Re: Token ring? topic hijack: was Re: Mystery open source switching
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 11:21 -0400, Greg Whynott wrote: > you recently converted from token ring to ethernet? i had no idea > there was still token ring networks out there, or am i living in a > bubble? Look in your car... If you have a recent vehicle (especially one with integrated nav, multimedia radio and comms), it is likely that the system interconnect is handled over Media Oriented System Transport (MOST) which is a variation on traditional token-ring. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Connectivity status for Egypt
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:49 -0800, Roy wrote: > On 1/27/2011 9:36 PM, Craig Labovitz wrote: > > > > And to add to this thread, an graph of Egyptian Internet traffic across a > > large number of geographically / topologically diverse providers yesterday > > (Jan 27): > > > > http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5395027368_7d97b74c0b_b.jpg > > > > Traffic drops to a handful of megabits following the withdrawal of most > > Egyptian ISP BGP routes. > > > Moral of the story: Separate facts from assumptions and guesses. I did > some Google searches and that region has had large scale disruptions in > the past. Several cables follow the same path to the Suez canal and > were hit. I guess this begs the question of whether or not we're seeing actual layer1 going down or just the effects of mass BGP withdrawals. Are we seeing lights out on fibre links or just peering sessions going down? Both could still point to a coordinated intentional blackout by the Egyptian gov't though. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Connectivity status for Egypt
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 11:27 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > I think it does not matter. Censorship is censorship. (So much for "routing > around it".) Obviously for the effected, the effects are the same. |8^) However, I'm interested in knowing about the level of fine control that the Egyptian government may have exercised. I think the subtle implications on the relationships between operators and governments bear some fine distinction in such a case. Also I think there will eventually be different consequences between an indiscriminate mass disconnect of all telecom and network services and a selective one where some of the infrastructure is left intact but under tighter control... especially if internal reach is still selectively available while external reach has been disabled. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Need ARIN routing registry help
On 07/03/14 14:23, Meshier, Brent wrote: > Already spoke to Merit, their response "That's what ARIN is telling us. They > correct their Routing Registry, ours will change to match" What does the source attribute on the object say? If it's RADB then Merit should be able to help you get the objects cleaned up. But if the source points to ARIN then the original object data is stored in the ARIN IRR you'll have to bug ARIN to get the object cleaned. The NRTM at whois.radb.net should pick up the changes. > -Original Message- > > On 07/03/2014 22:12, Meshier, Brent wrote: >> Level3 won't let us advertise our netblock because RADB shows it owned >> by Telkom South Africa, but it's clearly assigned to us by ARIN. I've >> raised a question with ARIN, could really use someone there that could >> expedite. On that note, when ARIN re-assigns networks, shouldn't they >> clear out related entries in the routing registry? > > Because they don't control entries in the Merit RADB and hassling them won't > get anything removed from there. > > Why not send an email to radb-supp...@merit.edu instead, and ask them to > delete the entry in whois.radb.net? > > Nick > > > --- Please refer to http://www.amherst.com/amherst-email-disclaimer/ for > important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. > -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: personal backup
On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 14:12 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > charles skipped what i see as a highly critical question, personal > backup. Very good point. For my laptops, nearline field storage includes my laptop's drive and a portable external drive. Online and nearline home storage is a network attached storage array running proprietary X-RAID (like RAID-5) with a hot-spare drive. All my machines (desktops, servers and laptops) are set to perform regular backups to the NAS. Offline backups are done to a series of external USB HDs that are rotated into place for nightly incremental and weekly full backups. Current retention schema is 4 weeks of backups with a one week offsite physical rotation (performed monthly to a safety deposit box). I'm at the moment trying to figure out a good way for doing streaming backups to an offsite DC. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: personal backup
On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 09:13 -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> We used to use DVD's for off-site backup, but that's not been the best
> of solutions. I've been experimenting with external hard drives but
> I am less comfortable with them; I've seen too many drives fail. The
> idea of letting them sit for awhile and praying they spin up later
> bothers me. :-)
I can understand that. That's why I use a rotation and retention system
as well as two NASes syncing to one-another with the backups being
performed from the second NAS. I treat them like I used to treat tape.
The onsites contain nightly incrementals as well as weekly full dumps.
These drives are rotated every week. Every month a copy of the latest
full dump is copied to another set of drives which are sent to offsite
storage. I keep two copies offsite. To implement this, I need a
minimum of nine USB drives. I actually have 10 so I can have an extra
one onsite as a hardware replacement-spare.
OnlineNearlineOnsite Offsite
Storage Backup Backup Backup
--
[USB7]<--{[USB5],[USB6]}
| ^
V |
[USB8] |
| |
V |
[NAS1]>>>>>[NAS2]>>>>>[USB0]>>>{[USB3],[USB4]}
|
V
[USB1]
|
V
[USB2]
Nothing's perfect. There's still risk but there's some amount of
assurance.
--
/*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+
| Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | |
| for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS |
+==*/
Re: NANOGers home data centers - What's in your closet?
On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 13:11 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote: > So, there you go, a way to star 8 8-port switches off a central switch > with the remote switches needing no power. This allows UPS'ing the > central switch only, while knowing they will all stay up. In some cases, that's not always a great idea. Consider the situation whereby a remote "site" served by a remote switch has two or more network devices that rely on another in a local fashion... such as in the case of a NAS or SAN serving a local workgroup of machines. If you have to take down the central switch for whatever reason then you cut power to the remote switch and all the associated end-station lose local network connectivity as well. Of course you can always resort to manually plugging in the remote switches. Can those GS108T-200 perform auto-cutover to AC power? That would be ideal. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: NANOGers home data centers - What's in your closet?
On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 19:07 -0700, Matthew Petach wrote: > Of course, if he had local AC power available, it would kinda defeat one of > the points of having PoE, which is to be able to put switches where there > isn't a convenient AC drop to begin with. ^_^; True. Leo's point of being able to centrally provide UPS has merit. I'm just a big believer in minimizing outage effect scope as much as possible mainly because I know for a fact that if I took down my house's central switch, my wife while understanding why she can't reach outside her office would be quite annoyed that everything in her office was unreachable. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: ONT diagnostics (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?)
On Wed 30 Jan 2013 16:58:28 PST, John Osmon wrote: Does anyone make an ONT with a blinky light that you can toggle on/off remotely? It'd be great to say: Go look at the "it works" light. If the remote tech can control the light, the end user would have a better idea that the upstream provider really *was* in control -- rather than trying to placate the caller. I don' know of any but that's a great idea. Sorta like a UID light on a server... -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Headscratcher of the week
On 31/05/13 17:30, Brett Frankenberger wrote: How can you possibly have consistent increase in latency like that? I'd love to hear theories (or offers of beer, your choice!). Variation of the buffer filling theory is that there's some QoS/traffic-shaping going on which is causing your ping packets to get classed and policed into an ever depleting buffer pool. I wonder what would happen to the pattern if you reset the interface. |8^) -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Laptop with reverse VGA
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 23:23 +0200, Jussi Peltola wrote: > The display would require a scaler/processor/ADC/TMDS receiver, which are > found in every standalone LCD. This stuff consumes multiple watts (it > becomes hot enough to cook itself in a few years after all) so it will > not appear in a laptop any time soon. I think the form-factour is already there. I have a Motorola Atrix smartphone. It's available with a laptop-dock unit. This is essentially a USB hub and display. The display is connected by outputting from the phone's HDMI port. The rest of the input/output device (keyboard and trackpad) are seen as USB connected devices and interfaced via the phone's USB port (Atrix supports USB host mode). Essentially, this laptop dock is what people are talking about except for a generic host instead of for a phone. We would want to expose the HDMI input generically and probably with an additional VGA input. Of course there are also VGA-HDMI converters. Anyone wanna ring up Motorola to see if they're interesting in adapting the Atrix laptop-dock technology? -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: How do I handle a supplier that delivered a faulty product?
On 25/11/14 09:39, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > > Before anyone comes back with something like "So if I buy an entry level > car, but I expect it to perform like a high-end sports car, does that > mean I can sue the entry-level car maker for false advertising when it > doesn't perform like a high-end sports car?" No, it doesn't. There are > reasonable expectations. Expecting an entry-level car to perform like a > high-end sports car isn't reasonable. Expecting a GPON modem to be able > to forward wire-speed gigabit Ethernet in this day and age is perfectly > reasonable. Actually, this situation is as if you bought a low-end car that claims it can go 60MPH just like a high-end sports car which also claims to go 60MPH. But when the low-end car fails to achieve 60MPH and in fact blows up when you try to reach that speed, you do have grounds to cry false advertising. According to the spec-sheet pointed to by the OP: "GPON Rx - Downstream data rate 2.488Gbps" So the fact that the device fails to survive much less achieve the claimed rate is, I would expect, false advertisement... especially when the manufacturer acknowledges the discrepancy and refuses to take measures to remedy the situation. At this point, the OP may be at risk to his customers as well so it would be really in his best interest to pursue this as far as possible which may include legal action. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ATT wireless IPv6
On 15/07/15 04:54, Jared Mauch wrote: > Does anyone know what the story is here? They have some transparent proxies > for IPv4 traffic and I was wondering if they were to be IPv6 enabled soon or > if IPv6 will reach the handset. Hmmm... I'm seeing my rmnet1 interface on my Galaxy S5 as having an address out of the 2600:380:46ae::/38 space which is allocated to AT&T Mobility. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Network diagnostics for the end user
On 20/06/13 17:45, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > Are there any tools out there that we could give to our end users to help > diagnose network problems? We get a lot of "the Internet is slow" support > calls and it would be helpful if we had something that would run on the end > user's computer and help characterize the problem. We have central > monitoring system of course but that doesn't always give a complete > picture, as the problem could always be on the end user's computer - slow > hard drive, not enough memory, wrong name servers, etc. I personally like ICSI Netalyzr for identifying gross issues. http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/ -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: What to expect after a cooling failure
On 09/07/13 20:28, Erik Levinson wrote: For those who have gone through such events in the past, what can one expect in terms of long-term impact...should we expect some premature component failures? Does anyone have any stats to share? While others have already talked about what to look out for in terms of systems and drives, I haven't seen anyone mention things like your UPS batteries. Were they also heat-soaked? At one place I worked at, we lost a whole bank of batteries in the UPS room when it overheated. I think that was somewhere around a $95,000 replacement and required rush-delivery of a lot of SLAs from all over the place.
Re: Peering Exchange Configurations
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 11:02 -0500, Brad Fleming wrote: > 1) Is a private AS typically used for the exchange side of the session? Not in a typical public internet exchange. that said, there is no reason why one could not build an exchange point that uses private ASNs. One might do this for a specialised application of PPVPN peering partners but that is beyond what you are asking. > 2) Are RFC1918 IPs typically used for the p2p links into the exchange? No. Public IXPs will provide an address space for its participants to use. That said, once again, there might be some very specific non-public applications of exchange points which may use RFC1918 address space. > 3) Do peering exchanges typically remove their AS from the path > advertised to exchange participants? I'm assuming you are talking about routes exchanged via a route-server. Most moderm deployments of RSes do act transparently but in the past there have been cases where some exchange point participants did want to see the RS' ASN in the ASPATH. Merit's old RSes had the capbility to turn on or off transparency on a peer-by-peer basis. I am not sure about modern RS implementations. > 3a) If no: Do participants typically preference exchange-learned > routes over other sources? That is a matter of personal reference and religion. But in my experience at larger exchanges with bigger players, the RSes' routes are considered secondary and less preferred. > 4) Do exchanges typically support the following address families? >IPv4 Multicast >IPv6 Unicast >IPv6 Multicast IPv4 multicast and IPv6 unicast seems standard in modern IXPs but I'm not sure about IPv6 multicast. > In exchanges where a route server is employed: > 4) Do participants have a p2p link into a simple routing environment > then multi-hop to a route server? Not in modern exchange points. In some older ones this was the case but I think that's largely historic. > 5) I see that Bird, OpenBDGd, and Quagga are all options for route > server software. Does one of those packages stand out as the clear > current choice for production peering exchanges? I wouldn't say clear but BIRD seems to be gaining ground on the other two. There were some talk given at the last NANOG meeting in the route- servers track... http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/abstracts.php?pt=MTUxMyZuYW5vZzQ4&nm=nanog48 -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Mikrotik RouterOS
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 21:48 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: > On 12-4-2010 21:44, Gustavo Santos wrote: > > its was an old bug, that had been fixed for a while.. > > You should still keep in mind Mikrotik is just Linux, with all its > (dis)advantages, plus some scripts and weird CLI. That's like saying that a Juniper is just FreeBSD with a bunch of scripts and a weird CLI. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Stand alone voltage/etc monitoring?
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 17:57 -0700, Michael J McCafferty wrote: > I see there are probably some small UPSes ($400 or so) > that can report this info. Seems silly to buy UPSes to get that info. > > Is there a quick/small/handy/better way to get power quality info? If > so, what is it? I don't own the facility. I've looked at various inline power monitoring appliances solutions and honestly, most of them will cost more than a small UPS. The question is, where do you want to monitor the voltage? At the input side of the rack-PDU? Are your PDUs manageable? Do you want to monitor voltage to each device (output side of the PDU)? Or do you just want to sample monitor on the side (as opposed to inline) and fed from the same circuit feeding the input side of your PDUs assuming all your equipment/PDUs are receiving the same power quality? I monitor at the UPS for my home systems. My UPSes are APC brand. A SmartUPS 500 w/Web/SNMP card will run you about $350 to $400 and you poll them for input voltage and frequency. Here's a snapshot from a couple of years ago... I do have dirty power. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/464847907_c3038c21e4_o.png -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Software-based Border Router
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 21:45 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Yeah, because IOS and JUNOS don't have idiosyncrasies. :-) Not gonna argue with you on that one. However, the world has changed since the days where the chances of clueful unix systems engineering knowledge and clueful BGP routing knowledge was highly guaranteed to be found cohabitating in a single lifeform. You are far more likely to find that relatively speaking most network engineers have very little knowledge in unix systems engineering. This list may be an exception but I would gather that the bulk of the network engineering workforce are little more than power users (if that) when it comes to operating systems. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 07:06 +0100, Serge Radovcic wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5837LcDHfE Excellent production. Sometimes it's hard for those who have been so involved in maintaining the grounds to describe what the forest looks like to common folk. Perhaps as a followup to this video, you could make another one that explains some of the history of the IXP, how diverse they can be and how they are evolving to meet the demands of the next generation of content distribution and the distributed shared computing resources. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:55 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote: > > > Excellent production. > > ... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering > or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance > of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for > instance, is hardly mentioned). Well, yes. Obviously it is meant to highlight the roles of public exchanges. That much is obvious. And given the source of the production it would seem to be expected. It did touch on private interconnects although you're right to point out that it doesn't weigh in on the pros and cons of public vs private peering, shared switch fabric vs direct connections, etc. But in a 5 min video, I wouldn't expect it to nor would I expect it to be appropriate for its intended audience. I didn't think this was supposed to be a screen adaptation of Norton's peering whitepapers. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: BIRD vs Quagga
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 21:50 -0800, Joe Abley wrote: > On 2010-02-16, at 19:53, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: > > > There's significant theoretical work, backed up with lots of practical > > experience connecting a lot more nodes in real time in a lot more places > > than the Internet currently does, that posits that the control and > > forwarding plane should actually ALWAYS be separate, and control higher > > priority, so that state management converges faster than the dataflows. > > > > I'd like to see the countervailing, peer reviewed, references. > > I have no shortage of anecdotes where a non-trivial layer-2 topology > at an exchange point has left my router and provider X's router both > able to talk to a route server, but unable to talk to each other > directly. Since the NEXT_HOP on routes we each learnt from the route > server pointed at an address we couldn't talk to, the result was a > black hole. I have similar anecdotes... and I was on the side of running the route-servers. This gets to be a tough nut to crack especially if you happen to have multiple RSes on opposite ends of a layer2 failure (a case where intended redundancy resulted in unintended new failure modes). The best solution we came up with at the time was to add some control knobs to rsd in order to allow us to quickly take down the BGP session to the peer on the falsely advertising RS. Figuring out which third-party negotiated "pairwise peering" was being effected during a switch fabric breakage was done manually at the time and not all that accurate nor of course was it expedient. We attempted to automate that part without too much success. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: BIRD vs Quagga
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 23:03 -0800, Jake Khuon wrote: > The best solution we came up with at the time was to add some control > knobs to rsd in order to allow us to quickly take down the BGP session > to the peer on the falsely advertising RS. Sorry... this was poorly worded. We did not actually tear down the BGP sessions. I should have placed quotes around "BGP session". What we did was virtually nuked the "view" in the RS of the pairwise peering thus forcing a BGP withdrawal to the effected peers of the RS and hopefully leaving only valid third-party views intact. Again, the greatest problem was detection and modeling. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:20 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > Let's face reality. We have met the enemy and he is us. (Apologies to > Walt Kelly.) We, the network engineers simply kept ignoring IPv6 for > years after it was available. Almost all operating systems have been > IPv6 capable for at least five years and most much longer. Most > routers have been IPv6 ready for even longer. But we didn't move IPv6 > into services nor offer it to customers. As a result, it just sat > there. Code was not exercised and bugs were not found. Reasonable > transition mechanisms are nowhere to be seen, and the cost of fixing > this (or working around it) has grown to frightening proportions. Say it brother! The fact of the matter is that by and large, the operator community not only ignored IPv6 but many poo-poo'ed it and diminished any amount of support for it from the small contingent of those who were willing to progress its deployment. In the past there were claims that it was immature and flawed but for the most part no one really wanted to commit themselves to putting up or shutting up. Meanwhile clued and semi-clued users watching from sidelines could do nothing but play in a vacuum and yell in frustration as their providers ignore them as well. I speaking as a demoralised user personally gave up begging my provider for IPv6 connectivity. Yes, there's always tunnels but that's not the answer for real deployment. Remember how well tunnels worked out for multicast? As a result, we are in a situation today where we are now scrambling to do the things that should have evolved naturally. Worse than stale code is stale procedures and the lack of long-term growth and embracement. What this means is that while we once could have taken the chance and deployed a less than perfect technology, gotten early adopters and slowly progressed mass-adoption, we are now in a position that we have to undergo a crash-course in training and operational procedures. Beyond that, the user community will need to be educated and even more effort will need to be made in order to make things user-friendly. And because of the heightened need for more modern features as well as security, I might argue that we are relatively less prepared in our IPv6 development from a software standpoint than during the infancy of the protocol. It is often much easier for everyone involved if you slowly raise the bar rather than suddenly springing an Olympic level high-jump upon them. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: CRS-3
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:29 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > The only "wow" here is "wow, why did cisco hype how far behind they > are?" Because in some organisations, the only vendor that matters is Cisco. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: CRS-3
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 20:22 +, deles...@gmail.com wrote: > What happened to CRS-2? :) It exploded and was destroyed during construction. Parts of it were also recycled to build the next CRS. |8^) -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: CRS-3
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:02 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Jake Khuon wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:29 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > >> The only "wow" here is "wow, why did cisco hype how far behind they > >> are?" > > > > Because in some organisations, the only vendor that matters is > Cisco. > > Then why bother hyping at all? > > Anyone who needs even a significant fraction of 322 Tbps is not going > to ignore competitors. Come now. You know the answer to that. While technically true, by that logic, Cisco should never perform any press releases. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: CRS-3
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 18:45 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors. > > On Mar 9, 2010, at 17:31, Jake Khuon wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:02 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >> On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Jake Khuon wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:29 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >>> > >>>> The only "wow" here is "wow, why did cisco hype how far behind they > >>>> are?" > >>> > >>> Because in some organisations, the only vendor that matters is > >> Cisco. > >> > >> Then why bother hyping at all? > >> > >> Anyone who needs even a significant fraction of 322 Tbps is not going > >> to ignore competitors. > > > > Come now. You know the answer to that. While technically true, by > > that > > logic, Cisco should never perform any press releases. > > First, this wasn't a press release, this was an event they were hyping > for quite a while. Second, doing a press release is fine, but even > the most aggressive companies have a modicum of truth in their releases. > > If they said "look at our cool new router", one could overlook obvious > marketing BS like comparing to the T640 instead of the T1600. But > claiming to "revolutionize" the Internet while being afraid to compare > yourself to your chief competitor's flagship product is just pathetic. Again, that may be true but I think you give marketing in general more credit for credibility than actually exists. Pathetic or not, it happens and some people don't actually see it for the blatant undertruth that it is... especially those who have been blinded by the Cisco "light". We in this industry often forget that not everyone looks for dotted T's and crossed I's when it comes to detail. For whatever reason, most people don't directly challenge the spindoctors. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 07:46 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote: > Having worked both inside and outside the ISP industry, I wouldn't > necessarily trust a salesman to know a DSL from a leased line, let alone > IPv6 vs IPv4, nor to have remembered being asked about it before. > That's stuff for pre-sales engineers to handle, not the salesman. If IPv6 is being mentioned in mainstream news media including local and national TV news (which it has) then I would expect a salesperson of an ISP to also be somewhat knowledgeable enough to be able to able to at least spell it. And I agree with the previous poster that in this day and age, it is unlikely that the sales group of a global provider would not have encountered such a request. If anything, they should have been hit with those kinds of requests starting ten years ago. Perhaps that particular salesperson had not but he/she should have been briefed on it and should be familiar enough with deployment status to be able to talk intelligently and honestly with a potential customer. -- /*=====[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
