Peering at Equinix Sanjose

[정치영]

Title: Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle

Hi all,
 
Lately, my company was ready for peering at Equinix exchange in Sanjose and 
sent peering request mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as follow
But, we couldn't get any response from other IX members. Could 
you let me know why nobody did respond us ? 
Please advise me if we did something incorrectly.
 
>
Hi All,
 
Samsung Networks is now ready for peering at Equinix exchange and 
we would like to kick off the peering with all the members of equinix.
 
Samsung Networks is a leading Global IP network communication specialist 
in the country, has locate 10 global POP sites around the world and fiber optical 
networks that enable integration of 5 domestic centers and 30 local POP across 
the country.
We provide service are internet leased line, Private Internet Service, MPLS, 
Web-hosting, and IP telephony service across the country.
Our many customer are Samsung Electronics, 30 subsidiary company of Samsung, 
and about 1000 major companies across the country.
In peering with Samsung Networks, can access directly as fast as possible 
at our 500 major customer web site, on-line game, and particular all contents 
of Samsung subsidiary. 
 
Samsung Networks aims for open peering policy.
However, in the special cases, we can control traffic flow locally by using 
any bgp attributes.
 
Our details are as follows:
 
 - ASN : 6619
 - IP : 206.223.116.135/24
 - AS-MACRO: AS-SAMSUNGNETWORKS (in RADB)
 - Max Prefixes: 200
 - MD5 : (negotiable)
 - contact : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
If you would like to peer with Samsung Networks, please provide us with the 
following details and email to " [EMAIL PROTECTED] "
and then we will set peering configuration on our side.
 
 - ASN:
 - IPs(s):
 - AS-MACRO: 
 - Contact: 
 - Max Prefixes : 
 - MD5 : 
 - Contact information
 
Best Regards,
 
 
 
 ===

 Chi-Young Joung

 SAMSUNG NETWORKS Inc.

 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Tel +82 70 7015 0623, Mobile +82 17 520 9193

 Fax +82 70 7016 0031
===  

Re: Looking for Verizon-GNI network engineer

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:49 PM, K. Scott Bethke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Sorry if this is off-topic frustration has set in.   I've got what
>  looks like a routing loop or a wedge in your network and I cant get
>  past tier2 saying it is an "internet problem".  I asked to speak with
>  an engineer directly was told Verizon engineers don't talk directly
>  with customers.  Issue going on for 4 days.



Actually, this is great and on-topic. Thanks for helping out.

-M<

Re: Question on the topology of Internet Exchange Points

[Michuki Mwangi]

Paul Vixie wrote:


 i don't know what's true of other IXP's around the world.



At the Kenyan Internet Exchange Point (KIXP), we require that all 
operators  have a BGP-speaking router mounted on the racks at the 
facility. All connections are done through the IXP switches. We have not 
had a demand for crossconnects or PNI's and dont offer the services as yet.


We have a multi-lateral peering agreement but allow for private peering 
(bi-lateral agreements) for transit, etc.


Regards,

Michuki.

IPv4 Resource Distribution After IANA Free Pool Exhaustion -- ARIN AC BoF

[Owen DeLong]

Members of the ARIN AC will be present to discuss IPv4 after IANA Free  
Pool Exhaustion
and get input from the community on how they feel this should be  
handled.


Members of the community attending the NANOG conference are encouraged  
to

attend this session and give your input.

The session will be from 4:00 to 5:30 on Tuesday, February 19th and  
will be

in the Crystal Room on Level B.

We will be discussing the recently posted transfer policy proposal and  
other

ideas around the IPv4 free-pool exhaustion process(es).

Thanks,

Owen DeLong
ARIN AC

Looking for Verizon-GNI network engineer

[K. Scott Bethke]

Sorry if this is off-topic frustration has set in.   I've got what  
looks like a routing loop or a wedge in your network and I cant get  
past tier2 saying it is an "internet problem".  I asked to speak with  
an engineer directly was told Verizon engineers don't talk directly  
with customers.  Issue going on for 4 days.


$ traceroute www.tickerforum.org
traceroute to www.tickerforum.org (70.169.168.7), 64 hops max, 40 byte  
packets

 1  10.254.123.1 (10.254.123.1)  3.219 ms  1.085 ms  0.915 ms
 2  L301.VFTTP-02.CLPPVA.verizon-gni.net (71.171.93.1)  6.329 ms   
6.281 ms  5.036 ms
 3  P2-3.LCR-02.CLPPVA.verizon-gni.net (130.81.37.194)  4.885 ms   
4.091 ms  6.490 ms
 4  so-7-0-0-0.PEER-RTR1.ASH.verizon-gni.net (130.81.10.94)  4.731  
ms  8.248 ms  5.167 ms
 5  130.81.15.238 (130.81.15.238)  5.926 ms 130.81.15.190  
(130.81.15.190)  6.586 ms  9.158 ms

 6  * * *
 7  * * *
 8  *


$ traceroute www.google.com
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using  
64.233.169.104
traceroute to www.l.google.com (64.233.169.104), 64 hops max, 40 byte  
packets

 1  10.254.123.1 (10.254.123.1)  1.774 ms  1.117 ms  0.909 ms
 2  L301.VFTTP-02.CLPPVA.verizon-gni.net (71.171.93.1)  5.820 ms   
4.029 ms  4.861 ms
 3  P2-3.LCR-01.CLPPVA.verizon-gni.net (130.81.37.192)  8.036 ms   
6.346 ms  7.671 ms
 4  so-6-3-1-0.BB-RTR2.RES.verizon-gni.net (130.81.29.82)  6.524 ms   
8.161 ms  8.408 ms

 5  * * *
 6  * * *

Ticket # is VAD01QVDW

-Scott

RE: IBM report reviews Internet crime

[Frank Bulk]

Hear-hear: most of our customer's e-mail problems are resolved when we turn
off in the in and outbound scanning offered by their favorite AV vendor. =)
I bet we've had more support calls about e-mail scanning than the number of
viruses that feature has ever trapped for them.  

And another anecdote: we experienced a rash of malware-infected subscribers
spewing out spam last weekend.  Most of them had some kind of AV, but of
course that AV didn't prevent them from getting infected.  Many of them
update their definitions and scanned and thought they were clean, but
because the virus/Trojan was so new, they started spewing spam again.  In
this case, their AV software gave them a false sense of assurance.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Radabaugh
Sent: 2008-02-13 17:35
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: IBM report reviews Internet crime


JC Dill wrote:
>
> I'm really surprised that ISPs haven't banded together to sue
> Microsoft for negligently selling and distributing an insecure OS that
> is an Attractive Nuisance - causing the ISPs (who don't own the OS
> infected computers) harm from the network traffic the infected OSs
> send, and causing them untold support dollars to handle the problem.
>
> If every big ISP joined a class action lawsuit to force Microsoft to
> pay up for the time ISPs spend fixing viruses on Windows computer,
> Microsoft would get a LOT more proactive about solving this problem
> directly.  The consumers have no redress against MS because of the
> EULA, but this doesn't extend to other computer owners (e.g. ISPs) who
> didn't agree to the EULA on the infected machine but who are impacted
> by the infection.
>
> jc

I think I would rather see a class action against Symantec for the
hundreds of hours ISP's waste fixing customers mail server settings that
Symantec sees fit to screw up with every update.   We can always tell
when they have pushed a major update - hundreds of calls from mail users
who can no longer send mail.

It's 2008.   How bloody hard is it to notice that the mail server SMTP
port is 587 and authentication is turned on?   Why do they mess with it?

--

Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
419.837.5015 x21
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

FW: BGP TTL Security

[Ben Butler]

Hi Danny,

Thanks for you help - no problems.

I would agree 192 vs 63/64 it is to much of a coincidence for it not to
be related somehow.

Weirder and weirder - presumably people trying to hack the BGP session
below:

neighbor 212.121.34.1 ttl-security hops 192

And the session is up and we get:

Extended IP access list ACL-MATCH-TTL-0/254 (Compiled)
10 permit ip any any ttl eq 0 (869 matches)
20 permit ip any any ttl eq 1 (1 match)
260 permit ip any any ttl eq 25 (1 match)
580 permit ip any any ttl eq 57 (1 match)
590 permit ip any any ttl eq 58
600 permit ip any any ttl eq 59
610 permit ip any any ttl eq 60
620 permit ip any any ttl eq 61 (2 matches)
630 permit ip any any ttl eq 62 (2 matches)
640 permit ip any any ttl eq 63 (1 match) <- presumably the foundry
1210 permit ip any any ttl eq 120 (2 matches)
1220 permit ip any any ttl eq 121 (2 matches)
1230 permit ip any any ttl eq 122 (1 match)
1240 permit ip any any ttl eq 123 (1 match)
1250 permit ip any any ttl eq 124 (1 match)
2500 permit ip any any ttl eq 249 (6 matches)
2510 permit ip any any ttl eq 250 (3 matches)

This is connected to an ethernet IX and all peers are one hop away.

Kind Regards

Ben 

-Original Message-
From: Danny McPherson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 February 2008 01:16
To: Ben Butler
Cc: Hank Nussbacher
Subject: Re: BGP TTL Security


On Feb 14, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Ben Butler wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have put a route map on the interface and matched every TTL from 0 
> to
> 254 and I am only getting matches on TTL 0.

Is the ttl-security check still in place?  I believe the way Cisco
implemented that is that if the TTL doesn't match the prescribed value
then they expire the TTL to drop the packet in the fast path.

> The box on the other side in this particular instance is a high end 
> Foundry.
>
> I don't really care about the 192 thing because I will never have 
> mutlihop peers that far away - it was simply an observation.

Well, that's quite a coincidence because Foundry's default IP TTL value
is 64, which is quit suspicious.

> The problem is needing to configure both sides of the peering and 
> consequently on a per session basis / cordinatition which means a lot 
> of work and inertia of organising other people to roll out the change.

Hrmm... On other thought..

Is the Foundry a multi-hop peer?  If so, perhaps in their configuration
they're specifying ebgp multli-hop 1, which is triggering this behavior?

But I'd suspect the above rather than this, because of the
192 behavior.

Thoughts?

-danny

Re: BGP TTL Security

[Danny McPherson]

On Feb 14, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Ben Butler wrote:


I have validated via trace in both directions as being 1 hop.

I have read another article that implies the default behaviour at the
other end will to be send TTL 1 not 255 and consequently I need to
configure both ends to get the session to
come back up.  An access list reveals all the packets I am receiving
have a TTL of 0.

The session re-establishes if I configure:

neighbor 212.121.34.1 ttl-security hops >=192

<=191 and the session stays down.


Ben,
After a prodding offlist I reread your message and understand
what point you're making now.  Indeed as you suggest above
the normal configuration should be 'ttl-security hops 2' or 'ttl
security hops 1'.

Not for sure, but I'd have to speculate that if this is only
working for you with 'ttl-security hops >= 192' perhaps your
peer is setting the TTL in it's packet to 64?  I believe that's
the default TTL for Linux, Foundry and a couple others.
Juniper's default TTL is 1 eBGP (though configurable), and
64 for iBGP, multihop, etc. IIRC.

In order to implement this effectively the peer would need to
be setting the transmitted TTL to 255.

And my apologies if my previous message seemed a bit
negative, that was certainly not my intention.

-danny

Re: Network Notifcation - SMS via Verizon

[Henry Linneweh]

I found this product of particular interest...
http://www.scomobile.com/hipcheck/

-Henry

- Original Message 
From: "Bowman, Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:24:55 AM
Subject: RE: Network Notifcation - SMS via Verizon


I've used <10 digit number>@vtext.com with my Verizon phone for several
years now without any issues or dropped SMS messages.  Obviously that's
an in-band solution, but it's simple to implement and fairly (in my
experience) reliable.

-Jonathan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Gregory Boehnlein
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 7:03 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Network Notifcation - SMS via Verizon


Hello,
We have been discussing adding a wireless SMS based option to
our
TAP and SMTP delivery systems. We are running Nagios. In looking at the
list
archives, I found the following thread:

http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0408/0039.html

Lots of great suggestions.. In looking at the options, it seems that
Gnokii
seems to be a well used solution to integrate a GSM or GPRS based
phone/modem for text messaging.

However, I am trying to determine if anyone is doing this with Verizon
right
now. Our existing Cell contract is w/ Verizon and so we want to avoid
the
potential of lost SMS messages in hopping from say T-mobile or Cingular
to
Verizon.

So.. anyone doing SMS notification to Verizon w/ a wireless GSM/GPRS or
Cell
Phone solution? If so, you want to share how you are doing it?

Thanks in advance..

Re: Question on the topology of Internet Exchange Points

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 14, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Andy Davidson wrote:

On 14 Feb 2008, at 17:02, Kai Chen wrote:

A typical Internet Exchange Point (IXP) consists of one or more  
network switches, to which each of the participating ISPs connect.  
We call it the exchange-based topology. My question is if some  
current IXPs use directly-connected topology, in which ISPs just  
connect to each other by direct link, not through a network  
switch?? If so, what's the percentage of this directly-connected  
case?


ISPs use a "direct link" (PNI) all the time to peer, and they don't  
need to be a member/customer of an internet exchange point to do  
so.  In fact, the network you want to peer with might not be  
available at your local IXP even though they're in your local  
carrier hotel - then it becomes pretty much the only way to peer.


In London, the LINX offer switched *and* unswitched connectivity  
between members - you can rent fibers from them in order to perform  
PNI with other members.  That the exchange offer this is unusual,  
and it's offered as an additional service, in order to smooth the  
process of organising interconnection between member organisations. [www.linx.net 
]


LINX doesn't rent fibers.  It's a one-time (NRC) fee for 8 pairs,  
which are patched to any other member on the service for free for  
life.  (Although I don't know if they promise to keep it free forever,  
but it's been free for many years with no mention of it changing.)



We (LONAP) don't offer PNI services, and only offer the conventional  
switch ports, which members normally want so that they can get  
access to our peering lan and swap some traffic. [www.lonap.net]   
All exchanges offer this connectivity model.  We offer private CUG  
and member-to-member private VLANs, which is similar, but still  
passes through the switch fabric.


I believe Exchange Point offers a PNI-like service over their network.

But in general, an "Internet eXchange Provider" offers a shared  
switch.  Anything else is really just a meet-me room.  For instance, I  
wouldn't call Suite 1515 (formerly NYCC) an "IXP".


--
TTFN,
patrick

remote hands / contractor / courier needed in Tokyo

[Alexander Koch]

Folks, does anyone know or can refer to someone in Tokyo to do remote hands
work, rack servers, fetch a server and bring from A to B etc? If no- one is
coming to your mind, can someone refer to a courier service one can instruct/
sort things out with by email / credit card

Ah, yeah, speaking English in a good way would be needed. If in doubt we also
accept German, Dutch, French, or Italian, but that might get a bit more tricky. 
:-)

Thanks in advance!

Alexander

Re: Area Social Activity

[Gregory Hicks]

> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:20:53 -0800
> From: Jay Hennigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Area Social Activity
> 
> 
> Rod Beck wrote:
> > I am suggesting a Certified Drinkers Event in the hotel bar Sunday evening.
> 
> Any Hash House Harriers in our midst?

I partook whilst deployed to HongKong and Spain (some 12 years
ago...).  Haven't had occasion since then though.
> 
> --
> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

---
Gregory Hicks| Principal Systems Engineer
Cadence Design Systems   | Direct:   408.576.3609
2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1
San Jose, CA 95134

I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes.  I will surely
learn a great deal today.

"A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for
lunch.  Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the
decision."

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton

Re: Question on the topology of Internet Exchange Points

[Paul Vixie]

> > in other words there appeared to be no "exchange-based topology", more
> > like a "hybrid exchange and PNI topology."
> >
> > Paul Vixie
> 
> It is interesting. Is this the common case for the IXP infrastructure?[1] I
> mean the hybrid topology? It seems that it is both directly-connected and
> exchange-based, but the direct links between participant ASes are much more
> the links to the central switch. Right?[2]  One more question is: if one AS
> participate in an IXP, is it necessary for the AS to place a router in the
> IXP?[3] In other words, all the participant ASes must have at least one
> router in the IXPs (these routers are geographically nearby)?[4] Can they
> use remote connection?[5]
> 
> Kai

[1] i think it is very common for an IXP to have a switch, to have racks for
participating network operators, and to allow PNI's between those participants.
however, i know of IXP's which only have a switch and require the participants
to connect to it via telco circuits; and IXP's which have racks but which do
not allow PNI's between participants.

[2] at PAIX when i was there, the PNI's outnumbered the switch connections by
more than 100:1.  i don't know what's true today, or elsewhere, but in the
IXP's where ISC has a presence, we generally have between two and twenty PNIs
and only one or two switch connections.  i'm assuming that this is common.

[3][4][5] at PAIX when i was there, all switch and PNI connections had to be
to locally installed routers.  we didn't allow crossconnects between telco
equipment (because we were an IXP not an MMR), and we didn't allow connections
from a telco equipment to our switch (because we were an IXP not a MEP).  the
"network effect" at an IXP only comes when everybody has skin in the game, a
real BGP-speaking router of some kind.  i think PAIX (now part of S&D) still
has the same rules.  i don't know what's true of other IXP's around the world.

paul vixie

Re: Question on the topology of Internet Exchange Points

[Andy Davidson]

On 14 Feb 2008, at 17:02, Kai Chen wrote:

A typical Internet Exchange Point (IXP) consists of one or more  
network switches, to which each of the participating ISPs connect.  
We call it the exchange-based topology. My question is if some  
current IXPs use directly-connected topology, in which ISPs just  
connect to each other by direct link, not through a network switch??  
If so, what's the percentage of this directly-connected case?


ISPs use a "direct link" (PNI) all the time to peer, and they don't  
need to be a member/customer of an internet exchange point to do so.   
In fact, the network you want to peer with might not be available at  
your local IXP even though they're in your local carrier hotel - then  
it becomes pretty much the only way to peer.


In London, the LINX offer switched *and* unswitched connectivity  
between members - you can rent fibers from them in order to perform  
PNI with other members.  That the exchange offer this is unusual, and  
it's offered as an additional service, in order to smooth the process  
of organising interconnection between member organisations. [www.linx.net 
]


We (LONAP) don't offer PNI services, and only offer the conventional  
switch ports, which members normally want so that they can get access  
to our peering lan and swap some traffic. [www.lonap.net]  All  
exchanges offer this connectivity model.  We offer private CUG and  
member-to-member private VLANs, which is similar, but still passes  
through the switch fabric.



Best wishes
Andy 

Re: BGP TTL Security

[Danny McPherson]

On Feb 14, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Ben Butler wrote:

<=191 and the session stays down.

Which is proper bizarre!

Is it necessary to configure this on both side for the session to
re-establish.  Is this a Cisco bug?


You're missing the fundamentals of what protection this
mechanism is meat to provide.  A remote attacker can
craft a packet such that it yields a TTL of 2, 1 or 0 at
the target system.

However, what a remote attacker can't do is craft a
packet that yields a TTL or 255 or 254, for example.
You probably want both values to be 254 if you've
got one intermediate hop between the peers.

-danny

173/8 and 174/8 allocated to ARIN

[Leo Vegoda]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the
allocation of two /8 IPv4 blocks to ARIN in February
2008: 173/8 and 174/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry
at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Please update your filters as appropriate.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
Manager, Number Resources - IANA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHtItTvBLymJnAzRwRAq4hAJsF7zELnkKFSHvGccPpoCK+ypwOLgCfZYgA
YJOrIPDwVY2rkq7tQ+wXPAo=
=Ame2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Area Social Activity

[Jay Hennigan]

Rod Beck wrote:

I am suggesting a Certified Drinkers Event in the hotel bar Sunday evening.


Any Hash House Harriers in our midst?

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

BGP TTL Security

[Ben Butler]

Hi,

I am trying to implement BGP TTL security between one of my routers and
an eBGP peer that  is one hop away over a layer 2 IX.

As soon as I add:

neighbor 212.121.34.1 ttl-security hops 2
or
neighbor 212.121.34.1 ttl-security hops 1

The peer drops to active/open sent with entries in syslog for hold time
expired.

I have validated via trace in both directions as being 1 hop.

I have read another article that implies the default behaviour at the
other end will to be send TTL 1 not 255 and consequently I need to
configure both ends to get the session to 
come back up.  An access list reveals all the packets I am receiving
have a TTL of 0.

The session re-establishes if I configure:

neighbor 212.121.34.1 ttl-security hops >=192

<=191 and the session stays down.

Which is proper bizarre!

Is it necessary to configure this on both side for the session to
re-establish.  Is this a Cisco bug?



Kind Regards

Ben Butler
++
C2 Internet Ltd
Globe House, The Gullet, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 5RL

E  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W  http://www.c2internet.net/
B1 http://c2internet.blogspot.com/
B2 http://c2noc.blogspot.com/
T  +44-(0)845-658-0020
F  +44-(0)845-658-0070

All quotes & services from C2 are bound by our standard
terms and conditions which are available on our website at:

http://www.c2internet.net/legal/main.htm#tandc

C2 Internet Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales with company number 03910154

Our VAT Registration number is GB 752 7650 17

Re: Question on the topology of Internet Exchange Points

[Paul Vixie]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Kai Chen") writes:

> A typical Internet Exchange Point (IXP) consists of one or more network
> switches , to which each of
> the participating ISPs connect.  We call it the exchange-based topology.
> My question is if some current IXPs use directly-connected topology, in
> which ISPs just connect to each other by direct link, not through a
> network switch?? If so, what's the percentage of this directly-connected
> case?

when i last worked at PAIX, the private interconnects wildly outnumbered
the switch connection.  the model seemed to be, use the switch to reach all
of the other participants, but whenever you had a hot neighbor, get a PNI.

in other words there appeared to be no "exchange-based topology", more like
a "hybrid exchange and PNI topology."
-- 
Paul Vixie

Novell DNS+DHCP server -- any experience?

[MARLON BORBA]

Dear sirs, 

We are considering Novell Netware DNS+DHCP servers (over Netware 6.5)
to replace our old ISC BIND and DHCP Linux servers.
Could someone with experience in those products shed some light on
their pros and cons? Please answer directly to my mailbox in order to
keep NANOG clean.







Abraços,

Marlon Borba, CISSP, APC DataCenter Associate
Técnico Judiciário - Segurança da Informação
TRF 3 Região
(11) 3012-1683
--
Practically no IT system is risk free.
(NIST Special Publication 800-30)
--

Re: Question on the topology of Internet Exchange Points

[bmanning]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:02:54AM -0600, Kai Chen wrote:
> A typical Internet Exchange Point (IXP) consists of one or more network
> switches , to which each of the
> participating ISPs connect. We call it the exchange-based topology. My
> question is if some current IXPs use directly-connected topology, in
> which ISPs just connect to each other by direct link, not through a network
> switch?? If so, what's the percentage of this directly-connected case?
> 
> Kai

the "directly-connected" case - over point2point link is not
per se, an Internet Exchange Point (IXP) in that there is no
chance of multiplexing the link to connect more than one 
provider over that direct link.

the direct link can be a dedicated fiber pair, a cat5 cable, 
conditioned copper pair or coax  or combination of these layer
one transmission media (yeah, sat, microwave, avian carrier etc...)
depending on proximity and cost.

latency is usually less of an issue here, as is buffering, since there
is a single endpoint.  Its also much easier to maintain security
associations on direct links.


--bill

Question on the topology of Internet Exchange Points

[Kai Chen]

A typical Internet Exchange Point (IXP) consists of one or more network
switches , to which each of the
participating ISPs connect. We call it the exchange-based topology. My
question is if some current IXPs use directly-connected topology, in
which ISPs just connect to each other by direct link, not through a network
switch?? If so, what's the percentage of this directly-connected case?

Kai

RE: Area Social Activity

[Rod Beck]

Well, after I bought the apartment on the Champs-Élysées there wasn't much left 
...

But there are no property taxes in France. :)

Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829. 
Landline: 33-1-4346-3209.
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert 
Einstein. 



-Original Message-
From: Alex Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 4:41 PM
To: Rod Beck; Bill Nash
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: RE: Area Social Activity
 
That's all they paid?



 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rod Beck
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:31 AM
To: Bill Nash
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: RE: Area Social Activity

 

And to celebrate my first TransAtlantic IRU, I will buy the first ten
people a drink. The commission is funding it.

RE: Area Social Activity

[Alex Rubenstein]

That's all they paid?



 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rod Beck
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:31 AM
To: Bill Nash
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: RE: Area Social Activity

 

And to celebrate my first TransAtlantic IRU, I will buy the first ten
people a drink. The commission is funding it.

RE: Area Social Activity

[Rod Beck]

And to celebrate my first TransAtlantic IRU, I will buy the first ten people a 
drink. The commission is funding it. 

Regards, 

Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829. 
Landline: 33-1-4346-3209.
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert 
Einstein. 



-Original Message-
From: Bill Nash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 4:29 PM
To: Rod Beck
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: RE: Area Social Activity
 

Given that the last reported water temperature in Monterey was 52.9F, I 
think there will be more drinkers than divers.

- billn

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Rod Beck wrote:

> I am suggesting a Certified Drinkers Event in the hotel bar Sunday evening.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 3:36 PM
> To: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Area Social Activity
>
> Sorry for the short notice.
>
> For anyone coming to NANOG early who is a certified SCUBA DIver, I'll
> be diving in Monterey (about 1 hour drive from San Jose) Saturday and
> Sunday.
>
> If you're interested in joining me, send an email off-list.
>
> Owen DeLong
> Open Water SCUBA Instructor (PADI)

RE: Area Social Activity

[Bill Nash]

Given that the last reported water temperature in Monterey was 52.9F, I 
think there will be more drinkers than divers.


- billn

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Rod Beck wrote:


I am suggesting a Certified Drinkers Event in the hotel bar Sunday evening.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 3:36 PM
To: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Area Social Activity

Sorry for the short notice.

For anyone coming to NANOG early who is a certified SCUBA DIver, I'll
be diving in Monterey (about 1 hour drive from San Jose) Saturday and
Sunday.

If you're interested in joining me, send an email off-list.

Owen DeLong
Open Water SCUBA Instructor (PADI)

RE: Area Social Activity

[Rod Beck]

I am suggesting a Certified Drinkers Event in the hotel bar Sunday evening. 

Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829. 
Landline: 33-1-4346-3209.
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert 
Einstein. 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 3:36 PM
To: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Area Social Activity
 

Sorry for the short notice.

For anyone coming to NANOG early who is a certified SCUBA DIver, I'll
be diving in Monterey (about 1 hour drive from San Jose) Saturday and
Sunday.

If you're interested in joining me, send an email off-list.

Owen DeLong
Open Water SCUBA Instructor (PADI)

Area Social Activity

[Owen DeLong]

Sorry for the short notice.

For anyone coming to NANOG early who is a certified SCUBA DIver, I'll
be diving in Monterey (about 1 hour drive from San Jose) Saturday and
Sunday.

If you're interested in joining me, send an email off-list.

Owen DeLong
Open Water SCUBA Instructor (PADI)