Re: starlink ixp peering progress

you were to write such a tool for nonspecific use, we have public datasets that would show you who potential peers were at each IXP, and what routes / how many addresses they were advertising at each IXP… Obviously if you’re learning Deutche Telekom’s routes in Frankfurt and Munich, it matters some

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

you were to write such a tool for nonspecific use, we have public datasets that would show you who potential peers were at each IXP, and what routes / how many addresses they were advertising at each IXP… Obviously if you’re learning Deutche Telekom’s routes in Frankfurt and Munich, it mat

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

=14593 > > -- Original message -- > > From: Dave Taht > To: NANOG > Subject: starlink ixp peering progress > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:54:44 -0500 > > One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an > extensive guide as to ho

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

://radar.qrator.net/as/14593/ipv4/neighbors/peerings - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Dave Taht" To: "NANOG" Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 1:54:44 AM S

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

-- From: Dave Taht To: NANOG Subject: starlink ixp peering progress Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:54:44 -0500 One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an extensive guide as to how existing BGP AS holders can peer with them to get better service. https://starlink

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

Well, for some basic overview you can use CAIDA AS rank. You can use it directly, or you may try my (more user friendly) frontend for it: http://as-rank.uu3.net/?as=14593 -- Original message -- From: Dave Taht To: NANOG Subject: starlink ixp peering progress Date: Tue, 27 Feb

starlink ixp peering progress

already, how many they could actually peer with?, and progress over time since inception what would be the right tools for that? This is pretty impressive for peering so far: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/18747 Is there a better email list to discuss ixp stuff? -- https://blog.cerowrt.org/post

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

Hi Nick, Thanks for your remarks. It's actually an ongoing discussion. Le 18/01/2024 à 18:24, Nick Hilliard a écrit : two issues here: the smaller issue is that CDNs sometimes want their own routable IP address blocks, especially if they're connecting directly to the IXP, which usually means

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

blocks, especially if they're connecting directly to the IXP, which usually means /24 in practice. It doesn't always happen, and sometimes the CDN is happy to use provider address space (i.e. IXP), or smaller address blocks. But it's something to note. The bigger issue is: who pays the transit

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

Hosting authoritative and recursive dns servers at the IXP would drastically improve the experience of users most of the time. Of course, Stephane considerations are correct and there’s no solution for when global connectivity is lost and responses will stop being sent. Gaël On Thu 18 Jan 2024

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

Hi Tom, Le 18/01/2024 à 15:20, Tom Beecher a écrit : Many CDNs have hardware options for self hosted caches. I think there would likely be concerns about <20G of connectivity to those caches though. With an incorrect setup, you could end up maxing out those links just with cache fill traffic

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

anog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:38:31 AM Subject: Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP Hello Mehmet, Le 18/01/2024 à 12:58, Mehmet a écrit : > VMs are no go for big content companies except Microsoft. You can run > Microsoft CDN on VM but rest of the content will nee

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

Hi Gael, Le 18/01/2024 à 13:48, Gael Hernandez a écrit : Friends from PCH (www.pch.net ) operate backend services for DNS authoritative ccTLDs and the Quad9 DNS resolver. They would be very happy to help. I'm sure they would, I'm a big fan of their work BTW. Though

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

by major actors. What I'm mostly concerned about is their ability to peer with multiple AS on the local IXP, as to not over-replicate them. Should I establish a dedicated network peering on the IXP ? Or will they come with their own ASNs ? The peering case is quite not documented on publicly

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

es are down because of congestion on > satelite backups > - Sheer price of bandwidth > > On the plus side, there are over 5 AS on the island, an IXP and > small-ish collocation capacity (approx 10kW available, could be > upgraded, second site available later this year). > > We'd like to

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 12:53:19PM +0100, Jérôme Nicolle wrote a message of 36 lines which said: > - Low redundancy of old cables (2) > - Total service loss when both cables are down because of congestion on > satelite backups A problem which is not often mentioned is that most (all?) "local

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

system capacity of said cables (<=20Gbps) > - Total service loss when both cables are down because of congestion on > satelite backups > - Sheer price of bandwidth > > On the plus side, there are over 5 AS on the island, an IXP and > small-ish collocation capacity (approx 10k

Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

eer price of bandwidth On the plus side, there are over 5 AS on the island, an IXP and small-ish collocation capacity (approx 10kW available, could be upgraded, second site available later this year). We'd like to host cache servers and/or VMs on the IXP, with an option to anycast many servi

RE: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?

: Ca By [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 7:27 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard Cc: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo ; NANOG Subject: Re: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ? On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 9:17 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>

Re: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?

gt; *Sent:* Monday, October 10, 2022 6:57 PM > *To:* NANOG > *Subject:* Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ? > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm looking at a use case for stateless 6-4 mappings in the context of an > IXP. > > > > The problem we

RE: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?

SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ? Hi all, I'm looking at a use case for stateless 6-4 mappings in the context of an IXP. The problem we are looking to solve is allowing IXP members who have no IPv4 of their own and in most cases they have a /26 or /27 issued by their transit provider and rely on CGN

Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?

Hi all, I'm looking at a use case for stateless 6-4 mappings in the context of an IXP. The problem we are looking to solve is allowing IXP members who have no IPv4 of their own and in most cases they have a /26 or /27 issued by their transit provider and rely on CGN to provide service

Re: Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ?

Imtiaz ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ? No issues here. Erich Kaiser The Fusion Network On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:48 AM Tom Beecher wrote: I see no issues on 2 separate Equinix Dallas connections. On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:16 AM Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai

Re: Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ?

n issue with Equinix Dallas IXP ? >> (Or it is just our connection ? Seeing all peers down). >> >> Thanks. >> Regards. >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Re: Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ?

I see no issues on 2 separate Equinix Dallas connections. On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:16 AM Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Hello, > Quick question, is there known issue with Equinix Dallas IXP ? > (Or it is just our connection ? Seeing all peers down). > > Thanks. > Regards.

Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ?

Hello, Quick question, is there known issue with Equinix Dallas IXP ? (Or it is just our connection ? Seeing all peers down). Thanks. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:

IXP Renumbering: Equinix Miami (formerly known as NOTA)

is already overdue. https://ix.equinix.com/home/ip-migration/mi/ I would propose that some IXP operators should write a BCOP to avoid future renumbering pain. -- Fredy Künzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur https://www.init7.net/

USA to Mexico IXP Equipment Recommendations

in the region (and abroad if they build in). Our IXP is good, but we want to update/upgrade and put in a future-compatible robust solution instead of what we have in there now. We are an open IXP and are wondering how you would prefer to peer and what your equipment recommendations are and why. We're

MANRS IXP Webinar: Tuesday, 13 March

Hail NANOGers! If you operate an IX in North America, this message is for you. (I'm passing it along on behalf of my former colleagues at the Internet Society.) Hope to "see" you on the webinar this Tuesday! ——— Hi, The MANRS IXP Partnership program is designed to invite and

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

ww.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest-IX > > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Nick W" <nickdwh...@gmail.com> > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:55:28 PM > > Subject: Re:

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On 8/11/2017 10:30 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: I'm dumb, Brielle is right. 1.9.0, 1.9.5, 1.9.7h1 1.9.8dev and 1.9.8b1 are for two other newer products. Ubiquiti has been pretty active in developing improvements lately. I do recommend anyone who does use the Edge* series in production that

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

I'm dumb, Brielle is right. 1.9.0, 1.9.5, 1.9.7h1 1.9.8dev and 1.9.8b1 are for two other newer products. On Aug 11, 2017 11:16 PM, "Brielle Bruns" wrote: > On 8/11/2017 9:34 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > >> As an additional note, sometimes drivers get backported, this is how >>

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On 8/11/2017 9:34 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: As an additional note, sometimes drivers get backported, this is how 1.9.7hotfix1 works on Infinity. There are multiple trees in various stages of dev at any given time. The Infinity started out on 1.9.0 (which is what my Infinity alpha hardware

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX- >>> > EdgeRouter-software-security-release-v1-9-7-hotfix-1/ba-p/2019161 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > - >>> > Mike Hammett >>> > In

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

release-v1-9-7-hotfix-1/ba-p/2019161 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > - >> > Mike Hammett >> > Intelligent Computing Solutions >> > http://www.ics-il.com >> > >> > Midwest-IX >> > http://www.midwest-ix.c

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

ticwifi.com> > To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 8:07:36 PM > Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? > > > Forgot reply all... &g

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

m> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 8:07:36 PM Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? Forgot reply all... That does not apply to the infinity. Those

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

al Message - > > From: "Nick W" <nickdwh...@gmail.com> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:55:28 PM > Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? > > Tried the Infinity, unsuccessfully. Several of them.

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Nick W" <nickdwh...@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:55:28 PM Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? Tried the Infinity, unsuc

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Tried the Infinity, unsuccessfully. Several of them. Ended up pulling them all, sitting in my homelab for now. Multiple full tables, nothing fancy for firewall or QOS, but ran into issues with random ribd/bgpd crashes and kernel panics. I've submitted a lot of logs and core dumps to UBNT. I would

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Hello Jeremy, Le 04/07/2017 à 01:10, Jeremy Austin a écrit : > can certainly handle a few tens of thousands of > routes fine (single core BGP though), It can take multiple full views. It's also faster than an MX104. > but I can't vouch for its ability to > do IMIX or *flow at line rate I

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

BTW... At Fandor (before I left) we got one of the last /24s that ARIN had. Our transit providers at the office were Monkey Brains (wireless) and Zayo (fiber). We purchased a ER Pro, upgraded the memory and were peering v4 with both on this box. MB didn't have V6 at that point. We did nail

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

6.3 ;) - Josh On Jul 5, 2017 2:10 PM, "Paul Gear" wrote: > On 04/07/17 12:28, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > > > ... > >>> > >>> As far as automation, it's a JunOS-like CLI originally based on vyatta, > >>> which AT now owns - and one of the main reasons is it's >

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On 04/07/17 12:28, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > ... >>> >>> As far as automation, it's a JunOS-like CLI originally based on vyatta, >>> which AT now owns - and one of the main reasons is it's scriptability, >>> use of Ansible and other tools right on the device, python, etc. > > Technically I

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

The RAM is upgradeable but it can support quite a few full tables out of the box. The routing software under the hood got upgraded by Ubiquiti to ZebOS https://www.ipinfusion.com/products/zebos/ from the VyOS code. There is a Cavium bug regarding UDP packets though that can be nasty if you hit

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

I kinda feel the same way. I wish FRR was a big more mature at this point though. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Why not use a Linux or BSD computer for this? It is cheap and you know > exactly what you are getting. It will forward 10 gig at

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Why not use a Linux or BSD computer for this? It is cheap and you know exactly what you are getting. It will forward 10 gig at line rate at least for normal traffic. Regards Baldur Den 3. jul. 2017 21.08 skrev "Job Snijders" : > Dear NANOG, > > Some friends of mine are

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

EdgeOS was forked and employees were poached from Vyatta before it was purchased by Broadcom, when it was open source. I think a few things came down from VyOS after that, but not many. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > On Mon 2017-Jul-03 19:26:17 -0500,

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On Mon 2017-Jul-03 19:26:17 -0500, Josh Reynolds wrote: On Jul 3, 2017 7:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" wrote: Specs... - MIPS64 16 Core 1.8 GHz - 16 GB DDR4 RAM - 8 MB NOR Flash 4 GB eMMC NAND Flash - Data Ports: (1) RJ45 Serial Port, (8)

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

- Josh On Jul 3, 2017 7:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" wrote: > Specs... > > >- MIPS64 16 Core 1.8 GHz >- 16 GB DDR4 RAM >- 8 MB NOR Flash 4 GB eMMC NAND Flash >- Data Ports: (1) RJ45 Serial Port, (8) SFP+ Ports (1) RJ45 Gigabit >Ethernet Port >- 2 hotswap

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > EdgeRouter is... meh. If I was looking at that class of gear I'd go with a > Mikrotik. Job, There is a bit of a price differential here, depending on whether you need SFP+; the Infinity is "dead cheap", and has

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On 7/3/17 12:07 PM, Job Snijders wrote: I was wondering whether anyone was experience with the "EdgeRouter Infinity XG" device, specifically in the role of a simple peering router for a couple of tens of thousands of routes. (I'd point default to the left and take just the on-net routes on the

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

3, 2017 2:07:28 PM Subject: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? Dear NANOG, Some friends of mine are operating a nonprofit (on shoe string) and looking to connect some CDN caches to an IX fabric. A BGP speaking device is needed between the caches a

EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Dear NANOG, Some friends of mine are operating a nonprofit (on shoe string) and looking to connect some CDN caches to an IX fabric. A BGP speaking device is needed between the caches and the BGP peers connected to the fabric. The BGP speaker is needed to present the peers on the IX with a unified

IXP economics Was: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Well. Its complicated. I think this is far more political than about COGS. But hey. Why not? I agree with Dave. Shocking. I know. At least the context. He's right. Thanks for reminding us. We know these things. We'll have to see how IXP communities react now. Perhaps espresso service

Re: Global/distributed IXP operators?

29 May 2016, at 13:26, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > Could you define what you mean by a distributed\global IXP? There are plenty > of IXPs, but there aren't really global IXPs, those just become networks. > > > > > - > Mike Hammett >

Re: Global/distributed IXP operators?

Could you define what you mean by a distributed\global IXP? There are plenty of IXPs, but there aren't really global IXPs, those just become networks. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

Global/distributed IXP operators?

If there are any operators working at distributed/global IXPs and wouldn't mind having their brains picked regarding design questions, would you make yourselves known to me (on or off-list is fine). Thanks, Dan

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:37:35PM -0500, Phil Bedard wrote: I think in fairly short order both TRILL and 802.1AQ will be depercated in place of VXLAN and using BGP EVPN as the control plane ala Juniper QFX5100/Nexus 9300. We also evaluated VXLAN for IXP deployment, since Trident-2

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

for IXP deployment, since Trident-2 introduced HW support for it. But VXLAN does *not* create a network for you, it relies on some existing underlying IP network, on top of which VXLAN creates stateless tunnels. By using TRILL, we could connect 4 switches into a ring (or any other reasonable

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On 1/17/15, 7:15 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian Ďurkovič wrote: Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL setup is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path IP-like routing for L2 ethernet packets

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On 19/01/2015 10:12, Marian Ďurkovič wrote: Thus if you use VPLS or SPB-M on Trident HW, the egress PE doesn't support per-flow loadbalancing on IXP participants' LAGs. not completely true. Extreme XOS has an interesting hack to work around this. Nick

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

on outgoing LAGs depends on *inbound* packet encapsulation as follows: - native ethernet, TRILL, L3 MPLS : hash based on L3 and L4 headers - L2 MPLS, MACinMAC : hash based on L2 headers only. Thus if you use VPLS or SPB-M on Trident HW, the egress PE doesn't support per-flow loadbalancing on IXP

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian Ďurkovič wrote: Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL setup is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path IP-like routing for L2 ethernet packets over any reasonable topology out of the box

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

. Dear Nanog community We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have multiple POPs and I was wondering what do you recommend for L2 switches. I know that some IXPs use Nexus, Brocade, Force10 but I don't personally have experience with these switches. It would be great

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

We always adhere to JTAC: http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=contentid=KB21476actp=SUBSCRI PTION unless otherwise required by their support to change. Currently it is Junos 13.2X51-D26. My advice to you is to not use 14.1 unless you have a reason, as that is more of a dev branch in

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Stephen R. Carter stephen.car...@gltgc.org wrote: We love our 5100s here. Out of interest: Are you running 13.2 or 14.1? What features are you using? Our own experiences with a bunch of 48 96 port machines running 14.1 is painful to say the least. Richard

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

...@esds.com.br Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo Schoedler 2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru: Is there any particular reason you prefer

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:25:30 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote: AhhhŠ vertically integrated horizontal API¹s Green, vertically integrated horizontal API's :-). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:47:09 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote: Got you - artificially disabling 90% of the features otherwise supported by the OS and using half baked HAL makes product SDN ready! Sorry for the sarcasm, couldn¹t resist :) I once tested a Junos release with the X blah blah D

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

You can see what we have at the SIX here -  http://www.seattleix.net/topology.html Mike -- Michael K. Smith mksm...@mac.com On Jan 11, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Manuel Marín m...@transtelco.net wrote: Dear Nanog community We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have multiple

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G ports with EX4600 ? I'm

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo Schoedler 2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru: Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

We love our 5100s here. I have 4 48S, and 2 24q¹s. Super fast, TISSU when it works is awesome as well... like, really awesome. Stephen Carter | IT Systems Administrator | Gun Lake Tribal Gaming Commission 1123 129th Avenue, Wayland, MI 49348 Phone 269.792.1773 On 1/13/15, 3:29 AM, Stepan

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP On 13/01/2015 22:10, Jeff Tantsura wrote: What does it mean - to be SDN ready? it means fully buzzword compliant. Nick

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo Schoedler 2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru: Is there any

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

Either way, you can do SDN and automation with most Juniper kit. On purchase of JCare you get free access to Junos Space - great for provisioning and management of an IXP. Regards, Tim Raphael On 14 Jan 2015, at 6:28 am, Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br wrote: My mistake, it's

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

at 2:28 PM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP My mistake, it's the OCX1100. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2855056/sdn/juniper-unbundles-switch-h ardware-software.html 2015-01-13 20:10 GMT-02:00 Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

and that supposedly allow you to create Ethernet Fabric/Clusters. The requirements are simple, 1G/10G ports for exchange participants, 40G/100G for uplinks between switches and flow support for statistics and traffic analysis. Stupid thought from someone who has never built an IXP, but has been looking

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

What does it mean - to be SDN ready? Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On 13/01/2015 22:10, Jeff Tantsura wrote: What does it mean - to be SDN ready? it means fully buzzword compliant. Nick

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

I look forward to this thread. I think one important thing is who is your addressable market size? I'm working with a startup IXP and there's only 20 carriers in the building. A chassis based switch would be silly as there would never be that many people present. 2x 1U switches would be more

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On 12/01/2015 06:35, Manuel Marín wrote: We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have multiple POPs and I was wondering what do you recommend for L2 switches. I know that some IXPs use Nexus, Brocade, Force10 but I don't personally have experience with these switches

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

is your addressable market size? I'm working with a startup IXP and there's only 20 carriers in the building. A chassis based switch would be silly as there would never be that many people present. 2x 1U switches would be more than plenty in their environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

addressable market size? I'm working with a startup IXP and there's only 20 carriers in the building. A chassis based switch would be silly as there would never be that many people present. 2x 1U switches would be more than plenty in their environment. - Mike Hammett

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

is your addressable market size? I'm working with a startup IXP and there's only 20 carriers in the building. A chassis based switch would be silly as there would never be that many people present. 2x 1U switches would be more than plenty in their environment. - Mike Hammett

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: [ clip, good stuff ] - you should get in with the open-ix crowd and chat to people over pizza or peanuts. You will learn a lot from in an afternoon of immersion with peers. And you can find that crowd here

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

, and 70% of IXPs have 24 or fewer participants. And the failure rate of chassis-based switches is _way_ higher than that of stand-alone switches. So we never recommend that an IXP buy a switch larger than necessary to accommodate 18 months reasonably-projectable growth. Would tend to agree

RE: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS. cheers

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

That's what I had recommended him directly ;) Mehmet On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Tony Wicks t...@wicks.co.nz wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 -

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Tony Wicks t...@wicks.co.nz wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

participants. And the failure rate of chassis-based switches is _way_ higher than that of stand-alone switches. So we never recommend that an IXP buy a switch larger than necessary to accommodate 18 months reasonably-projectable growth. -Bill signature.asc

Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

Dear Nanog community We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have multiple POPs and I was wondering what do you recommend for L2 switches. I know that some IXPs use Nexus, Brocade, Force10 but I don't personally have experience with these switches. It would be great

Is there list of IXPs (containing the information of the AS# of the IXP)

Hi everyone, I'm searching for a list of IXPS which contains the information of the ASN of the IXP. Some resources are good: https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/?show_active_only=0sort=trafficorder=desc https://www.telegeography.com/products/internet-exchange-directory/profiles-by-name

Re: Is there list of IXPs (containing the information of the AS# of the IXP)

On 2014-12-22 14:30, Song Li wrote: Hi everyone, I'm searching for a list of IXPS which contains the information of the ASN of the IXP. Some resources are good: https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/?show_active_only=0sort=trafficorder=desc https://www.telegeography.com/products

Re: Is there list of IXPs (containing the information of the AS# of the IXP)

I'm searching for a list of IXPS which contains the information of the ASN of the IXP. the best source is https://www.peeringdb.com/ [ i was amused to find CIX (http://www.cix.org/, the one which used to be in the bay) still in my ix bookmarks. ] randy

Re: Is there list of IXPs (containing the information of the AS# of the IXP)

I'm searching for a list of IXPS which contains the information of the ASN of the IXP. * ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) [Mon 22 Dec 2014, 14:54 CET]: the best source is https://www.peeringdb.com/ It's not. Let's take an example, AMS-IX: https://www.peeringdb.com/private/exchange_view.php?id=26

Re: Is there list of IXPs (containing the information of the AS# of the IXP)

On 22/12/2014 13:50, Jeroen Massar wrote: IXs themselves do not have ASNs, as they are Layer 2 providers. most modern IXPs will have an ASN for their route server, and possibly a separate asn for their mgmt infrastructure. Not sure how useful the mgmt ASN is, although most IXPs will

Re: Is there list of IXPs (containing the information of the AS# of the IXP)

在 2014/12/22 22:26, Nick Hilliard 写道: On 22/12/2014 13:50, Jeroen Massar wrote: IXs themselves do not have ASNs, as they are Layer 2 providers. most modern IXPs will have an ASN for their route server, and possibly a separate asn for their mgmt infrastructure. Not sure how useful the mgmt

  1   2   3   >