Re: Strange Problem with 16 byte packets

Thanks i will. However, the doubt is that what does introducing a 16 byte data into the steam does that causes the session to time out. I added instrumentation to push some dummy data so that instead of 16 bytes, we push 1 MB of data. In that case i saw no issues. Any idea if there is a firewall

Strange Problem with 16 byte packets

Hi, I am using a proprietary protocol and sending a bunch of bytes to a Draytek router at an enterprise site. When i send the data in TCP batches of 1 MB i see no problem. However, when i first send 16 bytes followed by 1 MB of data, and then repeat this till the entire data has beeen sent out.

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

> Cough cough ARIN cough. I don't know why they need to meet face to face 2 > or 3 times a year. But, i am sure ppml will tell you it is a ground up > process and these people on ppml like traveling and talking about > policy And they do what members want. I don’t speak for the organization

Re: Strange Problem with 16 byte packets

Follow the TCP stream - which side times out the link, and for what sequences of data do you get ACKs for? /Ruairi On 16 June 2016 at 10:43, Glen Kent wrote: > Hi, > > I am using a proprietary protocol and sending a bunch of bytes to a Draytek > router at an enterprise

Re: Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?

On 16 June 2016 at 06:21, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > Based on their investors, could have interesting results for much lower > cost 100GbE whitebox switches. Why lower cost? The BOM isn't the expensive part, the code is the expensive part. Only way I see this happening, is if we

Re: Strange Problem with 16 byte packets

It's hard to tell based on no data. Anything from here would be an assumption and hear-say, since you're debugging a black box and trying to infer inner workings based on external observations. You _need_ to collect more data and observe the data at the source and destination devices, and

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

Hello Saku, > I've casually talked with other people, and it seems I'm not really > alone here. My dream box would be 96xSFP + 2xQSFP28, with pretty much > full edge features (BGP, LDP, ISIS, +1M FIB, +5M RIB, per-interface > VLANs, ipfix or sflow, at least per-port QoS with shaper, martini >

Re: Strange Problem with 16 byte packets

Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:06:24PM +0530, Glen Kent wrote: > Thanks i will. However, the doubt is that what does introducing a 16 byte > data into the steam does that causes the session to time out. I added > instrumentation to push some dummy data so that instead of 16 bytes, we > push 1 MB of data.

Re: Strange Problem with 16 byte packets

tcpdump is your friend

Re: RPKI implementation

That is also configurable. Thanks, Jakob. On Jun 16, 2016, at 4:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> When a cache loses connectivity, the entries from that cache >> are purged after a time interval. Default is 60 seconds > > why not the poll interval for that cache server? > > randy

Re: Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?

> I do think p4 is very interesting, but is it really much different from > openflow? Which...umm ... Did not succeed in the market. P4 is quite different from OpenFlow. The various generations of the OpenFlow specification assume a fixed-format packet header with an ever increasing number of

Re: Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Ca By wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > > > a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest: > > > > > > > http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tech-industry/ >

Re: Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?

Saku, I agree completely. Isn't this what Arista did? They coded from like 2004 to 2008 before launching EOS using commercial chipsets. You seem to really understand routing software, so I would love to hear your take on Arista EOS. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Saku Ytti

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

On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Cough cough ARIN cough. I don't know why they need to meet face to face 2 > > or 3 times a year. But, i am sure ppml will tell you it is a ground up > > process and these people on ppml like traveling and talking about > >

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

Dne 15.06.16 v 20:10 Mikael Abrahamsson napsal(a): > 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. Are you sure they still want

Re: RPKI implementation

> When a cache loses connectivity, the entries from that cache > are purged after a time interval. Default is 60 seconds why not the poll interval for that cache server? randy

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:52:02PM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: > A growing exchange point is not only a "nice-to-have" for those > operating it, but vital to those networks who peer there. If you stop > adding value to those networks peering at the IX, you will slowly > become irrelevant. I

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 16 June 2016 at 22:36, Baldur Norddahl wrote: Hey, > If I need to speak BGP with a customer that only has 1G I will simply make > a MPLS L2VPN to one of my edge routers. We use the ZTE 5952E switch with > 48x 1G plus 4x 10G for the L2VPN end point. If that is not

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

On the point raised by this index of IXP costs - has anyone put together a table of information on the opposite side of the question: What is the cost of establishing a PNI direct crossconnect in a major IX point? This varies widely by particular

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 16 June 2016 at 22:27, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 16 June 2016 at 22:36, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > Hey, > > > If I need to speak BGP with a customer that only has 1G I will simply > make > > a MPLS L2VPN to one of my edge routers. We use the ZTE 5952E

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

Hello all, I wasn't able to attend NANOG this time around, but watched Dave Temkin's presentation on youtube. My comments are: 1) Over the past 5 years: My cost for switch/router ports have gone down a lot. My cost for transit has gone down a lot. My cost for exchange ports have gone down, but

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

> However: exchange port fees are not my biggest enemy today. My cross connect fees have not gone down *at all*. On a proportion basis, cross connect fees have gone from "not mattering" to being an important part of any deployment cost calculation. Why aren't we raising hell about cross connect

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

A key point: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members > You meant a customer, but because of a lack of transparency (and great marketing) amongst some IXPs, it's very easy to conflate

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

Hi, I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members, but we can not simply because it is too expensive. I just signed a deal with he.net for a flatrate 10G transit for about the same as the 10G Comix port cost. The difference being that the he.net port provides much more value

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

Dave Temkin wrote: > They are representative of the most important IXPs to deliver traffic > from in Western Europe. I don't doubt that they are important IXPs for delivering traffic. However, no other IXP in europe (both eastern and western) is doing expansion outside the countries that they

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:58 PM Will Hargrave wrote: {snip} > Dan Golding disagreed with me but I can certainly speak for LONAP where > I feel our mission of “promoting efficient interconnection in the > UK” is hugely enhanced by our ability to provide services in any of > our

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

On 17 June 2016 at 03:18, Dave Temkin wrote: > A key point: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Baldur Norddahl < > baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members >> > > You meant a customer, but because of a lack of

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

Hi Dave, So, I watched your presentation this week at NANOG remotely, sorry I couldn’t be there. Ok, so while you make a lot of very different points in your presentations, I *think* the basic argument you are making is that IXPs are too expensive. Correct me if I’m wrong. Or more

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

Hi Nurani, Much of what you've asked me below is answered up-thread, so I'm not going to rehash it for the sanity of the others following this discussion. I have snipped what hasn't been. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: > > > I take your point about

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 6/16/16 12:51 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > Hey, > > I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE > L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushing > Satellite/Fusion for this application. > > I don't really like the added complexity and tight coupling >

Re: Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 16 June 2016 at 06:21, Eric Kuhnke wrote: >> Based on their investors, could have interesting results for much lower >> cost 100GbE whitebox switches. > > Why lower cost? The BOM isn't the expensive part,

Re: RPKI implementation

> That is also configurable. >>> When a cache loses connectivity, the entries from that cache >>> are purged after a time interval. Default is 60 seconds >> why not the poll interval for that cache server? i am aware of that. my point was that cache purge default might better be set to cache

1GE L3 aggregation

Hey, I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushing Satellite/Fusion for this application. I don't really like the added complexity and tight coupling Satellite/Fusion forces me. I'd prefer standards based

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

On 16/06/16 15:40, Dave Temkin wrote: > Nothing in my presentation said "Netflix seeks to get better port fees". > You'll find that I, not once, in my deck or oral presentation, mentioned > Netflix. I spoke at length with LINX after the presentation and pointed out > that I seek to help the entire

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

* zby...@dialtelecom.cz (Zbyněk Pospíchal) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 14:23 CEST]: Dne 15.06.16 v 20:10 Mikael Abrahamsson napsal(a): Well, the customers also wanted more functions and features. They wanted sFLOW statistics to show traffic, customer portals, better SLAs, distributed IXes, remote

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

This thread is full of people who have never run large L2 networks stating their opinions on running large L2 networks, and they invariably underestimate their complexity and the logistics required. * ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 17:56 CEST]: maybe the complexity and the

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

> This thread is full of people who have never run large L2 networks > stating their opinions on running large L2 networks, and they > invariably underestimate their complexity and the logistics required. maybe the complexity and the logistics required are WHY they don't build large L2 networks.

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

On 15 Jun 2016, at 19:23, Sander Steffann wrote: So here we are now... Where do we want to go? I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more services but also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple, scalable and cheap solutions! I want to go to an IXP being a

Call for Presentations - DNS-OARC Fall Workshop, Dallas, Oct. 2016

[with apologies to those who see this on multiple lists] Call for Presentations As announced at the close of NANOG67, the DNS-OARC 25th Workshop will take place in Dallas, Texas during October 15th and 16th 2016, the Saturday and Sunday before NANOG68. To attract the best DNS minds, DNS-OARC is

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

I think a fresh conversation is needed around what makes up a "minimally viable" feature set for an IXP: The days of an IXP "needing" to engineer and support a multi-tenant sFlow portal, because the only other option is shelling out the big bucks for Arbor, have long passed -- overlooking the

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

Dne 16.06.16 v 17:17 Niels Bakker napsal(a): > * zby...@dialtelecom.cz (Zbyněk Pospíchal) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 14:23 CEST]: >> Are you sure they still want them if they have to pay for these >> features separately? >> >> Currently, such luxury functions are increasing costs also for >> networks who

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

I think that's a very limited mindset. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Zbyněk Pospíchal" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday,

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

Well. Its complicated. I think this is far more political than about COGS. But hey. Why not? I agree with Dave. Shocking. I know. At least the context. He's right. Thanks for reminding us. We know these things. We'll have to see how IXP communities react now. Perhaps espresso service will be

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

Hi If I need to speak BGP with a customer that only has 1G I will simply make a MPLS L2VPN to one of my edge routers. We use the ZTE 5952E switch with 48x 1G plus 4x 10G for the L2VPN end point. If that is not enough the ZTE 8900 platform will provide a ton of ports that can do MPLS. The tunnel

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

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > SFMIX is great. But poorly distributed. We should support their efforts, but > how many IXPs do we need in the Bay area? AMS-IX Bay Area is creating a > market along with SFMIX. > SFMIX is in 5 physical

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

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 01:12, Leslie wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> SFMIX is great. But poorly distributed. We should support their efforts, but >> how many IXPs do we need in the Bay area? AMS-IX Bay Area is

Re: Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?

Looks very promising! On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest: > > http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tech-industry/ > >

RPKI implementation

During the RPKI presentation there was a question about resilience of the router if the RPKI cache loses connectivity. The IOS-XR implementation allows multiple caches to be configured. When a cache loses connectivity, the entries from that cache are purged after a time interval. Default is 60