Problem with policy-map update in Cisco ASR 1004

[Mohsen Dehghani]

 

 

Hello everyone,

 

I have a problem in updating PPPoE session policy-map via RADIUS CoA packet.

 

When the RADIUS sends CoA to the BRAS, the policy of PPPoE session would not
update. 

 

My software is  asr1000rp2-adventerprisek9.03.13.00.S.154-3.S-ext.bin  and
The result of "debug aaa coa" is as follows:

 

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: COA: 80.191.122.6 request queued

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: RADIUS:  authenticator 2C D3 08 A2 34 72 FB F2 - 5C 3C

A4 F9 81 09 4D 77

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: RADIUS:  Vendor, Cisco   [26]  11

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: RADIUS:   Sub_Policy_In  [37]  5   "256"

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: RADIUS:  Vendor, Cisco   [26]  11

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: RADIUS:   Sub_Policy_Out [38]  5   "256"

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: RADIUS:  Acct-Session-Id [44]  10  "001195E5"

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: COA: Message Authenticator missing or failed decode

 

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152:  ++ CoA Attribute List ++

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: 7F78B212D7A8 0 0081 sub-policy-In(420) 3 256

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: 7F78B211FCA0 0 0081 sub-policy-Out(422) 3 256

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152: 7F78B211FCE0 0 0001 session-id(408) 4

1152485(1195E5)

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.152:

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.153:  ++ Received CoA response Attribute List ++

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.153: 7F78C82755D0 0 0081 ssg-command-code(490) 2 10 00

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.153: 7F78C8275610 0 0001 session-id(408) 4

1152485(1195E5)

 

*Apr 11 04:55:42.153: 7F78C8275650 0 0081 ssg-account-info(488) 22

$IVirtual-Access2.5184

 

 

Any Help would be really appreciated.

 

 

 

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Jerry Jones]

SRX1500?

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Mike Hammett]

CCRs do firewalling and NAT just great. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Chris Knipe"  
To: "Josh Reynolds"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:11:54 PM 
Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations? 

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Josh Reynolds  
wrote: 

> Can't do more than 1Gbps per flow. Not suitable for this application. 
> On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM,  wrote: 
> 
> > Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+ 
> > support now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now. 
> > 
> > -Mike 
> 


Also it falls pretty much flat on it's face the moment you do anything 
useful in terms of firewalling / NATing. 

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Josh Reynolds]

:)
On Apr 15, 2016 8:45 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> I'm glad you're in Missouri and not in my area. :-)
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: "Mike Hammett" 
> Cc: "NANOG" 
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:32:17 PM
> Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?
>
>
> If I were sold a $400/mo+ service that had a limitation like that, I would
> be very unhappy.
> To each their own.
> On Apr 15, 2016 8:29 PM, "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > wrote:
>
>
> The CCRs' primary weaknesses are full tables and 1 gigabit cap per flow.
> Neither is likely to be an issue for this residential use case.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Josh Reynolds" < j...@kyneticwifi.com >
> To: "Filip Hruska" < f...@fhrnet.eu >
> Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org >
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:12:35 PM
> Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?
>
> As much as I enjoy Mikrotik products and respect my friends and peers who
> use them, until ROS 7.x the CCR is a "gimped" product.
> On Apr 15, 2016 5:10 PM, "Filip Hruska" < f...@fhrnet.eu > wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would also vote for Mikrotik products; IMHO this looks perfect for this
> > situation.
> >
> > http://routerboard.com/CCR1009-8G-1S-1SplusPC
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04/16/2016 12:01 AM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+
> >> support now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now.
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >>
> >> On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:52, Aaron < aa...@wholesaleinternet.net > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there. For our 10G residential
> >>> customers we install Brocade ICXs.
> >>>
> >>> Aaron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote:
>  Hello masters of the Internet,
> 
>  I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
>  Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port
>  on a
>  Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.
> 
>  Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to
> do
>  IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that
>  also
>  supports IPv6).
> 
>  The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% =
>  2.2Gbps)
>  and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability
>  to
>  stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).
> 
>  I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel
> to
>  the
>  customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco
> SG300-52P
>  (Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).
> 
>  Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
> 
>  -Dave
> 
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 
> >>> Aaron Wendel
> >>> Chief Technical Officer
> >>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
> >>> (816)550-9030
> >>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Mike Hammett]

I'm glad you're in Missouri and not in my area. :-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:32:17 PM 
Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations? 


If I were sold a $400/mo+ service that had a limitation like that, I would be 
very unhappy. 
To each their own. 
On Apr 15, 2016 8:29 PM, "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 


The CCRs' primary weaknesses are full tables and 1 gigabit cap per flow. 
Neither is likely to be an issue for this residential use case. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message - 

From: "Josh Reynolds" < j...@kyneticwifi.com > 
To: "Filip Hruska" < f...@fhrnet.eu > 
Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:12:35 PM 
Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations? 

As much as I enjoy Mikrotik products and respect my friends and peers who 
use them, until ROS 7.x the CCR is a "gimped" product. 
On Apr 15, 2016 5:10 PM, "Filip Hruska" < f...@fhrnet.eu > wrote: 

> Hi, 
> 
> I would also vote for Mikrotik products; IMHO this looks perfect for this 
> situation. 
> 
> http://routerboard.com/CCR1009-8G-1S-1SplusPC 
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/16/2016 12:01 AM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
>> Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+ 
>> support now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now. 
>> 
>> -Mike 
>> 
>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:52, Aaron < aa...@wholesaleinternet.net > wrote: 
>>> 
>>> Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there. For our 10G residential 
>>> customers we install Brocade ICXs. 
>>> 
>>> Aaron 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote: 
 Hello masters of the Internet, 
 
 I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has 
 Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port 
 on a 
 Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router. 
 
 Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do 
 IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that 
 also 
 supports IPv6). 
 
 The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 
 2.2Gbps) 
 and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability 
 to 
 stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps). 
 
 I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to 
 the 
 customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P 
 (Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks). 
 
 Thanks in advance for your suggestions. 
 
 -Dave 
 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> Aaron Wendel 
>>> Chief Technical Officer 
>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) 
>>> (816)550-9030 
>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Mike Hammett]

Conversely, the UI is Mikrotik's big draw. :-) 

Being or not being like CIsco has zero bearing on me. Assuming the commands do 
what they say they'll do, any platform with tab complete is fine. :-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Ken Chase"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 7:24:56 PM 
Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations? 

Does that lanner even do SFP+? Dont see it listed in the specs. Looks like 4210 
has 
2x SFP+, though their 'performance' level products look more in line with 
'useful'. 

http://www.lannerinc.com/products/x86-network-appliances/x86-rackmount-appliances/fw-8877
 

As for the microtics, wonky user interface, so very unciscolike (i guess thats 
my problem - but the GUI thing feels like a toy), but for their midrange models 
I found 
their bgp convergence times pretty poor on their low end cpus... 

What do you put on the lanner? OpenBGPd? Quagga? Also looking for a 10G 
solution 
here, low power (than a full ASR stack..) is my goal for 5-6 full bgp feeds. 

/kc 


On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:45:39PM -0400, Michael Brown said: 
>Not *exactly* what you're asking for, but a Lanner appliance 
>(???http://www.lannerinc.com/products/network-appliances/x86-rackmount-network-appliances/nca-5210)
> might suit your needs. 
> 
>M. 
> 
>?? Original Message ?? 
>From: David Sotnick 
>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 16:19 
>To: NANOG 
>Subject: 10G-capable customer router recommendations? 
> 
>Hello masters of the Internet, 
> 
>I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has 
>Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a 
>Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router. 
> 
>Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do 
>IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also 
>supports IPv6). 
> 
>The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps) 
>and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to 
>stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps). 
> 
>I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the 
>customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P 
>(Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks). 
> 
>Thanks in advance for your suggestions. 
> 
>-Dave 

Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org 

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Josh Reynolds]

If I were sold a $400/mo+ service that had a limitation like that, I would
be very unhappy.

To each their own.
On Apr 15, 2016 8:29 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> The CCRs' primary weaknesses are full tables and 1 gigabit cap per flow.
> Neither is likely to be an issue for this residential use case.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: "Filip Hruska" 
> Cc: "NANOG" 
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:12:35 PM
> Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?
>
> As much as I enjoy Mikrotik products and respect my friends and peers who
> use them, until ROS 7.x the CCR is a "gimped" product.
> On Apr 15, 2016 5:10 PM, "Filip Hruska"  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would also vote for Mikrotik products; IMHO this looks perfect for this
> > situation.
> >
> > http://routerboard.com/CCR1009-8G-1S-1SplusPC
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04/16/2016 12:01 AM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+
> >> support now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now.
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >>
> >> On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:52, Aaron  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there. For our 10G residential
> >>> customers we install Brocade ICXs.
> >>>
> >>> Aaron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote:
>  Hello masters of the Internet,
> 
>  I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
>  Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port
>  on a
>  Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.
> 
>  Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to
> do
>  IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that
>  also
>  supports IPv6).
> 
>  The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% =
>  2.2Gbps)
>  and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability
>  to
>  stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).
> 
>  I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel
> to
>  the
>  customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco
> SG300-52P
>  (Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).
> 
>  Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
> 
>  -Dave
> 
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 
> >>> Aaron Wendel
> >>> Chief Technical Officer
> >>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
> >>> (816)550-9030
> >>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Mike Hammett]

The CCRs' primary weaknesses are full tables and 1 gigabit cap per flow. 
Neither is likely to be an issue for this residential use case. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: "Filip Hruska"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:12:35 PM 
Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations? 

As much as I enjoy Mikrotik products and respect my friends and peers who 
use them, until ROS 7.x the CCR is a "gimped" product. 
On Apr 15, 2016 5:10 PM, "Filip Hruska"  wrote: 

> Hi, 
> 
> I would also vote for Mikrotik products; IMHO this looks perfect for this 
> situation. 
> 
> http://routerboard.com/CCR1009-8G-1S-1SplusPC 
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/16/2016 12:01 AM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
>> Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+ 
>> support now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now. 
>> 
>> -Mike 
>> 
>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:52, Aaron  wrote: 
>>> 
>>> Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there. For our 10G residential 
>>> customers we install Brocade ICXs. 
>>> 
>>> Aaron 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote: 
 Hello masters of the Internet, 
 
 I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has 
 Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port 
 on a 
 Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router. 
 
 Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do 
 IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that 
 also 
 supports IPv6). 
 
 The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 
 2.2Gbps) 
 and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability 
 to 
 stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps). 
 
 I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to 
 the 
 customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P 
 (Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks). 
 
 Thanks in advance for your suggestions. 
 
 -Dave 
 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> Aaron Wendel 
>>> Chief Technical Officer 
>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) 
>>> (816)550-9030 
>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hope you all realize a few minor details:-

Mikrotik is a  ROS (Router Operating System), based on linux.
Mikrotik also makes hardware called RouterBoards.
  Having said that...
Mikrotik ROS runs on X86 platforms (such as Lanner or axiomtek)
Similarly you can also run linux on the Routerboard platforms.

Having said that... 
  Lanner & Axiomtek etc x86 appliances have one pcie slot, where you can 
install the NIC of your choice.
  Dual 10g SFP+ Intel Card or 2/4/6 port Hotlava Card, or Chelsio etc.

You can mix and match to suite your needs. 
Don't like RouterBoard or CCR's, no problem you can run MT ROS on an X86 
Platform of your choice.
These days you can even run it on a VM solution...
Don't like MT ROS, no problem feel free to run your choice of OS, and routing 
daemons. 
Want a high performance x86 Firewall... inexpensive.. look at Server-U, ask 
them about their custom solution with Chelsio Cards.
Don't like any of the above, feel free to by a Box with a Name on it (Brocade, 
Cisco, Juniper etc etc)..

Yes, each platform has it's advantages, and it's short comings, and no one 
solution fits all needs.

(Want to tow your boat, get a Hummer, want to go fast, get a ferrari don't 
try to tow you boat with a ferrari, or race in the streets with a hummer !)

:)

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom


- Original Message -
> From: "Ken Chase" 
> To: "nanog list" 
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:24:56 PM
> Subject: Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

> Does that lanner even do SFP+? Dont see it listed in the specs. Looks like 
> 4210
> has
> 2x SFP+, though their 'performance' level products look more in line with
> 'useful'.
> 
> http://www.lannerinc.com/products/x86-network-appliances/x86-rackmount-appliances/fw-8877
> 
> As for the microtics, wonky user interface, so very unciscolike (i guess thats
> my problem - but the GUI thing feels like a toy), but for their midrange 
> models
> I found
> their bgp convergence times pretty poor on their low end cpus...
> 
> What do you put on the lanner? OpenBGPd? Quagga? Also looking for a 10G 
> solution
> here, low power (than a full ASR stack..) is my goal for 5-6 full bgp feeds.
> 
> /kc
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:45:39PM -0400, Michael Brown said:
>  >Not *exactly* what you're asking for, but a Lanner appliance
>  
> >(???http://www.lannerinc.com/products/network-appliances/x86-rackmount-network-appliances/nca-5210)
>  >might suit your needs.
>  >
>  >M.
>  >
>  >?? Original Message ??
>  >From: David Sotnick
>  >Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 16:19
>  >To: NANOG
>  >Subject: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?
>  >
>  >Hello masters of the Internet,
>  >
>  >I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
>  >Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a
>  >Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.
>  >
>  >Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
>  >IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also
>  >supports IPv6).
>  >
>  >The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps)
>  >and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to
>  >stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).
>  >
>  >I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the
>  >customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
>  >(Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).
>  >
>  >Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
>  >
>  >-Dave
> 
> Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Ken Chase]

Does that lanner even do SFP+? Dont see it listed in the specs. Looks like 4210 
has
2x SFP+, though their 'performance' level products look more in line with 
'useful'.

http://www.lannerinc.com/products/x86-network-appliances/x86-rackmount-appliances/fw-8877

As for the microtics, wonky user interface, so very unciscolike (i guess thats
my problem - but the GUI thing feels like a toy), but for their midrange models 
I found
their bgp convergence times pretty poor on their low end cpus...

What do you put on the lanner? OpenBGPd? Quagga? Also looking for a 10G solution
here, low power (than a full ASR stack..) is my goal for 5-6 full bgp feeds.

/kc


On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:45:39PM -0400, Michael Brown said:
  >Not *exactly* what you're asking for, but a Lanner appliance 
(???http://www.lannerinc.com/products/network-appliances/x86-rackmount-network-appliances/nca-5210)
 might suit your needs.
  >
  >M.
  >
  >?? Original Message ??
  >From: David Sotnick
  >Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 16:19
  >To: NANOG
  >Subject: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?
  >
  >Hello masters of the Internet,
  >
  >I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
  >Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a
  >Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.
  >
  >Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
  >IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also
  >supports IPv6).
  >
  >The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps)
  >and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to
  >stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).
  >
  >I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the
  >customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
  >(Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).
  >
  >Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
  >
  >-Dave

Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org 

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Josh Reynolds]

Would still need a Chelsio / Mellanox etc card, and even then you're not
going to hit line rate if you have NAT or any traffic shaping enabled at
all. Maybe with DPDK/netmap/pf_ring, but that would be some pretty custom
work.
On Apr 15, 2016 6:47 PM, "Michael Brown"  wrote:

> Not *exactly* what you're asking for, but a Lanner appliance (‎
> http://www.lannerinc.com/products/network-appliances/x86-rackmount-network-appliances/nca-5210)
> might suit your needs.
>
> M.
>
>   Original Message
> From: David Sotnick
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 16:19
> To: NANOG
> Subject: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?
>
> Hello masters of the Internet,
>
> I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
> Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a
> Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.
>
> Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
> IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also
> supports IPv6).
>
> The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps)
> and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to
> stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).
>
> I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the
> customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
> (Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).
>
> Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
>
> -Dave
>

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Michael Brown]

Not *exactly* what you're asking for, but a Lanner appliance 
(‎http://www.lannerinc.com/products/network-appliances/x86-rackmount-network-appliances/nca-5210)
 might suit your needs.

M.

  Original Message  
From: David Sotnick
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 16:19
To: NANOG
Subject: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

Hello masters of the Internet,

I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a
Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.

Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also
supports IPv6).

The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps)
and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to
stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).

I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the
customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
(Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

-Dave

RE: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Josh Reynolds]

Different philosophy - strings attached.

When I sell a service, either residential or business or DIA, the terms are
clearly stated. If I were selling a multi-hundred dollar a month service,
the CPE cost is minimal. If I don't offer a service that is at least
*capable* of providing what I'm selling, then my competition will.

I prefer to not hand out competitive advantages.
On Apr 15, 2016 6:24 PM, "Tony Wicks"  wrote:

> Hmm, the chances of getting a single flow of more than 1gig to/from the
> "internet" is close to zero in a CPE situation. If the Connection is a
> service provider or similar sure, this limitation may well apply, but a
> home user (however high end), nope I just can't see it. If you need
> something capable of a single stream over 1G with 10G interfaces then
> really cost is going to have to be no object. If this is the case then
> something like a 600D will do the job -
>
>
> http://www.fortinet.com/sites/default/files/productdatasheets/FortiGate-600D.pdf
> Add any 10G switch you like off the second SFP+ port if you need 10G CPE,
> it's not likely to need to be an expensive one (EX3300?)
>
> I've used the Mikrotik CCR's as high end CPE (with 10G uplink) very
> successfully as they offer excellent price/performance, but if that's no
> object then there are plenty of options.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Can't do more than 1Gbps per flow. Not suitable for this application.
> > On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM,  wrote:
>
>

RE: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Tony Wicks]

Hmm, the chances of getting a single flow of more than 1gig to/from the 
"internet" is close to zero in a CPE situation. If the Connection is a service 
provider or similar sure, this limitation may well apply, but a home user 
(however high end), nope I just can't see it. If you need something capable of 
a single stream over 1G with 10G interfaces then really cost is going to have 
to be no object. If this is the case then something like a 600D will do the job 
-

http://www.fortinet.com/sites/default/files/productdatasheets/FortiGate-600D.pdf
Add any 10G switch you like off the second SFP+ port if you need 10G CPE, it's 
not likely to need to be an expensive one (EX3300?)

I've used the Mikrotik CCR's as high end CPE (with 10G uplink) very 
successfully as they offer excellent price/performance, but if that's no object 
then there are plenty of options.






> Can't do more than 1Gbps per flow. Not suitable for this application.
> On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM,  wrote:

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[David Sotnick]

Thanks Aaron. Unless something has changed recently, I don't think the
Brocade ICX series does NAT either.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Aaron  wrote:

> Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there.  For our 10G residential
> customers we install Brocade ICXs.
>
> Aaron
>
> --
> 
> Aaron Wendel
> Chief Technical Officer
> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
> (816)550-9030
> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
> 
>
>

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Josh Reynolds]

As much as I enjoy Mikrotik products and respect my friends and peers who
use them, until ROS 7.x the CCR is a "gimped" product.
On Apr 15, 2016 5:10 PM, "Filip Hruska"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would also vote for Mikrotik products; IMHO this looks perfect for this
> situation.
>
> http://routerboard.com/CCR1009-8G-1S-1SplusPC
>
>
>
> On 04/16/2016 12:01 AM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+
>> support now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:52, Aaron  wrote:
>>>
>>> Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there.  For our 10G residential
>>> customers we install Brocade ICXs.
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote:
 Hello masters of the Internet,

 I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
 Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port
 on a
 Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.

 Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
 IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that
 also
 supports IPv6).

 The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% =
 2.2Gbps)
 and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability
 to
 stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).

 I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to
 the
 customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
 (Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).

 Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

 -Dave

>>>
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Aaron Wendel
>>> Chief Technical Officer
>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
>>> (816)550-9030
>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Chris Knipe]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:

> Can't do more than 1Gbps per flow. Not suitable for this application.
> On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM,  wrote:
>
> > Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+
> > support now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now.
> >
> > -Mike
>


Also it falls pretty much flat on it's face the moment you do anything
useful in terms of firewalling / NATing.

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Filip Hruska]

Hi,

I would also vote for Mikrotik products; IMHO this looks perfect for 
this situation.


http://routerboard.com/CCR1009-8G-1S-1SplusPC



On 04/16/2016 12:01 AM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:

Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+ support 
now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now.

-Mike


On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:52, Aaron  wrote:

Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there.  For our 10G residential customers we 
install Brocade ICXs.

Aaron



On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote:
Hello masters of the Internet,

I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a
Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.

Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also
supports IPv6).

The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps)
and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to
stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).

I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the
customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
(Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

-Dave


--

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Josh Reynolds]

Can't do more than 1Gbps per flow. Not suitable for this application.
On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM,  wrote:

> Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+
> support now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now.
>
> -Mike
>
> > On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:52, Aaron  wrote:
> >
> > Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there.  For our 10G residential
> customers we install Brocade ICXs.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> >
> >> On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote:
> >> Hello masters of the Internet,
> >>
> >> I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
> >> Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port
> on a
> >> Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.
> >>
> >> Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
> >> IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that
> also
> >> supports IPv6).
> >>
> >> The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% =
> 2.2Gbps)
> >> and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability
> to
> >> stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).
> >>
> >> I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to
> the
> >> customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
> >> (Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
> >>
> >> -Dave
> >
> > --
> > 
> > Aaron Wendel
> > Chief Technical Officer
> > Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
> > (816)550-9030
> > http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
> > 
> >
>

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[mike . lyon]

Check out the Mikrotik Cloud Core routers, they make them with SFP+ support 
now. I have one of them with 10g deployed right now.

-Mike

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:52, Aaron  wrote:
> 
> Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there.  For our 10G residential customers 
> we install Brocade ICXs.
> 
> Aaron
> 
> 
>> On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote:
>> Hello masters of the Internet,
>> 
>> I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
>> Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a
>> Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.
>> 
>> Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
>> IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also
>> supports IPv6).
>> 
>> The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps)
>> and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to
>> stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).
>> 
>> I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the
>> customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
>> (Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
>> 
>> -Dave
> 
> -- 
> 
> Aaron Wendel
> Chief Technical Officer
> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
> (816)550-9030
> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
> 
> 

Re: 10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[Aaron]

Not a lot of 10G capable CPEs out there.  For our 10G residential 
customers we install Brocade ICXs.


Aaron


On 4/15/2016 3:18 PM, David Sotnick wrote:

Hello masters of the Internet,

I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a
Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.

Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also
supports IPv6).

The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps)
and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to
stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).

I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the
customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
(Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

-Dave



--

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[John Levine]

>NA has a 10 digit scheme (3 area code - 7 local) though most of the
>time you end up dialing the 10 digits.
>
>Australia has a 9 digit scheme (1 area code - 8 local) ...

North America uses en bloc signalling, Australia uses CCITT style
compelled signalling.  That's why you have variable length
numbers and the split between area code and local number can
change.

>We are no longer in a age where we need to route calls on a digit
>by digit basis.

Right.  North America left that age in 1947, the rest of the world
only caught up in the 2000s.

R's,
John

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2016-04-15 17:21, Mark Andrews wrote:

> Yes the area codes are huge (multi-state) and some "local" calls
> are sometimes long distance. 

Until early 1990s, the 819 area code spanned from the US/canada Border
in Québec, around Montréal (514), included the Laurentians and just
about everything north all the way to Grise Fiord on Ellesmere Island
north of the magnetic north pole.

Some exchanges reacheable only via satellite (what is now Nunavut) and
some are near urban centres. And I reemember when one could dial 4
digits to call anyone in the cottage village (omitting the 819-687 prefix).

When bell Canada bought northwestel, it transfered what is now Nunavut
territory to NWTel which moved the 819 telephone numbers to its 867 area
code which now spans from the Yukon/Alaska border to the
Canada/Greenland border.

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[Mark Andrews]

In message , David Barak writes
:
> > On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> >
> > Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
> > pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.
>
> Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of
> magnitude smaller than the US by population.  Effects of scale apply here
> in terms of path dependence for solutions.
>
> David Barak
> Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

NA has a 10 digit scheme (3 area code - 7 local) though most of the
time you end up dialing the 10 digits.

Australia has a 9 digit scheme (1 area code - 8 local)

Yes the area codes are huge (multi-state) and some "local" calls
are sometimes long distance.  In my lifetime local calls have gone
from 6 digits to 7 and then 8 digits.  The last change got rid of
lots of area codes and expanded all the local numbers to 8 digits.
This allows you to use what was a Canberra number in Sydney as they
are now all in the same area code.  Canberra and Sydney are a 3
hour drive apart.

We are no longer in a age where we need to route calls on a digit
by digit basis.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[David Barak via NANOG]

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
> pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.  

Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of magnitude 
smaller than the US by population.  Effects of scale apply here in terms of 
path dependence for solutions.

David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

10G-capable customer router recommendations?

[David Sotnick]

Hello masters of the Internet,

I was recently asked to set up networking at a VIP's home where he has
Comcast "Gigabit Pro" service, which is delivered on a 10G-SR MM port on a
Comcast-supplied Juniper ACX-2100 router.

Which customer router would you suggest for such a setup? It needs to do
IPv4 NAT, DHCP, IPv4+IPv6 routing and have a decent L4 firewall (that also
supports IPv6).

The customer pays for "2Gb" service (Comcast caps this at 2G+10% = 2.2Gbps)
and would like to get what he pays for (*cough*) by having the ability to
stream two 1Gbps streams (or at least achieve > 1.0Gbps).

I'm tempted to get another ACX-2100 and do a 4x1Gb LACP port-channel to the
customer switch, or replace the AV-integrator-installed Cisco SG300-52P
(Cisco switch with e.g. an EX-3300 with 10Gb uplinks).

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

-Dave

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[Owen DeLong]

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 12:09, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> 
> In message <571105a6.3040...@nvcube.net>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
>>> On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in
>>> Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long
>>> distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able
>>> to charge more for a mobile call across the country than across the
>>> street.
>> 
>> I would like to add that Russian mobiles in non-geographic codes and
>> have free incoming calls (it wasn't until 2006) and also very large
>> territory. But that created internal roaming prices within country.
>> 
>> So if you are making call not from your home region you'll pay more also
>> you may pay for incoming call too (unless you pay for such option to
>> make your abroad incoming calls free)
> 
> Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
> pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.  Call costs are independent
> of the mobiles location unless you are OS where the callee picks
> up the OS component of the voice call (incoming SMS's are usually
> free even if you are OS, they slug you with replies however).

AU has about the same area, but nowhere near the number/population density, so 
the comparison isn't particularly apt. 

> 
> I've also got a US SIM and had my credit run to zero dollars with
> the phone turned off due to the sillyness of the US system.  No
> calls or SMS being delivered but I'm still getting charged.

If you are going prepaid in the US, most likely you are transient (foreign 
traveler) or impoverished. As such, the companies want to collect something 
from you for the cost of keeping your account in the system. It's a way to 
avoid the costs associated with number abandonment. Usually within three months 
(or less) of your account going to $0, your number will be recycled and likely 
reissued to someone else within 60 days of being marked available. 

It's not so much silliness as a necessity in this market. 

Owen

Re: [lists] Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[Peter Beckman]

I highly doubt that your SIM card is depleted due to the US mobile phone
billing structure. Sounds like a bad contract with a carrier that is
billing you for incoming calls even though you aren't on the network, or
bills you a fee each month when your SIM is inactive.

Don't blame a country's mobile telephone billing structure for a carrier's
cell phone billing plan that seems confusing.

That's like blaming the Department of Transportation for your faulty
airbag.

Beckman

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016, Mark Andrews wrote:


I've also got a US SIM and had my credit run to zero dollars with
the phone turned off due to the sillyness of the US system.  No
calls or SMS being delivered but I'm still getting charged.


---
Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[Mark Andrews]

In message <571105a6.3040...@nvcube.net>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
> On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote:
> > Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in
> > Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long
> > distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able
> > to charge more for a mobile call across the country than across the
> > street. 
> 
> I would like to add that Russian mobiles in non-geographic codes and
> have free incoming calls (it wasn't until 2006) and also very large
> territory. But that created internal roaming prices within country.
> 
> So if you are making call not from your home region you'll pay more also
> you may pay for incoming call too (unless you pay for such option to
> make your abroad incoming calls free)

Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.  Call costs are independent
of the mobiles location unless you are OS where the callee picks
up the OS component of the voice call (incoming SMS's are usually
free even if you are OS, they slug you with replies however).

I've also got a US SIM and had my credit run to zero dollars with
the phone turned off due to the sillyness of the US system.  No
calls or SMS being delivered but I'm still getting charged.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 16 Apr, 2016

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  590122
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  217231
Deaggregation factor:  2.72
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  288719
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 53427
Prefixes per ASN: 11.05
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   36609
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   15715
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:6422
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:169
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.3
Max AS path length visible:  41
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 55644)  36
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:   966
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 358
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  13487
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   10396
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:   40624
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:13
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:388
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2807919940
Equivalent to 167 /8s, 93 /16s and 117 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   75.8
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   75.8
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   98.1
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  193326

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   150247
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   42132
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.57
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  160679
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:65668
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5167
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   31.10
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   1184
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:912
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.4
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 41
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   2000
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  752212548
Equivalent to 44 /8s, 213 /16s and 218 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 87.9

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:180699
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:89549
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.02
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   185776
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 88178
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:16390

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[Nikolay Shopik]

On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote:
> Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in
> Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long
> distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able
> to charge more for a mobile call across the country than across the
> street. 

I would like to add that Russian mobiles in non-geographic codes and
have free incoming calls (it wasn't until 2006) and also very large
territory. But that created internal roaming prices within country.

So if you are making call not from your home region you'll pay more also
you may pay for incoming call too (unless you pay for such option to
make your abroad incoming calls free)

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[t...@pelican.org]

On Friday, 15 April, 2016 15:51, "John R. Levine"  said:

> The US and most of the rest of North America have a fixed length
> numbering plan designed in the 1940s by the Bell System.  They offered
> it to the CCITT which for political and technical reasons decided to
> do something else.  (So when anyone complains that the NANP is
> "non-standard", you had your chance.)  Fixed length numbers allowed
> much more sophisticated call routing with mechanical switches than
> variable length did.

[and a bunch more stuff]

Thanks John - no bashing was intended, genuinely interested in the different 
models / histories, and that helps.

Regards,
Tim.

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[John R. Levine]

So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area?



Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of
how / why US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line?


The US and most of the rest of North America have a fixed length
numbering plan designed in the 1940s by the Bell System.  They offered
it to the CCITT which for political and technical reasons decided to
do something else.  (So when anyone complains that the NANP is
"non-standard", you had your chance.)  Fixed length numbers allowed
much more sophisticated call routing with mechanical switches than
variable length did.

For reasons not worth rehashing, there was no possibility whatsoever
of adding digits or otherwise changing the numbering plan.  So if they
were going to do caller pays mobile, they'd need to overlay mobile
area codes on top of existing codes, and there weren't enough spare
codes to do that.

Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in
Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long
distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able
to charge more for a mobile call across the country than across the
street.  (The distance from Seattle to Miami or Boston to San
Francisco is greater than Lisbon to Moscow or Paris to Teheran.)  In
the US, mobile long distance charges have mostly gone away, but my
Canadian mobile still charges more for a call to a different province
than one to the same city.

So rather than doing caller-pays as in Europe, North America does
mobile-pays, with the mobile user charged for both incoming and
outgoing calls.  There turn out to be good economic reasons for that
-- European mobile users imagine that incoming calls are "free",
but in fact they are very expensive to the caller because the
caller has no say in choosing the carrier or the price.  For all
its faults, the competition in US mobile service drove down prices
much faster than in Europe, and US users use more minutes/month
than Europeans do.  If you want me to call you in the UK,
I'm happy to call your landline for 1.3c/min, not so happy to
call your mobile at 26c/min.

ObNanog: E.164 and VoIP don't make this any easier.

R's,
John

Re: [Ext] Re: G root not responding on UDP?

[Jim Glassford]

fyi,

some discussion and below link from the bind mailing list on this

https://atlas.ripe.net/dnsmon/group/g-root



On 4/14/2016 7:36 AM, Nicholas Suan wrote:

I'm see the same thing from multiple networks.

$ dig  NS . @g.root-servers.net

; <<>> DiG 9.9.5 <<>> NS . @g.root-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Anurag Bhatia  wrote:

Hello everyone


I wonder if it's just me or anyone else also finding issues in g root
reachability?


ICMP, trace, UDP DNS queries all timing out. Only TCP seem to work.


Trace is timing out on 208.46.37.38.



traceroute to 192.112.36.4 (192.112.36.4), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
  1  router01.home (172.16.0.1)  4.926 ms  1.863 ms  1.845 ms
  2  103.60.176.101 (103.60.176.101)  24.007 ms  24.507 ms  22.330 ms
  3  nsg-static-137.49.75.182-airtel.com (182.75.49.137)  64.435 ms  64.359
ms  66.108 ms
  4  182.79.206.46 (182.79.206.46)  331.787 ms
 182.79.206.53 (182.79.206.53)  228.497 ms
 182.79.222.189 (182.79.222.189)  224.966 ms
  5  ldn-brdr-01.qwest.net (195.66.225.34)  162.745 ms  162.139 ms  162.031
ms
  6  lon-ddos-01.inet.qwest.net (67.14.63.58)  162.138 ms  162.125 ms
  162.916 ms
  7  * * *
  8  chp-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (208.46.37.37)  242.819 ms  242.793 ms
  242.575 ms
  9  208.46.37.38 (208.46.37.38)  253.176 ms  253.066 ms  252.807 ms
10  * * *
11  * * *
12  * * *




dig @192.112.36.4 . ns

; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> @192.112.36.4 . ns
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached





dig @192.112.36.4 . ns  +tcp +noauth

; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> @192.112.36.4 . ns +tcp +noauth
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29674
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 24
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;. IN NS

;; ANSWER SECTION:
. 518400 IN NS g.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS l.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS f.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS h.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS k.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS b.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS c.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS e.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS j.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS i.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS m.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS a.root-servers.net.
. 518400 IN NS d.root-servers.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
a.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 198.41.0.4
b.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.228.79.201
c.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.33.4.12
d.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 199.7.91.13
e.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.203.230.10
f.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.5.5.241
g.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.112.36.4
h.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 198.97.190.53
i.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.36.148.17
j.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.58.128.30
k.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 193.0.14.129
l.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 199.7.83.42
m.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 202.12.27.33
a.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:503:ba3e::2:30
b.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:500:84::b
c.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:500:2::c
d.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:500:2d::d
f.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:500:2f::f
h.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:500:1::53
i.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:7fe::53
j.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:503:c27::2:30
k.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:7fd::1
l.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:500:9f::42
m.root-servers.net. 360 IN  2001:dc3::35

;; Query time: 259 msec
;; SERVER: 192.112.36.4#53(192.112.36.4)
;; WHEN: Thu Apr 14 16:59:09 2016
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 744





Is UDP blocked recently or it has been like this from long?



--


Anurag Bhatia
anuragbhatia.com

Re: GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:43:00 -0700, Todd Crane said:

> You do realize that this is the exact kind of thing that caused this
> discussion in the first place. I'm well familiar with that case. I was talking
> about my own experiences in the food service industry, but of course you 
> barely
> read a sentence and set on a war path accusing me of not checking my facts

Sorry.  You are *literally* the first person I've seen who's put "hot coffee"
and "responsible for being stupid" in a sentence who was actually familiar with
the case in question, and thought that the case had merit, and was
(apparently) actually talking about the follow-on cases rather than the
original case that made the news.  In addition, you didn't make it very clear
that you weren't talking about the original case.



pgpLMnatXs7qV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

[Lorell Hathcock]

In our small, aging plant very near the Mexican border in south Texas, the SNR 
for <~30MHz is ~20 dB so we can only use two upstream channels. It works okay 
for our 150 cable modem customers. They can get 40 Mbps upstream throughput. 

The downstream channels are around 300MHz with much better SNR so we can bond 8 
channels.  Depending on load, customers can get up to 80 Mbps downstream 
throughput. 

This is on a DOCSIS 3.0 Cisco CMTS network with a 10 year old cable plant. 

Lorell

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 5:07 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> 
> Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>> Canadian cable carriers seem to have all told the CRTC they can only
>> carry 42mhz in the upstream because their amplifiers and nodes only
>> amplify that narrow band in the upstream direction.
>> 
>> Is/was 42mhz common across north america ?
> 
> 42MHz was the traditional upper limit for annex b docsis.  That limit
> was extended up to 85MHz several years ago, but yeah there's probably a
> lot of plant out there which can't go above 42MHz for legacy reasons.
> 
>> Am trying to figure out realistic bandwidth that a cableco with 42mhz
>> limits for upstream will get on 3.1.
> 
> If the cableco is limited to 42MHz, there will be 37MHz of upstream
> bandwidth (5 to 42), which allows five 6.4MHz upstream channels of
> 5120ksym/sec.  3.1 improves the upstream modulation from 64qam to
> 4096qam, which ups the bit throughput rate from 6 bits per symbol to 12
> bits.  That gives 5120*5*12 = 307200 of physical layer bit throughput,
> and you should budget ~25-ish% for overhead to get usable customer bits
> per second.
> 
> That's in lab conditions though.  The reality is that you're not going
> to be able to use qam4096 unless your upstream path has ridiculously
> good SNR.  If the cable network can't go above 42MHz, it's probably
> legacy plant which implies older deployments and there's a real
> likelihood that the improvements in DOCSIS 3.1 aren't going to make a
> blind bit of difference.  It would be probably be easier and more
> reliable to do plant upgrades / service retirement to allow 85MHz (12
> u/s channels) than clean up the plant so that you get the 30-35dB SNR
> required to run 4096QAM.  You can't make extra bandwidth out of nothing.
> 
>> Also, have cablecos with such limits for upstream begun to upgrade the
>> cable plant to increase the upstream bandwidth ?
> 
> I would hope they have.  If they don't, their businesses will be savaged
> in the longer term by the introduction of gpon and other fiber technologies.
> 
> Nick
> 

Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

[Nick Hilliard]

Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> Canadian cable carriers seem to have all told the CRTC they can only
> carry 42mhz in the upstream because their amplifiers and nodes only
> amplify that narrow band in the upstream direction.
> 
> Is/was 42mhz common across north america ?

42MHz was the traditional upper limit for annex b docsis.  That limit
was extended up to 85MHz several years ago, but yeah there's probably a
lot of plant out there which can't go above 42MHz for legacy reasons.

> Am trying to figure out realistic bandwidth that a cableco with 42mhz
> limits for upstream will get on 3.1.

If the cableco is limited to 42MHz, there will be 37MHz of upstream
bandwidth (5 to 42), which allows five 6.4MHz upstream channels of
5120ksym/sec.  3.1 improves the upstream modulation from 64qam to
4096qam, which ups the bit throughput rate from 6 bits per symbol to 12
bits.  That gives 5120*5*12 = 307200 of physical layer bit throughput,
and you should budget ~25-ish% for overhead to get usable customer bits
per second.

That's in lab conditions though.  The reality is that you're not going
to be able to use qam4096 unless your upstream path has ridiculously
good SNR.  If the cable network can't go above 42MHz, it's probably
legacy plant which implies older deployments and there's a real
likelihood that the improvements in DOCSIS 3.1 aren't going to make a
blind bit of difference.  It would be probably be easier and more
reliable to do plant upgrades / service retirement to allow 85MHz (12
u/s channels) than clean up the plant so that you get the 30-35dB SNR
required to run 4096QAM.  You can't make extra bandwidth out of nothing.

> Also, have cablecos with such limits for upstream begun to upgrade the
> cable plant to increase the upstream bandwidth ?

I would hope they have.  If they don't, their businesses will be savaged
in the longer term by the introduction of gpon and other fiber technologies.

Nick

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[t...@pelican.org]

On Thursday, 14 April, 2016 16:32, "Leo Bicknell"  said:

> So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area?

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of how / why 
US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line?

Over here in the UK we had a very different approach where mobile phones went 
into their own area codes from the start, hence no confusion as to what type of 
device you were calling, and it was trivial to put the increased cost of the 
call on the caller.  (It's *incredibly* rare, if not non-existent, here for the 
mobile user to pay for incoming calls or SMS).

Of course, we got our own set of problems once number portability kicked in - a 
lot of operators had set up "free / cheap on the same network" tarrifs, which 
was easy while you knew for sure that 07aaa nn was Orange but 07bbb nn 
was O2.  Once you could take your number with you to another network, it became 
a lot more guesss-work as to how much you were going to be billed for any given 
call...

Regards,
Tim.