Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:23 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Owen, > > On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a >>> variety public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must make >>> use of. In other areas of publi

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:52 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Owen, > > On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss. > > Just to be clear, arin-discuss is limited to ARIN members? > To the best of my knowledge, yes. >> They can and sometimes

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 1/10/2011 6:33 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> I'd say on the whole, it's a net gain - the added ease of tracking down >> the click-here-to-infect machines that are no longer behind a NAT >> outweighs the little added security the NAT adds

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

Lee, On Jan 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > Are you saying ARIN needs an ombudsman function to make sure the Board > doesn't delay implementation of things the community wants while it figures > out whether doing such things will prevent it from doing other things the > community wants

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

Owen, On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss. Just to be clear, arin-discuss is limited to ARIN members? > They can and sometimes do discuss operational matters there. Operational matters that impact more than members? > The AC

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

Owen, On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a variety >> public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must make use of. In >> other areas of public service provision, there are things like public >> utilit

Re: AltDB?

On 01/10/2011 19:18, John Curran wrote: On Jan 10, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 01/09/2011 10:09, John Curran wrote: Please suggest your preferred means of IRR authentication to the ARIN suggestion process: ... Now it seems that you

Re: AltDB?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, John Curran wrote: "Any person in the ARIN community is welcome to make a suggestion regarding an existing or potential ARIN service or practice. Such a suggestion will be sent to ARIN as described at Suggestion Submission page. " I j

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On 1/10/2011 6:33 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: I'd say on the whole, it's a net gain - the added ease of tracking down the click-here-to-infect machines that are no longer behind a NAT outweighs the little added security the NAT adds (above and beyond the statefulness that both NAT and a go

Re: AltDB?

On Jan 10, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 01/09/2011 10:09, John Curran wrote: >> Please suggest your preferred means of IRR authentication to the ARIN >> suggestion process: > ... > Now it seems that you acknowledged that further on in th

Re: Cruzio peering

On 1/10/2011 6:38 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: Cruzio in Santa Cruz recently opened a new coloc facility using a newly installed fiber connection (I believe they share this with UCSC, I am not sure who "owns" it in practice). Which in theory should be good news for the Monterey Bay Area which has

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:17:39 GMT, lorddoskias said: > appropriate treatment in case of emergency. With bigger company this > would be harder, though I think the position "account manager" is > essential this Heard someplace, but we've been here ourselves: "We were thrilled to hear they were as

Cruzio peering

Cruzio in Santa Cruz recently opened a new coloc facility using a newly installed fiber connection (I believe they share this with UCSC, I am not sure who "owns" it in practice). Which in theory should be good news for the Monterey Bay Area which has been without fiber connectivity before. I w

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Thank you for this. I find him very honest and humble. Although he didn't mention Cisco, should I assume that he's probably thinking about Cisco without saying it? For anyone that has watched this, he has mentioned going from dual star topology to an MPLS. Perhaps one can educate me a little o

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aECSsfd4Wk Watch this video, now, I know that it is essentially advertisement from brocade but the guy from ams-ix says something very interesting - "For us it is important to have a board-level relationship with the vendor, no matter who it is". So in the end t

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Jeff Kell wrote: > On 1/10/2011 6:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Nonetheless, NAT remains an opaque screen door at best. >> >> If the bad guy is behind the door, it helps hide him. >> >> If the bad guy is outside the door, the time it takes for his knife to cut >> th

Re: AltDB?

On 01/09/2011 10:09, John Curran wrote: On Jan 9, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: In terms of database size, excluding RIPE, the ARIN IRR is the 8th largest, ahead of ALTDB and about 10% as large as Level3, the second largest IRR database (except RIPE.) A mass-corruption of the ARIN IRR

Re: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?

Ha, good luck... Limestone is a haven for cheap child-run web hosting companies. I can almost guarantee abuse@ goes to /dev/null... Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T goe...@anime.net wrote: >Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > >I have tried the u

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

>> PPML is a forum for the community (not just ARIN members, the entire >> community). > Good to know. I was under the impression that it was member only. > Nope... Anyone interested can subscribe to PPML. >> There is a separate mailing list... arin-discuss which is for members of >> ARIN to di

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:22:46 EST, Jeff Kell said: > It is a decreasing risk, given the typical user initiated compromise of > today (click here to infect your computer), but a non-zero one. > > The whole IPv6 / no-NAT philosophy of "always connected and always > directly addressable" eliminates t

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

This is a two-edged sword. Cisco tends to do their own thing, then, try to push their way of doing it onto the standards bodies when the competition starts trying to catch up. Other vendors tend to bring ideas that will require interoperability to the standards bodies and work on getting the st

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On 1/10/2011 6:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Nonetheless, NAT remains an opaque screen door at best. > > If the bad guy is behind the door, it helps hide him. > > If the bad guy is outside the door, the time it takes for his knife to cut > through it is so small as to be meaningless. For a "server"

Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

> >> >> My frame of reference is that while we need to make the addresses big >> enough, we also need to preserve the hierarchy. There is no shortage >> of addresses, nor will there be, ever, but there could be a shortage >> of levels in the hierarchy. I assume you would like a home to have a >>

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Friday, January 07, 2011 09:25:59 am David Sparro wrote: >> I find that the security "Layers" advocates tend not to look at the >> differing value of each of those layers. > > Different layers very much have different values, and, yes, this i

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote: > There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that > since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and > VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides. > I had that happen w

Re: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?

Waste of time; I don't accept email from them, it's all spam. On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST) goe...@anime.net wrote: > Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > > I have tried the usual channels (ab...@limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, > "live chat"

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On 1/10/2011 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Unless my point-to-point links are originating packets to the outside world (they should not be, in general), then I should not expect any PMTU-D responses directed at them. As such, blocking even those packets TO my point-to-point interfaces should not

Re: Satellite IP

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 EST, Jay Ashworth said: > > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" > > Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;) > > Are we in fact coming out of it yet? I heard it was getting deeper, > and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder. Hmm.. guess Sunspots 1

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

On 1/10/2011 5:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss. The fact that there is more traffic on ppml dealing with the NRPM than there is on arin-discuss dealing with other issues is a matter of where the members choose to focus their attention more tha

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On 1/10/2011 14:54, Brandon Kim wrote: > > To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come out > with a way to do things first which then become a standard that > they have to follow. > > ISL/DOT1Q > HSRP/VRRP > etherchannel/LACP > > Just some examples. I'm not awa

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

On Jan 10, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 1/9/2011 5:27 PM, John Curran wrote: >> Excellent question. To the extent that it is best practices on these types >> of >> services, then that's relatively easy for ARIN to interface with... if it is >> specific direction to ARIN to "do xyz",

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:56 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > > On 7 Jan 2011, at 15:12, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Jeff Wheeler wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: 1. Block packets destined for your point-to-point links at your bord

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come out with a way to do things first which then become a standard that they have to follow. ISL/DOT1Q HSRP/VRRP etherchannel/LACP Just some examples. I'm not aware of too many other vendors that create their own protoco

Re: AltDB? (IRR support & direction at ARIN)

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Charles N Wyble wrote: > >>> I am simply suggesting it is dangerous and irresponsible to run an IRR >>> with only MAIL-FROM authentication, and quite easy to also support >>> CRYPT-PW.  ARIN should either support passwords or

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On 1/10/2011 14:32, Jeff Kell wrote: > On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote: >> HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to >> solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF >> booklets on many things we would run into during work. for

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

just to play devils advocate.. PVST is Cisco propriety. I'd rather see vendors default to an open standard as opposed to something which is closed. the lowest common denominator… in my eyes the document tells you how to make a cisco and hp switch work together, not convert. numbers alone do

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote: > HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to > solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF > booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example, > setting up STP between Cisco

Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network

One can still do DS-lite when the provider only offers NAT64. A B4 can connect to a AFTR which can be anywhere that is reachable via IPv6. I can see small ISPs and those that can't get IPv4 addresses for themselves out sourcing the DS-lite service. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Va

RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

*requested anonymous* wrote: > (I don't post on public mailing lists, so, please consider this > private. > That is, I don't care if the question/reply are public, just, not the > source.) > > On 1/10/11 11:46 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > > ... yes I know you understand operational issues. > > > > While

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61

I would agree w/ the HP vs. Cisco comment from Greg Whynott Cisco has refused to help without a huge pricetag in the past. We have migrated many of our customers off of Cisco gear to mitigate future issues for exactly this reason. HP is a great partner! If you need a router check out vYat

Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?

Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? I have tried the usual channels (ab...@limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, "live chat") with no results. -Dan

Re: Satellite IP

- Original Message - > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" > > Why the hostility, Valdis? > > As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can make > all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an inexact > science, > it's really hard to provide a *100% guaran

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

for vendors who we were not getting the goods from, I've found calling your sales rep much more efficient than anything you can say/ask/beg/threaten the tech on the phone.Sales guys have the inside numbers to call, the clout to get things moving as they generate revenue for said vendor.

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim wrote: to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?" I've thr

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?" > From: greg.whyn...@oicr.on.ca > To: brandon@brandontek.com > CC

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

Back in the days when I still did NOC stuff, we'd bring in individual T1 lines through a Kentrox EZ-T3, which would hand off a channelized T3 to a 7513. With the EZ-T3, it was literally just plug and play. I believe the Atlas 800 series can be used in the same ways, but its been 10 years, so I

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, ( http://cdn.pro

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux box, then connecting that back to a 6500. I work in that kind of topology all day long/ both in 6500 & ASR's. All is well/ On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Chris

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

i think it really depends on who answers your call. I've called Cisco a few times before for inter vendor issues and they gave us the " call the other vendor " finger. .. Other times they saved the day. i know some shops negotiate their support contract which precludes them from going th

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 02:52:56PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Friday, January 07, 2011 09:25:59 am David Sparro wrote: > > I find that the security "Layers" advocates tend not to look at the > > differing value of each of those layers. > > Different layers very much have different values, and,

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

To your point Andrey, It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason you pointed out, get all Cisco! How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Once upon a time, Andrey Khomyakov said: > There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that > since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and > VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides. That kind of behavior from a vendo

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

> From: Andrey Khomyakov > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:36 AM > To: nanog group > Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > > There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say > that > since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and > VendorX

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On Friday, January 07, 2011 09:25:59 am David Sparro wrote: > I find that the security "Layers" advocates tend not to look at the > differing value of each of those layers. Different layers very much have different values, and, yes, this is often glossed over. > Going back to the physical door

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 pfsense in redundant pair for routing/security/vlan termination cisco all the way for l2 switching On 01/10/2011 09:38 AM, James Smith wrote: > All the places I've worked in the past decade have been all Cisco shops for > routing and switching, with a

RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

... yes I know you understand operational issues. While managed networks can 'reverse the damage', there is no way to fix that for consumer unmanaged networks. Whatever gets deployed now, that is what the routers will be built to deal with, and it will be virtually impossible to change it due to t

Re: Satellite IP

- Original Message - > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" > So what you're saying is that after a Kyoto/Chile sized quake, or a > Katrina, or a Quebec 1990 ice storm, you can *guarantee* that you can > still fill all requests for transponder space, and *still* satisfy every > single customer who w

Re: Satellite IP

On Monday, January 10, 2011 01:28:07 pm Jay Ashworth wrote: > My motivation for asking the question *here* was of course to get the operator > perspective on the actual transport, if anyone had any. I helped a radio station put together a remote trailer using a mobile satellite system back in 2

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides. I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and Avaya phones, T

Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network

On 1/9/2011 9:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jan 8, 2011, at 10:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 1/8/2011 3:16 AM, Leen Besselink wrote: Hello Mr. Kaufman, In the upcoming years, we will have no IPv6 in some places and badly performing IPv4 (CGN, etc.) with working IPv6 in others. Right. So we

Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network

On 1/9/2011 6:42 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: 1. The companies that have selected NAT64 as a tool for rolling out IPv6 to address the IPv4 exhaustion business risk are aware of the various application trade offs. They select NAT64 because it makes business sense to aggressively go after IPv6 as th

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

In article you write: >> Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX) has >> their platform built on Brocade devices. > >Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that >large using Foundry in large deployments.. Well the ams-ix has been using Found

jetcore bigiron 4000 max ipv6 routes

Hi, I know that jetcore bigiron 4000 allow max 40 ipv4 routes. I want to add a dual stack. Is IPv6 routes are added to the IPv4 routes or are they stored elsewhere. Regards.

Re: Satellite IP

- Original Message - > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:06:32 EST, Kelly Olsen said: > > That would only happen with an outrageously over-subscribed > > provider. > > OK - I'll feed the troll. What's the proper amount of unused and therefor > non-revenue-generating capac

Re: Satellite IP

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:06:32 EST, Kelly Olsen said: > That would only happen with an outrageously over-subscribed provider. OK - I'll feed the troll. What's the proper amount of unused and therefor non-revenue-generating capacity the operator is supposed to reserve in order to *guarantee* that ba

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Cisco and my new Love; Juniper.. for Tier I / Peer On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > > > On 1/10/2011 11:03 AM, Greg Whynott wrote: > >> Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that >> large using Foundry in large deployments.. >> >> > People (who s

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On 1/10/2011 11:03 AM, Greg Whynott wrote: Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that large using Foundry in large deployments.. People (who should know) have told me L3 does for some of their 10GE bonding. If you want high end at low cost, the box does it. Jus

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

All the places I've worked in the past decade have been all Cisco shops for routing and switching, with a lot of Cisco use for security too (firewalls and IDS). Same with my current position, but we're switching to Juniper for all those product categories. Same or better performance, but 10-20% l

Re: AltDB? (IRR support & direction at ARIN)

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Charles N Wyble wrote: I am simply suggesting it is dangerous and irresponsible to run an IRR with only MAIL-FROM authentication, and quite easy to also support CRYPT-PW. ARIN should either support passwords or immediately make The trouble is, since the DES crypt passwords

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

the pro curve line is cheap and the standard support contract price can't be beat (life time free). For many ' normal ' deployments it would be a good choice.in a 10Gbit HPC or highly redundant environment I'd probably be looking at Extreme or Force 10. There is a feature on the Cisco 65

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

>I try to follow the Tolly Group who compares products, and they >continually show that Cisco equipment >is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find >that so hard to believe. Just a rough comment here. Tolly's business model is a sponsored test one, and Cisco is

RE: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

If you have a large amount of ppp/mlppp channelized T3's as most people then I would recommend dumping these into an Adtran TA5000 chassis with multiservice ct3 cards and dumping them to ethernet. Then to an ASR or whatever your vlan agg box is. The cost per t3 port should be significantly cheap

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote: For those that have been Cisco focused, do you stay fully objective, and are you willing to pitch another vendor knowing that you will have to learn a new IOS? And that that will be your time that you'll have to spend to understand the product and suppor

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Wow, overall consensus is that there are quite a few that are migrating to Juniper from Cisco. I am a bit biased because I have spent an awful amount of time invested into Cisco and understanding how to configure them. But being a former business owner, I also am very much sensitive to costs an

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

>> >> Brandon >> >> > Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX) has > their platform built on Brocade devices. > Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that large using Foundry in large deployments.. -g -- This message and any attachment

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3. Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried to use another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it was a bad choice down the road,

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On 1/10/2011 3:31 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: Hello gents: I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment. Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about being a service provider that your core equipment is

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:31:32 -0600, Brandon Kim wrote: Hello gents: I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment. Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about being a service provider that y

Re: Satellite IP

On Jan 10, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > I'm looking into satellite-based 2-way IP transport, on the scale of > SCPC DVB-RCS or iDirect, as an adjunct to the already installed > "traditional" one-way satellite gear installed in the Frontline DSNG > truck owned by my new employer, both

RE: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

Juniper M20. -Original Message- From: Justin Wilson [mailto:li...@mtin.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:00 AM To: Chris; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days? Cisco ASR 1000. For T3 you can get a 4 port card. Seems to perform well.

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

We have traditionally been a Cisco shop, but we are starting to move toward Juniper for much of our needs, and will be recommending Juniper as an alternative for customers' needs. From a technical point of view, I find the configurations to be simpler and easier to understand, and I like the fa

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:28, Chris wrote: > The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if > anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux > box, then connecting that back to a 6500. > > What are the general impressions of the ASR series? > > On Mon, Jan

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Cisco shop here that is avidly converting to Juniper. Paul -Original Message- From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:32 AM To: nanog group Subject: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Hello gents: I wanted to put this out there fo

RE: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

Cheap and reliable. Cisco 7507, RSP4 or RSP8 or whatever, with ChanDS3 cards, running 12.0S. > -Original Message- > From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:52 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days? >

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

On 10 Jan 2011, at 6:51 AM, Chris wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking to put some feelers out there and see what people are > doing to aggregate WAN customers (T1,T3, etc...) these days. What > platforms/devices are you using? What seems to be working/not working? > Any insights would be great! > >

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote: Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based? I would not necessarily say that. Granted, most of the places I've worked are Cisco shops to a large extent, that

Re: Satellite IP

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:08:57 EST, Jay Ashworth said: > Almost all of what I'll need to do will be what the satellite guys call > "occasional use", ie: "I need a six hour block Thursday night, starting > at 7pm", as opposed to the "monthly service with an FAP" that most > people seem to sell. Wha

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Our core business is not as a service provider, as in selling services to others, but we act as a service provider providing services for the various customers in our internal network that we support. Our core used to be an all Cisco Core. a few years back the decision was made to replace this wit

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

In my experience it all comes down to Cisco-certified people being easy to find, and managers not wanting to spend all their time in the hiring process. So yes, I've generally seen Cisco as the de-facto choice, but it's rarely been a technical argument that swings the balance. I'm generally playing

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On 1/10/2011 9:31 AM, Brandon Kim wrote: Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based? Am I limiting myself by thinking that Cisco is the "de facto" vendor of choice? I'm not looking for so much "fanboy"

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

On Jan 10, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Brandon Kim wrote: > > Hello gents: > > I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a > mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment. > > Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about > being a service provider tha

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

On 1/10/2011 9:28 AM, Chris wrote: The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux box, then connecting that back to a 6500. What are the general impressions of the ASR series? I need to get one to play with.

Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Hello gents: I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment. Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based? Am I limiting myself by thin

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux box, then connecting that back to a 6500. What are the general impressions of the ASR series? On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Justin Wilson wrote: >    Cisco AS

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

On 1/9/2011 5:27 PM, John Curran wrote: Excellent question. To the extent that it is best practices on these types of services, then that's relatively easy for ARIN to interface with... if it is specific direction to ARIN to "do xyz", then ultimately the decision rests with the ARIN Board regard

Satellite IP

This is admittedly a touch end-usery, my apologies... I'm looking into satellite-based 2-way IP transport, on the scale of SCPC DVB-RCS or iDirect, as an adjunct to the already installed "traditional" one-way satellite gear installed in the Frontline DSNG truck owned by my new employer, both for

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

Cisco ASR 1000. For T3 you can get a 4 port card. Seems to perform well. Also have a 6500 deployed with some flexwan interfaces. Believe this will also work in the 7000 something chassis. Justin -- Justin Wilson Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog ­ xISP News http://www.

How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?

Hello, I'm looking to put some feelers out there and see what people are doing to aggregate WAN customers (T1,T3, etc...) these days. What platforms/devices are you using? What seems to be working/not working? Any insights would be great! Thanks, Chris

Three blocks of AS Numbers allocated to the RIPE NCC

Hi, The IANA AS Numbers registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of three blocks to the RIPE NCC in January 2011. 56320-57343Assigned by RIPE NCC whois.ripe.net 2011-01-04 57344-58367Assigned by RIPE NCC whois.ripe.net 2011-01-04 197632-198655 Assigned by RIPE NCC

Re: NIST IPv6 document

On 7 Jan 2011, at 15:12, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> 1. Block packets destined for your point-to-point links at your >>>borders. There's no legitimate reason someone should be >> >>

  1   2   >