Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:13:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote: This document supports that. If the definition of a software router is one that doesn't have a fixed at the factory forwarding function, then the ASR1K

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Lasse Jarlskov l...@telenor.dk wrote: Thank you all for your comments - it appears that there is no consensus on how this should be done. The best piece of advice I received when asking similar questions in the past is to allocate a /64 for every network

Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route tablesizeconsiderations

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:55 PM, James Stahr st...@mailbag.com wrote: Is anyone else considering only using link local for their PtoP links? I realized while deploying our IPv6 infrastructure that OSPFv3 uses the link-local address in the routing table and than the global address, so if I

Re: Simple Low Cost WAN Link Simulator Recommendations

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comwrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Loopback loopb...@digi-muse.com wrote: Need the ability to test Network Management and Provisioning applications over a variety of WAN link speeds from T1 equivalent up to 1GB speeds.

Re: IP tunnel MTU

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote: Templin, Fred L wrote: Yes; I was aware of this. But, what I want to get to is setting the tunnel MTU to infinity. Essentially, its time the network

Re: 1310nm optics over Corning LEAF G.655?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone run 1000BASE-LX/10GBASE-LR 1310nm optics over a ~10km Corning LEAF G.655 span? I understand this fiber is not optimized for such usage, but what is the real-world behaviour? I'm having a hard time finding hard data

Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: Multicast _is_ useful for filling the millions of DVRs out there with broadcast programs and for live events (eg. sports). A smart VOD = system would have my DVR download the entire program from a local cache--and

Re: ISP customer assignments

So now Verizon is in open revolt against ARIN. They positively refuse to carry /48's from legitimately multihomed users. Eff 'em. Perhaps Verizon would sooner see IPv6 go down in flames than see their TCAMs fill up again. Who knows their reasoning? Agree or disagree, it is indeed food for

Mexico City IP/Ethernet/Wave/Fiber/Colo/IXP etc...

I'm looking for connectivity options in the Mexico City area. Initial impressions suggest Mexico has a fairly closed market. That being said: Who offers good IP/BGP connectivity in and around Mexico City?Who offers good Ethernet connectivity in and around Mexico City?Who offers wave/fiber services

Re: LX sfp minimum range

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:26 PM, jon Heise j...@smugmug.com wrote: we are moving a router between 2 data centers and we only have LX sfp's for connection, is there any issue using LX sfp's in a short range deployment ? A Cisco 1000BASE-LX optic has the following spec:

NYC to DEU packet loss

Trying to troubleshoot packet loss from NYC to DEU. Traceroute shows: tdurack@2ua82715mg:~$ traceroute -I 194.25.250.73 traceroute to 194.25.250.73 (194.25.250.73), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets snip 4 216.55.2.85 (216.55.2.85) 1.694 ms 1.698 ms 1.698 ms 5 vb1010.rar3.nyc-ny.us.xo.net

Equinix Direct

Anyone got experience with Equinix Direct? Looks like an interesting product from the glossy, but rather light on details. I'm interested in the technical specs and real-life experience. (Not looking for sales. I've got a purchasing d00d for that.) Thanks, -- Tim:

Re: Equinix Direct

Thanks for the response to my question. What I have received confirms this is basically a metered IXP with route servers and a mix of paid transit/peering options. Will be interesting to see what the participant mix is. It does concern me that the only connectivity options are FE/GE, no 10GE at

1310nm optics over Corning LEAF G.655?

Anyone run 1000BASE-LX/10GBASE-LR 1310nm optics over a ~10km Corning LEAF G.655 span? I understand this fiber is not optimized for such usage, but what is the real-world behaviour? I'm having a hard time finding hard data. (Normal optics will be 1550nm and DWDM over ~40-100km spans.) -- Tim:

Re: 1310nm optics over Corning LEAF G.655?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Kevin L. Karch kevinka...@vackinc.com wrote: Tim Yes we have built several links with the 1310nm devices on Corning LEAF. One span distance was 14 KM. Can we offer you a quote on optics and installation support? That's a kind offer, but we are quite well

XO/DTAG Contact?

Looking for a technical contact within XO and/or DTAG, preferably one who can interpret a traceroute accurately :-) Please hit me up offline. Thanks, -- Tim:

Re: NYC to DEU packet loss

As suspected, this ended up being an XO/DTAG peering issue. Took a long time to get sorted out, but thanks to any and all who assisted! Tim: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: Trying to troubleshoot packet loss from NYC to DEU. Traceroute shows: tdurack

Re: transcievers/amplifiers for 150 km fiber run

These guys claim upto 180km: http://www.bookham.com/datasheets/transceivers/IGP-28111.cfm Tim: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Fletcher Kittredge [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Thanks to all that replied. A bit more background: By regulation, the local ILEC is required to supply us with dark

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not long ago, ARIN changed the IPv6 policy so that residential subscribers could be issued with a /56 instead of the normal /48 assignment. This was done so that ISPs

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Crist Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On 11/18/2008 at 11:03 AM, Tim Durack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not long ago, ARIN changed

Re: v6 DSL / Cable modems

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote: Joe Loiacono wrote: Indeed it does. And don't forget that the most basic data object in the routing table, the address itself, is 4 times as big. Let's also not forget, that many organizations went from multiple

Re: Nipper and Cisco configuration results

The problem I have with both RAT and Nipper is they're geared towards security and I'm more interested in verifying that the routers are configured correctly.  What kind of tools are people using for that? For an example of the type of thing I'm interested in, see filter_audit in the

Re: options for full routing table in 1 year?

Cisco 6500/7600 you replace SUP32 or SUP720 with SUP720-3BXL        ...if I understand it, no other cards need replaced?        (note that this disagrees with my understanding of how their FIB/CEF works so I'm curious about this) If you have linecard DFCs they would need to be XLs also. Tim:

Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years?

Funny this discussion surfaced now - I got bitten by this recently. Was using .255 for NAT on a secondary firewall. When the primary failed over, parts of the Internet became unreachable... Tim: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:43:36

Re: I don't need no stinking firewall!

Lots of interesting technical information in this thread. Mixed with a healthy dose of religion/politics :-) I suspect that most people are going to keep doing what they are doing. In our environment, at the transport level, we have moved from stateful towards stateless, as it has proved to be

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:01 PM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:08 To: TJ Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Harden harde...@uiuc.edu wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Our numbering plan is this: 1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64 2) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we control both sides? /126 3) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: 2^128 is a very big number. However, from a network engineering perspective, IPv6 is really only 64bits of network address space. 2^64 is still a very big number. An end-user assignment /48 is really only 2^16 networks.

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Nathan Ward na...@daork.net wrote: Why do you force POP infrastructure to be a /48? That allows you only 16 POPs which is pretty restrictive IMO. Why not simply take say 4 /48s and sparsely allocate /56s to each POP and then grow the /56s if you require more

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these) 1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each 2) go to *RIR's and get /something to cover the number of remote sites you

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Joakim Aronius joa...@aronius.com wrote: Excuse the newbie question: Why use public IP space for local CPE management and VoIP? Doesn't DOCSIS support traffic separation? /J Probably because rfc1918 is only 2^24+2^20+2^16 = 17,891,328 (assuming I got them

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Chris Gotstein ch...@uplogon.com wrote: Typically the CPE address is private, not sure why they would use a public IP.  The MTA (VoIP) part of the modem would need a public IP if it was talking to a SIP server that was not on the same network.  Most smaller

Re: Datacenter for DR in northwestern NJ/NY

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote: On Feb 2, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Cerniglia, Brandon wrote: Cervalis has facilities in wappingers ny 1.5 hours from NYC Hmm -- where to the fibers run from a facility like that?  Are the all homed to NYC, or are there

Re: BFD over p2p transport links

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Serge Vautour sergevaut...@yahoo.ca wrote: Hello, I'm being asked to look into using BFD over our P2P transport links. Is anyone else doing this? Our transport links are all 10G Ethernet (LAN-PHY). There's no alarming inside of LAN-PHY like there is in SONET.

Re: IP4 Space

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: On 04/03/2010 19:30, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long term the temptation to do TE is roughly

Re: FreeAxez raised flooring?

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote: Actually, my experience has been that most of the newer installations (last 5-7 years) that I have been able to see where raised floor is employed are also doing hot/cold rows. We have/are building new datacenters with a

Re: FreeAxez raised flooring?

We have/are building new datacenters with a raised floor plenum. Air is directed into the racks from below, and ducted out of the top. No hot/cold aisle, just lots of cold air to cool the equipment. It's an AFCO rack design. Seems to be efficient so far. How do you measure efficiency?  How

Re: CRS-3

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Brian Feeny bfe...@mac.com wrote: So who is going to be the first to deploy these? http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_030910.html - Download the entire Library of Congress in just over 1 second - Stream every motion picture ever created in less than

Re: IP4 Space

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:17 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote: On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be

Re: OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Apr 10, 2010, at 9:40 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: karine perset's work is, as usual, good enough that it should be seen in it's original, not some

Re: OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: I'm puzzled as to why you might think that this would incentivise meaningful deployment of ipv6. Nick It removes the hurdle of working with the RIR and/or getting management buy-in to go negotiate for number resources.

Re: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 4/29/11 10:12 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: It turns out that as a content provider you can unicast video delivery without coordinating the admission of your content onto every edge eyeball network on the planet. It's cheap

Re: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone?

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: No business is entitled to protection of its business model. Unless it has a market monopoly, deep pockets, and lobbyist friends. http://arstechnica.com

GTT/Inteliquent/nLayer

Any experience/comments on the GTT Global eXpress service? Looks interesting but odd. Why would I use a virtual IXP? Who participates? Comments on-list or off-list are fine. -- Tim:

Re: How big is the Internet?

Not as big as the one that got away... (IPv6) On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote: Researchers have complained for years about the lack of good statistics about the internet for a couple fo decades, since the end of NSFNET statistics. What are the current

Re: Typical warranty for generic DWDM transceivers

The vendor-locked optics issue cause more trouble than it is worth. There really needs to be some kind of aftermarket ruling on network equipment, something along the lines of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermarket_(automotive) Tim: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Clayton Zekelman

Cogent multi-hop BGP

I was under the impression Cogent no longer did the multi-hop BGP thing, but then I got a copy of their NA user guide, and saw the peer-a/peer-b configuration. Not a fan. Anyone know if this is still required for Cogent IP transit service? (on/off list is fine.) -- Tim:

Re: Cogent multi-hop BGP

As an update to interested parties: I have been informed that Cogent no longer do the A/B peer config. This is a documentation bug apparently. On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: I was under the impression Cogent no longer did the multi-hop BGP thing

Re: subrate SFP?

I think this is a great idea. Maybe not a huge market, but I would buy them, instead of having to use dumb transceivers. It would be interesting to have some other smart SFP options too, like macsec for example... Tim: On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: I actually

TWC / MTC broadband

Anyone alive at TWC and/or MTC broadband? Looks like AS36100 (MTC Broadband) is incorrectly announcing 72.43.125.0/24. This is causing problems for TWC users who are in 72.43.125.0/24 -- Tim:

Tail-F NCS? (Or similar network configuration management.)

Looking for real-world experience with Tail-f NCS (or similar network configuration management.) Not looking for rancid, we have a homebrew config collection that works well. Looking for something significantly better than I can write myself. Not looking for sales either, I have people for that

Re: Managing IOS Configuration Snippets

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2014-02-26 17:37 -0500), Robert Drake wrote: Consider looking at Tail-F's NCS, which according to marketing presentations appears to do everything I want right now. I'd like to believe them but I don't have any money so I

Re: Managing IOS Configuration Snippets

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Ryan Shea ryans...@google.com wrote: A couple more thoughts, regarding Network = DB I completely agree that trying to use the network config itself as the authority for what we intend to be on a device is not the right long-term approach. There is still a

Why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time :-)

NANOG arguments on IPv6 SMTP spam filtering. Deutsche Telecom discusses IPv4-IPv6 migration: https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/131-ripe2-2.pdf Facebook goes public with their IPv4-IPv6 migration:

Re: Anternet

Large Scale aNt will be good enough. Plus this has security advantages. On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote: On 4/5/2014 2:32 AM, Andrew D Kirch wrote: So, if there's more than 4 billion ants... what are they going to do? Who knows, but they'll definitely need IPv6

Pluggable Coherent DWDM 10Gig

Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding no such thing.) How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics? (Inline FBG filter receive side might be doable?) -- Tim: p.s. Before you ask, DTAG Terastream has got me thinking...

Re: Pluggable Coherent DWDM 10Gig

As a follow up, I did not miss a zero. TenGig. If you want to know why: https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/131-ripe2-2.pdf (I'll take 100Gig once I can get the optics for less than the cost of a v.nice sports car...) On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Pluggable Coherent DWDM 10Gig

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding no such thing.) How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics? (Inline FBG

Re: Pluggable Coherent DWDM 10Gig

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding no such thing.) How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics? (Inline FBG filter receive side might be doable?) -- Tim: p.s. Before you ask

Re: Pluggable Coherent DWDM 10Gig

DWDM muxes/demuxes, also part of the same Cisco transport solution, and Cisco VOAs/amps. -Phil On 4/25/14, 2:59 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM

Re: Pluggable Coherent DWDM 10Gig

Will need amplification anyway for almost any realistic topology. For those who don't understand what or why, please read the Terastream PDF and watch the video several times, then tell me it's not a great idea :-) On Saturday, April 26, 2014, Julien Goodwin na...@studio442.com.au wrote: On

Re: MACsec SFP

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2014-06-25 05:09 -0700), Eric Flanery (eric) wrote: That said, I do think the separately tunable tunable transmitters and receivers could be huge, especially if they came at only a reasonably small I don't think this

Re: MACsec SFP

On Cisco equipment supporting MACsec, EAP and MKA is of course configured through the normal cli. On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, Pieter Hulshoff phuls...@aimvalley.nl wrote: On 25-06-14 22:45, Christopher Morrow wrote: today you program the key (on switches that do macsec, not in an SFP that

Public DNS64

Anyone know of a reliable public DNS64 service? Would be cool if Google added a Public DNS64 service, then I could point the NAT64 prefix at appropriately placed boxes in my network. Why? Other people are better than me at running DNS resolvers :-) -- Tim:

Re: Public DNS64

Yeah, sort of agree, except I'm allergic to running services that aren't straight bit shoveling. NAT64 is pushing it, but at least that is just announcing a prefix. On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Tim Durack tdur

Re: Low cost WDM gear

You can do ~500km without inline amplifier sites using EDFA+Raman+ROPA, but you are going to need some serious optical engineering to make that work. The more standard way to do it is amplifier sites every 80-100km for EDFA. If you are doing 10GigE you will need to allow for DCM also. On Sat, Feb

RAD MiNID

Anyone got experience with RAD MiNID? I need to do some L2 protocol tunneling (L2PT), and this looks like it might scratch that itch. -- Tim:

Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote: What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget... (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure

draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

I notice draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 was posted February 11, 2015. What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget... (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last piece for me.) -- Tim:

Re: Searching for a quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel Postel's Law Perhaps his most famous legacy is from RFC 760, which includes a Robustness Principle which is often labeled Postel's Law: an implementation should be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior (reworded in RFC

Re: [j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Alright so would you mind sharing the business drivers that would make you migrate your current production infrastructure to this new unproven possibly buggy LDPv6 and 4PE/4VPE setup please? adam

Re: [j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Of Tim Durack Sent: 20 February 2015 14:00 IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic. And most importantly it's not actually needed it's just a whim of network operators. adam

Peering + Transit Circuits

Question: What is the preferred practice for separating peering and transit circuits? 1. Terminate peering and transit on separate routers. 2. Terminate peering and transit circuits in separate VRFs. 3. QoS/QPPB (

Re: Peering + Transit Circuits

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:24 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: Question: What is the preferred practice for separating peering and transit

Fwd: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits

-- Forwarded message -- From: Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits To: Rolf Hanßen n...@rhanssen.de Cc: cisco-...@puck.nether.net cisco-...@puck.nether.net On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Rolf Hanßen n

Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:29:31AM -0400, Tim Durack wrote: 4. Don't worry about peers stealing transit. 5. What is peering? I'm afraid that the majority of answers will be 4./5., mixed with 6. what? how can

Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, (It would be cool if Cisco would understand that hardware forwarding platforms need useful netflow with MAC-addresses in there... ASR9k at least got working MAC-accounting, but more fine grained telemetry would

Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:32:53AM -0400, Tim Durack wrote: (It would be cool if Cisco would understand that hardware forwarding platforms need useful netflow with MAC-addresses in there... ASR9k

Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Scott Granados sc...@granados-llc.net wrote: So in our case we terminate peering and transit on different routers. Peering routers have well flow enabled (the one that starts with a J that’s inline). With NFSEN / NFDUMP we’re able to collect that flow data

Re: Public DNS64

for testing. Perhaps it will be some use. Regards, -Erik On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Tim Durack <tdur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anyone know of a reliable public DNS64 service? > > Would be cool if Google added a Public DNS64 service, then I could point > the NAT64 prefix at appropri

Re: Coherent CWDM 40G QSFP

Not aware of ACO/DCO in QSFP form factor. Inphi is doing 100G QSFP28 PAM4 DWDM for MS. Probably the best you will see for a while. On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM Mike Hammett wrote: > Does anyone make a coherent CWDM 40G QSFP? I thought so, but the first > couple places I

Re: [c-nsp] SFP DOM SNMP Polling?

A typical SFP spec sheet leads me to conclude that reading optic values repeatedly is expected. For example: https://www.finisar.com/sites/default/files/resources/AN_2030_DDMI_for_SFP_Rev_E2.pdf (I selected Finisar as they have complete spec sheets publicly available.) I question the vendor

SFP DOM SNMP Polling?

I have a vendor that does not support SFP DOM SNMP polling. They state this is due to EEPROM read life cycle. Constant reads will damage the SFP. We SNMP poll SFP DOM from Cisco equipment without issue. Not heard this one before. Trying to see if there is some validity to the statement.

AS15133 (EdgeCast)?

Anybody here from AS15133 (EdgeCast) engineering? We peer with you at DE-CIX NY. Seeing a packet loss issue which is impacting O365 & MS CDN assets. Trying to resolve but email to peering@ generated a Verizon ticket which isn't inspiring confidence... Thanks, Tim:>

Re: AS15133 (EdgeCast)?

Problem seems resolved. If somebody somewhere did something - thanks! :) On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:43 PM Tim Durack <tdur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anybody here from AS15133 (EdgeCast) engineering? > > We peer with you at DE-CIX NY. Seeing a packet loss issue which is > impac

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

We deploy urpf strict on all customer end-host and broadband circuits. In this scenario urpf = ingress acl I don't have to think about. We deploy urpf loose on all customer multihomed DIA circuits. I dont this makes sense - ingress packet acl would be more sane. Any flavour of urpf on upstream

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 10:30 AM Saku Ytti wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:22, Tim Durack wrote: > > > > We deploy urpf strict on all customer end-host and broadband circuits. > In this scenario urpf = ingress acl I don't have to think about. > > But you have to t

Re: Ingress filtering on transits, peers, and IX ports

I took a slightly different approach for my mental exercise, expressed in IOS pigeon: object-group ip address AS65001 192.0.2.0 255.255.255.0 end object-group v6-network AS65001 2001:DB8::/32 end object-group ip address TwentyFiveGigE1/0/1 192.0.2.0 255.255.255.254 end

Re: [c-nsp] Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?

If y'all can deal with the BU, the Cat9k family is looking half-decent: MPLS PE/P, BGP L3VPN, BGP EVPN (VXLAN dataplane not MPLS) etc. UADP programmable pipeline ASIC, FIB ~200k, E-LLW, mandatory DNA license now covers software support... Of course you do have to deal with a BU that lives in a

Re: [c-nsp] Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:34 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 19/Jun/20 16:09, Tim Durack wrote: > > > > > It could be worse: Nexus ;-( > > > > There is another version of the future: > > > > 1. SP "Silicon One" IOS-XR > > 2.

Re: [c-nsp] Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:05 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 19/Jun/20 14:50, Tim Durack wrote: > > > If y'all can deal with the BU, the Cat9k family is looking > > half-decent: MPLS PE/P, BGP L3VPN, BGP EVPN (VXLAN dataplane not MPLS) > > etc. > > UADP programm

Re: 60 ms cross-continent

Speed of light in glass ~200 km/s 100 km rtt = 1ms Coast-to-coast ~6000 km ~60ms Tim:> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:27 PM William Herrin wrote: > Howdy, > > Why is latency between the east and west coasts so bad? Speed of light > accounts for about 15ms each direction for a 30ms round trip.

Re: 60 ms cross-continent

And of course in your more realistic example: 2742 miles = 4412 km ~ 44 ms optical rtt with no OEO in the path On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:36 PM Tim Durack wrote: > Speed of light in glass ~200 km/s > > 100 km rtt = 1ms > > Coast-to-coast ~6000 km ~60ms > > Tim:> > &

Re: LDPv6 Census Check

gt; > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 21:32, Tim Durack wrote: > > > > I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN) > re-wired to use IPv6 NH. > > > > I have requested LDPv6 and SRv6 many times from Cisco to migrate the > routing control plane

Re: LDPv6 Census Check

I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN) re-wired to use IPv6 NH. I have requested LDPv6 and SRv6 many times from Cisco to migrate the routing control plane from IPv4 to IPv6 I have lots of IPv6 address space. I don't have a lot of IPv4 address space. RFC1918 is not