Le Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 03:12:29PM -0300, Jean Franco a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I know this must have been on the table before, but I'm looking for a
> in-house solution, something I can host on our own datacenter to document
> fiber networks, maps and so forth.
>
I use a mix of Qgis, PostgreSQL,
Hi All,
Did this issue resurface some days ago...?
I had nearly 6000 ROAs on June 1st.
That went to ZERO on June 2nd.
I'm using routinator. Should i have changed something in my config to
accomodate for some change?
Best Regards,
Carlos
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022, Cedrick Adrien Mbeyet wrote:
Hi Carlos,
We currently have a degradation on our RPKI services. We had to disable the
RRDP service request so it can fall back to RSYNC in the meantime that the
team works on ways to optimize the availability of the service. However,
this was prior to 1st of June. We will still investigate just to
Hi Carlos,
Because of the issues that AfriNIC is facing, they are forcing all traffic from
HTTPS to rsync, so you should check if rsync can properly set up outbound
connections from your machine. What’s the output you get when you rsync
rsync://rpki.afrinic.net/repository/ ?
I do an interactiv
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023, Alex Band wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Hi Alex, All,
Because of the issues that AfriNIC is facing, they are forcing all
traffic from HTTPS to rsync, so you should check if rsync can properly
set up outbound connections from your machine. What?s the output you get
when you rsy
Hi,
PeeringDB's Product Committee wants your input on whether the Network
Type field is useful. Should it go? Should it change?
We have published a very short blog post describing the options and
linking to the survey.
https://docs.peeringdb.com/blog/network_type_your_input_sought/
Your input w
Greetings,
My issue seems to be solved.
It seems the Afrinic glitch is incompatible with the version of routinator
i was using. So i updated to the last version (0.12.1), and now i can get
Afrinic's ROAs again :-)
Thanks Alex and Cedrick!
Best Regards,
Carlos
Hi Carlos,
Happy to hear everything is working fine with the latest version of Routinator.
At lot of work has been put into making fetching and validating RPKI data more
robust since the (over two year old) version of Routinator that you were
running.
I want to make an important point for the
Clarify: sure.
Remove: don't remove. Please. Pretty please.
Rubens
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:18 PM Leo Vegoda wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> PeeringDB's Product Committee wants your input on whether the Network
> Type field is useful. Should it go? Should it change?
>
> We have published a very short blog
For the last two weeks we have been unable to pay any bills on the
business Comcast website.
Clicking on any billing link results in:
400 Bad Request
Request Header Or Cookie Too Large
This is going to the URL of:
https://business.comcast.com/oauth/oauth2/authorize?client_id=comcast-business-m
Someone else here gave me a pointer when I was running into this on the USPS
site.
Clear your cookies for that site. (In Chrome/Edge, go to the site, open up the
dev tools, go to the "Application" tab, find cookies, delete them all).
Something probably went a little nuts with the site and ended
Hello, all.
I’m having difficulty finding vendors, never mind products, that fit my need.
We have a small but growing number of L2 (bridged) customers that have diverse
fiber paths available, and, naturally, want to make use of them.
We have a solution for this: we extend the edge of our EVPN VXL
Have you tried incognito mode? Sometimes some Extensions will mess with the
request-header and break some web sites (I'm looking at you, Cisco Licensing).
FYI I'm able to access the site but don't have a login to test further.
Greg Dickinson, CCNA
Network Engineer
-Original Message
I think you’re probably overthinking this a bit.
Why do you need to extend your vxlan/evpn to the customer premise? There are a
number of 1G/10G even 100G CPE demarc devices out there that push/pop tags,
even q-in-q, or 802.1ad. Assuming you have some type of aggregation node you
bring these ba
Putting the smart devices on the edge allows for a much-simplified core
topology.
Either way, I was doing research on FPGA-based hardware a couple of weeks ago
and came across this which may tick all the boxes.
https://ethernitynet.com/products/enet-network-appliances/uep-60/ I do not know
the
The redundant links to the customer site that traverse independent underlay
carriers, and in some cases, equal-cost paths that we want to load-balance
across, are the hard part. I’m not going to trust STP for that, and we aim for
<3sec failover where we do have redundant paths. ERPS can handle
hey,
equal-cost paths that we want to load-balance across, are the hard
part. I’m not going to trust STP for that, and we aim for <3sec
failover where we do have redundant paths. ERPS can handle the
failover, but not the load-balancing.
You have EVPN already, perhaps just use active-active
Leo:
The survey might also want to include response options along the lines of:
"Don't know / N/A".
Thank you
jms
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:18 PM Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PeeringDB's Product Committee wants your input on whether the Network
> Type field is useful. Should it go? Should it
I just left a couple sections blank.
On 6/14/2023 3:31 PM, Justin Streiner wrote:
Leo:
The survey might also want to include response options along the lines
of: "Don't know / N/A".
Thank you
jms
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:18 PM Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
PeeringDB's Product Committ
Not sure how much of "CPE" it needs to be, but for example the whole Cisco
Catalyst 9K product line (including the smaller C9300 switches) support the
whole EVPN/VXLAN stack).
A similar set of products exist on the Arista side (e.g. 7xx switches) as
well as Juniper EX4400 products...
On Wed, Jun 1
The Juniper EX4100-F-12T is pretty nice. Fanless, 1RU, 4x SFP+, 2x 10G Copper
which can also be used to power up the switch, and 12x 1G Copper ports.
EVPN/VXLAN requires an additional license. They don’t break the bank, our use
case is for a CPE as well.
Brandon
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Adam
The problem with these switch suggestions is the lack of RFC2544 testing, and
jitter + latency monitoring required for meeting SLA. That is why I mentioned
the FPGA solution.
Ryan Hamel
From: NANOG on behalf of Brandon
Price
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 2:2
There may be a few more places to go searching. I am not saying you will
find anything, but worth looking into, assuming Mikrotik won't help. :)
Check out what various SD-WAN vendors have to offer. Now, SD-WAN has about
46 definitions, as many as vendors (surviving vendors that is), but
undernea
On 6/14/23 20:50, Adam Thompson wrote:
Hello, all.
I’m having difficulty finding vendors, never mind products, that fit
my need.
We have a small but growing number of L2 (bridged) customers that have
diverse fiber paths available, and, naturally, want to make use of them.
We have a solu
Huawei NE8000-M1C
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, 07:20 Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 6/14/23 20:50, Adam Thompson wrote:
>
> Hello, all.
>
> I’m having difficulty finding vendors, never mind products, that fit my
> need.
>
>
>
> We have a small but growing number of L2 (bridged) customers that have
> divers
On 6/14/23 22:04, Ryan Hamel wrote:
Putting the smart devices on the edge allows for a much-simplified
core topology.
Putting smart devices in the edge does simplify the network, yes. What
doesn't is making the customer's site part of your edge.
We've been running MPLS all the way into t
On 6/14/23 21:16, Joe Freeman wrote:
I think you’re probably overthinking this a bit.
Why do you need to extend your vxlan/evpn to the customer premise?
There are a number of 1G/10G even 100G CPE demarc devices out there
that push/pop tags, even q-in-q, or 802.1ad. Assuming you have some
t
On 6/15/23 07:22, Marco Paesani wrote:
Huawei NE8000-M1C
I envy folk who aren't mobile operators that are brave enough to run
Huawei for their IP/MPLS network deliberately, i.e., without influence
from "management" because they got a good deal :-).
Not for us.
Mark.
On 6/14/23 22:06, Adam Thompson wrote:
The redundant links to the customer site that traverse independent
underlay carriers, and in some cases, equal-cost paths that we want to
load-balance across, are the hard part. I’m not going to trust STP
for that, and we aim for <3sec failover where w
> Putting the smart devices on the edge allows for a much-simplified core
> topology.
>> Putting smart devices in the edge does simplify the network, yes. What
>> doesn't is making the customer's site part of your edge.
If the customer's site goes offline, that is their problem. A CPE device is
I fully agree here too. That's why I proposed a "smarter" CPE to replace the
standard appliances deployed on site, where the only thing changing is the
configuration on the device itself, not product being handed off.
Ryan Hamel
From: NANOG on behalf of Mark Tin
On 6/15/23 07:49, Ryan Hamel wrote:
If the customer's site goes offline, that is their problem. A CPE
device is still a CPE device, no matter how smart it is. Setup IS-IS,
BGP to route servers, LDP + MPLS if you don't go the VXLAN route, and
that's it.
So you have two issues here:
* If i
On 6/15/23 07:53, Ryan Hamel wrote:
I fully agree here too. That's why I proposed a "smarter" CPE to
replace the standard appliances deployed on site, where the only thing
changing is the configuration on the device itself, not product being
handed off.
I'm just always concerned about havi
33 matches
Mail list logo
