RE: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Nathan Anderson]

On Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:03 PM, Brian R. Watters 
 wrote:

[snip]

> Fast Ether has always been set @ auto 

Just in case you missed it, I would echo Brielle's earlier advice: please try 
forcing both laptop and the FE it's plugged into to 100/Full, auto disabled, 
and try your tests again.  I feel like this thread has developed an unhealthy 
fixation with the GE <-> Comcast segment when it's just as likely that it's 
working perfectly fine and the problem is between Laptop <-> FE. :-)

For whatever reason, I have historically had very bad luck/experience with 7200 
FE interfaces and auto-negotiation, FWIW.

-- 
Nathan Anderson
First Step Internet, LLC
nath...@fsr.com

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Randy]

Never mind control and what Comcast says about hard-coding speed and duplex!
The question is:

What happens when you set the int facing Comcast CPE to auto?
Does the link even come up?
*IF* the link comes up, can you ping your next-hop?

If you can, leave auto-neg on despite what what Comcast may say/require.

Post a "sh int gix/y" and "sh int fax/y"

If the above outputs are *clean*, I would say a TAC case is called for.


--- On Thu, 3/29/12, Brian R. Watters  wrote:

> From: Brian R. Watters 
> Subject: Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed
> To: "Randy" 
> Cc: "NANOG list" 
> Date: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 7:02 PM
> 
> 
> A couple of questions - 
> 
> 1) What flavor of NPE are you using?
> 
> NPE-G1
> 
> 2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2  OR is this a
> PA?
> 3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be
> connecting your laptop to, on a separate PA in chassis?
> 
> Laptop connected directly to router via slot 4 
> PA-FE-TX
> 
> 4) Have you verified you that "bandwidth-points" have not
> been exceeded for bus-1 and/or 2: slots 1,3,5 for bus1 and
> 2,4,6; also 0(if I/O controller is present. It is 600 points
> for bus1 and 600 for bus2.
> 
> PCI bus mb1 has 390 bandwidth points
> PCI bus mb2 has 500 bandwidth points
> 
> 
> Have you *hard-coded* speed and duplex on any of you eth
> ints? Please don't!
> 
> GIGE has been both hard and auto .. same results .. Fast
> Ether has always been set @ auto
> 
> Let both ints auto-negotiate speed&duplex.
> 
> Comcast states that we are required to have a hard code FULL
> DUPLEX and SPEED 100 as well as flow control OFF however I
> can not appear to be able to disable it :(
> 
> 
> after having done so, post the output of:
> 
> sh int gi x/y and sh int fa x/y
> 
> (hardcoding speed/duplex is sometimes required when dealing
> with brain-dead CPE. I have also seen other flavors of
> brain-dead CPE that *only* work when speed/duplex are set to
> auto)
> 
> ./Randy
> 
>

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[John Neiberger]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Brian R. Watters  wrote:
>
>
> A couple of questions -
>
> 1) What flavor of NPE are you using?
>
> NPE-G1
>
> 2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2  OR is this a PA?
> 3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop 
> to, on a separate PA in chassis?
>
> Laptop connected directly to router via slot 4  PA-FE-TX
>
> 4) Have you verified you that "bandwidth-points" have not been exceeded for 
> bus-1 and/or 2: slots 1,3,5 for bus1 and 2,4,6; also 0(if I/O controller is 
> present. It is 600 points for bus1 and 600 for bus2.
>
> PCI bus mb1 has 390 bandwidth points
> PCI bus mb2 has 500 bandwidth points
>
>
> Have you *hard-coded* speed and duplex on any of you eth ints? Please don't!
>
> GIGE has been both hard and auto .. same results .. Fast Ether has always 
> been set @ auto
>
> Let both ints auto-negotiate speed&duplex.
>
> Comcast states that we are required to have a hard code FULL DUPLEX and SPEED 
> 100 as well as flow control OFF however I can not appear to be able to 
> disable it :(

If the Comcast side is hard-coded to 100/Full then you really only
have one choice, set your side to 100/Full, as well. For the past
decade, Cisco gear completely disables autonegotiation if you hard set
the speed and duplex settings. Some equipment still participates in
auto even when you hard set it. That's why you occasionally get duplex
mismatches even when both sides are hard set. The side that
participates in auto will expect to see an autonegotiating link
partner. When it doesn't see one, it drops back to half duplex because
it assumes it is connected to a hub (This is for Fast Ethernet.)

So, if you connect a piece of Cisco gear and it is hard set to
100/full, you'll be fine. If you connect a laptop or some other device
with a NIC that still participates in auto even when you hard set the
settings, you won't get that to work well.

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Brian R. Watters]

A couple of questions - 

1) What flavor of NPE are you using?

NPE-G1

2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2  OR is this a PA?
3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop 
to, on a separate PA in chassis?

Laptop connected directly to router via slot 4  PA-FE-TX

4) Have you verified you that "bandwidth-points" have not been exceeded for 
bus-1 and/or 2: slots 1,3,5 for bus1 and 2,4,6; also 0(if I/O controller is 
present. It is 600 points for bus1 and 600 for bus2.

PCI bus mb1 has 390 bandwidth points
PCI bus mb2 has 500 bandwidth points


Have you *hard-coded* speed and duplex on any of you eth ints? Please don't!

GIGE has been both hard and auto .. same results .. Fast Ether has always been 
set @ auto

Let both ints auto-negotiate speed&duplex.

Comcast states that we are required to have a hard code FULL DUPLEX and SPEED 
100 as well as flow control OFF however I can not appear to be able to disable 
it :(


after having done so, post the output of:

sh int gi x/y and sh int fa x/y

(hardcoding speed/duplex is sometimes required when dealing with brain-dead 
CPE. I have also seen other flavors of brain-dead CPE that *only* work when 
speed/duplex are set to auto)

./Randy

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Ian Henderson]

On 30/03/2012, at 12:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote:

> interface GigabitEthernet0/1
> description Comcast Inet Feed Metro E 20MB
> bandwidth 10
> ip address 12.12.12.12 255.255.255.252
> no ip unreachables
> no ip route-cache
> load-interval 30
> duplex full
> speed 100
> media-type rj45
> no negotiation auto
> no cdp enable

Remove 'no ip route-cache'. This will be forcing all traffic via the slowest 
path possible. 

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Randy]

--- On Thu, 3/29/12, Brian R. Watters  wrote:

> From: Brian R. Watters 
> Subject: Comcast Ethernet Feed
> To: "NANOG list" 
> Date: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 5:36 PM
> We are about to accept a 20MEG
> Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant as well as a
> BGP feed across the same link.
> 
> I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to
> know best practice for deploying for optimal performance
> across this interface.
> 
> Any ideas and or direction would be extremely helpful as we
> are seeing some real issues such as.
> 
> Direct connect (without BGP) to the CPE from Comcast (Fiber
> to Ethernet) via a laptop gives the level of performance we
> would expect, However as soon as we terminate to our router
> via the GIGE which is set to 100MB full duplex and all flow
> control turned off (Negotiation auto) per Comcast and
> connect up via a 100MB fast Ethernet interface directly
> connected we get a fraction of the speed when direct
> connected.
> 
> Ideas?
> 
> 
> BRW
> 


A couple of questions - 

1) What flavor of NPE are you using?
2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2  OR is this a PA?
3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop 
to, on a separate PA in chassis?
4) Have you verified you that "bandwidth-points" have not been exceeded for 
bus-1 and/or 2: slots 1,3,5 for bus1 and 2,4,6; also 0(if I/O controller is 
present. It is 600 points for bus1 and 600 for bus2.
(A sh ver will provice the info)

You can google:
"Cisco 7200 Series Port Adapter Hardware Configuration Guidelines"
for additional info.

Finally,

Have you *hard-coded* speed and duplex on any of you eth ints? Please don't!

Let both ints auto-negotiate speed&duplex.

after having done so, post the output of:

sh int gi x/y and sh int fa x/y

(hardcoding speed/duplex is sometimes required when dealing with brain-dead 
CPE. I have also seen other flavors of brain-dead CPE that *only* work when 
speed/duplex are set to auto)

./Randy

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Brian R. Watters]

The GIGe is on-board with the NPE-G1 and from what I am told no bandwidth 
points to deal with .. the PA is in slot 4 with ZERO other traffic on that slot 
or the port, all other traffic that is of any real size is on the other two 
GIGE interfaces that are also on-board with the NPE-G1 blade.



- Original Message -
From: "Brielle Bruns" 
To: "NANOG list" 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:42:11 PM
Subject: Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On 3/29/12 7:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote:
> Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our
> NPE-G1 that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do
> see the flow control is not supported via the other side (Comcast)
> but as soon as I refresh and view the GIG# interface again I note
> that flow control is turned back on and "no negotiation auto" is back
> on the interface cfg ?, this is certainly part of the issue .. is
> their a way to disable flow control on the onboard GIGE ?  .. as
> stated Comcast does not want flow control on.
>
> Yes there are other ports on this router that perform without issue
> and as designed both other GIGE interfaces that are VLAN'ed and
> Serial interfaces that are both DS3 and a PA-4T bonded to 6MEG's.


How do you have the PA modules installed?  Layout can make a huge 
difference on those given the bandwidth points system.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7200/configuration/7200_port_adapter_config_guidelines/3875In.html#wp1061412



-- 
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org


-- 






Brian R. Watters 
Director 
5718 East Shields Ave ■ Fresno, CA 93727 
tel - (559) - 420-0205 ■ fax - (559) - 272-5266 

Line
website | My LinkedIn | email   TwitterFacebookLinkedIn

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Brielle Bruns]

On 3/29/12 7:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote:

Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our
NPE-G1 that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do
see the flow control is not supported via the other side (Comcast)
but as soon as I refresh and view the GIG# interface again I note
that flow control is turned back on and "no negotiation auto" is back
on the interface cfg ?, this is certainly part of the issue .. is
their a way to disable flow control on the onboard GIGE ?  .. as
stated Comcast does not want flow control on.

Yes there are other ports on this router that perform without issue
and as designed both other GIGE interfaces that are VLAN'ed and
Serial interfaces that are both DS3 and a PA-4T bonded to 6MEG's.



How do you have the PA modules installed?  Layout can make a huge 
difference on those given the bandwidth points system.


http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7200/configuration/7200_port_adapter_config_guidelines/3875In.html#wp1061412



--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Brian R. Watters]

Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our NPE-G1 
that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do see the flow 
control is not supported via the other side (Comcast) but as soon as I refresh 
and view the GIG# interface again I note that flow control is turned back on 
and "no negotiation auto" is back on the interface cfg ?, this is certainly 
part of the issue .. is their a way to disable flow control on the onboard GIGE 
?  .. as stated Comcast does not want flow control on.

Yes there are other ports on this router that perform without issue and as 
designed both other GIGE interfaces that are VLAN'ed and Serial interfaces that 
are both DS3 and a PA-4T bonded to 6MEG's.

the GIGE cfg is as follows

interface GigabitEthernet0/1
 description Comcast Inet Feed Metro E 20MB
 bandwidth 10
 ip address 12.12.12.12 255.255.255.252
 no ip unreachables
 no ip route-cache
 load-interval 30
 duplex full
 speed 100
 media-type rj45
 no negotiation auto
 no cdp enable

We have 2GB of memory on this router with a very light load on the CPU.



On 3/29/12 6:53 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>
>> From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based
>> 100BaseT interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate
>> 100-full, but rather only half.  This leaves one end diff then the
>> other and creates issues with performance.  Try forcing both the
>> laptop and router to 100-full and see if it helps.
>
> Those interfaces don't to auto-negotiation at all.  That's why they
> default to 100 half.  OP said they were using a Gig interface though.
> Maybe a copper 10/100/1000 port on an NPE-G<1|2>?  I haven't used those,
> but I'd bet they support auto-negotiation.  1000baseT requires it.

I'm pretty sure the PA-FE-TX boards can do auto neg, just not 100 full 
(just tested with a 7507 with a VIP4 w a PA-FE-TX and a cheap 10BT hub - 
my 7206VXR is not powered up ATM).

Believe it has something to do with the DEC ethernet chip they use (I 
have an older desktop that just happens to have the same DEC chipset 
that those do and has exactly the same problem).

Based on what he said, I read his setup as having a G1 or G2 NPE, using 
the on-NPE gig to hook to comcast, and a PA-FE-TX in one of the PA slots.

At least, that's how it sounded to me - why else use 100BaseT on a gige 
as most laptops and desktops in the past... 4-5 years or so have onboard 
gige?



-- 
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Brielle Bruns]

On 3/29/12 7:06 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:


I'm pretty sure the PA-FE-TX boards can do auto neg, just not 100 full
(just tested with a 7507 with a VIP4 w a PA-FE-TX and a cheap 10BT hub -
my 7206VXR is not powered up ATM).


Eh, just tried again to show someone and the link didn't even come up 
this time.


I'll toss is up to an oddity or me misreading (likely the latter).  My 
mistake.


--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Brielle Bruns]

On 3/29/12 6:53 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Brielle Bruns wrote:


From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based
100BaseT interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate
100-full, but rather only half.  This leaves one end diff then the
other and creates issues with performance.  Try forcing both the
laptop and router to 100-full and see if it helps.


Those interfaces don't to auto-negotiation at all.  That's why they
default to 100 half.  OP said they were using a Gig interface though.
Maybe a copper 10/100/1000 port on an NPE-G<1|2>?  I haven't used those,
but I'd bet they support auto-negotiation.  1000baseT requires it.


I'm pretty sure the PA-FE-TX boards can do auto neg, just not 100 full 
(just tested with a 7507 with a VIP4 w a PA-FE-TX and a cheap 10BT hub - 
my 7206VXR is not powered up ATM).


Believe it has something to do with the DEC ethernet chip they use (I 
have an older desktop that just happens to have the same DEC chipset 
that those do and has exactly the same problem).


Based on what he said, I read his setup as having a G1 or G2 NPE, using 
the on-NPE gig to hook to comcast, and a PA-FE-TX in one of the PA slots.


At least, that's how it sounded to me - why else use 100BaseT on a gige 
as most laptops and desktops in the past... 4-5 years or so have onboard 
gige?




--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Derek Ivey]

This.

We have a Comcast MetroE PtP connection between our office and our datacenter 
and I found that it was defaulting to half duplex. I forced both of my ends to 
100 Full and it fixed my issue.

Derek

On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:47 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:

> On 3/29/12 6:36 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote:
>> We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their
>> fiber plant as well as a BGP feed across the same link.
>> 
>> I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know
>> best practice for deploying for optimal performance across this
>> interface.
>> 
>> Any ideas and or direction would be extremely helpful as we are
>> seeing some real issues such as.
>> 
>> Direct connect (without BGP) to the CPE from Comcast (Fiber to
>> Ethernet) via a laptop gives the level of performance we would
>> expect, However as soon as we terminate to our router via the GIGE
>> which is set to 100MB full duplex and all flow control turned off
>> (Negotiation auto) per Comcast and connect up via a 100MB fast
>> Ethernet interface directly connected we get a fraction of the speed
>> when direct connected.
> 
> 
> 
> From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 100BaseT 
> interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 100-full, but rather 
> only half.  This leaves one end diff then the other and creates issues with 
> performance.  Try forcing both the laptop and router to 100-full and see if 
> it helps.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Brielle Bruns
> The Summit Open Source Development Group
> http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
> 

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Jon Lewis]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Brielle Bruns wrote:

From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 100BaseT 
interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 100-full, but rather 
only half.  This leaves one end diff then the other and creates issues with 
performance.  Try forcing both the laptop and router to 100-full and see if 
it helps.


Those interfaces don't to auto-negotiation at all.  That's why they 
default to 100 half.  OP said they were using a Gig interface though. 
Maybe a copper 10/100/1000 port on an NPE-G<1|2>?  I haven't used those, 
but I'd bet they support auto-negotiation.  1000baseT requires it.


It'd be helpful to know how they've tested through the router, and if 
there are other connections routed through that VXR that are working at 
the expected rates.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Brielle Bruns]

On 3/29/12 6:36 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote:

We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their
fiber plant as well as a BGP feed across the same link.

I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know
best practice for deploying for optimal performance across this
interface.

Any ideas and or direction would be extremely helpful as we are
seeing some real issues such as.

Direct connect (without BGP) to the CPE from Comcast (Fiber to
Ethernet) via a laptop gives the level of performance we would
expect, However as soon as we terminate to our router via the GIGE
which is set to 100MB full duplex and all flow control turned off
(Negotiation auto) per Comcast and connect up via a 100MB fast
Ethernet interface directly connected we get a fraction of the speed
when direct connected.




From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 
100BaseT interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 
100-full, but rather only half.  This leaves one end diff then the other 
and creates issues with performance.  Try forcing both the laptop and 
router to 100-full and see if it helps.



--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

Comcast Ethernet Feed

[Brian R. Watters]

We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant 
as well as a BGP feed across the same link.

I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know best practice 
for deploying for optimal performance across this interface.

Any ideas and or direction would be extremely helpful as we are seeing some 
real issues such as.

Direct connect (without BGP) to the CPE from Comcast (Fiber to Ethernet) via a 
laptop gives the level of performance we would expect, However as soon as we 
terminate to our router via the GIGE which is set to 100MB full duplex and all 
flow control turned off (Negotiation auto) per Comcast and connect up via a 
100MB fast Ethernet interface directly connected we get a fraction of the speed 
when direct connected.

Ideas?


BRW

Re: BCP38 Deployment

[Joe Provo]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:31:26PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote:
> 
> >uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS
> >platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along
> >with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements)
> 
> uRPF: or as it's now used in ios,
> ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx ...
> 
> I don't know what it would have to do with ip classless.  

Stated to counter 'config is hard' as there junk you have to do
regardless. Add it to your standard specs and be done.

> uRPF stops your customers from sending forged source address 
> packets.  Since forged source address packets are rarely traced back to 
> their actual source, I'm not sure how configuring it on your network would 
> reduce your abuse desk workload at all.

Guess we had better informed neighbors? :-) You caught the 
rhetoric; the cost was that trivial.
 

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG

Re: BCP38 Deployment

[Jon Lewis]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote:


uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS
platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along
with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements)


uRPF: or as it's now used in ios,
ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx ...

I don't know what it would have to do with ip classless.  It requires ip 
cef, but so do lots of other "features" including reasonably fast packet 
forwarding.



and job done. It assisted in reducing our abuse desk workload by
eliminating a class of attacks from us, so the trivial "cost" was
worth it in opex. ISTR it being on the required feature list for
additional CMTS evaluations but it has been many years since I
touched that kit.


uRPF stops your customers from sending forged source address 
packets.  Since forged source address packets are rarely traced back to 
their actual source, I'm not sure how configuring it on your network would 
reduce your abuse desk workload at all.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:

>> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). 
>> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're 
>> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like 
>> what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban 
>> or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. 
>> The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed  
>> frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future.
>> 
>> Greg
> 
> I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're
> saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz
> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users.  I guess
> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
> Ghz.  AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional.  It needs to
> be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
> available @ 24 Ghz.
> 
> It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
> licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future.
> 
> Oliver

I don't think it's an FCC issue so much as 24Ghz has so much fade tendency with 
atmospheric moisture that an omnidirectional antenna is about as effective as a 
resistor coupled to ground (i.e. dummy load).

The only way you can get a signal to go any real distance at that frequency is 
to use a highly directional high-gain antenna at both ends.

Owen

RE: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber

[Scott Berkman]

Someone else to check is USCarrier (http://www.uscarrier.com/), they are a
smaller regional fiber transit provider I've had great experiences with in
the past.  They only have a few POPs in Alabama though.

Good luck,

-Scott

-Original Message-
From: -Hammer- [mailto:bhmc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:27 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT
Fiber

Joe,
 We have a wide variety of both Internet and MPLS (WAN) circuits in
Alabama from AT&T and ITC/Deltacom (Now Earthlink Business). They both have
a significant footprint in Alabama. Check with Earthlink Business.

-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer



On 3/21/2012 10:44 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> I have a site in Alabama that could really use some additional 
> diversity, but apparently ATT fiber is the only game in town.
>
> If anybody has any options, such as fixed wireless in the 10-50mbs, 
> please reply to me, off-list.
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
>
> .
>

Re: BCP38 Deployment

[Joe Provo]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:45:12AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> Leo,
> 
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >> #1) Money.
> >> #2) Laziness.
> 
> > While Patrick is spot on, there is a third issue which is related
> > to money and laziness, but also has some unique aspects.
> > 
> > BCP38 makes the assumption that the ISP does some "configuration"
> > to insure only properly sourced packets enter the network.  That
> > may have been true when BCP38 was written, but no longer accurately
> > reflects how networks are built and operated.
> 
> An interesting assertion.  I haven't looked at how end-user
> networks are built recently.  I had assumed there continue to be
> customer aggregation points within ISP infrastructure in which
> BCP38-type filtering could occur.  You're saying this is no longer
> the case?  What has replaced it?

uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS 
platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along
with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements)
and job done. It assisted in reducing our abuse desk workload by
eliminating a class of attacks from us, so the trivial "cost" was 
worth it in opex. ISTR it being on the required feature list for 
additional CMTS evaluations but it has been many years since I 
touched that kit.

Cheers,

Joe

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Jonathan Lassoff]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli  wrote:
> Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is
> rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair
> number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a
> tower full of them you're going to have issues.

This is exactly the kind of case that I'm thinking about (central towers).

The novel thing Ubiquiti seems to do is TDMA-like channelization (like
with Airmax), or by changing the coding scheme over the air to
maintain orthogonality (what it sounds like this new product may be
doing).

--j

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Joel jaeggli]

On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux  wrote:
>> I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're
>> saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
>> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz
>> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users.
> 
> I suspect this is just due to cost and practicality. ISPs, nor users
> will want to pay 3k USD, nor widely utilize a service that requires
> near-direct LOS.
> I could see this working well in rural or sparse areas that might not
> mind the transceiver.

Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is
rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair
number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a
tower full of them you're going to have issues.

>> I guess
>> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
>> Ghz.
> 
> The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not
> tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for use still should comply
> with FCC's part 15 rules though.
> 
>> AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional.  It needs to
>> be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
>> available @ 24 Ghz.
> 
> Being so directional, I'm not sure that cross-talk will as much of an
> issue, except for dense hub-like sites. It sounds like there's some
> novel application of using GPS timing to make the radios spectrally
> orthogonal -- that's pretty cool. If they can somehow coordinate
> timing across point-to-point links, that would be great for sites that
> co-locate multiple link terminations.
> 
> Overall, this looks like a pretty cool product!
> 
> --j
> 
> 

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Jonathan Lassoff]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux  wrote:
> I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're
> saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz
> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users.

I suspect this is just due to cost and practicality. ISPs, nor users
will want to pay 3k USD, nor widely utilize a service that requires
near-direct LOS.
I could see this working well in rural or sparse areas that might not
mind the transceiver.

> I guess
> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
> Ghz.

The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not
tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for use still should comply
with FCC's part 15 rules though.

> AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional.  It needs to
> be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
> available @ 24 Ghz.

Being so directional, I'm not sure that cross-talk will as much of an
issue, except for dense hub-like sites. It sounds like there's some
novel application of using GPS timing to make the radios spectrally
orthogonal -- that's pretty cool. If they can somehow coordinate
timing across point-to-point links, that would be great for sites that
co-locate multiple link terminations.

Overall, this looks like a pretty cool product!

--j

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Anurag Bhatia]

Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for
backhual. Probably cheaper & more reliable solution then hanging lasers
between towers for backhaul?

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux wrote:

> > Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all.
> Like what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few
> urban or semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for
> backhaul. The reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for
> licensed  frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the
> future.
> >
> > Greg
>
> I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're
> saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz
> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users.  I guess
> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
> Ghz.  AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional.  It needs to
> be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
> available @ 24 Ghz.
>
> It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
> licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future.
>
> Oliver
>
>


-- 

Anurag Bhatia
anuragbhatia.com
or simply - http://[2600:3c01:e000:1::5] if you are on IPv6 connected
network!

Twitter: @anurag_bhatia 
Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Oliver Garraux]

> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). 
> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're 
> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like 
> what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban or 
> semi-urban places where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. The 
> reason why people pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed  
> frequencies is you're buying insurance it's going to work in the future.
>
> Greg

I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're
saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz
as only for backhaul - no connections to end users.  I guess
point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
Ghz.  AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional.  It needs to
be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
available @ 24 Ghz.

It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future.

Oliver

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Greg Ihnen]

Respectfully, the claim isn't a "decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth 
between 10 and 100 times", the claim is "Operators will be able to get 10 to 
100 times more data throughput for the same dollar." which granted is a very 
good thing, but it does not imply how much more money one would have to spend 
with a competitor to reach that bandwidth level. It is only an assumption that 
you would have to buy between 10 and 100 of the competitor's products and put 
them in parallel (not feasible anyway) to get the same performance thereby 
costing between 10 and 100 times a much. Logically it's possible that the 
competitor's product which matches AirFiber is only penny more, which it's not, 
but that's all one could logically conclude from UBNT's statement - for the 
same price you get a lot more bandwidth _not_ how much more you'd have to spend 
to get that performance level from a competitor.

Ubiquiti gear is shattering price barriers, but I believe the difference in 
cost between their product and their competition's which can offer the same 
bandwidth is less than 10:1 and certainly not 100:1. AirFiber is reported to be 
$3000 a pair (both ends of the link). 100:1 would mean the competitor's cost is 
$300,000. I don't believe anyone else's 24 GHz UNLICENSED gear is in that price 
range.

Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). Nothing 
stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're drowning in a 
high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like what's happened 
to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few urban or semi-urban places 
where you still can use those frequencies for backhaul. The reason why people 
pay the big bucks for licenses and gear for licensed  frequencies is you're 
buying insurance it's going to work in the future.

Greg

On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Gordon Cook wrote:

> 
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
> 
>> Anyhow, check the
>> video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
>> it's worth watching.
> 
> The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps 
> between 10 and 100 times.  I have just finished the preparation of an 
> extensive article on a nebraska wisp whose network is backhaul radios on 
> towers about 5 miles apart.  he is on over 100 towers across a space of 150 
> miles by roughly 40 miles
> 
> here is the text of the video which indeed is very good
> 
> Robert Pera, CEO Ubiquity:  Ubiquity had a lot of strength.   We had hardware 
> design software design, mechanical design, antenna design.   We had  firmware 
> and protocol design but the one thing that we were missing  was really our 
> own radio design at our old modem design.
> 
> Engineer 1:  The group of guys who are here have been working together for 
> about 20 years.   we collectively have a lot of experience in the wireless 
> data world -  probably more so than any other company. This team of people 
> originally were all hired into Motorola,  some of us go back to  the late 
> 1980s. We actually worked on a program called altair.  Altair was one of the 
> 1st attempts at doing in building wireless networking. It was  the 1st 
> wireless local area network product ever.   It was actually the 1st time that 
> I am aware of that anyone had actually built a broadband wireless networking 
> product.
> 
> What we did on altair continued on through Motorola and  eventually became a 
> product called  canopy.   Canopy is a very popular product now. It is a 
> wireless Internet distribution system  used to provide high-speed Internet 
> people in houses where there typically is no access to cable or to DSL 
> 
> Gary Schulz:  we had kind of run the canopy product through its maturity and 
> did not see a lot of additional room for growth there.  When the ubiquity 
> management approached us, we were looking for the opportunity to continue to 
> build new stuff and that's what made it very interesting to come over and 
> work for Ubiquity  Because their focus is on the new stuff. It is on working 
> on high speed and low cost.
> 
> The freedom to design at our level was just go and do it. What are you going 
> to do?  it was like start with a clean sheet of paper.  start with nothing. 
> We could build and design this product in any way we saw fit.   The idea was 
> just to be the best we could.
> air fiber is the start of the new product line within Ubiquity. It is the 1st 
> of several products  that are highly efficient, high data rate,  wireless 
> broadband products.
> 
> Greg Bedian:   Our design is something that is a little bit crazy. We are  
> trying  to build a 0 IF radio at 24 GHz and do this for a 100 MHz bandwidth 
> which  is something that I am not sure anyone else has been crazy enough to 
> try.
> 
> Chuck Macenski:  As fast as you can send a packet on an ethernet wire we can 
> receive it and transmit with no limitations.
> 
> Air fiber is designed to be mounted

Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)

[Anurag Bhatia]

Thanks Jacob and Alex.


Appreciate your reply.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jacob Broussard <
shadowedstrangerli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> While I can't provide an average, I can say we generally have anywhere
> from 2-5 microwaves on most sites (with a few exceptions that only have 1,
> and a few that have more.)  Our MWs go up to 1.6gbps.  The sites aren't
> provisioned a set amount of bandwidth, they can use as much as they want
> (up to the capacity of the aggregate of their links), which almost never
> puts our BH anywhere near capacity, unless the ring gets cut near the pop
> and we have to move lots of data through just a couple of sites. (Sorry for
> the crappy formatting, small and barely usable phone screen.)
>
> Thanks!
> -Jacob
> On Mar 28, 2012 1:45 AM, "Anurag Bhatia"  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Nice discussion. Just a small question here - how much backhaul  at
>> present
>> 2G, 3G and LTE based towers have? Just curious to hear an average number.
>> I
>> agree it would be  a significant difference from busy street in New York
>> to
>> less crowded area say in Michigan but what sort of bandwidth telcos
>> provision per tower?
>>
>> On fiber - I can imagine virtually unlimited bandwidth with incremental
>> cost of optical instruments but how much to wireless backhaul based sites?
>> Do they put Gigabit microwave everywhere?
>>
>> If not then say 100Mbps? If so then how end users on Verizon LTE people
>> individual users get 10Mbps and so on? Is that operated at high
>> contention?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> (Sent from my mobile device)
>>
>> Anurag Bhatia
>> http://anuragbhatia.com
>> On Mar 27, 2012 10:26 PM, "Alexander Harrowell" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:45 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Broussard
>> > >  wrote:
>> > > > Who knows what technology will be like in 5-10 years?  That's the
>> whole
>> > > > point of what he was trying to say.  Maybe wireless carriers will
>> use
>> > > > visible wavelength lasers to recievers on top of customer's houses
>> for
>> > > all
>> > > > we know.  10 years is a LONG time for tech, and anything can happen.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Regarding lasers. I agree that modulating a laser beam to carry
>> information
>> > is a great idea. Perhaps, though, we could direct the beam down some
>> sort
>> > of optical pipe or waveguide to spare ourselves the refractive losses
>> and
>> > keep the pigeons and rain and whatnot out of the Fresnel zone. We might
>> > call it an "optical wire" or "optical fibre" or something. no, it'll
>> never
>> > catch on...
>> >
>> > Hi Jacob,
>> > >
>> > > The scientists doing the basic research now know. It's referred to as
>> > > the "technology pipeline." When someone says, "that's in the pipeline"
>> > > they mean that the basic science has been discovered to make something
>> > > possible and now engineers are in the process of figuring out how to
>> > > make it _viable_. The pipeline tends to be 5 to 10 years long, so
>> > > basic science researchers are making the discoveries *now* which will
>> > > be reflected in deployed technologies 10 years from now.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > I recall an Agilent Technologies presentation from a couple of years
>> back
>> > that demonstrated that historically, the great majority of incremental
>> > capacity on cellular networks was accounted for by cell subdivision.
>> Better
>> > air interfaces help, more spectrum helps, but as the maximum system
>> > throughput is roughly defined by (spectral efficiency * spectrum)*
>> number
>> > of cells (assuming an even traffic distribution and no intercell
>> > interference or re-use overhead, for the sake of a finger exercise),
>> > nothing beats more cells.
>> >
>> >
>> > As a result, the Wireless Pony will only save you if you can find a
>> 10GigE
>> > Backhaul Pony to service the extra cells. After a certain degree of
>> > density, you'd need almost as much fibre (and more to the point, trench
>> > mileage) to service a couple of small cells per street as you would to
>> > *pass the houses in the street with fibre*.
>> >
>> >
>> > One of the great things FTTH gets you is a really awesome backhaul
>> network
>> > for us cell heads. One of the reasons we were able to roll out 3G in the
>> > first place was that DSL got deployed and you could provision on two or
>> a
>> > dozen DSL lines for a cell site.
>> >
>> >
>> > You can't have wireless without backhaul (barring implausible
>> discoveries
>> > in fundamental mesh network theory). Most wireless capacity comes from
>> cell
>> > subdivision. Subdivision demands more backhaul.
>> >
>> >
>> > > There is *nothing* promising in the pipeline for wireless tech that
>> > > has any real chance of leading to a wide scale replacement for fiber
>> > > optic cable. *Nothing.* Which means that in 10 years, wireless will be
>> > > better, faster and cheaper but it won't have made significant inroads
>> > > replacing fiber to the home and business.
>> > >
>> > > 

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

[Gordon Cook]

On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote:

> Anyhow, check the
> video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
> it's worth watching.

The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between 
10 and 100 times.  I have just finished the preparation of an extensive article 
on a nebraska wisp whose network is backhaul radios on towers about 5 miles 
apart.  he is on over 100 towers across a space of 150 miles by roughly 40 miles

here is the text of the video which indeed is very good

Robert Pera, CEO Ubiquity:  Ubiquity had a lot of strength.   We had hardware 
design software design, mechanical design, antenna design.   We had  firmware 
and protocol design but the one thing that we were missing  was really our own 
radio design at our old modem design.

Engineer 1:  The group of guys who are here have been working together for 
about 20 years.   we collectively have a lot of experience in the wireless data 
world -  probably more so than any other company. This team of people 
originally were all hired into Motorola,  some of us go back to  the late 
1980s. We actually worked on a program called altair.  Altair was one of the 
1st attempts at doing in building wireless networking. It was  the 1st wireless 
local area network product ever.   It was actually the 1st time that I am aware 
of that anyone had actually built a broadband wireless networking product.

What we did on altair continued on through Motorola and  eventually became a 
product called  canopy.   Canopy is a very popular product now. It is a 
wireless Internet distribution system  used to provide high-speed Internet 
people in houses where there typically is no access to cable or to DSL 

Gary Schulz:  we had kind of run the canopy product through its maturity and 
did not see a lot of additional room for growth there.  When the ubiquity 
management approached us, we were looking for the opportunity to continue to 
build new stuff and that's what made it very interesting to come over and work 
for Ubiquity  Because their focus is on the new stuff. It is on working on high 
speed and low cost.

The freedom to design at our level was just go and do it. What are you going to 
do?  it was like start with a clean sheet of paper.  start with nothing. We 
could build and design this product in any way we saw fit.   The idea was just 
to be the best we could.
air fiber is the start of the new product line within Ubiquity. It is the 1st 
of several products  that are highly efficient, high data rate,  wireless 
broadband products.

Greg Bedian:   Our design is something that is a little bit crazy. We are  
trying  to build a 0 IF radio at 24 GHz and do this for a 100 MHz bandwidth 
which  is something that I am not sure anyone else has been crazy enough to try.

Chuck Macenski:  As fast as you can send a packet on an ethernet wire we can 
receive it and transmit with no limitations.

Air fiber is designed to be mounted in a reasonably high location.  It is a 
point to point network where the 2 antennas see each other.  this is a system 
that under certain circumstances can work up to 10 miles.  It is going to be 
very easy to deploy and align.   It is a product that is going to require only 
one person to carry it up the tower and install it.   There is a display on the 
bottom that tells you what sort of power is being received as well as a very 
comprehensive web interface.

We designed all aspects of it. The modem, the radio,  the mechanical housing. 
This is a completely designed from scratch, purpose built solution just to 
deliver backhaul.  So it is not based on wi-fi or anybody else's standards.  As 
a result it does not suffer from any of the other overhead normally associated 
with that.

Built for speed -- if you want to compare the data rates of existing products 
to our product, other products on the market today would give you the expected 
data rate of the flow of water through a garden hose.   Our product will 
provide the flow rate of a firehose. This product will provide 1.4 Gb per 
second of data flow which is 300 times faster than you would normally be able 
to get from your own home Internet service provider.

Operators will be able to get  10 to 100 times more data throughput for the 
same dollar.   That is the big impact that this product is going to have.

Rick Keniuk:  we looked at 24 GHz.  We actually wanted to do something up in 
high frequency and that happens to be the next unlicensed band beyond six 
gigahertz.  You can put it out anywhere. You don't have to do anything. No 
special paperwork. No license fees.  Nobody to go get permission from to 
operate the radio.  The nice part is  that it him allows anyone to operate  the 
product and started up without any issues of having to get licenses or jump 
through certain hoops  of where you can place the product. It is a freedom 
thing.

Inside the air Fiber Design  -- As far as I know no one builds a modem with 
this le

RE: airFiber

[Nick Olsen]

It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5 
ghz gear can. It's 24ghz.

They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert.

In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going 
to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this 
would be like between two buildings requiring highspeed backhaul. (Were 
talking roof-top to roof-top of maybe a few thousand feet or more between 
them.

Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106


 From: "Drew Weaver" 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl" 
Subject: RE: airFiber

I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes 
tricky.

Thanks,
-Drew

-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Eugen Leitl
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
> 
> http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber

Yeah, I got this note the other day.  I am very interested in hearing about 
folks experience with this hardware once it ships.

I almost posted it in the last-mile thread.  Even compared to other 
hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is 
amazing.

I also recommend watching the video they posted:

http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html

You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to 
have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each 
end.

- Jared

--
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only 
mine.

Re: airFiber

[Josh Baird]

They are taking pre-orders now for a (hopefully) June delivery.  I'm
at a conference now and got the rundown yesterday from Ubiquiti.  This
product was designed completely from the ground up by the former
Motorola Canopy 100 team.  It -should- deliver ~700mbit in both
directions @ full duplex.  Note that 24ghz is very susceptible to
"rain fade" and should be used in caution in certain climates,
especially at longer distances approaching 10+km.  Anyhow, check the
video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
it's worth watching.

Josh

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Phil Regnauld  wrote:
> Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes:
>> I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes 
>> tricky.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Drew
>
>        Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other 
> wireless
>        link and the associated Fresnel zone ?
>
>        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone
>
>        Even 100 Mbit/s wireless equipment (which ubqt also happens to make 
> great
>        gear for, at 800 USD / link) will need unobstructed view of the remote
>        point - and it's not all or nothing, the performance will degrade.
>
>        Cheers,
>        Phil
>
>

Re: airFiber

[Phil Regnauld]

Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes:
> I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes 
> tricky.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Drew

Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other 
wireless
link and the associated Fresnel zone ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone

Even 100 Mbit/s wireless equipment (which ubqt also happens to make 
great
gear for, at 800 USD / link) will need unobstructed view of the remote
point - and it's not all or nothing, the performance will degrade.

Cheers,
Phil

RE: airFiber

[Drew Weaver]

I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes 
tricky.

Thanks,
-Drew


-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Eugen Leitl
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
> 
> http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber

Yeah, I got this note the other day.  I am very interested in hearing 
about folks experience with this hardware once it ships.

I almost posted it in the last-mile thread.  Even compared to other 
hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is amazing.

I also recommend watching the video they posted:

http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html

You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this 
to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each end.

- Jared


--
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo]

Apparently they support quad-A glues if you phone them and ask for them.

Personally, I run my own DNS servers, but sometimes it's not an option.
My friend, who originally had this issue, is in a different business
line, he is not proficient in DNS server operation, and thus he's
comfortable hosting his DNS somewhere.

He spent one hour on the phone this morning with Netsol to see if he
could create a subdomain pointing to a DNS server I operate. It was also
a no-go, he got fed up with them and is changing registrars.

Thanks for all the input.

regards

Carlos

On 3/29/12 1:47 PM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>> Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is
>> it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your
>> own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not
>> practical?
> Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue?  
> Or did I miss the original intention?
>
> Regards,
> Tim.
>

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[Tim Franklin]

> Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is
> it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your
> own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not
> practical?

Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue?  Or 
did I miss the original intention?

Regards,
Tim.

Re: airFiber

[Jared Mauch]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
> 
> http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber

Yeah, I got this note the other day.  I am very interested in
hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it ships.

I almost posted it in the last-mile thread.  Even compared
to other hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate
is amazing.

I also recommend watching the video they posted:

http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html

You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can
use this to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself
on each end.

- Jared


-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[Jeroen Massar]

On 2012-03-29 18:21 , james jones wrote:
> Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
> some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
> that is not practical?

They tend to not do IPv6, let alone native IPv6, they also tend to be
behind a IPv4 NAT (which is why lots of folks use AYIYA tunnels to give
them IPv6 connectivity) and more importantly on this subject, you still
need a registrar to actually link the domain name from the tld to your
server and for that purpose you need glue  records and not many
support those, but it is getting better.

Greets,
 Jeroen

airFiber

[Eugen Leitl]

Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.

http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[Cameron Byrne]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, james jones  wrote:
> Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
> some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
> that is not practical?
>

If your goal is , i assume you care about native IPv6 as mandatory
feature.  And, if you care about native IPv6 as a mandatory, EC2 is
not your best better.  They have competition that work very well in
this realm of providing native IPv6.

CB

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[james jones]

Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
that is not practical?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Patti  wrote:

> No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per
> domain name.
>
> Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives.
>
> Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor
> GoDaddy   :-)
>
> Tony Patti
> CIO
> S. Walter Packaging Corp.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Gallagher [mailto:m...@txih.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM
> To: Joseph Snyder
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arturo Servin
> Subject: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
>
> Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain
> services?
> If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in
> the
> bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol
> though.
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Joseph Snyder 
> wrote:
>
> > I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of
> thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones
> that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000
> phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is
> 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project
> budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds
> 50,000 employees.
> >
> > Arturo Servin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >Another reason to not use them.
> >
> >Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it
> shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that
> code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions,
> updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for
> my names..
> >
> > Regards,
> > .as
> >
> > On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> >>> I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need
> >>> is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google
> >>> and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of
> >>> testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
> >>>
> >>> If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up
> >>> some disclaimer.
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> Carlos
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>  On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> > I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a
> > provisioning system, an  record is just a fragging string,
> > just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
> 
>  Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code,
> (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support
> staff
> to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the
> cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue
> generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential
> lost
> in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense.
> Simple business decision.
> 
>  Regards,
>  -drc
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could
> be
> a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
> >>
> >> --John
> >
> >
>
>
>

RE: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[Tony Patti]

No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per
domain name.

Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives.

Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor
GoDaddy   :-) 

Tony Patti
CIO
S. Walter Packaging Corp.

-Original Message-
From: Mike Gallagher [mailto:m...@txih.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM
To: Joseph Snyder
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arturo Servin
Subject: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services?
If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in the
bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol
though.

On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Joseph Snyder  wrote:

> I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of
thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones
that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000
phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is
80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project
budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds
50,000 employees.
> 
> Arturo Servin  wrote:
> 
> 
>Another reason to not use them.
> 
>Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it
shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that
code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions,
updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for
my names..
> 
> Regards,
> .as
> 
> On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
>>> I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need 
>>> is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google 
>>> and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of 
>>> testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
>>> 
>>> If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up 
>>> some disclaimer.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> 
>>> Carlos
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
 On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a 
> provisioning system, an  record is just a fragging string, 
> just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
 
 Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code,
(hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff
to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the
cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue
generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost
in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense.
Simple business decision.
 
 Regards,
 -drc
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be
a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
>> 
>> --John
> 
> 

Re: ifHighSpeed for 10 Gb/s port-channels

[Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin <
fel...@starbyte.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> can anyone confirm why IF-MIB::ifHighSpeed should return 0 for aggregates
> of 10 Gbit/s ports?
>

just to confirm what all those helpful souls told me off-list: most vendors
(Cisco, Juniper, NetScalar) returns ifHighSpeed as sum of current link
aggregate
members speed.

Something like:

IF-MIB::ifHighSpeed.369098752 = Gauge32: 2

or maybe, depends on your equipment configuration or model

IF-MIB::ifHighSpeed.14 = Gauge32: 2



>
> My google-foo led me to several topics on "use ifHighSpeed to 10 Gbit/s",
> but none is clear on 10 Gbit/s aggregated.
>
> So far I could only find references pointing to IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008
> clause 6.3.1.1.16 (aAggDataRate),
> mapping to IF-MIB::ifSpeed, which is locked in 4,294,967,295 (Gauge32). In
> this same standard it is very specific
> about ifHighSpeed: "Set to zero.".
>
> Or, more directly: how can one find current speed of a 10Gb/s+ link
> aggregate port?
>


Looks like it's a vendor thing, so blame them if it's different for you. :)



>
> Please, answer me off-list and I promise to summarize an answer... :)
>
>
Wish to thank you all once more, this data helped me a lot!

Kindly,
Felipe

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo]

+1

If after all this time they haven't been able to have support for 
records, they are doing a really lousy job.

regards

Carlos

On 3/29/12 10:25 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch.
>
> /as
>
>
> On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting  records. 
>>> It was prototype
>>> code with the engineering team.  I had records registered with them.  Have 
>>> since sold the domains
>>> and they moved to other registries.   But they did support it for a while.
>> I too had  with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to 
>> special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on 
>> regarding  or IPvWhat?.
>>
>> I suspect all of the people there that know about these types of things have 
>> moved on. Netsol has been leaking people since their sale to web.com last 
>> year, from actual layoffs and fear of the same.
>>
>> ~matt
>

Re: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber

[-Hammer-]

Joe,
We have a wide variety of both Internet and MPLS (WAN) circuits in 
Alabama from AT&T and ITC/Deltacom (Now Earthlink Business). They both 
have a significant footprint in Alabama. Check with Earthlink Business.


-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer



On 3/21/2012 10:44 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

Hey All,

I have a site in Alabama that could really use some additional 
diversity, but apparently ATT fiber is the only game in town.


If anybody has any options, such as fixed wireless in the 10-50mbs, 
please reply to me, off-list.


Best,

Joe

.

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[Arturo Servin]

Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch.

/as


On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote:

> On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>  once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting  records. 
>> It was prototype
>> code with the engineering team.  I had records registered with them.  Have 
>> since sold the domains
>> and they moved to other registries.   But they did support it for a while.
> 
> I too had  with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to 
> special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on 
> regarding  or IPvWhat?.
> 
> I suspect all of the people there that know about these types of things have 
> moved on. Netsol has been leaking people since their sale to web.com last 
> year, from actual layoffs and fear of the same.
> 
> ~matt

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

[Matt Ryanczak]

On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting  records. 
It was prototype
code with the engineering team.  I had records registered with them.  Have 
since sold the domains
and they moved to other registries.   But they did support it for a while.


I too had  with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to 
special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on 
regarding  or IPvWhat?.


I suspect all of the people there that know about these types of things 
have moved on. Netsol has been leaking people since their sale to 
web.com last year, from actual layoffs and fear of the same.


~matt