Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

[John Curran]

On 31 Jul 2019, at 5:31 PM, Scott Christopher 
mailto:s...@ottie.org>> wrote:

...
What I have been saying is that, if ARIN did something so brazen as to revoke 
Amazon's resources because of some bounced PoC emails, the impact would be 
*dramatic* and likely lead to the end of ARIN. Just think about this for a 
minute. :) Obviously this will not happen because ARIN is so righteously 
competent. :)

Scott -

ARIN revokes resources because of other administrative matters (e.g. not paying 
one’s ARIN fees), and while there is obviously quite a bit of process and 
notice to avoid this if all possible, we do indeed revoke and networks go down 
as a result.

Re: Spam due to new ARIN allocation

[John Curran]

Tim -

When you have moment, could you forward both of those Whois spam messages to 
complia...@arin.net ?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers]

On 2 Aug 2019, at 7:32 PM, Tim Burke mailto:t...@tburke.us>> 
wrote:

We recently received a new ASN from ARIN - you know what that means... the 
sales vultures come out to play!

So far, it has resulted in spam from Cogent (which is, of course, to be 
expected), and now another company called "CapCon Networks" - 
http://www.capconnetworks.com. As far as I am aware, this practice is against 
ARIN's Terms of Use. Is it worth reporting to ARIN, or perhaps it's worth 
creating a List of People To Never Do Business With™, complete with these 
jokers, and other vultures that engage in similar tactics?

Regards,
Tim Burke
t...@burke.us

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Eric Kuhnke]

In a remote area in northern africa if there are no terrestrial ISPs, and
there is no budget to build towers for PTP microwave, I don't know if there
are any reasonable options.

If sufficient funds did exist, my recommendation, if they really want true
diversity between two totally different services, would be a combination of
a MEO o3b earth station and a traditional geostationary type earth station
(Ku band) with appropriate RF chain and SCPC modem.

It is also possible to achieve full diversity through two totally separate
geostationary earth stations, using different satellite transponders and
different teleports on the other end.

But that's not going to be cheap, either in a one time equipment cost or in
monthly recurring cost, for o3b services and transponder kHz lease +
teleport services on the other end somewhere in continental Europe.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 2:10 PM Ross Tajvar  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 4:30 PM Brian Henson  wrote:
>
>> If we had a location (or at least a part of the world) we might be able
>> to recommend a little better.
>>
>
> This is in northern Africa.
>

Re: The future of transport in the metro area

[Brandon Martin]

On 8/3/19 6:58 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:

We are seeing requests from as low as 600km, up to 1,600km, all the way
to 7,000km.


Those are definitely longer distances than I was inquiring about.  I was 
asking for distances in the range of more like 100km.


Those distances are firmly into the amplified territory and getting into 
territory were you're likely to need full RRR stops in at least a couple 
places.  Maybe not with coherent optics especially on NZDS fiber...maybe.


--
Brandon Martin

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Mehmet Akcin]

Feel free to open live.infrapedia.com on mobile. Click on share location
icon. And it will show 3D view of any fiber near by.

We are thinking about adding wireless networks too and maybe overlaying
national cell phone coverage maps

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 14:21 Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 3/Aug/19 23:09, Ross Tajvar wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 4:30 PM Brian Henson  wrote:
>
>> If we had a location (or at least a part of the world) we might be able
>> to recommend a little better.
>>
>
> This is in northern Africa.
>
>
> Hmmh - normally, when someone says North America, it's one of 2 countries.
> Not much fuss there...
>
> North Africa (by some kind of definition) is 8 or 10 countries, depending
> on what you feel North Africa means.
>
> In short, you'll have to be more specific than that...
>
>
> Mark.
>
> --
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Aug/19 23:09, Ross Tajvar wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 4:30 PM Brian Henson  > wrote:
>
> If we had a location (or at least a part of the world) we might be
> able to recommend a little better. 
>
>
> This is in northern Africa.

Hmmh - normally, when someone says North America, it's one of 2
countries. Not much fuss there...

North Africa (by some kind of definition) is 8 or 10 countries,
depending on what you feel North Africa means.

In short, you'll have to be more specific than that...

Mark.

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Ross Tajvar]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 4:30 PM Brian Henson  wrote:

> If we had a location (or at least a part of the world) we might be able to
> recommend a little better.
>

This is in northern Africa.

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Brian Henson]

If we had a location (or at least a part of the world) we might be able to
recommend a little better.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:32 PM Ross Tajvar  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A friend of mine is trying to set up a network in a location where there
> is no fiber (or copper) for many miles. As bandwidth requirements are low
> (<1M for the foreseeable future) but uptime is important, he was looking at
> using multiple cell modems from separate carriers as redundant uplinks. I
> am concerned that different cell carriers might be using the same transport
> providers to a given tower, so that wouldn't be truly redundant. Another
> option would be using a satellite provider as a backup for cellular. (The
> high latency that comes with satellite is not an issue.)
>
> A fixed-radio solution would likely be too expensive upfront as it would
> require building towers.
>
> Am I missing any other options or considerations?
>
> Thanks,
> Ross
>

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Ross Tajvar]

Not that I know of, especially given the location. I'll look into it though.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019, 3:42 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Any existing WISPs?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Ross Tajvar" 
> *To: *"North American Network Operators' Group" 
> *Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 2:30:43 PM
> *Subject: *Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs
>
> Hi all,
>
> A friend of mine is trying to set up a network in a location where there
> is no fiber (or copper) for many miles. As bandwidth requirements are low
> (<1M for the foreseeable future) but uptime is important, he was looking at
> using multiple cell modems from separate carriers as redundant uplinks. I
> am concerned that different cell carriers might be using the same transport
> providers to a given tower, so that wouldn't be truly redundant. Another
> option would be using a satellite provider as a backup for cellular. (The
> high latency that comes with satellite is not an issue.)
>
> A fixed-radio solution would likely be too expensive upfront as it would
> require building towers.
>
> Am I missing any other options or considerations?
>
> Thanks,
> Ross
>
>

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Mike Hammett]

Any existing WISPs? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Ross Tajvar"  
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2019 2:30:43 PM 
Subject: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs 


Hi all, 


A friend of mine is trying to set up a network in a location where there is no 
fiber (or copper) for many miles. As bandwidth requirements are low (<1M for 
the foreseeable future) but uptime is important, he was looking at using 
multiple cell modems from separate carriers as redundant uplinks. I am 
concerned that different cell carriers might be using the same transport 
providers to a given tower, so that wouldn't be truly redundant. Another option 
would be using a satellite provider as a backup for cellular. (The high latency 
that comes with satellite is not an issue.) 


A fixed-radio solution would likely be too expensive upfront as it would 
require building towers. 


Am I missing any other options or considerations? 


Thanks, 
Ross 

Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Ross Tajvar]

Hi all,

A friend of mine is trying to set up a network in a location where there is
no fiber (or copper) for many miles. As bandwidth requirements are low (<1M
for the foreseeable future) but uptime is important, he was looking at
using multiple cell modems from separate carriers as redundant uplinks. I
am concerned that different cell carriers might be using the same transport
providers to a given tower, so that wouldn't be truly redundant. Another
option would be using a satellite provider as a backup for cellular. (The
high latency that comes with satellite is not an issue.)

A fixed-radio solution would likely be too expensive upfront as it would
require building towers.

Am I missing any other options or considerations?

Thanks,
Ross

Re: The future of transport in the metro area

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Aug/19 17:04, Valdis Kl ē tnieks wrote:

> I'm having a hard time seeing any of those distances as being "metro" as
> opposed to long-haul.. or did they change the definitions again while I wasn't
> paying attention?

I was answering Brandon's query re: spectrum over distance.

The OP's question on Metro still stands.

Mark.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

AWS latency is Asia-Pacific

[John Von Essen]

Is anyone else seeing increased latency both within AWS and transit in the 
Asia-Pacific region?

We normally see 90-100ms between Aus and Sing within AWS, for the past 18 hours 
or so this has jumped up to 190ms - even for internal VPC-VPC traffic. Transit 
from Aus to Sing (3rd party endpoints) is also 190ms or so.

So far, Amazon has told me everything is fine, but that same latency test from 
a budget VPS provider in Sydney to Singapore is like 92ms, whereas on AWS its 
190ms.

I have some tickets in queue, but curious if anyone else has observed anything.

-John

Re: The future of transport in the metro area

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 12:58:01 +0200, Mark Tinka said:
> On 3/Aug/19 03:14, Brandon Martin wrote:
> > � I've inquired with a few metro operators in my area about something
> > like this, albeit a few years ago, and I got a pretty hard "no way
> > we'd ever do that" out of them presumably for the reasons above.
>
> We are seeing requests from as low as 600km, up to 1,600km, all the way
> to 7,000km.

I'm having a hard time seeing any of those distances as being "metro" as
opposed to long-haul.. or did they change the definitions again while I wasn't
paying attention?


pgpQvJWDWdI6v.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [nanog] Cisco GLBP/HSRP question -- Has it ever been discussed to publish fully/in-part the specifications

[Chriztoffer Hansen]

Saku Ytti wrote on 03/08/2019 15:49:

I don't think any work for GLBP exists in IETF.


A shot in the dark. Correct.

https://www.google.com/#q=%28"GLBP"%7C"Gateway+Load+Balancing"+Protocol%7C"Global+Load+Balancing"+Protocol%29+AND+inurl%3Adatatracker+AND+inurl%3Aietf

(My IETF history is short. =I won't know any older history.)

... I doubt any current or previous Cisco folks on the list would want 
to chirm in about history from inside Cisco on the GLBP topic...(?)


--
Best regards,
Chriztoffer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [nanog] Cisco GLBP/HSRP question -- Has it ever been discussed to publish fully/in-part the specifications

[Saku Ytti]

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2281

I don't think any work for GLBP exists in IETF.

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 16:16, Chriztoffer Hansen
 wrote:
>
> Cisco has their FHR protocol specifications protected as proprietary IP.
>
> * Gateway Load Balancing Protocol (GLBP)
> * Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP)
> * https://packetlife.net/media/library/3/First_Hop_Redundancy.pdf
>
> Apart from the EIGRP specifications. Which has become publicly available
> in-part.
>
> Q: Anyone know about if the same has ever been discussed with regards to
> their HSRP and GLBP protocol specifications?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Chriztoffer
>


-- 
  ++ytti

[nanog] Cisco GLBP/HSRP question -- Has it ever been discussed to publish fully/in-part the specifications

[Chriztoffer Hansen]

Cisco has their FHR protocol specifications protected as proprietary IP.

* Gateway Load Balancing Protocol (GLBP)
* Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP)
* https://packetlife.net/media/library/3/First_Hop_Redundancy.pdf

Apart from the EIGRP specifications. Which has become publicly available 
in-part.


Q: Anyone know about if the same has ever been discussed with regards to 
their HSRP and GLBP protocol specifications?


--
Best regards,
Chriztoffer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: Tech bag

[Craig]

I switched up to a backpack from this company:
https://missionworkshop.com/collections/backpacks

they have modular packs, so I keep various things in the modules, and they
can go onto their packs.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:41 PM Brian Knight  wrote:

> About a year ago, I switched from a Swissgear to a High Sierra Endeavor
> wheeled backpack and been very happy with it. Most of the time I carry < 15
> lbs of gear when I commute to the office on the train, so I’ll have it on
> my back. But when I head to the colo with a heavy load, it’s handy (and a
> real relief to my neck and shoulders) to be able to switch to wheeled mode.
> It’s held an ASR920 + laptop + hardware + usual load with a bit of room to
> spare.
>
> HTH,
>
> -Brian
>
> > On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Dovid Bender  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for the OT email. I travel extensively to DC's and my computer bag
> seems to keep collecting more tools which includes your usual console
> cables, spare everything, two laptops etc. My Swissgear has been taking a
> beating and I was wondering what others who have to lug around 30-35 pounds
> use.
> >
> > TIA.
> >
> >
>
>

Re: The future of transport in the metro area

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Aug/19 03:14, Brandon Martin wrote:

>  
>
> How are they handling optical power balancing across amplifiers and
> such?  Do they just trust the customer to provide light at the power
> levels agreed upon?  Bulk attenuate the entire "spectrum"
> automatically?  Monitor and drop the whole lot if something is out of
> whack and causing saturation or gain balance problems for others?
>
> Or is this something you're only seeing at metro distances where
> separate amplifiers are superfluous?

The details about this are very vendor-specific, and each vendor has
some way in which they implement this. Spectrum would be a very
customized product between the vendor and operator, and also between the
operator and customer. So no BCP for this, as of yet, that I know of.


>   I've inquired with a few metro operators in my area about something
> like this, albeit a few years ago, and I got a pretty hard "no way
> we'd ever do that" out of them presumably for the reasons above.

We are seeing requests from as low as 600km, up to 1,600km, all the way
to 7,000km.

Mark.

Re: MAP-E

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG]

> The cost of sharing IPs in a static way, is that services such as 
> SonyPlaystation Network will put those addresses in the black list, 
> so you need to buy more addresses. This hasn’t been the case for 
> 464XLAT/NAT64, which shares the addresses dynamically.

A problem of dynamic sharing is that logging information to be
used for such purposes as crime investigation becomes huge.


-> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444 you need to 
do the same, and because if you deploy 464XLAT you have less than 25% (and 
going down) of your traffic with IPv4, your cost for logging decreases. I'm 
assuming that you follow for IPv6 RIPE690 recommendations and you do persistent 
prefixes to customers, otherwise you also need IPv6 logging (but this is not 
different regardless of what transition mechanism you use).


> Furthermore, if some users need less ports than others, you 
> "infra-utilize" those addresses,

Users needing more ports should pay more money and share an
IP address with smaller number of users.

-> I don't agree. Users don't know if they need more or less ports, and this is 
something that may happen dynamically, depending on what apps are you using in 
your home, or if it is Xmas and you have extra family at home. This is not good 
for users, is not good for ISPs. If ISPs want to provide "different" services 
they should CLEARLY say it: "Dear customer, you have two choices 4.000 ports, 
16.000 ports or all the ports for you with a single IP address". Otherwise 
you're cheating to customers, which in many countries is illegal, because 
providing a reduced number of ports IS NOT (technically) Internet connectivity, 
is a reduced functionality of Internet connectivity, and you must (legally) 
advertise it and of course, most customers don't understand that!

> which again is not the case for 464XLAT/NAT64. Each user gets 
> automatically as many ports as he needs at every moment.

Unless all the ports are used up.

-> That's right, but you need to calculate a sufficient number of IPv4 
addresses for your pool (which for sure will be lower than in MAP or lw4o6 or 
DS-Lite), and even if your number of customers go up, because more and more 
services are available with IPv6, your number of IPv4 will not keep growing. If 
you define 4.000 ports per customer, some customers may be using only 300 ports 
(average) and that means that you're infra-utilizing 3,700 ports x number of 
users with that average. Not good!

Thus, even with dynamic port assignment, users needing more
ports should pay more money and share an IP address with
smaller number of users.

-> Never we should have charged users for IP addresses. This is a bad business 
model. Is not technically a good thing to provide non-persistent addresses. If 
we keep saying that, we will end up providing a single IPv6 address to every 
customer and doing NAT again. If an ISP want to do that, fine, but the 
competitors will be smarter (hopefully!).

Masataka Ohta




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.