Re: ISP customer assignments
I can't offer any knowledgeable advice about PPPoA/E. We have never used it ourselves. On 14/10/09 22:16 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote: So you're saying moving away from PPPoA/E and just going bridged? Frank -Original Message- From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net] Ask Pannaway if they can bridge traffic (either ATM PVC, or Ethernet QinQ/VLAN per subscriber) up to a broadband aggregator, like a Redback or Cisco. -- Dan White
Re: multicast nightmare #42
Thank you Eric you are a genius, that has solved and issue that has plagued me for 3 years. the problem was exactly as you said over subscription of the 8 ports tied to 1 ASIC From: Eric Ortega eric_ort...@mmi.net To: Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 9:51:43 AM Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Depending on the model of blade there is an 8-to-1 over subscription on the 4500s. I have had all kinds of headaches with this myself. The 48 port SFP gig blade can only have 1 gig per each set of 8 ports. The aggregate ports are known as gigaports. The layout is gigaport 1 = 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 gigaport 2 = 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16 and so on. I bet that if add up the total bandwidth in each gigaport you might be over the limit Philip Lavine wrote: I wish that was the case but the switch is a 4500 and the data rates are less than 100 mbps on a 1 gig blade/sup From: Eric Ortega eric_ort...@mmi.net To: Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:24:59 AM Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Are you over subscribing either the link or the backplane of the switching device? Philip Lavine wrote: Please explain how this would be possible: 1 sender 1 mcast group 1 receiver = no data loss 1 sender 1 mcast group 2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment = data loss -- Eric R. Ortega Network Engineer Midcontinent Communications 605.357.5720 eric_ort...@gmail.com -- Eric R. Ortega Network Engineer Midcontinent Communications 605.357.5720 eric_ort...@gmail.com
RE: multicast nightmare #42
As an aside, the 6-port GigE card is not oversubscribed. Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Philip Lavine [mailto:source_ro...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:07 PM To: Eric Ortega; nanog Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Thank you Eric you are a genius, that has solved and issue that has plagued me for 3 years. the problem was exactly as you said over subscription of the 8 ports tied to 1 ASIC From: Eric Ortega eric_ort...@mmi.net To: Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 9:51:43 AM Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Depending on the model of blade there is an 8-to-1 over subscription on the 4500s. I have had all kinds of headaches with this myself. The 48 port SFP gig blade can only have 1 gig per each set of 8 ports. The aggregate ports are known as gigaports. The layout is gigaport 1 = 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 gigaport 2 = 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16 and so on. I bet that if add up the total bandwidth in each gigaport you might be over the limit Philip Lavine wrote: I wish that was the case but the switch is a 4500 and the data rates are less than 100 mbps on a 1 gig blade/sup From: Eric Ortega eric_ort...@mmi.net To: Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:24:59 AM Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Are you over subscribing either the link or the backplane of the switching device? Philip Lavine wrote: Please explain how this would be possible: 1 sender 1 mcast group 1 receiver = no data loss 1 sender 1 mcast group 2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment = data loss -- Eric R. Ortega Network Engineer Midcontinent Communications 605.357.5720 eric_ort...@gmail.com -- Eric R. Ortega Network Engineer Midcontinent Communications 605.357.5720 eric_ort...@gmail.com
Re: ISP customer assignments
Of course, with IPv4, you never assigned a large enough block to begin with that would anticipate all growth, so routing additional blocks was a lot easier than changing blocks, cleaner than secondary IPs multiplying like crazy, etc., etc. None of that would be an issue with a single /64. You've hit on the key difference of IPv6. With IPv6 you should design your network so that it can grow for a long time without increasing the address block sizes anywhere. A /64 will work for even the biggest subnets. A /48 will do for for very, very big sites. And only the largest ISPs will outgrow a /32 allocation. If you assign a /48 to a data center site, then when you subnet it, try to maintain that growth ability if you can. Don't skimp on address block sizes unless you are backed into a corner for technical or business reasons. --Michael Dillon
Re: ISP customer assignments
Once upon a time, Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com said: And only the largest ISPs will outgrow a /32 allocation. This brings up something else I'm trying to figure out. We're not a huge ISP; I've got our /32 but I don't see us using more. We have two main POPs, each with Internet links, plus a link between the two. Our IPv4 allocations are larger than the minimum, so I split our IPv4 space between the two POPs and avertise a smaller block out of the smaller of the two POPs. This has worked okay and handles the POP-to-POP link going down; when that happens, our POP-to-POP traffic (not a large precentage of our traffic) goes across our Internet connections, but Internet traffic for each POP goes to directly to the POP. With IPv6, we've got our single /32. From what I understand, if I try to advertise a /33 from the smaller POP, many (most?) will drop it (if my upstreams even take it). If I advertise the /32 from both routers, when that link goes down, my IPv6 traffic will be pretty much hosed. Is there any good solution to this? I don't expect us to fill the /32 to justify expanding it (although I do see ARIN appears to have left space for up to a /29; I guess that's their sparse allocation policy?). I guess this is traffic engineering, although I'm not deaggregating to try to control how much goes where, just to ensure connectivity in the face of failures. This link has been pretty reliable lately (since the telco re-engineered it), but it was flakey as hell a while back (when it went through 7 companies to go between cities 90 miles apart). -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: ISP customer assignments
On 16/10/2009, at 1:17 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Is there any good solution to this? I don't expect us to fill the /32 to justify expanding it (although I do see ARIN appears to have left space for up to a /29; I guess that's their sparse allocation policy?). Your justification is that you have two sites without a guaranteed link between them. This is a bit annoying though, yeah. But, I'm not sure I can think of a good solution that doesn't involve us changing the routing system so that we can handle a huge amount of intentional de-aggregates or something. -- Nathan Ward
Re: ISP customer assignments
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: With IPv6, we've got our single /32. From what I understand, if I try to advertise a /33 from the smaller POP, many (most?) will drop it (if my upstreams even take it). If I advertise the /32 from both routers, when that link goes down, my IPv6 traffic will be pretty much hosed. Is there any good solution to this? Chris, Here's what I do with my IPv4 /24: I advertise it at higher priority at the larger POP and a slightly lower priority at the smaller POP. Then I got a small block of addresses from each upstream at each POP (from their still-aggregated blocks) to anchor a set of VPNs between the two. Something has to go disastrously wrong for me to suffer any worse effects than the occasional inefficient routing. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: DreamHost admin contacts
Agreed -1 for GroupSpark (AKA 123together) On Oct 13, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Jeff Saxe wrote: Barring that, what recommendations might the NANOG community have for an extremely rock-solid e-mail hosting company? I realize that may mean self-promotion, but hey, bring it on. Some people, when they say email hosting company, inherently mean hosting specifically of Microsoft Exchange email, contacts, and calendar. If that's what you're after, then I would recommend my employer's chosen hosted Exchange partner, Intermedia http://www.intermedia.net . They maintain server farms of Exchange clusters, and they have a very good customer portal (both at the administrator-of-the-site level and the individual end user). They also have an FTP-up-a-PST- file-and-merge-it-into-a-mailbox function that makes the initial migration from some other Exchange repository faster and more parallelizable than without it. We are extremely pleased, and we have basically stopped hosting Exchange for our own customers on our own in-house hardware, just using Intermedia as a branded service. Depending on your requirements (audit copy of every single email and and out, mandatory retention periods, BlackBerry connectivity, etc.), they probably can do anything you're asking for. Their uptime has been stellar except for one morning of about 3 to 4 hours, when a major MAN cable was busted around Manhattan somewhere and disconnected their datacenter. Other than that, we have not had the long, painful, tension-filled, customer-angering outage periods that we used to have with another provider which shall not be named. (OK, it will: GroupSpark. Stay far away from them.) -- Jeff Saxe Network Engineer, Blue Ridge InternetWorks Charlottesville, VA www.briworks.com
Re: DreamHost admin contacts
At my former firm we had much success with Mailstreet.com and their exchange hosting email services -- very simple to use admin panel and great customer service. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Andy Ringsmuth andyr...@inebraska.com wrote: Any chance there's someone from DreamHost on NANOG? Or that someone might have a way to reach them other than by filing a trouble ticket with them? POP has seemingly been down all day, with Webmail sporadic at best. Just migrated my company's e-mail over to them last week, and with this, of course our company president has been putting a severe squeeze on me to fix it. Barring that, what recommendations might the NANOG community have for an extremely rock-solid e-mail hosting company? I realize that may mean self-promotion, but hey, bring it on. Much appreciated! -Andy -- [ Rodrick R. Brown ] http://www.rodrickbrown.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/rodrickbrown
Re: ISP customer assignments
Nathan Ward wrote: On 16/10/2009, at 1:17 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Is there any good solution to this? I don't expect us to fill the /32 to justify expanding it (although I do see ARIN appears to have left space for up to a /29; I guess that's their sparse allocation policy?). Your justification is that you have two sites without a guaranteed link between them. This is a bit annoying though, yeah. But, I'm not sure I can think of a good solution that doesn't involve us changing the routing system so that we can handle a huge amount of intentional de-aggregates or something. -- Nathan Ward Actually, as of right now that's not justification. The Multiple Discrete Networks policy that's up for a vote in Dearborn will allow for this, but right now there's no IPv6 equivalent of that policy. -Dave
