Re: 3rd party QSFP-100G-LR4-S for Cisco

[Eric Litvin]

Hi Ryugo, 

I’m Eric Litvin, CEO of Luma Optics. We sell 1000s of 100G LR4.  Our price is 
$800.00 ( yes it’s true $800.00 for 100G-LR4).  We can do this because we buy 
1000s of LR4 at a time and do big volumes. Ours are open eeprom and we provide 
a device for free that enables you to flash the firmware and turn up the part 
in any network environment.  I’ve been a Nanog member for a long time and have 
many member references if you’d like to consider us. 

Cheers, 

Eric Litvin

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 29, 2018, at 5:48 AM, Ryugo Kikuchi  wrote:
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> Does anyone have a recommended model of 3rd party's "QSFP-100G-LR4-S" for
> Cisco ASR and Nexus?
> 
> Cisco's original 100G SFP costs us an arm and a leg, so we want to try to
> use 3rd party 100g SFP.
> But we are not sure which manufacturer's SFP is reliable or has good
> performance.
> 
> Does anyone have experience?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Roy

Re: VPP-based router vs Hardware assisted ones

[Ross Tajvar]

I haven't necessarily decided to take this direction, I just want to know
what the state of the platform is. I have not reviewed cumulus or pica8,
though I have heard of cumulus. Yes, in some cases I would like to take a
full table.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:26 PM, Kasper Adel  wrote:

> Hi Ross
>
> Did you make a decision to take that direction after reviewing ‘open
> networking’ platforms like cumulus and pica8?
>
> Are you trying to use the full routing table?
>
> ~kim
>
> On Thursday, May 24, 2018, Ross Tajvar  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Has anyone had any luck building their own routers on common compute (x86)
>> with VPP? I'm considering it as I'm looking for a cheap, fast peering
>> router. I haven't seen much written about that type of solution so I was
>> wondering if anyone here has experience to share.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ross
>>
>

RE: 3rd party QSFP-100G-LR4-S for Cisco

[Michel Py]

> Ryugo Kikuchi wrote:
> Does anyone have a recommended model of 3rd party's "QSFP-100G-LR4-S" for 
> Cisco ASR and Nexus?
> Cisco's original 100G SFP costs us an arm and a leg, so we want to try to use 
> 3rd party 100g SFP.
> But we are not sure which manufacturer's SFP is reliable or has good 
> performance.

Try this one. I never ordered that particular model, but they are my prefered 
vendor for optics and cables. Happy with the company.
https://www.fs.com/products/48355.html

Michel.

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: 3rd party QSFP-100G-LR4-S for Cisco

[Phil Lavin]

I concur. Never bought Cisco 100G from them but the quality of the Juniper 
optics and other ancillary fibre stuff is great.


> On 5 Jun 2018, at 20:58, Mitcheltree, Harold B  wrote:
> 
> FS.COM
> 
> 
> --Pete
> 
> 
> From: NANOG  on behalf of Ryugo Kikuchi 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 7:48:16 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: 3rd party QSFP-100G-LR4-S for Cisco
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> Does anyone have a recommended model of 3rd party's "QSFP-100G-LR4-S" for
> Cisco ASR and Nexus?
> 
> Cisco's original 100G SFP costs us an arm and a leg, so we want to try to
> use 3rd party 100g SFP.
> But we are not sure which manufacturer's SFP is reliable or has good
> performance.
> 
> Does anyone have experience?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Roy

Re: Satelite Internet Provider

[Anthony Leto]

I know a while ago MTN had spot beams out that way. I don't know if they are 
still around these days or if they are still covering there.

On Jun 5, 2018 19:39, "Ing. Edwin Salazar via NANOG"  wrote:
Hi,

I would like to know if anyone knows any satellite internet provider for the 
Galapagos Islands in Ecuador that I can contact?

Best regards,
Edwin Salazar.

Re: 3rd party QSFP-100G-LR4-S for Cisco

[Shawn Ritchie]

I can second OSI, been using them for years for Juni and Cisco-compatible
optics and they've been absolutely fine.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:31 AM Andrey Khomyakov 
wrote:

> We've been quite happy with https://www.osihardware.com
> The customer service is outstanding.
>
>
> --Andrey
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Tom Hill  wrote:
>
> > On 2018-05-29 13:48, Ryugo Kikuchi wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone have a recommended model of 3rd party's "QSFP-100G-LR4-S"
> for
> >> Cisco ASR and Nexus?
> >>
> >> Cisco's original 100G SFP costs us an arm and a leg, so we want to try
> to
> >> use 3rd party 100g SFP.
> >> But we are not sure which manufacturer's SFP is reliable or has good
> >> performance.
> >>
> >
> >
> > FlexOptix (.net) are an excellent third-party provider for your first
> > foray into non-vendor optics.
> >
> > Tom
> >
>


-- 
Shawn

Re: NTIA: Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be "unwound?"

[Owen DeLong]

OK, so looking at the actual notice in the Federal Register (Volume 83,
Number 108, Tuesday, June 5, 2018), the notice is quite lengthy and covers
a wide ranging set of topics.

The question about unwinding the stewardship transition is a single list item
in a rather large list of items which list is only subsection II of a 4-section 
series of areas of inquiry:

II. Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance

A. Does the multistakeholder approach continue to support an environment for 
the internet to grow and thrive? If so, why? If not, why not?

B. Are there public policy areas in which the multistakeholder approach works 
best? If yes, what are those areas and why? Are there areas in which the 
multistakeholder approach does not work effectively? If there are, what are 
those areas and why?

C. Are the existing accountability structures within multistakeholder internet 
governance sufficient? If not, why not? What improvements can be made?

D. Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be unwound? If yes, why and how? If 
not, why not?

E. What should be NTIA’s priorities within ICANN and the GAC?

F. Are there any other DNS related activities NTIA should pursue? If yes, 
please describe.

G. Are there barriers to engagement at the IGF? If so, how can we lower these 
barriers?

H. Are there improvements that can be made to the IGF’s structure,

organization, planning processes, or intercessional work programs? If so, what 
are they?

I. What, if any, action can NTIA take to help raise awareness about the IGF and 
foster stakeholder engagement?

J. What role should multilateral organizations play in internet governance? 


The ones I find most amusing are G, H, and I, which apparently presume that the 
IGF is a somehow meaningful construct with credibility or ability to accomplish 
anything at all.

Owen



> On Jun 6, 2018, at 08:25 , Brian Kantor  wrote:
> 
> The US NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration)
> has published an inquiry as to whether its transfer of stewardship of
> IANA to ICANN in 2016 should be "unwound."  They are requesting comments
> from interested parties to be sent to them by early July.
> 
> Quoting _The Register_:
> 
> "The US government has formally asked whether it should reassert
> its control of the internet's administrative functions, effectively
> reversing a handover to non-profit organization ICANN two years ago."
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/05/us_government_icann_iana/
> 
> and
> 
> https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/06/05/ntia-internet-policy-noi-jun18.pdf
> 
>   - Brian

Re: NTIA: Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be "unwound?"

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Brian Kantor  wrote:
> The US NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration)
> has published an inquiry as to whether its transfer of stewardship of
> IANA to ICANN in 2016 should be "unwound."  They are requesting comments
> from interested parties to be sent to them by early July.
>
> Quoting _The Register_:
>
> "The US government has formally asked whether it should reassert
> its control of the internet's administrative functions, effectively
> reversing a handover to non-profit organization ICANN two years ago."
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/05/us_government_icann_iana/

"should Uncle Sam regain ultimate control of IANA – the ICANN
department that oversees the planet's domain-name system, IP address
allocation, and network protocol number assignments?"

IANA is the Internet Assigned NUMBERS Authority. AFAIK, it does not
have stewardship over the domain-name system.

ICANN also does domains but not the IANA part. NTIA seems confused
about this too: the notice describes privatization of the DNS
happening in 2016.



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Intel DPDK vs Broadcom/Mellanox SDK

[lobna gouda]

I might be running into  this late. Yet we had a team that did performance 
tests for some of their virtualization services and ended up replacing intel 
cards with Mellanox.

Not sure about the details of the testd though


Brgds,


LG



From: NANOG  on behalf of McBride, Mack 

Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 11:34 AM
To: Kasper Adel
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: RE: Intel DPDK vs Broadcom/Mellanox SDK

The Broadcom chips have some quirks that the Broadcom SDK handles and the DPDK 
does not.
Specifically related around port hang up after port flaps.
I am certain each chipset has quirks that are best handled by their SDK.
The vendor specific SDK is always going to work better with a their specific 
chipset.
That is just a given based on the vendor understanding their own chipset better.
But again for software switching other factors apply.

Mack

From: Kasper Adel [mailto:karim.a...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 7:31 PM
To: McBride, Mack 
Cc: NANOG list 
Subject: Re: Intel DPDK vs Broadcom/Mellanox SDK

Can you please provide examples on issues that you highlighted with broadcom? 
Are you saying i may not see the same with mellanox?

Thanks

On Monday, June 4, 2018, McBride, Mack 
mailto:c-mack.mcbr...@charter.com>> wrote:
Use the package that corresponds to the chipset in your equipment.
Ie. Broadcom/Mellanox chips use that SDK.  Intel chips use DPDK.
With white box switches using Broadcom chips you will run into issues
If you don't use the Broadcom SDK.  Obviously your mileage will vary
based on the actual application.  If it isn't a hardware switch and is CPU based
like a home router, then there are a lot more factors and the CPU factors may
outweigh the chipset factors.  You may want to look at a list related to home
routers for more guidance.

Mack

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Kasper Adel
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 11:45 PM
To: NANOG list mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Intel DPDK vs Broadcom/Mellanox SDK

Hi

Anothe email thread to get some guidance on points to consider when comparing 
new platforms that advocate using DPDK as the hardware acceleration SDK vs the 
broadcom/mellanox.

The DPDK ones claim enhanced performance but every time i ask questions, i get 
the logical and typical answer of “it depends”

Thx
Kim
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for 
the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender 
by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly 
prohibited.
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for 
the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender 
by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly 
prohibited.

RE: Intel DPDK vs Broadcom/Mellanox SDK

[McBride, Mack]

The Broadcom chips have some quirks that the Broadcom SDK handles and the DPDK 
does not.
Specifically related around port hang up after port flaps.
I am certain each chipset has quirks that are best handled by their SDK.
The vendor specific SDK is always going to work better with a their specific 
chipset.
That is just a given based on the vendor understanding their own chipset better.
But again for software switching other factors apply.

Mack

From: Kasper Adel [mailto:karim.a...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 7:31 PM
To: McBride, Mack 
Cc: NANOG list 
Subject: Re: Intel DPDK vs Broadcom/Mellanox SDK

Can you please provide examples on issues that you highlighted with broadcom? 
Are you saying i may not see the same with mellanox?

Thanks

On Monday, June 4, 2018, McBride, Mack 
mailto:c-mack.mcbr...@charter.com>> wrote:
Use the package that corresponds to the chipset in your equipment.
Ie. Broadcom/Mellanox chips use that SDK.  Intel chips use DPDK.
With white box switches using Broadcom chips you will run into issues
If you don't use the Broadcom SDK.  Obviously your mileage will vary
based on the actual application.  If it isn't a hardware switch and is CPU based
like a home router, then there are a lot more factors and the CPU factors may
outweigh the chipset factors.  You may want to look at a list related to home
routers for more guidance.

Mack

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Kasper Adel
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 11:45 PM
To: NANOG list mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Intel DPDK vs Broadcom/Mellanox SDK

Hi

Anothe email thread to get some guidance on points to consider when comparing 
new platforms that advocate using DPDK as the hardware acceleration SDK vs the 
broadcom/mellanox.

The DPDK ones claim enhanced performance but every time i ask questions, i get 
the logical and typical answer of “it depends”

Thx
Kim
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for 
the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender 
by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly 
prohibited.
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for 
the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender 
by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly 
prohibited.

NTIA: Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be "unwound?"

[Brian Kantor]

The US NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration)
has published an inquiry as to whether its transfer of stewardship of
IANA to ICANN in 2016 should be "unwound."  They are requesting comments
from interested parties to be sent to them by early July.

Quoting _The Register_:

"The US government has formally asked whether it should reassert
its control of the internet's administrative functions, effectively
reversing a handover to non-profit organization ICANN two years ago."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/05/us_government_icann_iana/

and

https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/06/05/ntia-internet-policy-noi-jun18.pdf

- Brian

Re: 3rd party QSFP-100G-LR4-S for Cisco

[Andrey Khomyakov]

We've been quite happy with https://www.osihardware.com
The customer service is outstanding.


--Andrey

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Tom Hill  wrote:

> On 2018-05-29 13:48, Ryugo Kikuchi wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a recommended model of 3rd party's "QSFP-100G-LR4-S" for
>> Cisco ASR and Nexus?
>>
>> Cisco's original 100G SFP costs us an arm and a leg, so we want to try to
>> use 3rd party 100g SFP.
>> But we are not sure which manufacturer's SFP is reliable or has good
>> performance.
>>
>
>
> FlexOptix (.net) are an excellent third-party provider for your first
> foray into non-vendor optics.
>
> Tom
>

Re: ICANN GDPR lawsuit

[Mike Meredith]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:01:35 +0300, Hank Nussbacher 
may have written:
> "The European Commission has insisted it is *not subject to the strict
> new data protection law* that it has imposed across Europe after it was
> revealed the personal information of hundreds of people had been leaked
> on its website. "

Neglecting where it goes on to say "it would be subject to a
new law that “mirrors” GDPR which will come into effect in the autumn.".


-- 
Mike Meredith, University of Portsmouth
Hostmaster, Security, and Chief Systems Engineer
 


pgpdyFKzJLwJ4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: 3rd party QSFP-100G-LR4-S for Cisco

[Tom Hill]

On 2018-05-29 13:48, Ryugo Kikuchi wrote:
Does anyone have a recommended model of 3rd party's "QSFP-100G-LR4-S" 
for

Cisco ASR and Nexus?

Cisco's original 100G SFP costs us an arm and a leg, so we want to try 
to

use 3rd party 100g SFP.
But we are not sure which manufacturer's SFP is reliable or has good
performance.



FlexOptix (.net) are an excellent third-party provider for your first 
foray into non-vendor optics.


Tom

Re: Bezeq Internet (IL) around?

[Elmar K. Bins]

Re Hank,

thank you for the comprehensive info, this kind of help is why I
still consider NANOG a very good community and this mailing list
one of the major tools of the network business.

Not to even mention the really nice people that hang out here.

Thanks again,
Elmar.


h...@efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) wrote:

> On 27/05/2018 17:32, Theo Voss wrote:
> 
> There are basically two colo sites available in the Tel Aviv area:
> 
> Med-1 - https://www.medone.co.il/en/
> Bezeqint -
> https://www.bezeqint.net/english/carrier-wholesale-services/data-center-and-dr/jaffa-data-center
> 
> The first is run by a company that doesn't provide any sort of transit -
> just data center. 
> The second is run by a company that can also sell you transit.
> 
> There are only 4 companies in Israel that can provide carrier services:
> Bezeqint
> HOT - http://www.hot.net.il/heb/English/
> Partner - No English site
> Cellcom - No English site
> 
> At Med-1 you can buy transit from any of the 4 listed above. 
> At the Bezeqint site they only allow Bezeqint circuits so you are
> limited to only one carrier.
> 
> If you need contacts at any of the companies, drop me an email and I'll
> send you email contacts at each of the companies.
> 
> -Hank