Re: wanted: server hotel location(s) in SE,GR
On Feb 28, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering if anyone knew of server hotel locations in Sweden I would recommend Netnod in Sweden. Kurtis Lindqvist is a good contact there. NetNod is a secure IX in Sweden, with switches in lots of cities (including two in Stockholm). However, the switches are in "hidden bunkers", and you cannot rent colo there, as you could in, say, Equinix or Switch & Data. Kurtis will still be able to direct you to colo in the area, though. There are several carrier neutral and other locations. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: AboveNet Global Routing issue
Anyone aware if this is causing any bleedover to Sprint? Seeing massive delays (~280+ ms) and drops between Relay, MD (144.232.15.2) and San Jose (144.232.8.145). Also seeing same from fort worth (144.232.9.192) to ana (144.232.20.64). Cisco.com is a good destination to try. On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:19:40 -0800 Eric Brunner-Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I'm seeing everything from Hughes Network (my vsat) go to Portland, Maine, >from Northern Virginia, by way of Nashville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles (Verizon), >and then back to Boston (Alter), for 20 hops. The usual is 10, straight up the >eastern seaboard. > >Lots of delay, and more bad dns than usual.
Re: IETF Journal Announcement (fwd)
Randy Bush wrote: Isn't it the case in the real world that the Internet isn't TCP ECN compatible? actually, no. ecn compat is increasing, happy to say. Hopefully the number of people with 8 year old pix firewall software is not...
Re: IETF Journal Announcement (fwd)
> Isn't it the case in the real world that the Internet isn't TCP ECN > compatible? actually, no. ecn compat is increasing, happy to say.
Re: AboveNet Global Routing issue
I'm seeing everything from Hughes Network (my vsat) go to Portland, Maine, from Northern Virginia, by way of Nashville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles (Verizon), and then back to Boston (Alter), for 20 hops. The usual is 10, straight up the eastern seaboard. Lots of delay, and more bad dns than usual.
Re: wanted: server hotel location(s) in SE,GR
On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew of server hotel locations in Sweden I would recommend Netnod in Sweden. Kurtis Lindqvist is a good contact there. Regards Marshall or Greece. More generally, if there is a good resource for me to look this up myself next time. Thanks in advance, Travis -- https://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> Q: Who Would Jesus Waterboard? A: Matthew 5:38-42 For a good time on my email blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wanted: server hotel location(s) in SE,GR
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:58 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > More generally, if there is a good resource for me to look this up > myself next time. www.datacentermap.com www.peeringdb.com (where there are exchanges, there is conditioned space not too far away)
wanted: server hotel location(s) in SE,GR
Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew of server hotel locations in Sweden or Greece. More generally, if there is a good resource for me to look this up myself next time. Thanks in advance, Travis -- https://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> Q: Who Would Jesus Waterboard? A: Matthew 5:38-42 For a good time on my email blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp45I2hd9DcC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF Journal Announcement (fwd)
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:27 -0500 Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 27-Feb-2008, at 15:09, Mark Smith wrote: > > > Don't worry if the ISOC website times out, their firewall isn't TCP > > ECN compatible. > > Isn't it the case in the real world that the Internet isn't TCP ECN > compatible? > In my experience no. The Linux kernel defaults to ECN enabled (although I think distros switch it off), and I've been running my PC ECN enabled for at least the last 5 to 7 years. The number of websites that I've had trouble with in that time was such a low number (3), that I remember what they are. The other two, other than the ISOC website, have been fixed within the last 3 years. That's not really an excuse anyway. The ECN bit originally was reserved, so things that don't understand it should be ignoring it, not making sure it's set to zero. I understand that's the fundamentals of the robustness principle. If people claim doing that is insecure, how are there so many firewalls out there that don't have / aren't causing this problem? > > I thought people had relegated that to the "nice idea but, in > practice, waste of time" bucket years ago. > Not exactly sure of it's exact status, however every now and then I come across things relating to it e.g. I think I recently came across proposed ECN additions to MPLS, so it still seems relevant. Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
RE: AboveNet Global Routing issue
Got this off another list. AboveNet is experiencing a network event. Event Date & Time: 18:00 UTC, 28 Feb 2008 Event Description: AboveNet is experiencing routing instability in it's global IP backbone. Customers may be experiencing increased latency and packet loss during this event. AboveNet is currently investigating the issue. Updates will be made as they become available. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Vandegrift Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:54 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: AboveNet Global Routing issue Hi Everyone, Just received a light-up of calls about general connectivity, a call to AboveNet got us the answer that they are having "global routing issues". Has anyone received any more details? -- Ross Vandegrift [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell." --St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37
Re: AboveNet Global Routing issue
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > Just received a light-up of calls about general connectivity, a call > to AboveNet got us the answer that they are having "global routing > issues". > > Has anyone received any more details? > Seeing issues here traceroute to www.mailstreet.com (69.25.50.243), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 6 fe-6-0-900.cr.nyc1.ny.towerstream.com (69.38.136.113) 15.806 ms 15.788 ms 15.845 ms 7 221.ge-1-3-2.mpr1.lga5.us.above.net (64.124.195.98) 17.005 ms 9.708 ms 10.229 ms 8 so-1-2-0.mpr1.dca2.us.above.net (64.125.26.101) 9.972 ms 9.345 ms 9.426 ms 9 * * * 10 xe-1-1-0.er2.iad10.above.net (64.125.26.242) 12.020 ms 9.822 ms 10.848 ms 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * > > > -- > Ross Vandegrift > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who > make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians > have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine > man in the bonds of Hell." >--St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37 > -- Rodrick R. Brown http://www.rodrickbrown.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/rodrickbrown
AboveNet Global Routing issue
Hi Everyone, Just received a light-up of calls about general connectivity, a call to AboveNet got us the answer that they are having "global routing issues". Has anyone received any more details? -- Ross Vandegrift [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell." --St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37
Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit
Thus spake "Owen DeLong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: The wording of the question and response referred only to "ARIN members". That does not include most orgs with _only_ legacy allocations, but it would include orgs with both legacy and non- legacy allocations. Presumably, if an org had both types, both would have been included, but that wasn't explicitly stated since it wasn't relevant to the questions I was asking at the time. Not necessarily. Orgs which are end-users and not LIR/ISP subscriber members may have resources from ARIN without being members. 82% (by number) of all direct assignments are legacy*, and that includes all of the class A blocks. While I haven't requested the data to back it up, I find it fairly obvious that non-legacy direct assignments would be smaller on average and thus constitute far less than 18% (by size) of all assignments -- and a trivial amount of space overall compared to allocations to LIRs/ISPs. S * Same source. Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 28-Feb-2008, at 09:26, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > >Then you probably haven't been on the ass end of a continental fibre > >link > >drop. That actually mattered. > > If both sides of your SONET ring drop, then surely you're as dead in > the water as you would be if each side of the ring was being used as a > separate, unprotected circuit. > > (But quite possibly I'm missing your point.) Well, the "someone goes and uses as much of their link capacity as they can, then they lose a 10ge circuit, and suddenly everything is degraded beyond usefulness." I'm way, way out of the loop with such things these days, but the few times this has happened on a specific Perth <-> Sydney circuit which almost everyone seems to use, -everything- degrades. As in, Perth seems almost completely isolated from the rest of the country. I'm very surprised said "O" provider doesn't have a redundant path for all the MPLS tunnels that happen to go over it. :) Adrian
Re: Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity
On 28-Feb-2008, at 09:26, Adrian Chadd wrote: Then you probably haven't been on the ass end of a continental fibre link drop. That actually mattered. If both sides of your SONET ring drop, then surely you're as dead in the water as you would be if each side of the ring was being used as a separate, unprotected circuit. (But quite possibly I'm missing your point.) Joe
Re: Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008, Joe Abley wrote: > > > On 28-Feb-2008, at 01:56, Paul Wall wrote: > > >UU/MFS tried running IP on the 'protect' path of their SONET rings > >10 years ago. It didn't work then. > > Well, it works so long as whoever was trying to troubleshoot the > circuits at 3am on US Thanksgiving understands that having the system > "switch to protect" is quite bad, in the sense that it causes both > sides to go down at once (I seem to remember there was a protect paths > built for each side of the original ring using a loopback). > > Other than the unfamiliarity with the concept demonstrated by phone > companies, I didn't notice any great fundamental problem with the > idea. The extra 10G of capacity across the Atlantic was arguably more > useful in the grand scheme of things than the being able to recover > from a single-point failure at SONET speeds. It's probably fair to say > there's more real-time traffic on the network today than there was > then, however. Then you probably haven't been on the ass end of a continental fibre link drop. That actually mattered. Adrian
Re: Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity
On 28-Feb-2008, at 01:56, Paul Wall wrote: UU/MFS tried running IP on the 'protect' path of their SONET rings 10 years ago. It didn't work then. Well, it works so long as whoever was trying to troubleshoot the circuits at 3am on US Thanksgiving understands that having the system "switch to protect" is quite bad, in the sense that it causes both sides to go down at once (I seem to remember there was a protect paths built for each side of the original ring using a loopback). Other than the unfamiliarity with the concept demonstrated by phone companies, I didn't notice any great fundamental problem with the idea. The extra 10G of capacity across the Atlantic was arguably more useful in the grand scheme of things than the being able to recover from a single-point failure at SONET speeds. It's probably fair to say there's more real-time traffic on the network today than there was then, however. I have never worked for UU/MFS, lest anybody draw that conclusion. Joe
Re: IETF Journal Announcement (fwd)
On 27-Feb-2008, at 15:09, Mark Smith wrote: Don't worry if the ISOC website times out, their firewall isn't TCP ECN compatible. Isn't it the case in the real world that the Internet isn't TCP ECN compatible? I thought people had relegated that to the "nice idea but, in practice, waste of time" bucket years ago. Joe
