Hi all,
While examining some routing table entries one of my coworkers stubled
upon a number of prefixes which is are somewhat strange (or maybe even
suspicious). The ASN originating these prefixes is AS30424, which is
part of a block of ASN's assigned to ARIN. However, there's no entry in
the
On 2/1/13 7:56 AM, Teun Vink t...@teun.tv wrote:
Hi all,
While examining some routing table entries one of my coworkers stubled
upon a number of prefixes which is are somewhat strange (or maybe even
suspicious). The ASN originating these prefixes is AS30424, which is
part of a block of ASN's
On 1/30/2013 5:03 PM, John Levine wrote:
The muni power companies around here provide service every bit as good
as NYSEG, the private power company, at literally half the price.
The muni providers have a bunch of cost advantages that help them keep
the price lower.
municipal utilities:
-
The 3 major scrubbing vendors:
Prolexic
Verisign
Akamai
Prolexic has the ability to announce a /24 for you, and scrub the whole
thing, then pipe it back to you via a GRE tunnel or dedicated circuit.
All of the companies mentioned do this for a living, and are pretty good
at what they do.
Akamai (CDN) does scrubbing???
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Lamy [mailto:pie...@userid.org]
Sent: February-01-13 9:58 AM
To: matt kelly
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Ddos mitigation service
The 3 major scrubbing vendors:
Prolexic
Verisign
Akamai
Hi Pierre,
Thank you for your interesting note.
On 01/02/2013 09:57, Pierre Lamy wrote:
The 3 major scrubbing vendors:
Prolexic
Verisign
Akamai
IIRC, CloudFlare claims to the same capcity of DDOS mitigation as
Prolexic (500gb) and also has a free option with fewer scrubbing
features. Do
On Feb 01, 2013, at 10:02 , Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote:
Akamai (CDN) does scrubbing???
http://www.akamai.com/html/solutions/kona-solutions.html
I'm sure there are other things Akamai does in the security sector as well.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Original Message-
From:
I'm aware that they exist but don't have any knowledge or experience
with CloudFlare.
if you're considering using them, I would ask them for a list (under
NDA) of what large enterprises use them, what their POPs are - global is
good - and for any analytical product they have relating to DDoS
From my personal experience, I am a fan of pure-play DDoS mitigation service
providers (e.g. Prolexic, Dosarrest) because they are the least likely to
give up on you when things get real difficult. Read the SLA careful to make
sure it is fit for your purpose.
-Original Message-
From:
The muni providers have a bunch of cost advantages that help them keep the
price lower.
Yes, but:
A) NYSEG customers are still paying off boondoggles due to incompetent
current and former management that have nothing to do with their
for-profit status
B) So what? The customers get better
On 2/1/13 6:26 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
municipal utilities:
- sell bonds cheaper (holders get tax-advantaged rates in interest
income, and are ultimately backed by the muni taxpayers)
Tangential to the private vs public screed:
The ability to issue (and sell) tax exempt (T-E) bonds for any
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
Owen,
You're basing your math off of some incorrect assumptions about PON. I'm
actually sympathetic to your goal, but it simply can't work the way you're
describing it in a PON network. Also, please don't base logic for open
access on meet me rooms, this works in colo spaces and carrier hotels
I disagree. Loss is loss, regardless of where the splitter is placed in the
equation. Distance x loss + splitter insertion loss = total loss for
purposes of link budget calculation.
The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not
technical.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:29
I should clarify: Distance x loss/km + splitter loss. = link loss.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
I disagree. Loss is loss, regardless of where the splitter is placed in
the equation. Distance x loss + splitter insertion loss = total loss for
Jason,
Loss is loss, but that's not all that we have to deal with here inside of
how PON works. I can tell you that not a single manufacturer I've worked
with says anything differently.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
I disagree. Loss is loss,
Actually, this is an issue… I should have seen it.
You have 3 loss components… Power out = (Power in - loss to splitter - splitter
loss) / nOut - loss-to-customer
So, if the loss to the splitter is 3db and you have 20db (effective 320db on a
16x split) loss on each customer link, that's
a
It's still a 23dB loss for each customer from the CO to the ONT.
I have an OLT that launches at +5dBm. At 1490nm, I should see about a .26dB
loss per km. My 1x32 splitter is going to add about 16dB more loss.
Assuming we ignore connector losses, and also assume that the customer is
10km away:
This report has been generated at Fri Feb 1 21:13:15 2013 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 24-Jan-13 -to- 31-Jan-13 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS982971162 3.6% 84.3 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet
Backbone
2 - AS8402
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
It's still a 23dB loss for each customer from the CO to the ONT.
I have an OLT that launches at +5dBm. At 1490nm, I should see about a .26dB
loss per km. My 1x32 splitter is going to add about 16dB more loss. Assuming
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many
customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable
comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they
have just throat to choke and bill to pay.
But few IP TV
On 13-02-01 16:03, Jason Baugher wrote:
The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not
technical.
It also has to do with existing fibre infrastructure. If a Telco has
already adopted a fibre to a node philosophy, then it has a;ready
installed a limited number of
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Nope The power going into each fiber out of the splitter is 1/16th
that of what went into the splitter.
... which is 12 dB loss.
Yes, your total in-line loss is still 10km, but you are forgetting
about the fact that you lost 15/16th of the power
Management has asked us why we can't do RF overlay on our AE system. :)
We've had to explain a few times why that would be too expensive even if it
were available because of the high cost of the amps/splitters/combiners to
insert 1550nm onto every AE fiber.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Frank
IIRC, there is some issue with bleedover of either the forward or return
(optically modulated) RF wavelength with the data wavelength. Perhaps with
better lasers this could be overcome in the future.
Frank
From: Jason Baugher [mailto:ja...@thebaughers.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013
Fletcher:
Many rural LECs are homerunning their fiber back to the CO, such that the
optical splitters are only in the CO. It gives them one management point,
the highest possible efficiency (you can maximize any every splitter and
therefore PON) and a pathway to ActiveE.
Frank
-Original
For us, it would be the economics of the whole thing. When a 16x19.5 EDFA
runs around $20k, it's much more cost effective to combine 1550nm onto 16
PON's than onto 16 AE runs. Unless the equipment costs were to fall
drastically, there's no way it would ever fly.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:48 PM,
You propably calculated the second one (5 - 2.34 -16)-15 + 0.26 since you got
-28.08
(5 - 16 - 2.6) - 15 = -28.6
(5 - 2.34 - 16) - 15 - 0.26 = -28.6
-Hena
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Lähetetty: 2. helmikuuta 2013 0:00
Vastaanottaja: Jason
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Feb 1 16:11:17
2013
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:59:54 -0800
To: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Jason
- Original Message -
From: Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.com
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering.
Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points
are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than
one
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk
3. no home run fibres means no competitors running their own
GPON or Ethernet. Why invest in making it easier for the
competition
Because I don't have any competitors; I *am the municipality*.
All the possible
In a message written on Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 03:29:32PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
You're basing your math off of some incorrect assumptions about PON. I'm
I'd like to know more about the PON limitations, while I understand
the 10,000 foot view, some of the rubber hitting the road issues
are a
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:17 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-02-01 16:03, Jason Baugher wrote:
The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not
technical.
It also has to do with existing fibre infrastructure. If a Telco has
already
OK... Like Einstein, math is not my strong suit.
Unfortunately, I don't have his prowess with physics, either.
Owen
On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:59 , Henri Hannula henri.hann...@msoy.fi wrote:
You propably calculated the second one (5 - 2.34 -16)-15 + 0.26 since you got
-28.08
(5 - 16 - 2.6) -
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
OK... Like Einstein, math is not my strong suit.
Unfortunately, I don't have his prowess with physics, either.
Owen
A bit here, a bit there... Hey, dB is a plural of Bits!
--
-george william herbert
Ok, serious question -
How is GPON's downstream AES encryption keying handled?
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal
greenfield
plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Not so irrelevant. If the municipality wishes to attract as many
competitive ISPs as possible, it
On Feb 1, 2013, at 21:22 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal
greenfield
plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Not so
39 matches
Mail list logo
