Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX

2016-03-02 Thread Mark Tinka
On 2/Mar/16 19:25, Peter Phaal wrote: > The Nexus 3200 should work well with 100G flows - I believe it's based on the > latest Broadcom Tomahawk ASIC. The older Trident II ASICs in the Nexus 9k are > 40g parts. Yes, the new Tomahawk chips support native 100Gbps lanes. Mark.

Re: About inetnum "ownership"

2016-03-02 Thread Bob Evans
As far as I know there is no requirement to announce your assigned or legacy owned prefixes to the world. You have the right to announce them. I don't think you can legally stop others from announcing your path to them. Once you publicly announce something, it's out there. Oh well, maybe I

Re: About inetnum "ownership"

2016-03-02 Thread Larry Sheldon
On 3/2/2016 08:05, Bob Evans wrote: The numbers (IP addresses) are not the field. The servers are the field. The numbers are the street addresses of the server. Domain names would be a nick name for the numbers, like PaddingHouse.com is at 55.51.52.1. The BGP table is a road map. That's why it

Re: About inetnum "ownership"

2016-03-02 Thread Constantine A. Murenin
On 2 March 2016 at 03:46, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer wrote: >> Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be >> a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a >> different

Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX

2016-03-02 Thread Peter Phaal
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Peter Phaal wrote: >> Monitoring ingress and egress in the switch is wasteful of resources. > > It's more than a waste of resources: it's pathologically broken and > Cisco decline to fix it, despite the fact that enabling

Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX

2016-03-02 Thread Nick Hilliard
Peter Phaal wrote: > Monitoring ingress and egress in the switch is wasteful of resources. It's more than a waste of resources: it's pathologically broken and Cisco decline to fix it, despite the fact that enabling ingress-only or egress-only is fully supported via API in the Broadcom SDKs, and

Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX

2016-03-02 Thread Peter Phaal
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Peter Phaal wrote: >> The Nexus 3200 should work well with 100G flows - I believe it's >> based on the latest Broadcom Tomahawk ASIC. The older Trident II >> ASICs in the Nexus 9k are 40g parts > > does nx-os still force

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

2016-03-02 Thread Owen DeLong
I think actually, that Cogent is the new SPRINT. I remember a time when virtually all of the internet Transited SPRINT and it was nearly impossible to avoid going through SPRINT’s network. Then SPRINT started de-peering left and right. Today, as near as I can tell, this strategy has made then

Re: Juniper PTX1000

2016-03-02 Thread Saku Ytti
On 2 March 2016 at 19:59, Peter Kranz wrote: > Anyone played with the newish Juniper PTX1000 platform? Seems quite > interesting for compact deployments, but I've not been able to find much > pricing information to see just how interesting.. I would expect it to be priced

Re: BGP MVPN RFC6513, Section 10

2016-03-02 Thread Jason Iannone
Thanks for responding. What's interesting is that even though no listener joins to RP, one must be configured for PIM Sparse Mode ASM to function. I suppose this is a result of MVPN outsmarting PIM. In my testing so far, generating a working flow with rpt-spt is much faster than spt-only. I

Re: Any large IPv4 space brokers?

2016-03-02 Thread Hank Nussbacher
On 02/03/2016 19:28, Brough Turner wrote: > https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html > > Thanks, > Brough There was a RIPE site: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfers but most of the links are broken (like Brokers and IP

Juniper PTX1000

2016-03-02 Thread Peter Kranz
Anyone played with the newish Juniper PTX1000 platform? Seems quite interesting for compact deployments, but I've not been able to find much pricing information to see just how interesting.. Peter Kranz www.UnwiredLtd.com Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile:

Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX

2016-03-02 Thread Nick Hilliard
Peter Phaal wrote: > The Nexus 3200 should work well with 100G flows - I believe it's > based on the latest Broadcom Tomahawk ASIC. The older Trident II > ASICs in the Nexus 9k are 40g parts does nx-os still force ingress-and-egress sflow? sflow is pretty useless you can define an accounting

Re: Any large IPv4 space brokers?

2016-03-02 Thread Brough Turner
https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html Thanks, Brough Brough Turner netBlazr Inc. – Free your Broadband! Mobile: 617-285-0433 Skype: brough netBlazr Inc. | Google+ | Twitter

Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX

2016-03-02 Thread Peter Phaal
> > On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:12 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > >> On 2/Mar/16 08:04, Mark Tinka wrote: >> >> We were initially looking at at the Nexus 9000, but then moved to the >> 7700 because the Broadcom chip on the 7700 cannot do single flows larger >> than 40Gbps on the

Re: AWS Direct Connect - Peering VPCs to Tier 1's and MPLS

2016-03-02 Thread Michael O'Connor
ESnet employs MPLS virtual circuits from our customer sites to VLANs connecting over DX cross connects in US-EAST and US-WEST regions. Exploring the DX provider paradigm we have demonstrated that the billing of the DX network service can be billed to the provider with the compute costs billed

Re: About inetnum "ownership"

2016-03-02 Thread Bob Evans
The numbers (IP addresses) are not the field. The servers are the field. The numbers are the street addresses of the server. Domain names would be a nick name for the numbers, like PaddingHouse.com is at 55.51.52.1. The BGP table is a road map. That's why it was once called the Super Information

Re: About inetnum "ownership"

2016-03-02 Thread William Herrin
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer wrote: > Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be > a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a > different matter. Hi Karl, I'm having trouble seeing the nit you're picking.

Re: About inetnum "ownership"

2016-03-02 Thread William Herrin
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Jonas Bjork wrote: > shouldn't the same logic of ownership of DNS domain names apply to inetnum > address space? Hi Jonas, A trademark owner invoking the UDRP generally is able to exclude anyone else that can't present an equally valid

Re: AWS Direct Connect - Peering VPCs to Tier 1's and MPLS

2016-03-02 Thread James Bensley
On 1 March 2016 at 20:41, Michael O'Connor wrote: > Jay, > > VPC is supported over IPsec if your public path is sufficient into the AWS > cloud. ^ This. I work for a DirectConnect provider, albeit in the UK though. We have fibre links to a AWS edge routers and we have multiple

Re: AWS Direct Connect - Peering VPCs to Tier 1's and MPLS

2016-03-02 Thread Bevan Slattery
***disclaimer - info on subject from a shareholder*** :) Yeah. In addition to Equinix and a few others Megaport is expanding pretty quickly in US at present. 30+ locations 7 US markets. Worth a look if you are trying to get your Azure and AWS fix from a single provider via 100% SDN, API