RE: Residential CPE suggestions
It uses a Cavium Octeon processor which does have dedicated HW packet processing. A moderate number of prefixes won't slow it down doing vanilla forwarding, not sure about 2 million though... I believe they have recently optimized some of the FW stuff to take advantage of the HW as well. Layering services like FW, NAT, and tunneling definitely drops the packet rate significantly, but it is still capable of 100+Mbps at IMIX packet sizes. I think there are a couple of in depth tests out there. In my experience the ERL works really well for a $99 device. Phil -Original Message- From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net Sent: 5/6/2014 7:39 AM To: ja...@puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) ja...@puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch) Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Residential CPE suggestions I was also going to recommend the EdgeRouter Pro as it has dual SFP = ports and the Vyatta/Linux stuff works quite well. I suspect you will be very surprised with the quality experience. If = you've not used Vyatta, it's very JunOS-like. Does anyone have any practical experience with the EdgeRouter with a largish number of prefixes? http://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/edgemax/EdgeRouter_DS.pdf The 2 million+ packets per second leads me to believe that this is merely a highly optimized software based router, but under Hardware Specs it specifically says hardware acceleration for packet processing. I have no idea what's being accelerated since the layer 3 forwarding performance specs for the FR-8 are 2Mpps (an 800MHz CPU) and the FRPro-8 are 2.4Mpps (1GHz) which suggests software lookup. Do these things suffer if you load them down with a full table? Or a handful of firewall rules? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
I would like to see Cisco send something out... -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: 5/6/2014 11:42 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.org Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Hi all, I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512K route mark. We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public service. Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone (etc...) that does. In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade. -Drew
RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they couldenshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it... It is such a large amount of bandwidth these days it's not made up by other traffic. I am not saying any of it is right, but precedents in the past have led to this. Phil -Original Message- From: Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net Sent: 4/28/2014 11:34 AM To: Phil Bedard bedard.p...@gmail.com; Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com; nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they couldenshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote: People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around. It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone else's network. Yeah. It's a scam. Comcast can't do balanced peering. Their customers are not symmetrical. It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even starting to include NF as an app on their STB. There are also many who do peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios. The key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we will see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters. Netflix is happy to assist with caching. The thing is, Comcast doesn't care about that. What they care about is that their last mile is getting saturated and they have to pay money to upgrade it. Costs are being shoved onto netflix and similar to justify that. This is compared to the small ISP who is just happy to get a peering or cache to save money only on their transit fees. Jack
RE: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
At some point some the MSOs and telcos tried selling CDN to the streaming video people and they didn't want to partake. It was cheaper for them to keep streaming it off 3rd party CDNs. There are also some weird (dumb) legal/contractual issues around Netflix (or some other video provider) negotiated content residing on a box or even within a datacenter of another company who also has contracts with the content owner. All cable VOD for some time has been a distributed CDN albeit proprietary and ultimately delivered via QAMs, and still unicast. There are caches in headends and even further down in the access networks. The next generation of that is HTTP based though so any normal HTTP cache can be used. Comcast has contributed a bit to Apache Traffic Server as it plays a part in their next-gen video service delivery. I'd love to see wholesale networks. We saw that with DSL in the US quite a bit but eventually it all died out, and I highly doubt the ones running the networks would have allowed video services. All IP will happen on cable and once that happens most of the barriers to wholesale go away. So in 15 years things may be different. :) Phil -Original Message- From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com Sent: 4/27/2014 4:33 PM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like Comcast for access to their cable subscribers. Well, no. According to Time-Warner's 2013 annual report, cable companies paid T-W $4.89 billion for access to HBO and Cinemax. No video provider pays for access to cable. The cruddy ones like home shopping and 24/7 religion have small over the air stations and use the must-carry rule, everyone else gets paid something, in the case of ESPN quite a lot. There's a reason that T-W bought HBO and Comcast bought NBC, to capture all that money they'd been paying out. There's two separate issues here: one is that the Internet is a terrible way to deliver video. The Internet part of your cable connection is about 4 channels out of 500, and each of the other 496 is streaming high quality video. That little bit of Internet is designed for transactions (DNS, IM) and file transfer (mail and web), not streaming, so when you do stream it is jittery and lossy. Furthermore, nobody uses multicasting, if 400 customers on the same cable system are watching Game of Thrones, there's 400 copies of it cluttering up the tubes. In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix. But this world is mostly stupid, the cable companies never got VOD, so you have companies like Netflix filling the gap with pessimized technology. (I do see that starting tomorrow, there will be a Netflix channel on three small cablecos including RCN, delivered via TiVo, although it's not clear if the delivery channel will change.) The other issue is that due to regulatory failure, cable companies are an oligopoly, and in most areas a local monopoly, so Comcast has the muscle to shake down Internet video providers. That's not a technical problem, it's a political one. In Europe, where DSL is a lot faster than here, carriage and content are separate and there are a zillion DSL providers. We could do that here if the FCC weren't so spineless. R's, John
