Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency
router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes,
Service Affecting (no kidding?) and the NOC line gave me the
recording about it and disconnected me.
-R
On 06 Feb 2013, at 11:58 AM, Ray Wong r...@rayw.net wrote:
Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency
router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes,
Service Affecting (no kidding?) and the NOC line gave me the
recording about it and disconnected
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:04:40PM +0200,
JP Viljoen froztb...@froztbyte.net wrote
a message of 10 lines which said:
the general guess I saw was that it was Juniper-related.
Juniper Technical Bulletin PSN-2013-01-823, probably?
ugh!
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:04 AM, JP Viljoen froztb...@froztbyte.net wrote:
On 06 Feb 2013, at 11:58 AM, Ray Wong r...@rayw.net wrote:
Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency
router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes,
Service
That is general guess.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.frwrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:04:40PM +0200,
JP Viljoen froztb...@froztbyte.net wrote
a message of 10 lines which said:
the general guess I saw was that it was Juniper-related.
Juniper
I just received this email from level3
Summary
Level 3 Communications will perform a mandatory network upgrade that will be
service impacting and will impact devices in multiple locations. We are
upgrading the code on portions of the global network to increase stability for
the overall
Also received same ...
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ray Wong r...@rayw.net wrote:
Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency
router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes,
Service Affecting (no kidding?) and the NOC line gave me the
On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:38 AM, Peter Ehiwe petereh...@gmail.com wrote:
Also received same ...
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ray Wong r...@rayw.net wrote:
Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency
router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30
Would you rather your ISP not maintain their devices? Are the
consequences so bad of a 30 minute outage that your business
is severely impacted?
- Jared
You had me up until that line.
That should be expanded a little ...
First, I'd say, yes - many businesses would be severely impacted
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:57:06AM -0500, Alex Rubenstein scribbled:
# The question should be more along the lines of, why aren't you multihomed in
a way that would make a 30 minute outage (which is inevitable) irrelevant to
you?
The fun part of this emergency maintenance in the northeast USA
I know this is a topic dear to the members of the list. We are
webcasting an FCC hearing today in Brooklyn on the topic of network
resiliency.
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/4783
It will be archived, and transcribed.
--
---
Joly MacFie 218
On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Alex Rubenstein a...@corp.nac.net wrote:
Would you rather your ISP not maintain their devices? Are the
consequences so bad of a 30 minute outage that your business
is severely impacted?
- Jared
You had me up until that line.
That should be expanded a
Yeah, perhaps not as elegantly worded as I would have hoped, but there are
many reasons things go down. Just one of those elements is the internet
part, there's also transport, power, and other elements that combine to
make this complex system called the internet. If you N+N or N+1 your
Thanks for checking guys. I checked RIR registration and they have those 2 IPs
registered in
Texas. I have read that ATT uses anycast for name resolution for
Uverse/DSL customers. I can only check from my account in Florida and
the DNS query responses so far resolve as if I were in the Central
From my understanding M-Ethernet is a some kind of service. Standartized
technology that allows to connect multiple different networks. And it is
independent from physical and datalink layers.
Metro Ethernet is a datalink (layer 2) protocol. It also has physical
(layer 1) specifications
Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes:
In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open
access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done
using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access
in an active Ethernet install is actually
However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology and
you have to put active electronics out in the field.
Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring. In
a normal install you're going to have over a hundred fibers in your
physical ring, I'd
Hi,
My 2 cents
VPLS can be run across several different kinds of layer 1 2 technologies
and is independent of the underlying technology because it builds it pseudo
wires at layers 3 4. VPLS leverages technologies like Metro Ethernet and
MPLS to extend a business' Ethernet LAN (technically
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:39:14AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
So, I'm wondering what is shocking that someone may have to push out some
sort of upgrade either urgently or periodically that is so impacting and
causes these emails on the list.
My impression is mostly that people are left
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Eric Wieling ewiel...@nyigc.com wrote:
The ILECs basically got large portions of the 1996 telecom reform rules
gutted via lawsuits. DSL unbundling was part of this. See
http://quello.msu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/wp-05-02.pdf The ILECs
already need a
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Eric Wieling wrote:
I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other
ISPs an ATM PVC into their network.
Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.
ATM may not be the best technology to do
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes:
In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open
access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done
using the same architecture you're
Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their
DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?
-Original Message-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re:
And for fun you can also do:
Ethernet over PBB to VPLS
Ethernet over PBB over VPLS -that's actually called EVPN
adam
-Original Message-
From: Fabien Delmotte [mailto:fdelmot...@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:07 PM
To: Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG; Abzal Sembay
Subject: Re: Metro
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology
and you have to put active electronics out in the field.
Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring. In
a normal install
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps
even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are
approximately as easy as each other.
-r
PS: The word is _conflating_, not _confounding_.
Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM,
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Eric Wieling ewiel...@nyigc.com wrote:
Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul
their DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?
In the independent space this has been Ethernet for a very long time. In
the RBOC space
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps
even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are
approximately as easy as each other.
Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:39:14AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
So, I'm wondering what is shocking that someone may have to push out some
sort of upgrade either urgently or periodically that is so impacting and
causes
That's incorrect, you simply don't have as many available but in a
current
normal build you could easily provide 100+ dark fiber leases that
extend
from your MDF (still don't like using this term here) all the way down
to the home or business.
And, conversely, I could, actually,
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
wrote:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps
even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
GPON/DOCSIS/RFoG? That's one people are deploying today.
Over the 50 year proposed lifetime of the plant? WTF knows. That's
exactly the point.
To paraphrase Tom Peters, you don't look like a trailbreaker by
*emulating what other trailbreakers have
- Original Message -
From: Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk
I'm not *trying* to do the last thing.
I'm trying to do the next thing. Or maybe the one after that.
The existing copper network was in many cases built like a star with
some very long runs. This worked fine for
On 2/6/13 7:43 AM, Ray Wong wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:39:14AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
So, I'm wondering what is shocking that someone may have to push out some sort
of upgrade either urgently or periodically
I think that risk low enough to take it, especially since my entire
city fits in about a 3mi radius. :-)
This is data I'd like to have had earlier, if your total diameter is 6
miles then the math will almost certainly work to home run everything,
though I'd still run the numbers.
No, I
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Yep, that's likely what will happen over the long term anyhow. That's why
I asked about a new apartment building in your territory. You decision
would be either run additional fiber to support each apartment as an
end point,
OK, having had that first cup of coffee, I can say perhaps the main
reason I was wondering is I've gotten used to Level3 always being on
top of things (and admittedly, rarely communicating). They've reached
the top by often being a black box of reliability, so it's (perhaps
unrealistically)
I thought that PBB was dead :)
if not forget VPLS and play with PBB and PBT :)
Welcome in the twilight zone
Fabien
Le 6 févr. 2013 à 16:19, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@swan.sk a écrit :
And for fun you can also do:
Ethernet over PBB to VPLS
Ethernet over PBB over VPLS -that's actually
Given the issue was announced a week ago, I'm surprised they didn't provide
some sort of emergency notification prior to the upgrade. However, I
certainly understand their immediate desire to deploy this update. I don't
think it's bad as the BGP one from not too long ago in that exploit code is
Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom [[r...@seastrom.com]]
wrote:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement
is perhaps
even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ray Wong wrote:
My impression is mostly that people are left feeling uncomfortable by
a massive upgrade of this sort with so little communication about why
and so on. Emergency work for five hours and 30 minutes
disconnection that turns out to take longer than 30 minutes of
Robert,
Thanks for the information, I either missed VLAN per sub set up which does
make PON L2 sharing virtually the same as AE or the version of
hardware/firmware I last worked on didn't support it.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Scott Helms
At the standards level, ANCP was designed to allow partitioning like
that. however, work on applying ANCP (Access Network Control Protocol)
to PON is just going through the IESG now, so the probability that it's
implemented in the Calix devices is remote.
Tom T
On 06/02/2013 10:56 AM, Jay
- Original Message -
From: Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com
At the standards level, ANCP was designed to allow partitioning like
that. however, work on applying ANCP (Access Network Control Protocol)
to PON is just going through the IESG now, so the probability that
it's
Hi Ray,
This topic reminds me of yesterday's discussion in the conference around
getting some BCOP's drafted. it would be useful to confirm my own view of the
BCOP around communicating security issues. My understanding for the best
practice is to limit knowledge distribution of security
On 2/6/13 8:34 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ray Wong wrote:
My impression is mostly that people are left feeling uncomfortable by
a massive upgrade of this sort with so little communication about why
and so on. Emergency work for five hours and 30 minutes
disconnection
http://www.telecomramblings.com/2013/02/alcatel-lucent-and-france-telecom-surpass-100g-implement-400g/
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth Associates
Huge thanks to the program committee for pulling
another great set of talks together; this really has
been a top-notch bunch of content!
Notes are up at
http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2013.02.06-NANOG57-day3-morning-session.txt
As always, if my apache process wedges, let me
know and I'll kick it;
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Jonathan Towne jto...@slic.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:57:06AM -0500, Alex Rubenstein scribbled:
# The question should be more along the lines of, why aren't you multihomed
in a way that would make a 30 minute outage (which is inevitable) irrelevant
On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 07:57 -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Would you rather your ISP not maintain their devices? Are the
consequences so bad of a 30 minute outage that your business
is severely impacted?
- Jared
You had me up until that line.
That should be expanded a little ...
I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will be
uploading his notes there shortly:
http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I
Nice work guys - it is appreciated :)
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will
be
uploading his notes there shortly:
http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will be
uploading his notes there shortly:
http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57
I wonder how long it'll be before the spam bots take over that page.
--
Over the year I've read some interesting (horrifying?) tales of
debugging on NANOG. It seems I finally have my own to contribute:
http://blog.krisk.org/2013/02/packets-of-death.html
The strangest issue I've experienced, that's for sure.
--
Kristian Kielhofner
* Andrew Sullivan:
My impression is mostly that people are left feeling uncomfortable
by a massive upgrade of this sort with so little communication about
why and so on.
That's a side effect of Juniper's notification policy. Perhaps
someone should them take them by their word (Security
Wow, you just solved my issue with my firewall.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Kristian Kielhofner k...@kriskinc.comwrote:
Over the year I've read some interesting (horrifying?) tales of
debugging on NANOG. It seems I finally have my own to contribute:
- Original Message -
From: Kristian Kielhofner k...@kriskinc.com
Over the year I've read some interesting (horrifying?) tales of
debugging on NANOG. It seems I finally have my own to contribute:
http://blog.krisk.org/2013/02/packets-of-death.html
The strangest issue I've
- Original Message -
From: david raistrick dr...@icantclick.org
sure would be nice if the nanog meetings were a bit better
announcedwhy do I aways find out about the orlando ones during or
after?
I hadn't realized there was another one in Orlando, David; last Florida
ones I knew
On a similar vein here's some fun reading:
http://travisgoodspeed.blogspot.com/2011/09/remotely-exploiting-phy-layer.html
On 02/06/2013 03:33 PM, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
Over the year I've read some interesting (horrifying?) tales of
debugging on NANOG. It seems I finally have my own to
On 13-02-06 10:16, Eric Wieling wrote:
Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their
DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network?
In Bell Canada Territory, wholesale traffic between DSLAM and BAS/BRAS
travels normally.
The BAS establishes the PPPoE
I put the notes from the afternoon session up on
my website--but thanks to a great suggestion by
Jay, I'm also putting them up on the nanog.cluepon.net
site on the wiki, so that as folks spot my typos, they
can fix them themselves, rather than wonder why
goodle.com doesn't resolve for them, etc.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will be
uploading his notes there shortly:
http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57
Oh. that'll teach me to read my inbox first before
mailing out. ^_^;
- Original Message -
From: Harry Hoffman hhoff...@ip-solutions.net
On a similar vein here's some fun reading:
http://travisgoodspeed.blogspot.com/2011/09/remotely-exploiting-phy-layer.html
Really?
That environment does not have out-of-band framing, which can't be duplicated
by the
Scott Helms wrote:
Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real drawback
to using ATM.
High cost is the real drawback.
but the basic concept is not bad.
It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
the subject.
Why?
Because, for competing ISPs with
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real
drawback
to using ATM.
High cost is the real drawback.
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an
On 13-02-06 16:53, Scott Helms wrote:
You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers right?
You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open
access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe.
Actually, there is a cost. In
I have come to believe the Intel 82574L is the worst Ethernet chip in the
universe.We had horrible issues with it (random bursts of dropped packets
showing in ifconfig). We ended up simply putting a card based on a different
chip into our systems and all our issues went away.
Jean,
Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
other technology I'm aware of (anyone else have ideas?) in North America
and Europe. I'd also say that the ERX is an EOL box, but that
Scott Helms wrote:
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no advantage
to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not
significant.
You miss ATM switches to connect the card
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't
significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no
advantage
to doing ATM, but the real cost
Jerome Nicolle wrote:
In non-dense areas, zone operators have to build concentration points
(kind of MMRs) for at least 300 residences (when chaining MMRs) or 1000
residences (for a single MMR per zone). Theses MMRs often take the form
of street cabinets or shelters and have to be equiped
On 13-02-06 17:12, Scott Helms wrote:
Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that
PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any
other technology I'm aware of
By default, Telus in western Canada has deployed ethernet based DSL for
However, the australian NBN model is far superior because it enables far
more flexibility such as multicasting etc. PPPoE is useless overhead if
you have the right management tools to point a customer to his ISP. (and
it also means that the wholesale infrastructure can be switch based
intead
On 13-02-06 18:11, Scott Helms wrote:
I'd agree. Its a better way of doing L2 unbundling than PPPoE. Its just
PPPoE had the sharing concept baked into it so it was easy for most
operators to use historically.
PPPoE has its roots in the dialup days. So Incumbents were more than
happy to be
Putting routers and DLAMs each CO is simply not affordable for any but the
largest providers like XO.I expect Japan with its compact population
centers may be different, but in the USA there are not enough people connected
to any but the largest COs to make it affordable.I'm not stuck
David. I am on an evening shift and am just now reading this thread.
I was almost tempted to write an explanation that would have had
identical content with yours based simply on Level3 doing something and
keeping the information close.
Responsible Vendors do not try to hide what is being
On 2/6/13 4:41 PM, Brandt, Ralph wrote:
David. I am on an evening shift and am just now reading this thread.
I was almost tempted to write an explanation that would have had
identical content with yours based simply on Level3 doing something and
keeping the information close.
Responsible
Scott Helms wrote:
You miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple modems.
Most PPPoE L2TP setups have no ATM besides the default PVC
between the modem and the DSLAM.
You still miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple DSLAMs.
You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and
Hell, we used to not have to bother notifying customers of anything, we just
fixed the problem. Reminds me a of a story I've probably shared on the past.
1995, IETF in Dallas. The big ISP I worked for at the time got tripped up on
a 24-day IS-IS timer bug (maybe all of them at the time did, I
ah - those were the days of glory... :)
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:06:39PM -0700, Brett Watson wrote:
Hell, we used to not have to bother notifying customers of anything, we just
fixed the problem. Reminds me a of a story I've probably shared on the past.
1995, IETF in Dallas. The big
NANOGers -
During the QA portion of the ARIN Update today given at NANOG 57, I referenced
some
letters sent and received with regards to legacy addresses. Since a few folks
have asked
for a URL pointer to them, here is it:
https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/index.html
The particular
81 matches
Mail list logo
