Hi all,
Hierarchical addressing when the small zone has a smaller address size, but the
bigger zone has a bigger address size
Does not make too much sense.
Indeed, it is possible to increase the source address from 32bits to something
bigger when the packet would go out of the small zone (and
Hi Jared,
Theoretically, MAP is better. But
1. Nobody has implemented it for the router.
The code for the CGNAT engine gives the same cost/performance.
No promised advantage from potentially stateless protocol.
2.MAP needs much bigger address space (not everybody has) because:
a) powered-off
Hi all,
From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by:
- extension headers
- SLAAC instead of DHCP
Everything else is minor.
Enterprises could easily ignore EH.
Carriers could test EH for closed domains and support.
I do not see a problem with EHs.
Hence, the primary blocking entity for
://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata_owrt18_6/map-t
https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/map
-Original Message-
From: NANOG on behalf of Vasilenko
Eduard via NANOG
Reply-To: Vasilenko Eduard
Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:17 AM
To: Jared Brown , "nanog@nanog.org"
Subjec
Hi Jared,
I did mean big systems where performance needed is n*100Gbps or bigger.
For router or CGNAT: the chassis cost is less than 1 card. Hence, all cost is
in ports (for the big router up to 95% if counting QSFP too). Chassis, power
supplies, switching fabrics - could be discarded for a big
CGNAT cost was very close to 3x compared to routers of the same performance.
Hence, 1 hop through CGNAT = 3 hops through routers.
3 router hops maybe the 50% of overall hops in the particular Carrier (or even
less).
DWDM is 3x more expensive per hop. Fiber is much more expensive (greatly varies
@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:56 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)
Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
> CGNAT cost was very close to 3x compared to routers of the same
> performance.
That
IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in 1992-1994
that:
- Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997) and wireless would
emulate multicast so badly (hi SLAAC)
- Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have a big
additional cost to
realm are fun words. I see why they picked them.
- Nich
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:28 AM
To: Abraham Y. Chen ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
; Justin Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
Hi Abraham,
I propose you improve EzIP by the advice in the draft on the way how to
randomize small sites choice inside 240/4 (like in ULA?).
To give the chance for the merge that may be needed for a business. Minimize
probability for address duplication inside 240/4 block (that everybody would
2)When you extend each floor to use the whole IPv4 address pool, however,
you are essential talking about covering the entire surface of the earth. Then,
there is no isolated buildings with isolated floors to deploy your model
anymore. There is only one spherical layer of physical earth
, as a matter of fact, I don't know I'm talking about. Hopefully one
> of the authors can correct my walkthrough of how it works
>
> Shaft and realm are fun words. I see why they picked them.
>
> - Nich
>
> From: NANOG On
> Behalf Of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
> S
it works
You were mostly there. Just that routing inside the shaft is probably a single
IGP with no prefix attached, just links and router IDs.
>
> Shaft and realm are fun words. I see why they picked them.
>
Cool
Keep safe;
Pascal
> - Nich
>
> From: NANOG O
know I'm talking about. Hopefully one of the
authors can correct my walkthrough of how it works
Shaft and realm are fun words. I see why they picked them.
- Nich
From: NANOG
mailto:barryelectric....@nanog.org>>
On Behalf Of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:28 AM
dle this case
>>> in a special way or translate it to a v6 address for higher level
>>> applications.
>>
>> The socket be updated to could understand the AA and play ball. Or
>> statelesslessly NAT to IPv6, yes. This uses a well known IID that the IPv6
>>
Hi Dave,
You did not tell: is it interactive? Because we could use big buffers and
convert jitter to latency (some STBs have sub-second buffers).
Then jitter would effectively become Zero (more precise: not a problem), and we
deal only with latency consequences.
Hence, your question is not about
Well, it depends.
The question below was evidently related to business.
IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M
I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against
7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 100.
By the way, there are many deployments of 10G symmetric PON. It was promoted
for "Enterprise clients".
CPE cost hurts in this case.
But some CPE could be 10GE and
, and 50G PON on their way.
Regards,
Dave
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 08:54, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
I did believe that it is about the cost of SFP on the CPE/ONT side: 5$ against
7$ makes a big difference if you multiply by 100.
By the way, there ar
All high-performance networking devices on the market have pipeline
architecture.
The pipeline consists of "stages".
ASICs have stages fixed to particular functions:
[cid:image002.png@01D8A0DD.988EC6A0]
Well, some stages are driven by code our days (a little flexibility).
Juniper is
Nope, ASIC vendors are not ARM-based for PFE. Every “stage” is a very
specialized ASIC with small programmability (not so small for P4 and some
latest generation ASICs).
ARM cores are for Network Processors (NP). ARM cores (with proper microcode)
could emulate any “stage” of ASIC. It is the
Pipeline Stages are like separate computers (with their own ALU) sharing the
same memory.
In the ASIC case, the computers have different types (different capabilities).
From: Etienne-Victor Depasquale [mailto:ed...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 2:05 PM
To: Saku Ytti
Cc: Vasilenko
Hi all,
The router could split information between RAs (and send it at different
intervals).
It may be difficult to guess what is stale and what is just "not in this RA".
Fernando proposing (not documented yet in draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum-04)
re-asking the router by RS and using timers (size
Such router behavior is completely legal by ND RFC.
It does not matter that real routers implementations do not do this.
We should think that they do because the standard permits it.
And the RA in the chain may be lost.
It is better to attach information about completeness to the information
1. What is going on on the Internet is not democracy even formally,
because there is no formal voting.
3GPP, ETSI, 802.11 have voting. IETF decisions are made by bosses who did
manage to gain power (primarily by establishing a proper network of
relationships).
It could be even called
The technology for IPv6 client to connect IPv4 web server on Internet is just
not specified in IETF.
Ed/
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 6:57 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Any experiences using
: Ca By [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 7:27 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard
Cc: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 9:17 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Exponential growth under the limited resource
Always finish by collapse.
Some resources are always limited in nature.
Smith’s joke from the “Matrix” (about modeling humans as a virus) is only
partially a joke.
Whenever somebody talks about “exponent” – be alarmed – it would end in a very
bad
it.
Eduard
-Original Message-
From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard ; North American Network
Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:37 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
wr
The comment looks outdated: Who cares now about ATM?
But all wireless (including WiFi) emulate broadcast in a very unsatisfactory
way.
Hence, the requirement is still very accurate.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of
Hi Abraham,
Let me clarify a little bit on statistics - I did an investigation last year.
Google and APNIC report very similar numbers. APNIC permits drilling down deep
details. Then it is possible to understand that they see only 100M Chinese.
China itself reports 0.5B IPv6 users. APNIC gives
Big OTTs installed caches all over the world.
Big OTTs support IPv6.
Hosts prefer IPv6.
Hence, traffic becomes IPv6 to big OTTs.
It is not visible for IXes. IXes statistics on IPv6 are not representative.
Ed/
-Original Message-
From: Abraham Y. Chen [mailto:ayc...@avinta.com]
Sent:
I do not understand why you believe that only AD matters,
if the real management is done mostly by Chairs.
Ed/
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 7:34 PM
To: Donald Eastlake
Hi Etienne,
It depends on who is the owner of the fiber.
The incumbent carrier typically has enough fiber strands to avoid any colored
interfaces (that are 3x expensive compare to gray) in the Metro.
Metro ring typically has 8-10 nodes (or similar). 16-20 strands of fiber were
not possible to
@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Denis Fondras
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 12:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Routed optical networks
Le Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:20:48AM +, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG a écrit :
>
> Additionally, I am sure that in many countries/Metro it is cheaper to lay
es/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZ
been an explosion of LLM stuff of late, with
enormous models being widely distributed in just the past month:
https://lwn.net/Articles/930939/
Could the AIs takeoff lead to a resumption of traffic growth? I still don´t
think so...
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:59 PM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
traffic growth? I still don´t
think so...
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:59 PM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
Disclaimer: Metaverse has not changed Metro traffic yet. Then …
I am puzzled when people talk about 400GE and Tbps in the Mero context.
For historical reas
] On
Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 2:11 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Routed optical networks
On 5/4/23 12:58, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
> Well, ISP is typically plan something for a year. It is more than enough for
> both.
The real world is much less c
Hi Mark,
Thanks a lot for many of your valuable comments I almost always agree.
1. I agree that 50GE has not got the same popularity as 100GE. Many
vendors did ignore it for some time. Looks like not many ignore it now.
2. Even in your example for 40km, 100GE is about twice more
Hi Jared,
Could I make a conclusion from your comments: "only Carrier itself understand
the traffic - see many examples in the text".
I would very agree to this.
Eduard
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 3:16 PM
To:
h for everyone did
not pan out.
On the gripping hand, there has been an explosion of LLM stuff of late, with
enormous models being widely distributed in just the past month:
https://lwn.net/Articles/930939/
Could the AIs takeoff lead to a resumption of traffic growth? I still don´t
think so...
hould be enough for everyone did
not pan out.
On the gripping hand, there has been an explosion of LLM stuff of late, with
enormous models being widely distributed in just the past month:
https://lwn.net/Articles/930939/
Could the AIs takeoff lead to a resumption of traffic growth? I s
:28, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
The incumbent carrier typically has enough fiber strands to avoid any colored
interfaces (that are 3x expensive compare to gray) in the Metro.
Metro ring typically has 8-10 nodes (or similar). 16-20 strands of fiber were
not possible to construct anyway – any ca
ks
Le Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:20:48AM +, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG a écrit :
>
> Additionally, I am sure that in many countries/Metro it is cheaper to lay
> down a new fiber than to provision DWDM, even if it is a pizza box. The
> colored interface is still very expensive.
&
> Yeah, you sound like an equipment vendor whose main customers are incumbent
> telco's in a few rich markets :-).
You are right. My message was pretty much geared toward incumbents.
But the majority of the access/aggregation is in their possessions, isn’t it?
They typically have ducts that were
Disclaimer: Metaverse has not changed Metro traffic yet. Then ...
I am puzzled when people talk about 400GE and Tbps in the Mero context.
For historical reasons, Metro is still about 2*2*10GE (one "2" for redundancy,
another "2" for capacity) in the majority of cases worldwide.
How many BRASes
Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 11:13 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Routed optical networks
On 5/5/23 07:57, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
Disclaimer: Metaverse has not changed Metro traffic yet. Then …
I am puzzled when people talk about 400GE and Tbps in the Mero context
> It has been known that multi-national conglomerates have been using it
> without announcement.
This is an assurance that 240/4 would never be permitted for Public Internet.
These “multi-national conglo” has enough influence on the IETF to not permit it.
Ed/
From: NANOG
Public side of the NAT would need a huge IPv4 Public pool.
Replacing Private pool to something bigger is a very corner case.
Mobile Carriers identify subscribers not by the IP, they could easy tolerate
many overlapping 10/8 even on one Mobile Core.
Huge private pool 240/4 is needed only for Cloud
+1
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Brett O'Hara
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2024 1:04 PM
To: Forrest Christian (List Account)
Cc: Chen, Abraham Y. ; NANOG
Subject: Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re:
IPv4
Assume that some carrier has 10k FBB subscribers in a particular municipality
(without any hope of considerably increasing this number).
2Mbps is the current average per household in the busy hour, pretty uniform
worldwide.
You could multiply it by 8/7 if you like to add wireless -> not much
52 matches
Mail list logo
