On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Bryan Fields wrote:
> I think he might be referring to the newer modulation types (QAM) on long haul
> transport. There's quite a bit of time in uS that the encoding takes into QAM
> and adding FEC. You typically won't see this at the plug-able level between
> swit
On 6/20/20 6:42 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 6/20/20 5:33 PM, Tim Pozar wrote:
>> Looks like a spammer is harvesting email addresses from the NANOG list. i
>> I will be unscribing as I don't need this additional noise in my mailbox.
>
> Do you have the full headers of these emails? Please send t
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20/Jun/20 00:41, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
>
>> One of the advantages cited for SRv6 over MPLS is that the packet contains a
>> record of where it has been.
>
> I can't see how advantageous that is, or how possible it would be to
>
- On Jun 20, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Hi Mark,
> On 20/Jun/20 00:41, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
>> One of the advantages cited for SRv6 over MPLS is that the packet contains a
>> record of where it has been.
> I can't see how advantageous that is,
That will be very advantageous in
On 6/20/20 5:33 PM, Tim Pozar wrote:
> Looks like a spammer is harvesting email addresses from the NANOG list. i
> I will be unscribing as I don't need this additional noise in my mailbox.
Do you have the full headers of these emails? Please send them along if you do.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-
They've been harassing me all day - I've been ignoring.
Mark.
On 20/Jun/20 23:33, Tim Pozar wrote:
> Looks like a spammer is harvesting email addresses from the NANOG list. i
> I will be unscribing as I don't need this additional noise in my mailbox.
>
> Tim
>
> - Forwarded message from Mich
Looks like a spammer is harvesting email addresses from the NANOG list. i
I will be unscribing as I don't need this additional noise in my mailbox.
Tim
- Forwarded message from Michele Jemmi -
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:06:05 -0500
From: Michele Jemmi
To: po...@lns.com
Subject: Re: Re:
On 20/Jun/20 00:41, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> One of the advantages cited for SRv6 over MPLS is that the packet
> contains a record of where it has been.
I can't see how advantageous that is, or how possible it would be to
implement, especially for inter-domain traffic.
Mark.
On 20/Jun/20 19:58, Gert Doering wrote:
> The 6880/6840 products were promising at that time, but the pricing made
> it uninteresting. So we kept our 6506Es for a time...
We haven't done anything with them since we bought and deployed them in
2014.
They are serving their purpose quite well, a
Did you not read my posting on Quora?
Tim
On 6/20/20 10:49 AM, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
And thus far, no one has mentioned switching speed and other
electronic overhead such as the transceivers (that's the big one,
IIRC.)
I also don't recall if anyone mentioned that the 30ms is as the
photon flie
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 16:14 Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 6/20/20 1:56 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 20:52, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
> >
> >> And thus far, no one has mentioned switching speed and other
> >> electronic overhead such as the transceivers (that's the big one,
> >> IIRC.
On 6/20/20 1:56 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 20:52, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
>
>> And thus far, no one has mentioned switching speed and other
>> electronic overhead such as the transceivers (that's the big one,
>> IIRC.)
> This will be something from tens of meters (low lat swich),
This was also pitched as one of the killer-apps for the SpaceX
Starlink satellite array, particularly for cross-Atlantic and
cross-Pacific trading.
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/marketintegrity/2019/06/25/fspacex-is-opening-up-the-next-frontier-for-hft/
"Several commentators quickly caught onto
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:38 PM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 20/Jun/20 11:27, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>
>>
> We run the Internet in a VRF to get watertight separation between
> management and the Internet. I do also have a CGN vrf but that one has very
> few routes in it (99% being subscriber man
Hello,
Taking advantage of this thread may I ask something?. I have heard of
"wireless fiber optic", something like an antenna with a laser pointing
from one building to the other, having said this I can assume this link
with have lower RTT than a laser thru a fiber optic made of glass?
T
On 2020-06-20, at 19:07, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> This is c in a vacuum. Light transmission through a medium is slower.
Ob-movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hummingbird_Project
Grüße, Carsten
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 20:52, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
> And thus far, no one has mentioned switching speed and other
> electronic overhead such as the transceivers (that's the big one,
> IIRC.)
This will be something from tens of meters (low lat swich), to few
hundred meters (typical pipeline), t
On 19/Jun/20 20:19, ljwob...@gmail.com wrote:
> >From the vendor standpoint, the market has never been able to agree on what
> >makes a "core" application. If I have five "big" customers, I guarantee you
> >that:
> - one of them will need really big ACLs, even though it's a "core" box to
>
And thus far, no one has mentioned switching speed and other
electronic overhead such as the transceivers (that's the big one,
IIRC.)
I also don't recall if anyone mentioned that the 30ms is as the
photon flies, not fiber distance.
-Wayne
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 05:32:30PM +, Mel Beckman wro
On 19/Jun/20 17:26, Gert Doering wrote:
> There's a special place in hell for people re-using the "Catalyst" brand
> name and then putting yearly renewable licenses on it. Or IOS XE.
>
> I'm not actually sure *which* BU is doing "Catalyst" these days, but
> we're so annoyed about Cisco these da
An intriguing development in fiber optic media is hollow core optical fiber,
which achieves 99.7% of the speed of light in a vacuum.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/151498-researchers-create-fiber-network-that-operates-at-99-7-speed-of-light-smashes-speed-and-latency-records
-mel
On Jun 2
On 20/Jun/20 14:41, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> There are many. So, our research group tried to improve RSVP.
I'm a lot younger than the Internet, but I read a fair bit about its
history. I can't remember ever coming across an implementation of RSVP
between a host and the network in a commercia
Doing some rough back of the napkin math, an ultra low-latency path from, say,
the Westin to 1275 K in Seattle will be in the 59 ms range. This is
considerably longer than the I-90 driving distance would suggest because:
- Best case optical distance is more like 5500 km, in part because the path
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 9:27 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> Why is latency between the east and west coasts so bad? Speed of light
> accounts for about 15ms each direction for a 30ms round trip. Where
> does the other 30ms come from and why haven't we gotten rid
Besides the refractive index of glass that makes like go about 2/3rds it
can in a vacuum, "Stuff" also includes many other things like
modulation/demodulation, buffers, etc. I did a quora answer on this you
can find at:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-describe-the-delay-characteristics-of-p
The speed of light in fiber is only about 2/3 the speed of light in a vacuum,
so that 15 ms is really about 22.5 ms. That brings the total to about 45 ms.
Some would come from how many miles of extra glass in that 2,742 miles in the
form of slack loops.
Some would come from fiber routes not
And of course in your more realistic example:
2742 miles = 4412 km ~ 44 ms optical rtt with no OEO in the path
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:36 PM Tim Durack wrote:
> Speed of light in glass ~200 km/s
>
> 100 km rtt = 1ms
>
> Coast-to-coast ~6000 km ~60ms
>
> Tim:>
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:2
Speed of light in glass ~200 km/s
100 km rtt = 1ms
Coast-to-coast ~6000 km ~60ms
Tim:>
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:27 PM William Herrin wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Why is latency between the east and west coasts so bad? Speed of light
> accounts for about 15ms each direction for a 30ms round trip. Whe
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 09:24:11AM -0700, William Herrin wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Why is latency between the east and west coasts so bad? Speed of light
> accounts for about 15ms each direction for a 30ms round trip. Where
> does the other 30ms come from and why haven't we gotten rid of it?
>
> c = 18
Howdy,
Why is latency between the east and west coasts so bad? Speed of light
accounts for about 15ms each direction for a 30ms round trip. Where
does the other 30ms come from and why haven't we gotten rid of it?
c = 186,282 miles/second
2742 miles from Seattle to Washington DC mainly driving I-9
> The problem of MPLS, however, is that, it must also be flow driven,
> because detailed route information at the destination is necessary
> to prepare nested labels at the source, which costs a lot and should
> be attempted only for detected flows.
>
MPLS is not flow driven. I sent some mail abou
> there is saku's point of distributing labels in IGP TLVs/LSAs. i
> suspect he is correct, but good luck getting that anywhere in the
> internet vendor task force.
Perhaps I will surprise a few but this is not only already in RFC formats -
it is also shipping already across vendors for some time
Randy Bush wrote:
MPLS was since day one proposed as enabler for services originally
L3VPNs and RSVP-TE.
MPLS day one was mike o'dell wanting to move his city/city traffic
matrix from ATM to tag switching and open cascade's hold on tags.
And IIRC, Tag switching day one was Cisco overreacting t
Mark Tinka wrote:
At the time I proposed label switching, there already was RSVP
but RSVP-TE was proposed long after MPLS was proposed.
RSVP failed to take off, for whatever reason (I can think of many).
There are many. So, our research group tried to improve RSVP.
Practically, the most ser
On 20/Jun/20 11:27, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>
> We run the Internet in a VRF to get watertight separation between
> management and the Internet. I do also have a CGN vrf but that one has
> very few routes in it (99% being subscriber management created, eg.
> one route per customer). Why would t
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:08 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
> > MPLS with hierarchical routing just does not scale.
>
> With Internet in a VRF, I truly agree.
>
> But if you run a simple global BGP table and no VRF's, I don't see an
> issue. This is what we do, and our scaling concerns are exactly the sam
On 19/Jun/20 18:00, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> There seems to be serious confusions between label switching
> with explicit flows and MPLS, which was believed to scale
> without detecting/configuring flows.
>
> At the time I proposed label switching, there already was RSVP
> but RSVP-TE was propos
On 19/Jun/20 17:40, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> As the first person to have proposed the forwarding paradigm of
> label switching, I have been fully aware from the beginning that:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-ip-over-atm-01
>
> Conventional Communication over ATM in a Internet
38 matches
Mail list logo
