Hello all.
It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Sponsorship Matrix for
SAFNOG-3 is now available at the link below:
http://www.safnog.org/matrix.html
If you are interested in collaborating with SAFNOG-3 as a sponsor,
please do not hesitate to reach out to:
secretariat
Hi,
most 10GE cards have either direct 10GBASE-T port(s)s or SFP+ slot(s).
The SFP+ transceiver you plug in determines the range. (SMF/MMF,
wavelength, link budget)
Reading the optical parameters is a bit tricky on most NICs.
Karsten
2017-06-15 11:10 GMT+02:00 chiel :
> Hello,
>
> We are deploy
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
Another alternative is to ask the http://www.beetlefiberoptics.com guys.
They build muxes on spec and they can also provide a 1310nm wide-band port on
their units which allows a 40/100G-LR4 aside from the 1550nm DWDM band.
We’ve used some simple splitters (line/1310nm LR4/1550nm DWDM ports on a
As a thought, would seem to make sense to modularize that server nic so we can
slide in whatever optic we desire...copper, fiber short mm, fiber long range
sm, etc
-Aaron
And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and
zillions of other ways of gaining addresses.
I doubt you can distinguish the source with any real reliability.
- R.
From: NANOG on behalf of Dave Temkin
Sent: Wednesday, June 14,
We use Intel NICs with SFP+ holes. It works good with long and short
range SFP+ modules, including CWDM/DWDM.
On 15.06.17 12:10, 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 the
On Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 14:26, "Rod Beck"
said:
> And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and
> zillions of other ways of gaining addresses.
>
>
> I doubt you can distinguish the source with any real reliability.
Depending on whether you're registered with
I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee list,
but that list doesn't have e-mail addresses. It didn't come from the mailing
list. The person looked up who went to the conference and then found their
e-mail address elsewhere. I also don't think the above is wrong in
On Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 14:41, "Mike Hammett" said:
> I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee list,
> but
> that list doesn't have e-mail addresses. It didn't come from the mailing
> list. The
> person looked up who went to the conference and then found their e
Exactly. But some people enjoy complaining.
- R.
From: NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:41:13 PM
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees
I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee list
The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the
few options carried by the NIC vendor?
For example Intel claims the Intel NICs can only accept SFP+ modules by
Intel. They probably do not make optics themselves and only have few
options available. And indeed if you put in
On 6/20/17 8:15 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the
few options carried by the NIC vendor?
For example Intel claims the Intel NICs can only accept SFP+ modules by
Intel. They probably do not make optics themselves and only have fe
Once upon a time, Baldur Norddahl said:
> There are two ways around that. One is finding a device driver with vendor
> check disabled. The other option is to get optics that pretend to be Intel.
For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to
disable vendor check. Just add
Nowadays its just an ixgbe-parameter:
parm: allow_unsupported_sfp:Allow unsupported and untested
SFP+ modules on 82599-based adapters (uint)
Jörg
On 20 Jun 2017, at 17:26, Jim Shankland wrote:
The last I looked -- and it's been a few years, so it might no longer
be true -- the chec
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:29 AM Chris Adams wrote:
> For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to
> disable vendor check. Just add "options ixgbe allow_unsupported_sfp=1"
> to your module config and it works just fine.
For anyone who may be going down this road, if y
I guess it depends on NIC, there is many spinoffs of Intel X520 with
much weaker power supply circuitry.
It might work with good NIC, but you can't rely on it on long term,
IMHO. Even 40km Finisar SFP+ has Pdiss 1.5W. Also they mention: "The
typical power consumption of the FTLX1672D3BTL may exc
On 2017-06-20 18:59, Hunter Fuller wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:29 AM Chris Adams wrote:
For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to
disable vendor check. Just add "options ixgbe
allow_unsupported_sfp=1"
to your module config and it works just fine.
For an
I would expect anything mounted in a computer to have all the power you
could want. It is not like the ATX power supply cares about an extra watt
or two.
As I understand the issue it is more about cooling than power and is
primarly a concern in high density switches were you could have 48 or more
On 2017-06-20 22:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I would expect anything mounted in a computer to have all the power you
could want. It is not like the ATX power supply cares about an extra
watt
or two.
As I understand the issue it is more about cooling than power and is
primarly a concern in high
On 6/15/2017 5:10 AM, chiel wrote:
> 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 suppor
But what foundation do you have for asserting that switch hardware is any
different in this regard? I can say that we are using 80 km modules in
various hardware without any issues. I admittedly do not use any high power
modules in servers, but I will need better evidence than this to assume
that i
On 2017-06-20 23:44, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
But what foundation do you have for asserting that switch hardware is
any
different in this regard? I can say that we are using 80 km modules in
various hardware without any issues. I admittedly do not use any high
power
modules in servers, but I wil
In message <583541363.462.1497966071756.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>, Mike Ha
mmett writes:
> I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee
> list, but that list doesn't have e-mail addresses. It didn't come from
> the mailing list. The person looked up who went to the
Dear All
Just wondering if anyone else saw this yesterday afternoon ?
Jun 20 16:57:29:E:BGP: From Peer 38.X.X.X received Long AS_PATH= AS_SEQ(2) 174
12956 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456
23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Rod Beck wrote:
And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and
zillions of other ways of gaining addresses.
One-off addresses.
I've used it numerous times to catch the origin, companies like Roland
Corporation either leaking databases or se
--- nanog@nanog.org wrote:
From: i mawsog via NANOG
:: Agree, this thread has generated more "spam" or noise
:: for all of us collectively.
It's not spam. Look up the definition of spam. Also,
just block the thread in your email client.
:: Some amount of relevant "spam" has to be tolera
Yes, we had this kind of stuff in our logs:
Jun 20 08:15:25 cr-co-01-pareq2-re0 rpd[9656]: %DAEMON-3: Prefix Send failed !
x:x:186.177.176.0/23 (label 19) bgp_rt_trace_too_big_message:1213 path
attribute too big. Cannot build update.
The AS path we have here is currently 12956 262206 262206 26
> Fun fact about letsencrypt certs, they expire after a month or so.
90 days
On 2017-06-20 23:12, James Braunegg wrote:
Dear All
Just wondering if anyone else saw this yesterday afternoon ?
Jun 20 16:57:29:E:BGP: From Peer 38.X.X.X received Long AS_PATH= AS_SEQ(2) 174
12956 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456
23456 23456 23456 2345
How else would one maintain government control over free encryption
certificates?
--
˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 17:34
> To: Edwin Pers
> Cc:
> How else would one maintain government control over free encryption
> certificates?
black helicopters
On 6/20/17 16:57, Keith Medcalf wrote:
How else would one maintain government control over free encryption
certificates?
So Let's Encrypt is run by the Illuminati now? Or is it Freemasons? It's
hard to keep track.
Hi Alain and all the rest
I het it now
no offense and alain no harm done and all of nanog thank you and i will
continue observing as i have since 1995
thank you allagin
PS and BTW i am interested in CLOUD
:-)
thanks once more
> On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Alain Hebert wrote:
>
>
On 6/13/17 8:31 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to NANOG, being technical people, respond to notifications that they are spamming. Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're
On 6/13/17 1:56 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad.
Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course.
Industry-related SPAM, probably.
Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from
Facebook and trac
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
On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the
requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how
do you prove that someone did that?
Seed the list with one or two spamtrap addresses never seen in the wi
38 matches
Mail list logo