A few time already I've wished for a fully standardized and vendor
interoperable way of doing a true point to point ethernet link.
It would work just like an old leased line or synchronous serial
interface and completely do away with ARP, MAC addresses and all
that stuff. Obviously no switches i
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> You mean someone wants the code? I'll be happy to put it back up
> if folks are interested.
Thanks for putting the web pages back up. Is it possibl to publish the
code too?
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
GE
We're halfway there (OK, a bit less, they've messed up OSPF) with the
unnumbered VLAN interfaces.
http://wiki.nil.com/Unnumbered_Ethernet_VLAN_interfaces
What's missing is the removal of MAC layer header, but that would require
modifications to the NIC chipsets (= expensive).
Ivan
http://www.i
To boot almost all the original Telcove crew we had are gone. They're
losing the better people through attrition as they're frustrated at not
being able to help their customers. I also have a feeling Level3 makes
changes during business hours that are not announced. I have no proof
but I hav
> > Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will
> hear me/us.
> >
> > --
> > Andre
We also need functional remote loop testing, of the "remote hands guy plugs in
a loopback plug" or "I send remote-triggered loop" type.
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothe
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Do you think this is useful?
Andre,
Some thoughts on this:
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
2. Why do we need to save 12 bytes per pac
There are lots of great little cable testers that can "loop" an Ethernet
link or even blink the switchport (this one is copper only):
http://www.jdsu.com/products/communications-test-measurement/products/a-z-pr
oduct-list/lanscaper.html
The remote-triggered is harder, but there are a number of swi
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
To me the only reason for this would be to lessen overhead on small
packets. Also, afaik standard payload MTU is 1
Visit the Accedian website to learn about Ethernet demarcation and related
standards. They market me heavily (and it apparently works).
Frank
-Original Message-
From: David Barak [mailto:thegame...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 8:47 AM
To: 'Andre Oppermann'; nanog@nanog.org;
On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If
we want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
From what I have been told, IEEE 802 refuses to make a
> > 1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
> > want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
>
> To me the only reason for this would be to lessen overhead on small
> packets. Also, afaik standard payload MTU is 1500 for ethernet, anything
> e
My first thought was that there's really no use ripping the guts out of a
protocol whose core mechanisms are aimed at dealing with the complexities of
operating on a shared medium only to use it in an environment in which none
of those complexities exist.
But, if interfaces would be made to sup
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>> 1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
>>> want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next st
> My understanding is that 9000 is a standard for GigE and up but for
> compatibility with earlier ethernets it's not the default.
Your understanding is wrong. The only IEEE standard is 1500 bytes.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Does anyone have any data on how the memorial event for Michael Jackson effected
the global backbones? This was seen as another inaugural type of traffic day to
most of the people I've talked to.
-S
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM, wrote:
>> My understanding is that 9000 is a standard for GigE and up but for
>> compatibility with earlier ethernets it's not the default.
>
> Your understanding is wrong. The only IEEE standard is 1500 bytes.
Steinar,
I 'spose I could have consulted wikipedia a
Hi,
I would like to trigger feedback from you (people running BGP) on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-francois-limited-scope-specifics-00
This draft documents a threat to the respect of BGP policies of an AS.
These can be violated due to the injection of more specific routes whose
propagation
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
At the cost of low-volume production run hardware which is A. much more
expensive (because of the low volume), B. restricted to a few supported
routers and C. less thoroughly tested. I don't see how you come out
ahead in that calculation.
The only wa
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Shon Elliott wrote:
Does anyone have any data on how the memorial event for Michael
Jackson effected
the global backbones? This was seen as another inaugural type of
traffic day to
most of the people I've talked to.
-S
Don't know about backbones, but this i
Speaking from a personal interest, has the Point-to-Point Protocol
stopped being useful?
After all, PPP over Sonet/SDH was specifically designed for just this case.
Once upon a time, it worked well for intra-site connections, as originally
specified in RFC1619:
PPP encapsulation over high spe
> Speaking from a personal interest, has the Point-to-Point Protocol
> stopped being useful?
>
> After all, PPP over Sonet/SDH was specifically designed for just this case.
Absolutely, and it still works great for that purpose.
However, given a provider backbone with Ethernet being the underlyin
> More importantly one can specify the just the outgoing interface
> again instead of the next hop:
>
> ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 g0/1
>
> Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
No. What makes Ethernet useful and successful is that, unlike most
other network/interconne
On 8-Jul-09, at 11:08 AM, Shon Elliott wrote:
Does anyone have any data on how the memorial event for Michael
Jackson effected
the global backbones? This was seen as another inaugural type of
traffic day to
most of the people I've talked to.
Not sure if this qualifies as backbone, per se b
Shon Elliott wrote:
Does anyone have any data on how the memorial event for Michael Jackson effected
the global backbones? This was seen as another inaugural type of traffic day to
most of the people I've talked to.
We are far from a global backbone, though the eyeballs transiting
through us a
Speaking from a provider's view, this is what we saw/heard during the event.
Total concurrent streams (across the board not just us): 781,000
Traffic wise, we peaked at close to 45G over our daily average across all
locations during the MJ event. This was all live streaming traffic for one of
> The reality is that is an SDH/SONET backbone underlying most of these
> Ethernet networks.
That may be so (however, numbers for the national provider I work for do
not tend to bear this out). But does it matter? People presumably use
Ethernet because it is inexpensive, easily available, well kn
So. where is all this talent going? NTT? AT&T? Verizon? Dare I say
it cogent? :)
Also has anyone filed complaints with the FTC or DOJ?
Jason LeBlanc wrote:
To boot almost all the original Telcove crew we had are gone. They're
losing the better people through attrition as they're frus
On 08.07.2009 18:04, Joe Greco wrote:
More importantly one can specify the just the outgoing interface
again instead of the next hop:
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 g0/1
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
No. What makes Ethernet useful and successful is that, unlike
Anyone on here care to comment on Bandcon transit services? Anyone even
using them? They are offering me an incredible deal on transit, and I was
wondering what their reputation is.
thanks
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:01:20 -0400, Andre Oppermann
wrote:
... completely do away with ARP, MAC addresses and all
that stuff.
Removing "all that stuff" means it's no longer ethernet.
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
No. I do not.
Ethernet is not a point-to-poi
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
Ethernet is not a point-to-point technology. It is a multi-point
(broadcast, bus, etc.) technology with DECADES of optimization and
adoption. No one has gotten IEEE to adopt a larger frame size, and you
want to drop *fundamental* elements of ethernet?!?
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Kretchmer, Sam wrote:
> Anyone on here care to comment on Bandcon transit services? Anyone even
> using them? They are offering me an incredible deal on transit, and I was
> wondering what their reputation is.
I've used Bandcon in the past, and we are actually goin
Remember that they resell bandwidth similar to that of WBS, but just
like WBS they also have their own transit networks in place now it
seems never been a customer of either but have talked to them
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Matthews [mailto:exstat...@gmail.com]
Sent: W
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Kretchmer, Sam wrote:
Anyone on here care to comment on Bandcon transit services? Anyone
even
using them? They are offering me an incredible deal on transit, and
I was
wondering what their reputation is.
thanks
I don't have any usage experience, but would be
> Their support sucks really really bad. I had a level 3 outtage and
> it took 10 calls to finally get them to do something. Things might
> have improved by now, but no promises. If you are getting a large
> amount of bandwidth ask for direct access to the carriers noc. That
> how we do it.
They
Anyone know what was the deal with GoDaddy this morning?
I sporadically could not resolve a domain I own this morning. Checked the
authoritative and it was fine... then noticed that it was completely not
working from some ISPs but OK from others, etc. Went to GoDaddy's site and
finally saw a smal
Shon Elliott wrote:
Does anyone have any data on how the memorial event for Michael Jackson effected
the global backbones? This was seen as another inaugural type of traffic day to
most of the people I've talked to.
99.99% of my userbase is in the rural Midwest. Needless to say I saw no
incre
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Eric Kujawski wrote:
Speaking from a provider's view, this is what we saw/heard during
the event.
Total concurrent streams (across the board not just us): 781,000
Traffic wise, we peaked at close to 45G over our daily average
across all locations during the M
On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Eric Kujawski wrote:
Speaking from a provider's view, this is what we saw/heard during
the event.
Total concurrent streams (across the board not just us): 781,000
Traffic wise, we peaked at close to 45G ove
Nothing like inauguration, but then we're on summer semester schedule
and sparsely populated :-)
There was a noticeable spike in OUTBOUND traffic and connections, mostly
that ill-behaved Octoshape (udp/8247), used by CNN and maybe others.
Jeff
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Sean wrote:
Anyone know what was the deal with GoDaddy this morning?
I sporadically could not resolve a domain I own this morning. Checked the
authoritative and it was fine... then noticed that it was completely not
working from some ISPs but OK from others, etc. Went to Go
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
They sort of did a few decades back, created HDLC (5 bytes minimum)
and PPP (6 bytes minimum) for P2P links. I think you're at risk of
over-thinking this problem working in revers
if it does away with MAC addresses, in what sense is it an Ethernet
link?
I'll go with EPON or a variety of those. Not sure what messing with
the Mac frame actually buys.
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A few time already I've wished for a fully standardized and vendor
The fundamental disconnect here is that a bunch of Layer 3 guys are
trying to define Layer 2.
History shows us that Layer 2 winds up being IEEE, and Layer 3 IETF.
ITU-T and others write long "standards" that wind up not being so, due
to too many "options", while spending lots of money and keeping
Ditto here. Did not see any increase.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Justin Shore [mailto:jus...@justinshore.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 3:39 PM
To: Shon Elliott
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Traffic Statistics for Yesterday
Shon Elliott wrote:
> Does anyone have any data on
We were 30% higher than ever seen before in our network quite a jump
for about an hour...
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: July 8, 2009 9:11 PM
To: 'Justin Shore'; Shon Elliott
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Traffic Statistics for Yesterday
> History shows us that Layer 2 winds up being IEEE, and Layer 3 IETF.
mpls
> Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on fast-e/slow-e.
As far as I know Gig and 10 Gig (with LAN PHY) are exactly the same
as 10 and 100 Mbps in this respect, i.e. 8 bytes of preamble and 12
bytes of IFG. So you always have an overhead of 20 bytes, no matter
what.
10 Gig with WA
Overhead shmoverhead.
Seriously, we're fighting over the non-issue. It's not the "wasted"
0.02% of bandwidth (@ 1Gbps) that's the issue. It's the utility of a
"come as you are" "plug and play" network that "Ethernet" (which really
loosely means all IEEE 802 protocols) provides, which the current
49 matches
Mail list logo
