* Ca By
> Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver
> full internet access is generally considered properly bad.
>
> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them
> provide a full view.
+1
Both networks are in a position to easily remedy the situat
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman
wrote:
> An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes
> tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years.
>
> That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll be seeing
> less t
My first question is, is this the first request for the information which
resulted in this information? Almost wonder if you're currently dealing
with someone that does only a certain part of the setup and instead of
saying " I don't know " attempted to give an answer that he really has no
idea ab
An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes
tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years.
That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll be seeing less
tolerance for this behavior.
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Ka
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth
> wrote:
>
On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <
>> mharde...@ipifony.com> wrote:
Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being
Cogent's to prove ot
welcome to the commercial internet. get over it.
randy
On 1/21/2016 15:33, Kraig Beahn wrote:
"This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the
cut." / "Is this a common SOP nowadays?" - Not in our experience.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote:
We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting
"This carrier said that they don't provide this until the night of the
cut." / "Is this a common SOP nowadays?" - Not in our experience.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote:
> We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting
> people did some shopping and found th
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 16:56, Jeroen Wunnink
> wrote:
>
> We have good experience with Flexoptix. You can brand them yourself
> using their (free?) USB box to any vendor you want, including Arista.
> Not sure if they have QSFP's yet, but we have CFP-LR4's running
> successfully on multiple paths
I was wondering the same. Most likely because it's accounting that's making the
decision and they don't want to spend a penny more than they have to$
Regards,
Dovid
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Corbe
Sender: "NANOG" Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:35:05
To: Ian Mock
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
S
I agree with Sean. Poor planning always leads to poor service.
It sure makes for a fast clumsy cut over. But, you now know that you the
customer are not a priority or better planning steps would have been taken
for your consideration in advance.
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016,
> We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting
> people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in
> substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most
> expensive circuit to the new carrier.
> (I don't know what etiquette
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Robert Glover wrote:
>
> On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to
>>> prove otherwise because HE is publicly on re
Sounds like you need a little posturing with your sales team and account
manager on the phone. Threaten to cancel the contract and site their lack of
support and willingness to help you be successful. Say they're interfering with
your company's ability to do business. If their sales team is wort
Turns out my information from the grape vine was wrong *bows head in shame*.
Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)
http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335
> On 21 Jan 2016, a
> With this I meant that I can measure something, but only within a subset
> of the entire path a packet might traverse.
considering your original hypothesis was about length of paths, this
seems a kind of dead end. you might get a modest improvement by turning
off hot potato :)
> so not end-to-
I know of 2 larger providers that have strange provisioning processes.
Both of them do layer 0/line testing and then their bgp group gets the
order to finish the routing.It's not that they are withholding the
info, they haven't done the bgp policy yet and it happens during turnup
testing.
But
* William Herrin:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote:
>> We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our
>> accounting people did some shopping and found that there was
>> a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and
>> leadership decided to swap our most ex
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, c b wrote:
> We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our
> accounting people did some shopping and found that there was
> a competitor who came in substantially lower this year and
> leadership decided to swap our most expensive circuit to the ne
I’d be concerned. IMHO, it’s not normal to withhold such information. Doing so
suggests that they are disorganized at best.
When we sign a BGP customer, we collect their ASN and the networks they want to
advertise up front. With that information, we complete a network setup document
that is for
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, c b wrote:
Is this a common SOP nowadays? Anyone care to explain why they wouldn't just
provide it ahead of time?
Carrier saves costs by not having a clue, and has no idea which router
will have an open port until they try to plug you in.
Hope its not a long contract, bec
We have 4 full-peering providers between two data centers. Our accounting
people did some shopping and found that there was a competitor who came in
substantially lower this year and leadership decided to swap our most expensive
circuit to the new carrier.
(I don't know what etiquette is, so I
We purchased the AT&T Beam and I've configured smstools under linux and
everything looks okay (no error messages). Although text messages are accepted
by the modem, no texts show up. I've learned that some carrier's mobile data
sim don't support text. We have the sim that came with the box we or
On 1/21/2016 12:44 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote:
I’m inclined to agree with you, subject to some caveats:
1. I think more Cogent customers need to be more vocal about it. There hasn’t
been an impetus to do so until recently. Now real people (not network engineer
sorts) are starting to use
Heads up.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Forecasted: Ongoing Severe Weather - Winter Storm Jonas East
Coast IDCs
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:37:35 -0600
From: donotre...@gcs.att-mail.com
AT&T is on high alert as we closely monitor the path of Winter Storm
Jonas, which is
That’s an excellent point, actually.
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> Make the AS path longer, losing traffic, and therefore revenue?
>
> Why would they do that?
>
> The twtelecom customers cannot multi-home (most of them anyway). Most of
> 3549’s traffic has other
Make the AS path longer, losing traffic, and therefore revenue?
Why would they do that?
The twtelecom customers cannot multi-home (most of them anyway). Most of 3549’s
traffic has other paths to the Internet.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman
> wrote:
>
>
I was actually surprised they didn’t just leave GBLX customers on AS3549, kill
all external AS3549 peerings, and treat AS3549 downline as a Level3 customer,
accepting L3 and GBLX communities from GBLX customers.
That seems more along the lines of what they’re doing with the AS4323 TW
Telecom cu
Depends on the market and how far along their migration is going. In experience
with GTT (AS4436) they’re still not finished migrating everything to AS3257.
Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
sma
Intriguing. If it were only that though, wouldn’t they just still pick it up
via TeliaSonera IC?
I did notice that in the past few months, TeliaSonera has been dropping AS3549
from spots where they had session with both AS3549 and with AS3356 and now
reaches AS3549 via AS3356.
> On Jan 21, 2
I’ve heard from the grape vine that this is due to the GBLX to Level3
transition, and it’s in fact paid IP transit.
Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)
http://www.peeringdb.com
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth
wrote:
> > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <
> mharde...@ipifony.com> wrote:
> > > Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being
> > > Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying
> >
I hear you.
Taken to extremes, I can see how the argument sounds like that.
However… I have some thoughts on what you’ve said.
Most of us would never get peerings to all the Tier 1s.
But…
Hurricane Electric already has IPv6 peering to every network that matters, save
for Cogent’s. Every oth
> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman
> > wrote:
> > Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being
> > Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying
> > that theyd love to peer with Cogent)
I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus a
On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote:
Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to prove
otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they’d love to peer
with Cogent), I’m giving serious cons
I’m inclined to agree with you, subject to some caveats:
1. I think more Cogent customers need to be more vocal about it. There hasn’t
been an impetus to do so until recently. Now real people (not network engineer
sorts) are starting to use IPv6 for real.
2. I agree with you in principle.
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman
> wrote:
>
> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to
> prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they’d love
> to peer with Cogent), I’m giving serious consideration to dropping Cogent
>
Yesterday I was looking at some of the IPv4 and IPv6 session summaries on
http://lg.he.net and saw that both the Equinix Los Angeles and Equinix Ashburn
site routers have new IPv4 and IPv6 sessions (not yet running, but
administratively up for about 6 days now) configured for AS3356.
I know the
Hi everyone,
I know the long and storied history of Cogent and HE failing to peer for IPv6
and failing to provide (from either side) for IPv6 transit between their two
networks has been mentioned and covered on this list before, but I am rather
surprised it has not garnered much attention.
Unt
On January 20, 2016 at 23:56 matthew.bl...@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) wrote:
> Enclosed stadiums won't have to worry about remote drones until they get
> smart enough to open doors on their own. Not sure why the NFL gets uptight
> about unauthorized recording. Most sporting events have little
I've just learned that this holiday is today, and I can't think of any
holiday NANOGers would appreciate more...
unless it was National Backhoe Day.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:44:34PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > You can configure pmacct to specify on which properties of the received
> > flow data it should aggregate its output data, one could configure
> > pmacct to store data using the following primitives:
> >
> > ($timeperiod, $entrypo
> You can configure pmacct to specify on which properties of the received
> flow data it should aggregate its output data, one could configure
> pmacct to store data using the following primitives:
>
> ($timeperiod, $entrypoint_router_id, $bgp_nexthop, $packet_count)
>
> Where $timeperiod is
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:00:46PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > We know the GPS coordinates for each BGP next-hop in the network, and
> > traffic is sampled on ingress at the edge of the network and reported
> > to pmacct (*flow), which also receives a RR-style BGP feed for
> > correlation.
> >
>
> We know the GPS coordinates for each BGP next-hop in the network, and
> traffic is sampled on ingress at the edge of the network and reported
> to pmacct (*flow), which also receives a RR-style BGP feed for
> correlation.
>
> We can know where (geographically) a packet enters the network, where
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:48:19AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > jokes aside, Its a hypothesis worth testing. It has qualities which
> > make it plausible.
> >
> > So please, between you, find a way to specify and test it!
>
> although the hypothesis has some intuitive appeal, how to test it is fa
Drones could do unauthorized streaming just as well as unauthorized recording.
Also, the Santa Clara stadium is not enclosed.
Owen
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 15:56 , Matthew Black wrote:
>
> Enclosed stadiums won't have to worry about remote drones until they get
> smart enough to open doors on th
47 matches
Mail list logo
