Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

2016-04-21 Thread Blake Dunlap 
Not to mention the sharer's traffic will be impacted by said DoS...

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> They fight with DDoS, so it means every month 95% traffic will be full 100G.
>
> On 21.04.16 22:40, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
>> If they could offer 95th percentile usage no more than commit they
>> should pay only for it. But actually it depends on certain carrier and
>> certain agreement conditions.
>>
>> On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Max Tulyev > > wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm sure in this case they will pay for 100G every month, not for
>> 10-20G ;)
>>
>> On 21.04.16 20:25, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
>> > Hello!
>> >
>> > If you want cheaper price just ask any TIER-1 provider for link
>> with commit
>> > 10ge and burst up to 100GE. It will be definitely cheaper and
>> simpler than
>> > your "magic" with IX cost reduction.
>> >
>> > On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Paras Jha > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Interesting to see how the idea is gaining traction
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Piotr Iwanejko
>> 
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hello Nanog-ers,
>> >>>
>> >>> We are looking for a company that has >=100G connectivity to
>> major IX-es
>> >>> (AMS-IX, DE-CIX preferred) with traffic asymmetry/heavy outgoing
>> traffic,
>> >>> willing to resell incoming fraction n*10G/1*100G IX-only IP transit.
>> >>> Our company develops custom Anti-DDoS solution on PC platform (
>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/atendesoftware/100-mpps-on-pc) and we
>> want to
>> >>> collocate 1U scrubbing node.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please contact me off list for more details.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you.
>> >>> --
>> >>> Piotr Iwanejko
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Paras
>> >>
>> >> President
>> >> ProTraf Solutions, LLC
>> >> Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov
>

Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

2016-04-21 Thread Max Tulyev 
They fight with DDoS, so it means every month 95% traffic will be full 100G.

On 21.04.16 22:40, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
> If they could offer 95th percentile usage no more than commit they
> should pay only for it. But actually it depends on certain carrier and
> certain agreement conditions. 
> 
> On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Max Tulyev  > wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm sure in this case they will pay for 100G every month, not for
> 10-20G ;)
> 
> On 21.04.16 20:25, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > If you want cheaper price just ask any TIER-1 provider for link
> with commit
> > 10ge and burst up to 100GE. It will be definitely cheaper and
> simpler than
> > your "magic" with IX cost reduction.
> >
> > On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Paras Jha  > wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting to see how the idea is gaining traction
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Piotr Iwanejko
> 
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Nanog-ers,
> >>>
> >>> We are looking for a company that has >=100G connectivity to
> major IX-es
> >>> (AMS-IX, DE-CIX preferred) with traffic asymmetry/heavy outgoing
> traffic,
> >>> willing to resell incoming fraction n*10G/1*100G IX-only IP transit.
> >>> Our company develops custom Anti-DDoS solution on PC platform (
> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/atendesoftware/100-mpps-on-pc) and we
> want to
> >>> collocate 1U scrubbing node.
> >>>
> >>> Please contact me off list for more details.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> --
> >>> Piotr Iwanejko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Paras
> >>
> >> President
> >> ProTraf Solutions, LLC
> >> Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov

Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

2016-04-21 Thread Paras Jha 
I'm sure you can get 1gb on 10gbit burst. 4gb on 40G burst is also pretty
achievable in a single location. But there are very few places where you'll
get a 10G on 100G burst line. Even if they are willing to give it to you,
you'll probably have to commit to more than 10% of the port size

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Pavel Odintsov 
wrote:

> If they could offer 95th percentile usage no more than commit they should
> pay only for it. But actually it depends on certain carrier and certain
> agreement conditions.
>
> On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm sure in this case they will pay for 100G every month, not for 10-20G
> ;)
> >
> > On 21.04.16 20:25, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > If you want cheaper price just ask any TIER-1 provider for link with
> > commit
> > > 10ge and burst up to 100GE. It will be definitely cheaper and simpler
> > than
> > > your "magic" with IX cost reduction.
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Paras Jha  > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Interesting to see how the idea is gaining traction
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Piotr Iwanejko <
> > piotr.iwane...@gmail.com 
> > >> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello Nanog-ers,
> > >>>
> > >>> We are looking for a company that has >=100G connectivity to major
> > IX-es
> > >>> (AMS-IX, DE-CIX preferred) with traffic asymmetry/heavy outgoing
> > traffic,
> > >>> willing to resell incoming fraction n*10G/1*100G IX-only IP transit.
> > >>> Our company develops custom Anti-DDoS solution on PC platform (
> > >>> http://www.slideshare.net/atendesoftware/100-mpps-on-pc) and we want
> > to
> > >>> collocate 1U scrubbing node.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please contact me off list for more details.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you.
> > >>> --
> > >>> Piotr Iwanejko
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Paras
> > >>
> > >> President
> > >> ProTraf Solutions, LLC
> > >> Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov
>



-- 
Regards,
Paras

President
ProTraf Solutions, LLC
Enterprise DDoS Mitigation

Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

2016-04-21 Thread Pavel Odintsov 
If they could offer 95th percentile usage no more than commit they should
pay only for it. But actually it depends on certain carrier and certain
agreement conditions.

On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Max Tulyev  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm sure in this case they will pay for 100G every month, not for 10-20G ;)
>
> On 21.04.16 20:25, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > If you want cheaper price just ask any TIER-1 provider for link with
> commit
> > 10ge and burst up to 100GE. It will be definitely cheaper and simpler
> than
> > your "magic" with IX cost reduction.
> >
> > On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Paras Jha  > wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting to see how the idea is gaining traction
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Piotr Iwanejko <
> piotr.iwane...@gmail.com 
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Nanog-ers,
> >>>
> >>> We are looking for a company that has >=100G connectivity to major
> IX-es
> >>> (AMS-IX, DE-CIX preferred) with traffic asymmetry/heavy outgoing
> traffic,
> >>> willing to resell incoming fraction n*10G/1*100G IX-only IP transit.
> >>> Our company develops custom Anti-DDoS solution on PC platform (
> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/atendesoftware/100-mpps-on-pc) and we want
> to
> >>> collocate 1U scrubbing node.
> >>>
> >>> Please contact me off list for more details.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> --
> >>> Piotr Iwanejko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Paras
> >>
> >> President
> >> ProTraf Solutions, LLC
> >> Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov

Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

2016-04-21 Thread Max Tulyev 
Hello,

I'm sure in this case they will pay for 100G every month, not for 10-20G ;)

On 21.04.16 20:25, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> If you want cheaper price just ask any TIER-1 provider for link with commit
> 10ge and burst up to 100GE. It will be definitely cheaper and simpler than
> your "magic" with IX cost reduction.
> 
> On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Paras Jha  wrote:
> 
>> Interesting to see how the idea is gaining traction
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Piotr Iwanejko > >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Nanog-ers,
>>>
>>> We are looking for a company that has >=100G connectivity to major IX-es
>>> (AMS-IX, DE-CIX preferred) with traffic asymmetry/heavy outgoing traffic,
>>> willing to resell incoming fraction n*10G/1*100G IX-only IP transit.
>>> Our company develops custom Anti-DDoS solution on PC platform (
>>> http://www.slideshare.net/atendesoftware/100-mpps-on-pc) and we want to
>>> collocate 1U scrubbing node.
>>>
>>> Please contact me off list for more details.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> --
>>> Piotr Iwanejko
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Paras
>>
>> President
>> ProTraf Solutions, LLC
>> Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
>>
> 
>

Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

2016-04-21 Thread Rob Seastrom 

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 2016-04-20 13:09, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> 
>> Going to D3.1 in a meaningful way means migrating to either a mid-split at 
>> 85 MHz or a high split at 200 MHz 
> 
> Thanks. This is what I expected. But in the past, the canadian cablecos
> had argued that removing the 42mhz upstream limitation was a huge
> endeavour (they have to convicne CRTC to keep wholesale rates up, so
> create artificial scarcity by claiming that replacing all those 42mhz
> repeaters would cost a fortune, so they have to do node splits instead.

In my opinion, that fails the sniff test.  I don't have any particular 
budgetary information but I have a really hard time believing that pervasive 
node splits are cheaper than fixing the plant's US/DS splits.

By the way, just as one typically finds downstream DOCSIS channels in the 
600-ish MHz range because that's the space that became freshly available when 
the plant got upgraded from 400 MHz to 800 MHz, one is likely to find that the 
'fat' D3.1 OFDM upstream channels in the freshly-freed-up space that comes from 
doing the split realignment.  Remember that you need to keep the old upstreams 
in order to support all the old crufty D2.0 and D3.0 (and, sadly, probably the 
odd D1.1) modems out there.


> Arguing at CRTC is all about finding out what incumbent statements are
> just spin and which are true.
> 
> Thanks for the links as well.é
> 
>> RFoG is its own kettle of fish.  Getting more than one channel on upstream 
>> for RFoG is hard. 
> 
> But they can allocate a single very big channel, right ?  Or did you
> mean a single traditional NTSC 6mhz channel ?

They can allocate a single very big channel, but unlike QAM modulation, with 
OFDM you can have multiple stations transmitting at the same time on the same 
channel.  So if anything, the optical beat interference from having more than 
one laser on at once is likely to be worse (for some values of worse - I don't 
know of anyone labbing such a thing up and trying to characterize just how bad 
it gets how fast with multiple transmitters - it might become intolerable with 
2 on and it might not).  I ran this past a colleague and he said "ew why 
would anyone do D3.1 over RFoG?".  I think that pretty much sums it up.

My personal opinion is that two-way RFoG is a super bad idea, but one-way RFoG 
on a WDM-separated channel to support legacy QAM (with PON for your high speed 
data) is OK, with the caveat that if you want two-way settop boxes, you're 
gonna have to figure out how to have your STBs speak Ethernet or MoCA or 
something to get out via your commodity high speed data connection.  The latter 
is the way that FiOS does it.

-r

Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

2016-04-21 Thread Pavel Odintsov 
Hello!

If you want cheaper price just ask any TIER-1 provider for link with commit
10ge and burst up to 100GE. It will be definitely cheaper and simpler than
your "magic" with IX cost reduction.

On Thursday, 21 April 2016, Paras Jha  wrote:

> Interesting to see how the idea is gaining traction
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Piotr Iwanejko  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Nanog-ers,
> >
> > We are looking for a company that has >=100G connectivity to major IX-es
> > (AMS-IX, DE-CIX preferred) with traffic asymmetry/heavy outgoing traffic,
> > willing to resell incoming fraction n*10G/1*100G IX-only IP transit.
> > Our company develops custom Anti-DDoS solution on PC platform (
> > http://www.slideshare.net/atendesoftware/100-mpps-on-pc) and we want to
> > collocate 1U scrubbing node.
> >
> > Please contact me off list for more details.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > --
> > Piotr Iwanejko
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Paras
>
> President
> ProTraf Solutions, LLC
> Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
>


-- 
Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov

Re: CDN, Steam, Origin and NAT.

2016-04-21 Thread Blake Dunlap 
It really depends on how stupid the nat device is. If the mappings are
global you're looking at about 200 per user, if they aren't you're no
where near an issue.

Either way you're likely fine unless everyone tries to torrent at once

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Steve Mikulasik
 wrote:
> I do the network for a few lan parties. Last year we had 400+ people on 3 IPs 
> and didn't have any issues. I don't think those services are that picky 
> anymore since the rise of CGN.
>
> Just a side thing, but my advice is to look into setting up a lancache server 
> for Steam.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+steve.mikulasik=civeo@nanog.org] On 
> Behalf Of Laurent Dumont
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:28 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: CDN, Steam, Origin and NAT.
>
> Hi,
>
> We are running a small-ish LAN event in Toronto where we have to use a single 
> IP address to NAT between 250-350 players. I have been made aware of possible 
> issues with different services like Steam, Origin and Twitch who can run into 
> issues when a large number of connections seem to originate from a single IP 
> address. I just wanted to poke the list to see if anyone can chime him on 
> their experiences with NATing customers and the impact it might have on 
> public services. I am usually using public IP address space for players when 
> designing most large LAN events. Dealing with NAT for a medium-ish amount of 
> customers is not something I am used to do.
>
> It feels silly to worry about that when you assume that WISP
> sometimes(mostly?) use CGN when providing internet to customers. The same 
> could be said of most large office buildings around the world.
>
> I appreciate any input on the matter!
>
> Thanks
>
> Laurent
>

RE: CDN, Steam, Origin and NAT.

2016-04-21 Thread Steve Mikulasik 
I do the network for a few lan parties. Last year we had 400+ people on 3 IPs 
and didn't have any issues. I don't think those services are that picky anymore 
since the rise of CGN.

Just a side thing, but my advice is to look into setting up a lancache server 
for Steam.


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+steve.mikulasik=civeo@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Laurent Dumont
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:28 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: CDN, Steam, Origin and NAT.

Hi,

We are running a small-ish LAN event in Toronto where we have to use a single 
IP address to NAT between 250-350 players. I have been made aware of possible 
issues with different services like Steam, Origin and Twitch who can run into 
issues when a large number of connections seem to originate from a single IP 
address. I just wanted to poke the list to see if anyone can chime him on their 
experiences with NATing customers and the impact it might have on public 
services. I am usually using public IP address space for players when designing 
most large LAN events. Dealing with NAT for a medium-ish amount of customers is 
not something I am used to do.

It feels silly to worry about that when you assume that WISP
sometimes(mostly?) use CGN when providing internet to customers. The same could 
be said of most large office buildings around the world.

I appreciate any input on the matter!

Thanks

Laurent

Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

2016-04-21 Thread Paras Jha 
Interesting to see how the idea is gaining traction

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Piotr Iwanejko 
wrote:

> Hello Nanog-ers,
>
> We are looking for a company that has >=100G connectivity to major IX-es
> (AMS-IX, DE-CIX preferred) with traffic asymmetry/heavy outgoing traffic,
> willing to resell incoming fraction n*10G/1*100G IX-only IP transit.
> Our company develops custom Anti-DDoS solution on PC platform (
> http://www.slideshare.net/atendesoftware/100-mpps-on-pc) and we want to
> collocate 1U scrubbing node.
>
> Please contact me off list for more details.
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Piotr Iwanejko




-- 
Regards,
Paras

President
ProTraf Solutions, LLC
Enterprise DDoS Mitigation

Major IX bandwidth sharing

2016-04-21 Thread Piotr Iwanejko 
Hello Nanog-ers,

We are looking for a company that has >=100G connectivity to major IX-es 
(AMS-IX, DE-CIX preferred) with traffic asymmetry/heavy outgoing traffic, 
willing to resell incoming fraction n*10G/1*100G IX-only IP transit.
Our company develops custom Anti-DDoS solution on PC platform 
(http://www.slideshare.net/atendesoftware/100-mpps-on-pc) and we want to 
collocate 1U scrubbing node.

Please contact me off list for more details.

Thank you.
-- 
Piotr Iwanejko