Re: NANOG70 tee shirt mystery

[David Barak via NANOG]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_(Pearl_Jam_album)

Pearl Jam are from Seattle...

David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

> On Jun 4, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> So, I've been staring at the NANOG70 tee shirt for
> a bit now:
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/VejX5y
> 
> and I have to admit, I'm a bit stymied.
> 
> Usually, the tee-shirts are somewhat referential
> to the location or to a particular event; but this
> one is leaving me scratching my head.
> 
> Is it perhaps a shot of the network engineering
> "Ooops (I broke the network again)"  concert
> tour?
> 
> Or is there some other cultural reference at
> play that I'm not aware of?
> 
> Enquiring minds want to know!(tm).  :)
> 
> Matt

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

[David Barak via NANOG]

On Dec 28, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

>> An alternative multi-vendor approach is to use 1 vendor per stack layer,
>> but alternate layer to layer. That is; Vendor A edge router, Vendor B
>> firewall, Vendor A/C switches, Vendor D anti-SPAM software, etc. This
>> doesn't address the bug impact issue as well as it alleviates the vendor
>> "ownership" issue though...
> 
> i think this is where i say that i hope my competitors do this.  it
> is a recipe for a complex set of delicate dependencies and great fun
> debugging.
> 
One of the more spectacular failures I've seen was a bug in a network core 
router that caused bad into to be carried by all of that same vendor's routers 
across the core to the edges (made by a different vendor) which promptly barfed 
and locked up.  

So I'd be cautious about saying "vendor X for one layer, vendor Y for adjacent 
layer" as a multi-vendor strategy.

David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[David Barak via NANOG]

> On Nov 9, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> vi users prefer ospf
> emacs users prefer is-is
> 

So that leaves EIGRP for the nano users?

David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

Re: NFV Solution Evaluation Methodology

[David Barak via NANOG]

Simpler > complex *sometimes*.   It turns out that sometimes the complexity is 
worth it (eg https://youtu.be/-iiXsbrEv3U ).  Perhaps "as simple as possible, 
by no simpler" would be reasonable?

David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

> On Aug 2, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Ca By  wrote
> CB
> 
> Ps. Also, simpler > complex. Lots of $ in this statement.

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

[David Barak via NANOG]

Gotta watch out for specifying T1 when you want Ethernet- they could just give 
you 4 wires on pins 1,2,4,5 :)

I see the problem as misunderstanding what "physical" actually means: 4-wire 
twisted pair is different from 8-wire, is different from coax, is different 
from SMF etc.  what gets run over it is nobody's business but the person 
controlling the end points.

David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

> On Jun 19, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
> 
> Actually, back in the T1/T3 days, colos frequently asked what you ran on the 
> cable and then charged you based on the capacity of the circuit - even when 
> it was the same exact cable. Of course, none of us would ever ask for T1 
> xconn then run ethernet over it.
> 
> Colo providers are absolutely worried about drops in xconn revenue. Look at 
> some large colo providers who are public and split out their numbers. You’ll 
> see that the percentage of their profit from xconns is usually more than 
> double the percentage of their revenue from xconns. Put another way, if xconn 
> revenue drops by 10%, their profit drops by over 20%. How many public 
> companies can shrug off a 20% drop in EPS? I submit: Not very many.
> 
> This is not surprising. When you build your business on the ignorance of your 
> customers, you are in a world of hurt once your customers learn even a little 
> bit more.
> 
> -- 
> TTFN,
> patrick
> 
>> On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, jim deleskie  wrote:
>> 
>> I don't buy this.  They sold you one cable before, they sell you cable now.
>> Little difference then we moved customers from a T1 to  T3 back in the
>> 90's.  If Colo's can't understand more then 20+ yrs of evolution its hardly
>> right to blame it on the market.
>> 
>> 
>> -jim
>> Mimir Networks
>> www.mimirnetworks.com
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Before 100G, you'd need ten cross connects to move 100G. Now you'd need
>>> only one. That's a big drop in revenue.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Original Message -
>>> 
>>> From: "Brandon Butterworth" 
>>> To: br...@pobox.com, d...@temk.in
>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 8:55:57 AM
>>> Subject: Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh
>>> 
>>> Dave Temkin  wrote:
 And as colo operators get freaked out over margin compression on the
 impending 10->100G conversion (which is happening exponentially faster
>>> than
 100->1G & 1G->10G) they'll need to move those levers of spend around
 regardless.
>>> 
>>> If they've based their model on extracting profit proportional
>>> to technology speed then they've misunderstood Moore's law
>>> 
>>> brandon
> 

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[David Barak via NANOG]

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
> pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.  

Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of magnitude 
smaller than the US by population.  Effects of scale apply here in terms of 
path dependence for solutions.

David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

Re: /27 the new /24

[David Barak via NANOG]

On Thu, 10/8/15, Mark Andrews  wrote:

> This is today's reality and ISP's are not meeting
> today's needs.
> It's not just about
> having enough IPv4 addresses.  It's about
> providing the infrastructure to allow your
> customers to connect to
> everyone.

I think you should s/everyone/everyone they care about/

That roughly explains why there is no particular consumer outcry (which isn't 
about speed/bandwidth or mobile coverage, anyway).

 David Barak