Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
On 17 Jun 2016, at 1:15, Daniel Golding wrote: You said that LONAP's distributed strategy "kept datacenters honest" to use your exact quote. That implied some sort of benefit for members in acting as some sort of counterweight to (rapacious?) data center providers. I rely primarily on information from our membership base who reaffirm their desire for a multi-site approach. They (and you) are the people with the data, as they are the people buying these services. The origin of these designs was probably not out of a desire for diversity to promote competition, but actually because existing datacentres were full. Nevertheless, a datacentre which is full, incompetently run, or too expensive all have something in common - to my members they are useless. I made the point that distributed IX's don't really impact power or space costs in data centers. I can provide actual data on this, if you would like. What about crossconnect prices? It is interesting you have data that indicates that this policy could be futile, because the belief in this principle is almost axiomatic in our/my community. Did we waste time and money spanning metros with IXs?
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
On 15 Jun 2016, at 19:23, Sander Steffann wrote: So here we are now... Where do we want to go? I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more services but also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple, scalable and cheap solutions! I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a separate switch :) (I spoke on this topic in the session - I regret insufficiently coherently, but I’ll try again) Most of the major IXs in the European market operate in multiple datacentres. Why? Because it decreases the monopoly conferred upon one particular datacentre in a market which becomes the ‘go to’ location. Dan Golding disagreed with me but I can certainly speak for LONAP where I feel our mission of “promoting efficient interconnection in the UK” is hugely enhanced by our ability to provide services in any of our current seven datacentres, across four different operators. London would not be the great city of interconnection it is without the east London cluster of DCs from different operators. We have had a fair few single site IXs in London - e.g. the now defunct RBEIX, Sovex, Meriex. I don’t think it is a viable model for an IXP in a well-developed market. Then there is another concern. What’s the plan for SIX if the Westin Building colo is sold to someone less benevolent and co-operative? I am really pleased their current arrangement seems to work well for SIX, its members and datacentre partners. I think our own members would be less comfortable with that level of risk. Will
Re: Small IX IP Blocks
On 5 Apr 2015, at 04:29, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote: I worked for a provider until recently that happened to get an IP assignment at an IXP that was transitioning from /25 to /24. It was painful chasing down peers to get them to change their netmask just so we could connect. This went on for several months dealing with the peering/network contacts of whom many of them didn't know the mask had changed in the first place. If you had problems peering because other participants have the wrong netmask, the IXP is not being operated correctly. It’s such a very bad thing to have the incorrect netmask on interfaces (think, more-specifics, route leaks, etc) that the IXP should manage the netmask change process itself - in fact to the point of disconnecting networks who do not configure it correctly. When we renumbered LONAP from /24 to /22, we had to change netblocks too. I can’t recall if we had any netmask problems too but it seems perfectly possible if lazy people just went %s/193.203.5/5.57.80/g. So we did check for that - it’s quite a simple task. From an IXP user point of view, the change was easier for J users, but we built a config validator/renumbererer for C IOS users to help them out. (‘paste your config in this webform’ ‘examine the output’ sort of thing) Will
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On 19 Sep 2013, at 12:32, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: I know you're a busy man so the tl;dr is that by encouraging local peering more networks will start to peer, and by partnering with one or more local carriers those new networks as well as established players in those markets can connect to the home exchange point too, increasing value for all connected parties. But isn't this all just neo-colonialism? Establish a market in the colony, but ensure through restrictive trade practices that all trade routes lead back via the mother country. Or can I buy myself connectivity to AMS-IX Amsterdam when i'm present at the LINX Harare exchange? Will
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 29 Nov 2012, at 20:53, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The assertion being made here, that it's somehow illegal (or immoral, or scary) for there to be not-completely-traceable internet access in the US, is absurd. The real issue here is *not* the legality of the act of providing a Tor exit node, or an open access point, or anything else. In sensible countries that is perfectly legal. The problem here is the reality of undergoing a criminal investigation. Think carefully about the impact of having everything in your life which runs an operating system taken away. Phones. Tablet. Laptop. Servers. All portable drives, data. If you rely on that hardware for your income (and who doesn't?) you're going to have to buy all of that again. And restore your data, if you are able. -- Will
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On 13 Sep 2012, at 17:32, Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote: You'll need a beefy NAT box. Linux with Xeon CPU and 4GB RAM minimum. Or not. The CCC presentation is showing *real* Internet for everyone, unless I'm very much mistaken… Absolutely. NAT is too fragile/expensive/non-performant for these setups. CGN boxes are too new to be economically borrowed/rented, maybe one day it will be possible, but for now we can still get the address space required (Timespan issues notwithstanding) On 13 Sep 2012, at 21:03, Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com wrote: If you know of an ISP in Central Texas that can deploy a 10Mbit plus connection along with a /22 of v4 address space for a 1 day event, please let me know. TWCable has been pretty easy to work with for special events, but I'd be really surprised to see them be able to do that. I suggest either getting a L2 circuit or else IPIP/GRE tunnel to somewhere with a functioning internet market. It is far preferable to tunnel than it is to have session state in the network. I've been part of the team deploying networking to various leafy parts of the Netherlands (e.g. HAR2009), ex-soviet airbases (CCC Camp), a park in Milton Keynes, UK (EMF2012). With some thought and creative planning it is possible to bring in a useful uplink in the 300M-10G+ range. [I'm not sure I remember those DS3s and OC3s that other posters are talking about, something these days used only in developing countries i thought ;-)] As a network engineer, these events are a great way to meet people with different experience, talk to eager young folk, do things in a different way and generally have a reset on your professional life. You might even get some sun too :-)
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:29, Matthew Petach wrote: There is no reason why we are still using 1500 byte MTUs at exchange points. Completely agree with you on that point. I'd love to see Equinix, AMSIX, LINX, DECIX, and the rest of the large exchange points put out statements indicating their ability to transparently support jumbo frames through their fabrics, or at least indicate a roadmap and a timeline to when they think they'll be able to support jumbo frames throughout the switch fabrics. At LONAP we've been able to support jumbo frames (at 9000+ depending on how you count it) for some years. We have been running large MTU p2p vlans for members for some time - L2TP handoff and so on. What we don't do is support 1500byte MTU on the shared peering vlan, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. There isn't demand; multiple vlans split your critical mass even if you are able to decide on a lowest common denominator above 1500. I imagine the situation is similar for other exchanges (apart from Netnod as already mentioned). I won't bother to further reiterate the contents of 20101106203616.gh1...@gerbil.cluepon.net; others can just read Ras's post for a concise description. :-) -- Will Hargrave Technical Director LONAP Ltd
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
On 7 Nov 2010, at 08:24, George Bonser wrote: It will happen on its own as more and more networks configure internally for larger frames and as more people migrate out of academia where 9000 is the norm these days into industry. I used to run a large academic network; there was a vanishingly small incidence of edge ports supporting 1500byte MTU. It's possibly even more tricky than the IX situation to support in an environment where you commonly have mixed devices at different speeds (most 100mbit devices will not support 1500) on a single L2, often under different administrative control.
Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of 45/8 address block
On 20/10/10 17:47, Brielle Bruns wrote: Not to stir an already boiling over pot and all, but is there any kind of report or documentation on releasing of space from countries other then the North American region? Really it's mainly US govt agencies, defence contractors, etc from the dawn of the Internet who hold legacy class A space of this type. This space was pre-RIR which means it was not assigned on the same (broadly similar) global policies as the majority of address space in the modern era. On that basis, there's nothing big for other regions to 'give up'. One exception is the UK government with two /8s. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks
Re: 12 years ago today...
On 16/10/10 10:02, Warren Bailey wrote: While we are on the subject of the godfathers of the Internet, when is a documentary coming out that tells the story? There was a really long documentary done on the BBS, surely someone (myself included) would find it interesting. I can recommend Where Wizards Stay Up Late by Katie Hafner http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674 A really good read IMHO. Will
Re: [Nanog-futures] Stenographers for Future NANOGs?
On 06/10/10 15:42, Randy Whitney wrote: As I am reading through Matt's notes since I cannot attend NANOG in person this time, I'm pondering whether it may make sense in the future for NewNOG to set aside budget to employ stenographers to cover at least the plenary of the conference. Matt has done an admirable job over the past few years volunteering to do this, but perhaps there might be some way to lift this burden from him? RIPE meetings have this and it works really well; especially, i suspect, for non-native English speakers. There is a live app you can watch on the web, and a projection display in-room. I imagine it's 'quite expensive'... ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: AW: Recommended 1Gb SFP for ~115km?
On 4 Aug 2010, at 17:58, Thomas Weible wrote: Cisco did a quite good job on implementing the DDM characteristics of the optics. So why not to take a 32dB or even 41dB power budget SFP and make it workable in the switch / router. Works like charm in some setups and you see straight the actual line. Sadly not the case here. OP is using a 6506, and the majority of the 67xx linecards released (which are the decent gige linecards for 6500) don't even support DDM/DOM at all. Only the very latest hardware revisions do. Sigh. Other vendors refuse to report light levels from optics they didn't supply. This is just a bad-faith way round the RFP/tender clauses we've all been including for the past 5 years prohibiting vendor locking optics. Shame on them. Will
Re: Trouble with the rtsp vlc feed?
Joe Maimon wrote: Anyone else having trouble with that? Not had any luck on either the unicast or multicast RTSP feeds. Flash works fine, though.
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity facts
David Schwartz wrote: The ratio argument is nonsense. If your customers want to receive mostly, and receiving is expensive, they should pay you more to cover your higher costs in receiving traffic. If my customers mostly want to send, and sending is cheap, then I should pay less, since I want to do the cheap thing and you want to do the expensive thing. If it costs one party to an SFI agreement more than the other (total cost, including intangibles) this makes the agreement less attractive, perhaps to the point of inequitability. Where one party profits more from the agreement than another, there is less incentive for the interconnection to be settlement-free. There is no father figure standing there saying 'Party A and Party B must SFI regardless of cost' - that decision is up to the relevant commercial minds within Party A and Party B to carry out the required analysis and negotiate as required. Will
Re: Peering - Benefits?
HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP wrote: as for peering agreements, just implement an open peering policy (doesn't nessesarily have to take place over an ix, also applies to pieces of ethernet running from your network to others). those basically are contracts that force anyone who has also signed one to peer with your network, wether they like you or not (saves the trouble when you are a content provider and others do not want to peer with you because they provide content too and you are a competing party etc). It is not practice in this community for 'open peering policy' to mean 'must peer with anyone'. You might still refuse to peer on the basis that the other party is unreliable or run by idiots, and this is perfectly acceptable even with an advertised open peering policy. Nor does such a statement create any form of contract or obligation under any law I am aware of, as such an indicative offer does not fulfill the requirements to form a binding contract. Any device which has REQUIRED e.g. participants in an IX to peer with others has proved very unpopular in the industry.
Re: Peering - Benefits?
Paul Stewart wrote: We have multiple transit providers today and are already present on a couple of smaller peering exchanges with an open peering policy... our experience with them has been very positive. As an IX operator I'm glad to hear it :-) The redundancy perspective is that you now have more paths to the same AS - and an assumption that the peering route will always be best (I know that's not always true). Something to remember is that you are a network *operator* not a network *purchaser*. If the peering route isn't working for you, pick up the phone and talk to your peering partner. The whole point of being a network operator is that you control who you connect with and take an active hand in fixing problems! As others have stated, rich interconnection gives you greater abilities in this area. We of course have enough transit in case of a peering outage - would never put all our eggs into one basket that it sounds like some others are That attitude is quite 'old-school' - the idea that you can back up your peering with transit often does not ring true in practice. You have less visibility into your transit providers network than into your IXes networks, and what information you do have is clouded by commercial concerns (read: sales bullshit). The traffic has to go somewhere, and if everyone in a metro area tries to send to their transits it will just result in congestion within those networks - even more likely when you consider the typical way their are built with ports tiered off at layer2 from routers; traffic in the same metro area is likely to simply hairpin up/down the router uplink. Traffic between major transits within a metro area is also subject to complicated commercial considerations which might mean the connectivity via that route isn't so great. also, we are looking at a number of them in various parts of the world currently which adds another level of redundancy per say Many metro areas have more than one IX fabric often with considerable numbers of operators on both. At LONAP in London we have members with big ports expressly for backing up their private interconnects as well as to back up sessions at other IXes. In (primarily) Europe, the Euro-ix website has some useful resources to help people select IXes: e.g https://www.euro-ix.net/member/m/peeringmatrix Will
