Re: Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T SFP+ transciever
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:21:20AM +, Thomas Maufer wrote: > IIRC, it takes about 13W to maintain a 10GBASET connection. That's a lot of > power to drain from a tiny board that wasn't designed to supply such loads. > > ~tom > > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:32:58 PM, Phil Bedard > wrote: > > Pluggable SFP+ transceiver. There are plenty of fixed config 10GBase-T > devices out there. Power/space in a SFP+ package just isn't there yet. > > Phil Tom, I believe the newer 10GBase-T standard is between 1.5 and 4W per port depending on the cable length, much better (colder!) than it was. You will also get slightly increased latency with 10GBase-T vs SFP+ -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: Need trusted NTP Sources
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Anthony Williams wrote: > > With a quick and easy mod, another option for $35 is a Sure Electronics > GPS board. > > GPS: http://www.sureelectronics.net/goods.php?id=99 > > Mod: http://www.satsignal.eu/ntp/Sure-GPS.htm > > -Alby > > > On 2/7/2014 1:14 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > Having a number of NTP servers will help you detect false tickers which may > > be critical. > > > > If you want something that is "cheap" as in you for your home, I can > > recommend this: ~$350 w/ antenna, etc.. The SureGPS is decent fun but i've had this device lose sync / crap out randomly as well. I am using the Garmin 18X-LVC + a low power server with pretty good success. (Requires PPS soldering + USB pigtail for power, pretty easy mod) [seitz@ntp-gps ~]$ ntpq -p remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter == clock.fmt.he.ne .CDMA. 1 u 53 64 377 76.6920.976 0.291 time-a.timefreq .ACTS. 1 u 39 64 377 48.140 -0.896 0.348 time-b.timefreq .ACTS. 1 u 56 64 377 48.800 -0.986 0.430 time-b.nist.gov .ACTS. 1 u 48 64 3777.3333.630 0.562 oGPS_NMEA(1) .PPS.0 l4 16 3770.0000.002 0.000 * GPS is on a http://us.shuttle.com/barebone/Models/XS36VL.html - chosen for the dual external serial ports. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:18:08PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > I echo the 'good luck' and ditto on the experience. > > There's a lot of people anxious to get IPv6 on FIOS, but there seems to > be precious little movement over there. > > * David Hubbard (dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com) wrote: > > Good luck. We've been bitching at our sales rep for years, as we've added > > circuits, and haven't gotten even empty promises; just the same endless > > Verizon BS about "it's being tested in select markets" although no one has > > ever been able to prove that to be the case. You definitely get static > > IP's on business connections; that's just a matter of how much you pay and > > how many you need. > > > > David Another ditto :) I think they are Defnitely milking their highway robbery IPV4 allocation costs. Confidence is low for IPV6 from FIOS anytime soon. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: Residential CPE suggestions
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 12:13:34AM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Deepak Jain wrote: > > > > Any recommendation for a residential CPE that supports dual SFP uplinks > > (WAN) with either a routing protocol or a resilient Ethernet solution? > > Ideally, LAN port should be 100/1000 CAT5. I've looking at Mikrotik, > > Draytek and others. Looking something in a lower three-digit price point. > > Otherwise I might have to do a pair of media converters on a copper > > switch/router that can do it (ugly!). > > > > Thanks in advance! > > (No personal experience, but...) > > Have you looked at the EdgeRouter Pro? 2 SFP links, > routing capability. http://www.ubnt.com/edgemax +1, hands down one of the better platforms for the money today. I have 3 ERLites in service and I know the pro is obviously a larger more powerful version so you should have pretty good success. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: Credit to Digital Ocean for ipv6 offering
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:35:17AM -0400, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote: > Not impressed at all. DO customers have been asking for IPv6 for > around two years now with responses of, "It's coming". Now they are > getting press because they are rollingit our ONLY in their Singapore > market which is its newest data center. Those of us here in the US are > still getting the same ole, "It's coming" responses. > > There are other VPS's out there that are already givinf IPv6 > addresses. I have two with www.peakservers.com where I get one IPv4 > and 8 IPv6 addresses. > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:06:49 -0700 > Ca By wrote: > > I have not tried it out, this makes it look like DO beat Azure to > >market > > on ipv6 > > > > http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/17/digitalocean-ipv6/ > > > > Speaking of Azure and ip adresses > > > > http://www.pcworld.com/article/2363580/need-to-move-to-ipv6-highlighted-as-microsoft-runs-out-of-us-address-space.html Agreed as well. It isn't hard to dual stack, maybe they bought some junk gear that has issues in the older datacenters? :) Howevveeerrr they are also the cheapest thing going (other than Vultr.com) so you also get what you pay for :) -- Bryan G. Seitz
Verizon FIOS troubleshooting
All, Recently began seeing things like this to the default GW from inside and outside the FIOS network. Called tech support but all they could do was put a ticket in for the NetEng team. http://pastie.org/4800421 http://www.bsd-unix.net/smokeping/smokeping.cgi?target=people.bryan The pings jumping from an avg of 3ms to 80 is what gets me. Also my downloading / uploading on my segment doesn't seem to affect the latency jumps on the default GW either way (when testing from my COLO). Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated!
Re: Verizon FiOS IPv6
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 01:35:15AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Romeo Czumbil wrote: > > Does anybody have any idea on when Verizon FiOS is turning up IPv6? > > (dual-stack) > > looking at the archives is helpful in this question/answer process.. > but to save you the digging: "When there's ice in the devil's house" > (essentially) Yeah... although they seem to be releasing a new residential gateway that does IPV6 as well as 802.11AC. Maybe this is a good sign ? :) http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Preps-Launch-of-New-FiOS-Gateway-130273 -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: OT - Small DNS "appliances" for remote offices.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 08:23:37PM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > "Robert Webb" writes: > > > What I do not like about the Pi is the network port is on the USB > > bus and thus limited to USB speeds.?? > > Pretty much all of the ARM boards have their ethernet ports on HSIC > channels (480mbit/sec, no-transceiver-phy USB for on-board use - > maximum length is 10cm). > Agreed the long pole at a small site for DNS won't be the USB bus. Might I recommend the following: odroid-c1 + eMMC module + RTC battery + case + power adapter. Should run you about $75 *AND* wouldn't be bad for running NTP as well. The gig-e port on the C1 has been observed to push 405Mbps TX and 940Mbps+ RX via iperf. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: OT - Small DNS "appliances" for remote offices.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:18:43AM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Bryan Seitz writes: > > > odroid-c1 + eMMC module + RTC battery + case + power adapter. > > Should run you about $75 *AND* wouldn't be bad for running NTP as > > well. > > I haven't looked into the details of the clock, so "wouldn't be bad" > is probably true, "notably good", well, that would be a task for > someone with experience doing clock benchmarking and who can describe > MAVAR without looking it up. > > > The gig-e port on the C1 has been observed to push 405Mbps TX and > > 940Mbps+ RX via iperf. > > The 405 Mbps for TX. I've seen around 30 Mbyte/sec on single stream > TCP RX. Got 99.5 Mbyte/sec from a Mac Mini in the same subnet so > that's not a limit of the host on the other end of the benchmark. > > I call shenanigans on the 940 Mbps iperf number though. The HSIC bus > is only 480 Mbit/sec. Two pints of beer in a one pint glass would be > some trick. http://dn.odroid.com/homebackup/201411241452444193.jpg I don't think it lives on the 480Mbit/sec limited bus here. [ 3] local 192.168.1.4 port 53391 connected with 192.168.1.21 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 488 MBytes 409 Mbits/sec [ 4] local 192.168.1.4 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.21 port 34581 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.09 GBytes 939 Mbits/sec -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: apt-mirror near ashburn
mirror.symnds.com has debian/ubuntu and is in Ashburn on Above.net FYI. On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:51:31PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > there's also the unfortunate case of: "My traffic to the selected > mirror is over the 'expensive' transit port, why can't I use my SFP's > mirror over there on the left?" > > setting the mirror to a specific one means some fragility, but > determinism is nice. > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Robert Drake wrote: > > > > On 10/7/2013 11:16 AM, Michael Shuler wrote: > >> > >> Ubuntu != Debian > > > > http://askubuntu.com/questions/157840/why-does-apt-get-fail-to-resolve-the-mirror > > > > Apparently mirrors.ubuntu.com picks a mirror based on geographical location > > using lines like this: > > > > |deb mirror://mirrors.ubuntu.com/mirrors.txt precise main restricted > > universe multiverse > > deb mirror://mirrors.ubuntu.com/mirrors.txt precise-updates main restricted > > universe multiverse > > deb mirror://mirrors.ubuntu.com/mirrors.txt precise-backports main > > restricted universe multiverse > > deb mirror://mirrors.ubuntu.com/mirrors.txt precise-security main restricted > > universe multiverse > > > > I'm not sure how good it is at picking a mirror though. ubuntu seems to > > make a mess of the sources.list > > file and makes it scary to change. I always leave it with the mirror I > > chose during install. > > > > This: > > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SourcesList > > > > Says you can pick "Select Best Server" from a menu. That would probably > > work okay if it's not a headless box. > > | > > -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:13:38PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, David Hubbard > wrote: > > We have fios for some office locations and can't get jack out of our > > sales rep; just the same well it's being tested bs. It's as if the only > > ... snip... > > > Fios folks have absolutely no clue. It's really quite annoying. Even a > > wait 24 months would be better than nothing at all. > > I think the word you are looking for here is 'shameful', not 'annoying'. The only luck I've had with IPV6 on FIOS is via he.net :( You would think in 2014 they would have their act together, even Comcast has deployed it pretty widely. -- Bryan G. Seitz