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

On 17/06/16 01:09, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Hi, > > I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members, but we > can not simply because it is too expensive. I just signed a deal with he.net > for a flatrate 10G transit for about the same as the 10G Comix port cost. > The

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 17 June 2016 at 15:58, Colton Conor wrote: > What size FIB/RIB table does that Huawei have? It has 25M RIB and 4M FIB. Same Solar NPU as their largest kit. -- ++ytti

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

Whats the price piont though? Is that the router he was saying in 15K range? On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 15:58, Colton Conor wrote: > > What size FIB/RIB table does that Huawei have? > > It has 25M RIB and 4M FIB.

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 17 June 2016 at 16:17, Colton Conor wrote: > Whats the price piont though? Is that the router he was saying in 15K range? I'm all Shania Twain on 15k. I've seen people buy MX80 for bit over 3k, this isn't that much denser. 5k would impress me much. -- ++ytti

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

What size FIB/RIB table does that Huawei have? On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Harald F. Karlsen wrote: > On 16.06.2016 09:51, Saku Ytti wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE >> L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

Thats some extreme level of unheard discount to get a full MX80 for 3K. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 16:17, Colton Conor wrote: > > Whats the price piont though? Is that the router he was saying in 15K > range? > >

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

In a message written on Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:56:36PM +0100, Will Hargrave wrote: > Most of the major IXs in the European market operate in multiple > datacentres. Why? Because it decreases the monopoly conferred upon one > particular datacentre in a market which becomes the ‘go to’ >

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 17 June 2016 at 16:25, Colton Conor wrote: > Thats some extreme level of unheard discount to get a full MX80 for 3K. Yeah it's best I've seen. 8-10k isn't anything special. -- ++ytti

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

Hi Dave, > On 16 juni 2016, at 16:40, Dave Temkin wrote: > Nothing in my presentation said "Netflix seeks to get better port fees". > You'll find that I, not once, in my deck or oral presentation, mentioned > Netflix. I spoke at length with LINX after the presentation and

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

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >[...] Only then does an IXP produce bandwidth. Minor nitpick--an IXP never 'produces' bandwidth; it facilitates movement of data between entities, but the IXP itself shouldn't be producing bandwidth. It's the allocation of

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 16.06.2016 09:51, Saku Ytti wrote: Hey, I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushing Satellite/Fusion for this application. I don't really like the added complexity and tight coupling Satellite/Fusion

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

On 17 Jun 2016, at 1:15, Daniel Golding wrote: You said that LONAP's distributed strategy "kept datacenters honest" to use your exact quote. That implied some sort of benefit for members in acting as some sort of counterweight to (rapacious?) data center providers. I rely primarily on

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

On 17.06.2016 10:44, Fredrik Korsbäck wrote: > Last year i added 0 new IXPs, upgraded 0 IXPs, but i added over 30 > new PNI's. > > If IXPs wants more of those bits, adjusting prices much more > aggresively is what can bring this back to their market, instead of > the datacenter-crossconnect

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: >On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:57 , Ricky Beam wrote: >>I've seen many "IPv6 Capable" CPEs that apply ZERO security to IPv6 traffic. > >Those are by definition poorly designed CPE. This (open by default vs closed) has been discussed before,

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

On 6/17/16 07:59, Leo Bicknell wrote: IMHO in building fiber should be NRC only, but if it has a MRC component (to pay for future troubleshooting or somesuch) it should be small, like $5/mo. That's $60 year to do nothing, and even if the $40 an hour fiber tech spends a hour troubleshooting

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

As I write this I'm sitting about 100 feet away (vertically) from the Westin fiber MMR, so you can definitely say that I'm biased in favor of the Westin and the SIX approach of doing things. What Randy just wrote is exactly the point I was trying to make in my last email. Some real estate

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

Hmm - as far as whether this was a good or bad NANOG presentation...this is some of the best discussion I've seen on list in a while. There is a frank exchange of views between many different parties. This may result in some follow-up presentations at future NANOGs by IXP operators (please!).

Looking for a Level 3 Routing Registry contact

Please contact me off list if you can help me get in touch with an actual person that can clear out old entries in the Level 3 routing registry. I can't do jack with the automated and the contacts that put them in are non responsive for clearing out their years old mess. Thanks. This

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

In a message written on Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:58:12PM +0100, Marty Strong wrote: > Yes, if the IXP is distributed across more than one building then you have > choice as to where you (and other people) put their equipment, so you may > have to go to another building to connect to certain

Re: syslog server

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Maximino Velazquez wrote: > I need help !! > > What is the best syslog server (opensource)? Greylog and Logstash are for having a convenient index of log messages, but they're not particularly robust. I've not seen syslog-ng

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

> It moves the monopoly to the IXP operator! I disagree, if there is only one *MAIN* building that an IXP is in then participants are going to have to go to that building, giving the colo provider the monopoly, which affects not just cross connects towards and IXP, but other participants too,

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

Owen, On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 06:03 , Ca By wrote: >> >> Perhaps it is me and my sensibilities, perhaps it is my miser corp culture, >> but i could not even dream of asking to go to Jamaica (arin area) for

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

Leo Bicknell wrote: > Cross connects are our industry's $100 gold plated HDMI cables. In the US maybe. Cross-connect prices are much more reasonable in Europe (€0 - €50/month). Personally, I don't have a problem with MRCs when ordering cross-connects: data centres are expensive to build and

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

>> Cross connects are our industry's $100 gold plated HDMI cables. > > In the US maybe. Cross-connect prices are much more reasonable in > Europe (€0 - €50/month). > > Personally, I don't have a problem with MRCs when ordering > cross-connects: data centres are expensive to build and run. But

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

Starting to see people like Telehouse move into the monthly XC market, so one might think we're at the precipice of the slippery slope. And with Equinix buying Telecity, how long until we see US-style XCs in Europe? On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Leo

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

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Dave Temkin wrote: You meant a customer, but because of a lack of transparency (and great marketing) amongst some IXPs, it's very easy to conflate member-mutual IXPs, commercial, and non-profit IXPs. Being a "member" of NetNod provides you with a very different set of

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: If you are, I'm very interested in hearing your motivation for doing that. I realised I probably used the wrong english word here. The correct english word(s) would probably be "rationale/reason/facts", not "motivation". -- Mikael Abrahamsson

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

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 06:03 , Ca By wrote: > > Perhaps it is me and my sensibilities, perhaps it is my miser corp culture, > but i could not even dream of asking to go to Jamaica (arin area) for the > last ARIN meeting. You are entitled to your opinion. If ARIN didn’t

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 17 June 2016 at 13:10, Harald F. Karlsen wrote: > What about the Huawei NE20E-S2F/NE40E-M2F? > 4 * SFP+ and 40 * SFP fixed ports and two PICs with either 4*SFP+ or 1*QSFP > each. Decent FIB. Not really sure about the IPFIX/sflow thought. Pricing > seems very aggresive on

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

I think a similar point was made at NANOG. A distributed IX will let the market dictate that. Places that are better for people to operate in will see a rise in customers and places that aren't won't. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest

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

I think the popularity of the donation-based IX largely a violent reaction to the over-priced major IX operators in the US. People didn't like what was happening, so went to the polar opposite. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet

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

It seems as though most subtlety is lost on this crowd, or perhaps there's just a language barrier. I'm saying that if you were to, for example, look at the homepage of https://www.peering-forum.eu and see the "Hosts" block, you might think "There are four similarly named IXPs are all similar