Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?

[Kurt Kraut via NANOG]

Hello folks,


First of all, thank you all for this amazing debate. So many important
ideas were exposed here and I wish we keep going on this. I've seen many
opposition to my proposal but I still remain on the side of jumbo frame
adoption for IXP. I'm pretty confident there is no need for a specific MTU
consensus and not all IXP participants are obligated to raise their
interface MTU if the IXP starts allowing jumbo frames.

One of the reasons I'm so surprised with concerns about compatibility and
breaking the internet I've seen here is the offers I get from my IP transit
providers: half of them offered me jumbo frame capable ports by default, it
wasn't a request. When this subject became important to me and I open
support tickets, half of them replied something like 'You don't need to
request it. From our end the max MTU is X'. The lowest X I got was 4400 and
the highest 9260 bytes. All my Tier-1 providers already provided me jumbo
frames IP transit. Even my south american IP Transit provider activated my
link with 9k MTU by default.

So we have Tier-1 backbones moving jumbo frames around continents, why in a
controlled L2 enviroment that usually resides in a single building and
managed by a single controller having jumbo frames is that concerning?

Best regards,


Kurt Kraut

2016-03-09 19:22 GMT-03:00 Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <ach...@forthnet.gr>:

> I must be missing something very obvious here, because i cannot think of
> any reason why an IXP shouldn't enable the maximum possible MTU on its
> infrastructure to be available to its customers. Then it's clearly
> customers' decision on what MTU to use on their devices, as long as:
>
>   * It fits inside IXP's MTU
>   * It suits with any other customer's (exchanging traffic with) MTU
>
>
> --
> Tassos
>
> Kurt Kraut via NANOG wrote on 9/3/16 16:26:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to convince my local Internet Exchange location (and it is not
> > small, exceed 1 terabit per second on a daily basis) to adopt jumbo
> frames.
> > For IPv6 is is hassle free, Path MTU Discovery arranges the max MTU per
> > connection/destination.
> >
> > For IPv4, it requires more planning. For instance, two datacenters tend
> to
> > exchange relevant traffic because customers  with disaster recovery in
> mind
> > (saving the same content in two different datacenters, two different
> > suppliers). In most cases, these datacenters are quite far from each
> other,
> > even in different countries. In this context, jumbo frames would allow
> max
> > speed even the latency is from a tipical international link.
> >
> > Could anyone share with me Internet Exchanges you know that allow jumbo
> > frames (like https://www.gr-ix.gr/specs/ does) and how you notice
> benefit
> > from it?
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> > Kurt Kraut
> >
>
>

Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?

[Kurt Kraut via NANOG]

Hi Mike,



The adoption of jumbo frames in a IXP doesn't brake IPv4. For an ISP, their
corporate and residencial users would still use 1,5k. For datacenters,
their local switches and servers are still set to 1,5k MTU. Nothing will
brake.  When needed, if needed and when supported, from a specific server,
from a specific switch, to a specific router it can raise the MTU up to the
max MTU supported by IXP if the operator know the destination also supports
it, like in the disaster recovery example I gave. For IPv6, the best MTU
will be detected and used with no operational effort.

For those who doesn't care about it, an IXP adopting jumbo frames wouldn't
demand any kind of change for their network. They just set their interfaces
to 1500 bytes and go rest. For those who care like me can take benefit from
it and for that reason I see no reason for not adopting it.


Best regards,

Kurt Kraut

2016-03-09 11:53 GMT-03:00 Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net>:

> Maybe breaking v4 in the process?
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -
>
> From: "Kurt Kraut via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
> To: "Nick Hilliard" <n...@foobar.org>
> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 8:50:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
>
> 2016-03-09 11:45 GMT-03:00 Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>:
>
> > this has been tried before at many ixps. No matter how good an idea it
> > sounds like, most organisations are welded hard to the idea of a 1500
> > byte mtu. Even for those who use larger MTUs on their networks, you're
> > likely to find that there is no agreement on the mtu that should be
> > used. Some will want 9000, some 9200, others 4470 and some people
> > will complain that they have some old device somewhere that doesn't
> > support anything more than 1522, and could everyone kindly agree to that
> > instead.
> >
>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
>
> Thank you for replying so quickly. I don't see why the consensus for an MTU
> must be reached. IPv6 Path MTU Discovery would handle it by itself,
> wouldn't it? If one participant supports 9k and another 4k, the traffic
> between them would be at 4k with no manual intervention. If to participants
> adopts 9k, hooray, it will be 9k thanks do PMTUD.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Kurt Kraut
>
>

Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?

[Kurt Kraut via NANOG]

2016-03-09 11:45 GMT-03:00 Nick Hilliard :

> this has been tried before at many ixps.  No matter how good an idea it
> sounds like, most organisations are welded hard to the idea of a 1500
> byte mtu.  Even for those who use larger MTUs on their networks, you're
> likely to find that there is no agreement on the mtu that should be
> used.  Some will want 9000, some 9200, others 4470 and some people
> will complain that they have some old device somewhere that doesn't
> support anything more than 1522, and could everyone kindly agree to that
> instead.
>



Hi Nick,


Thank you for replying so quickly. I don't see why the consensus for an MTU
must be reached. IPv6 Path MTU Discovery would handle it by itself,
wouldn't it? If one participant supports 9k and another 4k, the traffic
between them would be at 4k with no manual intervention. If to participants
adopts 9k, hooray, it will be 9k thanks do PMTUD.

Am I missing something?


Best regards,


Kurt Kraut

Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?

[Kurt Kraut via NANOG]

Hi,


I'm trying to convince my local Internet Exchange location (and it is not
small, exceed 1 terabit per second on a daily basis) to adopt jumbo frames.
For IPv6 is is hassle free, Path MTU Discovery arranges the max MTU per
connection/destination.

For IPv4, it requires more planning. For instance, two datacenters tend to
exchange relevant traffic because customers  with disaster recovery in mind
(saving the same content in two different datacenters, two different
suppliers). In most cases, these datacenters are quite far from each other,
even in different countries. In this context, jumbo frames would allow max
speed even the latency is from a tipical international link.

Could anyone share with me Internet Exchanges you know that allow jumbo
frames (like https://www.gr-ix.gr/specs/ does) and how you notice benefit
from it?


Best regards,


Kurt Kraut

Is RouteViews dead? Is there any alternatives?

[Kurt Kraut via NANOG]

Hi,


For the past couple of months I've been attempting to add new Autonomous
Systems to the RouteViews project and got no response. Talking to other AS
in my area, I wasn't able to find no new BGP operator that got a response
from them since July.

Is RouteViews dead? If the answer is yes, it is sad. It is the most used
resource about the internet routing for multiple perspectives.

Is there any other similar project that I could colaborate providing the
point of view of my routers have of the internet?


Best regards,


Kurt Kraut

Re: Is there a DNS lookup, traceroute, ping and HTTP GET as a service?

[Kurt Kraut via NANOG]

Hi,


Thank you for the quick replies. Sorry for not being clear enough: I need
it to have an API so I can integrate it with my own solution, generate my
own metrics. So looking glasses are pretty much useless: they don't support
HTTP GET and DNS lookup (usually) and the parsing for so many different
HTML or telnet sources would be very time consuming.

Also I've seen many looking glasses with captchas to halt these intents. So
I need a SaaS with an API for these tests.

About RIPE ATLAS, I already have one of their boxes and it never worked.
Simply doesn't appear as online. Their support just barely gave me some
tips but with no meaningful result. I need something reliable and I'm
willing to pay for this service. RIPE Atlas falls in the category of 'best
effort'.


Best regards,


Kurt Kraut

2015-11-18 14:32 GMT-02:00 William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>:

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Kurt Kraut via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> wrote:
> > I'm evaluating different datacenters and vendors accross the globe and it
> > isn't worthy to perform tests like DNS, traceroute, ping and HTTP GET
> from
> > my office. I need to be able to perform this tests remotely, from
> multiple
> > endpoints.
>
> For common tests like ping and traceroute, google "ip looking glass".
> There are a lot of them in a lot of locations, all free to use.
>
> -Bill
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>

Is there a DNS lookup, traceroute, ping and HTTP GET as a service?

[Kurt Kraut via NANOG]

Hi,


I'm evaluating different datacenters and vendors accross the globe and it
isn't worthy to perform tests like DNS, traceroute, ping and HTTP GET from
my office. I need to be able to perform this tests remotely, from multiple
endpoints.

The only company I know allow such thing is ThousandEyes, but it is
brutally and inexplicably expensive and doesn't fit perfectly to what I'm
looking for. It has a paradigm I'm willing to monitor 24x7 specific targets
from multiple points of view. I need to make tests on demand, on different
targets and URLs.

Does anyone know such service, DNS lookup, traceroute, ping and HTTP GET as
a service from multiple nodes geographically spread?


Thanks in advance,


Kurt Kraut

Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?

[Kurt Kraut via NANOG]

Ray,


Anycast is generally not well-suited for stateful connectivity (e.g. most
things TCP).

I don't know anything that would support that claim. I have been using for
years BGP anycast for audio and video streaming, always in TCP (RTMP, HLS,
WMS, and even the good and old ShoutCast) and works like a charm. And this
is the 'secret sauce' of the company I work for, the thing we do better
than our competitors that make our users happy and never wanting to leave
us: anycast.

We have customers that are TV stations and stream 24x7x365 their content
and they have watchers getting their streaming also 24x7x365 (like waiting
rooms, airports) with no complaints or instability.


Best regards,


Kurt Kraut

2015-06-17 16:13 GMT-03:00 Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu:

 Anycast is generally not well-suited for stateful connectivity (e.g. most
 things TCP).  The use case for anycast is restricted to simple
 challenge-response protocol design.

 As such, you typically only see it leveraged for simple services (e.g. DNS,
 NTP).

 The reason for this, as you suspect, is you can never guarantee that the
 path and thus the server will remain consistent across client connections.

 Ideally you can leverage DNS to provide a response to a unicast resource
 rather than trying to make the service itself anycast.  DNS can be anycast,
 and DNS can provide different responses based on geographical location, but
 these can happen independently or together.

 As you still want failover, you might opt to announce the MX record with
 the priorities reversed but still pointing to each server.  For example MX
 10 server1, MX 20 server2 on one side, and MX 10 server2, MX 20 server1 on
 the other.

 Typically you would use a DNS load balancer rather than simple anycast DNS
 to achieve this though.


 On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:

  I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one
 in
  Europe.  Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized
  round-robin takes place.  This does not work so well when one site goes
  down.   My solution will be to place a load balancer in a hosting site
  (virtual, of course) and have it provide HA.  But what about HA for the
  LB?  At first glance anycasting would seem to be a great idea but there
 is
  a problem of broken sessions when routes change.
 
  Have any of you seen something like this work in the wild?
 
 
  --
  Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
 



 --
 Ray Patrick Soucy
 Network Engineer
 University of Maine System

 T: 207-561-3526
 F: 207-561-3531

 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
 www.maineren.net