Re: [uknof] Full table routers

[Will Hargrave]

Hi John,

Why not simply accept fewer routes (plus a default) into the existing 
Arista EOS BGP and so the hardware FIB? Then you can actually take 
advantage of the hardware forwarding.


With this setup you’re using the relatively slow control plane (the 
Intel FM6000 was released a decade ago and I can’t imagine Arista 
paired it with a super-fast SoC…) to route and that won’t work very 
quickly at all. In fact it may not have enough RAM and CPU to 
effectively deal with a modern full table, it would be better to just 
use a modern 1U server for this.


Will

On 28 Jun 2023, at 21:21, John P Bourke wrote:


Hi

I may have “an” answer.  I think the Americans call this a “Hail 
Mary Pass”.


I have a bunch Arista 7150s, which are EOL and a disappointment.  But 
I found this.


https://research.kudelskisecurity.com/2015/10/01/hacking-arista-appliances-for-fun-and-profit/#comments

The Arista runs a full Centos 7.6.  You strip out the Arista BGP 
process and BIRD (or FRR I guess) and you have a route server.  I say 
route server, because by pulling the Arista BGP process you have no 
interaction with the RIB.


Thanks

John

BTW – Not dissing Arista.  The 7150 is a bit of a unicorn in their 
portfolio, using a chipset from Intel which they bought from a 
startup, which Intel then dropped so Arista understandably did not put 
a lot of effort into beyond the High Frequency Trading use cases that 
this low latency switch is good for.



From: Tim Bray 
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 6:56 PM
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Full table routers

On 28/06/2023 10:27, John P Bourke wrote:
Any recommendations for full table routers.  We don’t need more than 
10G.


I used Debian + FRR on HP proliants.   With startech Nics with intel 
chipset.Unusual, but did the trick.  Help that there was a 
whole stack of the same hardware running services in the same place.   
 They take a while to boot, but you can make it faster and I think the 
newer variants are better.




Software wise, takes a bit of getting used to.   Sometimes conflict 
between FRR and what Debian wants to do for network setup.  Also 
you can use CAKE :)  Also run any scripts or monitoring you want 
onboard (like counting the BFD flaps per hour to watch the problems 
that go away and come back very quickly)


See also distributions that bundle FRR more specifically for 
networking rather than a general distribution.


--

Tim Bray

Huddersfield, GB

t...@kooky.org

+44 7966479015

Re: [uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Will Hargrave]

Hi Steve,

It’s good to hear from you and I agree with many of your concerns. We 
are drifting a little outwith the UKNOF remit so I’ll probably leave 
it at that. :)


On 11 Dec 2020, at 14:05, Stephen Wilcox wrote:


The Internet is not just built at the edict of a regulator or from an
ephemeral bundle of contracts; at some point someone is going to have 
to

go and plug in some fibres. Us.
True, but Equinix will do that for you for £100, so by itself that's 
not a

skilled job.


I did mean this as more of a metaphor, criticising those who think they 
can see the big picture but actually have no idea what a paintbrush is. 
:)


And unless research and decision making of global projects or research 
can be led here, how will you attract people or investment inward?


Indeed, much of the top UK talent now works for large internationals 
(OTTs etc) and their presence in the UK seems purely incidental. I wish 
all of that would create more jobs and industry in the sector in the UK.


Will

Re: [uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Will Hargrave]

A reminder as much for myself as anyone else: 
https://wiki.uknof.org.uk/Charter
“UKNOF's remit is technical, and any discussion or activities 
involving commercial, legal or political issues should be limited to 
where they have a direct impact on technical aspects of network 
operations.”



On 10 Dec 2020, at 21:57, Kev 'Kyrian' Green (List) wrote:

I was musing much the same the other day, and found this LiNX 
presentation on the matter which might help some folks:

https://www.linx.net/wp-content/uploads/LINX105-BrexitPeering-MalcolmHutty-1.pdf


I think it is worth pointing out that the author of this presentation 
was (is?) a Brexit Party politician and prospective MP.
As such it focuses on telecoms regulation and does not cover other 
challenges network operators might face when building into the UK (if 
foreign) or building outside the UK (if UK), and the continued operation 
of those networks.


For example - movement of equipment: whilst most network equipment is 
unlikely to be dutiable the need to clear goods though customs and pay 
VAT will lead to changes for equipment procurement and also operations.


In terms of our community, I deal with a lot of industry colleagues here 
in the UK who are of non-British origin and I wonder if we will see 
skills shortages in network engineering as they seek their fortunes 
elsewhere.



The Internet is not just built at the edict of a regulator or from an 
ephemeral bundle of contracts; at some point someone is going to have to 
go and plug in some fibres. Us.


Will

Re: [uknof] Packet loss?

[Will Hargrave]

Forgot to mention, this presentation is a great use to using traceroute 
to troubleshoot effectively and is worth a read, even for experienced 
netengs :)

It’s certainly refreshed my memory on few things.

https://archive.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Sunday/RAS_Traceroute_N47_Sun.pdf
https://youtu.be/WL0ZTcfSvB4

Cheers,
--
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd

On 10 Dec 2020, at 14:03, Will Hargrave wrote:


Hi Chris,

It’s going to be difficult for many UKNOF people to have visibility 
of any problem here because both AS8468 and AS39326 have a 
well-considered interconnection policy, both public and private, and 
would be reached by most of us over peering. It’s a bit surprising 
that AS39537 is on peeringdb as present in MA1 and THN but just uses 
transit providers to reach other UK networks - but I would say that, I 
operate an internet exchange :-)


My gut feeling is the problem’s in the reverse path (traffic towards 
you). You could look at some looking glasses to see what routes they 
are using towards you -  e.g HSO have a LG at http://as39326.net/lg


A RIPE Atlas probe also might help you track it down, if there’s one 
in your AS.



--
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd


On 10 Dec 2020, at 12:26, Chris Boot wrote:


Hi all,

Sorry for the vague subject, but we've been experiencing intermittent 
packet loss on certain routes a long way downstream from us since 
~10:35 this morning. Some example MTRs:


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:40+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  
Wrst StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.8   0.3   
1.4   0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   2.0   0.7  
75.7   7.4
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1002.3   2.7   1.6  
19.5   2.3
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1002.9   4.5   1.8 
164.9  16.5
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1006.1   7.8   4.9 
183.6  17.9
  6. AS174149.6.2.137  0.0%   1006.4   6.4   5.2  
34.8   2.9
  7. AS1299   62.115.9.28 19.0%   1006.2   6.1   5.4   
6.9   0.3
  8. AS1299   62.115.122.180   1.0%   1006.0   6.4   5.2  
26.3   2.3
  9. AS1299   62.115.120.239  42.0%   1005.8   7.2   5.3  
39.0   5.7
 10. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0
 11. AS39326  185.75.28.1750.0%   1005.7   6.1   5.3  
12.7   0.8
 12. AS39326  77.75.104.53 5.0%   1006.7   6.3   5.6   
7.9   0.4
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0
 14. AS199448 185.6.199.1864.0%   100   17.5  20.1  15.1  
33.8   4.1


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:32+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  
Wrst StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.9   0.3   
2.0   0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   4.0   0.6 
166.7  19.5
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1005.4   6.9   4.9 
127.0  12.1
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1005.5   7.3   5.0 
154.7  14.9
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1005.3   8.1   4.9 
156.6  16.9
  6. AS39537  31.210.132.500.0%   1005.3   7.8   5.0 
199.6  19.4
  7. AS3356   212.187.173.117  0.0%   1005.4   5.8   5.0   
7.5   0.4
  8. AS3356   4.69.202.178 0.0%   1005.5   7.7   5.2  
52.6   7.2
  9. AS3356   212.187.165.14   9.0%   1006.5   6.9   6.1   
9.1   0.5
 10. AS8468   188.39.127.175  12.0%   1006.5   7.0   6.2   
8.9   0.4
 11. AS8468   188.39.127.147   7.0%   1006.8   7.1   6.0  
32.2   2.7
 12. AS8468   188.39.127.738.0%   1006.3   6.3   5.6   
7.4   0.3
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0
 14. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   
0.0   0.0
 15. AS8468   87.127.233.205   7.0%   1009.9  10.5   9.8  
17.4   0.8


Any information on this would be really handy so we can let our 
clients know what's going on.


Many thanks,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bo...@boo.tc

Re: [uknof] Packet loss?

[Will Hargrave]

Hi Chris,

It’s going to be difficult for many UKNOF people to have visibility of 
any problem here because both AS8468 and AS39326 have a well-considered 
interconnection policy, both public and private, and would be reached by 
most of us over peering. It’s a bit surprising that AS39537 is on 
peeringdb as present in MA1 and THN but just uses transit providers to 
reach other UK networks - but I would say that, I operate an internet 
exchange :-)


My gut feeling is the problem’s in the reverse path (traffic towards 
you). You could look at some looking glasses to see what routes they are 
using towards you -  e.g HSO have a LG at http://as39326.net/lg


A RIPE Atlas probe also might help you track it down, if there’s one 
in your AS.



--
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd


On 10 Dec 2020, at 12:26, Chris Boot wrote:


Hi all,

Sorry for the vague subject, but we've been experiencing intermittent 
packet loss on certain routes a long way downstream from us since 
~10:35 this morning. Some example MTRs:


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:40+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst 
StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.8   0.3   1.4 
  0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   2.0   0.7  75.7 
  7.4
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1002.3   2.7   1.6  19.5 
  2.3
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1002.9   4.5   1.8 164.9 
 16.5
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1006.1   7.8   4.9 183.6 
 17.9
  6. AS174149.6.2.137  0.0%   1006.4   6.4   5.2  34.8 
  2.9
  7. AS1299   62.115.9.28 19.0%   1006.2   6.1   5.4   6.9 
  0.3
  8. AS1299   62.115.122.180   1.0%   1006.0   6.4   5.2  26.3 
  2.3
  9. AS1299   62.115.120.239  42.0%   1005.8   7.2   5.3  39.0 
  5.7
 10. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 11. AS39326  185.75.28.1750.0%   1005.7   6.1   5.3  12.7 
  0.8
 12. AS39326  77.75.104.53 5.0%   1006.7   6.3   5.6   7.9 
  0.4
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 14. AS199448 185.6.199.1864.0%   100   17.5  20.1  15.1  33.8 
  4.1


Start: 2020-12-10T12:23:32+
HOST: sea Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst 
StDev
  1. AS39537  31.210.128.187   0.0%   1000.7   0.9   0.3   2.0 
  0.3
  2. AS39537  31.210.134.250.0%   1001.0   4.0   0.6 166.7 
 19.5
  3. AS39537  31.210.132.580.0%   1005.4   6.9   4.9 127.0 
 12.1
  4. AS39537  31.210.132.540.0%   1005.5   7.3   5.0 154.7 
 14.9
  5. AS39537  31.210.132.110.0%   1005.3   8.1   4.9 156.6 
 16.9
  6. AS39537  31.210.132.500.0%   1005.3   7.8   5.0 199.6 
 19.4
  7. AS3356   212.187.173.117  0.0%   1005.4   5.8   5.0   7.5 
  0.4
  8. AS3356   4.69.202.178 0.0%   1005.5   7.7   5.2  52.6 
  7.2
  9. AS3356   212.187.165.14   9.0%   1006.5   6.9   6.1   9.1 
  0.5
 10. AS8468   188.39.127.175  12.0%   1006.5   7.0   6.2   8.9 
  0.4
 11. AS8468   188.39.127.147   7.0%   1006.8   7.1   6.0  32.2 
  2.7
 12. AS8468   188.39.127.738.0%   1006.3   6.3   5.6   7.4 
  0.3
 13. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 14. AS?????? 100.0   1000.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
  0.0
 15. AS8468   87.127.233.205   7.0%   1009.9  10.5   9.8  17.4 
  0.8


Any information on this would be really handy so we can let our 
clients know what's going on.


Many thanks,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bo...@boo.tc

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Will Hargrave]

On 27 May 2020, at 12:28, Pete Stevens wrote:

That is quite interesting, but could really do with some information 
about what improvements are needed. Netflix is listed,
but I've got no clue what they are expected to do to improve their 
v6 connectivity.

The first fails our checker
https://www.mythic-beasts.com/ipv6/health-check?domain=netflix.com=#test-details-mailserver-reverse-dns
so Netflix get 10/11.


I’m sure you know this but: what this misses is the vast amount of 
their actual CDN traffic, i.e. the actual bulk of the content. I don’t 
think i’m giving away secrets when I say there is substantial IPv6 
traffic there.


Most people will never email Netflix and barely look at their website.

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Will Hargrave]

On 26 May 2020, at 12:14, Nick Hilliard wrote:

ipv4 will fade when it becomes more expensive and troublesome than 
ipv6.  If we attempt to short-cut this process and kill ipv4 with 
policy and artificial deadlines, it will will fail just like it failed 
with the ISO / OSI debacle all those years ago.


Indeed.

Certainly there are operators who have a great deal of expertise in 
keeping legacy products alive long after others have moved on.  It could 
be that BT is the last remaining place you can get IPv4 internet from, 
at some distant point in the future. There will be a fault and they’ll 
have to pull Neil out of retirement to fix it. :-)

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Will Hargrave]

Imagine having business practices deemed so unfair that even a Tory 
government’s regulator saw fit to step on them! Not a great look!



Did you not fancy the job of running the nationalised British National 
Broadband PTT or Post Office Internet or whatever it was going to be 
called? I thought it was going to be handed to you lot to run; the 
chickens come home to roost after all :)




On 22 May 2020, at 17:47, Neil J. McRae wrote:


You mean like this Will?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2019/fairer-prices-for-broadband-customers

and nobody with half a brain thought Corbyn's idea (and not just this 
one but all of them)  would make any service issues, or anything else 
better.


Neil.


On 22/05/2020, 17:43, "uknof on behalf of Will Hargrave" 
 wrote:


On 22 May 2020, at 15:26, Neil J. McRae wrote:

> Any action needs to have customers and users at the forefront of 
the

> thinking; not an afterthought.

This could be an interesting and refreshing approach to how ISPs 
in the

UK treat their customers!

As a first step of this wondrous new customer-centric approach, 
you can
fix it so that my mum doesn’t have to phone up Plusnet every 
year and
threaten to leave/beg to keep on paying a reasonable price for 
internet

and phone….  Yeah, thought not .. ;)

The telecoms industry is fast becoming as ill-loved as the motor
insurance industry for sharp practice, which is why Corbyn’s 
illfated
idea to provide free internet for all (and put many of us out of 
jobs)

caused such interest! Thankfully it never succeeded but it had me
worried for a bit!

Re: [uknof] [IP] COVID-19 Internet Usage Update (US)

[Will Hargrave]

On 18 Apr 2020, at 16:05, Neil J. McRae wrote:

What needs study is how this totally unacceptable madness has 
happened.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-5g-conspiracy-theory-news-latest-bt-openreach-ee-engineers-attack-abuse-a9468031.html


Unfortunately, it’s no surprise that these sorts of bedroom-dweller 
conspiracy theories have accelerated when we are paying somewhere 
between three and ten million people to stay at home and do nothing!

Re: [uknof] Rats eating fibres in ducts

[Will Hargrave]

Until recently we had never had an issue with rats damaging our fibres 
in our many underground ducts. Over the last few years we have been 
installing CST armoured fibres because other people have had problems 
with rodents and also we judged that CST would probably be enough to 
stop new cables sawing through existing ones when they were drawn in - 
a problem we have had. Just recently we have had two cases of rat 
damage with a number of fibres being cut. These were older, unarmoured 
duct grade cables. Our two pronged plan was to pull in replacement CST 
armoured cables and try and control the rats. When talking to the 
rodent control chap though, I got a bit of a surprise. He said that 
the rats would prefer to gnaw on the armoured cable and would easily 
cut through the CST armour. Does anyone have any real-world experience 
of this? Should we be installing SWA armoured? Are there any other 
actions we should be considering? The rodent control chap suggested 
sealing up the ends of the ducts in each chamber, not to stop the 
rats, but to allow us to track them so that we can find where they are 
getting in to the network.


Might be worth talking to your cable vendor. We were a Brand-Rex shop, 
and I seem to remember (this was a good while ago):


Basic rodent protection is a glassfibre incorporated in the sheath which 
rodents find unpleasant to chew. Second stage was CST followed by SWA.


My thoughts: Even CST is considerably more expensive to install, and 
also have a general preference to not have metallic sheaths on cables if 
it can be avoided. I wouldn’t want to be going up to SWA as it becomes 
quite unmanageable.


I think you’re doing alright with CST… others have suggested adding 
innerduct as extra protection - will fill up those ducts quickly tho!


Will

Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref

[Will Hargrave]

This line of questioning is utterly bizarre. These operations are well 
known to use bad data from questionable sources. We blackholed a bunch 
of them at the MX after hundreds of complaints about a netblock which 
had been returned to the free pool years ago.


I think it is perfectly reasonable for Andy to trust his own judgement 
on what his own systems might have been used for.



Will


On 7 Jun 2019, at 15:37, Peter Knapp wrote:

So does the host have no HTTP/HTTPS access, or name server lookups 
etc?


BT will use all those ports these days.

Peter


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of 
Andy Smith

Sent: 07 June 2019 15:28
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 
2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref


Hi Peter,

Just iptables on the host, it's just that this particular host has a
restrictive firewall on both input and output and given the ports
and IPs listed in the report it should not have been possible for
that activity to happen.

Of course, if it had been compromised then maybe the firewall got
altered and then put back again afterwards but this all gets a bit
far-fetched for the sake of downloading a movie by BitTorrent.

Like I say, I looked into it and couldn't find any indication that
it had actually happened, and the reporting company was completely
impossible to communicate with.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:07:50PM +, Peter Knapp wrote:
Love to know what firewall you're using that guarantees you can't get 
any form of BT through it please?


Pete


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of 
Andy Smith

Sent: 07 June 2019 15:04
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 
2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref


Hello,

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:10PM +0400, Stephen Wilcox wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 17:25, Andy Smith  wrote:

However, one day they sent one that implicated one of our
infrastructure hosts and I could not see any way in which that 
could

be torrenting, so I asked for more information. Every form of
contact I made resulted in an auto response suggesting that if I am
confused I should ask my network admin about it.


So you're saying people who work at infrastructure companies - ISPs, 
DCs
etc, they don't do torrents and the like, and they would not do so 
with

on-premise equipment.


No, I'm saying that unlike customer services in this specific case I
had full access to it and was able to audit it to the best of my
ability and found no such activity. BitTorrent wouldn't even have
been able to get through its firewall.

Cheers,
Andy

--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: [uknof] Internet Instability between 11:01 - 11:13 GMT?

[Will Hargrave]

On 5 Feb 2019, at 12:12, Giles Coochey wrote:

We saw a blip with our peering with AS61231 (SSE), anyone else 
experience any BGP strangeness around 11:01 - 11:13 GMT today?


I’ve seen reports of disturbances in Centurylink / AS3356 who are an 
upstream of 61231. Allegedly a fibre cut in Frankfurt but reported 
effects more widespread than that.


You might want to ask a customer though, I lack further details…

Re: [uknof] Cabling Companies

[Will Hargrave]

I used to work at ic.ac.uk at South Ken - we used a variety of different 
contractors in this very large estate. A-Tech Data Solutions did a lot 
of our fibre backbone work as well as copper, they must have put in 
thousands of km of cable in there now, as they were onsite every day!


http://www.a-tech.it/


On 13 Mar 2018, at 13:25, Leigh Harrison wrote:


Afternoon all,

A customer of mine is looking to get some fibre ran internally to put 
bigger links between their DC, albeit all internal.


Does anyone have any good experience of any cable companies in London? 
 The customer is in South Kensington.


Best, Leigh

Leigh Harrison
Managing Director

T:: +44 (0) 1283 260 006
M:: +44 (0) 7718 998 476
E:: leigh.harri...@gs-net.co.uk
W:: www.gs-net.co.uk
L:: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/leighharrison
Skype For Business:: 
leigh.harri...@gs-net.co.uk


[logo_mid_print - Email smaller]
The contents of this email and any attachments are strictly 
confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the 
named addressee(s). If you are not the addressee(s) you are not 
authorised to, and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this 
message without our prior written authority. If received in error, 
please contact GS Net.

Re: [uknof] 'White Box' switching and OS - Any experiences worth sharing?

[Will Hargrave]

On 15 Feb 2018, at 20:55, David Farrell wrote:

I'm just starting to evaluate the options out there, for various 
reasons I
need NOS with a 'traditional' CLI that network engineers would be 
familiar
with as well as all the API bells and whistles. I've been leaning 
towards
IP Infusion's OcNOS, and have seen coverage of both LINX and BT 
evaluating
that. The context here is looking to transition from a old-school STP 
based

DC LAN towards EVPN w/ VXLAN and taking a look around to see what's
available alongside Juniper/Cisco offerings... Any experiences, 
positive or
negative would be be useful. I've been doing some research but thought 
I'd

ask the clueful here.


You should definitely investigate Arista. It isn’t a whitebox 
solution, however has an improved ‘traditional’ CLI and is really an 
industry leader in DC networking.


We’ve been running Arista (w/IP core and VXLAN) at LONAP since the 
launch of the 100GE product in 2016 with great results. In our case, the 
cost per port is above the cheaper low buffer trident/tomahawk solutions 
- it is only recently that the whitebox vendors have started to add 
larger-buffer products.


https://people.ucsc.edu/~warner/buffer.html is a good resource comparing 
various hardware.


After some time out in the wilderness, I look forward to seeing folks 
at

UKNOF 40 :)


See you there! :)

Re: [uknof] UKNOF38 I feel like curry tonight?

[Will Hargrave]

On 11 Sep 2017, at 10:47, Marek Isalski wrote:

I'm excited for UKNOF tomorrow... so excited that I'm already thinking 
about curry ;-)
I know some of the programme committee are around - but is anyone else 
in town tonight, and if so, are there any groups meeting for 
beers/food/chinwag?


Hi all,

We’re planning to head to the Devonshire Cat at 1700-1730 or 
thereabouts.


https://goo.gl/maps/nfuwJecWvAk

There’s rather more food options up in the Division Street area, so we 
can split up after then for dinner as desired.


See you there hopefully!


Will

Re: [uknof] BT NTU incompatible with GLC-TE in ASR 1000 ?

[Will Hargrave]

On 26 Jun 2017, at 13:08, Giles Coochey wrote:

But interface counters show only some packets going out, and only 
CRCs coming in?
If we loop a Catalyst copper port VLAN between the NTU and the ASR 
everything comes up and works fine.

Did you set `speed 100` on the interface on the ASR?

We've set it to auto, and the interface does come up,up - but we get
CRCs as described.

BT have told us their side is set to auto, and the interface doesn't
come up if we hardcode the speed.


My punt is that it’s coming up at 100M half duplex at your end due to 
autoneg failure. Did you check that?


On many platforms turning off autoneg turns off auto-mdix, which might 
result in the link not coming up if it were two routers connected with a 
straight-through cable. Try using a crossover cable and hard set the 
speed to 100/full. There are probably some asr1k commands to show the 
actual autoneg status, which would be instructive to find out what the 
actual interface settings are at the other end.



Will

Re: [uknof] Example of total DC loss

[Will Hargrave]

On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:09, Rob Evans wrote:

As I recall fuzzy though was AC issues caused by dust and they 
eventually ran out of fuel for the generator as the port authority 
wouldn't allow tankers onto Manhattan. Might be wrong on that long 
time ago.

We have an epic ticket from that, I’ll see if I can find a copy.


The catastrophic fire which took out University of Twente’s DC in 2002 
is an example that springs to mind. Not sure if the legendary syslog 
messages are fake or not:



lo0.ar5.enschede1.surf.net 3613: Nov 20 07:20:50.927 UTC: 
%ENV_MON-2-TEMP: Hotpoint temp sensor(slot 18) temperature has reached 
WARNING level at 61(C)
lo0.cr2.amsterdam2.surf.net 1146: Nov 20 07:20:56.458 UTC: 
%CLNS-5-ADJCHANGE: ISIS: Adjacency to ar5.enschede1 (POS2/0) Down, 
interface deleted(non-iih)


--
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] SKY UK NOC

[Will Hargrave]

On 1 Apr 2017, at 13:17, Wojciech Lesiak wrote:

Any chance is anyone from SKY NOC over here? If yes can you please 
contact me off list please.


Hi Wojciech,

As ever peeringdb is a great place to find up-to-date noc contacts with 
other networks:


https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/5607


You will need an account to view the contact details, but as you seem to 
operate a multihomed network, why not go for it. :-)


--
Will Hargrave
CTO, LONAP Ltd
+44 20 3137 8330

Re: [uknof] Contact for Kaia Global

[Will Hargrave]

On 25 Jan 2017, at 17:50, Nicks, Andrew wrote:

Does anybody have information about Kaia Global (AS 251) as we see 
peerings down and are having difficulty contacting them.
We tried peeringdb and RIPE and got failed delivery for 
peer@nmc.kaiaglobal.com and 
invalid numbers for phone calls.
Looks rather like they may have ceased operations, but can't find 
anything to confirm from a quick Google...


Hi Nick,

Multiple sources have mentioned their slow implosion, finally 
disappearing a few weeks ago. “sh ip bgp regexp _251_” tells a 
tale..


https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-status#w.resource=as251

I would delete those sessions.


Will

Re: [uknof] UKNOF mailing list migration

[Will Hargrave]

On 12 Aug 2016, at 15:29, Nat Morris wrote:

>>> At 1pm today (Friday 12th August), the UKNOF mailing lists will be
>>> migrated to a new server. This may take a couple of hours.
> The public mailing lists have now been moved over to Mythic Beasts,
> thank you again to Rob, Will and Andy at LONAP for hosting them for
> the past 10+ years.

Wow, has it really been that long? :)

I’ll sunset the old VM at LONAP now.

Will

Re: [uknof] Hotels near Telehouse/Docklands?

[Will Hargrave]

Hi David,

The nearby Ibis is also awful, never again.

The best hotel closest (walking distance) to Telehouse I’ve found is the 
Radisson New Providence Wharf ( 
http://www.radissonblu-edwardian.com/london-hotel-gb-e14-9pq/gbcanary ) . 
Pricing can vary wildly from 100-350 a night (!)  
You can try my Corporate Account ID 114111 which often gives a discount, or at 
least changes a nonrefundable rate into a changeable one.

Failing that, there are a couple of decent hotels at Excel (just over a mile 
away) - the Novotel there is decent, and i recently saw a good review of Aloft 
http://www.headforpoints.com/2015/04/22/my-review-of-starwoods-aloft-hotel-at-excel-london/

The Novotel Greenwich can be a good bet if you’re driving, too, as it is just 
straight through the Blackwall tunnel, less convenient by DLR. Better pubs in 
Greenwich ;)

Will


On 29 Apr 2015, at 11:27, David Farrell d...@davidfarrell.ie wrote:

 Hi list!
 
 Any recommendations here? I need to work in TH for a few days in May, I've 
 tried the Travelodge before (never again) and would usually use the Holiday 
 Inn Express at Canning Town but it seems to be full/pricey for the days in 
 question. Basically, needs to facilitate sleeping and eating without resident 
 cockroaches (unlike the Travelodge).
 
 Cheers,
 
 David.

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] The operator's operator

[Will Hargrave]

On 24 Mar 2015, at 21:39, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is this a mutually beneficial exchange e.g. non profit? The fee structure 
 appears 4x nearest IX. That might be a challenge.
 I’m pretty sure the first year (at least) will be free anyway and subsequent 
 years fees will be heavily guided by the membership
 That has proven to be beneficial at least for year one. It's also proven to 
 be beneficial to advertise what the year two prices may be targeted for, 
 especially after community elections occur (which should be a priority). 
 The whole IX / BDX is a mutual / CoOp arrangement - yes
 Awesome. My employer likes participating in these when conditions are right. 
 /watchlist

Hi Marty,

On the one hand you ask if it is a not-for-profit/co-op, but on the other hand 
you say it’s good if the ports are free.

If it’s a co-op owned by its members, where does the money come from? Even the 
very minor 500 or so it costs to file the accounts.

Aren’t you just wanting to both have your cake and eat it? :-)


-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] The operator's operator

[Will Hargrave]

Well, the government was happy to hand out blocks of £20k each to get companies 
to peer at the LINX/BT IXP and datacentre in Cardiff - I guess the metrics used 
for measuring the success of that project could be used here.

Will


On 24 Mar 2015, at 23:00, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 Jon
 Can't help but think that an IX is going to offer very limited benefit in 
 turning Brighton into a digital centre. They would be far better investing 
 the money into tech literacy efforts. How are they measuring success? 
 
 Regards, 
 Neil 
 
 On 24 Mar 2015, at 21:20, Jon Morby (FidoNet) j...@fido.net wrote:
 
 Hi Roderick
 
 I’m not sure about Bristol (although there is IX Cardiff)
 
 The Brighton Digital Exchange (and IX Brighton) is on the South Coast 
 
 AS 44488
 
 There’s a small data centre and a carrier neutral exchange opening as part 
 of the UK Government’s initiative to turn Brighton into a Digital Catapult 
 city
 
 References
 
 http://www.digitalcatapultcentre.org.uk/
 http://bdx.coop/
 http://ixbrighton.com/
 
 
 
 On 24 Mar 2015, at 21:04, Rod Beck rod.b...@hibernianetworks.com wrote:
 
 Bristol Digital exchange is a new peering point?
 
 Roderick Beck
 Sales Director/Europe and the Americas
 Hibernia Networks
 http://www.hibernianetworks.com
 Budapest and New York
 36-30-859-5144
 rod.b...@hibernianetworks.com
 This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the 
 addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged. 
 If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby 
 notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and 
 any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender 
 is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please 
 immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the 
 original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All 
 documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are 
 SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may 
 contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While 
 Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this 
 risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a 
 result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks 
 before opening any attachment.
 
 
 
 

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] Belfast

[Will Hargrave]

On 10 Sep 2014, at 03:18, David Farrell d...@davidfarrell.ie wrote:

 It was absolutely *fantastic* to be part of the last two days in my adopted 
 home town. I hope those who made it enjoyed Belfast and the rest.

Absolutely! I was pleased to see so many folks from south of the border too, 
and the interesting Ireland-related content. 

The 18-seater prop plane journey was a novelty too. It didn’t really feel like 
an overseas trip :)

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

[Will Hargrave]

Neil,

I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes something 
it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where teasing back 
layers of defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data germane to the subject 
matter at hand is an arduous chore.


What you seem to be saying is ‘these US providers have a larger profit margin 
and they have wasted this money on IPv6 deployment’. I find it hard to believe 
they would do this at such detriment of shareholder value.

Are you realistically saying Comcast rolled out v6 to as many customers as BT 
has broadband subscribers (~6m), without a business case for doing so?
OK, let’s exclude the US then. Those Americans well known for their callous 
disregard of profit anyway.

DTAG has 26% deployment. Free has 39%. Swisscom 27%. [1]
Why are DT or Swisscom doing this where BT isn’t? 

Is it really the case of Neil McRae standing up and shouting about the 
emperor’s new clothes? Or is there another factor at play here?


Will


[1] http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ - that’s as measured on the 
network btw, not marketing puff.


On 5 Sep 2014, at 20:42, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 Will,
 If anyone has done V6 because of a business case then the hurdles they have 
 must be insane!
 
 IPV6 is about being in this business. You mistakenly assume that in the UK we 
 have done nothing which is massively incorrect - and my experiences about 
 brokenness aren't just my own and speaking to many of the companies you 
 mention it hasn't been painless for them nobody should be kidding themselves 
 on that it was. The market in the UK I would argue is unique. Don't know if 
 you remember the question I asked John from Comcast about the price of 
 broadband in the US at the last UKNOF?
 
 IPV6 will be here when we need it.
 
 Neil 
 
 
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On 5 Sep 2014, at 20:31, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote:
 
 
 On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
 
 
 OK, that’s a bit more of a useful answer :-) 
 
 So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast?
 They need IPV6 because they have no V4 addresses left? You tell me? I¹m
 not intimately familiar with Comcast¹s platform but at least its DOCSIS,
 doesn¹t do wholesale as far as I know, those would be pretty decent sized
 differences also but the key driver for IPV6 is not having enough IPV4
 addresses, and at least in Europe that doesn¹t seem to be the case (yet).
 
 What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than
 CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but
 one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When
 something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt
 with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up
 turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took
 along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the
 customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6
 either again because people have done half baked deployments.
 
 I think this could be an outdated assessment of the situation. A single data 
 point (your home network) is just the kind of anecdata you yourself would 
 stomp on ;-)
 
 OK, Comcast is all DOCSIS (but then so is VM in the UK). We can take a look 
 at ATT, they operate a lot of DSL. VZW and T-Mob are mobile networks, so a 
 whole different kettle of fish. That would seem to throw the access 
 technology used out of the equation. (although the VoLTE/v6 situation is 
 relevant there)
 
 So let’s go into address policy. ARIN hasn’t got the same sort of 'run out 
 fairly' model that RIPE NCC has, however their cupboard is not yet bare: 
 http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. Since ARIN region has the bulk of v4 
 address space anyway, is v4 space any ‘scarcer’ there than in Europe? It’s 
 difficult to tell.
 
 I just find it interesting that these are large access providers using 
 diverse technologies, and those in the US have chosen to make considerable 
 investment in deploying IPv6 to domestic end-users whilst those in the UK 
 have not. I’m not really a v6 evangelist, but I am interested in 
 understanding how the calculation of these business cases differ - the same 
 as deployment of any other technology. 
 
 (from another mail)
 
 For clarity though we have had IPV6 available on BT Internet Connect 
 (business Internet service) for years- take up and demand very low. Traffic 
 volumes don't even register on our graphs.
 
 Comcast claim a terabit of v6 edge traffic. I think that’s a fairly 
 frightening amount.
 
 
 Will
 
 

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

[Will Hargrave]

On 5 Sep 2014, at 16:32, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 That¹s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking
 about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only
 NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it.
 Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately
 its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix
 all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there.

That’s quite interesting, as other large ISPs (which are presumably connected 
to the same internet) have not had this problem. Google has analysed broken v6 
and does not think it a barrier to deployment.

I wonder why BT differs so much from Comcast, Verizon or ATT, all of whom 
have penetration in the 20-60% range.

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

[Will Hargrave]

On 5 Sep 2014, at 17:07, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately
 its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix
 all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there.
 That¹s quite interesting, as other large ISPs (which are presumably
 connected to the same internet?) have not had this problem. Google has
 analysed broken v6 and does not think it a barrier to deployment.
 I wonder why BT differs so much from Comcast, Verizon or AT?T, all of
 whom have penetration in the 20-60% range.
 Wow Wee Will 20-60% (!) that¹s a very big range!

Yes.

This is because i was talking about multiple ISPs, who have different 
penetration rates, as one might expect. 

According to the article at [1], Comcast is at 30%, ATT  20% and Verizon 
Wireless at 54%.
Other data points are available. The specifics do not matter.

 On your other points I think you need to re-read what I wrote! Or more
 importantly focus on what I did say versus what you made up above!

My other points? I only made one, and that was to ask you why BT is different, 
from, say, Comcast. This is a technical list, and I and many others would like 
to hear your experiences and data points.


You can stop wasting both yours and my time with personal attacks and all that 
tedious crap, because my reading comprehension is just fine. To assist you, I 
re-quoted both your and my original text above.


So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast?


[1] 
http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2014/07/comcast-twc-verizon-at-t-pushing-ipv6-transition-in-us

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

[Will Hargrave]

On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:


OK, that’s a bit more of a useful answer :-) 

 So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast?
 They need IPV6 because they have no V4 addresses left? You tell me? I¹m
 not intimately familiar with Comcast¹s platform but at least its DOCSIS,
 doesn¹t do wholesale as far as I know, those would be pretty decent sized
 differences also but the key driver for IPV6 is not having enough IPV4
 addresses, and at least in Europe that doesn¹t seem to be the case (yet).

 What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than
 CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but
 one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When
 something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt
 with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up
 turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took
 along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the
 customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6
 either again because people have done half baked deployments.

I think this could be an outdated assessment of the situation. A single data 
point (your home network) is just the kind of anecdata you yourself would stomp 
on ;-)

OK, Comcast is all DOCSIS (but then so is VM in the UK). We can take a look at 
ATT, they operate a lot of DSL. VZW and T-Mob are mobile networks, so a whole 
different kettle of fish. That would seem to throw the access technology used 
out of the equation. (although the VoLTE/v6 situation is relevant there)

So let’s go into address policy. ARIN hasn’t got the same sort of 'run out 
fairly' model that RIPE NCC has, however their cupboard is not yet bare: 
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. Since ARIN region has the bulk of v4 
address space anyway, is v4 space any ‘scarcer’ there than in Europe? It’s 
difficult to tell.

I just find it interesting that these are large access providers using diverse 
technologies, and those in the US have chosen to make considerable investment 
in deploying IPv6 to domestic end-users whilst those in the UK have not. I’m 
not really a v6 evangelist, but I am interested in understanding how the 
calculation of these business cases differ - the same as deployment of any 
other technology. 

(from another mail)

 For clarity though we have had IPV6 available on BT Internet Connect 
 (business Internet service) for years- take up and demand very low. Traffic 
 volumes don't even register on our graphs. 

Comcast claim a terabit of v6 edge traffic. I think that’s a fairly frightening 
amount.


Will

Re: [uknof] MTRJ Female to MTRJ Female fiber optic cables?

[Will Hargrave]

MT-RJ is 'funny'... I have a suspicion that this won't quite work. Last time I 
tried this it turns out that the coupler is not designed to couple two ordinary 
connectors together; this is because MT-RJ isn't aligned in the same way as the 
SC/ST etc we all know. Instead it required some form of 'female' connector, 
which incidentally also allowed you to swap TX and RX at the rear of the panel. 

I'd double check with someone like Repsole or CMS plc who can probably eyeball 
the parts and check for you.

-- 
Will Hargrave

 On 17 Apr 2014, at 11:47, Charlie Boisseau char...@fluency.net.uk wrote:
 
 Just use a normal MT-RJ patch lead and a pair of couplers:
 
 Black box part numbers: 
  - 5m MT-RJ patch lead: EFE076-005M
  - MT-RJ coupler: FOT121
 
 http://www.blackbox.co.uk/gb-gb/si/1261/11265/Fibre-Optic-Multimode-OM1-Patch-Cables(625-125-m)/S1.O3/
 http://www.blackbox.co.uk/gb-gb/si/1306/12736/Multimode-Fibre-Optic-Couplers/S1.O3/
 
 
 Charlie Boisseau
 Fluency Communications Ltd
 
 T: +44 (0) 845 874 7000
 Twitter: @charlieboisseau
 www.fluency.net.uk
 char...@fluency.net.uk
 
 
 Fluency_Email_footer.png
 
 On 17 Apr 2014, at 09:28, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
 
 Anyone know where I can get a MTRJ Female-MTRJ Female multi-mode fiber optic 
 cable from?
 
 Need some about 5m in length.
 
 Needed near the Oxford area.
 
 -- 
 Regards,
 
 Giles Coochey, CCNP, CCNA, CCNAS
 NetSecSpec Ltd
 +44 (0) 8444 780677
 +44 (0) 7983 877438
 http://www.coochey.net
 http://www.netsecspec.co.uk
 gi...@coochey.net
 
 
 

Re: [uknof] Openbgpd for BGP peering with LINX and media converter requirement

[Will Hargrave]

 So yes: YMMV.  Mileage varies quite a good chunk across the sort of
 provider profile you see at IXPs.  Don't write off something which makes
 plenty of sense for a small organisation just because it makes almost none
 for a large one.
 To coin a phrase. rubbish!
 This model works irrespective of network size. 

Actually, it doesn’t - as evidenced by the massive reseller growth at AMS-IX of 
smaller ASNs (they’re up to 659 connected now) since introduction of the 
reseller programme. 

I share many of your concerns - the 30,000ft view - about shared fates and the 
variety of other problems partner programmes and l2 interconnections bring; but 
I think, having spent a decade running networks at large telcos, you don’t 
appreciate the market other networks operate in. This model works very well for 
hundreds of networks. Today's peering networks are more diverse than ever.

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] Openbgpd for BGP peering with LINX and media converter requirement

[Will Hargrave]

On 26 Mar 2014, at 17:24, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 I suggest you carefully look at the MOU for the LINX about how to connect. 
 I’d also suggest talking to the LINX directly as they can often offer the 
 best solution to how you connect – plugging in another switch is a big no no 
 typically.

This may have been the situation until a decade or so ago, but connections to 
IXPs using a switch are extremely common these days.

This thread from 2005 (!) has some details:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/87275?do=post_view_threaded#87275

-- 
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd
+44 20 3137 8330

Re: [uknof] Openbgpd for BGP peering with LINX and media converter requirement

[Will Hargrave]

On 26 Mar 2014, at 17:44, Aled Morris al...@qix.co.uk wrote:

  I suggest you carefully look at the MOU for the LINX about how to connect. 
  I’d also suggest talking to the LINX directly as they can often offer the 
  best solution to how you connect – plugging in another switch is a big no 
  no typically.
 This may have been the situation until a decade or so ago, but connections 
 to IXPs using a switch are extremely common these days.
 Especially since the distinction between a switch and a router is being 
 eroded.
 But I think I feel the same shudder that Neil does when someone suggests out 
 loud that they are connecting L2 devices to the fabric :-)

The major IXPs are all selling products which involve a provider doing just 
this in order to provide a partner programme, with multiple connections 
delivered on individual .1q tags on a trunk port.

-- 
Will Hargrave
LONAP Ltd
+44 20 3137 8330

Re: [uknof] Openbgpd for BGP peering with LINX and media converter requirement

[Will Hargrave]

On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:15, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 This may have been the situation until a decade or so ago, but connections 
 to IXPs using a switch are extremely common these days.
 Will - Actually 20 years ago (!) Demon's router was connected via a switch 
 and sat in Finchley (I still have the box!)  so yes this is very common and 
 has been for a long time - but it doesn't make it a good design and in my 
 view is a big no no.

Actually I think the things which made it a problem years ago (l2 hygiene, 
loops, etc) are less of a problem, since we have adequate protection. These 
days, as a proportion of traffic flow router controlplanes are far more 
vulnerable to things going wrong. 

Hell, LINX (and everyone else) *sell* a partner product which encourages people 
to connect over third party l2 infrastructure. 

Our challenges lie elsewhere, mostly within the fabric itself as opposed to the 
customer interface.

Re: [uknof] Rack Space in THN

[Will Hargrave]

John,

Yes, this is quite a common approach. Having rackspace and equipment in the DCs 
themselves means you can easily interconnect with others there, for instance 
buying transit, peeling off traffic to private interconnects, and connecting to 
other IXPs such as LONAP.

I don’t think Telehouse (for instance) sell quarter racks directly, but you can 
usually manage to buy this space from someone else; at one point LINX 
themselves were doing this.

Will 


On 7 Mar 2014, at 10:07, John Bourke john.bou...@sa.catapult.org.uk wrote:

 Folks,
 
 On the same subject, I am putting 10G's into THN and LD4 in order to connect 
 to LINX.
 
 What I would prefer to do is to build a small meet me point before hitting 
 LINX.  So I would need a quarter of a rack at each site.
 
 Is this even possible ?
 
 Thanks
 
 John
 
 -Original Message-
 From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul Webb
 Sent: 06 March 2014 14:44
 To: Jon Morby; uk...@uknof.org.uk
 Subject: Re: [uknof] Rack Space in THN
 
 Hi John,
 
 Whereabouts and how much, we're looking for another rack in THN (Clearstream 
 Technology).
 
 Cheers,
 
 Paul.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Jon Morby
 Sent: 27 February 2014 16:44
 To: uk...@uknof.org.uk
 Subject: [uknof] Rack Space in THN
 
 Not sure if this is of any interest, but we have an 8 amp rack coming 
 available in the next 4-6 weeks in TFM3, Telehouse North.
 
 If anyone is on the look out for space please let me know off list
 
 Jon
 
 
 
 Jon Morby
 fido.net - the internet made simple
 www.fido.net / www.fidonet.com
 
 
 
 This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the 
 use of the recipient(s) to whom they are addressed. If you have received it 
 in error, please destroy all copies and inform the sender. This email and any 
 attachments are believed to be free from viruses but the Satellite 
 Applications Catapult accepts no liability in connection therewith. Any views 
 or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not 
 necessarily represent those of Satellite Applications Catapult.
 
 

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] ipv6 bgp filter size?

[Will Hargrave]

On 31 Jan 2014, at 08:38, john huss mrjohnh...@googlemail.com wrote:

 From looking at the ipv6 route summary, filtering smaller than a /48 frees up 
 a few hundred routes which isn't as many as I'd hoped.
 
 Would I cause problems for myself if I filtered on smaller than /32 for now, 
 while I work on getting more memory sorted/new cam-profile/new router ?

Yes. There are lots of services only hosted in /48s - i.e. IPv6 PI, including 
many of the IPv6 root nameservers.

You can probably look at RIR lists for which blocks they allocate which sizes 
of address from; actually what I suggest is you take default routes from your 
transits (as well as full routes) which will cover you (sub-optimally) until 
you can get the problem fixed.

-- 
Will Hargrave
LONAP Ltd
+44 20 3137 8330

Re: [uknof] Offsite storage

[Will Hargrave]

On 31 Jan 2014, at 10:30, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:

 Can anyone offer us some offsite storage that we can dump to via SSH/rsync? 
 Preferably across LONAP.

You didn't say how much storage you needed, but sounds like a job for a VM or 
dedicated server (if you need a lot of space)

http://www.bytemark.co.uk/hosting/storage_monster / http://www.bigv.io/prices
https://www.portfast.co.uk/vps.shtml

There are lots more options and providers out there, of course, those are just 
two I can think of immediately. 

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] Help for Scouts

[Will Hargrave]

I assume you're going to get Openreach to put their hand in their back pocket 
and waive the excess construction charges for this user then, Neil? 

Or is just being snide and unhelpful 'from my iPad' on mailing lists your thing 
now? ;)

Will


On 16 Jan 2014, at 20:13, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 3G how quaint.
 
 Sent from my iPad 
 
 On 16 Jan 2014, at 12:33, Dr Adam Beaumont adam.beaum...@uk.aql.com wrote:
 
 
 Hi List  Adam - Just to balance this out...
 
 You can get static IP 3G Sims from :
 
 http://www.exa.net.uk/business/connectivity/mobile
 http://www.claranet.co.uk/about/news/2012-07-24-claranet-launches-integrated-3g-service-today%E2%80%99s-mobile-office.html
 http://www.aa.net.uk/telecoms-mobile-data.html
 http://www.zen.co.uk/latest-news.aspx?page=11887
 http://www.metronet-uk.com/products/3g-anywhereconnect/
 
 and i'm sure there's a few others out there...  (including aql - but we only 
 sell direct as janet 3g - https://www.aql.com/janet3g/ to schools, colleges, 
 universities etc).
 
 all the best,
 
 Adam
 
 On 16 Jan 2014, at 12:25, Adam Palmer wrote:
 
 Hi David/List
  
 We provide static IP’s on network SIM’s from regular UK providers via 
 private APN capabilities, so your choice of network can be whatever is best 
 suited to conditions in the local area.
  
 I have passed your request to our sales team and they will be in touch to 
 discuss requirements.
  
 As a note to the list, if anyone has requirements for static IP provision 
 over regular 3G networks (all UK networks covered, 3, Orange, o2, Voda, 
 T-Mob etc) then please let us know and we will be happy to assist.
  
 Regards
  
 Adam Palmer
 London Web Limited
 www.londonweb.net
 0208 349 4500
  
 From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of David 
 Whitaker
 Sent: 15 January 2014 22:09
 To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
 Subject: [uknof] Help for Scouts
  
 This is a bit of an unusual request, and for that I apologise, but I am 
 hoping someone can help me…
  
 I am responsible for a building owned by our local Scouts and Guides in 
 Bedfordshire, I would like to provide basic internet connectivity for 
 leaders to manage membership, programs etc (its all online these days) and 
 to connect to the heating control system.  A phone line would need poles so 
 is out of the question.
  
 Having bought the heating controller, I now find I need static IP, and that 
 costs a bit more than standard 3G and is over budget.
  
 I am looking for a static IP 3G SIM and Wifi 3G Router, and some data 
 allowance.  Being scouts they are penniless as usual, any suggestions?
  
 Looking forward to taking a beer with everyone in Manchester.
  
 Thanks
  
 David Whitaker 
 dwhita...@advaoptical.com
 07785 365660
 ADVA Optical Networking
 
  
 

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

[uknof] Call for Presentations: RIPE 68, 12-16 May 2014 in Warsaw, Poland

[Will Hargrave]

Call for Presentations

A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers,
network operators and other interested parties get together.  Although
the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to
meet and network with others in their field.

RIPE 68 will take place from 12-16 May 2014 in Warsaw, Poland.

The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals
from the RIPE community for the plenary session presentations, BoFs
(Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and
lightning talks at RIPE 68.  The PC is looking for presentations
covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but
not limited to:

* IPv6 deployment
* Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations
* Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses
* Data centre technologies
* Network and DNS operations
* Internet governance and regulatory practices
* Network and routing security
* Content delivery
* Internet peering and mobile data exchange

Submissions

RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations
non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged.
Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus
on operational experience, research results, or case studies.  For
example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should
focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product
demonstration.

The RIPE PC accepts proposals for different presentation formats,
including plenary session presentations, tutorials, workshops, BoFs
(Birds of a Feather sessions) and lightning talks.  See the full
descriptions of these formats at
https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/.

Presenters who are proposing a panel or BoF are encouraged to include
speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a
neutral facilitator.

In addition to presentations selected in advance for the plenary, the
RIPE PC also offers several time slots for lightning talks, which
are selected immediately before or during the conference.

The following general requirements apply:

- Proposals for plenary session presentations, BoFs, panels, workshops
 and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than
 2 March 2014, using the meeting submission system at
 https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/guidelines/.  Proposals
 submitted after this date will be considered on a space-available
 basis.

- Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting
 submission system
 (https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) and can be
 submitted just days before the RIPE Meeting starts or even during
 the meeting week.  The allocation of lightning talk slots will be
 announced in short notice---in some cases on the same day but often
 one day prior to the relevant session.

- Presenters should indicate how much time they will require.  See
 more information on time slot allocations per presentation format at
 https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/.

- Proposals for talks will only be considered by the PC if they
 contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated
 later on).  For panels, proposals must contain a clear description,
 as well as the names of invited panelists, presenters and
 moderators.

- Due to potential technical issues, it is expected that most, if not
 all, presenters/panelists will be physically present at the RIPE
 Meeting.

If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions,
please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net.


-- 
Will Hargrave
LONAP Ltd
+44 20 3137 8330

Re: [uknof] ADSL issues with Zyxel routers

[Will Hargrave]

On 13 Jan 2014, at 23:30, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote

 If you manage CPEs remotely it's easier to block port 80 via an ACL and 
 apply that to the radius account like so until a fix:
 Cisco-Avpair += lcp:interface-config=ip access-group 150 out
 I'm not sure many zyxel's run IOS.

This appears to be a recipe for the LNS/aggregation layer, not for the CPE 
itself. Looks good.

 Sent from my iPad 

Umm. yes. For engineering success try using an actual computer and reading all 
of the email ;)

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] Messed up Telehouse cable run order - LC to SC adapters false economy?

[Will Hargrave]

On 25 Nov 2013, at 15:09, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:

 What is your experience with small dual LC to SC adapters? Or what
 would you do? (apart from get it right first time :-) ).


I would use SC couplers (blue for single mode) + some 1m SC-LC patch leads, and 
get on with life.

-- 
Will Hargrave
LONAP Ltd
+44 20 3137 8330

Re: [uknof] Messed up Telehouse cable run order - LC to SC adapters false economy?

[Will Hargrave]

repsole.com - free, same-day delivery to E14 if ordered before 3pm or so.


On 25 Nov 2013, at 15:18, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:

 Thanks. I was looking at those right now actually.
 
 On 25 November 2013 20:13, boggits bogg...@gmail.com wrote:
 Patch panel
 
 J
 
 On 25 Nov 2013 20:12, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:
 
 Evening all,
 
 First lesson I've hadtriple check cable termination types. What an
 idiot. I ordered LC instead of SC for two fibre pairs.
 
 It's £250 per pair to get them re-done by Telehouse, but because they
 are a bundle of 3 pairs they would like to charge 3 x £250 even though
 the third pair will be re-terminated as LC when it is already LC :-(
 
 What is your experience with small dual LC to SC adapters? Or what
 would you do? (apart from get it right first time :-) ).
 
 Thanks,
 
 Gavin.
 
 
 
 
 

-- 
Will Hargrave
LONAP Ltd
+44 20 3137 8330

Re: [uknof] Preconnected 10G SFPs

[Will Hargrave]

They're called SFP+ Direct Attach cables. 
I have used them a fair bit, but they do have a high failure rate. :(


On 20 Nov 2013, at 18:38, Simon Green si...@wirehive.net wrote:

 Hi list.
 
 Is there any reason why one shouldn't use these?
 
 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=EX-SFP-10GE-DACsafe=offespv=210es_sm=93tbm=ischtbo=usource=univsa=Xei=NvOMUsfbHcaN7QaLzYDoCgved=0CDgQsAQbiw=1920bih=911
 
 They're cheap...
 
 Simon
 

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Will Hargrave]

On 30 Oct 2013, at 12:05, Steve Housego steve.hous...@it-ps.com wrote:

 Does anyone have any experiance of using your own VDSL modem/router (eg. a 
 Cisco 887VA) and ditching the openreach modem? They have a large estate of 
 Cisco 887VA routers and they've realised they will likely need to be replaced 
 to go FTTC due to the lack of an ethernet WAN port.

Actually, you should be able to use one of the 4 onboard 10/100 ports to do 
PPPoE with the Openreach-provided VDSL gateway, since the 887 supports vlans. 
Worth a test, and i imagine a much lower risk.

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] Allegro Networks | Spap Point

[Will Hargrave]

Actually someone asked about an API in the QA and the response was that it's 
API-ready and will become available once they've documented it.

Ask them I guess!


Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:
On 27 Sep 2013 20:45, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote:

 I went to the launch on Wednesday actually. Looks quite good, being
able
to quote and deliver services easily could be a great timesaver.

 Increasingly this is how we all want to procure commodity services.

Did they mention an API in the road map?

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [uknof] Lagos to London

[Will Hargrave]

Also it's not in North Africa ;)

I am mostly using TATA to reach Nigerian destinations. That's not really an 
endorsement though. The local infra is usually the problem.


Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
what type of link?

(just to set expectation Lagos does not have great infrastructure!)

Sent from my iPad

 On 12 Sep 2013, at 11:52, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi all,

 Can anyone recommend any good carriers around North Africa? We're
 looking for a link to Lagos, from London.

 Cheers,
 James.



--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [uknof] 1Gbit/s Virgin Media Arcotronix single mode handoff

[Will Hargrave]

On 16 Aug 2013, at 21:48, Ben King b...@warwicknet.com wrote:

 Anyway come the install they deploy SM with LX SFPs, the link between
 the sites is up the link light is on on their end of the LX link to us
 but our end won't light - we are terminating into a 6500 SUP720-3B at
 each end.

Sounds like 1000Base-X autoneg. try toggling 'speed nonegotiate' / 'no speed 
nonegotiate'

 VM are now trying to argue that it's because it's too close, ie below
 LX minima link (2m patch lead). However we know their optics light
 when in our kit and while I know it's a bit short and ultimately it's
 probably shortening the life of the optics but fundamentally I think
 it should work.


Realistically there is no minimum distance for 1000LX, and you can sit there 
running with a 2m patch lead until the cows come home. Reference a BT Sinet 
document maybe? ;-)

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] First one of these I've received...

[Will Hargrave]

So not that much considering cost of CGN which actually works.

Even more silly is the fact space is still available from ARIN on normal terms 
(they're not into their last /8 yet) so it's clearly some form of spam.

Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:

Hmm, NAT our university, and cash in $650,000 or so.

What is the going rate anyway?  MS paid $6m for 600,000 addresses a
couple of years back.

MIT are sitting on a gold mine, though they have a little more in the
bank I suspect!

Tim

On 17 Apr 2013, at 09:56, Simon Green si...@wirehive.net wrote:

 Yeah I have seen it. Slightly concerned that this is the beginning of
the flood.

 Link to the RIPE service for those interested:
 https://lirportal.ripe.net/member-to-member/


 From: Gavin Henry [mailto:ghe...@suretec.co.uk]
 Sent: 17 April 2013 09:50
 To: Simon Green
 Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
 Subject: Re: [uknof] First one of these I've received...

 Hi Simon,

 Yeah, I got this two. I've contacted RIPE as there is a RIPE facility
for this for other LIR's as I'm sure you have seen too.

 Thanks.


 On 17 April 2013 09:42, Simon Green si...@wirehive.net wrote:
 Came through this morning:

 
 Hello,

 We are a multi-service web host/cloud provider operating out of One
 Wilshire in CA, USA. We're contacting you today as we are looking to
 reassign or lease IPv4/IPv6 space from RIPE and ARIN. If you have any
IPv4
 or IPv6 ranges you are currently not utilizing and would like to
monetize,
 please reply to this email with examples of the space you have
available as
 well as desired pricing and terms. We're interested in IPv4
allocations
 from /24 through /16s. With respect to IPv6 we're interested in /33s
 through /29s. Please reply to n...@feinhosting.com .

 Thank You
 Gary Beshar
 




 --
 Kind Regards,

 Gavin Henry.
 Managing Director.

 T +44 (0) 1224 279484
 M +44 (0) 7930 323266
 F +44 (0) 1224 824887
 E ghe...@suretec.co.uk

 Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).

 http://www.suretecsystems.com/

 Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland.
Registered
 number: SC258005. Registered office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman,
Inverurie,
 Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL.

 Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html

 Do you know we have our own VoIP provider called SureVoIP?
Seehttp://www.surevoip.co.uk

 Did you see our API? http://www.surevoip.co.uk/api

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [uknof] Please Advise: UK - India Routing issues

[Will Hargrave]

On 2 Apr 2013, at 13:08, Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote:

 Don't know what you mean Paul ;)
 
 Looks okay from my network (LON-DXB):
 
 traceroute to s1.dma.dxb (91.196.184.67), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
  1  gw.serversa.lon.ixreach.com (91.196.185.1)  7.045 ms  7.675 ms  10.324 ms
  2  host-91-196-187-150.in-addr.ixreach.com (91.196.187.150)  0.295 ms  0.282 
 ms  0.385 ms
  3  host-91-196-187-106.in-addr.ixreach.com (91.196.187.106)  10.874 ms  
 10.873 ms  15.447 ms
  4  host-91-196-187-194.in-addr.ixreach.com (91.196.187.194)  6.292 ms  6.280 
 ms  6.410 ms
  5  host-91-196-187-198.in-addr.ixreach.com (91.196.187.198)  6.675 ms  6.722 
 ms  6.920 ms
  6  s1.dma.dxb.ixreach.com (91.196.184.67)  158.645 ms  159.185 ms  159.498 ms
 
 FYI most routes are now back albeit on alternative paths so there shouldn't 
 be much ongoing issue to the region..

Damn, that reverse DNS is *ugly* though ;)

Re: [uknof] Please Advise: UK - India Routing issues

[Will Hargrave]

On 31 Mar 2013, at 18:16, waynemerricks waynemerri...@thevoiceasia.com wrote:

 I work for a UK company with a satellite office in Northern India served by 
 BSNL.  About 4 weeks ago our inter office latency doubled to approximately 
 750ms.  After some investigation on various UK ISPs I realised that they're 
 all being routed via London - New York - Palo Alto - Tokyo - Singapore - 
 Chennai.
 
 The return route from India was still Mumbai - London fairly directly as it 
 always has been.
 
 Some time on Wednesday (27th) the route changed again.  Now the UK is 
 bouncing from London - Egypt - Mumbai.  This is almost normal but I'm still 
 averaging about 100ms higher latency than normal (I could get under 250ms on 
 a good day but more usually it was about 300ms).
 
 At about the same time the return route from India changed completely (its 
 now going Mumbai - Chennai - Singapore - Tokyo - Palo Alto - New York - 
 London).


Connectivity from Europe to Asia (and East Africa) is shafted every which way 
right now as a result of the multiple, severe cable cuts in the Alexandria 
region.

As usual the Renesys blog has useful data:

http://www.renesys.com/blog/2013/03/intrigue-surrounds-smw4-cut.shtml 

I believe all the operators are struggling with this.


Will

Re: [uknof] Please Advise: UK - India Routing issues

[Will Hargrave]

In Egypt a lot of these cables share the same infrastructure, even the same 
cable sheath.

So shared fate is inevitable.


Matthew Melbourne m...@melbourne.org.uk wrote:

Not to mention the issues with SEA-ME-WE 4 (SMW4) on 27th March.

http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/03/28/seamew
e-4-damage-hampers-internet-access-in-region/

Reports suggests EIG (Europe-India Gateway) and IMEWE
(India-Middle-East-Western-Europe) were in 'maintenance mode'.

Very fishy.. ;-)

Cheers,
Matt

-Original Message-
From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Neil J. McRae
Sent: 01 April 2013 17:25
To: waynemerricks
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] Please Advise: UK - India Routing issues

As will says many cable issues - falcon and flag seems to be on for now
but
this was causing chaos last week.

Sent from my iPhone

On 1 Apr 2013, at 13:45, waynemerricks
waynemerri...@thevoiceasia.com
wrote:

 Hi all,

 I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask but I was recommended
reaching out to the UKNOF lists after not getting very far in other
lists/forums.

 I work for a UK company with a satellite office in Northern India
served
by BSNL.  About 4 weeks ago our inter office latency doubled to
approximately 750ms.  After some investigation on various UK ISPs I
realised
that they're all being routed via London - New York - Palo Alto -
Tokyo
- Singapore - Chennai.

 The return route from India was still Mumbai - London fairly
directly as
it always has been.

 Some time on Wednesday (27th) the route changed again.  Now the UK is
bouncing from London - Egypt - Mumbai.  This is almost normal but I'm
still averaging about 100ms higher latency than normal (I could get
under
250ms on a good day but more usually it was about 300ms).

 At about the same time the return route from India changed completely
(its
now going Mumbai - Chennai - Singapore - Tokyo - Palo Alto - New
York
- London).

 I'm fairly convinced its a BSNL issue but they're doing the usual
telco
thing of it must be your fault.  Is there anything I can use to prove
one
way or the other where the fault lies?

 I have a handful of trace routes (attached) that didn't convince
them, so
where should I go next?

 Any advice even if its to tell me to try elsewhere would be much
appreciated.

 Regards,

 Wayne
 16.03-India (BSNL) - UK (BT).txt
 16.03-UK (BT) - India (BSNL).txt
 16.03-UK (TalkTalk) - India (BSNL).txt 28.03-UK (BT) - India
 (BSNL).txt 31.03-India (BSNL) - UK (BT).txt

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [uknof] Recommendation for 10Gb media converter post passive fibre tap

[Will Hargrave]

On 22 Feb 2013, at 15:19, Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote:

 Anyone got an recommendations of such that are known to work? I don’t know 
 enough about the signalling layer of 10Gb to know if it’s even a going 
 concern with only one direction of light flowing through it.
 
 You'd probably be best with a cheap switch with 2x 10G on it.. see what you 
 can find on ebay. Just install one SR and one LR optic and pass everything 
 through transparently.
 
 Technically you ought to do it at Layer1 with transponders but the switch is 
 likely cheaper and easier…

This might not work reliably unless you can turn off learning.

So what i did was break out both directions into an Extreme switch (with 
learning turned off on 2 vlans) and use ACLs to match the traffic i wanted into 
individual GigEs, bending those back into a 6500 with MPLS pseudowires, 
avoiding the need for too much transmission. But this was because i wanted 
different sets of traffic to go to different boxes.


-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] IPv6 tunnel brokers that provide BGP other than HE?

[Will Hargrave]

Hi Steve,

Since you guys just connected to LONAP, you have a wide selection of people to 
get native IPv6 transit and peering from! :-)

BGP edge is typically the easiest place to enable IPv6 to. I think every major 
transit provider can now supply v6.

I prefer to see v6 in v4 tunnels as strictly for test deployments. Native or 
nothing, imho.

Will


On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:38, Steve Housego steve.hous...@it-ps.com wrote:

 I've also recently been looking into this and the only one that I'm aware of 
 that will take BGP is http://tb.netassist.ua
 
 I found the above from a list on wikipedia;
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_tunnel_brokers
 
 Please do share if you find a suitable peer.
 
 Steve Housego
 ITPS Ltd
 
 -Original Message-
 From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk 
 [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Wojciech Lesiak
 Sent: 22 February 2013 16:19
 To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
 Subject: [uknof] IPv6 tunnel brokers that provide BGP other than HE?
 
 Hello,
 
 Neither of my  upstream providers offer direct ipv6.I n the meantime, we have 
 a tunnel with BGP to HE announcing my/48, but I am looking for redundancy.
 Is there anyone else out there offering services like Hurricane Electric?
 
 Regards,
 
 Wojciech Lesiak
 WL2408-RIPE
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] Passive fibre taps

[Will Hargrave]

On 14 Feb 2013, at 16:52, Ronan Mullally ro...@iol.ie wrote:
 As most people pointed out, these are pretty simple devices.  There aren't
 any bells to press or whistles to blow other tham making sure you have
 enough light to play with.
 
 The taps we've got a present work fine, my main criteria for future ones
 will be to encourage easy/neat and tidy patching.

You can buy the splitter devices themselves extremely cheaply. If the box you 
need isn't available, i'd be inclined to just build them into a 1U patchpanel 
or similar with fibre couplers.

Re: [uknof] [Fwd: [dns-operations] Fwd: [pacnog] Verisign's Patent Application for the Transfer of DNSSEC Domains]

[Will Hargrave]

On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:25, Brandon Butterworth bran...@bogons.net wrote:

 No - we just won't use DNSSEC!
 Just don't use Verisign.


All this hyperbole is smart and funny and all but that's not how software / 
business method patents work...

Re: [uknof] Go daddy what happened

[Will Hargrave]

On 6 Oct 2012, at 05:29, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 but even if they didn't have RR how do they get into a situation where a 
 router starts switching in software. RR is a red herring in this failure 
 scenario even with full mesh this failure would still have happened.
  root cause is somewhere a wad of routes turned a lot of silicon into 
 something useless. 
 does anyone know what kit this was?

These sorts of designs are common in DC networks now, with increasing use of l3 
to the edge. 

The key thing here is to keep your internet edge/core separated from your DC 
network.

Great preso here from Microsoft:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog55/abstracts.php?pt=MTk0MiZuYW5vZzU1nm=nanog55


-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] IPv6 Matrix results for August 2012

[Will Hargrave]

On 11 Sep 2012, at 22:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

 Maybe Rio will have V6 - by then there might actually be a market for it I 
 suspect though digging the transportation tunnel to the park is far higher on 
 the minds of the organising committee. 
 
 I wish everyone working on the Rio games as good fortune as we had on the 
 London games.

Not 100% good fortune - who remembers this olympic-related disaster? :-)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mogwai_83/5751106858/

Will

Re: [uknof] Pirate Bay Block

[Will Hargrave]

On 1 May 2012, at 16:24, Neil J. McRae wrote:
 Whilst I personally believe that these solutions don't work as a standalone 
 option I think we also need to remember that  many if not all of the people 
 downloading stuff via TPB are actually breaking the law.


Are you actually sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988#Criminal_offences

Whilst we can't expect a TV advert (…'you wouldn't steal a car'…) to hope to 
educate users on the between tort and criminal law, we should be aware of the 
difference ourselves before making such blanket statements.

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303