Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport

What is performing the LACP? The Level3 transport system for the most part is purley optical, so I don't think it touches LACP. Did you check the hash values? On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote: > Hi Nanog-ers, > Hoping someone may have come across

Re: SNMP "bridging"/proxy?

On 05/23/2016 05:51 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > Exposing the data via SNMP on the host to be monitored distributes the CPU > load individually onto each host So much this. Most importantly, it removes the fork/exec overhead from the monitoring server. > This allows cacti or opennms or anything

Re: Question on peering strategies

And what benefit is there to this 'public' vlan service? A shared vlan between all participants (with some well organized numbering/indexing scheme)? TorIX (Toronto) is about to have an AGM here and this VLAN thing which has been in the air for 3 years will certainly be brought up again. /kc

Re: SNMP "bridging"/proxy?

+1 On May 23, 2016 4:53 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" wrote: > This doesn't scale on a large cacti installation with hundreds of hosts and > 60-second poller intervals. Cacti data input method scripts spawn a new php > worker for each data acquisition target (they do NOT use the

Re: SNMP "bridging"/proxy?

This doesn't scale on a large cacti installation with hundreds of hosts and 60-second poller intervals. Cacti data input method scripts spawn a new php worker for each data acquisition target (they do NOT use the 'spine' SNMP poller). Exposing the data via SNMP on the host to be monitored

Re: SNMP "bridging"/proxy?

Thinking of the recent conversation on ntp daemon precision and reliability here on nanog, reminded me of: https://www.pitt-pladdy.com/blog/_20140826-094101_0100_NTP_Monitoring_on_Cacti_over_SNMP/ There's a tiny shell script linked there on github which does nothing more than run "ntpq -p" on

Re: Need BGP route check

Just to note, the route-views4 collector has a pretty diverse set of global multi-hop views. telnet://route-views4.routeviews.org/ http://www.routeviews.org/peers/peering-status.html http://www.routeviews.org/peers/route-views4.routeviews.org.txt John Kemp On 5/20/16 8:46 AM, Matthew Huff

[Cox Communications] RFC1918 On WAN Interfaces

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Could a clueful network operator from Cox contact me off list when they get a chance. Pertaining to RFC1918 appearing on our business WAN interfaces. Thanks - -- Jason Hellenthal JJH48-ARIN -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Need Comcast IPv6 routing assistance please

Nick Hilliard wrote: > David Sotnick wrote: >> I'm seeing *consistent* 46.1% packet loss between Comcast Res/Bus services > > 5/12 = 41.6% and 5/12 != 46.1%, so scratch that. Anyway, the mtr output shows the likely position of where the problem is. Nick

Re: Need Comcast IPv6 routing assistance please

David Sotnick wrote: > I'm seeing *consistent* 46.1% packet loss between Comcast Res/Bus services > in Northern CA and Pixar (Level 3 customer) also in Northern CA. I have > ticket open with Level (3) but the problem appears to be on Comcast's > network. 5/12 = 41.6% Someone's got a 12-way LAG /

Re: Question on peering strategies

The usefulness of an elastic fabric as far as I can see it are: - Can give you a private VLAN to some *cloud* providers that provide direct access to them in some other fashion than peering (assumedly for enterprises) - Is spread across multiple buildings across a metro area - Is elastic so can

Need Comcast IPv6 routing assistance please

Hello NANOG, Could someone from Comcast IPv6 routing team please contact me directly? I am both a business and residential comcast customer and my employer is a Level(3) HSIP customer at multiple sites. I'm seeing *consistent* 46.1% packet loss between Comcast Res/Bus services in Northern CA and

Re: Question on peering strategies

I'm glad we are having this discussion. I want to clarify something, since I'm not sure I'm following the terminology. What Max referred to as "VLAN exchange" is what Equinix markets as "*private VLAN"*, right? I just copy-pasted a portion of Equinix's IX brochure that covers the services that

Re: Question on peering strategies

As mentioned by others, they do exist, but usually not for exactly the reason you state. In most cases, peers go to PNI instead of peering via the exchange when it does not make sense to grow laterally at the exchange for significant bilateral traffic. It’s much less expensive to get a

Re: IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:47 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > This is done so if you are part of a trial can keep answering. Otherwise, > no sense to keep going, I guess … > > In other words, if you don’t offer IPv6 you must not answer to the survey … > > ​'don't

Re: IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

This is done so if you are part of a trial can keep answering. Otherwise, no sense to keep going, I guess … In other words, if you don’t offer IPv6 you must not answer to the survey … Saludos, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: NANOG en nombre de Christopher Morrow

Re: IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Christopher Morrow < morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > >> Got as far as the second page, where I was met by the question >> >> "What technology is used for the customer link ? >>Choose

Re: Need BGP route check

Here you are with our point of view (Italy - AS200873) BGP routing table entry for 129.77.0.0/16, version 147288840 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table default) Advertised to update-groups: 3 28716 6939 46887 14607 14607, (received & used) as you can see we receive it as generated by

Re: IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Got as far as the second page, where I was met by the question > > "What technology is used for the customer link ? >Choose one of the following answers " > > Come on... One technology per ISP? In what world is that? > >

Re: IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

Hi, The intend is to make the survey simple, so in that case, you have two choices: 1) The same IPv6 services by means of DSL and FTTH (example), then you can use “other” and indicate that. 2) Different IPv6 services with different access technology, then you better fill one survey for each

Re: IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

Thanks a lot ¡ Saludos, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" Responder a: Fecha: domingo, 22 de mayo de 2016, 22:11 Para: Jordi Palet Martinez CC: John Curran , NANOG

Re: IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

Hi Aaron, Sorry to heard that. Is the first report I got about this problem (253 responses already and many using Chrome), so may be specific to Chrome+Linux, not sure if you have been able to try with another browser or OS. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: NANOG

LACP Frames / Level3 Transport

Hi Nanog-ers, Hoping someone may have come across a similar issue. Has anyone ever seen a situation where maybe like a Level3 transport system could be possibly dropping LACP frames..? End point A -  tx and rx counts incrementing for LACP  LACP info:        Role     System             System    

IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

Definitively, please respond to the survey. The point here is to be able to tell the ISPs, “hey why are you using /64 instead of /48 (or /56). You know that with /64, your customers can’t have different subnets in their network, for example an /64 in the SSID for guest, or different /64 for

Re: SNMP "bridging"/proxy?

Hi Nathan, You should probably write a cacti script to ingest the data instead of this SNMP proxy thing. Writing scripts to ingest data into cacti is simple, you just need to output the values you want in key: value format and then do some clicking in cacti. There are good docs for how to do

Re: IPv6 Residential Deployment Survey

Got as far as the second page, where I was met by the question "What technology is used for the customer link ? Choose one of the following answers " Come on... One technology per ISP? In what world is that? Bjørn John Curran writes: > NANOGers - > > If you

Re: Question on peering strategies

In a message written on Sun, May 22, 2016 at 09:33:38AM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: > That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private > interconnects than direct wires. The problem is peering is not an even distribution by traffic level. When BigCDNCo connects to BigCableCo, they

Re: Question on peering strategies

>> On 22 May 2016, at 07:33, Max Tulyev wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any? >> >> In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can >> easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private

Re: Question on peering strategies

Hi Max, These do exist, at least in the NREN part of the internet. Have a look at netherlight (www.netherlight.net) and the bigger picture GLIF (www.glif.is) and where you read 'lightpath' replace that with ethernet p2p. Regards, Jac On Sun, 22 May 2016, Max Tulyev wrote: Hi All, I

Re: Question on peering strategies

This does exist, often called an elastic fabric, e.g. Megaport Regards, Marty Strong -- CloudFlare - AS13335 Network Engineer ma...@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 > On 22 May 2016, at 07:33, Max

Re: Question on peering strategies

Hi All, I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any? In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group) through some kind of web interface. That should be a more easy and much less