Re: IX in Iran by TIC
Yes Scott. It was on topic and genuine in the approach, but understand the nuances around it. I did declare the interest in the second email when a more detailed explainer was included with a request to take it offline. That felt like I was stepping over the mark for the sake of pointing out the technical differences between peeringdb and XX hence the declaration and wanting to take it off line to not fill people's in-boxes. That leads back to the first point to of doing it in the first place to avoid this. Apologies. Cheers [b] > On 13 Jul 2016, at 6:23 AM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > > > -- >> Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing your > fabric/IX on X www.xx.com . > -- > > https://www.nanog.org/list > > "5.Product marketing is prohibited" > > It appears from a web search that you are affiliated > with the company you're speaking about. > > scott
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Scott Weeks wrote: -- Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing your fabric/IX on X www.xx.com . -- https://www.nanog.org/list "5.Product marketing is prohibited" It appears from a web search that you are affiliated with the company you're speaking about. Mentioning a product that you happen to work on/for while in context hardly seems like it should rise to the level of prohibited marketing. Then again, perhaps we should hire consultants to figure that out for us. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross
Re: packet loss question
On 2016-07-12 03:25, Sean Donelan wrote: > RFC791 was written during the internet's anti-standard era. > > We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and > running code Hi Sean, Lovely quote and all, but... do you mean that when RFC791 was drafted the IETF didn't issue 'standards'? RFC791 was written by Jon Postel for DARPA and AFAIKT is foundational. It's referenced by more than 420 RFCs. It begins, "This document specifies the DoD Standard Internet Protocol." Seems about as official as times permitted. Point was, 576 bytes is the minimum MTU for transporting IP datagrams. Also see RFC1122/3.3.2, which references RFC791 of course. Best regards, -- Charles Polisher "Pedentic, I?"
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
-- > Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing your fabric/IX on X www.xx.com . -- https://www.nanog.org/list "5.Product marketing is prohibited" It appears from a web search that you are affiliated with the company you're speaking about. scott
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
On 12/Jul/16 17:21, Niels Bakker wrote: > > > Having recently asked a datacenter about what providers were present > in their facilities and receiving an answer similar to "Who would you > like to be there?", I much prefer PeeringDB's model of ensuring data > completeness and correctness. Awww, you didn't want to take Santa up on his offer? Bad, bad Niels :-)... When I was a kid, I often thought recordings on VHS cassettes happened by simply taking a pen and writing the title of the movie on the cassette label, sitting the tape on the side of the VCR and waiting patiently till dinner was over. All those phantom Knight Rider, Air Wolf and Miami Vice shows I could have enjoyed growing up... oh well... Mark.
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
* be...@slattery.net.au (Bevan Slattery) [Tue 12 Jul 2016, 15:33 CEST]: Peeringdb provides a list of registered peers in a DC that has an IX. Great for looking at where to peer. PeeringDB lists many datacenters without any IXP. The difference seems to be that PeeringDB data is provided by the networks themselves rather than third parties. Having recently asked a datacenter about what providers were present in their facilities and receiving an answer similar to "Who would you like to be there?", I much prefer PeeringDB's model of ensuring data completeness and correctness. -- Niels.
Re: Comcast postmaster?
Taken care of, thanks! On 7/11/2016 2:46 PM, Brian Rak wrote: Is there anyone here that can put me in touch with a Comcast mail server administrator? It seems that they've firewalled off some of our IPv6 space, and I can't seem to find any contact information. Interestingly, I can't even fill out their blocklist removal form, because it only accepts IPv4 addresses.
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
Hi James, I hear you. Massive fan of peeringdb and this isn't about replacing that (in fact love to simply integrate). Peeringdb provides a list of registered peers in a DC that has an IX. Great for looking at where to peer. Cloud Scene looks at all providers (4,000+) whether they are peering or not in any DC (4,800+ DC's) whether they are IX enabled or not. It is aimed to give a full view of service providers in each facility around the world. Good list and growing over time. A more detailed example is below. Important to note that if you are a someone that acquires/sells backhaul, L2 tails, transit, international capacity, voice etc. then peeringdb is not really the place to go. Agree in this instance peeringdb is definitely the first stop. But no harm in covering all bases for people who are looking for colo in that market and find the fact one DC has an IX to be of value. Cheers [b] PS: Declaration that I started Cloud Scene to help me understand better what networks were where. Happy to take this offline after this explainer. EXAMPLE 1. There maybe for example an enterprise that is looking for a service provider in a facility (XYZ in NY for example) but that provider actually "peers" their transit routers at the ABC facility down the street. Because the provider doesn't peer in XYZ there is no public record of them being there in peering DB. Providers are in heaps of DC's/locations that they just don't peer. So they effectively have no central location where people can see that they are "available to service". This is more of a directory of where providers are and what services they can provide. EXAMPLE 2. There are also now heaps of facilities that have no IX/fabric in them at all. Cloud Scene gives people access to understand who is in there which is great from a network planning perspective to see which facility/ies they may wish to instal their kit in. Also it's good for IX's to look at where they may extend their infra into. In the next few weeks/months major cloud providers will be plugged in too to give a more complete view of the cloud scene in any city. Cheers [b] On 12 July 2016 at 23:01, James Bensley wrote: > On 12 July 2016 at 13:46, Bevan Slattery wrote: > > Great work. Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing your fabric/IX > on > > Cloud Scene www.cloudscene.com . Provides visibility for people looking > > for DC's, providers and fabrics that just aren't limited to IX locations > or > > peers. > > > > Cheers > > That's a nifty site but isn't it largely overlapping with peeringdb > which is already more established? > > Just my two pence. > > James. >
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
Hi James, I hear you. Massive fan of peeringdb and this isn't about replacing that. Peeringdb provides a list of registered peers in a DC that has an IX. Great for looking at where to peer. Cloud Scene looks at all providers (4,000+) whether they are peering or not in any DC (4,800+ DC's) whether they are IX enabled or not. It is aimed to give a full view of service providers in each facility around the world. Good list and growing over time. A more detailed example of the areas of differentiation is below. Important to note that if you are a someone that acquires/sells backhaul, L2 tails, transit, international capacity, voice etc. then peeringdb is not really the place to get a detailed list. Agree in this instance peeringdb is definitely the first stop. But no harm in covering all bases for people who are looking for colo in that market and find the fact one DC has an IX to be of value. Cheers [b] EXAMPLE 1. There maybe for example an enterprise that is looking for a service provider in a facility (XYZ in NY for example) but that provider actually "peers" their transit routers at the ABC facility down the street. Because the provider doesn't peer in XYZ there is no public record of them being there in peering DB. Providers are in heaps of DC's/locations that they just don't peer. So they effectively have no central location where people can see that they are "available to service". This is more of a directory of where providers are and what services they can provide. EXAMPLE 2. There are also now heaps of facilities that have no IX/fabric in them at all. Cloud Scene gives people access to understand who is in there which is great from a network planning perspective to see which facility/ies they may wish to instal their kit in. Also it's good for IX's to look at where they may extend their infra into. In the next few weeks/months major cloud providers will be plugged in too to give a more complete view of the cloud scene in any city. On 12 July 2016 at 23:01, James Bensley wrote: > On 12 July 2016 at 13:46, Bevan Slattery wrote: > > Great work. Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing your fabric/IX > on > > Cloud Scene www.cloudscene.com . Provides visibility for people looking > > for DC's, providers and fabrics that just aren't limited to IX locations > or > > peers. > > > > Cheers > > That's a nifty site but isn't it largely overlapping with peeringdb > which is already more established? > > Just my two pence. > > James. >
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
On 12 July 2016 at 13:46, Bevan Slattery wrote: > Great work. Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing your fabric/IX on > Cloud Scene www.cloudscene.com . Provides visibility for people looking > for DC's, providers and fabrics that just aren't limited to IX locations or > peers. > > Cheers That's a nifty site but isn't it largely overlapping with peeringdb which is already more established? Just my two pence. James.
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
Great work. Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing your fabric/IX on Cloud Scene www.cloudscene.com . Provides visibility for people looking for DC's, providers and fabrics that just aren't limited to IX locations or peers. Cheers [b] On 28 June 2016 at 18:49, Marty Strong via NANOG wrote: > Can’t agree more about putting your IXPs on PeeringDB, it’s my first port > of call when looking at locations to expand to. > > Also, I would say to add the data centres too, to give a better idea of > where the IXPs are physically located. > > Regards, > Marty Strong > -- > CloudFlare - AS13335 > Network Engineer > ma...@cloudflare.com > +44 7584 906 055 > smartflare (Skype) > > https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335 > > > On 28 Jun 2016, at 02:16, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Shahab Vahabzadeh > > wrote: > >> Hello Everybody, > >> I am here to announce that TIC in Iran launched Neutral Internet > Exchange > >> Points. > >> Right now we have four in: > >> > >> - Tehran (tehran-ix.ir) > >> - Shiraz (shiraz-ix.ir) > >> - Tabriz (tabriz-ix.ir) > >> - Mashhad (mashhad-ix.ir) > >> > >> Currently we have near 45Gbps traffic on it but it will increase to > 100Gbps > >> within two months. Content Providers activating their BGP peering with > >> members one by one. > >> > >> Also I have something interesting for you around the world, TIC is > >> launching a International IX in Chabahar called Chabahar IX ( > chabahar-ix.ir) > >> which can be interesting for T1 ISPs or Content Providers like Akamai, > >> Amazon, Google, Limelight, Cloudflare and etc. > >> > > > > Thanks, I'll get this to the right people internally (AKAMAI). In the > > meantime, there are a number of peering groups on Facebook (global > > peering forum, peering forum, peeringDB) that you may want to join to > > discuss this as well. > > > > Don't forget to register in peeringDB: > > > > https://www.peeringdb.com/search?q=IRAN > > > > And finally, great pictures! > http://www.tehran-ix.ir/fa/news/ixp-workshop > > > > Good luck! > > > > Best, > > > > Martin > >
Re: packet loss question
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016, cpol...@surewest.net wrote: Thanks for identifying the source, I wish more people did this. My nitpick is that RFC791 doesn't label MTU=68 as "standard"; it says (section 3.2, p.25): RFC791 was written during the internet's anti-standard era. We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code
