To have government get into this will certainly not help the problem, it will just make it a hundred times worse. Remember the old saying that the eight most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government. I'm here to help. and boy will they try to help. You'll be lucky if you as a company can keep still your doors open after they get done helping you. Anyhow, just my two bits. -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard w...@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
RE: net neutrality and peering wars continue
Hi Wayne, Another important point not to be missed is that these days, thanks to CDN technology, a heavy inbound ratio does not necessarily indicate a high cost burden like it did pre-CDN tech. Even more ironically, the unwillingness of a peer to upgrade connections due to the ratio excuse results in the CDN having to source traffic from non-optimal locations just to get the bits into the other network, thereby increasing the cost burden of the broadband network. If it were true that these issues were only about cost there would be plenty of common ground to negotiate acceptable peering terms, don't you think? Dave -Original Message- From: Wayne E Bouchard [mailto:w...@typo.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:03 PM To: Dorian Kim Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:44:15PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote: On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. I agree with Randy, but will go one further. Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes your competitors to compete in your home market. You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements? You go into the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one. Google Fiber, anyone? Having a requirement that's basically you must compete with me on all the products I sell is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys use ratio. At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business models and the reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public policy interest is due to the wide spread legacy of monopoly driven public investment in the last mile infrastructure. -dorian At the risk of inflaming passions, I'll share my opinion on this whole topic and then disappear back into my cubicle. For my part, peering ratios never made sense anyway except in the pure transit world. I mean, content providers are being punished by eyeball networks because the traffic is one way. Well, DUH! But everyone overlooks two simple facts: 1) Web pages don't generate traffic, users do. Content sits there taking up disk space until a user comes to grab it. (Not quite the case with data miners such as Google, but you get the idea.) 2) Users would not generate traffic unless there were content they want to access. Whether that is web pages, commerce pages such as Amazon or ebay, streams, or peer-to-peer game traffic, if there's nothing interesting, there's nothing happening. So both sides have an equal claim to it's all your fault and one seeking to punish the other is completely moronic. Traffic interchange is good. Period. It puts the users closer to the content and the content closer to the user and everyone wins. So I never once understood why everyone was all fired up about ratios. It just never made any sense to me from the get-go. To have government get into this will certainly not help the problem, it will just make it a hundred times worse. Remember the old saying that the eight most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government. I'm here to help. and boy will they try to help. You'll be lucky if you as a company can keep still your doors open after they get done helping you. Anyhow, just my two bits. -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard w...@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On 2013-06-19 7:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote: as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. randy What do you mean not really buy the balanced traffic story? Ratio can matter when routing is asymmetric. (If costs can be approximated as distance x volume, forwarding hot-potato places a higher burden on the recipient...) And we've basically designed protocols that route asymmetrically by default. Measuring traffic ratios is the laziest solution to this problem, and thus the one we should've expected. Cheers, -Benson
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: What do you mean not really buy the balanced traffic story? Ratio can matter when routing is asymmetric. (If costs can be approximated as distance x volume, forwarding hot-potato places a higher burden on the recipient...) And we've basically designed protocols that route asymmetrically by default. Measuring traffic ratios is the laziest solution to this problem, and thus the one we should've expected. That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in system that existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer really makes any sense. While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric routing, your theory is based on the idea that a content site exists in one location, and does not want to optimize the user experience. That really doesn't describe any of the large sources/sinks today. When you access www.majorwebsite.com today a lot of science (hi Akamai!) goes into directing users to servers that are close to them, trying to optimize things like RTT to improve performance. Content providers are generally doing the exact opposite of hot potato, they are cold potatoing entire racks into data centers close to the eyeballs at great cost to improve performance. But to the extent a few people still have traffic patterns where they can asymmetrically route a large amount of traffic, the situation has also changed. In 1993 this was somewhat hard to detect, report, and share. Today any major provider has a netflow infrastructure where they can watch this phenomena in real time, no one is pulling the wool over their eyes. There are also plenty of fixes, for instance providers can exchange MED's to cold potato traffic, or could charge a sliding fee to recover the supposed differences. The denial of peering also makes bad business sense from a dollars perspective. Let's say someone is asymmetric routing and causing an eyeball network extra long haul transport. Today they deny them peering due to ratio. The chance that the content network will buy full-priced transit from the eyeball network? Zero. It doesn't happen. Instead they will buy from some other provider who already has peering, and dump off the traffic. So the eyeball network still gets the traffic, gets it hidden in a larger traffic flow where they can't complain if it comes from one place, and get $0 for the trouble. A much better business arrangement would be to tie a sliding fee to the ratio. Peering up to 2:1 is free. Up to 4:1 is $0.50/meg, up to 6:1 is $1.00/meg, up to 10:1 is $1.50 a meg. Eyeball network gets to recover their long haul transport costs, it's cheaper to the CDN than buying transit, and they can maintain a direct relationship where they can keep up with each other using things like Netflow reporting. While I'm sure there's some network somewhere that does a sane paid peering product like this, I've sure never seen it. For almost all networks it's a pure binary decision, free peering or full priced transit. Quite frankly, if the people with MBA's understood the technical aspects of peering all of the current peering policies would be thrown out, and most of the peering coordinators fired. Settlement is a dirty word in the IP realm, but the basic concept makes sense. What was a bad idea was the telco idea of accounting for every call, every bit of data. Remember ATT's 900 page iPhone bills when they first came out? Doing a settlement based on detailed traffic accounting would be stupid, but doing settlements based on traffic levels, and bit-mile costs would make a lot of sense, with balanced traffic being free. Oh, and guess what, if people interconnected between CDN and eyeball networks better the users would see better experiences, and might be more likely to be satisfied with their service, and thus buy more. It's good business to have a product people like. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in system that existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer really makes any sense. While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric routing, your theory is based on the idea that a content site exists in one location, and does not want to optimize the user experience. ... A much better business arrangement would be to tie a sliding fee to the ratio. Peering up to 2:1 is free. Up to 4:1 is $0.50/meg, up to 6:1 is $1.00/meg, up to 10:1 is $1.50 a meg. Eyeball network gets to recover their long haul transport costs, it's cheaper to the CDN than buying transit, Agreed that CDN, traffic steering, etc, changes the impact of routing protocols. But I think you made my point. The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost. And we don't really have a good proxy for evaluating relative burdens. That's not to suggest that peering disputes are really about technical capabilities. Nor fairness, even... Cheers, -Benson
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have a way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics vendor is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that each party can calculate not only how much traffic they carry for each peer, but how far. Dave -- 520.229.7627 cell On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in system that existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer really makes any sense. While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric routing, your theory is based on the idea that a content site exists in one location, and does not want to optimize the user experience. ... A much better business arrangement would be to tie a sliding fee to the ratio. Peering up to 2:1 is free. Up to 4:1 is $0.50/meg, up to 6:1 is $1.00/meg, up to 10:1 is $1.50 a meg. Eyeball network gets to recover their long haul transport costs, it's cheaper to the CDN than buying transit, Agreed that CDN, traffic steering, etc, changes the impact of routing protocols. But I think you made my point. The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost. And we don't really have a good proxy for evaluating relative burdens. That's not to suggest that peering disputes are really about technical capabilities. Nor fairness, even... Cheers, -Benson
Need help in flushing DNS
Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some issues with DNS and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see www.linkedin.com resolving NS to ns1617.ztomy.com or ns2617.ztomy.com then please flush your DNS. Any other info please reach out to me off-list. Zaid
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
Let's not kid ourselves, the transit providers are just as greedy. Even the tier 2 ones (minus HE). My favorite is when they turn down your request because you have an out of band circuit in a remote pop with them. As if we're stuffing 800G of traffic down a 1G circuit that's never seen 100K of traffic on it. Or the It would jeopardize our peering agreements with other providers ... followed by a call from one of their sales guys the next day. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Siegel, David david.sie...@level3.comwrote: Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have a way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics vendor is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that each party can calculate not only how much traffic they carry for each peer, but how far. Dave -- 520.229.7627 cell On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in system that existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer really makes any sense. While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric routing, your theory is based on the idea that a content site exists in one location, and does not want to optimize the user experience. ... A much better business arrangement would be to tie a sliding fee to the ratio. Peering up to 2:1 is free. Up to 4:1 is $0.50/meg, up to 6:1 is $1.00/meg, up to 10:1 is $1.50 a meg. Eyeball network gets to recover their long haul transport costs, it's cheaper to the CDN than buying transit, Agreed that CDN, traffic steering, etc, changes the impact of routing protocols. But I think you made my point. The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost. And we don't really have a good proxy for evaluating relative burdens. That's not to suggest that peering disputes are really about technical capabilities. Nor fairness, even... Cheers, -Benson
Re: Need help in flushing DNS
Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some issues with DNS and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see www.linkedin.com resolving NS to ns1617.ztomy.com or ns2617.ztomy.com then please flush your DNS. Any other info please reach out to me off-list. While you're at it, www.usps.com, www.fidelity.com, and other well known sites have had DNS poisoning problems. When I restarted my cache, they look OK.
Re: Need help in flushing DNS
Yelp is evidently also affected On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some issues with DNS and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see www.linkedin.com resolving NS to ns1617.ztomy.com or ns2617.ztomy.com then please flush your DNS. Any other info please reach out to me off-list. While you're at it, www.usps.com, www.fidelity.com, and other well known sites have had DNS poisoning problems. When I restarted my cache, they look OK.
Re: Need help in flushing DNS
On Jun 20, 2013, at 01:30 , Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.com wrote: Yelp is evidently also affected Not from here. If the NS or www points to 204.11.56.0/24 for a production domain/hostname, that's bad. Yelp seems to be resolving normally for me. -- TTFN, patrick On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some issues with DNS and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see www.linkedin.com resolving NS to ns1617.ztomy.com or ns2617.ztomy.com then please flush your DNS. Any other info please reach out to me off-list. While you're at it, www.usps.com, www.fidelity.com, and other well known sites have had DNS poisoning problems. When I restarted my cache, they look OK.
Re: Need help in flushing DNS
Sure enough: ; DiG 9.7.3 @localhost yelp.com A ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 53267 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;yelp.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: yelp.com. 300 IN A 204.11.56.20 ;; Query time: 143 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Thu Jun 20 07:33:13 2013 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 42 NetRange: 204.11.56.0 - 204.11.59.255 CIDR: 204.11.56.0/22 OriginAS: AS40034 NetName: CONFLUENCE-NETWORKS--TX3 NetHandle: NET-204-11-56-0-1 Parent: NET-204-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation Comment: Hosted in Austin TX. Comment: Abuse : Comment: ab...@confluence-networks.com Comment: +1-917-386-6118 RegDate: 2012-09-24 Updated: 2012-09-24 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-204-11-56-0-1 OrgName: Confluence Networks Inc OrgId: CN Address: 3rd Floor, Omar Hodge Building, Wickhams Address: Cay I, P.O. Box 362 City: Road Town StateProv: Tortola PostalCode: VG1110 Country: VG RegDate: 2011-04-07 Updated: 2011-07-05 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/CN OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE3065-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Abuse Admin OrgAbusePhone: +1-917-386-6118 OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@confluence-networks.com OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE3065-ARIN OrgNOCHandle: NOCAD51-ARIN OrgNOCName: NOC Admin OrgNOCPhone: +1-415-462-7734 OrgNOCEmail: n...@confluence-networks.com OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOCAD51-ARIN OrgTechHandle: TECHA29-ARIN OrgTechName: Tech Admin OrgTechPhone: +1-415-358-0858 OrgTechEmail: ipad...@confluence-networks.com OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHA29-ARIN # # ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use # available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html # - ferg On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.com wrote: Yelp is evidently also affected On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some issues with DNS and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see www.linkedin.com resolving NS to ns1617.ztomy.com or ns2617.ztomy.com then please flush your DNS. Any other info please reach out to me off-list. While you're at it, www.usps.com, www.fidelity.com, and other well known sites have had DNS poisoning problems. When I restarted my cache, they look OK. -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
Re: Need help in flushing DNS
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 01:30 , Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.com wrote: Yelp is evidently also affected Not from here. Patrick: $ dig NS yelp.com @8.8.8.8 +short ns1620.ztomy.com. ns2620.ztomy.com. Some DNS servers have the bad records - TLD for .com is updated already. Cheers, Tom
Re: Need help in flushing DNS
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Tom Paseka t...@cloudflare.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 01:30 , Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.com wrote: Yelp is evidently also affected Not from here. Patrick: $ dig NS yelp.com @8.8.8.8 +short ns1620.ztomy.com. ns2620.ztomy.com. Some DNS servers have the bad records - TLD for .com is updated already. Cheers, Tom Ditto local: ; DiG 9.7.3 @[foohost] yelp.com NS ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 20230 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;yelp.com. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: yelp.com. 300 IN NS ns1620.ztomy.com. yelp.com. 300 IN NS ns2620.ztomy.com. ;; Query time: 143 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Thu Jun 20 07:48:06 2013 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 74 - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
Re: Need help in flushing DNS
Anyone have news/explanation about what's happening/happened? On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@gmail.comwrote: Sure enough: ; DiG 9.7.3 @localhost yelp.com A ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 53267 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;yelp.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: yelp.com. 300 IN A 204.11.56.20 ;; Query time: 143 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Thu Jun 20 07:33:13 2013 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 42 NetRange: 204.11.56.0 - 204.11.59.255 CIDR: 204.11.56.0/22 OriginAS: AS40034 NetName: CONFLUENCE-NETWORKS--TX3 NetHandle: NET-204-11-56-0-1 Parent: NET-204-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation Comment: Hosted in Austin TX. Comment: Abuse : Comment: ab...@confluence-networks.com Comment: +1-917-386-6118 RegDate: 2012-09-24 Updated: 2012-09-24 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-204-11-56-0-1 OrgName: Confluence Networks Inc OrgId: CN Address: 3rd Floor, Omar Hodge Building, Wickhams Address: Cay I, P.O. Box 362 City: Road Town StateProv: Tortola PostalCode: VG1110 Country: VG RegDate: 2011-04-07 Updated: 2011-07-05 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/CN OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE3065-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Abuse Admin OrgAbusePhone: +1-917-386-6118 OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@confluence-networks.com OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE3065-ARIN OrgNOCHandle: NOCAD51-ARIN OrgNOCName: NOC Admin OrgNOCPhone: +1-415-462-7734 OrgNOCEmail: n...@confluence-networks.com OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOCAD51-ARIN OrgTechHandle: TECHA29-ARIN OrgTechName: Tech Admin OrgTechPhone: +1-415-358-0858 OrgTechEmail: ipad...@confluence-networks.com OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHA29-ARIN # # ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use # available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html # - ferg On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.com wrote: Yelp is evidently also affected On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some issues with DNS and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see www.linkedin.com resolving NS to ns1617.ztomy.com or ns2617.ztomy.com then please flush your DNS. Any other info please reach out to me off-list. While you're at it, www.usps.com, www.fidelity.com, and other well known sites have had DNS poisoning problems. When I restarted my cache, they look OK. -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
