Re: CPE/NID options
I don't think IP Infustion makes hardware - their OCNOS software runs on many third-party white-box platforms from the likes of EdgeCore and UfiSpace. There may well be a device that suits the OP's requirements amongst the supported hardware list. I refer you to this handy table: https://www.ipinfusion.com/documentation/ocnos-hardware-compatibility-list/ Aled On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 16:33, Tom Mitchell wrote: > I don't know about specific SKUs, but IP Infusion make a very popular set > of L2 switches. > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 8:42 PM Ross Tajvar wrote: > >> I'm evaluating CPEs for one of my clients, a regional ISP. Currently, >> we're terminating the customer's service (L3) on our upstream equipment and >> extending it over our own fiber to the customer's premise, where it lands >> in a Juniper EX2200 or EX2300. >> >> At a previous job, I used Accedian's ANTs on the customer prem side. I >> like the ANT because it has a small footprint with only 2 ports, it's >> passively cooled, it's very simple to operate, it's controlled centrally, >> etc. Unfortunately, when I reached out to Accedian, they insisted that the >> controller (which is required) started at $30k, which is a non-starter for >> us. >> >> I'm not aware of any other products like this. Does anyone have a >> recommendation for a simple L2* device to deploy to customer premises? Not >> necessarily the exact same thing, but something similarly-featured would be >> ideal. >> >> *I'm not sure if the ANT is exactly "layer 2", but I don't know what else >> to call it. >> >
Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 01:23, Mark Tinka wrote: > We've seen proposals from Huawei, for example, where OLT shelves can > support both GPON and XG-PON line cards. > I've been installing PON equipment for 2+ years where all the ports can be fitted with optics (SFPs) that support both GPON and XGS-PON simultaneously on the same fibre. Aled
Re: Juniper MX204 allow oversubscription?
On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 18:52, Randy Carpenter wrote: > My hope for a successor (MX205 ?) would be more flexibility and 25G ports. > 4x100G+8x25G would be awesome. > > I was hoping the MX304 would be the upgrade, but it seems like overkill - 2U, modular with dual processors, up to 96 x 10/25 GbE, 48 x 40/50/100, 12 x 400 GbE Probably a bit more expensive than MX204 too. There's also ACX7100-48L: 48x 10GE/25GE/50GE (SFP56), 6x 400GE (QSFP56-DD) Aled
Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT residential
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 15:57, Dave Bell wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 15:31, Ca By wrote: > >> UDP is broken >> > > I would argue that UDP isn't broken. Networks which drop it > indiscriminately are broken. > Does this errant network behaviour not impact RTP applications like video streams? Aled
Re: akamai yesterday - what in the world was that
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:43, Paul Ebersman wrote: > > first personal connection was a dedicated dialin using a telebit > trailblazer at 9600 bps. that was a benefit of work. > Got to respect a modem with firmware that recognised hosts talking UUCP protocol and optimised for it! Aled
Re: Reminiscing our first internet connections (WAS) Re: akamai yesterday - what in the world was that
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 12:53, Bryan Holloway wrote: > > I seem to also recall that you couldn't use a 56k modem unless the > far-end was digital. > Exactly so - the connection to the telephone network needed to be as "clean" as possible for the modem to achieve the best rate, which was only possible with DSPs talking PCM directly into the PSTN to synthesise the perfect analogue representation of the signal. 56k modems were asymetric - the uplink was 33.6 (V.90) as that's the best you could get whistling up an analogue line. I'm guessing that if the modem industry didn't target the US market first, those modems would have been 64k download. Aled
Re: Reminiscing our first internet connections (WAS) Re: akamai yesterday - what in the world was that
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 12:13, Rob Pickering wrote: > Wasn't the 56/64k thing a result of CAS (bit robbed) signalling which was > a fudge AT did to transport signalling information in-band on T1s by > stealing the low order bit for OOB signalling (it wasnt actually every low > order bit, but meant you had to throw away every low order bit as CPE > didn't know which ones were "corrupted" by the carrier). > Proper ISDN was always 64kbit/s clear path with separate D channels > carried OOB end to end, away from the B channel data. > There was some element of interoperability required with the pre-existing data network architecture based on 56k channels and T1 bearers. This article has the detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-carrier *Soon after commercial success of T1 in 1962, the T1 engineering team realized the mistake of having only one bit to serve the increasing demand for housekeeping functions. They petitioned AT management to change to 8-bit framing. This was flatly turned down because it would make installed systems obsolete.* Compared to what was to follow, that all had to suffer the 56k channel limitation, there can't have been that many installed systems in 1962! Aled
Re: RIPE our of IPv4
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush wrote: > > Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of > > their own at all? > > if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail > servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area. > > randy > ...!6to4mx!m2xenix!randy Aled
Re: Any info on devices that are running eBGP on the Internet?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 19:59, Edward Dore < edward.d...@freethought-internet.co.uk> wrote: > I just grabbed the following from our routers connected to LINX LON1, LINX > LON2, LINX Manchester and LONAP (so this data is very UK centric): > ... >1 DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION > Kudos to whoever is running the VMS port of BIRD on their VAX-11/780 Aled
Re: Mx204 alternative
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 10:14, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 2/Sep/19 11:02, Aled Morris via NANOG wrote: > > The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro > > Ethernet with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor. > > Do you know what chip it's running? > Sorry I have no inside info, only what's been released publicly. Aled
Re: Mx204 alternative
The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro Ethernet with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor. Aled
Re: MAP-E
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 14:49, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of > burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP? > I'm a fan of these solutions that (only) use NAT44 in the CPE as this is exactly what they're currently doing, and the CPE vendors have already "solved" the problem of application support (SIP, FTP etc.) at least as far as the end-user is concerned. It seems that introducing an extra layer of NAT at the ISP for NAT444 is creating a range of new problems, not least being scalability. Big CGNAT boxes are expensive. Aled
Re: 44/8
The biggest tragedy here is that Amazon now have yet another block of IPv4 which means the migration to IPv6 will be further delayed by them and people who "can't see the need" because their AWS server instance can get an IPv4 address. All of this puts more pressure on the access networks to keep IPv4 running and inflates the price of the remaining IPv4 addresses. We need to be pulling together to make https://ipv4flagday.net/ a reality. No more IPv4. Aled On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:35, William Herrin wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > >> - Original Message - >> > From: "William Herrin" >> >> > Personally I've never heard of ARDC. >> >> Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8 >> every >> time I've ever looked at the /8 list, which goes back 2 decades or more. >> >> I never assumed it was an organization at the time. >> > > Yeah... It just seems like holding an asset in trust for a population and > selling that asset without consulting that population (or at least > consulting the organizations the population commonly understands to > represent them) is very fishy business. > > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons > and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks > like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the > folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own rather than > integrating with the organizations that existed. The "appearance of > impropriety" is then magnified by ARIN deeming the matter a private > transaction between it and the alleged registrants to which the pubic is > not entitled to a detailed accounting. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- > William Herrin > b...@herrin.us > https://bill.herrin.us/ >
Re: SFP supplier in Europe?
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 21:52, wrote: > Thanks to everybody that recommended Fiberstore and Flexoptics. > > Unfortunately Fiberstore is what led me to ask about alternative > suppliers. Fiberstore actually ships in their Bidi SFPs from Asia and lead > times are one to two weeks. Flexoptics is actually worse with 4-6 weeks > after ordering. > That's not been my experience with either of them. Aled
Re: BGP Experiment
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 17:58, Naslund, Steve wrote: > I hope you are as critical of your hardware vendor that cannot accept BGP4 > compliant attributes or have you just not updated your code? You can black > hole anything you want but as long as the “Internet” is sending you an RFC > compliant BGP you better be able to handle it. > I'd go further and say that as long as you're connected to the Internet, your equipment better be resilient when receiving packets with any combination of bits set, RFC compliant or not. Aled
Re: Network Speed Testing and Monitoring Platform
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:49, wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 19:26:41 +, Chris Kimball said: > > Would a raspberry pi work for this? > > > > Could 3D print a nice case with your logo for it. > > The Pi has a bandwidth limit at 300mbits/sec due to a USB port being used. > I've been using Hardkernel Odroid C2 for this reason. It looks a bit like a Pi but its Gigabit Ethernet can achieve near line rate, 930+ Mbps on iperf, see below for two Odroids connected across a gigabit ethernet switch. Aled # iperf3 -c 172.16.0.139 Connecting to host 172.16.0.139, port 5201 [ 4] local 172.16.0.142 port 49203 connected to 172.16.0.139 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 110 MBytes 921 Mbits/sec 45788 KBytes [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 937 Mbits/sec0878 KBytes [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 939 Mbits/sec 45672 KBytes [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec0717 KBytes [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec0748 KBytes [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 939 Mbits/sec0765 KBytes [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 939 Mbits/sec0773 KBytes [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 939 Mbits/sec0775 KBytes [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec0778 KBytes [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 938 Mbits/sec0779 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 937 Mbits/sec 90 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 933 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done.
Re: plaintext email?
You can hide your secret message by writing: dash dash space return Followed by your message. It’ll be hidden from all but the Internet illuminati Aled On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 22:00, cosmo wrote: > Sudden plot-twist! > > A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic > forms of encryption in the messages all along! > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:06 PM Bryan Fields > wrote: > >> On 1/15/19 12:24 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote: >> > I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting. >> >> It's like having an @aol.com address. > > >> >> -- >> Bryan Fields >> >> 727-409-1194 - Voice >> http://bryanfields.net >> >
Re: Enterprise GPON / Zhone Questions
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 06:48, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > It is possible one should not choose this system over a traditional approach, > but the people screaming "rip it out" are out of line IMHO. It would be a > huge expense to rewire a building with copper and they already got a working > fiber system. Much can be said about GPON but it is actually quite stable and > easy to manage. I don't think anyone is saying replace the existing fibre with copper, but instead to run cheap SFP-equipped switches in basically the same topology as the GPON you described. For a new build, less splitting and more copper in-building would be cheaper and easier. Aled
Re: A few GPON questions...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 21:16, Tony Wicks wrote: > > I remember working for this little company called EDS... Some bright spark > decided that ATM to the desktop was the future (not this ethernet (or even > token ring) thing) and subsequently converted several thousand head office > machines to E3 or OC3 to the desktop. Hell of a thing trying to make OS2 > drivers work for an OC3 card. That went very badly and the whole lot was > ripped out again after a couple of years from memory. Same thing happened in BA's shiny new office block near Heathrow back in the 90's. ATM25 to the desktop and LANE. Total disaster. Allegedly. Aled
Re: A few GPON questions...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 17:30, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > There’s only so much space in conduits, risers and ducts. At some point, > scale would press this up against physical infrastructure realities depending > on how far the active gear at the head end is from the subscriber. A point made earlier was that typically in a campus environment, most every riser cupboard has access to power so you can easily build a regular Ethernet LAN with a switch on every floor/corridor/hub. Basically, everywhere that you'd put a GPON splitter. Aled
Re: Cheap switch with a couple 100G
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 21:42, Tom Hill wrote: > Chicken & egg: someone has to move first... And I don't see the ASR9k > and Juniper MX BUs rushing to support 25 & 50G. > Juniper have launched a Trident based switch with 48 x 25G ports (the QFX5120-48Y.) But I agree the commercials aren't as simple with their in-house silicon platforms. Aled
Re: IGP protocol
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 05:54, Brandon Martin
wrote:
> I was of the impression that there was a draft or similar for
> single-topology (IPv4+IPv6) OSPF. Did anything ever come of that?
>
>
Juniper support IPv4 families ("realms") in OSPFv3.
Aled
Re: OpenDNS CGNAT Issues
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 13:56, Ca By wrote: > You should provide your users ipv6, opendns supports ipv6 and likely will > not have this issue you see > OpenDNS does not support IPv6 for their customisable services "Home" etc. which I believe is the service the OP is using as he refers to the end-user wanting to register their IP address. Incidentally, I hope OpenDNS considers 100.64.0.0/10 as space that can't be registered to any end-user. Aled
