Re: OT: Re: Younger generations preferring social media(esque) interactions.

2021-03-23 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Mon, 22 Mar 2021, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:

If it's the latter, does that mean that you have to constantly keep 
changing /where/ messages are sent to in order to keep up with the 
latest and greatest or at least most popular (in your audience) flavor 
of the day / week / month / year social media site?


All good questions. I've been using IRC+email for 25+ years now and from 
what I can see, IRC has been replaced by slack/discord etc, and email has 
been replaced by Reddit or Github Issues discussions etc. I was on a 
project where the mailing list was shut down and all further discussions 
were pushed to github instead.


I personally think the "web forum" format is inferior but that might be a 
way to reach out as well...


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Famous operational issues

2021-02-16 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, John Kristoff wrote:


Friends,

I'd like to start a thread about the most famous and widespread Internet
operational issues, outages or implementation incompatibilities you
have seen.

Which examples would make up your top three?


https://blogs.oracle.com/internetintelligence/longer-is-not-always-better

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


RE: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

2021-02-16 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021, Sean Donelan wrote:


Strange the massive shortages and failures are only in one state.

The extreme cold weather extends northwards across many states, which aren't 
reporting rolling blackouts.


https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/

Going at it alone can be beneficial sometimes, sometimes it's not.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10g residential CPE

2020-12-26 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

I demonstrated that it is about buffers by showing the same download 
from a server that paces the traffic indeed gets the full 930 Mbps with 
exactly the same settings, including starting window size, and the same 
path (Copenhagen to Stockholm).


You demonstrated that it's about which TCP algorithm they use, probably.

They all respond very differently to increase in RTT vs loss.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.03852.pdf

Generally the Internet doesn't need more buffers, it needs less. If you 
have only FIFO available, configure it to tail-drop at 10ms or so, to help 
your customers with what they really care about, interactive performance.


I debloat my 1000/1000 with bidir 900/900 FQ_CODEL to avoid my downloads 
affecting my interactive performance.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10g residential CPE

2020-12-26 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:


It is true there have been TCP improvements but you can very easily verify
for yourself that it is very hard to get anywhere near 1 Gbps of actual
transfer speed to destinations just 10 ms away. Try the nlnog ring network
like this:

gigabit@gigabit01:~$ iperf -c netnod01.ring.nlnog.net

Client connecting to netnod01.ring.nlnog.net, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.0 KByte (default)

[  3] local 185.24.168.23 port 50632 connected with 185.42.136.5 port 5001
[ ID] Interval   Transfer Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec   452 MBytes   379 Mbits/sec


Why would you just use 85KB of TCP window size?

That's not the problem of buffering (or lack thereof) along the path, that 
just not enough TCP window size for long-RTT high speed transfers.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10g residential CPE

2020-12-26 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

That is why. The RTT to the source can not be larger than the minimum 
buffer size in the transport path. Otherwise the speed will start 
decreasing.


This is no longer correct. There has been lots of TCP innovation since 
this was true.


Please stop repeating it.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10g residential CPE

2020-12-26 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Mark Tinka wrote:

My experience with customers who've bought 1Gbps FTTH service is that on a 
good day, they may see 500Mbps. On average, they'll live somewhere between 
180Mbps - 350Mbps, with a random spot-check. It's alright for providers who 
offer this to let their NOC's handle the problem, because most users are 
connected to the Internet wirelessly, using devices that do not require more 
than a couple of Mbps of bandwidth at a time.


Wired devices such as gaming consoles won't tell you anything more than how 
long it will take a download to complete. So you are not probably going to 
work out whether the PS5 is running at 1Gbps or 230Mbps, as long as your 
psyche is happy with the service you are buying from your provider.


Steam and Microsoft will say download speed. I regularily see 100MB/s or 
more.


Perhaps there are some issues at other parts of the network that limits 
their speeds? I'm in Stockholm, Sweden, with plenty of local CDNs located 
just 1-3ms away from me.


Here the "truth" is that if you game, you need to have a wired connection 
to your gaming computer. All gamers "know" this.


I don't have experience with PS5 and perhaps what you're saying is true 
for that customer base. I'd say it's not true for Xbox or Steam customers 
as they see speed prominently displayed on the screen.


https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/games-apps/troubleshooting/troubleshoot-slow-game-or-app-downloads-on-xbox-one

"Go to My games & apps > Manage > Queue and note the download speed shown 
on the game or app that’s being installed. "


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10g residential CPE

2020-12-26 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Mark Tinka wrote:

No one argued that Sony could build a half-decent console. Wired via 
Ethernet, that's unlikely to be the bottleneck.


Considering my PC often saturates my 1000/1000 Internet access when 
downloading, I don't see why the 1GE NIC on PS5 wouldn't be the bottleneck 
if it's sitting on higher speed Internet access.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: [External] Re: 10g residential CPE

2020-12-26 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020, Chris Adams wrote:

Queueing doesn't get me my next game in time to play it tonight.  I've 
always seen general queueing as a work-around for "not enough bandwidth 
and can't add more"... but when more is available, why not just use 
more?


I de-bloat my 1000/1000 with FQ_CODEL. It's worthwhile because even 
1000/1000 can see RTT spikes of tens of milliseconds otherwise.


Bandwidth doesn't solve queuing and queuing doesn't solve bandwidth. 
They're both needed.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10g residential CPE

2020-12-25 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:


On Thu, 24 Dec 2020, Ben Cannon wrote:


Anyone else doing it? Do you like your gear?


Haven't tested it myself, but the 10GE residential provider here in Sweden is 
using some kind of Huawei HGW that typically is used for XGPON but has had 
its WAN MAC swapped out for 10GBASE-LR use.


https://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/26446-bahnhof-och-huawei-slapper-10-gbit-router-for-hemanvandare

You can run it through google translate. Do note that this "news" is from 
October 2018.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10g residential CPE

2020-12-25 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Thu, 24 Dec 2020, Ben Cannon wrote:


Anyone else doing it? Do you like your gear?


Haven't tested it myself, but the 10GE residential provider here in Sweden 
is using some kind of Huawei HGW that typically is used for XGPON but has 
had its WAN MAC swapped out for 10GBASE-LR use.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: favourite YANG data-store?

2020-06-17 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:


Hi folks,
Was just wondering what are you folks using as production YANG data store
and what do you like about the particular one you're using? Or maybe folks
using OANP what is your YANG DS of choice?
Plan on using it as in memory DS primarily for service, network YANG
modules, (in addition to the usual use case of device modules),
- so quite a lot of data as you can imagine storing data for higher
abstraction layers Service & Network.
Been looking at ODL and Confd thus far.


http://www.sysrepo.org/

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election

2020-05-13 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Wed, 13 May 2020, Elad Cohen wrote:

LOL funny seeing you changing your mind by 180 degrees when someone you 
know in the community writing to you the exact same thing.


"In addition, the sockets API should be extended to support IPxl with a 
new socket domain PF_IPXL which is identical to PF_INET in every respect 
save that the IP addresses are 8 bytes long instead of 4."


Do you realise that this means you're requiring changing *every* 
socket-speaking application in the world?


It's taken us decades to get applications to use the new struct to support 
IPv6+IPv4, resetting the timer back to 0 and starting over does not help 
deployment. It just kicks it another 20 years down the line.


You're just inventing yet another incompatible standard and you have to 
touch everything, DHCP, DNS all applications etc.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: CGNAT Solutions

2020-04-29 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Robert Blayzor wrote:

So as a happy medium of about 2048 ports per subscriber, that's roughly 
a 32:1 NAT/IP over-subscription ?


Yes, around that.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: CGNAT Solutions

2020-04-29 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Robert Blayzor wrote:

One would think a 1000 ports would be enough, but if you have a dozen 
devices at home all browsing and doing various things, and with IOT, 
etc, maybe not?


https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/nat-best-practices.html

There are some numbers in there for instance talking about 1024 ports per 
subscriber as a good number. In presentations I have seen over time, 
people typically talk about 512-4096 as being a good number for the bulk 
port allocation size.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: ECN

2019-11-13 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

In any case, is it not recommended that users of anycast proxy packets 
that arrive at the wrong place? To avoid this kind of issue.


In typical anycast deployments there is no feasible way to figure out 
where the "right place" is.


It would be very interesting if your could share what equipment you're 
using that is doing ECMP hashing based on ECN bits. That vendor needs to 
fix that or people should avoid their devices.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Protecting 1Gb Ethernet From Lightning Strikes

2019-08-14 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019, Chris Knipe wrote:


Think surge protectors will protect against strikes that is far away, and
the residual surge it creates.

A direct strike?  Don't think there's anything that will really protect
against that.


https://imgur.com/a/dzTVw5a has been posted lately here in a swedish 
fiber-related facebook group.


So even though you might have fiber coming in, remember that both the 
power grid and copper network cables are conductors and can make the 
lightning strike jump between devices. So the OP of this thread is right 
in wanting to protect both the network cables and power cables.


PS. I don't have more details about this specific case.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: MAP-E

2019-08-09 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Jay Hanke wrote:

Actually your post is better than a presentation. I was quite surprised 
at the adoption rate of DS-Lite. There must be some pretty decent B4 
implementations with that many operators deployed.


The DOCSIS residential gateway vendors seem to have converged on ds.lite, 
probably because it was the first one out the gate. I've seen support for 
this on RGs for other WAN technologies. It's not great, but it's what has 
the most support in devices available.


Lots of ds.lite is in Germany, and most/all the cable operators there have 
converged on ds.lite. This is not uncommon that several operators in a 
country converge on a similar strategy. Engineers moving employment 
between operators bring with them the know-how and do the same thing over 
again at the new place, and also there is a kind of "herd immunity" 
against customer complaints if your deployment and service offering has 
similar properties to most of your competitors in the country.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: MAP-E

2019-08-02 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, Brian J. Murrell wrote:

Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of 
burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP?


LW4o6 is regular NAT44 and then tunnel encap. MAP-E is similar.

So if there is NAT44 helper for these protocols then it should work the 
same as if you just had NAT44.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: MAP-E

2019-08-02 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

be a demand. Alternatively I need to find a different CPE vendor that 
has MAP-E support, but are there any?


Broadcom supports MAP-E and LW4o6 encap/decap in fastpath on at least 
BCM63138 with their latest BSP versions.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


240/4 (Re: 44/8)

2019-07-22 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:


2.  It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP 
stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s being 
evaluated against a global
run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly to 
RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and every IP 
stack to support
IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly smaller 
cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs. hopefully making 
IPv6 deployable
before IPv4 ran out).


Well, people are working on making 240/4 usable in IP stacks:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt

There have been patches accepted into some BSDs and into Linux 
tools/kernel and other operating systems to make 240/4 configurable and 
working as unicast space.


I don't expect it to show up in DFZ anytime soon, but some people have 
dilligently been working on removing any obstacles to using 240/4 in most 
common operating systems.


For controlled environments, it's probably deployable today with some 
caveats. I think it'd be fine as a compliment to RFC1918 space for some 
internal networks.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 44/8

2019-07-19 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote:

And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was 
KC, who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding 
an amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.


You are not in possession of all the facts.

KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.


https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KC6KCC

The grant date was 2018-02-21.

So both of the above statements can be true at the same time since I have 
no idea when KC joined the ARDC board. When was that?


Also, reading: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/ARDC

"It solely manages and allocates Internet address space, subnets of 
network 44 (AMPRNet), to interested Amateur Radio operators."


Seems ARDC does more than this nowadays.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Multi-day GNSS Galileo outage -- Civilization survives

2019-07-18 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Sean Donelan wrote:

So much for the disaster scenarioes about a global clamity, planes falling 
out the sky, the end of civil society because a global navigation satellite 
system fails.  The European Galileo GNSS was down for days, and life went on.


It wasn't even in full production, and I am not aware of much equipment 
that solely relies on Galileo.


A lot of devices today can use multiple GNSS and this is great, as this 
incident shows that one of them can go offline. Relying on only one of 
them is risky.


This outage and its lack of ramifications doesn't imply that if GPS went 
offline there woulnd't be consequences. Galileo is just a few years old, 
and wasn't even in production. If GPS would go offline, you'd see a lot 
different fallout. Lots of things rely on GPS solely.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: DOs and DONTs for small ISP

2019-06-03 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Mehmet Akcin wrote:

I am putting together a public DOs and DONTs blog post and would love to 
hear from those who have built ISPs and have recommendations from 
Billing to Interconnection, Routing policy to Out of the band & console 
setup, Software recommendations, etc. Bottom line is that I would like 
to publish a checklist with these recommendations which I hope will be 
useful for all.


The "ISP Essentials" publication is still valid in a lot of cases. It 
might not cover everything but gets a lot of the basics right.


ftp://ftp.securecomp.net/EBook/Cisco%AE%20ISP%20Essentials.pdf

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: DHCPv6-PD relay route injection - standard?

2019-05-19 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sun, 19 May 2019, Brandon Martin wrote:

I guess my impression from RFC8415 was that it was up to the network 
administrator and their equipment vendor to resolve this.  Certainly, I 
wouldn't have expected automatic route injection, though having such a


There needs to be interaction between the packet forwarding layer and the 
DHCP layer when doing things like DHCPv6-PD, otherwise it's not of any 
use.


Another thing that will be in this document is that we've observed quite a 
few gotchas that aren't obvious, and for different deployment scenarios 
you want things handled differently by the relay.


One example:

What do you do when you have an active lease and the same DUID shows up on 
another interface, requesting a prefix? If you're a wireline operator then 
you most likely want to hand out a different prefix, because this is now 
two different customers and you want to treat them as two different 
clients even if they happen to have the same MAC address and DUID.


If you're instead an enterprise for instance, and you want to support 
devices moving around and having their PD follow them, then you want to 
the opposite, you instead want to just treat it as the same client that 
now moved.


Back in 2005 I was involved in an wireline deployment, and I checked the 
customer mac addresses. 5% of the customers had the same mac address 
visible to us. Seems a very popular electronics store router vendor had 
shipped all their routers of a certain model with the same MAC address as 
its default address. I was happy I had designed the wireline solution with 
one vlan per customer so this wasn't a problem. Other ISPs weren't so 
fortunate and had to spend significant customer support time/money helping 
customers use the "clone PC MAC address" functionality in the HGW to work 
around this problem.


In DHCPv6 the DUID is considered "world unique", but as wel all know who 
work in operational environment, the world typically doesn't adhere to 
strict rules.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: DHCPv6-PD relay route injection - standard?

2019-05-18 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 14 May 2019, Brandon Martin wrote:

Is there a standard that defines/recommends behavior for route injection of 
snooped DHCPv6-PD (or IA, I guess) assignments on routers running relay 
agents?


No, there isn't. However, there is now work ongoing work in the IETF to at 
least create a functional description of one.


I read a pre-version of the -00 yesterday (my colleague is one of the 
authors), hopefully a first version of it should be posted coming week. 
Check out the IETF WG mailing list for when it's posted.


The area of how the router on the LAN gets the DHCPv6-PD route injected 
never was standardized because consensus couldn't be reached on how to do 
it, so it was glossed over and vendors solved it the way they saw fit. 
I've seen implementations where no route was injected (to customer 
astonishment of course becase it's useless without this), so this is 
functionality that needs at least some kind of specification.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: any interesting/useful resources available to IPv6 only?

2019-05-07 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 6 May 2019, Brian J. Murrell wrote:

That and that such a VPS is only reachable from IPv6 addresses, if I 
were to have one, makes more of a case why other ISPs should support 
IPv6 rather than my own ISP.


I have things at work that is only reachable using IPv6. This is not of 
general interest to anyone, but it does make it annoying for me when I 
happen to be on IPv4 only as I have to perform extra steps to reach these 
IPv6 only resources.


I also have devices in my home I can only login directly to via IPv6, as I 
have opted not to have any IPv4 port forwards in my router.


So the best case you can probably make is that there are things out there 
that are IPv6 only, not just the kinds of services that most people would 
care about (since if they would, someone would want it as widely available 
as possible, this making it dual stack).


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Gi Firewall for mobile subscribers

2019-04-10 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Jan Chrillesen wrote:


Also keep in mind that most GGSN/PGW will assign a /64 (and not a /128)


All 3GPP devices assign /64 per bearer because that's what's in the 3GPP 
spec. I've been told 3GPP went to IETF and asked what to do, IETF said 
"assign /64 per device" and that's what ended up in the specs.


so if someone does a scan targeting that specific /64 you might see a 
lot of traffic to the device. I would strongly suggest deploying a 
stateful device - purely to protect the radio and signaling network - 
not the terminal/phone


If they scan the /64 then this won't cause excessive paging traffic as the 
device will already be out of low power mode.


The balanced solution is to have a stateful device that typically does 
nothing but has some kind of "abuse detection" which triggers filtering 
certain Internet sources when it decides that this device is performing 
scans of larger IP spaces. This protects the mobile network from paging 
storms but also allows users to be reachable from the Internet.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: modeling residential subscriber bandwidth demand

2019-04-02 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Paul Nash wrote:

FWIW, I have a 250 subscribers sitting on a 100M fiber into Torix.  I 
have had no complains about speed in 4 1/2 years.  I have been planning 
to bump them to 1G for the last 4 years, but there is currently no 
economic justification.


I know FTTH footprints where peak evening average per customer is 3-5 
megabit/s. I know others who claim their customers only average equivalent 
5-10% of that.


It all depends on what services you offer. Considering my household has 
250/100 for 40 USD a month I'd say your above solution wouldn't even be 
enough to deliver an acceptable service to even 10 households.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: modeling residential subscriber bandwidth demand

2019-04-02 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Tom Ammon wrote:

Netflow for historical data is great, but I guess what I am really 
asking is - how do you anticipate the load that your eyeballs are going 
to bring to your network, especially in the face of transport tweaks 
such as QUIC and TCP BBR?


I don't see how QUIC and BBR is going to change how much bandwidth is 
flowing.


If you want to make your eyeballs happy then make sure you're not 
congesting your upstream links. Aim for max 50-75% utilization in 5 minute 
average at peak hour (graph by polling interface counters every 5 
minutes). Depending on your growth curve you might need to initiate 
upgrades to make sure they're complete before utilization hits 75%.


If you have thousands of users then typically just look at the statistics 
per user and extrapolate. I don't believe this has fundamentally changed 
in the past 20 years, this is still best common practice.


If you go into the game of running your links full parts of the day then 
you're into the game of trying to figure out QoE values which might mean 
you spend more time doing that than the upgrade would cost.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


RE: Last Mile Design

2019-02-14 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, Aaron Gould wrote:


Not sure if this is what y'all are talking about, but I use lots of Juniper 
ACX5048 (previously Cisco ME3600 or ASR9000) for mpls-capable router edging in 
native ip/ethernet from ftth gpon network into mpls l2circuits and LOTS of 
vrf vrf for public ip, vrf for cgnat for private ip, vrf for voice...  I'm 
glad I did it.


Residential- ONT-ftth/gpon--OLT--ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
x---cgnat/inet--

Residential- DSL Modem-DSLAM---ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
y---cgnat/inet--

Residential- Cable Modem-CMTS---ACX5048-mpls/vrf 
z---cgnat/inet--


Residentialfiber media converter---L2 switch-- and then the rest of 
the setup you can re-use. AE isn't magic, insted of having an OLT,CMTS or 
DSLAM you just have an L2 ethernet switch.


They're mostly just media converters anyway. 15 years ago I deployed ADSL 
like this:


Residential---DSL modem---DSLAML3 switch

So DSL-modem---DSLAM was just doing RFC1843bridged over ATM. Just media 
converters. Same thing, just different type of media converter.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Last Mile Design

2019-02-14 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Colton Conor wrote:

Just wondering, but what IP-capable MPLS switches are people using to 
deploy AE to residential internet connections? Most 48 port AE switches 
from repetuable vendors are crazy expensive, and I can't see how the ROI 
would ever work compared to GPON.


Why do you need MPLS? Most people just use regular L2 switches with some 
SAVI functionality (DHCP inspection, RA guard tec). When I did this, we 
happened to have an L3 switch there so I made each customer IPv6 (protocol 
based vlan) broadcast domain unique for each customer, and the L3 switch 
had built in DHCPv6-PD server. So just route a /51 to it, and it was a 
self contained IPv6 upstream router. For IPv4 we had a shared vlan and I 
didn't change that design at all.


For the FTTH deployment I am currently connected to, other end of my fiber 
is a big L2 chassi switch (~600 ports) with 10GE uplink to somewhere, and 
it does SAVI and then there is some BNG somewhere at the other end of this 
10GE uplink.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Last Mile Design

2019-02-11 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:


We have the same problem here in Africa too (and I saw it in Asia-Pac
while I was there as well)... non-telco-centric companies that deployed


Speaking of an Asia-Pac example, Thailand, the government owned telco.

https://www.tot.co.th/%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%8C%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%87%E0%B8%95/tot-fiber-2u

Typically there are 1-3 different FTTH providers if you live in something 
that resembles a town, pay 50-100EUR installation fee, they show up within 
days to pull your new fiber and now you can have 150/50 for around 20EUR a 
month.


The price level has remained the same the past 5-6 years, but speed has 
gone up from 10/3 to 150/50 for the same monthly payment. Last year the 
150/50 price level offering was 100/20 instead.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Last Mile Design

2019-02-11 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:


someone else" they will say "huh? what do you mean". There is an
unfortunate common conflation between the fiber optic cable and the
services offered on it.


I get what you're saying, but sadly, someone has to take the risk to
build out a network. Unless you are a large incumbent like Telia,
chances are it will be company whose sole focus is just fibre network
construction, and anything higher up in the layers is of no interest to
them.


The problem here is that it might be an energy company or someone who 
isn't really into datacom. Now they're going to have to operate an active 
network to provide this "bitstream access" with DHCP relays, BCP38 support 
and all that comes with it. The result is that right now, most of these 
networks do not support IPv6 and they do not support > 1 gigabit/s speed 
(some don't even support more than 100-500 either).


If they had just stayed at the L1 level and provided dark fiber for the 
amount of money mentioned before (for instance 10-15 EUR a month) then a 
lot of the problems wouldn't be there. They could have used the same 
organisation as before that now could do fiber as well, and that's that. 
Simple product, can't go wrong in a lot of weird ways.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Last Mile Design

2019-02-11 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:


In any case, we are now building out our own fiber to cover the gaps
left by TDC. Here the end user has to pay DKK 12,000 (USD 1,824 / EUR
1,608) one time fee and with that he gets everything including 5 years
of free internet. This works out at DKK 200 / month including 25% VAT
tax (USD 30 / EUR 27).


Very interesting - don't you feel that an initial outlay like that could
put some potential customers off? Then again, per capita income in
Denmark, I'd imagine, could allow most to think about this. If all that
buys me Internet access for 5 years before I have to shell out anymore
wedge, I'd do it.


In Sweden it's very common that people who live in detached house areas 
have to pay 1500-3000EUR to get attached to the fiber network as it's 
being built out. There are even bank loans you can get to pay for this, 
and pay it off over time. It's considered to be a good deal because it 
improves the value of the house as well as a huge improvement over having 
satellite-dish/terrestrial TV and ADSL/LTE for Internet access, now 
instead you can pay 30-40EUR a month to get a everything over the fiber.


Now, I like the LLUB model where ISPs get access to the dark fiber all the 
way to the customer, and we do have that here as well, just not as 
commonly as I'd like. That's where https://www.bahnhof.se/villafiber/ 
comes from where they offer 10GE for 50EUR a month. This is done on Telia 
LLUB:ed dark fiber which costs around 15EUR a month (regulated price). 
It's a great PR case for "dark fiber access rocks and bitstream sucks". 
You get IPv6 in there as well, which isn't commonly available on most of 
the bitstream access services (because not only do we not do PON, we don't 
do PPPoE either here in Sweden).


So it's a mixed bag and pricing and functionality could definitely be 
better, but the FTTH rollout has gone quite well here and it's as usual 
10-15 different factors contributing but the willingness of the population 
who lives in houses to fork out 1500-3000EUR for fiber install has made 
this a lot less cash flow misery for the ISPs that roll this out. I just 
wish there would have been a requirement for everybody to actually rent 
this dark fiber out (which there isn't unless you're one of the biggest 
players) because after paying those 1500-3000EUR and you ask the fiber 
installation company "who owns this fiber?" they say "we do" and if you 
ask "ok, I'd like it connected to someone else" they will say "huh? what 
do you mean". There is an unfortunate common conflation between the fiber 
optic cable and the services offered on it.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Last Mile Design

2019-02-10 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:

Fair point, my mate is on a Stokab-driven network, but EUR35 for 250Mbps 
is nothing to laugh at. I'm paying double that for 100Mbps in 
Johannesburg, on GPON.


I also have available 250/50 via DOCSIS for approx the same EUR35.

Basically access technology (AE/GPON/DOCSIS) doesn't matter a huge part, 
it's all about market and competition.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


RE: Last Mile Design

2019-02-10 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Tony Wicks wrote:

Certainly the devil is in the details, in New Zealand the access layer 
(GPON plus local transport) is largely regulated. Then Retail service 
providers buy the access component wholesale and add layer3, national 
backhaul etc. Retail for unlimited 1G/500M internet is about 
$75USD/month, for 100/50 you are looking at about 50USD/month. Key to 
this was the breakup of the incumbent into an access plus retail 
provider. This was done by allowing power (lines) companies in a few 
regions to win the access component contract.


The general going rate for a 250/100 in Sweden is around 35EUR for the 
kind of service where you can then choose any ISP. Typically the 
first-mile provider takes the bulk of this money.


In the cases where the proprty is on STOKAB fiber footprint (or 
equivalent) and you have a reasonably large MDU the landlord can contract 
an ISP to deliver ETTH to all apartments (typically CAT6 from switch in 
basement) where the going rate per apartment is around 5-15EUR a month for 
something like 100/100, 1G/100M or 1G/1G.


All of this with *PON nowhere to be seen. It's all AE over fiber or 
CAT5/6/7.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Last Mile Design

2019-02-09 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:

If I had to build a consumer broadband network and had the budget (and 
owned the fibre) to do so, I'd definitely always choose Active-E:   


For anyone saying it's "impossible" to do AE they're welcome here to the 
nordic region and especially Sweden where PON is basically unheard of. We 
have millions of AE connected households. I live in one of them.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Last Mile Design

2019-02-08 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Chris Gross wrote:

For a lot of us, PONs are a way of life and may not even have any 100G 
capable devices in our network, muchless enough to make our money on. 
While you may be so "lucky" to "never really take it seriously", it is 
supporting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of homes in the US.


PON is the lifeblood if many rural communities. I'm luckily to have a 
healthy mix of PON and AE operations since I'm located next to cities. 
But I've met cooperatives in the middle of no where with super low 
density where it's 6 people + 2 donkeys on staff. AE would never work 
there, but PONs allow them cheap and available broadband options.


Unless someone wants to give enough funding to run AE to people's homes, 
PONs will continue to allow many communities to have more than cellular 
internet access options, if that.


PON and AE both have their strengths and weakness and make sense for 
different deployment scenarios. My biggest problem with PON is that it 
seems some operators build their fiber plant for PON for all deployment 
cases and then it's extremely hard to back out of it and switch to AE. If 
you have AE you can switch to PON fairly easily, but not the other way 
around if you've put splitters in the manholes.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Dnssec still inoperable on the internet ?— was ARIN NS down?

2019-01-11 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Ca By wrote:


Thanks for the update that dnssec STILL causes more real world problems
than it solves.


Do you feel the same way about RPKI?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IP Dslams

2019-01-04 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018, Nick Edwards wrote:


Howdy,
We have a requirement for an aged care facility to provide voice and data,
we have the voice worked out, but data, WiFi is out of the question, so are
looking for IP-Dslams, preferably a system that is all-in-one, or self
contained, as in contains its own BBRAS/LNS/PPP server/Radius, such as has
a property managment API, or even just a webpage manager where admin can


Are you sure you need all of that?

When I designed ADSL solutions ~15 years ago I built with Paradyne DSLAM 
with ethernet uplink, then we used rfc 1483 bridged over ATM, so no need 
for PPP, radius or anything. It was just IPoETHERNEToATM and all the 
regular IPoE mechanisms could be used (DHCP etc).


So we just bundled the DSLAM with an L3 switch and that was that. One vlan 
per customer which solved the customer isolation problem. Customer could 
run modem in either bridged mode or terminate the IPoETHoATM PVC on the RG 
itself.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Auto-configuring IPv6 transition mechanisms on customer devices

2019-01-02 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Brandon Martin wrote:

Out of curiosity, what do you use to terminate the MAP/LW4o6 tunnels/encaps 
to the public Internet?  Plenty of options here, of course, especially at the 
traffic rates I'm moving.  I'm just curious what others' experiences have 
been as these are still somewhat new in SP deployments, I think.


We use https://github.com/snabbco/snabb lwAFTR.

We deploy an anycast based solution with self-check and ExaBGP to announce 
the anycast next-hop the RGs after the lwAFTR instance passes its self 
check. That means we can deploy these geographically diversely and also 
with redundancy, and can hitlessly take them out of service if needed.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Auto-configuring IPv6 transition mechanisms on customer devices

2019-01-02 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Brandon Martin wrote:


On 12/14/18 11:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We use this to configure LW4o6 tunnels using DHCPv6. This is already 
present in OpenWrt via the MAP package. It supports both MAP-E and LW4o6.


So I guess you're deploying "RG" style CPE routers to your customers that 
you've loaded OpenWRT onto?  How's the maintainability of that? Any hardware 
recommendations?


Yes, we're buying devices from a vendor that uses OpenWrt as base for 
their operating system. We're using this one currently:


https://www.intenogroup.com/products/gateways/eg400/

We remotely manage it using Netconf/YANG from our NMS so we can do 
software upgrades (and other management). If you have low volume you can 
of course use SSH and script it if that's what you want. They also have 
TR-69 based management, and perhaps others.


The mechanisms mentioned in this thread are exactly what I'm looking for, but 
I'm having trouble finding any COTS vendor support for them. I'm sure if I 
wanted to buy 100k units, somebody would put out some custom firmware for me, 
but as the network I'm doing this on is a brand new startup in a somewhat 
sparsely populated area, I'd be buying dozens at a time, not thousands.


Get in touch with them, tell them I said hi. They might be able to 
accomodate your low volume by sending you gateways with their default 
software on it and you'd have to upgrade it to whatever image you want on 
it, yourself. It only takes a few minutes per box so should be perfectly 
doable with your low volume.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Auto-configuring IPv6 transition mechanisms on customer devices

2018-12-14 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, Brandon Martin wrote:

Are there any (draft, standard, or otherwise) defined mechanisms for 
indicating to customer-provided devices that they should configure IPv6 to 
IPv4 transition mechanisms such as MAP, 4rd, 464XLAT, etc. and providing the 
configuration details thereof?


I'm not aware of any.  It seems like this is something that, if defined, 
would make deployment of such mechanisms a lot easier even if SPs provide the 
customer edge router that implements said mechanisms.  I guess they'd 
probably be implemented as extensions to DHCPv6 or similar or embedded in RAs 
(the latter seems ugly).


We use this to configure LW4o6 tunnels using DHCPv6. This is already 
present in OpenWrt via the MAP package. It supports both MAP-E and LW4o6.


https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7598

DHCPv6 Options for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped 
Clients


   This document specifies DHCPv6 options, termed Softwire46 options,
   for the provisioning of Softwire46 Customer Edge (CE) devices.
   Softwire46 is a collective term used to refer to architectures based
   on the notion of IPv4 Address plus Port (A+P) for providing IPv4
   connectivity across an IPv6 network.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IGP protocol

2018-11-12 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, im wrote:


goodmorning nanog,

I heard that OSPF is only famous in asia region...
So that, please could you explain me

 1. what is your backbone's IGP protocol?
 2. why you choose it?


This is a 20+ year old discussion. There are lots of comparisons.

https://nsrc.org/workshops/2017/ubuntunet-bgp-nrens/networking/nren/en/presentations/08-ISIS-vs-OSPF.pdf
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/presentations/Sunday/Shamim_Which_Routing_N49.pdf
https://www.nada.kth.se/kurser/kth/2D1490/03/papers/Comparitive_Study_of_OSPF_and_ISIS.txt

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: WIndows Updates Fail Via IPv6

2018-11-12 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Mark Tinka wrote:


I do run 6-in-4 from my backbone to my house as my FTTH provider does
not do IPv6.

I can't imagine this to specifically be the issue, as all other IPv6
traffic is fine, but at this point, I'm open to suggestion.


Are you doing TCP MSS adjust/clamping? If you don't, try that and see if 
it helps. This might be a PMTUD issue.


Otherwise if possible, try lowering the MTU sent in RA to the one you have 
on your tunnel (this depends on if this is available to you in your RA 
sending device).


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


new diffserv code point LE PHB

2018-03-30 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson


Hi,

I would like to bring attention to the following IETF draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04

I believe this is well under way through the IETF process, and if someone 
has strong opinions on it they should speak up. I am one of the 
proponents, as I posted to this list back in 2015:


https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-July/077040.html

I think it's a great idea to have a diffserv code point that is supposed 
to be treated less than best effort (for backup traffic for instance), but 
it would be nice if someone would be willing to deploy support for it as 
well.


Thoughts?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: MTU to CDN's

2018-01-19 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018, Mark Andrews wrote:


Which doesn’t work with IPv6 as UDP doesn’t have the field to clamp.


Well, not with UDP/IPv4 either. Actually, the only protocol I know out 
there that has this kind of clamping (and is in wide use for clamping), is 
TCP.


Thus, my earlier comment about making strong advise for protocols using 
PLMTUD.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: MTU to CDN's

2018-01-19 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Mike Hammett wrote:

Wouldn't those situations be causing issues now, given the likelihood 
that someone with a less than 1,500 byte MTU is communicating with you 
now?


If the issue is that you're letting 8996 byte packets through but not 9000 
byte packets, then no.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: MTU to CDN's

2018-01-19 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Mike Hammett wrote:

Other than people improperly blocking ICMP, when does PMTUD not work? 
Honest question, not troll.


Mismatch of MTU interface settings between interfaces, mismatch of MTU 
between L3 devices and intermediate L2 devices, anycast services, ECMP 
based services where the ICMP error is delivered to the wrong node.


So yes, there are plenty reasons that PMTUD doesn't work without anyone 
doing it because of ill will or incompetence.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: MTU to CDN's

2018-01-18 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Michael Crapse wrote:


I don't mind letting the client premises routers break down 9000 byte
packets. My ISP controls end to end connectivity. 80% of people even let
our techs change settings on their computer, this would allow me to give
~5% increase in speeds, and less network congestion for end users for a one
time $60 service many people would want. It's also where the internet
should be heading... Not to beat a dead horse(re:ipv6 ) but why hasn't the
entire internet just moved to 9000(or 9600 L2) byte MTU? It was created for
the jump to gigabit... That's 4 orders of magnitude ago. The internet
backbone shouldn't be shuffling around 1500byte packets at 1tbps. That
means if you want to layer 3 that data, you need a router capable of more
than half a billion packets/s forwarding capacity. On the other hand, with
even just a 9000 byte MTU, TCP/IP overhead is reduced 6 fold, and
forwarding capacity needs just 100 or so mpps capacity. Routers that
forward at that rate are found for less than $2k.


As usual, there are 5-10 (or more) factors playing into this. Some, in 
random order:


1. IEEE hasn't standardised > 1500 byte ethernet packets
2. DSL/WIFI chips typically don't support > ~2300 because reasons.
3. Because 2, most SoC ethernet chips don't either
4. There is no standardised way to understand/probe the L2 MTU to your 
next hop (ARP/ND and probing if the value actually works)

5. PMTUD doesn't always work.
6. PLPMTUD hasn't been implemented neither in protocols nor hosts 
generally.
7. Some implementations have been optimized to work on packets < 2000 
bytes and actually has less performance than if they have to support 
larger packets (they will allocate 2k buffer memory per packet), 9k is 
ill-fitting across 2^X values
8. Because of all above reasons, mixed-MTU LAN doesn't work, and it's 
going to be mixed-MTU unless you control all devices (which is typically 
not the case outside of the datacenter).
9. The PPS problem in hosts and routers was solved by hardware offloading 
to NICs and forwarding NPUs/ASICs with very high lookup speeds where PPS 
no longer was a big problem.


On the value to choose for "large MTU", 9000 for edge and 9180 for core is 
what I advocate, after non-trivial amount of looking into this. All major 
core routing platforms work with 9180 (with JunOS only supporting this 
after 2015 or something). So if we'd want to standardise on MTU that all 
devices should support, then it's 9180, but we'd typically use 9000 in RA 
to send to devices.


If we want a higher MTU to be deployable across the Internet, we need to 
make it incrementally deployable. Some key things to achieve that:


1. Get something like 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-van-beijnum-multi-mtu-05 implemented.
2. Go to the IETF and get a document published that advises all protocols 
to support PLMTUD (RFC4821)


1 to enable mixed-MTU lans.
2 to enable large MTU hosts to actually be able to communicate when PMTUD 
doesn't work.


With this in place (wait ~10 years), larger MTU is now incrementally 
deployable which means it'll be deployable on the Internet, and IEEE might 
actually accept to standardise > 1500 byte packets for ethernet.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: MTU to CDN's

2018-01-08 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, joel jaeggli wrote:


PMTUD has a lot of trouble working reliability when the destination of
the PTB  is a stateless load-balancer.

If your tunnel or host clamps the mss  to the appropriate value it can
support. it is highly likely that connection attempts to the same
destination will work fine.


This is understandable, but if this is also an operational practice we as 
the operational community want to condone (people using solutions where 
PMTUD doesn't work), then we also need to make sure that all applications 
do PLMTUD (RFC4821, Packet Level MTU Discovery). This is currently NOT the 
case, and from what I can tell, there isn't even an IETF document saying 
this is the best current practice.


So, is this something we want to say? We should talk about that.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-29 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:

It's rather interesting how parsing of variable length addresses was 
thought to be way too complicated - while parsing of IPv6 extension 
header chains of unknown length was okay.


I think this can be explained by "routers don't need to parse extension 
headers, they're routers, they only act on L3".


Some of the people around back in early/mid 1990ies involved in designing 
IPv6 is still around in IETF, you can always ask them.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-10 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Ryan Hamel wrote:


Greetings,

A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP address, to 
have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions closest server. 
While I understand the IP address does work (pings and what not), I don't feel 
this should be the proper IP address used, but something more feasible like a 
usable IP in a dedicated range (172.31.0.0/24 for example).

I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP 
address in an RFC1918 range.


Last time I tried using the first address of a classful address block 
(which 172.16.0.0/32 would be) in Cisco IOS (classic), that didn't work 
properly. This was in IOS 12.0.x. You can't set up BGP peers to something 
in the network address in classful network space, for instance. So 
172.16.0.0/32 or 172.16.255.255/32 wouldn't work (because it's first and 
last address of class B space), but 172.16.1.0 worked just fine (because 
in class B space, 172.16.1.0 isn't special).


So while this has been allowed per standardssince mid 90:ties, it's not 
obvious that it'll work in all operating systems that might still be in 
use.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: AS PATH limits

2017-09-30 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Hank Nussbacher wrote:


https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2009-1572
Quagga 0.99.11 and earlier affected.
Fixed in 2009.


It was fixed in other OSes as well after this, I presume:

http://blog.ipspace.net/2009/02/root-cause-analysis-oversized-as-paths.html

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Hurricane Maria: Summary of communication status - and lack of

2017-09-27 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Sean Donelan wrote:

Things are better and worse in Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands. 
Help is needed, but anyone wanting to help in the field, be certain you 
understand what you would be doing, and whether you are actually helping 
or hindering on the ground efforts.


https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/9/26/16365994/hurricane-maria-2017-puerto-rico-san-juan-humanitarian-disaster-electricty-fuel-flights-facts

This seems to indicate that it will be 4-6 months until things get back to 
normal, if there indeed is a huge effort to do so.


"But as first responders on the ground in Puerto Rico told Fernández 
Campbell, this isn’t enough. Trump should also ask Congress to pass a 
relief package for Puerto Rico to give FEMA and the island more money to 
rebuild. He could deploy more military resources to help with search and 
rescue operations."


I hope this happens.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

2017-09-27 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Blake Dunlap wrote:

Isn't this the topic area that the home networking working group was 
supposed to resolve?


HOMENET was never looking into running a routing protocol between the ISP 
and the HGW. It was all about running a routing protocol WITHIN the home, 
not between the home and the ISP.


All the work I saw took for granted there was for instance a DHCPv6-PD 
lease handed to the home gateway router.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Hurricane Maria: Summary of communication status - and lack of

2017-09-26 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Sean Donelan wrote:

It looks like someone kicked the cellular carriers public relations 
people into gear. Today, instead of the normal "we care" messages; they 
released statements providing more concrete details about their 
restoration activity in PR and USVI.


What is the US government role in all of this? It sounds like a few 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy could be of use here to 
airlift in lots of gear.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp

2017-09-23 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Fredrik Sallinen wrote:


Please correct me If I'm wrong, AFAIK 464XLAT works best with mobile
networks and its not suitable for fixed broadband. right?


It's most widely deployed in mobile networks, yes. There is nothing that 
says it couldn't work anywhere else.


However, in fixed networks with PPPoE the most commonly used model is dual 
stack with RFC7084 style routers.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp

2017-09-14 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Fredrik Sallinen wrote:


Hello,

Recently we have decided to start IPv6 migration in our network. We
have ~1K BNGs and connecting our customers to network using PPPoE.
I'd be interested in hearing from the technical community about their
experiences and recommendations on this process. I'm wondering:

Shall I go for IPv6-only deployment or dual stack?


For PPPoE with existing IPv4, go dual stack.


Where to start with IPv6? (core, edge or ...)


Core, peering, work outwards towards end users.


What are the best practices for ISPs?
What are the costs and return on investment?
How to identify address CPE and legacy application issues?


There is a lot written and presented about IPv6 deployment. People have 
been doing this in volume since around 2010, and if you search for IPv6 
deployment experience you'll find lots of presentations.


Some I found that seem relevant:

https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog51/presentations/Monday/aronson-pierantozzi-level3-ipv6.pdf
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/54/slides/plenary-15.pdf
https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/ipv6-stories/
https://www.ipv6council.be/experiences-de-deploiements-ipv6/

If you prefer video form, there are lots of presentations from 
conferences, available on youtube as well.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


RE: Verizon 701 Route leak?

2017-08-29 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Marcus Josephson wrote:


Damn you Google.. yup.  Thanks for links.


A public post-mortem would be highly appreciated (from all parties).

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 100G - Whitebox

2017-08-20 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017, Nick Hilliard wrote:


Mostly you can engineer around this, but it's not as simple as saying
that small-buffer switches aren't suitable for an IXP.


Could you please elaborate on this?

How do you engineer around having basically no buffers at all, and 
especially if these very small buffers are shared between ports.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-17 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, chris wrote:


Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake 


I am all for people deploying BCP38, but from the original email this is 
definitely not a cause for celebration. BCP38 should be used against 
single homed customers only if you're doing it by using uRPF. Otherwise 
extreme care needs to be taken to make sure traffic isn't dropped because 
uRPF does the wrong thing (like it seems in this case).


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-22 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:


To make it short : education. And we as as small ISP we have neither the
resources, nor the motivation (because $$$ on the issue is negative) to
do it (the education).


An ISP should be an enabler, and have a service portfolio to cover most 
customers need. Not all customers will want all the services, so if a 
customer doesn't want IPv6 then fine, turn it off for them. When they come 
back later and want it, they know you have it.


You've done your part, and that's great!

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

2017-06-20 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:

For switches i guess it is same story as for PoE on them - total power 
budget matters. So if you will pack whole EX4500 with 10G 80km SFP+ it 
might have problems as well, but for normal use, and if few only are 
"long distance/high power", at any case 3.3V supply rail by design in 
switch should handle many SFP, so if there is 48 ports, it should handle 
by specs at least 72W peak load. It might be multiple power rails for 
groups of ports, but still, much better than just 750mA on network card. 
But that's just guessing, i never seen circuit diagrams of good 
switches, or at least reference design, as it is all NDA material.


Several of the limitations in switches/routers comes out to cooling, 
especially since there is a requirement for normal operation in case of 
failed climate control with ambient temp in the 40-50C range.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

2017-06-20 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, chiel wrote:


Hello,

We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We 
have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these 
devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into 
the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It 
seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 
10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very 
few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I 
can't seem to find any.


The Intel XF SR2 card actually has XFPs and I have LR optics in one here. 
I don't see any reason it wouldn't support ER or ZR as well.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: CGNAT

2017-04-07 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Max Tulyev wrote:


BTW, does somebody check how implementing a native IPv6 decrease actual
load of CGNAT?


Reports are that 30-50% of traffic will be IPv6 when you enable dual 
stack. This would be traffic that will not traverse your CGNAT.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10G switch drops traffic for a split second

2016-11-30 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, TJ Trout wrote:

Is it possible to over run the buffers of a 320gbps backplane switch 
with only 1.5gbps traffic? I think the switch is rated for 140m PPS and 
I'm only pushing 100k PPS


If your switch is the typical small-buffered-switch that has become more 
and more common the past few years, then the entire switch might have 
buffer to keep packets for 0.1ms or less. So if someone says "flow control 
off" for 0.1ms, depending on the implementation, you might then start 
seeing packet drops on all ports until that device turns flow control 
back on.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Comcast business IPv6 vs rbldnsd & PSBL

2016-11-29 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, Rik van Riel wrote:


Not a symptom I ever expected to see...


It's pretty obvious that the CPEs being sold for this "business service" 
isn't meant for the kind of service you run.


They're probably doing connection tracking for ACK optimization, this 
should not be done for UDP but it's still being done. They probably have a 
connection limit of a few thousand connections (not uncommon for these 
kinds of devices) and it's not possible to turn off what you need to turn 
off to make them work correctly.


Do you have any other options in your area for other ISPs that can offer a 
better service for you?


Otherwise you might hack around it by running an IPSEC/UDP tunnel to 
somewhere else where there isn't this kind of connection limit.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: 10G switch drops traffic for a split second

2016-11-29 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, TJ Trout wrote:

Could this be MTU? I've tried flow control, hard code duplex, stp on/off 
etc


As others have pointed out, you probably have a switch with small buffers.

If you also have flow control and you have something that triggers flow 
control to turn off packet forwarding, your small-buffer-switch might fill 
up all (shared) buffers on that port and now you're dropping traffic to 
all ports.


So trying to find if you have something where flow control is enabled and 
is being triggered might be something worthwhile to do, and also perhaps 
just turn off flow control on all ports to make sure.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Voice channels (FTTH, DOCSIS, VoLTE)

2016-11-20 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:


I need to verify some claims made by incumbents in Canada that VoLTE
data travels on a totally separate channel between the phone and the
antenna.


Typically it travels on another "bearer" compared to Internet traffic.

http://blog.3g4g.co.uk/2013/08/volte-bearers.html

Think of bearers as "tunnels" between the mobile core network and the 
device. They have a lot in common with ATM PVCs in that they can have 
different QoS characteristics. So the VoLTE bearer can have scheduling 
priorities that means it'll always be low-latency and highest priority, 
meaning it might work well when the "Internet" bearer does not.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


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

2016-11-10 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Joel M Snyder wrote:

I think you misunderstood his point: it's not the knobs, but the 
vendors. Generally, when you're trying to integrate random crap into an 
otherwise well-structured network, you'll find OSPF available, but very 
rarely IS-IS.


This is a feature of IS-IS. You're less likely to get random crap in your 
IGP.


:P

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Dyn DDoS this AM?

2016-10-22 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Alexander Maassen wrote:


Remember ping packets containing +++ATH0 ?


THat only worked because of patents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Independent_Escape_Sequence

Inband signaling is bad, mmmkay?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Kudos to Rogers Wireless on IPv6 deployment

2016-10-01 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Hugo Slabbert wrote:


So, kudos, Rogers Wireless!


http://labs.apnic.net/cgi-bin/ccpagev6?c=CA

Sort on "samples".

Seems Telus and Rogers are the only top10 with any double digit % IPv6 
users. Telus is at 65-70%, that's a really good number.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?

2016-09-27 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Mike Jones wrote:

Any network operator should know if their network is blocking it or not 
without having to deploy active probes across their network.


Err... I was not referring to the operator doing this on the CPEs they 
provide to their customers. I was referring to enthusiast customers who 
are running their own CPEs to test if their ISPs are doing anti-spoofing 
properly or not, and report this information to someone centrally.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?

2016-09-27 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Joe Klein wrote:


What would it take to test for BCP38 for a specific AS?


Well, you can get people to run 
https://www.caida.org/projects/spoofer/#software


I tried to get OpenWrt to include similar software, on by default, but 
some people are afraid that they might incur legal action on themselves by 
doing antispoofing-testing.


https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/anti-spoofing might be of 
interest.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?

2016-09-27 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Zbyněk Pospíchal wrote:


Dne 27.09.16 v 15:17 Mikael Abrahamsson napsal(a):


Hm, so the IX operator looks at packets at the IX (sFlow perhaps), see
who is sending attack packets, and if they're spoofed, this ISP is then
put in "quarantine", ie their IX port is basically now useless.


Definitely not. Try to read first instead of speculations.


The first page was completely devoid of any real technical information 
until I found the PDF (which from the color choice doesn't even look like 
a link). (https://www.nix.cz/cs/file/NIX_RULES_FENIX)


It's still not obvious what the FENIX connection is used for from that 
PDF. It's called "last resort connection". What does that mean?


Apart from that, it looks more like https://www.routingmanifesto.org/ in 
that organisations that have joined are stating that they will follow some 
operational guidelines (which make a lot of sense), but it's not that much 
more technical when it comes to inter-provider traffic.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?

2016-09-27 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Zbyněk Pospíchal wrote:

The implementation of BCP38 over local market strongly increased after 
massive DDoS attacks in 2013 affecting major part of the industry thanks 
to an initiative of the most important local IXP.


Hm, so the IX operator looks at packets at the IX (sFlow perhaps), see who 
is sending attack packets, and if they're spoofed, this ISP is then put in 
"quarantine", ie their IX port is basically now useless.


That's an effective way of achieving local compliance. Wonder how this 
would work in other markets, commonly it's bad business to deny service to 
paying customers... But if most agree that this should be done, it's 
definitely a way to achieve compliance.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?

2016-09-27 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Stephen Satchell wrote:


You have to make their ignorance SUBTRACT from the bottom line.


I'd say there is no way to actually achieve this. BCP38 non-compliance 
doesn't hurt the one not in compliance in any significant amount, it hurts 
everybody else.


The only way I can imagine BCP38 ever happening widely is by means of 
legislation, which of course is really hard because Internet spans 
countries/continents.


Doing anti-spoofing should be done at the edge, the further up into the 
core you try to do it, the bigger risk you're breaking lots of users' 
connectivity, causing customer complaints.


In some countries I'm sure BCP38 compliance could be increased by means of 
legislation and fining companies that do not do BCP38 filtering. But 
before we do that, we need to agree that BCP38 compliance is a must. I 
don't think we're there. I have heard people say that if they don't allow 
some of their customers to spoof, they're losing business, because some 
customers have built complete (deployed) solutions that are built on the 
fact that they can spoof packets. These people will have to be convinced 
that they're doing it wrong and re-design their solutions. This is going 
to cost them dearly, so they're going to be upset.


With all the IoT devices out there, do people even need to spoof anymore?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


importance of fiber cleaning

2016-09-20 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson


https://www.sunet.se/blogg/long-read-cleanliness-is-a-virtue/

This is an excellent article regarding fiber cleaning and its importance. 
Please do share with other people in our business. I'm sure lack of proper 
fiber cleaning causes a lot of unneccessary outages and operational 
problems worldwide, partly because people aren't aware of its importance.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: comcast and msoft ports

2016-09-11 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Randy Bush wrote:


sigh.  well that was some fun hours debugging; not.


135/137/139/445 has seen widespread filtering since... errr.. 2000? I know 
it was widely done back in those days when people were connecting their 
computers directly to the bridged modem/ETTH jack and things ended up in 
the newspapers that peoples files were available on the Internet because 
they didn't set a password on their windows share or when versions of 
Windows were pwned during installation of Windows because... Windows.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Optical transceiver question

2016-09-08 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, Frank Bulk wrote:

Is it an industry practice to market distance based on the hot optics, 
not on the worst case, which is minimum TX power?


No. If this is 1310nm optics with 0.4dB/km budget, the budget figure 
should be end-of-life figure, ie worst case according to the specs.


I don't like the "kilometer" figures, that can be marketed with very 
optimistic figures. However, if the transceiver says 0 to -5 transmit, if 
it doesn't transmit 0 to -5 then it's out of spec.


I treat the kilometer figure as "marketing", and look only at the optical 
specifications. So using your figures, if the device doesn't have 0 to -5 
out, and can receive error free at -20, then it's out of spec and it 
should be replaced free of charge.


However, if they market 1310nm with 15dB link budget at 60km reach, then 
I'd consder that false marketing.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Optical Wave Providers

2016-09-01 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, t...@29lagrange.com wrote:

I have been looking at optical wave carriers for some long haul 1G/10G across 
the US.


You probably should describe what you mean by "optical wave". If you mean 
"I want bit-transparent capacity with grey light handoff, that is not 
overbooked", then that's not really "optical wave". It will probably do 
what you want though (if I guess what it is you're looking for).


I have had good historical success by asking for STM64/OC192 and then run 
10GBASE-LW (WAN-PHY) over it. If you want the provider to treat your bits 
as bits and not packets, don't even tell them you're running packets. If 
they're providing OC192, they don't need to know. Don't even give them the 
chance to do the wrong thing by telling them you're running WAN-PHY over 
it. They might configure their system to support WAN-PHY and all of a 
sudden their transponders/muxponders might now understand the packets 
you're running over OC192 and CRC check them and drop them without you 
noticing.


They don't need to know, so don't tell them.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Managed global low latency network with any to any connectivity

2016-08-24 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Arqam Gadit wrote:


Hello guys,

I am looking for a global network with:

  - lowest possible latency
  - lowest possible jitter (packet loss and latency variation)
  - lowest possible monetary cost

The few providers I have talked to until now, they all provide a
point-to-point low latency link. However, what I am looking for is
any-to-any connectivity so I can get from one point to another in least
possible time and least possible cost.

Would appreciate if you guys can point me in the right direction.


The right direction is to decide what is most important to you. There is 
no network in the world that provides all of your criteria at once.


Some people are paying really good money for low latency/PDV. Some other 
people are paying little money, but in return get low latency and PDV.


So what's most important to you? Money or network characteristics?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Arista unqualified SFP

2016-08-18 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:


All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach.


I've heard from people running Intel NICs and HP switches, that this can't 
be turned off there. You run into very interesting problems when you're 
trying to use DAC cables between multi vendor.


Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Leap Second planned for 2016

2016-07-10 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016, Saku Ytti wrote:


On 10 July 2016 at 00:12,  <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote:

It doesn't help that the POSIX standard doesn't represent leap seconds
anyplace, so any elapsed time calculation that crosses a leap second
is guaranteed to be wrong


So how can we solve the problem? Immediately and long term?


Since one problem is that the leap second code isn't exercised regularily, 
I propose that each month there is a leap second either forward or 
backward. These forward/backward motions should be fudged to over time 
make sure that we stay pretty much correct.


If POSIX needs to be changed, then change it. By making leap second not a 
rare event, this would hopefully mean it'll get taken more serously and 
the code would receive wider testing than today.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

2016-07-05 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

We will tell you to use IPv6 for that or make you pay extra for a 
dedicated IPv4 address.


That is a good solution to that problem. I hope all ISPs implementing A+P 
protocols does that. It also puts a monthly cost that teleworkers have to 
pay (or their employers have to pay) for not supporting IPv6 on their 
enterprise solutions. Hopefully that'll drive IPv6 interest in the 
enterprise space as well.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

2016-07-04 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

The two other technologies mentioned do the same as MAP more or less, 
but both requires carrier NAT, which is expensive for the ISP and has a 
lack of control as seen from the end user point of view (no port 
forwarding etc).


What it does however, is make things like GRE work. Some are surprised 
that there is actually non A+P protocols being used by customers. For 
instance legacy PPTP uses this, so some business VPNs run into problem 
with MAP or LW4o6.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

2016-07-04 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Matt Hoppes wrote:

My point is there are more than enough IPv4 addresses. The issue is not 
resources. It is hoarding and inappropriate use.


I tend to make the analogy of land use and/or houses/apartments. Yes, 
there is that old lady down the street who lives in 300 square meters 
(~3000 sq feet for those who are !metric), and then there is the student 
who shares a 30sq meter studio with another student.


Now what? Yes, this is not fair and it's inefficient utilization of 
resources, but how are you going to rectify this? Forcibly take away the 
apartment from the old lady and tell her to go live somewhere else just 
because it isn't fair that she has 10 times the apartment size as the 
student?


IPv6 is the answer, because it doesn't have shortcoming when it comes to 
available "land". Everybody can get plenty. No need to try to take away 
resources from someone holding them (legitimately) as per the rules of 
yestercentury.


Re: IP and Optical domains?

2016-06-20 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:

If you are deploying additional bandwidth just for protection, I hope 
you're my competitor.


So if you have a fiber break, you're not going to have enough overcapacity 
in your network to remain uncongested until this fiber break is fixed?


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

2016-06-20 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Thomas Mangin wrote:

Is this a specific service you purchased, or is this the way they 
deliver x-connects?


It is how they provide x-connects.


That's not a x-connect, that's a transport capacity service.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IP and Optical domains?

2016-06-20 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:


Many of us will remember the days of IPoDWDM. That flopped.


E, it didn't flop at all. I know lots of operators that do this.

For networks that lease all of their transport, not sure how this will 
help as transport providers will not open their networks up to 3rd party 
IP networks.


Yeah, that's harder. Doing pure photonic transport is operationally 
difficult without management integration between optic transport provider 
and customer. That part hasn't happened.


It's two different expenses. If routers made good DWDM switches, this 
would not be much of a problem, but they don't. So you need to two teams 
managing two different sets of kit and opex, which is what the industry 
has been trying to solve for some time now. How do we collapse both of 
these cost centres into one manageable expense, considering that the 
primary reason transport networks exist and expand today is to carry IP 
traffic?


I know operators who have collapsed their "core transport group" to handle 
Fiber+DWDM+SDH+IP (design/planning/3rd line operations). I know others 
where the IP and optical teams work very closely together and plan the 
network together.


If your main business is transporting IP/MPLS then this is obvious that 
you need to have the teams work closely together. If your main business is 
to L2 switch or bit transport lots of TDM/L2 traffic, then it's less 
obvious.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: IP and Optical domains?

2016-06-18 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016, Glen Kent wrote:

Can somebody shed more light on what it means to say that the IP and 
optical layers are run as independent kingdoms and why do ISPs need to 
over-provision?


You have a group that runs fiber+dwdm+sonet(or SDH). You have another 
group that runs IP. When the IP guys ask "please tell us how the optical 
network is designed, and can we coordinate how they're built and btw, we 
want to put DWDM optics in our routers", the answer from the 
fiber+dwdm+sonet group is "no, but we can help you with transport using 
our transponders, please just order circuits, just give us addresses for 
each end and we'll take care of things, don't you worry your little IP 
engineer brain how things are transported long distance".


I believe this is still the case at a lot of ISPs. Not all, hopefully not 
even most, but I'm sure there are some.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Do people even read these? Re: BGP Update Report

2016-06-18 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote:



TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes
Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name
1 - 202.65.32.0/2128086  0.8%   AS10131 -- CKTELECOM-CK-AP Telecom Cook 
Islands, CK
2 - 110.170.17.0/24   21868  0.7%   AS134438 -- AIRAAIFUL-AS-AP Aira & Aiful 
Public Company Limited, TH
3 - 123.231.192.0/24  21562  0.7%   AS133841 -- IDOLA-BROADBAND-AS-ID INDONESIA 
BROADBAND ACCESS - ANYWHERE, ID
4 - 93.181.192.0/19   20895  0.6%   AS13118 -- ASN-YARTELECOM Verhnevolzhsky 
branch, RU
5 - 123.231.206.0/24  19170  0.6%   AS133841 -- IDOLA-BROADBAND-AS-ID INDONESIA 
BROADBAND ACCESS - ANYWHERE, ID
6 - 123.231.193.0/24  19082  0.6%   AS133841 -- IDOLA-BROADBAND-AS-ID INDONESIA 
BROADBAND ACCESS - ANYWHERE, ID
7 - 195.128.159.0/24  15455  0.5%   AS56636 -- ASVEDARU , RU
8 - 192.254.88.0/24   15452  0.5%   AS21859 -- ZNET - Zenlayer Inc, US
9 - 185.11.121.0/24   14957  0.5%   AS202105 -- DSP-AS , SA


Everyone of these prefixes have managed to average one update per 40 
seconds during a week, or worse. How is that even possible? Yes, I know we 
don't generally have dampening anymore, but geez, that's a lot of updates.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

2016-06-17 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

If you are, I'm very interested in hearing your motivation for doing 
that.


I realised I probably used the wrong english word here. The correct 
english word(s) would probably be "rationale/reason/facts", not 
"motivation".


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

2016-06-17 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Dave Temkin wrote:


You meant a customer, but because of a lack of transparency (and great
marketing) amongst some IXPs, it's very easy to conflate member-mutual
IXPs, commercial, and non-profit IXPs. Being a "member" of NetNod provides
you with a very different set of benefits vs. LINX and unless you read the
letters of incorporation, you may not know that.


Are you accusing Netnod of using marketing (and lack of transparancy) to 
try to fool people into believing it is a member based organisation?


I've read what you wrote above 5 times now, and it sure seems to me that 
you do.


If you are, I'm very interested in hearing your motivation for doing that. 
If you're not, please do share what you actually meant.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

2016-06-15 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Sander Steffann wrote:

I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some 
nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a separate 
switch :)


So how should the larger distributed IXPs solve this? Provide optical DWDM 
transport? Dark fiber? What if there are no chassis on the market large 
enough to accomodate creating a single switch for all customers to connect 
to? Have multiple L2 domains and require people to connect to multiple 
switches? Even bumping people off of an existing switch when that is full, 
to move some traffic over to another new switch chassis?


What about buffer requirements? If you want a buffered switch, it 
increases capex and lowers number of switch-models that can be used. 
Microbuffered switches may lose packets in microbursts when ports are 
being run (near) full.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

2016-06-15 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Randy Bush wrote:

that is where the big euro exchanges started.  then they got equinix 
envy and colonialism.  let's see (and help) the six avoid these diseases 
over the next years.


Well, the customers also wanted more functions and features. They wanted 
sFLOW statistics to show traffic, customer portals, better SLAs, 
distributed IXes, remote peering, more hand-holding when connecting etc. 
They also told IX operators that it was good if they did 
good-for-the-Internet things. They also sent lawyers to (re)negotiate 
contracts, demand special discounts, treat the IXP like any other supplier 
of services that you want to negotiate with.


So now IXPs started to look a lot more like small/medium ISPs than 
anything else. This means economy of scale, which means expansion to get 
bigger footprint using same systems makes sense.


So here we are now... Where do we want to go?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: Link-local v6 and mobile phones

2016-06-15 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Willy MANGA wrote:


Hello,

a little question :)

For mobile operators using v6 on their networks, how do you manage
link-local communication between mobile phones ?

While I understand it's layer 2 related,  am i able for example to make
ping sweep and be able to communicate directly with other phone (customer) ?


No. Your phone has a tunnel to a node in the mobile network and that's the 
only one you can send packets to. It's a GTP tunnel, but it's very similar 
to GRE or IPIP or whatever.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

2016-06-14 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Matt Peterson wrote:

As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to industry 
suppliers (that may also be fellow competitors, members, and/or 
suppliers)? For example, router vendors are routinely compared without 
specific names mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished 
vulnerability) - how is a service provider any different?


I think we should have the discussion in a constructive manner.

What do we want the IXPs to do? What do we want the RIRs to do? What do we 
want the ccTLDs to do? What do we want IANA, ISOC, IETF etc to do?


Right now they're doing things that they see as "good for the community", 
and not only spending money on producing their own service. They do 
outreach because not everybody knows about every service available. They 
hire community members and send them to conferences (IGF for instance) to 
try to achieve that governments hear from us. They spend money on 
research. They might spend money on acilliary services such as root/ccTLD 
name servers or NTP servers on the IXP.


When asking community what should be done, a wide range of different 
answers are given.


I don't have a problem having this discussion. I don't see it as "vendor 
bashing" but instead as someone who has an opinion on how things are done 
today.


Question is, how can it be had in a constructive manner?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >