RE: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:03 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: [snip] > Fast Ether has always been set @ auto Just in case you missed it, I would echo Brielle's earlier advice: please try forcing both laptop and the FE it's plugged into to 100/Full, auto disabled,

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

Never mind control and what Comcast says about hard-coding speed and duplex! The question is: What happens when you set the int facing Comcast CPE to auto? Does the link even come up? *IF* the link comes up, can you ping your next-hop? If you can, leave auto-neg on despite what what Comcast may s

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: > > > A couple of questions - > > 1) What flavor of NPE are you using? > > NPE-G1 > > 2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2  OR is this a PA? > 3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop > to, on a sep

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

A couple of questions - 1) What flavor of NPE are you using? NPE-G1 2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2 OR is this a PA? 3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop to, on a separate PA in chassis? Laptop connected directly to router via slot 4 PA-F

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On 30/03/2012, at 12:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: > interface GigabitEthernet0/1 > description Comcast Inet Feed Metro E 20MB > bandwidth 10 > ip address 12.12.12.12 255.255.255.252 > no ip unreachables > no ip route-cache > load-interval 30 > duplex full > speed 100 > media-type rj45 > no n

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

--- On Thu, 3/29/12, Brian R. Watters wrote: > From: Brian R. Watters > Subject: Comcast Ethernet Feed > To: "NANOG list" > Date: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 5:36 PM > We are about to accept a 20MEG > Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant as well as a > BGP feed across the same link. >

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

The GIGe is on-board with the NPE-G1 and from what I am told no bandwidth points to deal with .. the PA is in slot 4 with ZERO other traffic on that slot or the port, all other traffic that is of any real size is on the other two GIGE interfaces that are also on-board with the NPE-G1 blade. -

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On 3/29/12 7:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our NPE-G1 that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do see the flow control is not supported via the other side (Comcast) but as soon as I refresh and view the GIG# int

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our NPE-G1 that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do see the flow control is not supported via the other side (Comcast) but as soon as I refresh and view the GIG# interface again I note that flow control is tu

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On 3/29/12 7:06 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: I'm pretty sure the PA-FE-TX boards can do auto neg, just not 100 full (just tested with a 7507 with a VIP4 w a PA-FE-TX and a cheap 10BT hub - my 7206VXR is not powered up ATM). Eh, just tried again to show someone and the link didn't even come up thi

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On 3/29/12 6:53 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Brielle Bruns wrote: From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 100BaseT interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 100-full, but rather only half. This leaves one end diff then the other and creates i

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

This. We have a Comcast MetroE PtP connection between our office and our datacenter and I found that it was defaulting to half duplex. I forced both of my ends to 100 Full and it fixed my issue. Derek On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:47 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > On 3/29/12 6:36 PM, Brian R. Watters wro

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Brielle Bruns wrote: From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 100BaseT interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 100-full, but rather only half. This leaves one end diff then the other and creates issues with performance. Try forcing

Re: Comcast Ethernet Feed

On 3/29/12 6:36 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote: We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant as well as a BGP feed across the same link. I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know best practice for deploying for optimal performance across this

Comcast Ethernet Feed

We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant as well as a BGP feed across the same link. I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know best practice for deploying for optimal performance across this interface. Any ideas and or direction woul

Re: BCP38 Deployment

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:31:26PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote: > > >uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS > >platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along > >with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config el

Re: BCP38 Deployment

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote: uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements) uRPF: or as it's now used in ios, ip verify unicast source r

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote: >> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). >> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're >> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like >> what's h

RE: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber

Someone else to check is USCarrier (http://www.uscarrier.com/), they are a smaller regional fiber transit provider I've had great experiences with in the past. They only have a few POPs in Alabama though. Good luck, -Scott -Original Message- From: -Hammer- [mailto:bhmc...@gmail.

Re: BCP38 Deployment

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:45:12AM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > Leo, > > On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >> #1) Money. > >> #2) Laziness. > > > While Patrick is spot on, there is a third issue which is related > > to money and laziness, but also has some unique aspects. > > >

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is > rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair > number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a > tower full of them you're goin

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote: >> I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're >> saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely >> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote: > I was at Ubiquiti's conference.  I don't disagree with what you're > saying.  Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely > never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is.  They are seeing 24 Ghz > as only for backhaul - no c

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for backhual. Probably cheaper & more reliable solution then hanging lasers between towers for backhaul? On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux wrote: > > Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace)

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace). > Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're > drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like > what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's f

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

Respectfully, the claim isn't a "decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth between 10 and 100 times", the claim is "Operators will be able to get 10 to 100 times more data throughput for the same dollar." which granted is a very good thing, but it does not imply how much more money one would hav

Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)

Thanks Jacob and Alex. Appreciate your reply. On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jacob Broussard < shadowedstrangerli...@gmail.com> wrote: > While I can't provide an average, I can say we generally have anywhere > from 2-5 microwaves on most sites (with a few exceptions that only have 1, > and a

Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)

On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote: > Anyhow, check the > video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview - > it's worth watching. The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between 10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation

RE: airFiber

It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5 ghz gear can. It's 24ghz. They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert. In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this would

Re: airFiber

They are taking pre-orders now for a (hopefully) June delivery. I'm at a conference now and got the rundown yesterday from Ubiquiti. This product was designed completely from the ground up by the former Motorola Canopy 100 team. It -should- deliver ~700mbit in both directions @ full duplex. Not

Re: airFiber

Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes: > I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes > tricky. > > Thanks, > -Drew Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other wireless link and the associated Fresnel zone ? http://en.wik

RE: airFiber

I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky. Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM To: Eugen Leitl Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: airFiber On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

Apparently they support quad-A glues if you phone them and ask for them. Personally, I run my own DNS servers, but sometimes it's not an option. My friend, who originally had this issue, is in a different business line, he is not proficient in DNS server operation, and thus he's comfortable hostin

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

> Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is > it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your > own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not > practical? Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue? Or did I miss the original intention?

Re: airFiber

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point. > > http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

On 2012-03-29 18:21 , james jones wrote: > Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or > some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where > that is not practical? They tend to not do IPv6, let alone native IPv6, they also tend to be behind

airFiber

Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point. http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, james jones wrote: > Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or > some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where > that is not practical? > If your goal is , i assume you care about native IPv6 as ma

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical? On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Patti wrote: > No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per ye

RE: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per domain name. Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives. Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor GoDaddy :-) Tony Patti CIO S. Walter Packaging Corp. -Origina

Re: ifHighSpeed for 10 Gb/s port-channels

Hi, On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin < fel...@starbyte.net> wrote: > Hello, > > can anyone confirm why IF-MIB::ifHighSpeed should return 0 for aggregates > of 10 Gbit/s ports? > just to confirm what all those helpful souls told me off-list: most vendors (Cisco, Juniper,

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

+1 If after all this time they haven't been able to have support for records, they are doing a really lousy job. regards Carlos On 3/29/12 10:25 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: > > Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch. > > /as > > > On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote: > >> On 3/

Re: Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber

Joe, We have a wide variety of both Internet and MPLS (WAN) circuits in Alabama from AT&T and ITC/Deltacom (Now Earthlink Business). They both have a significant footprint in Alabama. Check with Earthlink Business. -Hammer- "I was a normal American nerd" -Jack Herer On 3/21/2012 10:44

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch. /as On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote: > On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: >> once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records. >> It was prototype >> code with the engineering team. I

Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records. It was prototype code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have since sold the domains and they moved to other registries. But th