Hi Guys.
Do you ever see single fiber 10Gb/s X2 or Xenpak transceiver? (I know about
SFP, but never see X2 or Xenpak before)
Hi Guys.
Do you ever see single fiber 10Gb/s X2 or Xenpak transceiver? (I know about
SFP, but never see X2 or Xenpak before)
The really scary thing is that deploying carrier-grade NAT might be cheaper
to the service provider than rolling IPv6 to its residential subscribers.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:ober...@es.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:30 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: 'Carl Ro
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
The really scary thing is that deploying carrier-grade NAT might be cheaper
to the service provider than rolling IPv6 to its residential subscribers.
The really scary thing is that in areas where there are only two major
ISPs, both might go for CGN and t
Most service providers aren't in the business of maintaining their customer's
home network, and if you have to place an ONT/DSL modem/cable modem at the
customer premise, most of that gear operates at L2 with little L3 in the way
(except perhaps if you place the PPPoA/E functionality on the DSL
>>> I guess you don't use DHCP in IPv4 then.
>> No, you seem to think the failure mode is the same, and it is not.
>> Let's walk through this:
>> 1) 400 people get on the NANOG wireless network.
>> 2) Mr 31337 comes along and puts up a rogue DHCP server.
>> 3) All 400 people continue working just f
On 19/02/2009 07:27, David Conrad wrote:
those requirements to be. Unfortunately, that's not what we have. We
have network operators in their own little world, trying to keep the
network running and protocol developers in their own little world,
trying to come up with cool features that will make
>
> I think, for example, that Juniper is making a mistake by rolling v6
> capability into a license that also includes BGP and ISIS on some
> platforms. Cisco is guilty of this as well.
>
> I am not necessarily advocating that v6 must be a basic feature on every
> new box; but I don't think it
Independent of this conversation, there has been some parallel
interest in this problem area in the IETF. There is enough interest
to suggest writing a draft defining additional options for DHCPv6 to
allow "DHCPv6-only" operation.
I'm writing as chair of the dhc WG to ask you, the operator
Frank Bulk wrote:
Considering that the only real IPv6-ready CPE at your favorite N.A. electronics store is Apple's AirPort, it seems to me that it will be several years before the majority (50% plus 1) of our respective customer bases has IPv6-ready or dual-stack equipment.
On the other hand,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 03:05:43PM -0600, Dale W. Carder wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
> >
> >Is there something like this already that anyone knows of?
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-02.txt
There will be an update of this prior to March's IE
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
Thank you for your information
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
part of the equation.
In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than
non-moving parts
Not much really, besides your personal preference and the configurability of
the device (will maintaining some semblance of sanity), there are some very
nice custom linux based appliances out there e.g. vyatta routers, which
boast 10 times throughput of Cisco (2800 series) routers, however it all
c
Deric Kwok wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
>
> Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
Archives have discussed this at extreme length.
The most interesting thing I saw come out of it was this
http://data.guu
Imagestream is a very solid and mature solution. In order to head off the
Holy War I am a Cisco guy too. It just depends on your budget and situation.
Justin
> From: Deric Kwok
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:30:16 -0500
> To:
> Subject: real hardware router VS linux router
>
> Hi All
>
> Actua
>I can't think of a single
>> working group chair/co-chair that's ever presented at NANOG and asked
>> for feedback.
Were you at the last NANOG when I did everything but beg for feedback?
--Sandy
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:56:35AM -0500, Sandy Murphy wrote:
> >I can't think of a single
> >> working group chair/co-chair that's ever presented at NANOG and asked
> >> for feedback.
>
> Were you at the last NANOG when I did everything but beg for feedback?
Would it be insane to have an IETF b
Well,
Our operation uses linux everywhere and we have our own in house
tiny embedded flavor with all the tools and things that make it suited
for use in big and small boxes as many kinds of router and general
packet flipping appliance. I have confidence built on long term, real
world exper
Response inline.
-Original Message-
From: Carl Rosevear [mailto:carl.rosev...@demandmedia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:59 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: IPv6 Confusion
> How does IPv6 addressing work?
RFC 2372 is a good starting point.
With IPv6 we provide for every LAN ne
In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Jared Mauch
wrote:
>
> Would it be insane to have an IETF back-to-back with a NANOG?
>
Probably, but it would be a good idea. :)
I have no idea how the IETF agenda is set, but that may be part of
the trick. I suspect network opera
>Were you at the last NANOG when I did everything but beg for feedback?
Maybe I should have been more helpful. Here's the link:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog45/presentations/Wednesday/Murphy_light_sidr_N45.pdf
--Sandy
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:19 -0500
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Jared
> Mauch wrote:
> >
> > Would it be insane to have an IETF back-to-back with a NANOG?
> >
>
> Probably, but it would be a good idea. :)
>
> I have no idea how the IETF
Ryan Harden wrote:
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
part of the equation.
In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than
non-moving parts.
It's quite possible t
Greetings
I am curious to know about any tools/techniques that a service provider uses
to assess an SLA before signing it. That is to say, how does an
administrator know if he/she can meet what he is promising. Is it based on
experience? Are there commonly used tools for this?
Thanks and best regar
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak
and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in
ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.
-b
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Harden [mailto:harde...@ui
On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:19 -0500
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Jared
Mauch wrote:
Would it be insane to have an IETF back-to-back with a NANOG?
Probably, but it would be a good
Bill Blackford wrote:
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak
and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in
ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.
It scales quite well, I'm sure, if you take
On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru
were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/
RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec
becomes a limitation I would think.
I've aske
>
> In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were
> to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or
> a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I
> would think.
>
Is anyone building linux/bsd-box add-on cards with off
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Daniel Senie wrote:
>> >...
>> > No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from
>> IPv4. If
>> > anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is
>> specify
>> > it. The fact that the *nog community stopped
Availability cannot be calculated in advance. It typically is based on
historical component failure information. Sound design ensures
redundancy and eliminates single point of failure.
As for the rest, CIR, Latency, Jitter, Loss . this can be tested
prior to customer handover with any number
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:
>
>> In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were
>> to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL
>> or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a
>> li
We just got in 4 of the X2's.
Vernon Leonard
Tarrant County IT
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Slastenov [mailto:a.slaste...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:18 AM
To: nanog
Subject: single fiber 10Gb/s X2 or Xenpak transceiver
Hi Guys.
Do you ever see single fiber 1
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Christopher Morrow wrote:
That is not what the decision said. The point was that the DHCP WG was not
going to decide for you what was necessary or appropriate to carry forward.
Rather than add baggage that nobody actually uses, there is nothing until
someone says 'I need
this plattform can handle about
100.000pps and 400mbit 1500byte packets with freebsd
http://lannerinc.com/Network_Application_Platforms/x86_Network_Appliance/1U_Network_Appliances/FW-7550
hardware:
4x pci 32bit, 33mhz intel gbit
1gb cf-card
1gb ram
with this hardware even
Maybe the best way of addressing this is knowing exactly what we need to
measure- if IP traffic, services or processes. If the timescale of a process
(ie: MTTR's)and/or procedure or just data and/or voice traffic from point A to
B. Or just scoping the measurments as being the performance of the
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Saqib Ilyas wrote:
I am curious to know about any tools/techniques that a service provider uses
to assess an SLA before signing it. That is to say, how does an
administrator know if he/she can meet what he is promising.
IME, the administrators don't have anything to do wit
Randy Bush wrote:
> > The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF
> has
> > resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because
> nobody
> > stood up and did the work to make it happen.
>
> the ops gave up on the ietf because it did no good to participate. so
Haven't seen one. With the huge heat sink and serialization circuitry on
the X2, what advantage would a single strand connector bring? MRV may
have one if anyone does, though.
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Slastenov [mailto:a.slaste...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:06 A
We use the BRIX active measurement instrumentation product to measure
round-trip, jitter, and packet loss SLA conformity.
-Original Message-
From: Saqib Ilyas [mailto:msa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Network SLA
Greetings
I am cur
David Conrad wrote:
> Tony,
>
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > The bottom line is, if you want something to be defined in a way
> > that works for you, you have to participate in the definition.
>
> Well, yes. But there is an impedance mismatch here.
No argument.
>
> The I
christopher.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
> >...
> > Yes people expect 1:1 functionality, but how many of them are
> stepping up to
>
> how many vendors are implementing willy-nilly v4 feature requests for
> their enterprise/isp customers? does it not seem reasonable to look at
> each one and say: "Gosh
--- nrauhau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: neal rauhauser
What in the world is someone doing with that many prepends? I'm trying to
envision what would drive such a decision - small, regional player on one
---
Playing with the internet just to see what ha
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
>
> this plattform can handle about
> 100.000pps and 400mbit 1500byte packets with freebsd
> http://lannerinc.com/Network_Application_Platforms/x86_Network_Appliance/1U_Network_Appliances/FW-7550
>
> hardware:
> 4x pci 32bit, 33mhz intel gbit
> 1gb cf-card
> 1
On 2/19/2009 9:37 AM, Ryan Harden wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
part of the equation.
In almost all scenarios, moving parts are
Hi, need some advise here. Do I still need to maintain my objects (and pay)
RADB? I use ARIN as source and all my route objects can be verified with a
whois.
Thanks,
Zaid
We are working on a document for Cisco.com but in the interim
here is the bug that will fix the issue of a Cisco IOS device
sending an incorrectly formatted BGP update when as a result
of prepending it goes over 255 AS hops.
Note: The Title and Release-note on bug toolkit may be a
bit different as
Saqib Ilyas wrote:
Greetings
I am curious to know about any tools/techniques that a service provider uses
to assess an SLA before signing it. That is to say, how does an
administrator know if he/she can meet what he is promising. Is it based on
experience? Are there commonly used tools for this?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Zaid Ali wrote:
Hi, need some advise here. Do I still need to maintain my objects (and
pay) RADB? I use ARIN as source and all my route objects can be verified
with a whois.
If your objects are all maintained via another routing registry (ARIN's,
altdb, etc.) and you don
You know you're off track when..
What operational relevance does this conversation, or the similiar
ones that came before it, have? Are there a bunch in production
contributing to the degradation of the best route between me and this
video of cute kittens I'm trying to watch? Did something
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:30:16 EST, Deric Kwok said:
> Hi All
>
> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
I'm continually amazed by the number of people who manage to conflate
two entirely different issues here.
There's *TWO* axes here:
| PC-class hardware
>> this is a slight exaggeration. it took me less than five years to get
>> rid of NLAs, TLAs, ... wooo wooo!
> Those were put in at the insistence of the ops / routing
>> community
complete and utter bs!
randy
Is there a good source to explain the whole RADB "system", and
tools/processes people use to maintain routing policies/filters based on it?
I'd like to both review and make sure my current understanding is accurate,
and have a doc to send people to.
Thanks for any pointers!
--D
On Thu, Feb 19, 2
Today 85.119.176.0/21 was announced by AS20912 with 177 prepends. I
noticed 20912 modulo 256 is 176. AS47868 modulo 256 is 252 which matches
this mondays prepend-incident.
So, what router OS will put 20912 into a byte and thus end up with 176 in
something like "set as-path prepend last-as "
Just seen that here too:
Feb 19 16:20:35: %BGP-6-ASPATH: Long AS path 8001 8928 20912 20912 20912
20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912
20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912
20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20912 20
protect users from victimisation by the likes of this :
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic204619.html
For years (decades?) I've been DNS hijacking to criple worm ridden
machines associating with my wifi nodes etc. That only deals with a
few threats. I'd like to feel confident in us
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> Today 85.119.176.0/21 was announced by AS20912 with 177 prepends. I
> noticed 20912 modulo 256 is 176. AS47868 modulo 256 is 252 which matches
> this mondays prepend-incident.
>
> So, what router OS will put 20912 into a byte and thus end up with 176
> in something l
>> I can't think of a single working group chair/co-chair that's
>> ever presented at NANOG and asked for feedback.
> Were you at the last NANOG when I did everything but beg for feedback?
no i was not
but leo's post was simple flatulence
randy
The only ill effect is if set it too low we tested it a bit at 20-30 AS
path length range figuring we shouldn't see *much* and it was staggering over
time. The unfortunate thing more related to your question is that we found
some AS's that were prepending 40-50 times to ALL their upstreams
Graphviz will do this. (www.graphviz.org)
The basic (dot) syntax for what you describe below is:
digraph G {
R1 -> VLAN100;
R2 -> R1;
SW1 -> VLAN100;
SW2 -> R2;
H1 -> SW1;
H2 -> SW1;
H3 -> SW2;
H4 -> SW2;
}
It'll output a GIF flowc
Is the ARIN registry free, then?
Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Zaid Ali wrote:
Hi, need some advise here. Do I still need to maintain my objects
(and pay) RADB? I use ARIN as source and all my route objects can be
verified with a whois.
If your objects are all maintained via another
It's not entirely free since you have to pay an AS maintenance fee and if you
are assigned a netblock directly then you pay maintenance on that also. I would
rather maintain everything in one place rather than paying an extra $495 to
RADB if my BGP peers can source it from ARIN.
Zaid
- Ori
But I pay for all that already, so it seems that using ARIN is a no-brainer.
Zaid Ali wrote:
It's not entirely free since you have to pay an AS maintenance fee and if you are assigned a netblock directly then you pay maintenance on that also. I would rather maintain everything in one place rather
2009/2/19, Andrey Slastenov :
> Hi Guys.
>
> Do you ever see single fiber 10Gb/s X2 or Xenpak transceiver? (I know about
> SFP, but never see X2 or Xenpak before)
>
--
Envoyé avec mon mobile
Jean
Hi all,
I am writing on behalf of AS8928.
We have changed our BGP policy against AS 20912 to allow maximum of 20
AS prepends.
Our NOC will communicate this issue to customer and when I will have
some news why this happened I will update NANOG list.
Best Regards
Tomas Caslavsky
+-
Yes but I wanted to get a feel from the community and I get a notification
message from RADB to pay up I wanted to get a feel from providers. I am happy
to take my question off the list :)
Zaid
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Robertson"
To: "Zaid Ali"
Cc: "NANOG list"
Sent: Thursda
> The only ill effect is if set it too low we tested it a bit
> at 20-30 AS path length range figuring we shouldn't see *much*
> and it was staggering over time. The unfortunate thing more
> related to your question is that we found some AS's that were
> prepending 40-50 times to ALL their ups
On Feb 19, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Bill Nash wrote:
Having carped, I'm obligated to offer a solution:
The technical discussion is certainly interesting to a small subset
of NANOG participants, I'm sure (I do find it interesting, I
promise), but I'm thinking this conversation is better elsewhere,
No. Use of a routing registry is not required.. ARIN's, RADB's or
otherwise. You might want to check out this presentation:
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/abstracts.php?pt=ODg4Jm5hbm9nNDQ=&nm=nanog44
This is an entirely different statement from "Your globally unique IP's
should to be al
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Brian Keefer wrote:
> If anyone would like to drop me a line off-list to point me in the
> right direction, I'd be very grateful. So far the most useful
> information I've found on the topic has been via this list.
>
> PS I'm talking specifically about Linux. The FreeB
> No. Use of a routing registry is not required.
^ always
some wise upstreams require it.
and it is a good idea to be in the irr.
and there are free/open irr servers.
randy
Ryan Harden wrote:
> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
> part of the equation.
Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
Steve
Most of all my providers use a route registry and if they don't I would
question it. I am all for a route registry but can we adopt one or one of X
registries which I think is what is happening. For my ease of management I
would like to use one and also pay (and budget) for one since its the sam
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Ryan Harden wrote:
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
part of the equation.
Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
Steve
On 2/19/09, mike wrote:
>
>
>
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> Ryan Harden wrote:
>>
>>
>>> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
>>> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
>>> part of the equation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not if you boot direct
On 19/02/2009 12:09, "Zaid Ali" wrote:
> Hi, need some advise here. Do I still need to maintain my objects (and pay)
> RADB? I use ARIN as source and all my route objects can be verified with a
> whois.
If you are happy using a RR which appears to only rely on a MAIL-FROM auth
scheme then the AR
> Ryan Harden wrote:
> > While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
> > real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
> > part of the equation.
>
> Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
You probably don't want
I probably tied CPE to NAT together in my mindif I peel NAT out from what
these CPE are doing, perhaps a PPPoE/A environment is the only place a L3 CPE
will be needed with IPv6 anymore. FTTH, BWA, RFC 1483/RBE, and cable modems
can bridge at L2 and each customer host can each have their own
Frank Bulk wrote:
Considering that the only real IPv6-ready CPE at your favorite N.A. electronics store is Apple's AirPort, it seems to me that it will be several years before the majority (50% plus 1) of our respective customer bases has IPv6-ready or dual-stack equipment.
Actually, out of
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
I probably tied CPE to NAT together in my mindif I peel NAT out from
what these CPE are doing, perhaps a PPPoE/A environment is the only
place a L3 CPE will be needed with IPv6 anymore. FTTH, BWA, RFC
1483/RBE, and cable modems can bridge at L2 and e
> Do you really want to keep state for hundreds of end user devices in
> your equipment?
>
> In my mind, IPv6 more than ever requires the customer to have their
> own L3 device (which you delegate a /56 to with DHCPv6-PD).
>
> Imagine the size of your TCAM needed with antispoofing ACLs and
> adja
82 matches
Mail list logo
