> BGP is still atrocious on the CCRs, but that's because the route
> update process isn't multithreaded.
I recently took a close look at this, and that the update process is
single-threaded is not the major problem so long as churn is not too
great. The problem is that due to a deeper prob
On 20/May/15 19:44, Alain Hebert wrote:
>
> Cisco
>
> I don't know about the licensing for the ASR but I mostly deal
> with second hand devices.
>
> They are not flashy but do the job.
If you are not trying to enable any IOS XR PIE's that need licenses
(like video monitoring
On 17 April 2015 at 16:53, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote:
> Peering and peering on an exchange are two different things. Peering at an
> exchange has several benefits other than the simple cost of transit. If you
> are in a large data center which charges fees for cross connects a single
> cross
Thanks a lot to Denis Fondras, Zachary, Andrew Smith, Christopher Morrow
for your valuable advice.
I've tried cacti but failed to get desired logs. i've also tried bind
graph...but it consumes too much memory in the long run.
can u suggest some suitable tools that i can measure the performance of
Hi Zayed,
I think you're more likely to get good answers to your BIND-specific
questions on the bind-users mailing list. See:
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
BIND9 has the capability to produce a vast variety and volume of logs,
and dealing with logs in general is somethi
James, curious to know... what size ISPs are they? In the last few years
with the larger ones it has always been about lowering cost and increasing
revenue, which throws the original idea of peering out the window (unless
you are willing to pay).
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:52 AM, James Bensley wro
Zayed,
What issues did you run into when trying to monitor Bind with Cacti ?
here is a nice write up on this: http://gregsowell.com/?p=4763
If you don't find yourself getting far with this, then you can always use the
Captain James T. Kirk's way of solving "Kobayashi Maru" (Use powerd
As a small ISP, I'll peer with everybody possible. ;-) It's mostly about cost,
but the quality goes up as well. Some of the people we're working with saw an
increase in consumption the moment they joined IXes. The quality of the
connections improved, so the streaming video (assumed) was able to
Hi All,
Thanks for reviewing my query.
I am very new to NX OS, and I would like to know, what are the entities
that we can monitor.
Currently we are doing basic monitoring like interface, bandwidth usage
--
With Regards,
Sathish Kumar Ippani
9177166040
We went that way too about 2 years ago. We usually pass around 25 to 40% of our
North American traffic to the 4 IXes we're connected at a very low cost in
Toronto and Montreal. One of the biggest IX we're connected to in New York is
almost the same price per Mbps as some cheap transit providers
On 2015-05-21 06:15, Zayed Mahmud wrote:
I've tried cacti but failed to get desired logs. i've also tried bind
graph...but it consumes too much memory in the long run.
How constrained are your servers? What is "too much memory"? What logs
are you looking for?
Have you tried looking at the s
On 21 May 2015 at 13:40, Rafael Possamai wrote:
> James, curious to know... what size ISPs are they? In the last few years
> with the larger ones it has always been about lowering cost and increasing
> revenue, which throws the original idea of peering out the window (unless
> you are willing to p
> On May 21, 2015, at 12:00 PM, char...@thefnf.org wrote:
>
>> can u suggest some suitable tools that i can measure the performance of the
>> dns servers?
>
> What sort of performance? What metrics are you trying to track? Please
> provide more details about exactly what you want.
> That will h
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
> Hi Roderick,
>
> transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful
> economy on small channels. If you don't live in
> Amsterdam/Frankfurt/London - add the DWDM cost from you to one of major
> IX. That's the magic.
>
> In larg
Dear NANOG,
We do not see entries for www.bing.com since Sep 2013 anymore [1].
For sure this is only from our measurement vantage points, so may not
be true globally. Does anybody know the backstory of what happened?
[1] http://goo.gl/K1Zx4u (see: slide 23/32)
Thanks!
Best, Vaibhav
==
> On May 21, 2015, at 3:34 PM, Bajpai, Vaibhav
> wrote:
>
> Dear NANOG,
>
> We do not see entries for www.bing.com since Sep 2013 anymore [1].
> For sure this is only from our measurement vantage points, so may not
> be true globally. Does anybody know the backstory of what happened?
>
>
There are several properties that used to work and do not anymore:
wireless.att.com
www.att.net
www.charter.com
www.globalcrossing.com
John B. told me a couple of days ago to "stand by" for dns.comcast.net and
www.dnsec.comcast.net, so I'm doing that. =)
And www.frontier.com has been broken for
>And www.frontier.com has been broken for 6 days.
Works fine for me over v6 although the chain of TLS certificates looks
kind of funky.
R's,
John
On 21/May/15 18:59, Dave Taht wrote:
> Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
> moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
>
> and 2) does anyone measure "cross town latency". If we lived in a
> world where skype/voip/etc transited the local town only,
> wh
On Thursday, May 21, 2015, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 21/May/15 18:59, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> > Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
> > moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
> >
> > and 2) does anyone measure "cross town latency". If we lived in a
> >
It literally came up within minutes of my posting. =) I know there are
Frontier staff lurking on NANOG and I had already engaged a senior Frontier
person on this last week, but he was dependent on their IT department to
resolve this.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: John Levine [mailto:
21 matches
Mail list logo
