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

[Danijel Starman]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:59 PM Fredy Kuenzler  wrote:

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


If I recall correctly in just switching to 100G ports instead of multiple
10G bundles we managed to pay off new switches in ~6 months. (not on that
specific location but prices are high).

[OT] Internet in China

[Danijel Starman]

Hi,

Can someone suggest a reliable internet provider in China? Are all
options China Telecom?

Some current links we have in Shanghai are sometimes exhibiting ~40% packet
loss to Japan/Singapore AWS regions which is not really acceptable.

Off-list replies are welcome too.

Thank you!

-- 
*blap*

Re: Multi-CDN Strategies

[Danijel Starman]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Chris Woodfield 
wrote:

> I have some experience with this; a few things off the top of my head:
>
> - It’s usually best to leverage some sort of “smart” DNS  to handle CNAME
> distribution, giving you the ability to weight your CNAME distribution vs.
> only using one CDN all the time, or prefer different CDNs in various global
> regions. I’ve had decent experience with Dyn here, but Route53 has all the
> features you’d want as well. If possible, write tooling towards your DNS
> provider’s API to automate your failovers.
>


I've seen people do this in their code too, send approximate percentages of
requests to different providers but then you need to do a code push for
failover.

Re: PlayStationNetwork blocking of CGNAT public addresses

[Danijel Starman]

Something similar happened to a local FantasyConon I was helping set up, we
had only two PS4 machines there and accounts provided by Blizzard for
Overwatch. Outside IP of the LAN (as it was NATed) was banned by PSN in
about 8h. There was no other traffic other then those two accounts playing
Overwatch so my guess is that they have some too aggressive checks. I've
managed to convince our ISP there to change the outside IP of the link so
we got them working the next day but it happened again in 8h.

-- 
*blap*

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Simon Lockhart  wrote:

> All,
>
> We operate an access network with several hundred thousand users.
> Increasingly
> we're putting the users behind CGNAT in order to continue to give them an
> IPv4
> service (we're all dual-stack, so they all get public IPv6 too). Due to the
> demographic of our users, many of them are gamers.
>
> We're hitting a problem with PlayStationNetwork 'randomly' blocking some
> of our
> CGNAT outside addresses, because they claim to have received anomalous, or
> 'attack' traffic from that IP. This obviously causes problems for the other
> legitimate users who end up behind the same public IPv4 address.
>
> Despite numerous attempts to engage with PSN, they are unwilling to give us
> any additional information which would allow us to identify the 'rogue'
> users
> on our network, or to identify the 'unwanted' traffic so that we could
> either
> block it, or use it to identify the rogue users ourselves.
>
> Has anyone else come up against the problem, and/or have any suggestions on
> how best to resolve it?
>
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> Simon
>
>

Re: Netflow parameters and data that comes from CDNs

[Danijel Starman]

Hi,


> And in fictitious case of jf_music.com hiring Akamai, would the Akamai
> server(s)  have a dedicated IP for jf_music in each city (or re-use same
> IP via anycast)  or would the CDN servers use the same IP address to
> deliver multiple services from totally different content providers ?
>

Generally the CDN provider would have a cluster of machines/IP's on each of
their locations that are reused by different customers and are probably
divided by service/content. They would probably be stable but can vary due
to service improvements or disruptions. As it was noted Akamai is putting
servers into the ISP's, I don't think that others like L3 or Limelight do
it (or seen evidence that they do).

Re: sudden low spam levels?

[Danijel]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 18:10, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:


 Not being a gmail user this may be a stupid question: can't you
 whitelist things in gmail? The ratio of spam/ham on NANOG is pretty good.


Yes, you can, done it a while ago as some messages were going to spam for me
also, even few from this thread would go to spam if not for filtering.

Re: C/D[WDM]

[Danijel]

This should fit the pricerange:
http://www.cubeoptics.com/passive_components.php
Haven't used them yet but know of one local operator that is using them and
is very satisfied...

-- 
*blap*


On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 15:14, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:

 Anyone have any opinion on a user friendly and low-to-mid-priced CWDM or
 DWDM system?

 We need to take one pair of dark fiber and get about 5-6 10G ports on both
 sides.

 This is the info that the DF provider has given us on the route:

 Operating Wavelength:   1310/1550nm
 Maximum Attenuation:0.35 dB/km for 1310 wavelength
0.25 dB/km for 1550 wavelength

 Any suggestions would be tremendously helpful.

 thanks,
 -Drew

Re: SONET and MAC address

[Danijel]

Same thing with Siemens and Huawei gear, there are transparent cards that
don't learn anything and L2 cards that do.

-- 
*blap*


On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 22:57, Scott Berkman sc...@sberkman.net wrote:

 Don't know the FlashWave gear well, but in the Cisco ONS/Cerent world GigE
 ports can be configured in different modes, some of which do in fact learn
 MAC addresses.  Others emulate a single layer-2 link and as the vendor
 stated, would not look at the MAC address at all.

-Scott

 -Original Message-
 From: Jay Nakamura [mailto:zeusda...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 3:33 PM
 To: NANOG
 Subject: SONET and MAC address

 We have a Gigabit Ethernet transport between cities by a vendor.  We found
 that when there are identical MAC address that are on different VLANs on
 different side of the circuit, one of the VLAN looses packets.  This
 situation came up because two different networks that travel over the
 Ethernet were using HSRP with the same virtual MAC address.

 The vendor says both sides are directly connected to Fujitsu SONET gear and
 the equipment doesn't even look at the MAC address so it's not their
 circuit.  All I know is, I can't recreate the problem if this circuit is
 not
 in the path.

 I haven't worked with Fujitsu SONET gear so I don't know if their claim is
 true or not.  I vaguely remember someone talking about some equipment
 actually having a builtin switch on the SONET port and that was messing up
 the forwarding.

 Also, on one side of the circuit, there is a copper to fiber media
 converter.  I am going to find out what model this is and see if that could
 be the cause.

 Anyone have any thoughts on what I should look into or have the vendor look
 into?  Anyone run into this situation?

 Thanks!

Re: SONET/SDH virtual tributary mapping to use KLM mode

[Danijel]

Hi

K describes TUG-3 group (1-3)
L describes a TUG-2 group inside a TUG-3 (1-7)
M describes a TU-12/VC12/E1 inside a TUG-2 (1-3)

I'm not sure if they actually have some meaning.

-- 
*blap*


On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:58, Kweheria Erick kwehe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 Someone please help me understand, in the SONET/SDH virtual tributary
 mapping context, K-L-M numbers are used to describe E1 positions.
 What do the initials KLM stand for?

 Regards,
 kweheria