Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-16 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson 

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, chris wrote:


Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake 


I am all for people deploying BCP38, but from the original email this is 
definitely not a cause for celebration. BCP38 should be used against 
single homed customers only if you're doing it by using uRPF. Otherwise 
extreme care needs to be taken to make sure traffic isn't dropped because 
uRPF does the wrong thing (like it seems in this case).


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-16 Thread chris 
Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake 

On Aug 16, 2017 4:04 PM, "Ben Russell"  wrote:

> Could someone from Cogent contact me off-list?  We are having an issue
> with one of our downstream customers who is multi-homed to another
> carrier.  The end customer is advertising their prefix to both us and the
> other carrier.  Both us and the other carrier peer with 174.  However, if
> the prefix is preferred through us and the outbound traffic flows over the
> other carrier it is dropped.  We suspect uRPF-strict on the other carriers
> Cogent link.   We are working together with the other carrier and have a
> ticket open the help desk seem to be confused.  Any help would be
> appreciated.  Thanks
>
>
> Ben Russell
> Senior Network Engineer
> Stratus Networks
> (309)370-3174
> [logo]
>
>

Re: Virtual or Remote Peering

2017-08-16 Thread Måns Nilsson 
Subject: Re: Virtual or Remote Peering Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 08:02:47AM 
-0500 Quoting Mike Hammett (na...@ics-il.net):

>>> How well does this service work? I understand it usually involves 
>>> point-to-multipoint Switched Ethernet with VLANs and resold IX ports. 
>>> Sounds like a service for ISP that would like to peer, but have relatively 
>>> small volumes for peering purposes or lopsided volumes. 

>> Its like buying regular ip-transit, but worse. 
 
> That seems to be a rather lopsided opinion. 

You get connections to other operators over an unreliable path that you
have no control over, and the opportunities to keep traffic local are
limited. Adding to that, it is all your fault since your provider does
not do L3 and can claim a very passive rôle in the process. 

Like transit, but worse. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE   SA0XLR+46 705 989668
YOW!!  The land of the rising SONY!!


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: For the Wireless Guys

2017-08-16 Thread Jon Lewis 

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Sean Heskett wrote:


2.4GHz is only stopped by a tree because the FCC EIRP limit for point to
multipoint gear is 4 watts or 36dbm.  If you turn the power up high enough
2.4GHz will easily go through trees and other objects.  It's a regulatory
limit, not a physics limit ;-)


So you're saying, with enough power, line of sight will be cleared...at 
least of any organic obstacles?  :)


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: For the Wireless Guys

2017-08-16 Thread Sean Heskett 
2.4GHz is only stopped by a tree because the FCC EIRP limit for point to
multipoint gear is 4 watts or 36dbm.  If you turn the power up high enough
2.4GHz will easily go through trees and other objects.  It's a regulatory
limit, not a physics limit ;-)

-Sean



On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Curtis Maurand  wrote:

> The higher the frequency, the more it acts like light.  at that frequency,
> it wouldn't take much to block it.  even 2.4GHz is stopped by a tree.
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Dan Hollis 
> wrote:
>
> > Good for a few meters at best? Terahertz is blocked by air.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Rod Beck wrote:
> >
> > https://phys.org/news/2017-08-transmission-terahertz-multiplexer.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Roderick Beck
> >>
> >> Director of Global Sales
> >>
> >> United Cable Company
> >>
> >> DRG Undersea Consulting
> >>
> >> Affiliate Member
> >>
> >> www.unitedcablecompany.com
> >>
> >> 85 Király utca, 1077 Budapest
> >>
> >> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
> >>
> >> 36-30-859-5144
> >>
> >>
> >> [1467221477350_image005.png]
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> --Curtis
>

Contact within Verizon Wireless

2017-08-16 Thread Sean Fitzgerald via NANOG 
Hello all,

I'm looking for a contact within Verizon Wireless US networking operations.
Please contact me at this address.

thanks,

Sean Fitzgerald

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

2017-08-16 Thread Nick W 
1.9.7 definitely applies to Infinity:

ER-8-XG:
https://dl.ubnt.com/firmwares/edgemax/v1.9.7/ER-e1000.v1.9.7+hotfix.1.5005858.tar
(SHA256:b1a16900e3fbe1eef3876548ac7eda12a95ef849d4328f22b478459e2a506b92)



On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> Forgot reply all...
>
> That does not apply to the infinity. Those shipped with 1.9.8dev.
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 8:03 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
> > 1.9.7+hotfix.1 is the currently available stable. 1.9.1.1 was released on
> > May 1st.
> >
> > https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX-
> > EdgeRouter-software-security-release-v1-9-7-hotfix-1/ba-p/2019161
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > From: "Nick W" 
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:55:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?
> >
> > Tried the Infinity, unsuccessfully. Several of them. Ended up pulling
> them
> > all, sitting in my homelab for now. Multiple full tables, nothing fancy
> for
> > firewall or QOS, but ran into issues with random ribd/bgpd crashes and
> > kernel panics. I've submitted a lot of logs and core dumps to UBNT. I
> would
> > personally stay away from them until they are out of beta, and possibly
> > even another 6-12 months after that.
> >
> > The current stable EdgeMax version (1.9.1.1) is relatively stable, but
> > using an outdated ZebOS (1.2.0?) with a number of issues (MPLS, OSPF,
> BGP)
> > - nothing too major, but can be annoying. Probably okay for what you
> > described. Depending on how much throughput you need, an ERPro, or
> Mikrotik
> > would probably be fine. If you need 10G, load up VyOS on some cheap
> servers
> > with an Intel or Solarflare card... probably cheaper than a beta Infinity
> > or Mikrotik.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Job Snijders  wrote:
> >
> > > Dear NANOG,
> > >
> > > Some friends of mine are operating a nonprofit (on shoe string) and
> > looking
> > > to connect some CDN caches to an IX fabric. A BGP speaking device is
> > needed
> > > between the caches and the BGP peers connected to the fabric. The BGP
> > > speaker is needed to present the peers on the IX with a unified view of
> > the
> > > assemblage of CDN nodes.
> > >
> > > I was wondering whether anyone was experience with the "EdgeRouter
> > Infinity
> > > XG" device, specifically in the role of a simple peering router for a
> > > couple of tens of thousands of routes. (I'd point default to the left
> and
> > > take just the on-net routes on the right to reduce the table size
> > > requirement).
> > >
> > > I hope the device can do at least 2xLACP trunks, has a sizable FIB, is
> > > automatable (supports idempotency), can forward IMIX at line-rate,
> *flow,
> > > and exposes some telemetry via SNMP.
> > >
> > > Any note sharing would be appreciated!
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Job
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: Last Week's Canadian Fiber Cut

2017-08-16 Thread Paul Stewart 
It wasn’t an issue getting transatlantic - it was an issue within a relatively 
small region in Eastern Canada talking to the rest of the world for certain 
carriers.  There were several smaller carriers/providers not affected - just 
happens the local incumbent telco and one of their larger competitors got 
knocked out … 


> On Aug 15, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:22 PM, Rod Beck  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Did we ever get any resolution on why this was such a big outage? Appears 
>> there were two fiber cuts. Were the fibers damaged in the same conduit? Is 
>> this a collapsed ring scenario?
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/concerns-about-backup-bell-outage-1.4239064
> 
> Perhaps some transatlantic fallback?  It looks like the only cable out there 
> is the Greenland one.. guessing that’s not very competitive?  It only gets 
> you to Iceland it seems.
> 
> - Jared

Re: Last Week's Canadian Fiber Cut

2017-08-16 Thread Paul Stewart 
Never really heard a lot about it  …. We never lost connectivity to Halifax 
from Montreal via Hibernia - interesting topic though as we have a backup path 
that I’m looking to replace :)

Paul


> On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:22 PM, Rod Beck  wrote:
> 
> Did we ever get any resolution on why this was such a big outage? Appears 
> there were two fiber cuts. Were the fibers damaged in the same conduit? Is 
> this a collapsed ring scenario?
> 
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/concerns-about-backup-bell-outage-1.4239064
> 
> 
> Roderick Beck
> 
> Director of Global Sales
> 
> United Cable Company
> 
> DRG Undersea Consulting
> 
> Affiliate Member
> 
> www.unitedcablecompany.com
> 
> 85 Király utca, 1077 Budapest
> 
> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
> 
> 36-30-859-5144
> 
> 
> [1467221477350_image005.png]

Re: For the Wireless Guys

2017-08-16 Thread Curtis Maurand 
The higher the frequency, the more it acts like light.  at that frequency,
it wouldn't take much to block it.  even 2.4GHz is stopped by a tree.

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Dan Hollis 
wrote:

> Good for a few meters at best? Terahertz is blocked by air.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Rod Beck wrote:
>
> https://phys.org/news/2017-08-transmission-terahertz-multiplexer.html
>>
>>
>> Roderick Beck
>>
>> Director of Global Sales
>>
>> United Cable Company
>>
>> DRG Undersea Consulting
>>
>> Affiliate Member
>>
>> www.unitedcablecompany.com
>>
>> 85 Király utca, 1077 Budapest
>>
>> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
>>
>> 36-30-859-5144
>>
>>
>> [1467221477350_image005.png]
>>
>>


-- 
--Curtis

Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-16 Thread Ben Russell 
Could someone from Cogent contact me off-list?  We are having an issue with one 
of our downstream customers who is multi-homed to another carrier.  The end 
customer is advertising their prefix to both us and the other carrier.  Both us 
and the other carrier peer with 174.  However, if the prefix is preferred 
through us and the outbound traffic flows over the other carrier it is dropped. 
 We suspect uRPF-strict on the other carriers Cogent link.   We are working 
together with the other carrier and have a ticket open the help desk seem to be 
confused.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks


Ben Russell
Senior Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
(309)370-3174
[logo]

Google Fiber contact

2017-08-16 Thread Feldman, Mark 
Can someone from Google Fiber contact me off list?  Thanks.

  Mark
  Comcast T&P Core Network Services

Re: Virtual or Remote Peering

2017-08-16 Thread Mike Hammett 
That seems to be a rather lopsided opinion. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Fredrik Korsbäck"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:00:39 AM 
Subject: Re: Virtual or Remote Peering 

> How well does this service work? I understand it usually involves 
> point-to-multipoint Switched Ethernet with VLANs and resold IX ports. Sounds 
> like a service for ISP that would like to peer, but have relatively small 
> volumes for peering purposes or lopsided volumes. 
> 
> 
> Roderick Beck 
> 
> Director of Global Sales 
> 
> United Cable Company 
> 
> DRG Undersea Consulting 
> 
> Affiliate Member 
> 
> www.unitedcablecompany.com 
> 
> 85 Király utca, 1077 Budapest 
> 
> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com 
> 
> 36-30-859-5144 
> 
> 
> [1467221477350_image005.png] 
> 

Its like buying regular ip-transit, but worse. 




-- 
hugge