Hi Nanog,
We have recently introduced a MMORPG (online game) to the Internet. We
currently are receiving many complaints from UK (and a few EU) customers of
sudden traffic loss or slowness which makes the game unplayable. The complaints
come through like clockwork from 6:00PM to 11:59PM
Hi Jake
While I cannot confirm officially, there is a lot of rumors, that several
larger UK ISP's are throttling traffic at that time period.
I am not sure who to contact, but the individual ISP's to solve this, from
your point, maybe another NANOG'er knows.
Lasse
-Original
Hi all,
I'm encountering a problem with a wireless STM-1 link which has a switch
connected at each end.
The wireless link has Gigabit Ethernet interfaces and so have my switches.
When I ping between the 2 switches via that wireless link I'm getting a lot
of pings that are lost.
The
Sounds like this might be an Ethernet negotiaton problem
Sent from my phone
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Rens r...@autempspourmoi.be wrote:
Hi all,
I'm encountering a problem with a wireless STM-1 link which has a
switch
connected at each end.
The wireless link has Gigabit
While I cannot confirm officially, there is a lot of rumors, that several
larger UK ISP's are throttling traffic at that time period.
I am not sure who to contact, but the individual ISP's to solve this, from
your point, maybe another NANOG'er knows.
Hi Lasse,
Thanks for the reply. We wrote
All the interfaces are forced to 1Gbps and full duplex.
Maybe I should give some extra info.
All the traffic seems to pass ok via that link but I have seen that often
OSPF adjacencies go down/up , I suspect that the HELLO packets are being
dropped that pass via that link.
That's why I started to
BT/Virgin throttling information:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/virgin_media_throttle_extension/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/07/bt_samknows_bandwidth_throttling/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8077839.stm
Yes all the radio RF levels are 100% ok.
-Original Message-
From: Josh Cheney [mailto:josh.che...@gmail.com]
Sent: jeudi 10 septembre 2009 12:47
To: Rens
Cc: 'Adam Goodman'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Wireless STM-1 link
I'm assuming that you have checked all of the wireless
Rens,
Does not sound like the symptoms for what I want to write about, but this is
something you need to consider in any way:
When you run sub-rate links (i.e. 1GE interface with really 155Mbps as the
service) you need to make sure that you do not try to push more traffic than
the link can take.
All the interfaces are forced to 1Gbps and full duplex.
This takes the interface out of spec, IIRC. Try with auto-negotation
enabled.
--
Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133
I have tried both actually, forced and auto, same issue
-Original Message-
From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fwei...@bfk.de]
Sent: jeudi 10 septembre 2009 15:04
To: Rens
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Wireless STM-1 link
All the interfaces are forced to 1Gbps and full duplex.
This takes
Whats the utilization of the link at the time that you're seeing problems?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Rens r...@autempspourmoi.be wrote:
I have tried both actually, forced and auto, same issue
-Original Message-
From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fwei...@bfk.de]
Sent: jeudi 10
Between 20 80 Mbps, no real relation between the problem and the time of a
day/higher/lower traffic
_
From: Kieran Murphy [mailto:da...@daffy.za.net]
Sent: jeudi 10 septembre 2009 15:14
To: Rens
Cc: Florian Weimer; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Wireless STM-1 link
Whats the
Hey all,
I am looking to monitor the number of active IPSEC tunnels terminating
in a given VRF via SNMP
I can use the following command on the device (Cisco 3845 -
12.4(22)T)
Vpn#show crypto mib ipsec flowmib global vrf test-vrf
vrf test-vrf
Active Tunnels: 2
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:13:18PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
As for a role account, there is postmaster. I would think that the
best hope in the real world, rather than an autoresponder would be an
RFC that clearly defines text accompanying an SMTP rejection notice
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:55:40AM +0200, Rens wrote:
All the interfaces are forced to 1Gbps and full duplex.
I thought that with 1000T, you need to keep autonegotiation in place:
http://etherealmind.com/2008/07/15/ethernet-autonegotiation-works-why-how-standard-should-be-set/
A major
Hi Tom (and NANOG),
You may be interested in an alternative approach, motivated by the
very problem you are facing (see below). Our system, SNARE, develops
IP reputation automatically based on a combination of network
features. We'll discuss the pros and cons of this approach at MAAWG.
The
Bailey Stephen wrote:
I am looking to monitor the number of active IPSEC tunnels terminating
in a given VRF via SNMP
Vpn#show crypto mib ipsec flowmib global vrf test-vrf
vrf test-vrf
Active Tunnels: 2
...
Is there anyway I can get this ActiveTunnels value
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Mark Andrews wrote:
What a load of rubbish. How is ARIN or any RIR/LIR supposed to
know the intent of use?
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
Because the cost of determining who is good and who is not has a great
cost.
Will give it a go also, cheers
Ste Bailey
FUJITSU
-Original Message-
From: Jason Bertoch [mailto:ja...@i6ix.com]
Sent: 10 September 2009 15:26
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPSEC-VRF MIB
Bailey Stephen wrote:
I am looking to monitor the number of active IPSEC tunnels terminating
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could
start to accept whitelisted senders only.
IPv6 emails ==
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:42:13PM +0200, Benjamin Billon wrote:
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6,
Benjamin Billon wrote:
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could
start to accept whitelisted senders
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Benjamin Billon wrote:
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could start to
You're not Hotmail =)
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:30:02 PDT, Leo Vegoda said:
Putting these addresses back into use does not mean that they have to
be allocated to networks where they'll number mail servers. ARIN staff
is doubtless aware of the history of these blocks and will presumably
do their best to allocate them
Lots of things can be used to determine how you decide to set up your
BGP peers.
https://www.juniper.net/customers/csc/documentation/techdocs/downloads/pdf/350010.pdf
has a decent amount of information on some of the differences that
can help you decide how to set up your peerings.
nb
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Rens r...@autempspourmoi.be wrote:
All the interfaces are forced to 1Gbps and full duplex.
Maybe I should give some extra info.
All the traffic seems to pass ok via that link but I have seen that often
OSPF adjacencies go down/up , I suspect that the HELLO
Because the cost of determining who is good and who is not has a great
cost. If you buy an IP block, regardless of your intent, that IP block
should not have the ill-will of the previous owner passed on with it.
Might as well be the end of discussion, right there, then, because what
I totally agree with everything that Mike has posted here... one thing I
wanted to add is that a wireless link is only as good as it's
engineered. We have many rock solid wireless links in use here - with
proper engineering and ongoing maintenance we very rarely have issues.
We do have some links
I would say confeds are more appropriate for larger ibgp networks.
You can have reflectors inside confederations. See the BGP chapter of
the JNCIP book.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Buraglio, Nicholas D
burag...@illinois.edu wrote:
Lots of things can be used to determine how you decide to
Folks -
Just a reminder - ARIN XXIV will follow NANOG 47, starting with
a joint program session on Wednesday on IPv6. If you will be
staying for the ARIN meeting on Thursday and Friday, please
refer to https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIV/
for logistics registration information
On Sep 9, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
??
but the mechanism that ICANN has defined seems patently unfair.
RFC 2777 is unfair? Or are you unhappy that LACNIC and AfriNIC have
2 /8s from the least tainted pools?
Are the X6148A cards dedicated 1 gb/s uplink for each port ( shared 32 Gb/s
bus , as long as each port is it's own 1 gb/s still to the 32gb/s bus and
not shared with 7 other ports, so effectively just 125Mb/s per port then if
all used at full/even capacity) ?
I can't really find anything much on
There was a good thread on Cisco-nsp regarding this exact subject recently.
My recollection is that both X6148 and X6148A have just 6 1GB ASICs.
Therefore the over subscription rate is 8:1. The biggest difference between
these LC's is that X6148A will support large MTU whereas X6148 will not.
-b
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
??
The blog posting implies it:
AfriNIC and LACNIC have fewest IPv4 /8s and service the regions
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SXF/native/release/notes/OL_4164.html#wp2563293
Scott Spencer wrote:
Are the X6148A cards dedicated 1 gb/s uplink for each port ( shared 32 Gb/s
bus , as long as each port is it's own 1 gb/s still to the 32gb/s bus and
not
the other difference between WS-X6148-GE-TX and WS-X6148A-GE-TX is the A
has better QoS queuing potential (more hardware queues available) and a
lower list price...
As I recall, there are 6 ethernet controllers with 8 ports on each...
(8:1 oversubscription among the adjacent ports in a port group
Cisco recommends both cards for access-layer use, principally as wiring
closet aggregation for desktop users. Cisco recommends 65xx or 67xx line
cards for backbone (read deterministic) connections, which means that
only 65xx devices with sup720s, or older switch fabric modules can be
used for
On 10/09/2009 22:17, Scott Spencer wrote:
I can't really find anything much on X6148A internal architecture online,
but it would seem that each port gets its own 1gb/s link to the
card/backplane, and that the bottleneck then is the 32gb/s backplane (which
is fine, as long as it's not 1 gb/s per
On 09/09/2009 8:48, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
[...]
What a load of rubbish. How is ARIN or any RIR/LIR supposed to
know the intent of use?
In my limited experience, requesting address space from ARIN involved
describing what I would be doing with it. YMMV.
Leo
--- leo.veg...@icann.org wrote:
In my limited experience, requesting address space from ARIN involved
describing what I would be doing with it. YMMV.
-
That's the easy part of the process. Proof of what you did with what you
already have assigned to
I just sent a long message to the nanog-announce list which I won't
bother repeating here. But the summary is:
Does anyone want to discuss charter amendments for this year? If so,
this is the place.
http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2009elections/2009charteramend.php
Note that the
43 matches
Mail list logo
