Re: BGP Problem on 04/16/2007
On 19/04/07, Leigh Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Somebody form a certain large network vendor actually blamed problems with their kit on cosmic rays causing memory corruption... Remember that cosmic rays are very selective, they always seem to pick boxes from this specific vendor. /Tony
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Interesting read. http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf#search=%22kremen%20vs%20arin%22 I found this little gem in the "The Internet, IP addresses and Domain Names" section: --- Recently a new form of Internet addressing has emerged, called Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). In this new addressing protocol, a CIDR network address could look like this: 193.30.250.00/21. The prefix is the address of the network, or gateway, and the number after the slash indicates the size of the network. The higher the number, the more host space that is in the network(2). ... --- (2) later contradicts this statement. Maybe I should sell them some /32's, or why not a few /128's. Or maybe I just have too much time on my hands. /Tony On 08/09/06, Chris Jester <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest caseregarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the wayIP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. Anyone have experiences like are said in the lawsuit? I would loveto know if this is true or not. Anyone with negative ARIN experiencesthat relate to the lawsuit, please let me know, thanks!For thos interested, you may read this lawsuit here: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:44uxmnEmJVkJ:www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf+Kremen+Vs+ARIN&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 Or google for Kremen VS ArinChris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506Chris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506NOTICE - This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential andare only for the use of the person to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail in error. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or dealing in any waywhatsoever with this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis e-mail in error, please reply immediately by way of advice to us. It is the addressee/recipient duty to virus scan and otherwise test theinformation provided before loading onto any computer system. Suavemente,INC.does not warrant that the information is free of a virus or any other defect or error. Any views expressed in this message are those of theindividual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to bethe views of Suavemente, INC. -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: Router / Protocol Problem
On 06/09/06, Mike Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I normally would not post to the group, but I am 100% stumped and have talked with peers with no luck. I have (2) Cisco 7204 Routers running BGP with 3 peers and HSRP. I am not doing anything special with BGP, pretty much a default config that has not changed in years. Recently with no changes to my network, I have been having problems connecting to certain websites and mail servers. I am always able to ping the sites and trace route without error. If I telnet to port 80 or port 25 it does not connect. If I login to my router and telnet sourcing my each of Internet Providers ports, I am able to get to the sites. I have talked with all the providers and none can find a problem. If I shut down one specific peer, everything works fine. So I keep thinking it was that peers problem some how. I have tested with just that peer up and I still can not connect. However, when talking with that peer, they are able to telnet from their network to the sites I can not reach. I don't know what else to check besides shutting down that peer. Which since it is under a 3 year contract, not an option. That isn't the real solution anyhow. Can anyone shed some light on or off-list? Give your peer a /32 to install on their access router, verify that return path is via them and have them do connectivity tests to your problem sites. If that checks out you step by step through it. Ask to be moved to a different access router, next change your hardware. /Tony -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: Open Letter to D-Link about their NTP vandalism
On 12/04/06, Alexei Roudnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmm, if some idiot wrote my NTP IP into his hardware, I just stop to monitormy NTP and make sure that it have few hours of error in time. No one require me to CLAIM that I set up wrong time, BUT no one can require me to maintaincorrect time just because some idiots use my server. That works well as long as you don't have any legitimate users of your NTP service.-- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: UDP Badness [Was: Re: How to measure network quality&performance for voip&gameservers (udp packetloss, delay, jitter,...)]
On 10/03/06, Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 23:33:44 +0000"tony sarendal" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 07/03/06, Gunther Stammwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> >> > Well that's true but Iperf won't show you at which time a loss occured. It > > will simply print out the results when the test has been finished. I need> > something well more accurate that can also tell me which hop is causing> > the> > problems.> > > > Last I checked I got the time from Iperf, even if it was indirectly.> A tool that shows which hop in the network that has problems forwarding> certain traffic ? Awesome, I want one of those. >traceroute ? :-) (sorry, couldn't resist) Does traceroute really do that ? Even for ICMP. Think about it. Hint: the return packets your traceroute produces, do they have the same return path for every hop ? Think Internet, think large providers with many peerings. /Tony-- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: UDP Badness [Was: Re: How to measure network quality&performance for voip&gameservers (udp packetloss, delay, jitter,...)]
On 07/03/06, Gunther Stammwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well that's true but Iperf won't show you at which time a loss occured. Itwill simply print out the results when the test has been finished. I need something well more accurate that can also tell me which hop is causing theproblems. Last I checked I got the time from Iperf, even if it was indirectly. A tool that shows which hop in the network that has problems forwarding certain traffic ? Awesome, I want one of those.-- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: UDP Badness [Was: Re: How to measure network quality&performance for voip&gameservers (udp packetloss, delay, jitter,...)]
On 07/03/06, Gunther Stammwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Im Auftragvon tony sarendal Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. März 2006 19:05 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: UDP Badness [Was: Re: How to measure networkquality&performance for voip&gameservers (udp packetloss, delay,jitter,...)] Iperf comes to mind. /Tony Hello Tony,Thanks for the tip. I've already been using iperf but wasn't that perfectlysatisfied. I'm looking for something else - maybe even something with agraphical output. Any other ideas? Gunther Unfortunately not. Iperf has suited me fine where I don't require professional (pricey) testers. The fact that it is console based I usually see as a plus.-- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: UDP Badness [Was: Re: How to measure network quality&performance for voip&gameservers (udp packetloss, delay, jitter,...)]
On 07/03/06, Gunther Stammwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Im> Auftrag von Fergie> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. März 2006 18:16> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Betreff: UDP Badness [Was: Re: How to measure network> quality&performance for voip&gameservers (udp packetloss,> delay, jitter,...)] >[...]>> So to answer your question, I think it really depends on how> the application itself handles UDP traffic, adapts to any> sort of RTT measurements, delay/jitter, etc.> > - fergHello Fergie,You are right - but there must be some sort of tool that can generate udppackets at a specified rate (or bandwidth) and measure if they are arrivingin order, if there is loss and what the jitter is or something like that. Does anyone know some kind of tool?Gunther Iperf comes to mind. /Tony
Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
On 18/12/05, Chris Woodfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on abits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.And I have seen cases of older line cards approaching their ppslimits when handling large numbers of VoIP flows even though there'splenty of throughput headroom. That's not something LLQ or priority queueing are going to be able to help you mitigate at all. Only older line cards ? Currently NPE-G1's are causing me more headaches in that regard. At least up until last friday. /Tony
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
On 06/10/05, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote: > > > This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind > > of event happen. > > Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will > > guarantee that you > > are affected by this every time it happens. > > s/every time it happens/every time it happens to YOUR upstream > > People on Sprint, AT&T, GLBX, MCI, etc. were unaffected. Only people > who single-home to L3 or Cogent have disconnectivity. > > > > Now, is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling > > internet access ? > > It's still a good argument, because Marketing != Reality. :) > Patrick, it happens to every PA customer who buys his service from one of the Tier-1 providers active in the de-peering. If a PA customer buys his service from a non-tier1 this will most likely not happen, unless that provider has bought transit in a very unwise way. The entire point is that it's not always good to be too close to tier-1 space. PS. sorry about the double-post Patrick.
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
On 06/10/05, Stephen J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote: > > > Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet > > access ? > > its the same as it always was, its a marketing positive. but thats because the > market is dumb. > > if you wish to make your purchasing decision on 'tier-1' status thats up to > you, > but i'll be looking at performance, price, strategy, service level and what > type > of supplier i want for a company like mine. > > cogent is cheap and you get what you pay for. level3 is mid-price, but they > really dont care much about their customers (or thats what i found). perhaps > you > want better customer service or to deal with a smaller company to gain their > attention and respect. > I didn't mean for this to sound so much like a question, but I belive I posted before my first cup of coffee. This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind of event happen. Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will guarantee that you are affected by this every time it happens. Now, is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet access ? /Tony going for more coffee
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet access ? -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: image stream routers
> > ... until you get an inbound ddos over that shiny gige at 1.44 Mpps. in > today's world, planning for normal circumstances is woefully insufficient, > you have to spec based on worst case numbers because you're almost > guaranteed they will hit your network upside the head in the future. > If I have a GE link and get DDOS'ed at 1.44Mpps I'm on the wrong side of the bottleneck to do much about it, am I not ? I don't disagree on that forwarding equipment should be able to handle worst case situations, but I have never worked on a packet switching network where that is the case, especially not when counting peers and transits.
Re: image stream routers
On 17/09/05, tony sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A collegue smartbits tested a 1GHz pc, with a full feed and 250k > > > simoultaneons flows it managed around 250kpps. This also with freebsd > > > and device polling. It sounds to me like a software based machine can > > > be plenty fast with good code under the hood. > > > > Sorry, in today's world of high-end routers 250kpps doesn't qualify as > > "plenty fast". Can your box do linerate Gigabit Ethernet with minimum > > size packets, on several ports simultaneously? > > > > I didn't say that a 250kpps box was a high-end box. > One reliable Mpps is not high-end either, but it can carry quite a lot > of Mbps. What is C or M price for a reliable full feed Mpps ? > > "My" high-end boxes never manage to impress me with their pps > capability before I'm disapointed in their reliability. > I'll reply to myself before Steinar does =) >It sounds to me like a software based machine can > be plenty fast with good code under the hood. In my experience a datacenter pumping out 1Gbps is usually doing 200-250kpps in that direction. Considering this a box capable of around 1Mbps is "plenty fast". pps/$ would be pretty good if I could use those in real life... /Tony -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: image stream routers
On 17/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A collegue smartbits tested a 1GHz pc, with a full feed and 250k > > simoultaneons flows it managed around 250kpps. This also with freebsd > > and device polling. It sounds to me like a software based machine can > > be plenty fast with good code under the hood. > > Sorry, in today's world of high-end routers 250kpps doesn't qualify as > "plenty fast". Can your box do linerate Gigabit Ethernet with minimum > size packets, on several ports simultaneously? > I didn't say that a 250kpps box was a high-end box. One reliable Mpps is not high-end either, but it can carry quite a lot of Mbps. What is C or M price for a reliable full feed Mpps ? "My" high-end boxes never manage to impress me with their pps capability before I'm disapointed in their reliability. /Tony -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: image stream routers
On 17/09/05, Lincoln Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Christopher J. Wolff wrote: > > I'd be interested to know the relative pros and cons of switching packets in > > software (Imagestream) versus handing them off to a dedicated ASIC (Cisco, > > Juniper) > > [without having looked at Imagestream in any way, shape or form..] > > it would be _unlikely_ that any router vendor that wants to support >OC3 > could do so with the 'standard' (non-modified) linux IP stack. if they > are modifying the 'standard' linux IP stack then its very unlikely that > one could do so without having to publish the source-code to it. (i.e. > as per GPL). > > 'standard' linux on standard hardware isn't capable of much more than > 100K PPS. sure - some folks have a few hundred packets/sec - but these > are minimalist versus the demonstrated performance of ASIC-based > forwarding, typically 30M-50M PPS. > Regarding software based forwarding and pps old docs from the FreeBSD guys claim that the 1Mpps barrier can be broken on a 2.8GHz XEON, with todays standards a mediocer pc. http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/FreeBSD-5.3-Networking.pdf A collegue smartbits tested a 1GHz pc, with a full feed and 250k simoultaneons flows it managed around 250kpps. This also with freebsd and device polling. It sounds to me like a software based machine can be plenty fast with good code under the hood. /Tony -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
