Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:44 PM Hank Nussbacher 
wrote:

> On 17/09/2018 23:26, Phil Lavin wrote:
> >> $350/mo seems to be standard. Our DCs are at $250.Seems more like
> they held onto out of date pricing for a long time then realized it.
> > For what it's worth, Telehouse London is around 30 USD/month for an
> x-connect within the same building. Our US datacentre (not Telehouse) on
> the other hand is around 200 USD/month. It's always felt disproportionally
> expensive but maybe those kind of prices are expected for the North America
> region.
> Current list price for 10G Xconnect at the major colo site in Israel is
> $5840/month.   Discounts are available :-)
> Keep complaining about $350/mo costs.  You have no idea how lucky you are.
>
>
it's funny/possible that x-connect costs affect where peering appears in
the landscape, right?

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Hank Nussbacher]

On 17/09/2018 23:26, Phil Lavin wrote:
>> $350/mo seems to be standard. Our DCs are at $250.Seems more like they 
>> held onto out of date pricing for a long time then realized it.
> For what it's worth, Telehouse London is around 30 USD/month for an x-connect 
> within the same building. Our US datacentre (not Telehouse) on the other hand 
> is around 200 USD/month. It's always felt disproportionally expensive but 
> maybe those kind of prices are expected for the North America region.
Current list price for 10G Xconnect at the major colo site in Israel is
$5840/month.   Discounts are available :-)
Keep complaining about $350/mo costs.  You have no idea how lucky you are.

-Hank

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Ben Cannon]

One Wilshire is at $750/mo for XCs.  Expect other constrained buildings to head 
there if not already (PAIX? Can you even get one?)

-Ben.

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Daniel Corbe  wrote:
> 
> at 4:26 PM, Phil Lavin  wrote:
> 
>>> $350/mo seems to be standard. Our DCs are at $250.Seems more like they 
>>> held onto out of date pricing for a long time then realized it.
>> 
>> For what it's worth, Telehouse London is around 30 USD/month for an 
>> x-connect within the same building. Our US datacentre (not Telehouse) on the 
>> other hand is around 200 USD/month. It's always felt disproportionally 
>> expensive but maybe those kind of prices are expected for the North America 
>> region.
> 
> Yeah $30 is definitely not the norm on this side of the pond.   Even if you 
> buy in bulk.

RE: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

[Michel Py]

Doug,

> Montgomery, Douglas wrote :
> The new monitor has significant additions in the areas of diagnostics, and 
> highlights issues of
> interest such as path / customer cone analysis of prefixes that cover invalid 
> originations.

Thanks for all the work. More visibility will help. I have made some private 
suggestions to how you could enhance the service, and I would add one :
provide a BGP feed available to the public with invalid RPKI prefixes with a 
distinct BGP community describing why the prefix is invalid.

We are in an impossible situation where ISPs don't want to discard invalid RPKI 
prefixes because they can't deal with the customer backshlash of doing it; 
nothing to gain, money to lose. Money wins.

There is another side of this coin, though : you are a government employee. I 
pay you.
As a taxpayer, I think the US governement should provide a better service to US 
companies with theRPKI collected data. Analysis without action is interesting, 
but not always federal funding.

Best regards,

Michel.

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

[Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)]

Nusenu,

I also found your analysis very interesting and useful. Thanks for that.

>What do you think about adding graphs that show the amount of actually
>unreachable prefixes and IP space? (prefix where no alternative valid/unknown 
>announcement exists)

I am also part of the NIST BGP team. 
Doug has already responded with information that we will soon have a new 
version of the NIST Monitor
which will provide the kind of graphs that you requested.

As an additional piece of info, I had given a presentation at IETF 101 
in which you may find the data in slides 10-13 interesting: 
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-sidrops-origin-validation-policy-considerations-for-dropping-invalid-routes-00
  
 
It is a snapshot -- takes update data from Routeviews and validates routes 
using ROAs (see slides 10-13).
Then it drills down on Invalid routes to see how many are covered by Valid (V) 
or NotFound (NF) less specific routes.
Then further drills down to see if the origin AS (OAS) in the V/NF less 
specific route is the same or different 
compared to the OAS in the Invalid route. In many cases, the answer is yes - 
same OAS.
We also found that when the answer was 'different OAS', then interestingly, in 
many instances the OAS in 
the V/NF less specific route was the transit provider of the OAS in the Invalid 
route!
 
We (together with Job) have a draft in the IETF SIDROPS WG that specifies the 
details of 
DISR (Drop Invalid if Still Routable) policy:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sriram-sidrops-drop-invalid-policy-01
   
DISR policy is basically what we are discussing here: Drop Invalid if a Valid 
or NotFound less specific route exists.
When one designs implementable policy based on this, some nuances are important 
to consider.
The draft and the slides attempt to do that.

Sriram

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Sep 17, 2018, at 17:51, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote on 17/09/2018 22:40:
>> Expecting any for-profit business (all of them, not just REITs) to do
>> less than extract maximum cash is deluding yourself.
> oh sure, but price gouging is often bad business practice in the long term.  
> Humans evolved a strong sense of injustice and have a long memory for people 
> and organisations whom they feel take advantage of them.
> 
> As someone else pointed out, business practices like this can work in a 
> rising market, but not so well when market conditions become difficult and 
> people end up in a position of being able to make a choice between 
> organisations which may have treated them badly in the past and those which 
> have not.

No argument. You cut out part of my reply:

When a business gives you something for free, they are expecting
something in return - return business, personal data, lower
churn, good reviews, customer loyalty, etc. - that they can turn
into cash. Any business with little or no competition can be
expected to raise prices. This is not exactly new or surprising.

If you “s/free/free or lower cost/“, it satisfies your statement as well. Every 
business should be deciding “how much can I make -long term-“, and take into 
account what you, I, and others have said here. Some will think short term, and 
(hopefully) the market will punish them over time.

Anyway, I think everyone on the thread agrees. Xconn fees are higher than they 
should be, but not necessarily higher than the market will bear. Yet.

Besides, once everyone turns up a single 100 Tbps port to PacketFabric (or two 
for redundancy), xconn fees will be irrelevant. :-)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Nick Hilliard]

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote on 17/09/2018 22:40:

Expecting any for-profit business (all of them, not just REITs) to do
less than extract maximum cash is deluding yourself.
oh sure, but price gouging is often bad business practice in the long 
term.  Humans evolved a strong sense of injustice and have a long memory 
for people and organisations whom they feel take advantage of them.


As someone else pointed out, business practices like this can work in a 
rising market, but not so well when market conditions become difficult 
and people end up in a position of being able to make a choice between 
organisations which may have treated them badly in the past and those 
which have not.


Nick

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Daniel Corbe]

at 4:26 PM, Phil Lavin  wrote:

$350/mo seems to be standard. Our DCs are at $250.Seems more like  
they held onto out of date pricing for a long time then realized it.


For what it's worth, Telehouse London is around 30 USD/month for an  
x-connect within the same building. Our US datacentre (not Telehouse) on  
the other hand is around 200 USD/month. It's always felt  
disproportionally expensive but maybe those kind of prices are expected  
for the North America region.


Yeah $30 is definitely not the norm on this side of the pond.   Even if you  
buy in bulk.

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Ross Tajvar]

My current facility (in the Ashburn, VA, USA area) is $25/mo with two for
free, but when I was shopping around, most other facilities were at least
$300/mo. Certainly not unusual but I agree it's excessive.

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Phil Lavin 
wrote:

> > $350/mo seems to be standard. Our DCs are at $250.Seems more like
> they held onto out of date pricing for a long time then realized it.
>
> For what it's worth, Telehouse London is around 30 USD/month for an
> x-connect within the same building. Our US datacentre (not Telehouse) on
> the other hand is around 200 USD/month. It's always felt disproportionally
> expensive but maybe those kind of prices are expected for the North America
> region.
>

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[JASON BOTHE via NANOG]

Correct. Behold the ‘active riser’. We started doing this years ago in our R 
network after we were being nickeled and dimes to cross floors between our own 
cages we leased from the same colo. 


> On Sep 17, 2018, at 15:23, Ben Cannon  wrote:
> 
> fs.com has got this ready to go.  Less than that.
> 
>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 12:54 PM, Joe Maimon  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ethan O'Toole wrote:
 If it’s in an interduct by itself, how much would the square footage per
 month occupied by the average cross connect be worth?
>>> 
>>> These big datacenter companies are REITs. Similar to self-storage units and 
>>> apartment buildings, they exist to extract as much money as possible from 
>>> the users. Nothing more or nothing less. The price relief only comes when 
>>> the market is grossly overbuilt and if there is actual competition.
>>> 
>>>   - Ethan O'Toole
>>> 
>>> 
>> For a positive side effect, xcon pricing should bring greater demand to dwdm 
>> solutions, what would you recommend for an affordable 1u turnkey buy a pair 
>> and get >10<30 1g/10g maybe a couple of 40 even a 100g (and mon/expansion)?
>> 
>> 
>> Joe
> 

RE: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Michel Py]

> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote :
> Maybe I am confused, but I thought every for-profit business exists to 
> extract as much money as possible.

Especially is said business is potentially in my 401(k) portfolio. I expect 
them to milk every penny they possibly can out of their customers so my 401(k) 
grows.

Oh, wait ? I'm one of their customers. They should milk everyone else, but not 
me of course. What's the name of this thing ? capitalism ?

Michel.

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

RE: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Phil Lavin]

> $350/mo seems to be standard. Our DCs are at $250.Seems more like they 
> held onto out of date pricing for a long time then realized it.

For what it's worth, Telehouse London is around 30 USD/month for an x-connect 
within the same building. Our US datacentre (not Telehouse) on the other hand 
is around 200 USD/month. It's always felt disproportionally expensive but maybe 
those kind of prices are expected for the North America region.

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Ben Cannon]

fs.com has got this ready to go.  Less than that.

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 12:54 PM, Joe Maimon  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethan O'Toole wrote:
>>> If it’s in an interduct by itself, how much would the square footage per
>>> month occupied by the average cross connect be worth?
>> 
>> These big datacenter companies are REITs. Similar to self-storage units and 
>> apartment buildings, they exist to extract as much money as possible from 
>> the users. Nothing more or nothing less. The price relief only comes when 
>> the market is grossly overbuilt and if there is actual competition.
>> 
>>- Ethan O'Toole
>> 
>> 
> For a positive side effect, xcon pricing should bring greater demand to dwdm 
> solutions, what would you recommend for an affordable 1u turnkey buy a pair 
> and get >10<30 1g/10g maybe a couple of 40 even a 100g (and mon/expansion)?
> 
> 
> Joe

Re: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

[Montgomery, Douglas (Fed)]

Job,

Thanks for the input, we have a new version of our RPKI monitor that we are in 
the process of moving from development systems to publicly accessible servers.

The new monitor has significant additions in the areas of diagnostics, and 
highlights issues of interest such as path / customer cone analysis of prefixes 
that cover invalid originations.

We break down basic coverage stats – i.e., what is still routable assuming drop 
invalid policy.
[cid:image001.png@01D44E84.65DD2B70]

And for the covering valid or not found prefixes we provide path analyses of 
various sorts.

[cid:image002.png@01D44E84.65DD2B70]


Other new diagnostics will map changes in origin validation state to specific 
changes in RPKI data – i.e., answering the question what changed? And why?

I will send a link when we get things moved to a public facing server.

dougm
--
Doug Montgomery, Manager Internet  & Scalable Systems Research @ NIST


From:  on behalf of Job Snijders 
Date: Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:23 PM
To: nusenu 
Cc: rpki-monitor , "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID 
prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 18:38, nusenu 
mailto:nusenu-li...@riseup.net>> wrote:
Dear NIST RPKI Monitor Team,

thanks for creating and maintaining the RPKI Monitor
https://rpki-monitor.antd.nist.gov/#rpki_adopters
I've seen your graphs in multiple routing security presentations :)

What do you think about adding graphs that show the amount of actually
unreachable prefixes and IP space? (prefix where no alternative valid/unknown 
announcement exists)

I think such graphs would help us focus on those prefixes that we should have 
to tackle first.


Agreed. Increased visibility will help all of us. Tracking this data over time 
would be a beneficial tool.


This page contains examples of INVALID prefixes that would still be reachable 
in a route origin validating
environment (see the RPKI validator screenshots):
https://medium.com/@nusenu/towards-cleaning-up-rpki-invalids-d69b03ab8a8c


Nusenu thank you for your thorough analysis. This is very useful information.

Kind regards,

Job

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Joe Maimon]

Ethan O'Toole wrote:

If it’s in an interduct by itself, how much would the square footage per
month occupied by the average cross connect be worth?


These big datacenter companies are REITs. Similar to self-storage 
units and apartment buildings, they exist to extract as much money as 
possible from the users. Nothing more or nothing less. The price 
relief only comes when the market is grossly overbuilt and if there is 
actual competition.


- Ethan O'Toole


For a positive side effect, xcon pricing should bring greater demand to 
dwdm solutions, what would you recommend for an affordable 1u turnkey 
buy a pair and get >10<30 1g/10g maybe a couple of 40 even a 100g (and 
mon/expansion)?



Joe

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Sep 17, 2018, at 15:08, Ethan O'Toole  wrote:
> 
>> If it’s in an interduct by itself, how much would the square footage per
>> month occupied by the average cross connect be worth?
> 
> These big datacenter companies are REITs. Similar to self-storage units and 
> apartment buildings, they exist to extract as much money as possible from the 
> users. Nothing more or nothing less. The price relief only comes when the 
> market is grossly overbuilt and if there is actual competition.

Maybe I am confused, but I thought every for-profit business exists to extract 
as much money as possible.

When a business gives you something for free, they are expecting something in 
return - return business, personal data, lower churn, good reviews, customer 
loyalty, etc. - that they can turn into cash. Any business with little or no 
competition can be expected to raise prices. This is not exactly new or 
surprising.

Expecting any for-profit business (all of them, not just REITs) to do less than 
extract maximum cash is deluding yourself.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Ben Cannon]

$350/mo seems to be standard. Our DCs are at $250.Seems more like they held 
onto out of date pricing for a long time then realized it.

-Ben

On Sep 17, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Ethan O'Toole  wrote:

>> If it’s in an interduct by itself, how much would the square footage per
>> month occupied by the average cross connect be worth?
> 
> These big datacenter companies are REITs. Similar to self-storage units and 
> apartment buildings, they exist to extract as much money as possible from the 
> users. Nothing more or nothing less. The price relief only comes when the 
> market is grossly overbuilt and if there is actual competition.
> 
>- Ethan O'Toole

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Ethan O'Toole]

If it’s in an interduct by itself, how much would the square footage per
month occupied by the average cross connect be worth?


These big datacenter companies are REITs. Similar to self-storage units 
and apartment buildings, they exist to extract as much money as possible 
from the users. Nothing more or nothing less. The price relief only comes 
when the market is grossly overbuilt and if there is actual competition.


- Ethan O'Toole

Re: netflix OCA in a CG-NAT world

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 6:54 AM, Tom Ammon  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm looking to understand the impact of CG-NAT on a set of netflix OCAs, in 
>> an ISP environment. I see in Netflix's FAQ on the subject that traffic 
>> sourced from RFC 1918/6598 endpoints can't be delivered to the OCA. Is this 
>> simply a matter of deploying the OCA on the outside of the CGN layer? What 
>> are the other consequences of CGN upon the OCA?
>> 
> 
> Yes, you want to deploy it outside your CG-NAT.  
> 
> I also strongly suggest you look at how to get native IPv6 from your clients 
> behind the CG-NAT rolled out.  I know many folks have had issues with various 
> CDNs and the number of devices that reach out.  This is why folks get the 
> Google captcha, etc.
> 
> Giving those end-users an alternate way out will help.  I understand this may 
> take effort and is harder for folks using UBNT & Tik gear in a smaller 
> environment, but there is value for your end-users.
> 
> - Jared
> 

Actually, Tik gear fully supports IPv6, so only UBNT gear is really an issue 
here.

Owen

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Owen DeLong]

If it’s in an interduct by itself, how much would the square footage per
month occupied by the average cross connect be worth?

I’m not saying I think $300 MRC is legitimate by any means, but, if
you’re going to talk about the ongoing costs, the space in the cable
ladder and/or fiber tray(s) also has to be accounted for.

Owen


> On Sep 17, 2018, at 8:57 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Corbe  wrote:
>> $300 MRC for a once-off cross connect isn’t unreasonable.   There’s costs
>> and labor involved in running that cable through a riser.  Especially if you
>> want it in innerduct.
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> A $300 Non-Recurring Cost, sure. The MONTHLY Recurring Cost of
> maintaining that cable is not zero, especially if it's in a campus not
> just one building, but it's pretty close to zero. Charging the
> customer a $300 MRC may not be unusual but it is unreasonable.
> 
> I get that floorspace and power is priced pretty close to
> cost-recovery so that cross connects are one of the only profit
> centers for a carrier neutral facility. It's still obnoxious.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

[Job Snijders]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 18:38, nusenu  wrote:

> Dear NIST RPKI Monitor Team,
>
> thanks for creating and maintaining the RPKI Monitor
> https://rpki-monitor.antd.nist.gov/#rpki_adopters
> I've seen your graphs in multiple routing security presentations :)
>
> What do you think about adding graphs that show the amount of actually
> unreachable prefixes and IP space? (prefix where no alternative
> valid/unknown announcement exists)
>
> I think such graphs would help us focus on those prefixes that we should
> have to tackle first.



Agreed. Increased visibility will help all of us. Tracking this data over
time would be a beneficial tool.


This page contains examples of INVALID prefixes that would still be
> reachable in a route origin validating
> environment (see the RPKI validator screenshots):
> https://medium.com/@nusenu/towards-cleaning-up-rpki-invalids-d69b03ab8a8c



Nusenu thank you for your thorough analysis. This is very useful
information.

Kind regards,

Job

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Corbe  wrote:
> $300 MRC for a once-off cross connect isn’t unreasonable.   There’s costs
> and labor involved in running that cable through a riser.  Especially if you
> want it in innerduct.

Hi Daniel,

A $300 Non-Recurring Cost, sure. The MONTHLY Recurring Cost of
maintaining that cable is not zero, especially if it's in a campus not
just one building, but it's pretty close to zero. Charging the
customer a $300 MRC may not be unusual but it is unreasonable.

I get that floorspace and power is priced pretty close to
cost-recovery so that cross connects are one of the only profit
centers for a carrier neutral facility. It's still obnoxious.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: netflix OCA in a CG-NAT world

[Jared Mauch]

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 6:54 AM, Tom Ammon  wrote:
> 
> I'm looking to understand the impact of CG-NAT on a set of netflix OCAs, in 
> an ISP environment. I see in Netflix's FAQ on the subject that traffic 
> sourced from RFC 1918/6598 endpoints can't be delivered to the OCA. Is this 
> simply a matter of deploying the OCA on the outside of the CGN layer? What 
> are the other consequences of CGN upon the OCA?
> 

Yes, you want to deploy it outside your CG-NAT.  

I also strongly suggest you look at how to get native IPv6 from your clients 
behind the CG-NAT rolled out.  I know many folks have had issues with various 
CDNs and the number of devices that reach out.  This is why folks get the 
Google captcha, etc.

Giving those end-users an alternate way out will help.  I understand this may 
take effort and is harder for folks using UBNT & Tik gear in a smaller 
environment, but there is value for your end-users.

- Jared

Re: Level3 IRR contact

[Jay Ford]

I had success cleaning up old IRR stuff via email to the contact listed in 
the AS3561 whois entry.  It's a different person listed now, but perhaps they 
are also interested & responsive.



Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
email: jay-f...@uiowa.edu, phone: 319-335-

 On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, Eric Dugas wrote:

If you find someone helpful at L3/CL for your request, I would like to have its 
contact (off-list). I've been trying to
cleanup old objects too without much success.

Eric
On Sep 17 2018, at 10:15 am, Brian Rak  wrote:

  I'm trying to get some old IRR objects removed from the LEVEL3 database,
and not having much luck.

Their support guys silently closed my ticket and then had our account
manager email us directly basically saying "we don't what you want us to
do".

I used to use routing@level3 to get this done, however they don't seem
to reply anymore.

http://www.irr.net/docs/list.html directs me to r...@level3.net, which has
an autoreply that says "open a ticket"

netflix OCA in a CG-NAT world

[Tom Ammon]

I'm looking to understand the impact of CG-NAT on a set of netflix OCAs, in
an ISP environment. I see in Netflix's FAQ on the subject that traffic
sourced from RFC 1918/6598 endpoints can't be delivered to the OCA. Is this
simply a matter of deploying the OCA on the outside of the CGN layer? What
are the other consequences of CGN upon the OCA?

Tom
-- 
-
Tom Ammon
M: (801) 784-2628
thomasam...@gmail.com
-

Re: What NMS do you use and why?

[Andre van Zyl]

> 
> We run Iris - home-grown (South Africa), great support, small/nimble
> team that are able to fix issue, add features and give advice.
> 
> Very flexible, captures plenty of data out-the-box, supports a ton of
> vendors and data points, e.t.c.
> 
> It's a commercial solution, but not out of reach. Heck, even I can
> afford it :-).
> 
>     http://www.irisns.com/
> 
> We moved from a Cacti/SmokePing/Observium/Zabbix combo to Iris 2 years
> ago. Much happiness.
> 
> Mark.
> 

+1 for Iris.

We've been with them for a couple of years now, and the support has been first 
class - quick incident response, fast fixes, and very approachable regarding 
feature requests.

They are based out of Cape Town, South Africa, but also have a US presence in 
the DC area.

Andre.
  

adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

[nusenu]

Dear NIST RPKI Monitor Team,

thanks for creating and maintaining the RPKI Monitor
https://rpki-monitor.antd.nist.gov/#rpki_adopters
I've seen your graphs in multiple routing security presentations :)

What do you think about adding graphs that show the amount of actually 
unreachable prefixes and IP space? (prefix where no alternative valid/unknown 
announcement exists)

I think such graphs would help us focus on those prefixes that we should have 
to tackle first.

This page contains examples of INVALID prefixes that would still be reachable 
in a route origin validating
environment (see the RPKI validator screenshots):
https://medium.com/@nusenu/towards-cleaning-up-rpki-invalids-d69b03ab8a8c


kind regards,
nusenu


-- 
https://twitter.com/nusenu_
https://mastodon.social/@nusenu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RIR outreach program about INVALIDs (was: deploying RPKI based Origin Validation)

[nusenu]

Job wrote (2018-07-16) [1]:
> Perhaps the RIRs should start an outreach program to proactively inform
> the owners of those 2,200 invalid route announcements to get them to
> either fix or delete the RPKI ROA.

Since I'm also interested [2] in reducing the amount of RPKI INVALIDs in an
efficient way I was wondering if you proceeded with this and if so
what reaction you got from the RIRs.

thanks!
nusenu


[1] https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2018-July/096202.html
[2] https://medium.com/@nusenu/towards-cleaning-up-rpki-invalids-d69b03ab8a8c



-- 
https://twitter.com/nusenu_




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Daniel Corbe]

at 10:57 AM, Fredy Kuenzler  wrote:


Is anyone else affected by a massive price increase for x-conns by
Telehouse Chelsea?

When we moved in a few years ago they were asking 150$, it changed to
200$ and now we are asked to pay 260$. That's 73% more. I don't think
inflation is that high in the United states.

I get the impression that they feel comfortable enough to abuse their
position. When we complained they simply said 'you may consider to
cancel the contract'.

Of course they don't provide any better service, in fact, the service
quality is commonly indirectly proportional to the price at most 'big
names'. #rant

I suggest to anyone considering to buy colocation space in NYC (or
elsewhere) not to choose Telehouse, unlike a few years ago.

--
Fredy Kuenzler
Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.


$300 MRC for a once-off cross connect isn’t unreasonable.   There’s costs  
and labor involved in running that cable through a riser.  Especially if  
you want it in innerduct.


I’m not sure what Telehouse’s policies are because I’m not a customer, but  
some companies (TelX comes to mind) you can order them in bulk at a  
significant discount.   Even with the extra labor involved in splicing it  
to a panel, running a 12 or 24 count cable into a cabinet is a much easier  
pill to swallow than having a guy up on a ladder or under a floor every  
time you want to turn up a customer.


Then there’s always off-market options too.   You don’t need to be in New  
York to have decent connectivity to the New York metro region.   There’s a  
few places in Jersey that offer free cross connects in their meet-me rooms  
because they’re so desperate to have carriers move into their  
facilities.I don’t think many of them have connectivity to major  
peering fabrics, though.

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Seth Mattinen]

On 9/17/18 7:57 AM, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:

Is anyone else affected by a massive price increase for x-conns by
Telehouse Chelsea?

When we moved in a few years ago they were asking 150$, it changed to
200$ and now we are asked to pay 260$. That's 73% more. I don't think
inflation is that high in the United states.

I get the impression that they feel comfortable enough to abuse their
position. When we complained they simply said 'you may consider to
cancel the contract'.


They know that most people will complain, but they very few will 
actually pull the trigger on a cancel. I see attitudes like this change 
with ownership or new executives looking to make their mark. Prices will 
keep going up until whatever metric of how many customers actually 
cancel is met.


If you're able to cancel, I say do it. One of two things will happen: 
you'll call their bluff and get offered a better rate, or 2) you get to 
move somewhere that has a better rate and you know to make sure it's 
contracted or has a cap on how much it can increase on an annual basis. 
Yes, moving is horribly inconvenient, but in my opinion it's worse to 
work with a company who is hostile towards their customers.


~Seth

Re: Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Dovid Bender]

Still better than what other places charge (*cough* DR. *cough*)


On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Fredy Kuenzler  wrote:

> Is anyone else affected by a massive price increase for x-conns by
> Telehouse Chelsea?
>
> When we moved in a few years ago they were asking 150$, it changed to
> 200$ and now we are asked to pay 260$. That's 73% more. I don't think
> inflation is that high in the United states.
>
> I get the impression that they feel comfortable enough to abuse their
> position. When we complained they simply said 'you may consider to
> cancel the contract'.
>
> Of course they don't provide any better service, in fact, the service
> quality is commonly indirectly proportional to the price at most 'big
> names'. #rant
>
> I suggest to anyone considering to buy colocation space in NYC (or
> elsewhere) not to choose Telehouse, unlike a few years ago.
>
> --
> Fredy Kuenzler
> Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.
>
>

Massive Price Increase for X-conns at Telehouse Chelsea, NYC

[Fredy Kuenzler]

Is anyone else affected by a massive price increase for x-conns by
Telehouse Chelsea?

When we moved in a few years ago they were asking 150$, it changed to
200$ and now we are asked to pay 260$. That's 73% more. I don't think
inflation is that high in the United states.

I get the impression that they feel comfortable enough to abuse their
position. When we complained they simply said 'you may consider to
cancel the contract'.

Of course they don't provide any better service, in fact, the service
quality is commonly indirectly proportional to the price at most 'big
names'. #rant

I suggest to anyone considering to buy colocation space in NYC (or
elsewhere) not to choose Telehouse, unlike a few years ago.

-- 
Fredy Kuenzler
Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Level3 IRR contact

[Eric Dugas]

If you find someone helpful at L3/CL for your request, I would like to have its 
contact (off-list). I've been trying to cleanup old objects too without much 
success.

Eric
On Sep 17 2018, at 10:15 am, Brian Rak  wrote:
>
> I'm trying to get some old IRR objects removed from the LEVEL3 database,
> and not having much luck.
>
> Their support guys silently closed my ticket and then had our account
> manager email us directly basically saying "we don't what you want us to
> do".
>
> I used to use routing@level3 to get this done, however they don't seem
> to reply anymore.
>
> http://www.irr.net/docs/list.html directs me to r...@level3.net, which has
> an autoreply that says "open a ticket"
>

Re: Level3 IRR contact

[Tom Hill]

On 17/09/18 15:15, Brian Rak wrote:
> I used to use routing@level3 to get this done, however they don't seem
> to reply anymore.
> 
> http://www.irr.net/docs/list.html directs me to r...@level3.net, which has
> an autoreply that says "open a ticket"


You may wish to start by swapping the Level3 domain for the CenturyLink
one?

-- 
Tom

Level3 IRR contact

[Brian Rak]

I'm trying to get some old IRR objects removed from the LEVEL3 database, 
and not having much luck.


Their support guys silently closed my ticket and then had our account 
manager email us directly basically saying "we don't what you want us to 
do".


I used to use routing@level3 to get this done, however they don't seem 
to reply anymore.


http://www.irr.net/docs/list.html directs me to r...@level3.net, which has 
an autoreply that says "open a ticket"