Akron OH CO outage
Anyone else in North East Ohio seeing an outage of ATT's CO in Akron? Local news is reporting 911 is out across multiple counties, so can't be good. If anyone has any information, feel free to reach out off-list. David
RE: Akron OH CO outage
Twitter has lots of news on this topic: http://fox8.com/2015/01/13/police-911-systems-down-throughout-summit-co-due-to-power-outage-at-att-office-in-akron/ http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-summit/summit-county-911-lines-down http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/northeast-ohio/2015/01/13/911-outages/21719669/ Frank -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+frnkblk=iname@nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Coulson Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:04 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Akron OH CO outage Anyone else in North East Ohio seeing an outage of ATT's CO in Akron? Local news is reporting 911 is out across multiple counties, so can't be good. If anyone has any information, feel free to reach out off-list. David
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:25:30 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote: AhhhŠ vertically integrated horizontal API¹s Green, vertically integrated horizontal API's :-). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:47:09 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote: Got you - artificially disabling 90% of the features otherwise supported by the OS and using half baked HAL makes product SDN ready! Sorry for the sarcasm, couldn¹t resist :) I once tested a Junos release with the X blah blah D blah blah letters in there on an EX4550. Couldn't even get LACP going, until I realized it was some kind of QFX'y release for the non-QFX EX boxes. Promptly got ride of that. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: DDOS solution recommendation
Earlier in the thread you seemed extremely confident in your position that long term blocking of addresses that appeared as source addresses of undesirable traffic is a good thing. Why are you now avoiding answering my question with a strawman? On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Mike Hammett wrote: So the preferred alternative is to simply do nothing at all? That seems fair. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com To: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com Cc: Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 3:05:14 PM Subject: Re: DDOS solution recommendation On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Mike Hammett wrote: I know that UDP can be spoofed, but it's not likely that the SSH, mail, etc. login attempts, web page hits, etc. would be spoofed as they'd have to know the response to be of any good. Okay, so I'm curious. Are you saying that you do not automatically block attackers until you can confirm a 3-way TCP handshake has been completed, and therefore you aren't blocking sources that were spoofed? If so, how are you protecting yourself against SYN attacks? If not, then you've made it quite easy for attackers to deny any source they want. this all seems like a fabulous conversation we're watching, but really .. if someone wants to block large swaths of the intertubes on their systems it's totally up to them, right? They can choose to not be functional all they want, as near as I can tell... and arguing with someone with this mentality isn't productive, especially after several (10+? folk) have tried to show and tell some experience that would lead to more cautious approaches. If mike wants less packets, that's all cool... I'm not sure it's actually solving anything, but sure, go right ahead, have fun. -chris -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
You can see what we have at the SIX here - http://www.seattleix.net/topology.html Mike -- Michael K. Smith mksm...@mac.com On Jan 11, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Manuel Marín m...@transtelco.net wrote: Dear Nanog community We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have multiple POPs and I was wondering what do you recommend for L2 switches. I know that some IXPs use Nexus, Brocade, Force10 but I don't personally have experience with these switches. It would be great if you can share your experience and recommendations. There are so many options that I don't know if it makes sense to start with a modular switch (usually expensive because the backplane, dual dc, dual CPU, etc) or start with a 1RU high density switch that support new protocols like Trill and that supposedly allow you to create Ethernet Fabric/Clusters. The requirements are simple, 1G/10G ports for exchange participants, 40G/100G for uplinks between switches and flow support for statistics and traffic analysis. Thank you and have a great day. Regards
Re: Level 3 issues in Miami/West Palm Beach
On 01/13/2015 03:18 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:52:49 -0600, Blair Trosper said: All packets traveling through customer edges and routers in Miami/Daytona seem to be incurring *extraordinary* latency (4+ seconds) all of a sudden. I'm impressed that the routers have sufficient buffer memory to do that. That is what buffer bloat is all about -- too much queue and too little circuit.
Re: Level 3 issues in Miami/West Palm Beach
In this case, it appeared to be a customer's edge router, not a core/backbone router...although those did seem to have rather high latency (400ms and higher in some cases) and high packet loss (about 18-20%). On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Stephen Satchell l...@satchell.net wrote: On 01/13/2015 03:18 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:52:49 -0600, Blair Trosper said: All packets traveling through customer edges and routers in Miami/Daytona seem to be incurring *extraordinary* latency (4+ seconds) all of a sudden. I'm impressed that the routers have sufficient buffer memory to do that. That is what buffer bloat is all about -- too much queue and too little circuit.
Re: Office 365 Expert - I am not. I have a customer that...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:02:50 -0600, Jimmy Hess said: In other cases, there are concerns about the additional vendor lock-in, loss of strong control of the data. Cannot assure that it is encrypted and secure against access by social engineering attacks against SaaS provider. The one that bit us on the tookas for a recent 'outsource to SaaS' project was trying to negotiate support for our ITAR users (which summarizes to servers on US soil, and no 'non US persons' for support staff). We ended up with several racks of gear iin a separate room onsite instead (To be fair - several vendors were able to provide ITAR-compliant SaaS, just not at a price point that worked for us...) pgpGQ75mLZ0HH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Office 365 Expert - I am not. I have a customer that...
Current developing fads include messaging a server POST messages over http, receiving JSON data. Both the request and answer are smallish small. A interface update refresh may depend on this data arriving. So the less latency, the more agile and snappy will feel the application. This is less trafic than webpages. A typical webpage page update may need 400KB / 700KB +. HTML can be wasteful in big pages with a lot of data. The same data coming from in JSON can weight much less, maybe x10 less. I have not tried O365, so I don't know if it follow the typical modern web app. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G ports with EX4600 ? I'm still trying to find out if there are any noticeable software or feature differences. On 13.01.2015 09:01, Mark Tinka wrote: On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS. We've been quite happy with the EX4550, but the EX4600 is good too, particularly if you're coming from its younger brother. Mark.
Call For Presentations RIPE 70, submission deadline 1 March 2015
Dear colleagues, Please find the CFP for RIPE 70 below. The deadline for submissions is 1 March 2015. Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder for the RIPE Programme Committee http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-meetings/pc Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 70 will take place from 11-15 May 2015 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary session presentations, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 70. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations - Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses - Data centre technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange Submissions RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. The RIPE PC accepts proposals for different presentation formats, including plenary session presentations, tutorials, workshops, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions) and lightning talks. See the full descriptions of these formats at https://ripe70.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/ Presenters who are proposing a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. In addition to presentations selected in advance for the plenary, the RIPE PC also offers several time slots for lightning talks, which are selected immediately before or during the conference. The following general requirements apply: - Proposals for plenary session presentations, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than 1 March 2015, using the meeting submission system at https://ripe70.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered on a space-available basis. Important Dates regarding RIPE 70 can be found at: https://ripe70.ripe.net/programme/important-dates/ - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe70.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) and can be submitted just days before the RIPE Meeting starts or even during the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talk slots will be announced in short notice – in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the relevant session. - Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. See more information on time slot allocations per presentation format at https://ripe70.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. - Proposals for talks will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators. - Due to potential technical issues, it is expected that most, if not all, presenters/panellists will be physically present at the RIPE Meeting. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net. -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Re: Google's Safe Browsing Alerts for Network Administrators
Hat: open.*project person.. With the complaints we get often the people aren't properly secured, they are just seeing the noise in their logs or they just started logging. We often get more complaints after the first six months as someone says oh hey, we updated our IPS and now see the NTP traffic that we didn't see in 2000-2015, lets complain about it. It's good they have visibility now but most people don't get the true issue or impact, and don't even appreciate it when they are on the receiving end of a 100-250Gb/s attack from these services. Take a moment to read the Christian Rossow paper called amplification Hell. While amplifiers are only a part of the equation, the trend of fixes is important to track so people understand the state of the fixes. Jared Mauch On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote: In regards to ShadowServer, I don’t think they’re randomly scanning networks, and neither are folks like OpenResolver – I think it’s pretty systematic, albeit from perhaps only a certain point of view on the Internet. If their scans are being dropped and logged, that’s great – that means someone has measures in place to mitigate attacks that leverage those UDP protocols. But for those who use their output to better secure their own and clients’ endpoint devices, it’s much appreciated. If it’s really just a drop in the ocean, what does it matter to you?
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo Schoedler 2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru: Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G ports with EX4600 ? I'm still trying to find out if there are any noticeable software or feature differences. On 13.01.2015 09:01, Mark Tinka wrote: On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS. We've been quite happy with the EX4550, but the EX4600 is good too, particularly if you're coming from its younger brother. Mark. -- Eduardo Schoedler
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
We love our 5100s here. I have 4 48S, and 2 24q¹s. Super fast, TISSU when it works is awesome as well... like, really awesome. Stephen Carter | IT Systems Administrator | Gun Lake Tribal Gaming Commission 1123 129th Avenue, Wayland, MI 49348 Phone 269.792.1773 On 1/13/15, 3:29 AM, Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru wrote: Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G ports with EX4600 ? I'm still trying to find out if there are any noticeable software or feature differences. On 13.01.2015 09:01, Mark Tinka wrote: On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS. We've been quite happy with the EX4550, but the EX4600 is good too, particularly if you're coming from its younger brother. Mark. brhrfont face='Arial' color='Gray' size='1'The information contained in this electronic transmission (email) is confidential information and may be subject to attorney/client privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED, except by the intended recipient. Attempts to intercept this message are in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which subjects the interceptor to fines, imprisonment and/or civil damages./font
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
AhhhŠ vertically integrated horizontal API¹s Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM To: Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com, Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br, nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP On 13/01/2015 22:10, Jeff Tantsura wrote: What does it mean - to be SDN ready? it means fully buzzword compliant. Nick
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
My mistake, it's the OCX1100. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2855056/sdn/juniper-unbundles-switch-hardware-software.html 2015-01-13 20:10 GMT-02:00 Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com: What does it mean - to be SDN ready? Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo Schoedler 2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru: Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G ports with EX4600 ? I'm still trying to find out if there are any noticeable software or feature differences. On 13.01.2015 09:01, Mark Tinka wrote: On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS. We've been quite happy with the EX4550, but the EX4600 is good too, particularly if you're coming from its younger brother. Mark. -- Eduardo Schoedler -- Eduardo Schoedler
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
Either way, you can do SDN and automation with most Juniper kit. On purchase of JCare you get free access to Junos Space - great for provisioning and management of an IXP. Regards, Tim Raphael On 14 Jan 2015, at 6:28 am, Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br wrote: My mistake, it's the OCX1100. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2855056/sdn/juniper-unbundles-switch-hardware-software.html 2015-01-13 20:10 GMT-02:00 Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com: What does it mean - to be SDN ready? Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo Schoedler 2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru: Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G ports with EX4600 ? I'm still trying to find out if there are any noticeable software or feature differences. On 13.01.2015 09:01, Mark Tinka wrote: On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS. We've been quite happy with the EX4550, but the EX4600 is good too, particularly if you're coming from its younger brother. Mark. -- Eduardo Schoedler -- Eduardo Schoedler
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
Got you - artificially disabling 90% of the features otherwise supported by the OS and using half baked HAL makes product SDN ready! Sorry for the sarcasm, couldn¹t resist :) Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 2:28 PM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP My mistake, it's the OCX1100. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2855056/sdn/juniper-unbundles-switch-h ardware-software.html 2015-01-13 20:10 GMT-02:00 Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com: What does it mean - to be SDN ready? Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo Schoedler 2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru: Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G ports with EX4600 ? I'm still trying to find out if there are any noticeable software or feature differences. On 13.01.2015 09:01, Mark Tinka wrote: On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS. We've been quite happy with the EX4550, but the EX4600 is good too, particularly if you're coming from its younger brother. Mark. -- Eduardo Schoedler -- Eduardo Schoedler
Level 3 issues in Miami/West Palm Beach
All packets traveling through customer edges and routers in Miami/Daytona seem to be incurring *extraordinary* latency (4+ seconds) all of a sudden. Can someone contact me off list so I can throw you some traceroutes?
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
Manuel Marín writes: Dear Nanog community [...] There are so many options that I don't know if it makes sense to start with a modular switch (usually expensive because the backplane, dual dc, dual CPU, etc) or start with a 1RU high density switch that support new protocols like Trill and that supposedly allow you to create Ethernet Fabric/Clusters. The requirements are simple, 1G/10G ports for exchange participants, 40G/100G for uplinks between switches and flow support for statistics and traffic analysis. Stupid thought from someone who has never built an IXP, but has been looking at recent trends in data center networks: There are these white-box switches mostly designed for top-of-rack or spine (as in leaf-spine/fat-tree datacenter networks) applications. They have all the necessary port speeds - well 100G seems to be a few months off. I'm thinking of brands such as Edge-Core, Quanta etc. You can get them as bare-metal versions with no switch OS on them, just a bootloader according to the ONIE standard. Equipment cost seems to be on the order of $100 per SFP+ port w/o optics for a second-to-last generation (Trident-based) 48*10GE+4*40GE ToR switch. Now, for the limited and somewhat special L2 needs of an IXP, couldn't someone hack together a suitable switch OS based on Open Network Linux (ONL) or something like that? You wouldn't even need MAC address learning or most types of flooding, because at an IXP this often hurts rather than helps. For building larger fabrics you might be using something other (waves hands) than TRILL; maybe you could get away without slightly complex multi-chassis multi-channel mechanisms, and so on. Flow support sounds somewhat tough, but full netflow support that would get Roland Dobbins' usable telemetry seal of approval is probably out of reach anyway - it's a high-end feature with classical gear. With white-box switches, you could try to use the given 5-tuple flow hardware capabilities - which might not scale that well -, or use packet sampling, or try to use the built-in flow and counter mechanisms in an application-specific way. (Except *that's* a lot of work on the software side, and a usably efficient implementation requires slightly sophisticated hardware/software interfaces.) Instead of a Linux-based switch OS, one could also build an IXP application using OpenFlow and some kind of central controller. (Not to be confused with SDX: Software Defined Internet Exchange.) Has anybody looked into the feasibility of this? The software could be done as an open-source community project to make setting up regional IXPs easier/cheaper. Large IXPs could sponsor this so they get better scalability - although I'm not sure how well something like the leaf-spine/fat-tree design maps to these IXPs, which are typically distributed over several locations. Maybe they could use something like Facebook's new design, treating each IXP location as a pod. -- Simon. [1] https://code.facebook.com/posts/360346274145943
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
What does it mean - to be SDN ready? Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Eduardo Schoedler lis...@esds.com.br Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP QFX5100 is SDN ready. -- Eduardo Schoedler 2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko t...@megagroup.ru: Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options. It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G ports with EX4600 ? I'm still trying to find out if there are any noticeable software or feature differences. On 13.01.2015 09:01, Mark Tinka wrote: On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote: People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 - http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ ex-series/ex4600/ They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS. We've been quite happy with the EX4550, but the EX4600 is good too, particularly if you're coming from its younger brother. Mark. -- Eduardo Schoedler
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
On 13/01/2015 22:10, Jeff Tantsura wrote: What does it mean - to be SDN ready? it means fully buzzword compliant. Nick
Re: Level 3 issues in Miami/West Palm Beach
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:52:49 -0600, Blair Trosper said: All packets traveling through customer edges and routers in Miami/Daytona seem to be incurring *extraordinary* latency (4+ seconds) all of a sudden. I'm impressed that the routers have sufficient buffer memory to do that. pgpkLc4IsDD58.pgp Description: PGP signature
