Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification

2020-10-14 Thread Robert L Mathews
On 10/14/20 2:14 PM, Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > Company Z charges company A on top of agreed services: It may be just a coincidence, but I had the same problem with a company that begins with "Z" (and ends with "ayo"). The quote I got was for a certain exact dollar amount with some tiny

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Mark Andrews
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 04:09, Casey Deccio wrote: > > >> On Oct 13, 2020, at 8:49 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >> >> Once upon a time, Eric Kuhnke said: >>> Considering that one can run an instance of an anycasted recursive >>> nameserver, under heavy load for a very large number of clients, on a

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Brian Knight via NANOG
So I have put together what I think is a reasonable and complete ACL. From my time in the enterprise world, I know that a good ingress ACL filters out traffic sourcing from: * Bogon blocks, like 0.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8, RFC1918 space, etc (well-documented in

Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification

2020-10-14 Thread William Herrin
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:16 PM Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > Need some help/insight from you guys on this: > > Company A is an incorporated in Europe, where it main business is, > however it has some pops within USA. If you're complying with all the laws then you've also filed the various

Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification

2020-10-14 Thread Sean Donelan
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: So... my question IS: Is an European company (or whatsoever foreign wholesale company) WITHOUT ANY customers in USA liable to pay those taxes to the carrier ? Those aren't customer taxes, they are company surcharges with names to

Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification

2020-10-14 Thread TJ Trout
You shouldn't be getting USF recovery charges if you aren't utilizing interstate services from said carrier, although all carriers will try to collect these recovery charges even though a fraction of them actually pay this forward into USF fund! IP Transit is exempt per ITNA/ITFA as well as any

RE: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Luke Guillory
Which was my point is all, while it might be an extreme case, IP can cause issues for waves as well. Luke From: Eric Kuhnke Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 4:31 PM To: Luke Guillory Cc: Matt Erculiani ; Darin Steffl ; nanog list Subject: Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939 *External Email:

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Eric Kuhnke
I think he means packet captures from an example, voluntarily-tested recursive nameserver subject to this attack. On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:53 AM Casey Deccio wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > > On Oct 14, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Bryan Holloway wrote: > > > > I too would like to know more about their

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Eric Kuhnke
Yes it did, because they were running *all* of those over their Infinera DWDM platforms which crashed. If the underlying optical line terminals are FUBAR, all bets are off. On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:27 PM Luke Guillory wrote: > Didn’t the Dec 2018 CL outage cause waves and even TDM circuits

Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification

2020-10-14 Thread Nuno Vieira via NANOG
re. actually it is more than 20%... (i miscalculated stuff) On the IPT part is 6%; on the waveleght part is 48,2%. anoyone out there that can point some light on this ? Or all the other carriers are wrong ? :) On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 22:14 +0100, Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > Hello All, > >

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Eric Kuhnke
The inverse of that is that an actual wavelength for 10/100G services can be contractually defined to a certain specific path at OSI layer 1 (with GIS vector shape files from the underlying carrier provided prior to signing a contract). Whereas a layer 2 transport service could also turn out to be

RE: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Luke Guillory
Didn’t the Dec 2018 CL outage cause waves and even TDM circuits to go down? Luke From: NANOG On Behalf Of Matt Erculiani Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 3:59 PM To: Darin Steffl Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939 *External Email: Use Caution* For providers who use

FCC FUSF charges clarification

2020-10-14 Thread Nuno Vieira via NANOG
Hello All, Need some help/insight from you guys on this: Company A is an incorporated in Europe, where it main business is, however it has some pops within USA. Company A uses services from several companies within USA. (carrier H, C, Z, G, L, etc..) all in the United States to remotelly

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Mel Beckman
"What do you mean by "tangibles in the form of PCAPs”” I think Brian means packet captures, in PCAP format, so that we can observe example testing via Wireshark or some other protocol analyzer. -mel > On Oct 14, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Casey Deccio wrote: > > Hi Bryan, > >> On Oct 14, 2020, at

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Matt Erculiani
For providers who use the same infrastructure for their IP backbone and Ethernet services (as so many do), a large DDoS could disrupt all Ethernet services that normally traverse affected links, whereas Waves would be blissfully ignorant of such an event. Waves are pretty reliable and will only go

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
*nods* instead of paying for protection, I'd rather just engineer a completely diverse route, preferable to a different Z location. Potential for greater diversity, you get more capacity. Costs may vary. I've seen similar things regarding 1G and less. - Mike Hammett Intelligent

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Darin Steffl
Yes but they're $$$ to have protection. Generally ethernet will be cheaper than waves with the added protection. I'm not arguing for one or the other. Waves will often be cheaper when looking at 10G or 100G compared to ethernet. For 1G or less, ethernet might be cheaper with some protection

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
*nods* There are protected wave services generally available if you wish to protect about such things. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Darin Steffl" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "Eric

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Darin Steffl
The downside to waves are that they're typically not protected. So a cut will take you down. If you have 10G Layer 2 ethernet, they often will have redundant paths so the only single path that can fail is between you and their first POP where they hopefully have redundancy. It can make a big

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
I haven't heard any concerns with reliability, on-net performance (aside from 2 gig flow limit) or other such things. Do they generally deliver well in those regards? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
I suppose it depends on your carrier and their capabilities. I much prefer waves to any kind of service that you can aggregate. Being able to aggregate just means they're going to oversubscribe you and at some point, you'll not get what you're paying for. Can't do that on a wave. -

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread James Jun
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:54:49AM -0700, Ryan Hamel wrote: > > One would think that with 100GE interfaces, it would not be possible to > overrun the interface if we allowed full 10Gbps/flow, however most 100GE > interfaces, at the chip level are broken down into 10Gbps lanes and the >

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Casey Deccio
Hi Bryan, > On Oct 14, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Bryan Holloway wrote: > > I too would like to know more about their methodology We've written up our methodology and results in a paper that will be available in a few weeks. Happy to post it here if folks are interested. Obviously, no networks are

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Bryan Holloway
I too would like to know more about their methodology and actual tangibles ideally in the form of PCAPs. On 10/14/20 4:56 PM, Brian Knight via NANOG wrote: Hi Eric, I shot a message over the folk who did the testing for more info about their test.  If I'm able to find anything useful in our

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Rod Beck
Look, you are looking for a fight, in which I have no interest. And no, a provider can't overbook a packet over SDH circuit. It is SDH performance. Pure dedicated bandwidth. You are correct that if you have to carve it up into a lots of VLANs, it would be a nightmare. But Hibernia was a true

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Ryan Hamel
Hibernia's implementation must of made scaling in terms of VLAN allocations, and programming all the equipment in path (with possibly no redundancy), very difficult to manage. Any link can be saturated no matter if it is layer 2 or 3. If you want dedicated bandwidth with an SLA, you have to pay

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Rod Beck
Hibernia was offering Switched Ethernet 'everywhere' long before it had a Layer 3 network. So I am a bit skeptical. In fact, in the 'old days' 2006-2011 we had a nice packet over SDH service that has all the performance of SDH with all the functionality of Ethernet. Very popular service.

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Ryan Hamel
All carrier Ethernet services are tunnels provided by VPLS Psuedowire or VXLAN services. Did you really expect a VLAN to be layer 2 switched everywhere? Ryan On Oct 14 2020, at 11:03 am, Rod Beck wrote: > > I always heard this service was really Layer 3 disguised as Layer 2. > > > From: NANOG

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Rod Beck
I always heard this service was really Layer 3 disguised as Layer 2. From: NANOG on behalf of Ryan Hamel Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 7:54 PM To: Mike Hammett Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent Layer 2 Mike, Layer 2 is fine once it works. *

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Shawn L via NANOG
When I last spoke to them, it sounded like they were using a bunch of LAG groups based on ip address because they _really_ wanted to know how many ip addresses we had and what kind of traffic we would be expecting (eyeball networks, big data transport, etc). -Original Message- From:

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Ryan Hamel
Mike, Layer 2 is fine once it works. You will have to put up with whatever VLAN tags they pick, if you plan on having multiple virtual circuits on a 10G hub. They do like to see into the flows of traffic, as they only allow up to 2Gbits/flow, per there legacy infrastructure. If the circuit

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Dale W. Carder
Thus spake Mike Hammett (na...@ics-il.net) on Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:36:39PM -0500: > > Are any legitimate beefs with Cogent limited to their IP policies, BGP > session charges, and peering disputes? Meaning, would using them for layer 2 > be reasonable? Be sure to ask if your circuit will

Re: Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread David Hubbard
I had a discussion with them about a point to point circuit last year and ran into some weirdness around how burstable it would be for specific IP to IP streams as our use case was cheap circuit / high speed data replication between given endpoints. The sales rep was suggesting to me that I’d

Cogent Layer 2

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
Are any legitimate beefs with Cogent limited to their IP policies, BGP session charges, and peering disputes? Meaning, would using them for layer 2 be reasonable? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Jared Mauch
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 05:49:42PM -0500, Brian Knight via NANOG wrote: > Hi Mel, > > My understanding of uRPF is: > > * Strict mode will permit a packet only if there is a route for the > source IP in the RIB, and that route points to the interface where the > packet was received > > *

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
Great for customer-facing interfaces, though. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Nick Hilliard" To: "Brian Knight" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 3:12:22 AM

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
If an eyeball network has good peering, is there much value to be gained in chasing the long tail? It certainly presents a different cost perspective if you can pay a couple of the more premium networks for your remaining 15% - 20% of traffic not on the IXes. I just don't know that I'd really

RE: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread aaron1
Thanks, Yeah MEF-speak…. Lit layer 2 untagged is EPL Lit layer 2 tagged is EVPL ...it’s MEF (CE) terminology -Aaron From: NANOG On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:44 AM To: Forrest Christian (List Account) Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: Hurricane

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Casey Deccio
> On Oct 13, 2020, at 8:49 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Eric Kuhnke said: >> Considering that one can run an instance of an anycasted recursive >> nameserver, under heavy load for a very large number of clients, on a $600 >> 1U server these days... I wonder what exactly the

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Baldur Norddahl
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:30 AM Aaron Gould wrote: > Do y’all like HE for Internet uplink? I’m thinking about using them for > 100gig in Texas. It would be for my eyeballs ISP. We currently have > Spectrum, Telia and Cogent. > > -Aaron > I find HE useful as a special kind of transit

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
Cost isn't always the only factor one does something. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Darin Steffl" To: "Michael Spears" Cc: "Mike Hammett" , "Aaron Gould" , nanog@nanog.org Sent:

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
There's a startup IX in those markets, but it's not going to take much of your traffic. Yes, you would have to get a 100G wave to DFW. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: aar...@gvtc.com

Visit the NANOG 80 Virtual Expo!

2020-10-14 Thread NANOG News
*The latest technology, all in one space.* Be sure to visit the NANOG 80 Virtual Expo throughout the conference to learn about the latest technologies, and connect with reps from 19 North American companies. Plus, you'll have the chance to win a

[NANOG-announce] Visit the NANOG 80 Virtual Expo!

2020-10-14 Thread NANOG News
*The latest technology, all in one space.* Be sure to visit the NANOG 80 Virtual Expo throughout the conference to learn about the latest technologies, and connect with reps from 19 North American companies. Plus, you'll have the chance to win a

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Brian Knight via NANOG
Hi Eric, I shot a message over the folk who did the testing for more info about their test. If I'm able to find anything useful in our logs from their detail, I'll post it to the list. The message referenced DNS cache poisoning and DDOS amplification, so it seemed fairly general and more

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Kaiser, Erich
Depending on peer traffic, it may make more sense to co-locate a switch at a DC and then bring in some PNIs from your top usage peers. Check your peer usage using something like AS-Stats. Your top usage peers are going to be your most costly expense in the end... Erich Kaiser The Fusion

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Brian Knight via NANOG
Hi Marcos, Thanks for your reply. But I am looking for guidance on traffic filtering, not BGP prefix filtering. I have looked at BCP 84, and it's a good overview of the methods available to an ISP. My questions are more operational in nature and are not covered by the document. Of the

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Jared Mauch
> On Oct 13, 2020, at 7:29 PM, Aaron Gould wrote: > > Do y’all like HE for Internet uplink? I’m thinking about using them for > 100gig in Texas. It would be for my eyeballs ISP. We currently have > Spectrum, Telia and Cogent. No. Too many problems with scenic routing due to lack of BGP

Re: Virginia voter registration down due to cable cut

2020-10-14 Thread Warren Kumari
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 5:15 PM Christopher Morrow wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 2:41 PM Sean Donelan wrote: > > > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > spof > > > > > > the vita folk have a history of 'not really understanding large scale > > > compute/network operations'

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Josh Luthman
Charter/Spectrum calls it an EPL - Ethernet Private Line. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:08 AM Forrest Christian (List Account) < li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > I guess I should have been a bit

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Warren Kumari
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:22 PM Seth Mattinen wrote: > > On 10/13/20 5:10 PM, Darin Steffl wrote: > > > > You would do well to add them to your mix and remove one of the other > > ones. I'd probably remove spectrum and replace with HE. We've only had > > 30 minutes of downtime total in 5 years so

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Darin Steffl
Depending on transport costs, it may be cheaper to just use HE at a datacenter he's already in vs going to a datacenter he's not in currently. HE has 10G of transit for as low as $900 right now. If 10G of transport from him to an IX is more than that, there's no financial incentive to peer

RE: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Michael Spears
Yep. Get on some IXes first. You’d be able to offload a ton of traffic to free peering, vs sending everything via the transit you pay for. From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 8:20 PM To: Aaron Gould Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Clayton Zekelman
We had horrible experiences with them a long time ago. Inexplicable packet loss problems, route weirdness, so we dumped them. A couple of years ago we decided to give them another try (I was skeptical), but so far it has been just fine. At 07:29 PM 13/10/2020, Aaron Gould wrote: Do

RE: Hurricane Electric AS6939 [EXTERNAL]

2020-10-14 Thread Romeo Czumbil
Good ISP, fast and knowledgeable NOC, pricing is also pretty good. If you have multiple peers already and want to do traffic management/engineering forget it. HE heavily peers with everyone and they don't accept communities from their clients. -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf

FYI - ARIN 46 Virtual Meeting Starts Today! (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] ARIN 46 Will Be Here Soon – Get Ready!)

2020-10-14 Thread John Curran
NANOGers - FYI - ARIN 46 Virtual Meeting will start at today at noon ET. The meeting will be held via Zoom, and details on the schedule policy discussions, presentations, meeting materials and registration are attached. Best wishes! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Brandon Martin
On 10/13/20 9:40 PM, Nikolas Geyer wrote: Tl;dr - definitely don’t accept your own prefix from the site it originated from, or other sites that have internal connectivity. But also don’t assume that an AS has a full-mesh of internal connectivity behind it and shouldn’t accept its own prefixes

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Saku Ytti
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 11:11, Forrest Christian (List Account) < li...@packetflux.com> wrote: Yes, what you would be ordering is typically a lit L2 circuit. However, > my experience is that certain carrier salespeople tend to call anything > like this a 'wave'. I have had lots of discussions

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

2020-10-14 Thread Nick Hilliard
Brian Knight via NANOG wrote on 13/10/2020 23:49: Strict mode won't work for us, because with our multi-homed transits and IX peers, we will almost certainly drop a legitimate packet because the best route is through another transit. there's no "almost" about it: strict mode is unfeasible for

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)
I guess I should have been a bit clearer. Yes, what you would be ordering is typically a lit L2 circuit. However, my experience is that certain carrier salespeople tend to call anything like this a 'wave'. I have had lots of discussions over the years with various salespeople about the

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Eric Kuhnke
For small ISPs looking at setting up their first ever presence at an IX point, you almost certainly would not be ordering an actual 'wave' (eg: a specific DWDM channel on a legacy 10G DWDM platform, handed off to you with 1310/LX interfaces at both ends), but lit layer 2 transport service between

Re: Hurricane Electric AS6939

2020-10-14 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)
Generally one would order a circuit (aka wave) between your location and the IX fabric at the interchange if you're not at the site you're wanting to peer at. For instance, the network I am the network engineer for has a circuit which terminates into the Seattle IX (SIX) fabric. We don't have