Charter AS20115 Contact

[Jeff Waddell]

Could a Charter network engineer reach out off list for an issue we are
seeing when trying to reach any Charter customers under the AS20115

We don't peer with (or get transit) directly from AS20115 and traffic seems
to be blocked at the border with our transit providers and AS20115

We have tried opening tickets with our transit providers - but that is
going no where

Thanks
Jeff

Re: Cleveland/Cincinnati Co-location

[Jeff Waddell]

CyrusOne and Immedion are the only 2 datacenters in Cincinnati that have a
decent spread of what little connectivity Cincinnati has going through it.

Immedion is down on 3rd street

Reach out off list if you have questions or want an intro.

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:20 PM Matt Erculiani  wrote:

> DRS/Involta is a big one up there, but I'm not sure if they do plain-old
> colo.
>
> -Mayt
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 16:14 Paul Timmins 
>> Everstream has a pretty vast network in Ohio. Worth looking into.
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Mitchell Lewis 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Good Evening All,
>> I am working on project that may involve building points of presence in 
>> Cleveland
>> & Cincinnati. Any suggestions as to which colocation facility in each
>> city to build in? The prime factor of consideration for this project is
>> access to waves to places like Chicago, New York & Ashburn. It would be
>> nice to have multiple wave provider options to choose from.
>>
>> I have been looking at Cyrus One-7thStreet in Cincinnati & Databank in
>> Cleveland.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> *Mitchell Lewis*
>> 203-816-0371 <+12038160371>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Cogent charging 50/mo for BGP (not IPs, the service)

[Jeff Waddell]

What Cogent charges is not a one time fee, its monthly recurring

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:43 AM H I Baysal  wrote:

> Indeed, its a one time fee to setup BGP. And as a side note,
> I's also separate for v4 and v6 sessions.
>
> I was also taken aback when i heard it the first time.
> On 17-10-18 18:12, David Hubbard wrote:
>
> They charge it even if you’re using your own address space.  It’s a fee
> simply for establishing BGP with them on a given circuit.  I believe if you
> used static routes and their space, you would not have to pay it.
>
>
>
> *From: *NANOG   on
> behalf of Josh Luthman 
> 
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:10 PM
> *To: *Brielle Bruns  
> *Cc: *NANOG list  
> *Subject: *Re: Cogent charging 50/mo for BGP (not IPs, the service)
>
>
>
> I view Cogent IP space as a way to lock customers to their service, ie
> make them sticky.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 12:03 PM Brielle Bruns  wrote:
>
> On 10/17/2018 9:47 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > Has anyone else dealt with this mess?  Even my Cogent rep admits it's
> > unique to their business.
>
> That sounds like the BS the first company I worked for tried to pull.
>
> One would think they'd welcome customers bringing their own IP space
> since it saves them money by not using up precious Cogent IPv4 address
> space.
>
> Hell, I even have BGP for v4 and v6 over my CenturyLink biz fiber, and
> its available as part of the enhanced package they offer with no extra
> fees.
>
>
> --
> Brielle Bruns
> The Summit Open Source Development Group
> http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
>
>

Re: Cogent charging 50/mo for BGP (not IPs, the service)

[Jeff Waddell]

Yes - we just renewed/ upgraded and they hit us with it - pushed back at
the lower the bandwidth cost a little bit to compensate for it

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:55 AM David Hubbard <
dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:

> Yep we pay it on our circuits, begrudgingly.  Wouldn’t mind it as much if
> it actually delivered me every BGP prefix in the global routing table…
>
>
>
> *From: *NANOG  on behalf of Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 11:49 AM
> *To: *NANOG list 
> *Subject: *Cogent charging 50/mo for BGP (not IPs, the service)
>
>
>
> Has anyone else dealt with this mess?  Even my Cogent rep admits it's
> unique to their business.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

[Jeff Waddell]

When I lasted checked in with Ubiquiti on these issues for that and the
ER-Pros - they told me that everything was to be resolved in 2.0

We shall see...

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Ah, okay. I haven't used one yet.
>
> Also, I don't talk about beta outside of beta. ;-)
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: "Mike Hammett" 
> Cc: "NANOG" 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 8:07:36 PM
> Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?
>
>
> Forgot reply all...
>
>
> That does not apply to the infinity. Those shipped with 1.9.8dev.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 8:03 PM, "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > wrote:
>
>
> 1.9.7+hotfix.1 is the currently available stable. 1.9.1.1 was released on
> May 1st.
>
> https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX-
> EdgeRouter-software-security-release-v1-9-7-hotfix-1/ba-p/2019161
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Nick W" < nickdwh...@gmail.com >
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:55:28 PM
> Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?
>
> Tried the Infinity, unsuccessfully. Several of them. Ended up pulling them
> all, sitting in my homelab for now. Multiple full tables, nothing fancy for
> firewall or QOS, but ran into issues with random ribd/bgpd crashes and
> kernel panics. I've submitted a lot of logs and core dumps to UBNT. I would
> personally stay away from them until they are out of beta, and possibly
> even another 6-12 months after that.
>
> The current stable EdgeMax version (1.9.1.1) is relatively stable, but
> using an outdated ZebOS (1.2.0?) with a number of issues (MPLS, OSPF, BGP)
> - nothing too major, but can be annoying. Probably okay for what you
> described. Depending on how much throughput you need, an ERPro, or Mikrotik
> would probably be fine. If you need 10G, load up VyOS on some cheap servers
> with an Intel or Solarflare card... probably cheaper than a beta Infinity
> or Mikrotik.
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Job Snijders < j...@instituut.net > wrote:
>
> > Dear NANOG,
> >
> > Some friends of mine are operating a nonprofit (on shoe string) and
> looking
> > to connect some CDN caches to an IX fabric. A BGP speaking device is
> needed
> > between the caches and the BGP peers connected to the fabric. The BGP
> > speaker is needed to present the peers on the IX with a unified view of
> the
> > assemblage of CDN nodes.
> >
> > I was wondering whether anyone was experience with the "EdgeRouter
> Infinity
> > XG" device, specifically in the role of a simple peering router for a
> > couple of tens of thousands of routes. (I'd point default to the left and
> > take just the on-net routes on the right to reduce the table size
> > requirement).
> >
> > I hope the device can do at least 2xLACP trunks, has a sizable FIB, is
> > automatable (supports idempotency), can forward IMIX at line-rate, *flow,
> > and exposes some telemetry via SNMP.
> >
> > Any note sharing would be appreciated!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Job
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Jeff Waddell]

Ah - you are correct

So - yeah what Alarig said - get full routes from all

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are
> not that good that you would want to do that.
>
> Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" <jeff+nanog@waddellsolutions.
> com
> >:
>
> Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes
> they don't have
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay <ala...@swordarmor.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
> >
> > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> > with that kind of problem.
> >
> > --
> > alarig
> >
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Jeff Waddell]

Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes
they don't have

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay  wrote:

> On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
>
> Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> with that kind of problem.
>
> --
> alarig
>

Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed

[Jeff Waddell]

We were on on 4323 - we are still peered to 4323 (from a config stand
point) - but the world sees us thru 3549

It is a mess on convergence

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, joel jaeggli  wrote:

> On 10/28/16 12:18 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> > Level3 hasn't even finished migrating its TWTelecom customers to the L3
> AS yes, and it's been years. So I don't think you can expect any faster
> transition for CL.
> 3549 still exists...
> >  -mel beckman
> >
> >> On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Timothy Lister  wrote:
> >>
> >> So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb
> 209's
> >> (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering
> config
> >> to hit 3356 instead?
> >>
> >> You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to
> both
> >> providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreement
> >> with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over.
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications -
> >> Interweb is doomed
> >> From: Jima 
> >> To: 
> > On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote:
> > :-)
> >> http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-
> to-merge-with-level-3-communications-1477589011
> >>
> >>
> >> This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits
> >> from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual
> >> customers, and probably a long list of other M I'm not thinking of
> >> off-hand.)
> >>
> >> OK, I lied about it being great anyway.
> >>
> >>  Jima
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications -
> >> Interweb is doomed
> >> From: Jima 
> >> To: 
>
>
>
>

Level 3 GBLX / Legacy Twt IPv6 Issue

[Jeff Waddell]

I am having an issue where since the the old twt convergence by Level 3 to
the GBLX network/AS3549 our v6 prefix isn't being announced outside of
Level 3. I have had a ticket open for a week and had one engineer who
seemed to be on to fixing it (regarding an export policy) but then that
went silent and now I am getting no-where with support (other than promised
call backs)

Can someone from Level 3 reach out off list and help me out?


Thanks
Jeff
j...@waddellsolutions.com