Re: Force10 E Series at the edge?
Brent, While the E300 can probably get your job done for more flexibility and growth I would personally steer you towards the E600 (or E600i now). It is slightly outside of your RU requirement coming in at 16 RU but it fits the bill otherwise. The main reasons I make this suggestion is due to the fact that the E600i chassis gives you numerous options. The standard LC memory config is 10M, however you can buy cards with an increased 40M cam as well. Also Force10 has redundant route processors but takes it a little farther. The RPM which is redundant and supports hitless failover has three CPU's. CP - Control Processor RP1 - Handles the majority of the Layer 3 protocols RP2 - Handles the majority of the Layer 2 protocols including sflow. I could have that swapped in my head but its one way or the other. On the linecards you can change your memory allocation provisioning as well if need be, granted its more useful when you have the 40M CAM cards. The E600i can also be configured two ways.. 1 as a TeraScale supporting 4x10G XFP linerate and 16x10G XFP OverSub as well as 1G, or an ExaScale supporting 10x10G linerate and 40x10G OverSub. As well as numerous 1G options as well, take a look at this chart: http://i.dell.com/sites/content/shared-content/data-sheets/en/Documents/Dell_Force10_Switch_Reference_Guide.pdf Redundancy/Availability 1+1 redundant RPMs 4:1 redundant SFMs 1+1 redundant DC PEMs 2+2 redundant AC PSMs - 200/240 VAC 3+1 redundant AC PSMs - 100/120 VAC and 200/240 VAC FTOS is quite polished these days as well, and command accounting does work. Its just not captured in the switch log, but does record just fine on the TACACS side: 2012-03-28 23:12:29 -0700 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx bbianchi vty0 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx stop task_id=410 timezone=UTC service=shell priv-lvl=15 cmd=show interfaces description cr Id be happy to answer any specific questions you may have off list as well. -Brandon I have been supporting a large Force10 install base for a few years now and can attest to On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Roberts, Brent wrote: Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of traffic. BGP session count would be between 2 and 4 Peers. 6k internal Prefix count as it stands right now. Alternative are welcome. Thought about the ASR1006 but I need some local switching as well. Full requirements include Full internet Peering over GigE Links. Fully Redundant Power Redundant Supervisor/Route Processor Would prefer a Small Chassis unit. (under 10u) Would also prefer a single unit as opposed to a two smaller units. This email and any attached files may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended solely for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it and all attachments from your computer. Progressive Solutions is not liable for any errors or omissions in the content or transmission of this email.
Re: BCP38 Deployment
The power of defaults. The few successful Internet security best practice changes have primarily resulted from changes to default settings, not trying to get ISPs, operators, sysadmins or users to change. Smurf attacks - change default directed-broadcast settings in dominant router vendors Open SMTP relays - changed default SMTP server settings in dominant SMTP software sources/vendors Windows network-level worms - changed default Windows XP/SP2 firewall settings to closed inbound Although it may take 10+ years for a product replacement cycle (Windows XP is taking a longer), the same laziness/money/ignorance reasons why its nearly impossible to get people to implement best practices is why a change to the default settings is so effective. The few times the new default doesn't work, the operator then has an incentive to change it. The times the default doesn't impact the operator, there is no incentive to change it. Expecting an average person (ISP, sysadmin, programmer, etc) to discover and understand many obscure configuration options which don't directly impact what they want to do isn't realistic. People tend to not pro-actively look for problems until it causes them a problem. Even worse, systems tend to revert back to defaults when a mistake or change to unrelated parts of the system are made without the user/operator realizing it. The experts are the people who created the open source software or vendors creating the product, not the users/customers. SSH is a rare example where operators pro-actively sought and changed their behaivor; but even then, there were probably more operators that went with the default.
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records. It was prototype code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have since sold the domains and they moved to other registries. But they did support it for a while. I too had with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on regarding or IPvWhat?. I suspect all of the people there that know about these types of things have moved on. Netsol has been leaking people since their sale to web.com last year, from actual layoffs and fear of the same. ~matt
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch. /as On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote: On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records. It was prototype code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have since sold the domains and they moved to other registries. But they did support it for a while. I too had with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on regarding or IPvWhat?. I suspect all of the people there that know about these types of things have moved on. Netsol has been leaking people since their sale to web.com last year, from actual layoffs and fear of the same. ~matt
Re: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber
Joe, We have a wide variety of both Internet and MPLS (WAN) circuits in Alabama from ATT and ITC/Deltacom (Now Earthlink Business). They both have a significant footprint in Alabama. Check with Earthlink Business. -Hammer- I was a normal American nerd -Jack Herer On 3/21/2012 10:44 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Hey All, I have a site in Alabama that could really use some additional diversity, but apparently ATT fiber is the only game in town. If anybody has any options, such as fixed wireless in the 10-50mbs, please reply to me, off-list. Best, Joe .
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
+1 If after all this time they haven't been able to have support for records, they are doing a really lousy job. regards Carlos On 3/29/12 10:25 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch. /as On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote: On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records. It was prototype code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have since sold the domains and they moved to other registries. But they did support it for a while. I too had with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on regarding or IPvWhat?. I suspect all of the people there that know about these types of things have moved on. Netsol has been leaking people since their sale to web.com last year, from actual layoffs and fear of the same. ~matt
Re: ifHighSpeed for 10 Gb/s port-channels
Hi, On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin fel...@starbyte.net wrote: Hello, can anyone confirm why IF-MIB::ifHighSpeed should return 0 for aggregates of 10 Gbit/s ports? just to confirm what all those helpful souls told me off-list: most vendors (Cisco, Juniper, NetScalar) returns ifHighSpeed as sum of current link aggregate members speed. Something like: IF-MIB::ifHighSpeed.369098752 = Gauge32: 2 or maybe, depends on your equipment configuration or model IF-MIB::ifHighSpeed.14 = Gauge32: 2 My google-foo led me to several topics on use ifHighSpeed to 10 Gbit/s, but none is clear on 10 Gbit/s aggregated. So far I could only find references pointing to IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 clause 6.3.1.1.16 (aAggDataRate), mapping to IF-MIB::ifSpeed, which is locked in 4,294,967,295 (Gauge32). In this same standard it is very specific about ifHighSpeed: Set to zero.. Or, more directly: how can one find current speed of a 10Gb/s+ link aggregate port? Looks like it's a vendor thing, so blame them if it's different for you. :) Please, answer me off-list and I promise to summarize an answer... :) Wish to thank you all once more, this data helped me a lot! Kindly, Felipe
RE: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per domain name. Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives. Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor GoDaddy :-) Tony Patti CIO S. Walter Packaging Corp. -Original Message- From: Mike Gallagher [mailto:m...@txih.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM To: Joseph Snyder Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arturo Servin Subject: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ? Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services? If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in the bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol though. On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Joseph Snyder joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000 employees. Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote: Another reason to not use them. Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names.. Regards, .as On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote: On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating. If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer. regards, Carlos On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ? Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision. Regards, -drc That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain. --John
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical? On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Patti t...@swalter.com wrote: No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per domain name. Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives. Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor GoDaddy :-) Tony Patti CIO S. Walter Packaging Corp. -Original Message- From: Mike Gallagher [mailto:m...@txih.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM To: Joseph Snyder Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arturo Servin Subject: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ? Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services? If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in the bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol though. On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Joseph Snyder joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000 employees. Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote: Another reason to not use them. Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names.. Regards, .as On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote: On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating. If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer. regards, Carlos On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ? Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision. Regards, -drc That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain. --John
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, james jones ja...@freedomnet.co.nz wrote: Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical? If your goal is , i assume you care about native IPv6 as mandatory feature. And, if you care about native IPv6 as a mandatory, EC2 is not your best better. They have competition that work very well in this realm of providing native IPv6. CB
airFiber
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point. http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
On 2012-03-29 18:21 , james jones wrote: Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical? They tend to not do IPv6, let alone native IPv6, they also tend to be behind a IPv4 NAT (which is why lots of folks use AYIYA tunnels to give them IPv6 connectivity) and more importantly on this subject, you still need a registrar to actually link the domain name from the tld to your server and for that purpose you need glue records and not many support those, but it is getting better. Greets, Jeroen
Re: airFiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point. http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it ships. I almost posted it in the last-mile thread. Even compared to other hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is amazing. I also recommend watching the video they posted: http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each end. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical? Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue? Or did I miss the original intention? Regards, Tim.
Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
Apparently they support quad-A glues if you phone them and ask for them. Personally, I run my own DNS servers, but sometimes it's not an option. My friend, who originally had this issue, is in a different business line, he is not proficient in DNS server operation, and thus he's comfortable hosting his DNS somewhere. He spent one hour on the phone this morning with Netsol to see if he could create a subdomain pointing to a DNS server I operate. It was also a no-go, he got fed up with them and is changing registrars. Thanks for all the input. regards Carlos On 3/29/12 1:47 PM, Tim Franklin wrote: Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical? Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue? Or did I miss the original intention? Regards, Tim.
RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky. Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM To: Eugen Leitl Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: airFiber On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point. http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it ships. I almost posted it in the last-mile thread. Even compared to other hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is amazing. I also recommend watching the video they posted: http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each end. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: airFiber
Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes: I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky. Thanks, -Drew Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other wireless link and the associated Fresnel zone ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone Even 100 Mbit/s wireless equipment (which ubqt also happens to make great gear for, at 800 USD / link) will need unobstructed view of the remote point - and it's not all or nothing, the performance will degrade. Cheers, Phil
Re: airFiber
They are taking pre-orders now for a (hopefully) June delivery. I'm at a conference now and got the rundown yesterday from Ubiquiti. This product was designed completely from the ground up by the former Motorola Canopy 100 team. It -should- deliver ~700mbit in both directions @ full duplex. Note that 24ghz is very susceptible to rain fade and should be used in caution in certain climates, especially at longer distances approaching 10+km. Anyhow, check the video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview - it's worth watching. Josh On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Phil Regnauld regna...@nsrc.org wrote: Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes: I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky. Thanks, -Drew Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other wireless link and the associated Fresnel zone ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone Even 100 Mbit/s wireless equipment (which ubqt also happens to make great gear for, at 800 USD / link) will need unobstructed view of the remote point - and it's not all or nothing, the performance will degrade. Cheers, Phil
RE: airFiber
It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5 ghz gear can. It's 24ghz. They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert. In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this would be like between two buildings requiring highspeed backhaul. (Were talking roof-top to roof-top of maybe a few thousand feet or more between them. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM To: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org Subject: RE: airFiber I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky. Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM To: Eugen Leitl Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: airFiber On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point. http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it ships. I almost posted it in the last-mile thread. Even compared to other hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is amazing. I also recommend watching the video they posted: http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each end. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote: Anyhow, check the video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview - it's worth watching. The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between 10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation of an extensive article on a nebraska wisp whose network is backhaul radios on towers about 5 miles apart. he is on over 100 towers across a space of 150 miles by roughly 40 miles here is the text of the video which indeed is very good Robert Pera, CEO Ubiquity: Ubiquity had a lot of strength. We had hardware design software design, mechanical design, antenna design. We had firmware and protocol design but the one thing that we were missing was really our own radio design at our old modem design. Engineer 1: The group of guys who are here have been working together for about 20 years. we collectively have a lot of experience in the wireless data world - probably more so than any other company. This team of people originally were all hired into Motorola, some of us go back to the late 1980s. We actually worked on a program called altair. Altair was one of the 1st attempts at doing in building wireless networking. It was the 1st wireless local area network product ever. It was actually the 1st time that I am aware of that anyone had actually built a broadband wireless networking product. What we did on altair continued on through Motorola and eventually became a product called canopy. Canopy is a very popular product now. It is a wireless Internet distribution system used to provide high-speed Internet people in houses where there typically is no access to cable or to DSL Gary Schulz: we had kind of run the canopy product through its maturity and did not see a lot of additional room for growth there. When the ubiquity management approached us, we were looking for the opportunity to continue to build new stuff and that's what made it very interesting to come over and work for Ubiquity Because their focus is on the new stuff. It is on working on high speed and low cost. The freedom to design at our level was just go and do it. What are you going to do? it was like start with a clean sheet of paper. start with nothing. We could build and design this product in any way we saw fit. The idea was just to be the best we could. air fiber is the start of the new product line within Ubiquity. It is the 1st of several products that are highly efficient, high data rate, wireless broadband products. Greg Bedian: Our design is something that is a little bit crazy. We are trying to build a 0 IF radio at 24 GHz and do this for a 100 MHz bandwidth which is something that I am not sure anyone else has been crazy enough to try. Chuck Macenski: As fast as you can send a packet on an ethernet wire we can receive it and transmit with no limitations. Air fiber is designed to be mounted in a reasonably high location. It is a point to point network where the 2 antennas see each other. this is a system that under certain circumstances can work up to 10 miles. It is going to be very easy to deploy and align. It is a product that is going to require only one person to carry it up the tower and install it. There is a display on the bottom that tells you what sort of power is being received as well as a very comprehensive web interface. We designed all aspects of it. The modem, the radio, the mechanical housing. This is a completely designed from scratch, purpose built solution just to deliver backhaul. So it is not based on wi-fi or anybody else's standards. As a result it does not suffer from any of the other overhead normally associated with that. Built for speed -- if you want to compare the data rates of existing products to our product, other products on the market today would give you the expected data rate of the flow of water through a garden hose. Our product will provide the flow rate of a firehose. This product will provide 1.4 Gb per second of data flow which is 300 times faster than you would normally be able to get from your own home Internet service provider. Operators will be able to get 10 to 100 times more data throughput for the same dollar. That is the big impact that this product is going to have. Rick Keniuk: we looked at 24 GHz. We actually wanted to do something up in high frequency and that happens to be the next unlicensed band beyond six gigahertz. You can put it out anywhere. You don't have to do anything. No special paperwork. No license fees. Nobody to go get permission from to operate the radio. The nice part is that it him allows anyone to operate the product and started up without any issues of having to get licenses or jump through certain hoops of where you can place the product. It is a freedom thing. Inside the air Fiber Design -- As far as I know no one builds a modem with this
Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
Thanks Jacob and Alex. Appreciate your reply. On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jacob Broussard shadowedstrangerli...@gmail.com wrote: While I can't provide an average, I can say we generally have anywhere from 2-5 microwaves on most sites (with a few exceptions that only have 1, and a few that have more.) Our MWs go up to 1.6gbps. The sites aren't provisioned a set amount of bandwidth, they can use as much as they want (up to the capacity of the aggregate of their links), which almost never puts our BH anywhere near capacity, unless the ring gets cut near the pop and we have to move lots of data through just a couple of sites. (Sorry for the crappy formatting, small and barely usable phone screen.) Thanks! -Jacob On Mar 28, 2012 1:45 AM, Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com wrote: Hi Nice discussion. Just a small question here - how much backhaul at present 2G, 3G and LTE based towers have? Just curious to hear an average number. I agree it would be a significant difference from busy street in New York to less crowded area say in Michigan but what sort of bandwidth telcos provision per tower? On fiber - I can imagine virtually unlimited bandwidth with incremental cost of optical instruments but how much to wireless backhaul based sites? Do they put Gigabit microwave everywhere? If not then say 100Mbps? If so then how end users on Verizon LTE people individual users get 10Mbps and so on? Is that operated at high contention? Thanks! (Sent from my mobile device) Anurag Bhatia http://anuragbhatia.com On Mar 27, 2012 10:26 PM, Alexander Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:45 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Broussard shadowedstrangerli...@gmail.com wrote: Who knows what technology will be like in 5-10 years? That's the whole point of what he was trying to say. Maybe wireless carriers will use visible wavelength lasers to recievers on top of customer's houses for all we know. 10 years is a LONG time for tech, and anything can happen. Regarding lasers. I agree that modulating a laser beam to carry information is a great idea. Perhaps, though, we could direct the beam down some sort of optical pipe or waveguide to spare ourselves the refractive losses and keep the pigeons and rain and whatnot out of the Fresnel zone. We might call it an optical wire or optical fibre or something. no, it'll never catch on... Hi Jacob, The scientists doing the basic research now know. It's referred to as the technology pipeline. When someone says, that's in the pipeline they mean that the basic science has been discovered to make something possible and now engineers are in the process of figuring out how to make it _viable_. The pipeline tends to be 5 to 10 years long, so basic science researchers are making the discoveries *now* which will be reflected in deployed technologies 10 years from now. I recall an Agilent Technologies presentation from a couple of years back that demonstrated that historically, the great majority of incremental capacity on cellular networks was accounted for by cell subdivision. Better air interfaces help, more spectrum helps, but as the maximum system throughput is roughly defined by (spectral efficiency * spectrum)* number of cells (assuming an even traffic distribution and no intercell interference or re-use overhead, for the sake of a finger exercise), nothing beats more cells. As a result, the Wireless Pony will only save you if you can find a 10GigE Backhaul Pony to service the extra cells. After a certain degree of density, you'd need almost as much fibre (and more to the point, trench mileage) to service a couple of small cells per street as you would to *pass the houses in the street with fibre*. One of the great things FTTH gets you is a really awesome backhaul network for us cell heads. One of the reasons we were able to roll out 3G in the first place was that DSL got deployed and you could provision on two or a dozen DSL lines for a cell site. You can't have wireless without backhaul (barring implausible discoveries in fundamental mesh network theory). Most wireless capacity comes from cell subdivision. Subdivision demands more backhaul. There is *nothing* promising in the pipeline for wireless tech that has any real chance of leading to a wide scale replacement for fiber optic cable. *Nothing.* Which means that in 10 years, wireless will be better, faster and cheaper but it won't have made significant inroads replacing fiber to the home and business. 20 years is a long time. 10 years, not so much. Even for the long times, we can find the future by examining the past. The duration of use of the predecessor technology (twisted pair) was about 50 years ubiquitously deployed to homes. From
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
Respectfully, the claim isn't a decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth between 10 and 100 times, the claim is Operators will be able to get 10 to 100 times more data throughput for the same dollar. which granted is a very good thing, but it does not imply how much more money one would have to spend with a competitor to reach that bandwidth level. It is only an assumption that you would have to buy between 10 and 100 of the competitor's products and put them in parallel (not feasible anyway) to get the same performance thereby costing between 10 and 100 times a much. Logically it's possible that the competitor's product which matches AirFiber is only penny more, which it's not, but that's all one could logically conclude from UBNT's statement - for the same price you get a lot more bandwidth _not_ how much more you'd have to spend to get that performance level from a competitor. Ubiquiti gear is shattering price barriers, but I believe the difference in cost between their product and their competition's which can offer the same bandwidth is less than 10:1 and certainly not 100:1. AirFiber is reported to be $3000 a pair (both ends of the link). 100:1 would mean the competitor's cost is $300,000. I don't believe anyone else's 24 GHz UNLICENSED gear is in that price range. Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future. Greg On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Gordon Cook wrote: On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote: Anyhow, check the video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview - it's worth watching. The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between 10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation of an extensive article on a nebraska wisp whose network is backhaul radios on towers about 5 miles apart. he is on over 100 towers across a space of 150 miles by roughly 40 miles here is the text of the video which indeed is very good Robert Pera, CEO Ubiquity: Ubiquity had a lot of strength. We had hardware design software design, mechanical design, antenna design. We had firmware and protocol design but the one thing that we were missing was really our own radio design at our old modem design. Engineer 1: The group of guys who are here have been working together for about 20 years. we collectively have a lot of experience in the wireless data world - probably more so than any other company. This team of people originally were all hired into Motorola, some of us go back to the late 1980s. We actually worked on a program called altair. Altair was one of the 1st attempts at doing in building wireless networking. It was the 1st wireless local area network product ever. It was actually the 1st time that I am aware of that anyone had actually built a broadband wireless networking product. What we did on altair continued on through Motorola and eventually became a product called canopy. Canopy is a very popular product now. It is a wireless Internet distribution system used to provide high-speed Internet people in houses where there typically is no access to cable or to DSL Gary Schulz: we had kind of run the canopy product through its maturity and did not see a lot of additional room for growth there. When the ubiquity management approached us, we were looking for the opportunity to continue to build new stuff and that's what made it very interesting to come over and work for Ubiquity Because their focus is on the new stuff. It is on working on high speed and low cost. The freedom to design at our level was just go and do it. What are you going to do? it was like start with a clean sheet of paper. start with nothing. We could build and design this product in any way we saw fit. The idea was just to be the best we could. air fiber is the start of the new product line within Ubiquity. It is the 1st of several products that are highly efficient, high data rate, wireless broadband products. Greg Bedian: Our design is something that is a little bit crazy. We are trying to build a 0 IF radio at 24 GHz and do this for a 100 MHz bandwidth which is something that I am not sure anyone else has been crazy enough to try. Chuck Macenski: As fast as you can send a packet on an ethernet wire we can receive it and transmit with no limitations. Air fiber is designed to be mounted in a reasonably high location. It is a point to point network
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future. Greg I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24 Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz available @ 24 Ghz. It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future. Oliver
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for backhual. Probably cheaper more reliable solution then hanging lasers between towers for backhaul? On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.netwrote: Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future. Greg I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24 Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz available @ 24 Ghz. It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future. Oliver -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2600:3c01:e000:1::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Twitter: @anurag_bhatia https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.net wrote: I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I suspect this is just due to cost and practicality. ISPs, nor users will want to pay 3k USD, nor widely utilize a service that requires near-direct LOS. I could see this working well in rural or sparse areas that might not mind the transceiver. I guess point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24 Ghz. The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for use still should comply with FCC's part 15 rules though. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz available @ 24 Ghz. Being so directional, I'm not sure that cross-talk will as much of an issue, except for dense hub-like sites. It sounds like there's some novel application of using GPS timing to make the radios spectrally orthogonal -- that's pretty cool. If they can somehow coordinate timing across point-to-point links, that would be great for sites that co-locate multiple link terminations. Overall, this looks like a pretty cool product! --j
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.net wrote: I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I suspect this is just due to cost and practicality. ISPs, nor users will want to pay 3k USD, nor widely utilize a service that requires near-direct LOS. I could see this working well in rural or sparse areas that might not mind the transceiver. Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a tower full of them you're going to have issues. I guess point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24 Ghz. The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for use still should comply with FCC's part 15 rules though. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz available @ 24 Ghz. Being so directional, I'm not sure that cross-talk will as much of an issue, except for dense hub-like sites. It sounds like there's some novel application of using GPS timing to make the radios spectrally orthogonal -- that's pretty cool. If they can somehow coordinate timing across point-to-point links, that would be great for sites that co-locate multiple link terminations. Overall, this looks like a pretty cool product! --j
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a tower full of them you're going to have issues. This is exactly the kind of case that I'm thinking about (central towers). The novel thing Ubiquiti seems to do is TDMA-like channelization (like with Airmax), or by changing the coding scheme over the air to maintain orthogonality (what it sounds like this new product may be doing). --j
Re: BCP38 Deployment
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:45:12AM -0700, David Conrad wrote: Leo, On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: #1) Money. #2) Laziness. While Patrick is spot on, there is a third issue which is related to money and laziness, but also has some unique aspects. BCP38 makes the assumption that the ISP does some configuration to insure only properly sourced packets enter the network. That may have been true when BCP38 was written, but no longer accurately reflects how networks are built and operated. An interesting assertion. I haven't looked at how end-user networks are built recently. I had assumed there continue to be customer aggregation points within ISP infrastructure in which BCP38-type filtering could occur. You're saying this is no longer the case? What has replaced it? uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements) and job done. It assisted in reducing our abuse desk workload by eliminating a class of attacks from us, so the trivial cost was worth it in opex. ISTR it being on the required feature list for additional CMTS evaluations but it has been many years since I touched that kit. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG
RE: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber
Someone else to check is USCarrier (http://www.uscarrier.com/), they are a smaller regional fiber transit provider I've had great experiences with in the past. They only have a few POPs in Alabama though. Good luck, -Scott -Original Message- From: -Hammer- [mailto:bhmc...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:27 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber Joe, We have a wide variety of both Internet and MPLS (WAN) circuits in Alabama from ATT and ITC/Deltacom (Now Earthlink Business). They both have a significant footprint in Alabama. Check with Earthlink Business. -Hammer- I was a normal American nerd -Jack Herer On 3/21/2012 10:44 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Hey All, I have a site in Alabama that could really use some additional diversity, but apparently ATT fiber is the only game in town. If anybody has any options, such as fixed wireless in the 10-50mbs, please reply to me, off-list. Best, Joe .
Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote: Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future. Greg I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24 Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz available @ 24 Ghz. It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future. Oliver I don't think it's an FCC issue so much as 24Ghz has so much fade tendency with atmospheric moisture that an omnidirectional antenna is about as effective as a resistor coupled to ground (i.e. dummy load). The only way you can get a signal to go any real distance at that frequency is to use a highly directional high-gain antenna at both ends. Owen
Re: BCP38 Deployment
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote: uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements) uRPF: or as it's now used in ios, ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx ... I don't know what it would have to do with ip classless. It requires ip cef, but so do lots of other features including reasonably fast packet forwarding. and job done. It assisted in reducing our abuse desk workload by eliminating a class of attacks from us, so the trivial cost was worth it in opex. ISTR it being on the required feature list for additional CMTS evaluations but it has been many years since I touched that kit. uRPF stops your customers from sending forged source address packets. Since forged source address packets are rarely traced back to their actual source, I'm not sure how configuring it on your network would reduce your abuse desk workload at all. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: BCP38 Deployment
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:31:26PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote: uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements) uRPF: or as it's now used in ios, ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx ... I don't know what it would have to do with ip classless. Stated to counter 'config is hard' as there junk you have to do regardless. Add it to your standard specs and be done. uRPF stops your customers from sending forged source address packets. Since forged source address packets are rarely traced back to their actual source, I'm not sure how configuring it on your network would reduce your abuse desk workload at all. Guess we had better informed neighbors? :-) You caught the rhetoric; the cost was that trivial. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG
Comcast Ethernet Feed
We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant as well as a BGP feed across the same link. I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know best practice for deploying for optimal performance across this interface. Any ideas and or direction would be extremely helpful as we are seeing some real issues such as. Direct connect (without BGP) to the CPE from Comcast (Fiber to Ethernet) via a laptop gives the level of performance we would expect, However as soon as we terminate to our router via the GIGE which is set to 100MB full duplex and all flow control turned off (Negotiation auto) per Comcast and connect up via a 100MB fast Ethernet interface directly connected we get a fraction of the speed when direct connected. Ideas? BRW
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
On 3/29/12 6:36 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant as well as a BGP feed across the same link. I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know best practice for deploying for optimal performance across this interface. Any ideas and or direction would be extremely helpful as we are seeing some real issues such as. Direct connect (without BGP) to the CPE from Comcast (Fiber to Ethernet) via a laptop gives the level of performance we would expect, However as soon as we terminate to our router via the GIGE which is set to 100MB full duplex and all flow control turned off (Negotiation auto) per Comcast and connect up via a 100MB fast Ethernet interface directly connected we get a fraction of the speed when direct connected. From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 100BaseT interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 100-full, but rather only half. This leaves one end diff then the other and creates issues with performance. Try forcing both the laptop and router to 100-full and see if it helps. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Brielle Bruns wrote: From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 100BaseT interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 100-full, but rather only half. This leaves one end diff then the other and creates issues with performance. Try forcing both the laptop and router to 100-full and see if it helps. Those interfaces don't to auto-negotiation at all. That's why they default to 100 half. OP said they were using a Gig interface though. Maybe a copper 10/100/1000 port on an NPE-G1|2? I haven't used those, but I'd bet they support auto-negotiation. 1000baseT requires it. It'd be helpful to know how they've tested through the router, and if there are other connections routed through that VXR that are working at the expected rates. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
On 3/29/12 7:06 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: I'm pretty sure the PA-FE-TX boards can do auto neg, just not 100 full (just tested with a 7507 with a VIP4 w a PA-FE-TX and a cheap 10BT hub - my 7206VXR is not powered up ATM). Eh, just tried again to show someone and the link didn't even come up this time. I'll toss is up to an oddity or me misreading (likely the latter). My mistake. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our NPE-G1 that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do see the flow control is not supported via the other side (Comcast) but as soon as I refresh and view the GIG# interface again I note that flow control is turned back on and no negotiation auto is back on the interface cfg ?, this is certainly part of the issue .. is their a way to disable flow control on the onboard GIGE ? .. as stated Comcast does not want flow control on. Yes there are other ports on this router that perform without issue and as designed both other GIGE interfaces that are VLAN'ed and Serial interfaces that are both DS3 and a PA-4T bonded to 6MEG's. the GIGE cfg is as follows interface GigabitEthernet0/1 description Comcast Inet Feed Metro E 20MB bandwidth 10 ip address 12.12.12.12 255.255.255.252 no ip unreachables no ip route-cache load-interval 30 duplex full speed 100 media-type rj45 no negotiation auto no cdp enable We have 2GB of memory on this router with a very light load on the CPU. On 3/29/12 6:53 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Brielle Bruns wrote: From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 100BaseT interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 100-full, but rather only half. This leaves one end diff then the other and creates issues with performance. Try forcing both the laptop and router to 100-full and see if it helps. Those interfaces don't to auto-negotiation at all. That's why they default to 100 half. OP said they were using a Gig interface though. Maybe a copper 10/100/1000 port on an NPE-G1|2? I haven't used those, but I'd bet they support auto-negotiation. 1000baseT requires it. I'm pretty sure the PA-FE-TX boards can do auto neg, just not 100 full (just tested with a 7507 with a VIP4 w a PA-FE-TX and a cheap 10BT hub - my 7206VXR is not powered up ATM). Believe it has something to do with the DEC ethernet chip they use (I have an older desktop that just happens to have the same DEC chipset that those do and has exactly the same problem). Based on what he said, I read his setup as having a G1 or G2 NPE, using the on-NPE gig to hook to comcast, and a PA-FE-TX in one of the PA slots. At least, that's how it sounded to me - why else use 100BaseT on a gige as most laptops and desktops in the past... 4-5 years or so have onboard gige? -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
On 3/29/12 7:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our NPE-G1 that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do see the flow control is not supported via the other side (Comcast) but as soon as I refresh and view the GIG# interface again I note that flow control is turned back on and no negotiation auto is back on the interface cfg ?, this is certainly part of the issue .. is their a way to disable flow control on the onboard GIGE ? .. as stated Comcast does not want flow control on. Yes there are other ports on this router that perform without issue and as designed both other GIGE interfaces that are VLAN'ed and Serial interfaces that are both DS3 and a PA-4T bonded to 6MEG's. How do you have the PA modules installed? Layout can make a huge difference on those given the bandwidth points system. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7200/configuration/7200_port_adapter_config_guidelines/3875In.html#wp1061412 -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
The GIGe is on-board with the NPE-G1 and from what I am told no bandwidth points to deal with .. the PA is in slot 4 with ZERO other traffic on that slot or the port, all other traffic that is of any real size is on the other two GIGE interfaces that are also on-board with the NPE-G1 blade. - Original Message - From: Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:42:11 PM Subject: Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed On 3/29/12 7:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our NPE-G1 that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do see the flow control is not supported via the other side (Comcast) but as soon as I refresh and view the GIG# interface again I note that flow control is turned back on and no negotiation auto is back on the interface cfg ?, this is certainly part of the issue .. is their a way to disable flow control on the onboard GIGE ? .. as stated Comcast does not want flow control on. Yes there are other ports on this router that perform without issue and as designed both other GIGE interfaces that are VLAN'ed and Serial interfaces that are both DS3 and a PA-4T bonded to 6MEG's. How do you have the PA modules installed? Layout can make a huge difference on those given the bandwidth points system. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7200/configuration/7200_port_adapter_config_guidelines/3875In.html#wp1061412 -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org -- Brian R. Watters Director 5718 East Shields Ave ■ Fresno, CA 93727 tel - (559) - 420-0205 ■ fax - (559) - 272-5266 Line website | My LinkedIn | email TwitterFacebookLinkedIn
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
--- On Thu, 3/29/12, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote: From: Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com Subject: Comcast Ethernet Feed To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Date: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 5:36 PM We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant as well as a BGP feed across the same link. I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know best practice for deploying for optimal performance across this interface. Any ideas and or direction would be extremely helpful as we are seeing some real issues such as. Direct connect (without BGP) to the CPE from Comcast (Fiber to Ethernet) via a laptop gives the level of performance we would expect, However as soon as we terminate to our router via the GIGE which is set to 100MB full duplex and all flow control turned off (Negotiation auto) per Comcast and connect up via a 100MB fast Ethernet interface directly connected we get a fraction of the speed when direct connected. Ideas? BRW A couple of questions - 1) What flavor of NPE are you using? 2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2 OR is this a PA? 3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop to, on a separate PA in chassis? 4) Have you verified you that bandwidth-points have not been exceeded for bus-1 and/or 2: slots 1,3,5 for bus1 and 2,4,6; also 0(if I/O controller is present. It is 600 points for bus1 and 600 for bus2. (A sh ver will provice the info) You can google: Cisco 7200 Series Port Adapter Hardware Configuration Guidelines for additional info. Finally, Have you *hard-coded* speed and duplex on any of you eth ints? Please don't! Let both ints auto-negotiate speedduplex. after having done so, post the output of: sh int gi x/y and sh int fa x/y (hardcoding speed/duplex is sometimes required when dealing with brain-dead CPE. I have also seen other flavors of brain-dead CPE that *only* work when speed/duplex are set to auto) ./Randy
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
On 30/03/2012, at 12:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: interface GigabitEthernet0/1 description Comcast Inet Feed Metro E 20MB bandwidth 10 ip address 12.12.12.12 255.255.255.252 no ip unreachables no ip route-cache load-interval 30 duplex full speed 100 media-type rj45 no negotiation auto no cdp enable Remove 'no ip route-cache'. This will be forcing all traffic via the slowest path possible.
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
A couple of questions - 1) What flavor of NPE are you using? NPE-G1 2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2 OR is this a PA? 3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop to, on a separate PA in chassis? Laptop connected directly to router via slot 4 PA-FE-TX 4) Have you verified you that bandwidth-points have not been exceeded for bus-1 and/or 2: slots 1,3,5 for bus1 and 2,4,6; also 0(if I/O controller is present. It is 600 points for bus1 and 600 for bus2. PCI bus mb1 has 390 bandwidth points PCI bus mb2 has 500 bandwidth points Have you *hard-coded* speed and duplex on any of you eth ints? Please don't! GIGE has been both hard and auto .. same results .. Fast Ether has always been set @ auto Let both ints auto-negotiate speedduplex. Comcast states that we are required to have a hard code FULL DUPLEX and SPEED 100 as well as flow control OFF however I can not appear to be able to disable it :( after having done so, post the output of: sh int gi x/y and sh int fa x/y (hardcoding speed/duplex is sometimes required when dealing with brain-dead CPE. I have also seen other flavors of brain-dead CPE that *only* work when speed/duplex are set to auto) ./Randy
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote: A couple of questions - 1) What flavor of NPE are you using? NPE-G1 2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2 OR is this a PA? 3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop to, on a separate PA in chassis? Laptop connected directly to router via slot 4 PA-FE-TX 4) Have you verified you that bandwidth-points have not been exceeded for bus-1 and/or 2: slots 1,3,5 for bus1 and 2,4,6; also 0(if I/O controller is present. It is 600 points for bus1 and 600 for bus2. PCI bus mb1 has 390 bandwidth points PCI bus mb2 has 500 bandwidth points Have you *hard-coded* speed and duplex on any of you eth ints? Please don't! GIGE has been both hard and auto .. same results .. Fast Ether has always been set @ auto Let both ints auto-negotiate speedduplex. Comcast states that we are required to have a hard code FULL DUPLEX and SPEED 100 as well as flow control OFF however I can not appear to be able to disable it :( If the Comcast side is hard-coded to 100/Full then you really only have one choice, set your side to 100/Full, as well. For the past decade, Cisco gear completely disables autonegotiation if you hard set the speed and duplex settings. Some equipment still participates in auto even when you hard set it. That's why you occasionally get duplex mismatches even when both sides are hard set. The side that participates in auto will expect to see an autonegotiating link partner. When it doesn't see one, it drops back to half duplex because it assumes it is connected to a hub (This is for Fast Ethernet.) So, if you connect a piece of Cisco gear and it is hard set to 100/full, you'll be fine. If you connect a laptop or some other device with a NIC that still participates in auto even when you hard set the settings, you won't get that to work well.
Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
Never mind control and what Comcast says about hard-coding speed and duplex! The question is: What happens when you set the int facing Comcast CPE to auto? Does the link even come up? *IF* the link comes up, can you ping your next-hop? If you can, leave auto-neg on despite what what Comcast may say/require. Post a sh int gix/y and sh int fax/y If the above outputs are *clean*, I would say a TAC case is called for. --- On Thu, 3/29/12, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote: From: Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com Subject: Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed To: Randy randy_94...@yahoo.com Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Date: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 7:02 PM A couple of questions - 1) What flavor of NPE are you using? NPE-G1 2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2 OR is this a PA? 3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop to, on a separate PA in chassis? Laptop connected directly to router via slot 4 PA-FE-TX 4) Have you verified you that bandwidth-points have not been exceeded for bus-1 and/or 2: slots 1,3,5 for bus1 and 2,4,6; also 0(if I/O controller is present. It is 600 points for bus1 and 600 for bus2. PCI bus mb1 has 390 bandwidth points PCI bus mb2 has 500 bandwidth points Have you *hard-coded* speed and duplex on any of you eth ints? Please don't! GIGE has been both hard and auto .. same results .. Fast Ether has always been set @ auto Let both ints auto-negotiate speedduplex. Comcast states that we are required to have a hard code FULL DUPLEX and SPEED 100 as well as flow control OFF however I can not appear to be able to disable it :( after having done so, post the output of: sh int gi x/y and sh int fa x/y (hardcoding speed/duplex is sometimes required when dealing with brain-dead CPE. I have also seen other flavors of brain-dead CPE that *only* work when speed/duplex are set to auto) ./Randy
RE: Comcast Ethernet Feed
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:03 PM, Brian R. Watters mailto:brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote: [snip] Fast Ether has always been set @ auto Just in case you missed it, I would echo Brielle's earlier advice: please try forcing both laptop and the FE it's plugged into to 100/Full, auto disabled, and try your tests again. I feel like this thread has developed an unhealthy fixation with the GE - Comcast segment when it's just as likely that it's working perfectly fine and the problem is between Laptop - FE. :-) For whatever reason, I have historically had very bad luck/experience with 7200 FE interfaces and auto-negotiation, FWIW. -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com
