Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:53 AM Randy Bush  wrote:
> > I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN
> > members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources.
>
> there are more legacy non-members than total members.  wonder why?

The real issue with Mike's statement is that there are more non-legacy
ARIN registrants under contract than there are ARIN members, all of
whom must pay ARIN more for IPv6 and most of whom must deploy IPv6 if
we're ever to be rid of IPv4. ARIN is attempting to partially resolve
that with their upcoming fee schedule (with prior non-members paying
more of course) but it still leaves a lot of folks out in the cold
including some (like Owen and myself) who pay ARIN for services but
can't and won't be able to have IPv6 addresses without paying ARIN
more. I don't precisely view this as unfair but I do think it harms
the community by creating an unnecessary drag on IPv6 deployment.

Is ARIN fee fairness valuable enough to you that you're willing to
extend the time you have to buy IPv4 addresses at market price? It
shouldn't be! And if it isn't, you ought to let ARIN know because they
seem pretty confident fee equity between IPv4 and IPv6 *is* that
important, not in the future but right now.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Latency/Packet Loss on ASR1006

[Hank Nussbacher]

On 07/12/2021 17:32, Blake Hudson wrote:

Suggestion: move this thread to cisco-nsp where you might find more 
assistance.


Regards,
Hank



On 11/26/2021 1:09 PM, Colin Legendre wrote:

Hi,

We have ...

ASR1006  that has following cards...
1 x ESP40
1 x SIP40
4 x SPA-1x10GE-L-V2
1 x 6TGE
1 x RP2

We've been having latency and packet loss during peak periods...

We notice all is good until we reach 50% utilization on output of...

'show platform hardware qfp active datapath utilization summary'

Literally ... 47% good... 48% good... 49% latency to next hop goes 
from 1ms to 15-20ms... 50% we see 1-2% packet-loss and 30-40ms 
latency... 53% we see 60-70ms latency and 8-10% packet loss.


Is this expected... the ESP40 can only really push 20G and then starts 
to have performance issues?





I haven't experienced that across about a dozen ASR 1ks. Though I just 
checked and we are not pushing any of our ESP's over 50% currently (the 
closest we have is an ESP 40 doing 18Gbps). However, I'm pretty sure 
we've pushed older ESPs (5, 10's, and 20's) to ~75% or so in the past.


Given the components you have, I would have expected your router to 
handle 40Gbps input and 40Gbps output. That could either be 40Gbps into 
the 6 port card [and 40Gbps out of the four 1 port cards] or it could be 
40Gbps input that is spread across the 6 port and 1 port cards [that is 
then output across both cards as well].


Despite other comments, I think your components are well matched. The 
only non-obvious thing here is that the 6 port card only has a ~40Gbps 
connection to the backplane so you cannot use all 6 ports at full 
bandwidth. I think this router is well suited to handle 20-30Gbps of 
customer demand doing standard destination based routing (if you're 
doing traffic shaping, NAT, tunnelling, or something else more involved 
than extended ACLs you may need something beefier at those traffic levels).

Re: Your opinion on security and privacy implication of CDN - a 2min survey

[Rui Xin]

Hi all,

This is a reminder for this survey. Thank you to those who have filled out
the survey! Your input is greatly appreciated.

Do any of your websites employ password-based logins? Do they also use a
CDN service? Are you concerned about the security of users' passwords? Are
there any measures to protect users' sensitive information?

Many websites we investigated so far send users' account credentials
directly to their CDN providers, enabling the possibility of passive
attacks. This survey aims at finding people's awareness of the security and
privacy implications of such an issue, and we (researchers from Duke
University) would love to hear your opinion.

Please help us out by filling out this short and anonymous survey (8
multiple choice questions, <2 minutes).

Survey URL: https://duke.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6tUJE7uqzFQv1d4

Thank you so much in advance, and we look forward to reading your responses!

Best,
Rui Xin

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran  wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> > If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any 
> > class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO.
>
> The situation is exactly opposite

And yet you have people reporting that ARIN's fee schedule offers
dissuasion for their deployments of IPv6. Right here in this email
thread. How can that be?

Don't gaslight us John. Seriously, it's not cool. ARIN fees make IPv6
registration a neutral prospect for only a fraction of its
registrants. You've presented something as broadly true that isn't.
Those of us for whom your claim is false don't appreciate the
insinuation that we've misrepresented ARIN's behavior.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[Valerie Wittkop]

Folks - 

Please remember this mail list is in place to provide for an exchange of 
technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that 
require cooperation among network service providers.

The Mailing List is not an appropriate platform to resolve personal issues, 
engage in disputes, or file complaints.

Admins encourage you to remember the Usage Guidelines 
. Should 
you have any questions/concerns about this reminder, please send a message to 
adm...@nanog.org .
 

Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org
NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

> On Dec 7, 2021, at 11:34, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran  wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
>>> If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any 
>>> class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO.
>> 
>> The situation is exactly opposite
> 
> And yet you have people reporting that ARIN's fee schedule offers
> dissuasion for their deployments of IPv6. Right here in this email
> thread. How can that be?
> 
> Don't gaslight us John. Seriously, it's not cool. ARIN fees make IPv6
> registration a neutral prospect for only a fraction of its
> registrants. You've presented something as broadly true that isn't.
> Those of us for whom your claim is false don't appreciate the
> insinuation that we've misrepresented ARIN's behavior.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

RE: private 5G networks?

[Jean St-Laurent via NANOG]

I thought 5G here meant Fifth Generation of mobile network and not 5 Ghz wifi. 
I don’t need a sim card to use wifi on 5 Ghz.

 

Is the private 5G network advertised by Amazon a kind of? 

 

Put a sim card in that phone and use our 5th Gen mobile gears. This way you can 
use your private phone numbers in your private system and send emoji, texts, 
pictures and even use your phone as a phone to call other people in that 
private 5G network.

 

Is this new thing just about having a private 5 Ghz wifi or it’s about using 
phones in 5th Gen mobile communications through Amazon gears?

Thank you in advance for your time and patience

 

Jean

 

From: Tom Beecher  
Sent: December 6, 2021 3:04 PM
To: Jean St-Laurent 
Cc: Mark Tinka ; NANOG 
Subject: Re: private 5G networks?

 

To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect against 
spyware like Pegazus?

 

No disrespect intended here, but you are essentially asking if going from 
2.4GHz Wifi to 5GHz wifi will make things more secure.  I'm sure you know the 
answer to that. 

 

Private 5G is just a method for local spectrum allocation that does not require 
a full FCC license. That's it. 

 

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 12:37 PM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org> > wrote:

You're absolutely right and I agree with your line of thought.

Strangely, there is apparently a lawsuit of $150B against Meta for for 
facilitating Rohingya Genocide . I am not sure how valid it is and where it 
will go, but $150B is quite something. 

It looks like the price a country has to pay after a war.

These cloud providers failed to not polarize the debate. They interfere in the 
process and it's illegal nearly everywhere except online for the cloud 
providers.

It's like if you telco would give faster speed to inflammatory tweets and 
slowed down the tweets that don't generate fud. 

Telco are at the moment in a much better position than cloud providers in my 
opinion. The train started to anticipate the curve and it's already changing 
direction.

To come back on Private 5G networks. Can a private 5G network protect against 
spyware like Pegazus?

Jean

-Original Message-
From: Mark Tinka mailto:mark@tinka.africa> > 
Sent: December 6, 2021 10:02 AM
To: Jean St-Laurent mailto:j...@ddostest.me> >; 
nanog@nanog.org  
Subject: Re: private 5G networks?



On 12/6/21 15:56, Jean St-Laurent wrote:

> I vouch for fairness.
>
> It seems there might be a shift in how we consume services around the world. 
> It's like a train. You can't turn 90 degrees. You need to start a smooth 
> curve many miles ahead if you want your train to turn and reach the 
> destination.
>
> How leaders govern will be more important. The decisions they make today and 
> the partners they choose will set the direction for this train.

The problem with this approach is that it assumes industrial-revolution 
business practices where corporations set the standard, and customers follow.

This does not work anymore in the modern world, because what the content folk 
have done is create platforms where users set the the standard, and 
corporations follow.

In the old days, if a service didn't work, we complained, sued, cried, the lot, 
and took it on the chin. Nowadays, if a service doesn't work, you silently 
delete the app, and move on to someone else.

But corporations don't get good (read: negative) feedback, because they are too 
busy building and selling products, rather than build and selling experiences, 
like the content folk do. Because they are blind to this feedback, they don't 
see the churn that is happening (after all, it's like a slow tyre leak), as 
users quietly migrate for a better experience, and not a better product. 5 
years later, they wonder how they lost 50% of their customer base. I'm already 
seeing it with a number of traditional banks, here in Africa.

Gartner (another typical corporation) just shared this the other day:

 https://ibb.co/c8PFRyQ

... and as you can clearly see, the "customer" experience is not top of their 
agenda for the typical CEO, for the coming year. Instead, it's a bunch of other 
things that make zero sense. How do you grow if you don't look after customers?

Users have moved on so fast due the ascension of the base expectation of value, 
companies that are willing to consider that the best they can do is create an 
experience that improves the likelihood of a user giving them a chance - rather 
than forcing a product sale on customers with the intention of meeting the YoY 
target that was printed in the boardroom PPT slides - will be the ones that 
have a chance to not only survive, but actually flourish.

If Amazon can democratize the mobile network by providing a cloud-based EPC, we 
might never have to be subjected to the unimaginative services we pay lots of 
money for, to typical mobile operators. I mean, if there is anyone with the 
time, money, people, data and network, it's surely 

Re: private 5G networks?

[Mark Tinka]

On 12/7/21 18:57, Jean St-Laurent wrote:

I thought 5G here meant Fifth Generation of mobile network and not 5 
Ghz wifi. I don’t need a sim card to use wifi on 5 Ghz.


Is the private 5G network advertised by Amazon a kind of?

Put a sim card in that phone and use our 5^th Gen mobile gears. This 
way you can use your private phone numbers in your private system and 
send emoji, texts, pictures and even use your phone as a phone to call 
other people in that private 5G network.


Is this new thing just about having a private 5 Ghz wifi or it’s about 
using phones in 5^th Gen mobile communications through Amazon gears?




5G cellular, not 5GHz wi-fi.

Oddly, they are billing it as an augmentation to wi-fi, even though I 
believe in dense cities where fibre is rife, wi-fi will be a more 
feasible prospect, especially 802.11ax.


However, given how much cellular can scale, Amazon's "5G Cellular in a 
Box" solution may just be the thing the tips the ratios between both 
wi-fi and 5G being feasible in concentrated deployments, simultaneously.


Mark.

Re: Latency/Packet Loss on ASR1006

[Blake Hudson]

On 11/26/2021 1:09 PM, Colin Legendre wrote:

Hi,

We have ...

ASR1006  that has following cards...
1 x ESP40
1 x SIP40
4 x SPA-1x10GE-L-V2
1 x 6TGE
1 x RP2

We've been having latency and packet loss during peak periods...

We notice all is good until we reach 50% utilization on output of...

'show platform hardware qfp active datapath utilization summary'

Literally ... 47% good... 48% good... 49% latency to next hop goes 
from 1ms to 15-20ms... 50% we see 1-2% packet-loss and 30-40ms 
latency... 53% we see 60-70ms latency and 8-10% packet loss.


Is this expected... the ESP40 can only really push 20G and then starts 
to have performance issues?





I haven't experienced that across about a dozen ASR 1ks. Though I just 
checked and we are not pushing any of our ESP's over 50% currently (the 
closest we have is an ESP 40 doing 18Gbps). However, I'm pretty sure 
we've pushed older ESPs (5, 10's, and 20's) to ~75% or so in the past.


Given the components you have, I would have expected your router to 
handle 40Gbps input and 40Gbps output. That could either be 40Gbps into 
the 6 port card [and 40Gbps out of the four 1 port cards] or it could be 
40Gbps input that is spread across the 6 port and 1 port cards [that is 
then output across both cards as well].


Despite other comments, I think your components are well matched. The 
only non-obvious thing here is that the 6 port card only has a ~40Gbps 
connection to the backplane so you cannot use all 6 ports at full 
bandwidth. I think this router is well suited to handle 20-30Gbps of 
customer demand doing standard destination based routing (if you're 
doing traffic shaping, NAT, tunnelling, or something else more involved 
than extended ACLs you may need something beefier at those traffic levels).

Re: Latency/Packet Loss on ASR1006

[Colin Legendre]

That's what I thought.

Our total inbound bandwidth from upstreams is about 20G at max.. so that
really is the total bandwidth...

Now we are terminating about 1800 PPPoE sessions on the router as well, and
have policing set on them, as well as shaping on a couple of our major
downstream links.

Is anyone interested in making a few $ and taking a look for us, to see if
we are really hitting capacity, or if some sort of tuning could be done to
help us eak out a little bit more from this device before upgrading.

---
Colin Legendre

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:34 AM Blake Hudson  wrote:

>
> On 11/26/2021 1:09 PM, Colin Legendre wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have ...
> >
> > ASR1006  that has following cards...
> > 1 x ESP40
> > 1 x SIP40
> > 4 x SPA-1x10GE-L-V2
> > 1 x 6TGE
> > 1 x RP2
> >
> > We've been having latency and packet loss during peak periods...
> >
> > We notice all is good until we reach 50% utilization on output of...
> >
> > 'show platform hardware qfp active datapath utilization summary'
> >
> > Literally ... 47% good... 48% good... 49% latency to next hop goes
> > from 1ms to 15-20ms... 50% we see 1-2% packet-loss and 30-40ms
> > latency... 53% we see 60-70ms latency and 8-10% packet loss.
> >
> > Is this expected... the ESP40 can only really push 20G and then starts
> > to have performance issues?
> >
> >
>
> I haven't experienced that across about a dozen ASR 1ks. Though I just
> checked and we are not pushing any of our ESP's over 50% currently (the
> closest we have is an ESP 40 doing 18Gbps). However, I'm pretty sure
> we've pushed older ESPs (5, 10's, and 20's) to ~75% or so in the past.
>
> Given the components you have, I would have expected your router to
> handle 40Gbps input and 40Gbps output. That could either be 40Gbps into
> the 6 port card [and 40Gbps out of the four 1 port cards] or it could be
> 40Gbps input that is spread across the 6 port and 1 port cards [that is
> then output across both cards as well].
>
> Despite other comments, I think your components are well matched. The
> only non-obvious thing here is that the 6 port card only has a ~40Gbps
> connection to the backplane so you cannot use all 6 ports at full
> bandwidth. I think this router is well suited to handle 20-30Gbps of
> customer demand doing standard destination based routing (if you're
> doing traffic shaping, NAT, tunnelling, or something else more involved
> than extended ACLs you may need something beefier at those traffic levels).
>

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[Seth Mattinen]

On 12/7/21 8:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN 
members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources.





If I had legacy resources I might, but I don't so it's an issue that I 
bounce between fully ignore or don't see why I should care.

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[Randy Bush]

> I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN
> members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources.

there are more legacy non-members than total members.  wonder why?

randy

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[Mike Hammett]

I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN members 
give a crap about what happens with legacy resources. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "William Herrin"  
To: "John Curran"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:34:46 AM 
Subject: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation 

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran  wrote: 
> On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote: 
> > If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any 
> > class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO. 
> 
> The situation is exactly opposite 

And yet you have people reporting that ARIN's fee schedule offers 
dissuasion for their deployments of IPv6. Right here in this email 
thread. How can that be? 

Don't gaslight us John. Seriously, it's not cool. ARIN fees make IPv6 
registration a neutral prospect for only a fraction of its 
registrants. You've presented something as broadly true that isn't. 
Those of us for whom your claim is false don't appreciate the 
insinuation that we've misrepresented ARIN's behavior. 

Regards, 
Bill Herrin 

-- 
William Herrin 
b...@herrin.us 
https://bill.herrin.us/ 

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[John Curran]

On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> 
> On 12/6/21 09:59, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most 
>> advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would 
>> involve simply turning off IPv6.
> 
> If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any 
> class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO.

Jay - 

The situation is exactly opposite, as ARIN’s fee schedule allows customers to 
obtain a corresponding-sized IPv6 block without any increase to their annual 
fee - this actually removes the financial disincentive that would otherwise be 
present for network operators to deploy IPv6.  

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers