RE: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

wrong with an IX's route servers. Thank you, Kevin McCormick -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 7:52 PM To: Nick Hilliard Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit? CAUTION: This e

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

> -Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet > ExchangeThe Brothers WISP > > - Original Message - > From: Will Hargrave > To: Tom Beecher > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:22:34 -0600 (CST) > Subject: Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit? > &g

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

) Subject: Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit? On 5 Nov 2024, at 16:56, Tom Beecher wrote: >> Especially so if a few of the large content providers continue to pull >> back from route servers and such. > Content providers aren't leaving IXP's completely. They're still there, &g

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

* mark@tinka.africa (Mark Tinka) [Sat 16 Nov 2024, 02:53 CET]: The original intention for route servers is to simplify turn-up for the majority of networks, most of whom will be eyeball-focused. They did offer cloud & content folk utility as they quickly ramped up their CDN deployments globall

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

he past decade-and-a-bit. While their challenges are as well as documented as their benefits, moving away from them can "uncomplicate" the routing topology of large operations like those of cloud & content. The unintended side effect is that it can lower traffic load on IXP-specific ca

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

l open you up to wide range of routing security problems. I'd be fairly hesitant to implement bilateral peering sessions as a general rule, except with networks that are large enough that they've made the effort to implement good quality filtering at their ixp presence. Nick

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

On 11/7/24 23:43, Tom Beecher wrote: Plenty of eyeball networks will announce prefixes differently via a bilateral session vs a route server session vs DFZ, then come yelling because traffic isn't going the way they expected it to. There can be times that the administrative overhead of d

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

I'm aware that I sent something via email inadvertently to the NANOG list. Sorry about that. If I could remove it I would. Sorry about that Mike On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:58 PM Peter Potvin < peter.pot...@accuristechnologies.ca> wrote: > Mike, > > Please verify you are emailing the correct per

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

Mike, Please verify you are emailing the correct person. I have no idea how this thread relates to a domain name transfer but I highly recommend verifying the recipient of your emails to make sure they go to the right place. Regards, Peter On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:57 PM Mike Tindor wrote: > >

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

Sorry all for emaling to Nanog inadvertently. I sent a copuole of nonrelevant posts On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:46 PM Tom Beecher wrote: > >> I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for >> wanting to avoid route server routing. For the content/cloud folk, I think >> avoi

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

The ... AUTH code did NOT work stbernadettewv.org Canceled - Invalid EPP/authorization key - Please contact current registrar to obtain correct key On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:51 PM Mike Tindor wrote: > > Assuming the code is correct and that you will be getting the email,l you > should get any e

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

Assuming the code is correct and that you will be getting the email,l you should get any email any time. stbernadettewv.org Domain awaiting transfer initiation Mike On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:46 PM Tom Beecher wrote: > >> I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for >> w

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

> > > I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for > wanting to avoid route server routing. For the content/cloud folk, I think > avoiding it provides a mechanism via which they can screen for the utility > of having to keep an exchange point node upgraded and optimized for

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

On 11/7/24 21:42, Randy Bush wrote: i used to resist. my instinct is that the data plane and the control plane should be congruent or you can have hard to debug issues[0]. but, as i have gotten older and lazier, and as you say, route servers have gotten quite reliable, i have come over to the

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

> You almost can't have lower effort peering than via an IXP's route > server. Most of them these days are well run with IRR-based filtering > and RPKI OV. i used to resist. my instinct is that the data plane and the control plane should be congruent or you can have hard to debug issues[0]. but,

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

* mark@tinka.africa (Mark Tinka) [Thu 07 Nov 2024, 19:25 CET]: The paradigm shift happening in the content/cloud space is that the "quick win value" eyeball networks enjoy from peering with the route server to reach them does not appear to continue to be worth the admin. effort for said content

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

adoption among the membership is something like 85-90%. If an operator decides to replace those RS sessions with a (often intractable) portal to request bilateral sessions - or worse, email - that immediate traffic benefit is lost. That can affect the value the IXP provides to its members. Correct

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

ts and XCs. Still doing bilateral peering over > the IX. There's no revenue hit to an IXP for a CDN to de-peer off the route > servers. Hi Tom, I don’t really think your last statement is true. UK, and London in particular, is quite a dynamic market. At LONAP we see plenty of networks

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

On 11/5/24 18:56, Tom Beecher wrote: Content providers aren't leaving IXP's completely. They're still there, still paying monthly for ports and XCs. Still doing bilateral peering over the IX. There's no revenue hit to an IXP for a CDN to de-peer off the route servers

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

s and such. Content providers aren't leaving IXP's completely. They're still there, still paying monthly for ports and XCs. Still doing bilateral peering over the IX. There's no revenue hit to an IXP for a CDN to de-peer off the route servers. On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 10:20 PM Mar

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

> On Nov 5, 2024, at 00:56, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:44 AM Douglas Fischer > wrote: >> But I have seen a reasonably large scenario in which the IXP operator, >> maintaining the MLPA LAN with the pair of Route-Servers, adds >> another participa

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

On 11/5/24 02:56, William Herrin wrote: Of course they can sell transit. The reason they don't is that it has the potential to create a conflict of interest. When your customer is also a competitor and your customer suffers an outage that's your fault... Well, you see where this is going. Ov

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

There is one well-known IXP that sells transit as well. You'd be silly to buy both from the same provider. CH Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> From: NANOG on behalf of William Herrin Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:57:13 am

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:44 AM Douglas Fischer wrote: > But I have seen a reasonably large scenario in which the IXP operator, > maintaining the MLPA LAN with the pair of Route-Servers, adds > another participant with the SAME ASN as the route-servers, > and through this participa

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

Hello, On 4/11/24 2:14 PM, Noah wrote: Fundamentally, wouldnt that require the said IXP to be able to send full internet feed (v4 +  v6) beyond the peering LAN routes? I don't think so, I'm sure there are so many upstream providers selling IP transit without having nor sendin

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

Fundamentally, wouldnt that require the said IXP to be able to send full internet feed (v4 + v6) beyond the peering LAN routes? In some jurisdictions, the regulators require Transit Providers to have some sort of ISP license to sell such capacity. Noah On Mon, 4 Nov 2024, 19:46 Douglas Fischer

Can an IXP sell IP transit?

Can an IXP sell traffic? This is a rhetorical question. I know that it can... In fact, it is obvious that it can. It is quite common to see several companies buying and selling traffic through IXPs. But whenever I have been involved with more serious companies, it was common for this type of

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

were to write such a tool for nonspecific use, we have public datasets that would show you who potential peers were at each IXP, and what routes / how many addresses they were advertising at each IXP… Obviously if you’re learning Deutche Telekom’s routes in Frankfurt and Munich, it matters some

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

you were to write such a tool for nonspecific use, we have public datasets that would show you who potential peers were at each IXP, and what routes / how many addresses they were advertising at each IXP… Obviously if you’re learning Deutche Telekom’s routes in Frankfurt and Munich, it mat

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

=14593 > > -- Original message -- > > From: Dave Taht > To: NANOG > Subject: starlink ixp peering progress > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:54:44 -0500 > > One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an > extensive guide as to ho

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

https://radar.qrator.net/as/14593/ipv4/neighbors/peerings - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Dave Taht" To: "NANOG" Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 1:54:44

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

-- From: Dave Taht To: NANOG Subject: starlink ixp peering progress Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:54:44 -0500 One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an extensive guide as to how existing BGP AS holders can peer with them to get better service. https://starlink

Re: starlink ixp peering progress

Well, for some basic overview you can use CAIDA AS rank. You can use it directly, or you may try my (more user friendly) frontend for it: http://as-rank.uu3.net/?as=14593 -- Original message -- From: Dave Taht To: NANOG Subject: starlink ixp peering progress Date: Tue, 27 Feb

starlink ixp peering progress

already, how many they could actually peer with?, and progress over time since inception what would be the right tools for that? This is pretty impressive for peering so far: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/18747 Is there a better email list to discuss ixp stuff? -- https://blog.cerowrt.org/post

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

Hi Nick, Thanks for your remarks. It's actually an ongoing discussion. Le 18/01/2024 à 18:24, Nick Hilliard a écrit : two issues here: the smaller issue is that CDNs sometimes want their own routable IP address blocks, especially if they're connecting directly to the IXP, which usu

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

dress blocks, especially if they're connecting directly to the IXP, which usually means /24 in practice. It doesn't always happen, and sometimes the CDN is happy to use provider address space (i.e. IXP), or smaller address blocks. But it's something to note. The bigger issue is:

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

Hosting authoritative and recursive dns servers at the IXP would drastically improve the experience of users most of the time. Of course, Stephane considerations are correct and there’s no solution for when global connectivity is lost and responses will stop being sent. Gaël On Thu 18 Jan 2024

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

Hi Tom, Le 18/01/2024 à 15:20, Tom Beecher a écrit : Many CDNs have hardware options for self hosted caches. I think there would likely be concerns about <20G of connectivity to those caches though. With an incorrect setup, you could end up maxing out those links just with cache fill traffic i

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

anog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:38:31 AM Subject: Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP Hello Mehmet, Le 18/01/2024 à 12:58, Mehmet a écrit : > VMs are no go for big content companies except Microsoft. You can run > Microsoft CDN on VM but rest of the content wil

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

Hi Gael, Le 18/01/2024 à 13:48, Gael Hernandez a écrit : Friends from PCH (www.pch.net ) operate backend services for DNS authoritative ccTLDs and the Quad9 DNS resolver. They would be very happy to help. I'm sure they would, I'm a big fan of their work BTW. Though hosting

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

ed by major actors. What I'm mostly concerned about is their ability to peer with multiple AS on the local IXP, as to not over-replicate them. Should I establish a dedicated network peering on the IXP ? Or will they come with their own ASNs ? The peering case is quite not documented on

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

bles are down because of congestion on > satelite backups > - Sheer price of bandwidth > > On the plus side, there are over 5 AS on the island, an IXP and > small-ish collocation capacity (approx 10kW available, could be > upgraded, second site available later this year). > > We'

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 12:53:19PM +0100, Jérôme Nicolle wrote a message of 36 lines which said: > - Low redundancy of old cables (2) > - Total service loss when both cables are down because of congestion on > satelite backups A problem which is not often mentioned is that most (all?) "local

Re: Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

- Low system capacity of said cables (<=20Gbps) > - Total service loss when both cables are down because of congestion on > satelite backups > - Sheer price of bandwidth > > On the plus side, there are over 5 AS on the island, an IXP and > small-ish collocation capacity (appro

Shared cache servers on an island's IXP

- Sheer price of bandwidth On the plus side, there are over 5 AS on the island, an IXP and small-ish collocation capacity (approx 10kW available, could be upgraded, second site available later this year). We'd like to host cache servers and/or VMs on the IXP, with an option to anycast

RE: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?

: Ca By [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 7:27 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard Cc: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo ; NANOG Subject: Re: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ? On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 9:17 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrot

Re: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?

gt; *Sent:* Monday, October 10, 2022 6:57 PM > *To:* NANOG > *Subject:* Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ? > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm looking at a use case for stateless 6-4 mappings in the context of an > IXP. > > > > The problem w

RE: Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?

SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ? Hi all, I'm looking at a use case for stateless 6-4 mappings in the context of an IXP. The problem we are looking to solve is allowing IXP members who have no IPv4 of their own and in most cases they have a /26 or /27 issued by their transit provider and rely o

Any experiences using SIIT-DC in an IXP setting ?

Hi all, I'm looking at a use case for stateless 6-4 mappings in the context of an IXP. The problem we are looking to solve is allowing IXP members who have no IPv4 of their own and in most cases they have a /26 or /27 issued by their transit provider and rely on CGN to provide service to

Re: Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ?

Imtiaz ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ? No issues here. Erich Kaiser The Fusion Network On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:48 AM Tom Beecher wrote: I see no issues on 2 separate Equinix Dallas connections. On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:16 AM Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai

Re: Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ?

n issue with Equinix Dallas IXP ? >> (Or it is just our connection ? Seeing all peers down). >> >> Thanks. >> Regards. >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Re: Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ?

I see no issues on 2 separate Equinix Dallas connections. On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:16 AM Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Hello, > Quick question, is there known issue with Equinix Dallas IXP ? > (Or it is just our connection ? Seeing all peers down). > > Thanks. > Regards.

Equinix Dallas IXP ? Down ?

Hello, Quick question, is there known issue with Equinix Dallas IXP ? (Or it is just our connection ? Seeing all peers down). Thanks. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:

IXP Renumbering: Equinix Miami (formerly known as NOTA)

chedule is already overdue. https://ix.equinix.com/home/ip-migration/mi/ I would propose that some IXP operators should write a BCOP to avoid future renumbering pain. -- Fredy Künzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur https://www.init7.net/

USA to Mexico IXP Equipment Recommendations

region (and abroad if they build in). Our IXP is good, but we want to update/upgrade and put in a future-compatible robust solution instead of what we have in there now. We are an open IXP and are wondering how you would prefer to peer and what your equipment recommendations are and why. We'r

MANRS IXP Webinar: Tuesday, 13 March

Hail NANOGers! If you operate an IX in North America, this message is for you. (I'm passing it along on behalf of my former colleagues at the Internet Society.) Hope to "see" you on the webinar this Tuesday! ——— Hi, The MANRS IXP Partnership program is designed to invit

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

tp://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Nick W" > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:55:28 PM > > Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? > > &

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On 8/11/2017 10:30 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: I'm dumb, Brielle is right. 1.9.0, 1.9.5, 1.9.7h1 1.9.8dev and 1.9.8b1 are for two other newer products. Ubiquiti has been pretty active in developing improvements lately. I do recommend anyone who does use the Edge* series in production that the

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

I'm dumb, Brielle is right. 1.9.0, 1.9.5, 1.9.7h1 1.9.8dev and 1.9.8b1 are for two other newer products. On Aug 11, 2017 11:16 PM, "Brielle Bruns" wrote: > On 8/11/2017 9:34 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > >> As an additional note, sometimes drivers get backported, this is how >> 1.9.7hotfix1 works

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On 8/11/2017 9:34 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: As an additional note, sometimes drivers get backported, this is how 1.9.7hotfix1 works on Infinity. There are multiple trees in various stages of dev at any given time. The Infinity started out on 1.9.0 (which is what my Infinity alpha hardware had

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

ter-software-security-release-v1-9-7-hotfix-1/ba-p/2019161 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > - >>> > Mike Hammett >>> > Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> > http://www.ics-il.com >>> > >>> > Midwe

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

; > >> > >> > - >> > Mike Hammett >> > Intelligent Computing Solutions >> > http://www.ics-il.com >> > >> > Midwest-IX >> > http://www.midwest-ix.com >> > >> > - Original Message - >> >

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Hammett" > Cc: "NANOG" > Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 8:07:36 PM > Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? > > > Forgot reply all... > > > That does not apply to the infinity. Those shipped with 1.9.8dev. > > &g

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

ike Hammett" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 8:07:36 PM Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? Forgot reply all... That does not apply to the infinity. Those shipped with 1.9.8dev. On Aug 8, 2017 8:03 PM, "Mike Ha

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

om: "Nick W" > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:55:28 PM > Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? > > Tried the Infinity, unsuccessfully. Several of them. Ended up pulling them > all, sitting in my homelab f

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Nick W" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:55:28 PM Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? Tried the Infinity, unsuccessfully. Several of them. Ended

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Tried the Infinity, unsuccessfully. Several of them. Ended up pulling them all, sitting in my homelab for now. Multiple full tables, nothing fancy for firewall or QOS, but ran into issues with random ribd/bgpd crashes and kernel panics. I've submitted a lot of logs and core dumps to UBNT. I would p

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Hello Jeremy, Le 04/07/2017 à 01:10, Jeremy Austin a écrit : > can certainly handle a few tens of thousands of > routes fine (single core BGP though), It can take multiple full views. It's also faster than an MX104. > but I can't vouch for its ability to > do IMIX or *flow at line rate I would

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

BTW... At Fandor (before I left) we got one of the last /24s that ARIN had. Our transit providers at the office were Monkey Brains (wireless) and Zayo (fiber). We purchased a ER Pro, upgraded the memory and were peering v4 with both on this box. MB didn't have V6 at that point. We did nail up

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

6.3 ;) - Josh On Jul 5, 2017 2:10 PM, "Paul Gear" wrote: > On 04/07/17 12:28, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > > > ... > >>> > >>> As far as automation, it's a JunOS-like CLI originally based on vyatta, > >>> which AT&T now owns - and one of the main reasons is it's > scriptability, > >>> use of Ansibl

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On 04/07/17 12:28, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > ... >>> >>> As far as automation, it's a JunOS-like CLI originally based on vyatta, >>> which AT&T now owns - and one of the main reasons is it's scriptability, >>> use of Ansible and other tools right on the device, python, etc. > > Technically I belie

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

The RAM is upgradeable but it can support quite a few full tables out of the box. The routing software under the hood got upgraded by Ubiquiti to ZebOS https://www.ipinfusion.com/products/zebos/ from the VyOS code. There is a Cavium bug regarding UDP packets though that can be nasty if you hit it.

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

I kinda feel the same way. I wish FRR was a big more mature at this point though. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Why not use a Linux or BSD computer for this? It is cheap and you know > exactly what you are getting. It will forward 10 gig at line rate at least > for no

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Why not use a Linux or BSD computer for this? It is cheap and you know exactly what you are getting. It will forward 10 gig at line rate at least for normal traffic. Regards Baldur Den 3. jul. 2017 21.08 skrev "Job Snijders" : > Dear NANOG, > > Some friends of mine are operating a nonprofit (on

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

EdgeOS was forked and employees were poached from Vyatta before it was purchased by Broadcom, when it was open source. I think a few things came down from VyOS after that, but not many. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > On Mon 2017-Jul-03 19:26:17 -0500, Josh Reynolds > w

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On Mon 2017-Jul-03 19:26:17 -0500, Josh Reynolds wrote: On Jul 3, 2017 7:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" wrote: Specs... - MIPS64 16 Core 1.8 GHz - 16 GB DDR4 RAM - 8 MB NOR Flash 4 GB eMMC NAND Flash - Data Ports: (1) RJ45 Serial Port, (8) SFP+ Ports (1) RJ45 Gigabit Ethernet Port

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

- Josh On Jul 3, 2017 7:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" wrote: > Specs... > > >- MIPS64 16 Core 1.8 GHz >- 16 GB DDR4 RAM >- 8 MB NOR Flash 4 GB eMMC NAND Flash >- Data Ports: (1) RJ45 Serial Port, (8) SFP+ Ports (1) RJ45 Gigabit >Ethernet Port >- 2 hotswap power supplies > > > No

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > EdgeRouter is... meh. If I was looking at that class of gear I'd go with a > Mikrotik. Job, There is a bit of a price differential here, depending on whether you need SFP+; the Infinity is "dead cheap", and has fairly opaque BGP daemon+d

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

On 7/3/17 12:07 PM, Job Snijders wrote: I was wondering whether anyone was experience with the "EdgeRouter Infinity XG" device, specifically in the role of a simple peering router for a couple of tens of thousands of routes. (I'd point default to the left and take just the on-net routes on the ri

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

2017 2:07:28 PM Subject: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"? Dear NANOG, Some friends of mine are operating a nonprofit (on shoe string) and looking to connect some CDN caches to an IX fabric. A BGP speaking device is needed between the caches and the BGP peers connec

EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

Dear NANOG, Some friends of mine are operating a nonprofit (on shoe string) and looking to connect some CDN caches to an IX fabric. A BGP speaking device is needed between the caches and the BGP peers connected to the fabric. The BGP speaker is needed to present the peers on the IX with a unified

IXP economics Was: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Well. Its complicated. I think this is far more political than about COGS. But hey. Why not? I agree with Dave. Shocking. I know. At least the context. He's right. Thanks for reminding us. We know these things. We'll have to see how IXP communities react now. Perhaps espresso servi

Re: Global/distributed IXP operators?

29 May 2016, at 13:26, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Could you define what you mean by a distributed\global IXP? There are plenty > of IXPs, but there aren't really global IXPs, those just become networks. > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Comput

Re: Global/distributed IXP operators?

Could you define what you mean by a distributed\global IXP? There are plenty of IXPs, but there aren't really global IXPs, those just become networks. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-i

Global/distributed IXP operators?

If there are any operators working at distributed/global IXPs and wouldn't mind having their brains picked regarding design questions, would you make yourselves known to me (on or off-list is fine). Thanks, Dan

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

00/Nexus 9300. > >We also evaluated VXLAN for IXP deployment, since Trident-2 introduced HW >support for it. But VXLAN does *not* create a network for you, it relies >on >some existing underlying IP network, on top of which VXLAN creates >stateless >tunnels. > >

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:37:35PM -0500, Phil Bedard wrote: > I think in fairly short order both TRILL and 802.1AQ will be depercated in > place of VXLAN and using BGP EVPN as the control plane ala Juniper > QFX5100/Nexus 9300. We also evaluated VXLAN for IXP deployment, since

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On 1/17/15, 7:15 PM, "Saku Ytti" wrote: >On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian Ďurkovič wrote: > >> Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL >>setup >> is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path >> IP-like "routing" for L2 ethernet packet

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On 19/01/2015 10:12, Marian Ďurkovič wrote: > Thus if you use VPLS or SPB-M on Trident HW, the egress PE doesn't support > per-flow loadbalancing on IXP participants' LAGs. not completely true. Extreme XOS has an interesting hack to work around this. Nick

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

on Trident HW, the egress PE doesn't support per-flow loadbalancing on IXP participants' LAGs. In any case, we preferred TRILL over SPB-M not just because of that, but mainly due to a fact that TRILL provides real routing using IS-IS as we know it from IP world, while SPB still

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian Ďurkovič wrote: > Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL setup > is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path > IP-like "routing" for L2 ethernet packets over any reasonable topology > out of the box (w

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

rds, M. > Dear Nanog community > > We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have > multiple POPs and I was wondering what do you recommend for L2 switches. I > know that some IXPs use Nexus, Brocade, Force10 but I don't personally have > experience

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

We always adhere to JTAC: http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB21476&actp=SUBSCRI PTION unless otherwise required by their support to change. Currently it is Junos 13.2X51-D26. My advice to you is to not use 14.1 unless you have a reason, as that is more of a dev branch in ter

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

inal Message- > From: Eduardo Schoedler > Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM > To: "nanog@nanog.org" > Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP > > >QFX5100 is SDN ready. > > > >-- > >Eduardo Schoedler > > > > > &g

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Stephen R. Carter wrote: > We love our 5100s here. Out of interest: Are you running 13.2 or 14.1? What features are you using? Our own experiences with a bunch of 48 & 96 port machines running 14.1 is painful to say the least. Richard

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:47:09 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote: > Got you - artificially disabling 90% of the features > otherwise supported by the OS and using half baked HAL > makes product SDN ready! Sorry for the sarcasm, couldn¹t > resist :) I once tested a Junos release with the X blah bla

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:25:30 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote: > AhhhŠ vertically integrated horizontal API¹s Green, vertically integrated horizontal API's :-). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

You can see what we have at the SIX here -  http://www.seattleix.net/topology.html Mike -- Michael K. Smith mksm...@mac.com On Jan 11, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Manuel Marín wrote: Dear Nanog community We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have multiple POPs and I was

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

: "nanog@nanog.org" Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP >My mistake, it's the OCX1100. >http://www.networkworld.com/article/2855056/sdn/juniper-unbundles-switch-h >ardware-software.html > >2015-01-13 20:10 GMT-02:00 Jeff Tantsura : > >> What does i

Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP

Either way, you can do "SDN" and automation with most Juniper kit. On purchase of JCare you get free access to Junos Space - great for provisioning and management of an IXP. Regards, Tim Raphael > On 14 Jan 2015, at 6:28 am, Eduardo Schoedler wrote: > > My mistake, it&#x

  1   2   3   4   >