On 8/18/23 22:40, Matthew Petach wrote:
Hi Robert,
Without naming any names, I will note that at some point in the
not-too-distant past, I was part of a new-years-eve-holiday-escalation
to $BACKBONE_ROUTER_PROVIDER when the global network I was involved
with started seeing excessive
On 8/18/23 22:20, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG wrote:
We support platforms of various capacities.
While we would all like to sell the large ones, people buy the cheap
ones too.
Even a bare bones x86 platform of some sort with at least 8GB of RAM
would make the cheapest routers still,
On 8/18/23 19:38, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG wrote:
That's true Robert.
However, communities and med only work with neighbors.
Communities routinely get scrubbed because they cause increased memory
usage and convergence time in routers.
Really?
We only scrub a specific string of
On 8/18/23 09:38, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Jakob,
With AS-PATH prepend you have no control on the choice of which ASN
should do what action on your advertisements.
My comprehension of DPA would have been more directed than the "spray &
pray" approach AS_PATH prepending provides.
However,
On 8/18/23 09:38, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Jakob,
With AS-PATH prepend you have no control on the choice of which ASN
should do what action on your advertisements.
My comprehension of DPA would have been more directed than the "spray &
pray" approach AS_PATH prepending provides.
However,
On 8/17/23 21:43, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG wrote:
"prepend as-path" has taken its place.
That pours water on my imaginary fire :-).
I was imagining something sexier, especially given how pretty "useless"
AS_PATH prepending is nowadays.
Mark.
On 8/16/23 16:16, michael brooks - ESC wrote:
Perhaps (probably) naively, it seems to me that DPA would have been a
useful BGP attribute. Can anyone shed light on why this RFC never
moved beyond draft status? I cannot find much information on this
other than IETF's data tracker
On 8/16/23 00:28, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Whatever about the web / winbox UI, there are some fairly serious
weaknesses in the cli and api:
1. there's no atomic configuration commit + auto rollback.
2. the CLI is non-idempotent, for example if you're in a list context
and issue the command
On 8/11/23 12:56, Nick Hilliard wrote:
bgp is a policy based distance vector protocol. If you can't adjust
the primary inter-domain metric to handle your policy requirements,
it's not much use.
I am not talking about appending one's own AS in the AS_PATH. I am
talking about appending
On 8/11/23 11:26, Nick Hilliard wrote:
If your asn is 327933, then:
add chain=foo prefix=192.0.2.0/24 action=accept set-bgp-prepend=2
... will produce: "327933 327933", and:
add chain=foo prefix=192.0.2.0/24 action=accept set-bgp-prepend-path=2
... will produce: "327933 2".
Routeros
On 8/11/23 11:08, Nick Hilliard wrote:
yep, sure did. Check out the "set-bgp-prepend" action on routeros -
it's right next to "set-bgp-prepend-path".
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Routing/Routing_filters
So how would one fumble it to the degree where a fat-finger results in
On 8/11/23 10:15, b...@uu3.net wrote:
Haha :) you are right.
I just checked Caida AS ranking:
http://as-rank.uu3.net/?as=2
A lot of "providers" for UDEL-DCN. Yeah right..
They all indeed probably try to prepend their AS 2 times
ending up having ASN 2 in path.
Did I miss the memo where
On 8/11/23 05:17, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Recently saw an aerial video where an entire neighborhood in Laihana
had burned down *except* for the concrete block structure small ILEC CO.
Pictures I have seen of other ILEC sites in Hawaii closely resemble
some GTE sites in the Pacific Northwest
On 8/10/23 20:43, Randy Bush wrote:
classic microtik prepend syntax confusion?
Uncertain. I have a Mikrotik CPE for my home router, but I can't tell
you how BGP works on it.
It seems that AS2, in the path, is not genuine. We are verifying that,
though.
Mark.
On 8/10/23 15:22, Frank Habicht wrote:
ouch!
I see in your LG that this AS 2 is originating 197.157.254.0/24 .
which seems to mean that it's not just a plain "we want to prepend 2
times, put the number 2 into config and the NOS takes this as the ASN
to insert"
putting someone from
On 8/10/23 12:01, d...@darwincosta.com wrote:
I know someone you might know them. Happy to introduce off-list.
Yes, Darwin. That would be most appreciated. Thanks.
Mark.
On 8/10/23 11:38, Frank Habicht wrote:
from a 2019 DB snapshot:
aut-num: AS327933
as-name: GROUPE-TELECOM-SPRL
descr: GROUPE TELECOM SPRL
status: ASSIGNED
org: ORG-GTS2-AFRINIC
admin-c: YM8-AFRINIC
tech-c: YM9-AFRINIC
notify:
Hi all.
Anyone know anything about this AS:
https://bgp.he.net/AS327933
Mark.
On 8/7/23 11:04, Giovane C. M. Moura via NANOG wrote:
TL;DR: I'd guess your NTP Server IP address is geolocated to
Mauritius. The Mauritius zone[0] on the pool has only one server, so
you'll only see this one. To fix it, use europe.pool.ntp.org (_do not_
use pool.ntp.org).
So the Anycast
On 8/5/23 21:26, Mel Beckman wrote:
Mark,
You might consider setting up your own GPS-based NTP network. Commercial
Ethernet GPS-sourced NTP servers, such as the Time Machines, TM1000A, are as
little as $400. Or you can roll your own using a Raspberry Pi or similar nano
computer with a
On 8/5/23 20:17, Chris Adams wrote:
It's the NTP pool people you need to talk to - the .freebsd. bit is just
a vendored entry into the pool (more for load tracking and management).
Yes, Andreas clarified in unicast. Will do. Thanks.
Mark.
On 8/5/23 19:51, Andreas Ott wrote:
See for yourself how his pool server scores at
https://www.ntppool.org/scores/197.224.66.40
I am not sure why it would be inserted into DNS answers for a
worldwide pool like 0.freebsd as it clearly does have connectivity
issues from some of the pool
On 8/5/23 18:30, Matthew McGehrin wrote:
Hi Mark.
Wouldn't a local server be more optimal?
IE:
server 0.nl.pool.ntp.org
server 1.nl.pool.ntp.org
server 2.nl.pool.ntp.org
server 3.nl.pool.ntp.org
I have a bunch of servers all over Europe I'd
Hi all.
I have NTP servers in Europe that are choosing Tata (6453) to get to
0.freebsd.pool.ntp.org which lives on 197.224.66.40:
traceroute -I 0.freebsd.pool.ntp.org
traceroute to 0.freebsd.pool.ntp.org (197.224.66.40), 64 hops max, 48
byte packets
1 ae-2-24.er-01-ams.nl.seacomnet.com
On 8/1/23 21:34, Mike Hammett wrote:
*nods* I know optical transport can be difficult to track down, but
they had admitted to a faulty card, then said they weren't going to do
anything because it hadn't faulted again.
Yeah, it's probably just being cheap. Well, kinda. I mean they've also
On 8/1/23 20:18, Mike Hammett wrote:
I have a wave transport vendor that suffered issues twice about ten
days apart, causing my link to flap a bunch. I put in a ticket on the
second set of occurrences. I was told that there was a card issue
identified and would be notified when the
On 8/1/23 20:37, Jared Mauch wrote:
Some providers have a much more disruptive layer-1 infrastructure and will ask
you to configure a 1s+ up timer. I think there’s an interesting question that
could go either way, do you want transport side faults to be exposed to you, or
should the
Hi all.
Just a reminder that the Call for Papers is still open, and that we are
accepting presentations for review for SAFNOG-8.
Please submit your papers as soon as possible, as they will be reviewed
on a first-come, first-served basis. Thanks.
Mark.
On 5/30/23 04:41, Mark Tinka wrote
On 7/14/23 13:55, Drew Weaver wrote:
Has anyone else been having near constant issues with traffic
transiting AS 1299 being lost due to their links being oversubscribed?
We pick them up in London, so we haven't seen that. But we also have a
healthy mix of transit providers + peering, so
On 7/1/23 18:52, Michael Thomas wrote:
It's been happening here in Amador County as well mostly from yahoos
from Stockton. They're taking out fiber too probably inadvertently.
In our neck of the woods, it's not uncommon for copper thieves to set
fire to wires to see what's left. Often,
On 6/20/23 16:09, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
Or the investment to upgrade doesn’t make financial sense.
It never makes sense if you are printing money with no competition.
Mark.
On 6/20/23 15:20, Mike Hammett wrote:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
When you go down in density, your fixed cost per customer really
escalates and you simply can't afford to provision as much as you'd
like to. When you leave glass as a transport mechanism, scaling isn't
easy. When you
On 6/19/23 14:56, Mike Hammett wrote:
You're assuming that an uncapped service is viable to offer. In many
areas, it is. In many areas, it is not.
It is viable for mobile services, even though I think mobile operators
have taken the model a little too far.
But for fixed line services, it
On 6/19/23 02:10, Patrick Cole wrote:
Ciena has supported MPLS-TE on this platform for a long time not just
TP. Back 15+ years ago, I buit such a network. At the time, the
code was extremely green, did not support FRR, only active/standby
LSPs. Although it appeared to work fine in
On 6/16/23 22:36, Josh Luthman wrote:
Not everyone can afford $1000 to start up Starlink and then pay $130+
per month. That may be an option for some, but certainly not the
majority.
Partly why I don't pay any attention to Starlink. It's a niche product
for folk who either have the
On 6/16/23 22:16, Michael Thomas wrote:
Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even if
they do they could compete with their caps.
Maybe. I really haven't paid any attention to Starlink, although
On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote:
Mark,
In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options.
Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. Competition
is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US (and I'm going
to assume it's worse or comparable in
On 6/16/23 18:41, Michael Thomas wrote:
Is 1.2 TB enough for a typical cord cutter? I just looked at mine and
it looks to be about 300GB/month, but we may not be typical for your
average family with kids, say.
For residential services, the competition should easily outscore any
provider
On 6/15/23 09:21, Ryan Hamel wrote:
It can't hold full tables for transit handoffs, but the customer can
establish multi-hop BGP sessions upstream for that.
Also, you don't really need to carry a full BGP table in FIB on a
Metro-E router. That is one of the reasons it can remain cheap.
On 6/15/23 09:21, Ryan Hamel wrote:
I would never let the customer manage the CPE device, unless it was
through some customer portal where automation can do checks and
balances, nor have the device participate in a ring topology -- home
runs or bust. If the device fails or has an issue
On 6/15/23 07:53, Ryan Hamel wrote:
I fully agree here too. That's why I proposed a "smarter" CPE to
replace the standard appliances deployed on site, where the only thing
changing is the configuration on the device itself, not product being
handed off.
I'm just always concerned about
On 6/15/23 07:49, Ryan Hamel wrote:
If the customer's site goes offline, that is their problem. A CPE
device is still a CPE device, no matter how smart it is. Setup IS-IS,
BGP to route servers, LDP + MPLS if you don't go the VXLAN route, and
that's it.
So you have two issues here:
* If
On 6/14/23 22:06, Adam Thompson wrote:
The redundant links to the customer site that traverse independent
underlay carriers, and in some cases, equal-cost paths that we want to
load-balance across, are the hard part. I’m not going to trust STP
for that, and we aim for <3sec failover where
On 6/15/23 07:22, Marco Paesani wrote:
Huawei NE8000-M1C
I envy folk who aren't mobile operators that are brave enough to run
Huawei for their IP/MPLS network deliberately, i.e., without influence
from "management" because they got a good deal :-).
Not for us.
Mark.
On 6/14/23 21:16, Joe Freeman wrote:
I think you’re probably overthinking this a bit.
Why do you need to extend your vxlan/evpn to the customer premise?
There are a number of 1G/10G even 100G CPE demarc devices out there
that push/pop tags, even q-in-q, or 802.1ad. Assuming you have some
On 6/14/23 22:04, Ryan Hamel wrote:
Putting the smart devices on the edge allows for a much-simplified
core topology.
Putting smart devices in the edge does simplify the network, yes. What
doesn't is making the customer's site part of your edge.
We've been running MPLS all the way into
On 6/14/23 20:50, Adam Thompson wrote:
Hello, all.
I’m having difficulty finding vendors, never mind products, that fit
my need.
We have a small but growing number of L2 (bridged) customers that have
diverse fiber paths available, and, naturally, want to make use of them.
We have a
On 6/9/23 21:54, Matt Harris wrote:
I would also note that, from an end-user perspective if we're talking
about ISP services to customers on both ends here, you may run into
geolocation issues where some geolocation providers decide that
many/all of your users are in one location or the
On 6/8/23 04:16, Randy Bush wrote:
thanks aftab
i remember a bit more. the hidden command was there to help debug CEF,
which was new at the time. the CEFlapods wanted a large blob of
prefixes to push the FIB. it kinda pushed the operational FIBs a bit
too far :)
Was this in lieu of flow
Just an update to round this out - after the hints from a number of folk
on- and off-list, I was able to direct our IT team on how to get this
organized.
It is a rather different process for OAuth2 on 365 vs. classic Exchange,
but Microsoft do lump macOS native apps into a so-called "Apple
Hello all.
The CfP (Call for Papers) for the SAFNOG-8 conference, due to take place
on the 29th - 30th August, 2023, in Lusaka, Zambia, is now open.
Please find more details about the CfP at the link below:
https://www.safnog.org/#1#call-for-papers-section
We look forward to receiving your
I've reached out to some known folk at Angola Cables. Will let you know
if I hear back.
Mark.
On 5/25/23 14:01, Phil Lavin via NANOG wrote:
Cross-posting from outages list:
Hey Folks,
Seeing massive packet loss on routes from AWS to Hetzner today. First
was AWS USW2 -> Hetzner (e.g.
Thanks, all, for the replies.
After speaking to Kovich in unicast, I realized I needed to explain the
issue in more detail.
When we ran Exchange on-prem or in the cloud, there was no issue running
macOS's native Calendar app with it. However, when we moved to the
Office 365 cloud service,
Hi all.
It may just be me, or it may not, but figured I'd ask... it seems like
Microsoft's 365 cloud service does not support the native Calendar app
on macOS.
Oddly, it works without issue for the native Calendar app in iOS.
A bit of Googl'ing and speaking with some 365 customer admins.
On 5/16/23 16:55, Saku Ytti wrote:
I can't tell what large is. But I've worked for enterprise ISP and
consumer ISPs, and none of the shops I worked for had capability to
monetise information they had. And the information they had was
increasingly low resolution. Infraprovider are notoriously
On 5/12/23 22:14, Mike Hammett wrote:
"I remember 10y ago every presentation started from the claim that
100B of IoT would drive XXX traffic. It did not happen"
Often the type of people making these kinds of predictions that a tire
pressure sensor generates 20 gigabytes of traffic a day.
On 5/12/23 17:59, Dave Taht wrote:
:blush:
We have done a couple podcasts about it, like this one:
https://packetpushers.net/podcast/heavy-networking-666-improving-quality-of-experience-with-libreqos/
and have perhaps made a mistake by using matrix chat, rather than a
web forum, to
On 5/12/23 15:03, Dave Taht wrote:
Libreqos is free software, working as a bridge, you can plug it in
between any two points on your network, and on cheap (350 bucks off of
ebay) xeon gold hardware easily cracks 25Gbits while shaping with a
goal of cracking 100Gbits one day soon.
This is
On 5/11/23 07:28, Blake Dunlap wrote:
I'm confused here, are you intentionally running larger MTU interfaces
than the packet filter can handle with default config, and not wanting
to change the tunable to fix the config for buffer size for the packet
filter, or am I misreading?
So I've
On 5/11/23 17:26, Jared Mauch wrote:
And as I’ve seen, they continue to become a bit more divergent. As someone who
has an access network I see where the majority of my bits go, which is to the
content folks. There’s some to the other part, but mostly people want their
MTV, but since
On 5/11/23 15:50, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
Hi Jared,
Could I make a conclusion from your comments: "only Carrier itself
understand the traffic - see many examples in the text".
I would very agree to this.
I wouldn't say only carriers understand the traffic as much as I would
On 5/11/23 14:15, Jared Mauch wrote
We have seen a continued trend of the privatization of traffic and localization
of that over time.
CDN's, submarine cables and exchange points are decentralizing the "core
of the Internet", and relegating IP Transit providers to whom CDN's
subscribe as
On 5/11/23 15:50, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
Hi Jared,
Could I make a conclusion from your comments: "only Carrier itself understand the
traffic - see many examples in the text".
I would very agree to this.
I wouldn't say only carriers understand the traffic as much as I would
say
On 5/11/23 13:25, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
Sandvine is not representative of global traffic because DPI is
installed mostly for Mobiles. But Mobile subscriber is 10x less than
fixed on traffic – it is not the biggest source. Moreover, Mobiles
would look better growing because the
On 5/11/23 09:33, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
But it is speculation, not a trend yet.
I remember 10y ago every presentation started from the claim that 100B
of IoT would drive XXX traffic. It did not happen.
Now we see presentations that AI would be talking to AI that generates
On 5/11/23 13:45, Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG wrote:
To clarify the table I linked to in the previous email:
Cisco estimates IP traffic exchanged over the access network by both
businesses and consumers with:
• endpoints over managed networks and
• endpoints over unmanaged
On 5/10/23 15:55, Tom Beecher wrote:
That could just as easily happen today. Every OS release has all
kinds of changes to defaults, and frequently don't get caught until
they break something. Even if today's FreeBSD defaults worked for this
scenario, the next release could change to a
On 5/9/23 20:37, Phil Bedard wrote:
[phil] These are already available today and have been for some time
and in use in production networks for over a year now. This is with
400G links running up to 600km in routers with QDD ports. 400G-16QAM
using 60Gbaud (the OpenZR+ standard) can reach
On 5/10/23 03:40, Tom Beecher wrote:
Adjusting a single tunable is 'onerous'? Ok.
In the context of long term administration of the environment, years
after everybody has forgotten about the hack, or worse, folk leave and
others take over; or if future FreeBSD updates decide to "go
broken, with no hopes of it getting any attention.
Will drop back to Quagga.
If anyone is successfully using IS-IS on FRR, I'd be keen to hear.
Mark.
On 3/31/23 09:16, Mark Tinka wrote:
Hi all.
I posted the below in 2020 about IS-IS in FRR (7.3, at the time):
https://seclists.org/nanog/2020/Apr
On 5/8/23 21:53, Phil Bedard wrote:
I guess let’s not confuse two things. The optical network is made up
of the photonic portion and then the transponder/muxponder portion.
A single term like “DWDM” can be confusing since it can refer to both.
Indeed.
I am short-handing to mean DWDM
On 5/9/23 00:03, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Saying that IS-IS in FRR is broken is incorrect, that it is in many ways weird
- no offense to folks who coded it :) (especially if you have worked with
commercial code bases), that it doesn’t scale/naive, missing features - for
sure.
FRR runs today
On 5/8/23 22:52, William Herrin wrote:
Hi Mark,
I'm not sure I'd call bugs that don't appear when running FRR on Linux
(only FreeBSD), "not yet ready for business." Or did I misunderstand
your bug report?
Don't get me wrong: if you tell me it's not right until it works
without
On 5/8/23 18:45, Mark Tinka wrote:
Broken when talking to Cisco IOS XE. Catalogued here:
https://lists.frrouting.org/pipermail/frog/2023-March/001265.html
I have no doubt FRR can talk IS-IS to other instances of FRR, but that
is not a realistic scenario in a large scale network
On 5/8/23 15:44, Bryan Holloway wrote:
You said, "IS-IS in Quagga and FRR are not yet ready for business, ..."
Not ready for business in what way? Performance? Cross-vendor
compatibility? Features?
Or did I misunderstand your statement?
Broken when talking to Cisco IOS XE. Catalogued
On 5/8/23 00:22, Bryan Holloway wrote:
Curious to hear more specifics about your IS-IS assertion.
We've been running it on FRR for some time without incident, but I'll
concede that we don't do very much with it other than saying, "hey --
we're here; oh, and you're there."
Talking to
would make a good addition to the PC.
The PC Chairs will accept nominations received by 1600hrs UTC+2 on
Friday 26th May, 2023, and will announce the new PC shortly thereafter.
Thanks.
Mark Tinka
For the SAFNOG-8 Organizing Committee
On 5/5/23 15:50, Mike Hammett wrote:
Anyone publicly traded doesn't plan longer than the current quarter.
A phenomenon not unique to them - private companies suffer the same issue.
Mark.
On 5/5/23 19:02, Jared Brown wrote:
You can get 100G optics for less than half those prices.
For reference, here are publicly listed prices for optics from an European
vendor I have in production:
100G 4WDM & CLR4 QSFP28
* 10 km
* 225€
100GBASE-LR4 & OTU4 & 128GFC QSFP28
* 20km
*305€
On 5/5/23 15:49, Mike Hammett wrote:
Incumbents are great at momentum. They're not great at innovation,
customer experience, etc. They only reason most incumbents are still
relevant is due to their prior market size.
Most true, and even then, there is a visible change to the bottom line
On 5/5/23 13:04, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thanks a lot for many of your valuable comments I almost always agree.
1.I agree that 50GE has not got the same popularity as 100GE. Many
vendors did ignore it for some time. Looks like not many ignore it now.
2.Even in your example for
On 5/5/23 10:54, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
50GE is better just because it is half of the cost of 100GE and it is
enough now for the great majority of cases. Money is very important
these days for this industry. 100GE single mode is more expensive than
the best router port itself. Routers have
On 5/5/23 07:57, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
Disclaimer: Metaverse has not changed Metro traffic yet. Then …
I am puzzled when people talk about 400GE and Tbps in the Mero context.
For historical reasons, Metro is still about 2*2*10GE (one “2” for
redundancy, another “2” for
On 5/4/23 19:32, Phil Bedard wrote:
It’s my personal opinion we aren’t to the days yet of where we can
simply build an all packet network with no photonic switching that
carries all services, but eventually (random # of years) it gets there
for many networks. There are also always going to
On 5/4/23 15:03, Jared Mauch wrote:
I’m a bit shocked that I now need a 288F cable on some of my routes to support
future expansion, but that fiber cost is still small compared to the labor.
Yes, labour is generally the cost.
And then way-leaves add cost in terms of time and lost
On 5/4/23 14:27, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
I had an experience in one big PTT. Fiber was easy in the majority of Metro
places.
Even faster than DWDM or router commissioning.
It is just 1 PTT. Hence, an example could not be counted.
Yeah - I usually tend to look at what happens in the
On 5/4/23 12:58, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
Well, ISP is typically plan something for a year. It is more than enough for
both.
The real world is much less certain, especially in these economic times.
Funny, that with the current lead times for electronics, Fiber could be faster.
On 5/4/23 11:40, Denis Fondras wrote:
You may also take into account the time to deliver.
Laying fiber takes much more time than plugging a colored optic.
Indeed - part of the expense of running new fibre is the time it takes
to start making money from it.
Mark.
On 5/4/23 00:51, Matt Corallo wrote:
Lots of replies saying which of BIRD/exabgp/frr/quagga/openbgpd folks
prefer, but they're all pretty good. Honestly for such a project
they're all just as great, it comes down mostly to what you're used to
config-wise. Used to big metal router
On 5/3/23 11:10, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
You are right. My message was pretty much geared toward incumbents.
But the majority of the access/aggregation is in their possessions,
isn’t it?
Generally, I'd say yes.
But to the OP's survey, the incumbents also have the majority
On 5/3/23 08:20, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
I would risk to say a little more on this.
Indeed, maybe the situation (in many countries) when the Carrier sells
a lot of TDM services.
But in general, packet services are enough these days for many
carriers/regions.
There aren't enough TDM
Coming back to this thread a little - what are folk seeing where 3rd
party networks are involved?
Are you able to convince providers to run FR optics, where LR4 are still
commonplace?
Mark.
On 5/2/23 22:28, Eve Griliches wrote:
So right Jaredmagic has been in the NPU capacity increase that's
driven the cost per 100G down on 1RU routers;
But that has only mainly solved for speed. Features have taken a hit,
especially if the operator is motivated by the costs of merchant
On 5/2/23 16:01, Eve Griliches wrote:
Hi Etienne,
Below is our (Cisco) definition of the Routed Optical Network. The
goal, metro or long haul or subsea, is to reduce the number of control
planes. By migration TDM traffic using CEM or PLE to the IP layer, you
eliminate the OTN control plane
On 5/2/23 21:32, Jared Mauch wrote:
I’ve seen proposals for an LSR MPLS/ROADAM type solution, where imagine you are
at a hop where in a long distance system solution, you would end up with OEO,
but instead you get directionality capability with an IP/MPLS capable device.
My memory is
On 5/2/23 16:25, Izaac wrote:
This is a very convoluted way of backing into the ole packet-switched
vs. circuit switched decision.
A fight that will never go away.
There has been some compromise in recent years, with Transport-heavy
customers accepting standard Ethernet services, but
On 5/2/23 07:28, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
The incumbent carrier typically has enough fiber strands to avoid any
colored interfaces (that are 3x expensive compare to gray) in the Metro.
Metro ring typically has 8-10 nodes (or similar). 16-20 strands of
fiber were not possible to
On 5/1/23 20:04, Tomas Jonsson wrote:
VyOS uses FRR, but they used to run quagga.
And most bsd(?)/linux package managers has frr in their repository so
maybe that could be something to look at?
pfSense running FRR is a pretty solid BGP router.
Mark.
You're welcome to use our looking glasses which over Europe and Africa:
https://as37100.net/
But so far, we are seeing this in AMS:
BGP routing table entry for 23.151.232.0/24, version 2411923092
Paths: (2 available, best #2, table default)
Not advertised to any peer
Refresh Epoch 1
On 4/21/23 14:37, Chris Adams wrote:
I don't see any benefit to programmatically-generated reverse DNS. I
stopped setting it up a long time ago now. Really, reverse DNS these
days is mostly only useful for:
- mail servers (where it shows a modicum of control and clue)
-
101 - 200 of 2576 matches
Mail list logo
