Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

Owen DeLong wrote: Crazy multihop BGP setups I like that setup. And it never struck me as crazy. In fact, their implementation avoids all multihop setup shortcuts and is quite purist from a routing standpoint. The multihop approach gives you the option of where to slice and dice

RE: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut?

Oh, we don't. Typically when we turn up a new circuit, the old is left in place for 2 weeks in case we need to roll back. This is simply a matter of them giving us their peering info ahead of time so that we can prestage the configs. Someone else responded that there are probably two teams

Weekly Routing Table Report

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, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth > wrote: > >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman >>> wrote: >>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being >>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Robert Glover wrote: > > On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman >>> wrote: >>> >>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to >>>

Re: Is it normal for your provider to withhold BGP peering info until the night of the cut?

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, c b wrote: > > We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting > people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in > substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most

Re: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers

Freddy, So are you saying if you order enough from Fiberstore.com they will give you a programmer? That seems like the best solution. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Frederik Kriewitz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Colton Conor >

RADb Outage?

whois.radb.net seems to have been down since sometime last night, has anyone else seen problems with this? It seems the web interface still works, but that's not very useful for scripts.

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

Was part of my first peering spat, probably 95/96‎ since then many more, couple even big enough they made nanog/ industry news, end of day they are all the same. If you need to reach every where have more then one provider, it's good practice anyway, a single cust or even a bunch of cust are NOT

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

> From o...@delong.com Fri Jan 22 10:25:26 2016 > However, I think your description of the scenario is rather > heavily skewed Most posts are bashing Cogent so it's bad of me to say they are equally free to do whatever they want with their network? Mob rule... I favour neither side. Nobody has

Re: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? > So far I have found both > https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and >

whois.radb.net down ?

Anyone else seeing the radb.net whois server as being down? $ date Sat Jan 23 00:04:29 EET 2016 $ ping whois.radb.net PING whois.radb.net (207.75.117.18) 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- whois.radb.net ping statistics --- 7 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 6047ms $ telnet

Re: Programmable SFP+ Transcievers

I haven’t had to actually reprogram any, but have a bunch of flexoptics modules preprogrammed for Arista which have been working great. Very easy people to deal with, and yes, candy. :> Ashley Kitto Nominum > On Jan 22, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Matthew Crocker wrote: > >

Re: RADb Outage?

Service for the RADb whois protocol has now been restored. We were experiencing extensive DDOS activity directed at the whois service host(s). Regards, Larry Blunk Merit

Re: RADb Outage?

Same here, could not contact when I tried earlier today On Fri 22 Jan 2016 at 23:44 Stephen Fulton wrote: > Same here, whois.radb.net still appears down as of this message. > > -- Stephen > > > On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, Brian Rak wrote: > > whois.radb.net seems to have been

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

Motivated sales departments always get whatever they want. Always. If they aren't getting what they (or you as customer) want, they aren't motivated enough. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

Pinging TELUS: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

Hi, Can someone from Telus ping me off-list re:IPv6 deployment. Jack > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jacques > Latour > Sent: January-04-16 11:45 AM > To: Jared Mauch; Ca By; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10%

Re: RADb Outage?

Same here, whois.radb.net still appears down as of this message. -- Stephen On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, Brian Rak wrote: whois.radb.net seems to have been down since sometime last night, has anyone else seen problems with this? It seems the web interface still works, but that's not very useful

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

On 21 January 2016 at 19:42, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes > tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. > > That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

While I agree it’s still going to be a while before it becomes a critical issue, more and more environments are going IPv6 first with IPv4 as a NAT’ed service… I think the mobile carriers are going to be the ones to really push adoption. > On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:53 PM, Constantine A. Murenin

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as > they won't. Correct. I've said it before and I'll say it again: an ISP's refusal to maintain a settlement-free open peering policy is directly

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

Bill, I find that I agree with much of what you’ve said. If we further constrain the arguments that you set forth so as to cover only that traffic which the customers of the two networks would be able to exchange in any event, by way of transit services purchased by one or the other of the