Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 12:47:45 PM Nick Hilliard wrote: it's the merchant silicon boxes which are driving high density 10g prices down,... As they should, and good news for us all, but... but most of these boxes tends to come with small fibs and tiny buffers which limits their deployment usefulness. Still, if they work for your requirements, they are completely awesome. My thinking is that provided they don't limit themselves in the QoS side of things (particularly, how different services going into the CPE can be policed/SLA'd), then they'd make good FTTH access nodes that can compete with GPON. But yes, as an IP route, pretty useless. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
On Monday, January 06, 2014 11:53:14 PM Randy Bush wrote: the nice thing about buying bgp devices that can not hold a full table is that you can expense them in the year of purchase as opposed to amortizing them over 5 years or so. If only the bean counter saw things our way :-). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Open source hardware
On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 05:12:38 PM Aled Morris wrote: In Europe, http://www.flexoptix.net are recommended. They also sell blank modules and give you a programmer too, so you can stock fewer spares and program them for whatever vendor you need in an outage/rapid deployment situation. I'm sure they'd ship to the US. Yep, would recommend them. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On 1/7/14, 11:10 PM, Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net wrote: I should probably add that there was a real router plugged into the ethernet port on the ONT, given a lack of support in the ActionTec code ... Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+WesleyGeorge/posts/hZR5nRgKyQ4 And no, clicking ³enable² doesn¹t do anything, least it didn¹t last time I fiddled with it. They¹ve at least updated this page from ³later in 2012² to ³starting in 2013² but clearly that¹s still not very helpful. http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/Internet/HighSpeed/General+Suppo rt/Top+Questions/QuestionsOne/ATLAS8742.htm Wes George Anything below this line has been added by my company¹s mail server, I have no control over it. --- This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, George, Wes wrote: Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config. I noticed the same thing on my router several months ago, but when I called to see if I could get IPv6 turned on for my account, no go. jms
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
The only major ISP that I seen so far that has rolled out is Comcast. Been probing the TW Cable people for months to see what their plans are for IPv6 in Ohio and all I have gotten is a million different stories. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.orgwrote: On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, George, Wes wrote: Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config. I noticed the same thing on my router several months ago, but when I called to see if I could get IPv6 turned on for my account, no go. jms
L2TPv3/MPLS (TP) Pseudowire to preserve
Hi, We have a new requirement to load balance across a couple of point to point ethernet links. The previous solution was handled by a few TDM circuits and MLPPP so that traffic was load balanced and any fragmentation/reassembly was handled by ML/PPP. Load balancing per flow is not really an option because we have a single IPSec tunnel (ESP-mode) and there is Layer 4 information to make a better decision to balance the load. I have been considering the use of L2TPv3 or an MPLS Pseudowire as a potential solution as they seem to have mechanisms to ensure packets are not misordered. I would appreciate any feedback/suggestions that the community can offer. Best, -Doug
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On 1/8/14 9:34 AM, Brian Henson marin...@gmail.com wrote: The only major ISP that I seen so far that has rolled out is Comcast. Been probing the TW Cable people for months to see what their plans are for IPv6 in Ohio and all I have gotten is a million different stories. TWC Ohio (residential service): Real Soon Now. For what it's worth, ATT also has a significant rollout on U-Verse. http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ I've read in some forums that there are pockets of FiOS users with IPv6 running. I've seen LLA on ActionTec modems. Something tells me that they will sneak up on us with a sudden deployment. Lee On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.orgwrote: On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, George, Wes wrote: Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config. I noticed the same thing on my router several months ago, but when I called to see if I could get IPv6 turned on for my account, no go. jms
[service] RIPE NCC Technical Outage
Dear colleagues, We are currently experiencing a technical outage. Our engineers are currently trying to resolve the issue. We will provide updates as the situation changes. Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote: I've read in some forums that there are pockets of FiOS users with IPv6 running. I've seen LLA on ActionTec modems. Something tells me that they will sneak up on us with a sudden deployment. would be grand if they'd let folk know it's coming :) # tcpdump -n -i em0 ip6 tcpdump: listening on em0, link-type EN10MB especially for business customers who don't have moca and don't use the actioncrap...
EIGRP support !Cisco
Looking for EIGRP support in a platform other than Cisco. Since it was opened up last year. We have a situation where we need to integrate into a network running EIGRP and would like to avoid cisco if at all possible. Any thoughts? Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
My actiontec router has had that IPv6 page for a while now. I'm 20 minutes outside NYC. However when I enable it, I still don't get a broadband IPv6 address in the System Monitoring tab. On 1/8/2014 8:26 AM, George, Wes wrote: On 1/7/14, 11:10 PM, Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net wrote: I should probably add that there was a real router plugged into the ethernet port on the ONT, given a lack of support in the ActionTec code ... Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+WesleyGeorge/posts/hZR5nRgKyQ4 And no, clicking ³enable² doesn¹t do anything, least it didn¹t last time I fiddled with it. They¹ve at least updated this page from ³later in 2012² to ³starting in 2013² but clearly that¹s still not very helpful. http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/Internet/HighSpeed/General+Suppo rt/Top+Questions/QuestionsOne/ATLAS8742.htm Wes George Anything below this line has been added by my company¹s mail server, I have no control over it. --- This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. -- Vlade Ristevski Network Manager IT Services Ramapo College (201)-684-6854
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
On Jan 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote: Any thoughts? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savage-eigrp-01 --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
On 08/01/2014 17:30, Nick Olsen wrote: Looking for EIGRP support in a platform other than Cisco. Since it was opened up last year. We have a situation where we need to integrate into a network running EIGRP and would like to avoid cisco if at all possible. Why not use isis or ospf? Both are fully vendor neutral, and they both support mpls networks properly. EIGRP has some interesting features, but the vendor tie-in cost is way too high to even consider using it. IGP migration is quite do-able, even for large networks, and all cisco devices which speak EIGRP will also speak at least ospf, if not isis. Nick
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
Completely agree. But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. OSPF would've been my first choice. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 From: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 12:50 PM To: n...@flhsi.com, nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: EIGRP support !Cisco On 08/01/2014 17:30, Nick Olsen wrote: Looking for EIGRP support in a platform other than Cisco. Since it was opened up last year. We have a situation where we need to integrate into a network running EIGRP and would like to avoid cisco if at all possible. Why not use isis or ospf? Both are fully vendor neutral, and they both support mpls networks properly. EIGRP has some interesting features, but the vendor tie-in cost is way too high to even consider using it. IGP migration is quite do-able, even for large networks, and all cisco devices which speak EIGRP will also speak at least ospf, if not isis. Nick
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
On Jan 9, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: IGP migration is quite do-able, even for large networks, and all cisco +1 --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
On Jan 9, 2014, at 12:52 AM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote: But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. Route redistribution? cringe or eBGP? --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
On 08/01/2014 17:52, Nick Olsen wrote: Completely agree. But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. OSPF would've been my first choice. you'll need to pay cisco tax then. Cisco opened up most of eigrp to the ietf as an informational rfc, but didn't release anything related to eigrp stub areas. This means that the ietf release is not that useful if a vendor wanted feature parity with cisco's implementation. So far I'm not aware of any vendors who have implemented it. Maybe some will do so in future. Nick
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
This is what I figured from a quick googling. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.. Thanks! Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 From: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 1:03 PM To: n...@flhsi.com, nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: EIGRP support !Cisco On 08/01/2014 17:52, Nick Olsen wrote: Completely agree. But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. OSPF would've been my first choice. you'll need to pay cisco tax then. Cisco opened up most of eigrp to the ietf as an informational rfc, but didn't release anything related to eigrp stub areas. This means that the ietf release is not that useful if a vendor wanted feature parity with cisco's implementation. So far I'm not aware of any vendors who have implemented it. Maybe some will do so in future. Nick
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote: This is what I figured from a quick googling. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.. you could employ one of the several methods to migrate from 'less desirable igp' to 'more desirable igp' on all of the things in question... there's people that have done this before even :) Thanks! Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 From: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 1:03 PM To: n...@flhsi.com, nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: EIGRP support !Cisco On 08/01/2014 17:52, Nick Olsen wrote: Completely agree. But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. OSPF would've been my first choice. you'll need to pay cisco tax then. Cisco opened up most of eigrp to the ietf as an informational rfc, but didn't release anything related to eigrp stub areas. This means that the ietf release is not that useful if a vendor wanted feature parity with cisco's implementation. So far I'm not aware of any vendors who have implemented it. Maybe some will do so in future. Nick
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
On 1/8/14, 10:02 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Jan 9, 2014, at 12:52 AM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote: But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. Route redistribution? I've done mixed eigrp ospf environments in places where I wasn't responsible for legacy decisions... it worked pretty much like you'd expect, which is fine more or less. but I also don't work there anymore so your mileage may vary... cringe or eBGP? Is harder to screw up in my experience. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
Use a standard protocol and redistribute between the two. OSPF is likely the easiest way to go for this. I like EIGRP, but I don't think I like it enough to try a non-Cisco implementation of it. At least with OSPF you know that most of the bugs have been worked out (hopefully). On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote: Looking for EIGRP support in a platform other than Cisco. Since it was opened up last year. We have a situation where we need to integrate into a network running EIGRP and would like to avoid cisco if at all possible. Any thoughts? Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Re: Open source hardware
Just to toss in a few more vendors so not to look biased: Champion One: http://www.championone.net/ Have used them with no complaints. And a new company I heard about off-list: Luma Optics: http://www.lumaoptics.net/ I haven't dealt with them before, but their solution seems to be pretty slick in that they give you the tools to recode optics yourself. When all is said and done, my experience with third-party optics has been that they're identical to brand-name optics except for the sticker. In fact, it's pretty clear most of the time that they're often made by the same place. I haven't counted them all up, but I believe we have over 1,000 third-party optics in use, so a fair enough sample size. Most of the optics that I've replaced in the last year have had a Cisco label on them. ;-) On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: http://approvedoptics.com/ is a good starting point if you want correct vendor codes On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Vlade Ristevski vrist...@ramapo.eduwrote: Sorry to get off topic, but is there a company that you can recommend? The price of the Cisco single mode GLC-LH-SMD= is killing me. I see a bunch of third party ones on Amazon and CDW but I'd to love to get my hands one that has the correct vendor code without going and trying them all. On 1/3/2014 7:48 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: You actually buy brand-name SFP's? That's like buying the gold-plated HDMI Monster Cable at Best Buy at markup ... I just find the the companies that the vendors contract to make their OEM SFP's and buy direct. Same SFP from the same factory except one has a Cisco sticker. ;-) You can even get them with the correct vendor code, been doing this for years and there is no difference in failure rate or quality and we go through hundreds of SFPs. Vlad Network Manager -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
That´s actually a topic, I was thinking ago some time ago. Why not take a current TOR switch with 1. BGP support and 2. high buffer. Like mentioned above we have Trident 2 bases switches. HP (no recommendation) has its HP 5930 series but tells Routing table size 16000 entries (IPv4), 8000 entries (IPv6), but this one has 4GB RAM, so plenty of space for full tables. I haven´t tried it out myself, perhaps someone tried on any other device: What will happen, if I give the switch a full table? Is there a software limit by the vendor, which will simply cut everything above? Or would it simply work? Michael
Re: Open source hardware
On (2014-01-08 13:56 -0500), Ray Soucy wrote: Just to toss in a few more vendors so not to look biased: Instead of suggesting names, I'm giving some suggestions want to ask for vendor when looking for new partner - DDM/DOM, should be included in each (1USD price premium), min/max TX/RX in eeprom should match that of PDF specsheet - accountability - supplier knows what they've sold to you, and where they've sourced them, so if there is problem, they can easily state you which of your optics are affected - replacement - advance replacement for non-critical replacement - eeprommer - usable by field-tech without training. If they are 'x compatible' it only means that someone programmed the eeprom with 'x' data. That someone might as well be your field tech, as it reduces your spare cost and ensures you always have correct part. Verify software has codes for kit you need it for. - if you need part (like for example dwdm) when 1st party only support something like SR, make sure you get the eeprom saying something that still allows you to inventory it correctly for easing operations when it needs to be replaced - part numbers - product ordered with given partnumber should be same part, single source laser, microcontroller, casing etc. If some source/supplier is changed, part number is changed. (So you can rely on getting something you know to work, to avoid testing everything) - product change notification - if something is changed with 'compatible' part without part number change, you should be informed of what was changed and why - prices decrease rapidly, it's chore to keep renegotiating constantly, try to negotiate contract where your price changes in reflection to vendors supplies becoming cheaper And of course make sure they sell all the stuff you need, so you don't need to have many sources, fewer sources, larger volume, better prices and also less parts to track/test. Chances are if you're just using 1st party, there may be lot of interesting optics available which will allow you to engineer some problems lot cheaper than you've used to. When all is said and done, my experience with third-party optics has been that they're identical to brand-name optics except for the sticker. In fact, it's pretty clear most of the time that they're often made by the same place. -- ++ytti
Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 09:45:50 PM excel...@gmx.com wrote: That´s actually a topic, I was thinking ago some time ago. Why not take a current TOR switch with 1. BGP support and 2. high buffer. Like mentioned above we have Trident 2 bases switches. HP (no recommendation) has its HP 5930 series but tells Routing table size 16000 entries (IPv4), 8000 entries (IPv6), but this one has 4GB RAM, so plenty of space for full tables. I haven´t tried it out myself, perhaps someone tried on any other device: What will happen, if I give the switch a full table? Is there a software limit by the vendor, which will simply cut everything above? Or would it simply work? The 4GB RAM is control plane memory. The problem is FIB memory, since switches generally forward Layer 2 and Layer 3 traffic in hardware, and this relies on forwarding entries being recorded into the FIB. The 16,000 IPv4 entries or 8,000 IPv6 entries is because of limited FIB memory. It's, typically, a switch limitation. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
On 1/8/14, 11:45 AM, excel...@gmx.com wrote: That´s actually a topic, I was thinking ago some time ago. Why not take a current TOR switch with 1. BGP support and 2. high buffer. Like mentioned above we have Trident 2 bases switches. HP (no recommendation) has its HP 5930 series but tells Routing table size 16000 entries (IPv4), 8000 entries (IPv6), but this one has 4GB RAM, so plenty of space for full tables. I haven´t tried it out myself, perhaps someone tried on any other device: What will happen, if I give the switch a full table? Is there a software limit by the vendor, which will simply cut everything above? Or would it simply work? There are various reasons why one might take a full table on a switch with not not enough FIB, the important part of course being the part where you don't install them all. I have taken a full bgp feed on an broadcom based Arista. with respect to what happens if you don't filter them. Either you get continuous fib churn and you only get to forward to the routes you currently have installed at that time (this is if you're lucky) or it explodes and you get to keep the pieces. Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:02 PM If you find the answer, you win the prize. Can the prize be the Verizon employees that should have been keeping us in the loop on this in a dunk tank ;)? I've tried shaking numerous trees (front-line customer service, my VZB sales person for $dayjob, other people I know who work at Verizon, etc...) to get an answer on this and each time I got different responses. Same story, I've tried many different avenues over the past couple of years with no luck. You'd think somebody on the list would be friends with a Verizon employee in the know they could take out and get drunk and wheedle something out of :). Or have sufficient business with Verizon to have enough clout to demand an answer sigh.
RE: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:a...@latency.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 8:10 PM Sorry, yes, that is correct: one way to get IPv6 FIOS at the home is to escalate through your (701/VZB) account team. Hmm, I actually have business FIOS at home (static IP highway robbery grumble), and have had no luck escalating requests for details on IPv6 through business support. Could you possibly provide more details on the process or appropriate contacts? but what self-respecting network geek uses those in the first place? :-) Damn straight. It's annoying they make us waste money on buying them in the first place 8-/. Although my brother-in-law did appreciate the donation of my actiontec paperweight to extend his consumer fios network to the other side of his house over coax and have better wireless coverage. Thanks.
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
I've been barking at them for a couple years now, I never get much. They're good about staffing their front line support with flowchart monkeys. My internet facing device is constantly listening for any sort of indication that native IPv6 is starting up, but never hears anything. So I rock HE like many of you. It works pretty well, and I'm, guessing I get a lot more address space via HE than VZ would give me. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Andrew Fried andrew.fr...@gmail.com wrote: You fared better than I did. I also am a Verizon Business customer, and when I called and inquired about ipv6 I was told that they didn't carry that channel. :) Andrew Fried andrew.fr...@gmail.com On 1/7/14, 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Christopher Morrow (morrowc.li...@gmail.com) wrote: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net wrote: I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field 'commercial account teams' == business customers? As a FIOS business customer, I can say that I've had no progress on that front, though I've bugged them about it often enough... Perhaps I shall try again though. I would truely love to hear from one of these folks in NYC who managed to get it... implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever possible. yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6 readiness... There's a US government mandate for government public websites to support IPv6 and quite a few of those do- in some cases through Networx. I don't recall agencies complaining about the inability to get IPv6 for public websites via Networx either. Additionally, most of the services under the Networx contract are more traditional telecom services which don't particularly care what you run over them. As for having Networx require IPv6 support for all services- some of us tried, and while a nice idea, I doubt it would have lasted terribly long post-award even if it had been included for the few IP-based services which were part of the original contract. Sadly, having been involved in government contracting, it's amazing what happens when the vendor says we want to provide $awesome, but we need you to waive this *one* little thing and there isn't a mandate (afair...) for agencies to run IPv6 internally (tho they're supposed to be buying devices which *support* it). I will say that the more the agencies complain to GSA the highest the chance of something being done about it. Thanks, Stephen
Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
OK. So who other than Andrew was able to get this working (and keep it working) ? I'm about to place an order for slow-verse for my residence... -Z- On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Nikolay Shopik sho...@inblock.ru wrote: On 04/12/13 23:48, Owen DeLong wrote: Please tell me what provider is selling 100Mbit for $20-30 in the 408-532- area of San Jose, California. Currently, the only provider capable of delivering more than 768k wired here is charging me $100+/month for 30-50Mbps maximum. I could get 100Mbps from them, but they want $250+/month for that. If I can get 100Mbps for $20-30, I'd jump at it. I know this is nanog, but i was talking about Russia, sorry for confusion. You can get 350Mbps for 70$ via GPON here. but plain ethernet dominates mostly here Not entirely sure what you are saying here. In this day and age, I don't see any reason that wireless providers should get a free pass or be able to sustain significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth is rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer levels. Sure but most cases you hit tower limit or frequency to crowded, since its shared medium and you can't do anything about that. In wired you can just drop another cable to your new client. Some even come up with idea two separate /64 make things easier :-D, instead just put at least round /60 Actually, providing a separate /64 for the provider link makes a lot of sense. It really is best to pull that out of a separate provider aggregate across all the subscribers in the same aggregation group than to carve individual link prefixes out of each subscribers internal-use prefix. For example, if you get a tunnel from HE, then, by default, you get a /64 from our link block for the tunnel broker to which you connect and an additional /64 for your internal use by default. If you click the please give me a /48 checkbox, then you'll also get an additional /48. I was talking about /64 + /64 to client LANs and not counting another /64 for WAN interface. I find this hard to manage at least on Cisco, actually didn't find way to separate them at all, unless its make them static We do this because it makes our provisioning easier and allows us to support users that want prefixes as well as users whose equipment (or brains) can't handle more than a single /64 for their LAN. There's really NOTHING to be gained from providing anything in between a /64 and a /48, so we don't do it. Owen
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Ian Bowers wrote: So I rock HE like many of you. It works pretty well, and I'm, guessing I get a lot more address space via HE than VZ would give me. I have a tunnel through HE and it is solid. Verizon states on their What is IPv6? page that they will provide a /56 to customers. At least they fixed the typo that up until recently said that a /56 was 56 LANs, so at least that's a step in the right direction. My guesses for the foot-dragging, re: v6 deployment on FiOS: 1. Can't get their set-top boxes working on it yet. One customer service rep told me this. I didn't feel up to starting the whole what's wrong with dual-stack? argument. 2. Still working out how to update back-end provisioning systems. 3. Dealing with different vintages of premise routers (older Actiontecs don't support it), ONTs, and possibly aggregation routers. 4. Still developing MPs and training materials for provisioners and front-line customer service reps. 5. They haven't hit a critical mass of non-static customers bitching about performance problems due to LSN. 6. Layer 8-10 issues. I do know Verizon is a very siloed organization. VZO doesn't communicate much with VZW or VZB, and vice versa, which is a shame. v6 on my VZW 4G LTE phone just plain works. jms On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Andrew Fried andrew.fr...@gmail.com wrote: You fared better than I did. I also am a Verizon Business customer, and when I called and inquired about ipv6 I was told that they didn't carry that channel. :) Andrew Fried andrew.fr...@gmail.com On 1/7/14, 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Christopher Morrow (morrowc.li...@gmail.com) wrote: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net wrote: I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field 'commercial account teams' == business customers? As a FIOS business customer, I can say that I've had no progress on that front, though I've bugged them about it often enough... Perhaps I shall try again though. I would truely love to hear from one of these folks in NYC who managed to get it... implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever possible. yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6 readiness... There's a US government mandate for government public websites to support IPv6 and quite a few of those do- in some cases through Networx. I don't recall agencies complaining about the inability to get IPv6 for public websites via Networx either. Additionally, most of the services under the Networx contract are more traditional telecom services which don't particularly care what you run over them. As for having Networx require IPv6 support for all services- some of us tried, and while a nice idea, I doubt it would have lasted terribly long post-award even if it had been included for the few IP-based services which were part of the original contract. Sadly, having been involved in government contracting, it's amazing what happens when the vendor says we want to provide $awesome, but we need you to waive this *one* little thing and there isn't a mandate (afair...) for agencies to run IPv6 internally (tho they're supposed to be buying devices which *support* it). I will say that the more the agencies complain to GSA the highest the chance of something being done about it. Thanks, Stephen
RE: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
From: Ian Bowers [mailto:iggd...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:31 AM indication that native IPv6 is starting up, but never hears anything. So I rock HE like many of you. It works pretty well, and I'm, guessing I get a lot more address space via HE than VZ would give me. I don't remember where I saw it, I believe it was on an official Verizon page, but it said something about giving out /56's to their business static IP customers, guess they want to be sure not to run out ;). HE I believe gives out /64's? The cynic in me believes they are intentionally delaying it to prop up their ridiculously high margins on IPv4 static addresses. Right now I'm paying $20/month extra for an additional four for a total of five on my account.
RE: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
HE will give you five /64's and you can also get a /48 if you need more for one end point. The service works flawlessly; much more than can be said for VZW. I run it from DD-WRT-based router at home and have several office locations using it via Cisco gear. Would still greatly prefer native though to avoid the messier setup, throughput (although HE is very good on that front too), latency, etc. -Original Message- From: Paul B. Henson [mailto:hen...@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 8:29 PM To: 'Ian Bowers' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Verizon FIOS IPv6? I don't remember where I saw it, I believe it was on an official Verizon page, but it said something about giving out /56's to their business static IP customers, guess they want to be sure not to run out ;). HE I believe gives out /64's? The cynic in me believes they are intentionally delaying it to prop up their ridiculously high margins on IPv4 static addresses. Right now I'm paying $20/month extra for an additional four for a total of five on my account.
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On Jan 8, 2014, at 18:27 , David Hubbard dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com wrote: HE will give you five /64's and you can also get a /48 if you need more for one end point. The service works flawlessly; much more than can be said for VZW. I run it from DD-WRT-based router at home and have several office locations using it via Cisco gear. Would still greatly prefer native though to avoid the messier setup, throughput (although HE is very good on that front too), latency, etc. To clarify, you get 2 /64s per tunnel... One for the tunnel itself and one for your site. You can also get an additional /48 per tunnel just by requesting it. Owen -Original Message- From: Paul B. Henson [mailto:hen...@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 8:29 PM To: 'Ian Bowers' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Verizon FIOS IPv6? I don't remember where I saw it, I believe it was on an official Verizon page, but it said something about giving out /56's to their business static IP customers, guess they want to be sure not to run out ;). HE I believe gives out /64's? The cynic in me believes they are intentionally delaying it to prop up their ridiculously high margins on IPv4 static addresses. Right now I'm paying $20/month extra for an additional four for a total of five on my account.
Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 10:33:55 PM joel jaeggli wrote: There are various reasons why one might take a full table on a switch with not not enough FIB, the important part of course being the part where you don't install them all. In Metro-E deployments, this is a good use-case when the box is providing both IP and Ethernet services to the same or different customers out of the same chassis. It avoids having to run 2x eBGP sessions for the IP services (the first being point-to-point eBGP between the switch and the customer to get their routes into the network, and the second being an eBGP Multi-Hop between the customer and a bigger box in your core to send them the full BGP table). If a switch allows you to keep the routes in control plane RAM without downloading them into the FIB, you can maintain a single point-to-point eBGP session to the customer, including sending them the full table, provided you have a default route in the switch's FIB to handle actual data plane traffic flow from the customer upstream. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
On Jan 8, 2014, at 17:03, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: I have a tunnel through HE and it is solid. I'm on Verizon FIOS (70/30 Mbit/s), and set up my ActionTec router to allow tunneling traffic through, but am using my Apple TimeCapsule base station (3 years old) for the actual IPv6 tunneling. I've been amazed how rock-solid the IPv6 has been. All traffic between my home and work workplace go over IPv6, and using X11 etc, I'm quite sensitive to latency or packet loss. To my surprise, generally the tunneled IPv6 performs (far) better than IPv4: --- .gnat.com ping6 statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 15.204/16.911/18.721/0.941 ms This really is good latency, especially considering the tunnel. Note that my MacBook Pro is using a WiFi connection, adding a millisecond or two as well. --- ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 26.280/28.259/31.289/1.254 ms This is fine, but not great. The Apple Base station does NAT-ing, but did the same for my previous DSL link to Bway, which had 16ms ping times, so I can rule out NAT-related delays. At this point in time I'm not holding my breath for VZ to do anything to accommodate IPv6 or provide good routing, and know that if, for my company or otherwise, I'll have an option to chose HE, I will. -Geert PS. Today I changed my FIOS autopay method with VZ (as somehow they ignored the info I gave at signup) and got notified it would take up to 60 days (!!!) for the changes to take effect. Clearly, VZ is (and always will be) a phone company.
Re: Open source hardware
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Saku Ytti wrote: On (2014-01-08 13:56 -0500), Ray Soucy wrote: Just to toss in a few more vendors so not to look biased: Instead of suggesting names, I'm giving some suggestions want to ask for vendor when looking for new partner So, in other words, you should make higher demands of your 3rd party optics providers than any of the OEMs could meet? When was the last time your OEM lowered your pricing for you when their supplies got cheaper? And when was the last time they changed their part number when they changed the casing of an optic? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross
SV: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
Xtreme x480 can do this and has upto 6 * 10G ports. It can actually hold a full bgp table also and is preatty cheap. // Andreas Med vänlig hälsning Andreas Larsen IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: randal k [mailto:na...@data102.com] Skickat: den 6 januari 2014 18:57 Till: NANOG list Ämne: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Good morning, We're in the market to move our IX peering off of our core (too much BGP/CPU :-/ ) and onto a dedicated switch. Anybody have a recommendation on a switch that can do the following without costing a fortune? I have scoured Cisco, and bang for the buck is ... ASR9k (way over powered for handling zero-feature IX traffic), 3-8x 10gbps ports 64k routes minimum, preferably 128k Must be able to speak BGP Native/functional IPv6 would be sharp! Basic QoS to police our ports The prefix count seems to be the killer, as our exchange table is getting pretty big (42k+ currently). I'm really tempted to build a vyatta box or similar, but would rather do something off the shelf -- especially if it can be 1-2 gens old and cost effective. I'm certain that this same situation is scratching many other folks as exchanges become more important. Thanks for your input in advance -- stay warm! Randal
