Re: Cox Communications Peering

[Conley Bone]

Someone suggested I rephrase my question...

Does anyone have a contact at Cox for *paid* peering?  I realize I am 
not going to get settlement free peering with Cox, but I have a need to 
reduce the number of hops between my network and theirs to shorten the 
distance between some of my customers that are on the Cox network.


On 3/3/15 8:08 PM, Conley Bone wrote:

Anyone have a contact with Cox for peering?
I have used their peering address, but don't get a reply.

Thanks,
Conley


--
Conley Bone
Newroads Telecom 
300 Towson Ave.
Fort Smith, AR 72901
479-424-1674

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Lamar Owen]

On 03/03/2015 08:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're
saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver
that in WiFi and LTE?
For consumers to have choice, there must be an available alternative 
that is affordable.

Re: Cox Communications Peering

[Aled Morris]

Generic advice...  I'd be more inclined to find someone who already peers
with them, who can sell you partial transit; especially if they can hand
this to you at a location where this peering happens.

Aled

On 4 March 2015 at 14:51, Conley Bone  wrote:

> Someone suggested I rephrase my question...
>
> Does anyone have a contact at Cox for *paid* peering?  I realize I am not
> going to get settlement free peering with Cox, but I have a need to reduce
> the number of hops between my network and theirs to shorten the distance
> between some of my customers that are on the Cox network.
>
> On 3/3/15 8:08 PM, Conley Bone wrote:
>
>> Anyone have a contact with Cox for peering?
>> I have used their peering address, but don't get a reply.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Conley
>>
>
> --
> Conley Bone
> Newroads Telecom 
> 300 Towson Ave.
> Fort Smith, AR 72901
> 479-424-1674
>

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Chuck Church  wrote:
> Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, 
> figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up.  For the most part, 
> uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of 
> the ) public.  Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then 
> expect it to take x amount of time.  Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 
> minutes.  Everyone expects that wait.  Sending a large email attachment, you 
> hit send, and then get back to doing something else.  There just aren't that 
> many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload 
> performance.

But In the bufferbloated era, your upload just trashed he network for
everyone else on the link.

https://gettys.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/bufferbloat-demonstration-videos/

>  On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos 
> or watching Netflix.  Thus the high speed download.  Honesty, I'm willing to 
> bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download 
> data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day.  For average 
> users, probably much more than 10x.  Why some folks are insisting upload is 
> vital just can't be true for normal home users.
> Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't 
> typical.

A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a
kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common.
And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device
per person nowadays.

Small businesses (currently) have it worse, if any of the users try to
combine these things.

> Chuck
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Scott Helms  wrote:
>>
>> I don't know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thumb
>> drives.
>
> I think he was trying to point out that most school libraries, and their
> computer labs, open before classes start.  Ice never heard of a school
> deadline that was actually in the middle of the night, so if you're working
> on a paper at night it's because it's due the next day.
>
>>
>> Well kids will be kids.
>>
>
> Very true :)
>
>>
>> Yep.  The assumption that because you are sending from home it is
>> not time critical is absolutely bogus.  Upstream speeds really are
>> just as important as downstream speeds.  It just that it is not
>> normally needed as much of the time.
>
> This assertion is counter to the choices that consumers are making.  Forget
> about the access technology and it's symmetry or asymmetry for a moment and
> consider the growth of WiFi in the home, which is highly asymmetrical
> because clients have much lower power output and most often 0 dB gain
> antennas at 2.4 and 5.8.  The point is that a great percentage of the
> traffic we see is from asymmetric sources even on symmetrical broadband
> connections.
> The other thing to consider is that LTE is asymmetrical and for the same
> reasons as WiFi.
>
> For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're
> saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver
> that in WiFi and LTE?  In the WiFi case they're taking a symmetrical
> connection to their home and making it asymmetrical.  I can make a home
> WiFi network operate more symmetrically by putting in multiple APs but very
> few consumers take that step.
>
> I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we
> have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an
> upload rate of 5mbps or less.  A just over 20% have an average upload rate
> of 1mbps.
>
> BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that we think this is a
> huge problem, because consumers don't separate the performance of the in
> home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and we need to
> dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase customer
> satisfaction.

+10! If you would like to talk to other researchers poking deeply into
these fronts, also equipped with large data sets and some rapidly
evolving analysis tools, please talk to me offlist.
>>
>> Mark
>> --
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Nick Hilliard]

On 04/03/2015 16:26, Dave Taht wrote:
> A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a
> kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common.
> And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device
> per person nowadays.

and $kid running a bittorrent hub, maxing out bandwidth in both directions.

Nick

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Dave Taht]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 16:26, Dave Taht wrote:
>> A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a
>> kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common.
>> And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device
>> per person nowadays.
>
> and $kid running a bittorrent hub, maxing out bandwidth in both directions.

Honestly, if you dramatically improve uplink and downlink latencies by
adopting fair queueing + aqm on the cpe and headend - even bittorrent
becomes a lot less of a problem. Home networks get slower, but not
unusable. Really thorough paper on this:

http://perso.telecom-paristech.fr/~drossi/paper/rossi14comnet-b.pdf

While I do have some detailed data on torrent's behavior under
fq_codel now, I haven't got it together enough to publish, (the above
work is lagging behind). These days I basically just say that stuff in
IW10 slow start (e.g. web traffic) punches (bittorrent) uTP traffic
(no IW10) aside, the FQ bits in fq_codel make everything else work
pretty well on low rate traffic like videoconferencing/voip/dns/web in
general, the aqm bits keep overall queue links low on any fat flows,
and the only major problem  remain is torrent using IW10 over tcp
inadvertently while competing with other single stream download/upload
traffic.

You get your edge device configured right, and you're golden, no
matter how many darn geeky kids you have.

http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014_05_01_archive.html

Admittedly a little classification can help, on torrent, and I
certainly regard the default number of peers (6-50) to be a bit much.

You don't need to "just believe" me, please feel free to try what is
in openwrt barrier breaker and chaos calmer. I never notice what the
kids are doing on my link anymore, nor do they notice me.

> Nick
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb

Looking some one from advance technical help from Godaddy

[Grzegorz Dabrowski]

Hi,

As in subject because I'm bashing my head against first line of support 
and they said I'm wrong good bye. So would somebody be so kind and write 
me privately (It's about GLUE record and where they came from)



Many Thanks,
--
Greg

Re: optical gear cooling requirements

[Ricky Beam]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:52:44 -0500, Martin Hannigan   
wrote:

Remember the Ascend MAX TNT and the sideways left-right airflow?

...

Indeed I do. I see you've heard the story of PSINet melting components as  
well.


We used USR(3Com) TotalControl hardware: vertical venting. The chimney  
effect was impressive. (65F in, 100+ -- sometimes 120 -- out.)


(I've complained for over a decade about $DAYJOB building crap with  
side-to-side venting.)


--Ricky

Re: optical gear cooling requirements

[Jay Hennigan]

On 3/4/15 13:04, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:52:44 -0500, Martin Hannigan 
> wrote:
>> Remember the Ascend MAX TNT and the sideways left-right airflow?
> ...
> 
> Indeed I do. I see you've heard the story of PSINet melting components
> as well.
> 
> We used USR(3Com) TotalControl hardware: vertical venting. The chimney
> effect was impressive. (65F in, 100+ -- sometimes 120 -- out.)

We used Livingston Portmaster 3 back in the day. Front to back
ventilation, ran cool as a cucumber, plug it in and it just worked.
Awesome gear until Lucent bought the company to kill the product in
favor of their Ascend TNT space heaters.

-- 
--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

RE: optical gear cooling requirements

[Naslund, Steve]

I remember that there was an Ascend DSLAM built on the same chassis and it was 
collocated by someone into Ameritech central offices.  Ameritech shut them all 
down saying that there was no way, no how that the device could be NEBS 
compliant.  I don't know how that fight ever turned out, they were not ours.  
Side to side airflow is really bad news.  Even with vertical you could at least 
mount some kind of baffles and lose a few Us. With side to side it is really 
hard to find a way to redirect air with the flanges in the way.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

> Remember the Ascend MAX TNT and the sideways left-right airflow?
>...

RE: optical gear cooling requirements

[Naslund, Steve]

>> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:52:44 -0500, Martin Hannigan 
>> 
>> wrote:
>>> Remember the Ascend MAX TNT and the sideways left-right airflow?
>> ...
>> 
>> Indeed I do. I see you've heard the story of PSINet melting components 
>> as well.
>> 
>> We used USR(3Com) TotalControl hardware: vertical venting. The chimney 
>> effect was impressive. (65F in, 100+ -- sometimes 120 -- out.)

TotalControl stuff was a tank but to get the density you need, you had to give 
them "TotalControl" of all of your rack space.

>We used Livingston Portmaster 3 back in the day. Front to back ventilation, 
>ran cool as a cucumber, plug it in and it just worked.
>Awesome gear until Lucent bought the company to kill the product in favor of 
>their Ascend TNT space heaters.

Yep, we called them the "Livingstones" because they were stone age stuff but 
would never die.  We had TONS is issues with the Ascend stuff.  On the Ascend 
Max stuff we had a big problem with their power supplies blowing up.  After 
lots of research we found the same third party supplier and ordered the same 
voltage with twice the current capacity and had no more problems.  They refused 
to acknowledge that the power supplies were sized too small even after we 
proved it by replacing them with third party stuff.

We preferred the TotalControl stuff but in the days of the modem standards 
wars, certain modems worked better with Ascend and some with USR so we 
maintained some of both.  We were in firmware fix hell on both the USRs and the 
Ascends for a period of years.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Re: optical gear cooling requirements

[Nick Hilliard]

On 04/03/2015 21:33, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> We used Livingston Portmaster 3 back in the day. Front to back
> ventilation, ran cool as a cucumber, plug it in and it just worked.
> Awesome gear until Lucent bought the company to kill the product in
> favor of their Ascend TNT space heaters.

Ascend kit was a horror to deal with.  I ran isdn dialin on some of their
lower end kit at one stage.  It only worked because I put it on a power
timer which power-cycled it twice a day.

+1 on portmasters, though.

Nick

Re: optical gear cooling requirements

[Colin Johnston]

energis pop the cab doors would not open due to heat warping after loaded with 
two tnt max

colin

Sent from my iPhone

> On 4 Mar 2015, at 21:04, "Ricky Beam"  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:52:44 -0500, Martin Hannigan  
>> wrote:
>> Remember the Ascend MAX TNT and the sideways left-right airflow?
> ...
> 
> Indeed I do. I see you've heard the story of PSINet melting components as 
> well.
> 
> We used USR(3Com) TotalControl hardware: vertical venting. The chimney effect 
> was impressive. (65F in, 100+ -- sometimes 120 -- out.)
> 
> (I've complained for over a decade about $DAYJOB building crap with 
> side-to-side venting.)
> 
> --Ricky

Re: optical gear cooling requirements

[Matthew Crocker]

> 
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> 
> On 04/03/2015 21:33, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>> We used Livingston Portmaster 3 back in the day. Front to back
>> ventilation, ran cool as a cucumber, plug it in and it just worked.
>> Awesome gear until Lucent bought the company to kill the product in
>> favor of their Ascend TNT space heaters.
> 
> Ascend kit was a horror to deal with.  I ran isdn dialin on some of their
> lower end kit at one stage.  It only worked because I put it on a power
> timer which power-cycled it twice a day.
> 
> +1 on portmasters, though.
> 

My ISP grew up on Livingston Postmaster 2e & 3s.  I even had a Postmaster 4 for 
a bit.   Lucent swapped that out for an APX 8000.I still have an Ascend TNT 
running the remainder of my modem pool. 8 Active users on it at the moment.

Recently won a state contract for IP services.  The very first order was for a 
chunk of dialup accounts so the Department of Conservation and Recreation could 
call in from their firepowers.

It just keeps chugging away in a forgotten corner of my datacenter.

> Nick
> 
> 

Re: Multiple Spanning Tree Instance 0

[Tom Hill]

On 27/02/15 11:03, Chris Marget wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Graham Johnston 
> wrote:
> 
>> > We are planning a migration from Rapid PVST+ to Multiple Spanning Tree to
>> > better support a mixed vendor environment.  My question today is about MST
>> > Instance 0.  In practice do you map any VLANs there other than VLAN 1?
> 
> I'd hoped to see some responses to this thread because I recently had some
> awkward moments with a vendor after discovering that their switch wouldn't
> allow me to map VLANs to STP instances in an arbitrary manner. I took the
> position that the implementation was faulty, their position was more along
> the lines of "Well, why would you want to do that anyway?"
> 
> Addressing the question directly, I know of two switching platforms which
> force the operator to map VLANs other than 1 into instance 0.
> 
> Some Broadcom FASTPATH based platforms fail to mention VLAN 4094 in any
> 'show spanning-tree' commands, but always maps it to instance 0.
> 
> The implementation of MST available on Cumulus Linux only supports instance
> 0, maps all VLANs there. My Cumulus experience is a bit dated, this may
> have changed in the last year.

Every vendor of switches has, for a multitude of reasons that I don't
want to have to list, implemented VLAN mapping to instances in MSTP
differently.

Furthermore, if you do manage to have all of your vendors converge (I've
done so with 5 different implementations) when it comes to CHANGING
those mappings after things go live, you'll wish you never bothered. As
soon as the configuration hash differs, you'll fallback to the CIST anyway.

The only sane way to do STP today, is to run MSTP and leave everything
in instance 0 (configure nothing if you can get away with it). Using
only the CIST allows you to interact with RSTP very well. Smarter
protocols exist for making better use of your bandwidth. (i.e. ECMP,
LACP, etc.)

As for migrating away from PVST+: break the loops and config the devices
over to MSTP one by one. You should make sure that the connected switch
-- singular -- isn't going to down the interface at the sight of MSTP
BPDUs, and expect a short period of listening & learning, but it should
in theory make for only small amounts of frame loss as it converges. I'd
start with your root bridge and work your way outward.

HTH

-- 
Tom