Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:30:21 +, David Guo via NANOG said:
> They are based in Netherlands and may be not familiar with Germany business 
> laws

I'd expect that due diligence on their part would be to find an actual expert
on German business law.  And given that RIPE deals with most of Europe, I'd be
surprised if *nobody* in their legal department understands what are pretty
basic concepts of German law.

Re: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

[nusenu]

Montgomery, Douglas (Fed):
> Our effort to get our new monitor transitioned to a public facing
> system ran into a wall for ~35 days.  Unfortunately during that time,
> the visa of a visiting researcher leading that effort expired.
> 
> We have almost recovered from all of that.  Unfortunately, we have a
> bit of a bureaucracy to deploying public facing systems.  So I would
> guess it will take ~end of March to get it on-line.

thanks for the status update!

-- 
https://twitter.com/nusenu_
https://mastodon.social/@nusenu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 16 Feb, 2019

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  737069
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  284406
Deaggregation factor:  2.59
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  355337
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 63249
Prefixes per ASN: 11.65
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   54461
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   23611
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:8788
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:270
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.2
Max AS path length visible:  31
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 16327)  25
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:26
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:28
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  25797
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   21025
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:   91435
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:23
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:265
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2840868547
Equivalent to 169 /8s, 84 /16s and 54 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   76.7
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   76.7
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.2
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  246891

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   200469
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   57566
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.48
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  197448
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:81948
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:9451
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   20.89
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   2657
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1413
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.1
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 26
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   4459
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  769815906
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 226 /16s and 117 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-139577
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:217989
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   103510
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.11
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   217330
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:104080
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18359
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:11.84
ARIN 

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

[David Guo via NANOG]

They are based in Netherlands and may be not familiar with Germany business laws

Get Outlook for iOS


From: NANOG  on behalf of Mel Beckman 

Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 00:11
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

When AI robots take over a regional registry, let us know. In the current 
world, there is no such thing as AI robots running any bureaucracy. They’re all 
run by fallible humans, and only humans are to blame. In this case, European 
humans. :)

-mel

> On Feb 15, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Carsten Bormann  wrote:
>
>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 16:46, Mel Beckman  wrote:
>>
>> rant not operational, it’s not even North American
>
> While that is true, an event where a regional registry has been taken over by 
> (badly programmed) AI robots should be very much of interest both 
> operationally and for North Americans.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

[Mel Beckman]

When AI robots take over a regional registry, let us know. In the current 
world, there is no such thing as AI robots running any bureaucracy. They’re all 
run by fallible humans, and only humans are to blame. In this case, European 
humans. :)

 -mel

> On Feb 15, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Carsten Bormann  wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 16:46, Mel Beckman  wrote:
>> 
>> rant not operational, it’s not even North American
> 
> While that is true, an event where a regional registry has been taken over by 
> (badly programmed) AI robots should be very much of interest both 
> operationally and for North Americans.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

[Carsten Bormann]

On Feb 15, 2019, at 16:46, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> rant not operational, it’s not even North American

While that is true, an event where a regional registry has been taken over by 
(badly programmed) AI robots should be very much of interest both operationally 
and for North Americans.

Grüße, Carsten

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

[Job Snijders]

Dear Markus,

I think you are better off taking a deep breath, perhaps removing some
strongly worded sentences, and bring up the topic on one of the RIPE
mailing lists:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-lists/ripe-list

Kind regards,

Job

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:47 Mel Beckman  wrote:

> Sorry, but not only is your giant bolus of a rant not operational, it’s
> not even North American. Please respect the boundaries of our group and
> keep your venting in Europe where it belongs. This isn’t a flame, it’s just
> a polite request that you knock it off.
>
>  -mel beckman
>
> > On Feb 15, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Markus  wrote:
> >
> > Hi list!
> >
> > The following is off-topic/venting. It's about RIPE and my company in
> Germany. If you don't care about this even remotely, don't read on and
> don't flame me. I'm just so pissed and I have no other connection to the
> ISP (and related) community than the NANOG mailing list and I know there
> are some other European ISPs on this list. Here goes:
> >
> >
> > My company has been a RIPE LIR for 17 years now. This week was the first
> time ever that I became, was and still am really, really pissed at RIPE.
> >
> > There's some madness going on in RIPEs legal department. It appears they
> recently hired some retard who now wants to prove he/she is a smartass.
> Harsh words, but I have no other explanation for what's going on right  now!
> >
> > Here's the story:
> >
> > Sunday, 10th February, 17:08 CET: I sent away the online application for
> an additional LIR account. Automatic E-Mail confirmation received.
> >
> > Monday, 11th February, 15:07 CET: I didn't receive a human reply yet,
> and since the business day was nearing its end, I mailed them about the
> status, and asked whether I could come by their Amsterdam office the next
> day to sign the required documents - in order to speed up the whole process.
> >
> > Monday, 11th February, 15:57 CET: Reply from RIPE. Let me just copy and
> paste: "I regret to inform you that we do not offer the possibility to sign
> your contracts in our office and regrettably there is no option to speed up
> the application procedure." - Ok, no biggie. But then:
> >
> >
> > Quote start.
> >
> > "We can see that this is an additional LIR account for Lightup Network
> Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.
> >
> > We are currently reviewing applications with a legal entity type 'GmbH &
> Co. KG' together with our legal department and they have stated the
> following: "GmbH & Co. KG" is a sub-form of a "KG" (partnership).
> >
> > It normally consists of a general partner and one or more limited
> partners, which can be legal or natural persons.
> >
> > According to "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration
> Data" the signing party of an agreement can either be a legal or a natural
> person. A "KG" is not considered a legal person and cant be the signing
> party in our agreements.
> >
> > The agreement can be signed though by one of the legal or natural
> persons that are partners (general or limited). We therefore cannot
> register Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.
> >
> > As you already have an LIR account with us, we will have to update your
> existing account, de.lightupnet, before we can register this second account
> for Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.
> >
> > I created a new ticket for your company update and my colleagues will
> contact you shortly for the update."
> >
> > Quote end.
> >
> >
> > That didn't sound so good. I've had a company with the legal form GmbH &
> Co. KG (it's a German company) for about 15 years now and my initial gut
> feeling was "That's just plain bullsh*t!".
> >
> >
> > Tuesday, 12th February, 12:30: I receive another E-Mail. New ticket, as
> they promised.
> >
> >
> > Quote start.
> >
> > "It has come to our attention, that the legal name of your LIR account
> has been registered incorrectly.
> >
> > It was advised by our Legal Department that the legal form of your
> company as "GmbH & Co. KG" is a form of a general partnership that does not
> have a legal personality.
> >
> > If there is a document proving opposite, please send it to us. According
> to our procedure, we can only sign an agreement with a legal person that
> has a legal personality or a natural person.
> >
> > Therefore, we will have to correct your legal name to  trading as "Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG">, instead of  Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG>."
> >
> > Quote end.
> >
> >
> > They also asked that I upload a photo/scan of my passport, which I did.
> I just thought: Ok, let them have their way. If they want to change my LIRs
> description, who really cares. All I want is to create a 2nd LIR and speed
> this whole thing up. But, since they want to be SO LEGALLY CORRECT, I
> replied and mentioned the following. Let me copy and paste.
> >
> >
> > Quote start.
> >
> > "I just uploaded my passport.
> >
> > However, following your logic, you need to change all of the following
> German 

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

[Mel Beckman]

Sorry, but not only is your giant bolus of a rant not operational, it’s not 
even North American. Please respect the boundaries of our group and keep your 
venting in Europe where it belongs. This isn’t a flame, it’s just a polite 
request that you knock it off. 

 -mel beckman

> On Feb 15, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Markus  wrote:
> 
> Hi list!
> 
> The following is off-topic/venting. It's about RIPE and my company in 
> Germany. If you don't care about this even remotely, don't read on and don't 
> flame me. I'm just so pissed and I have no other connection to the ISP (and 
> related) community than the NANOG mailing list and I know there are some 
> other European ISPs on this list. Here goes:
> 
> 
> My company has been a RIPE LIR for 17 years now. This week was the first time 
> ever that I became, was and still am really, really pissed at RIPE.
> 
> There's some madness going on in RIPEs legal department. It appears they 
> recently hired some retard who now wants to prove he/she is a smartass. Harsh 
> words, but I have no other explanation for what's going on right  now!
> 
> Here's the story:
> 
> Sunday, 10th February, 17:08 CET: I sent away the online application for an 
> additional LIR account. Automatic E-Mail confirmation received.
> 
> Monday, 11th February, 15:07 CET: I didn't receive a human reply yet, and 
> since the business day was nearing its end, I mailed them about the status, 
> and asked whether I could come by their Amsterdam office the next day to sign 
> the required documents - in order to speed up the whole process.
> 
> Monday, 11th February, 15:57 CET: Reply from RIPE. Let me just copy and 
> paste: "I regret to inform you that we do not offer the possibility to sign 
> your contracts in our office and regrettably there is no option to speed up 
> the application procedure." - Ok, no biggie. But then:
> 
> 
> Quote start.
> 
> "We can see that this is an additional LIR account for Lightup Network 
> Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.
> 
> We are currently reviewing applications with a legal entity type 'GmbH & Co. 
> KG' together with our legal department and they have stated the following: 
> "GmbH & Co. KG" is a sub-form of a "KG" (partnership).
> 
> It normally consists of a general partner and one or more limited partners, 
> which can be legal or natural persons.
> 
> According to "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration 
> Data" the signing party of an agreement can either be a legal or a natural 
> person. A "KG" is not considered a legal person and cant be the signing party 
> in our agreements.
> 
> The agreement can be signed though by one of the legal or natural persons 
> that are partners (general or limited). We therefore cannot register Lightup 
> Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.
> 
> As you already have an LIR account with us, we will have to update your 
> existing account, de.lightupnet, before we can register this second account 
> for Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.
> 
> I created a new ticket for your company update and my colleagues will contact 
> you shortly for the update."
> 
> Quote end.
> 
> 
> That didn't sound so good. I've had a company with the legal form GmbH & Co. 
> KG (it's a German company) for about 15 years now and my initial gut feeling 
> was "That's just plain bullsh*t!".
> 
> 
> Tuesday, 12th February, 12:30: I receive another E-Mail. New ticket, as they 
> promised.
> 
> 
> Quote start.
> 
> "It has come to our attention, that the legal name of your LIR account has 
> been registered incorrectly.
> 
> It was advised by our Legal Department that the legal form of your company as 
> "GmbH & Co. KG" is a form of a general partnership that does not have a legal 
> personality.
> 
> If there is a document proving opposite, please send it to us. According to 
> our procedure, we can only sign an agreement with a legal person that has a 
> legal personality or a natural person.
> 
> Therefore, we will have to correct your legal name to  as "Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG">, instead of  Solutions GmbH & Co. KG>."
> 
> Quote end.
> 
> 
> They also asked that I upload a photo/scan of my passport, which I did. I 
> just thought: Ok, let them have their way. If they want to change my LIRs 
> description, who really cares. All I want is to create a 2nd LIR and speed 
> this whole thing up. But, since they want to be SO LEGALLY CORRECT, I replied 
> and mentioned the following. Let me copy and paste.
> 
> 
> Quote start.
> 
> "I just uploaded my passport.
> 
> However, following your logic, you need to change all of the following German 
> legal forms in your database to "Individual-name trading as ...":
> 
> - OHG
> - KG
> - GmbH & Co. OHG
> - GmbH & Co. KG
> 
> I understand that you would have to do that with a GbR, as a GbR cannot get 
> registered in the commercial register of companies and you need to specify 
> the names of the individuals. But I think with the above 4 legal forms you 
> are making as mistake here.
> 

OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

[Markus]

Hi list!

The following is off-topic/venting. It's about RIPE and my company in 
Germany. If you don't care about this even remotely, don't read on and 
don't flame me. I'm just so pissed and I have no other connection to the 
ISP (and related) community than the NANOG mailing list and I know there 
are some other European ISPs on this list. Here goes:



My company has been a RIPE LIR for 17 years now. This week was the first 
time ever that I became, was and still am really, really pissed at RIPE.


There's some madness going on in RIPEs legal department. It appears they 
recently hired some retard who now wants to prove he/she is a smartass. 
Harsh words, but I have no other explanation for what's going on right  now!


Here's the story:

Sunday, 10th February, 17:08 CET: I sent away the online application for 
an additional LIR account. Automatic E-Mail confirmation received.


Monday, 11th February, 15:07 CET: I didn't receive a human reply yet, 
and since the business day was nearing its end, I mailed them about the 
status, and asked whether I could come by their Amsterdam office the 
next day to sign the required documents - in order to speed up the whole 
process.


Monday, 11th February, 15:57 CET: Reply from RIPE. Let me just copy and 
paste: "I regret to inform you that we do not offer the possibility to 
sign your contracts in our office and regrettably there is no option to 
speed up the application procedure." - Ok, no biggie. But then:



Quote start.

"We can see that this is an additional LIR account for Lightup Network 
Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.


We are currently reviewing applications with a legal entity type 'GmbH & 
Co. KG' together with our legal department and they have stated the 
following: "GmbH & Co. KG" is a sub-form of a "KG" (partnership).


It normally consists of a general partner and one or more limited 
partners, which can be legal or natural persons.


According to "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration 
Data" the signing party of an agreement can either be a legal or a 
natural person. A "KG" is not considered a legal person and cant be the 
signing party in our agreements.


The agreement can be signed though by one of the legal or natural 
persons that are partners (general or limited). We therefore cannot 
register Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.


As you already have an LIR account with us, we will have to update your 
existing account, de.lightupnet, before we can register this second 
account for Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.


I created a new ticket for your company update and my colleagues will 
contact you shortly for the update."


Quote end.


That didn't sound so good. I've had a company with the legal form GmbH & 
Co. KG (it's a German company) for about 15 years now and my initial gut 
feeling was "That's just plain bullsh*t!".



Tuesday, 12th February, 12:30: I receive another E-Mail. New ticket, as 
they promised.



Quote start.

"It has come to our attention, that the legal name of your LIR account 
has been registered incorrectly.


It was advised by our Legal Department that the legal form of your 
company as "GmbH & Co. KG" is a form of a general partnership that does 
not have a legal personality.


If there is a document proving opposite, please send it to us. According 
to our procedure, we can only sign an agreement with a legal person that 
has a legal personality or a natural person.


Therefore, we will have to correct your legal name to trading as "Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG">, instead of 
."


Quote end.


They also asked that I upload a photo/scan of my passport, which I did. 
I just thought: Ok, let them have their way. If they want to change my 
LIRs description, who really cares. All I want is to create a 2nd LIR 
and speed this whole thing up. But, since they want to be SO LEGALLY 
CORRECT, I replied and mentioned the following. Let me copy and paste.



Quote start.

"I just uploaded my passport.

However, following your logic, you need to change all of the following 
German legal forms in your database to "Individual-name trading as ...":


- OHG
- KG
- GmbH & Co. OHG
- GmbH & Co. KG

I understand that you would have to do that with a GbR, as a GbR cannot 
get registered in the commercial register of companies and you need to 
specify the names of the individuals. But I think with the above 4 legal 
forms you are making as mistake here.


Although it is correct that a GmbH & Co. KG does not have a legal 
personality that differs from its general partners (Persoenlich haftende 
Gesellschafterin) or limited partners (Kommanditist), a GmbH & Co. KG is 
still a legal entity as its able to sue in front of court, or get sued 
in front of court. A GmbH & Co. KG can also purchase rights and enter 
into liabilities, can purchase property and other in rem rights related 
to estates. (Source: 
)


That being said, 

RE: Whitebox with OSPF optics

[ERCIN TORUN]

Hello Sami,

Edgecore (Accton) announced A9716-32X last year but it is not available on 
their web page, seems like they contributed the design to the OCP but not on 
sale yet.

https://www.opencompute.org/products/270/edgecore-networks-as9700-32x-400g-open-networking-switch

Regards
Erçin TORUN
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Sami Joseph
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 3:01 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Whitebox with OSPF optics

Hey,

Have you guys seen any ODM vendor that makes platforms based on Tomahawk 3 or 
later OSPF optics ?

Thank you
Sam



[http://www.turkcell.com.tr/downloads/bireysel/img/Tcelldis.gif] 


Bu elektronik posta ve onunla iletilen butun dosyalar sadece gondericisi 
tarafindan almasi amaclanan yetkili gercek ya da tuzel kisinin kullanimi 
icindir. Eger soz konusu yetkili alici degilseniz bu elektronik postanin 
icerigini aciklamaniz, kopyalamaniz, yonlendirmeniz ve kullanmaniz kesinlikle 
yasaktir ve bu elektronik postayi derhal silmeniz gerekmektedir.

TURKCELL bu mesajin icerdigi bilgilerin doğruluğu veya eksiksiz oldugu 
konusunda herhangi bir garanti vermemektedir. Bu nedenle bu bilgilerin ne 
sekilde olursa olsun iceriginden, iletilmesinden, alinmasindan ve 
saklanmasindan sorumlu degildir. Bu mesajdaki gorusler yalnizca gonderen kisiye 
aittir ve TURKCELLin goruslerini yansitmayabilir

Bu e-posta bilinen butun bilgisayar viruslerine karsi taranmistir.



This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, forwarding, copying or use of any of the information is strictly 
prohibited, and the e-mail should immediately be deleted.

TURKCELL makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any 
information contained in this message and hereby excludes any liability of any 
kind for the information contained therein or for the information transmission, 
reception, storage or use of such in any way whatsoever. The opinions expressed 
in this message belong to sender alone and may not necessarily reflect the 
opinions of TURKCELL.

This e-mail has been scanned for all known computer viruses.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Feb/19 15:06, Colton Conor wrote:

> Well the CES is EOLed.

Like I said, been a while. But with a quick scan over the years, nothing
is blowing my skirt up.


> ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential
> customers but fine for upstream aggregation.

You need to wine you vendors :-).

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Feb/19 15:06, Colton Conor wrote:

> Well the CES is EOLed.

Like I said, been a while. But with a quick scan over the years, nothing
is blowing my skirt up.


>
> ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential
> customers but fine for upstream aggregation.

You need wine you vendors :-).

Mark.

Re: Last Mile Design

[Colton Conor]

Well the CES is EOLed.

ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential customers
but fine for upstream aggregation.



On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:00 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 14/Feb/19 23:25, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The CES is...wonky.  My Foundry/Brocade/Extreme SEs have steered me
> > away from them on more than one occasion.
> >
> > The CER is fine but of course more expensive.  It'll take a full
> > Internet table, though, which is handy.
> >
> > For AE resi deployments, I'd aggregate folks onto cheap 48 port
> > switches then terminate onto a single pizza box router somewhere "less
> > deep" in the network.  Distributed, in-field L3 termination doesn't
> > mean you have to terminate L3 right at the customer-facing port.
>
> One of the reasons I'd pay a little extra for an Active-E FTTH-centric
> switch is to control bandwidth right at the port the customer connects
> to. Cheap Ethernet switches generally don't have this capability (or if
> they do, have it in only one direction). This is why I felt the CES/CER
> were reasonable, but purely as Layer 2 termination and not using their
> IP/MPLS capabilities.
>
> Anyway, it's been a while since I had any interest in this, so it's
> possible life has changed since I was at the beach :-).
>
> Mark.
>
>

Re: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

[Montgomery, Douglas (Fed) via NANOG]

Our effort to get our new monitor transitioned to a public facing system ran 
into a wall for ~35 days.  Unfortunately during that time, the visa of a 
visiting researcher leading that effort expired.  

We have almost recovered from all of that.  Unfortunately, we have a bit of a 
bureaucracy to deploying public facing systems.  So I would guess it will take 
~end of March to get it on-line.

Thanks
DougM
--
Doug Montgomery, Manager Internet  & Scalable Systems Research @ NIST
 

 
   Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 21:39:00 +
From: nusenu 
To: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" 
Cc: rpki-monitor , "nanog@nanog.org"
, "Montgomery, Douglas (Fed)" 
Subject: Re: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI
INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?
Message-ID: <2b8f9b07-27a7-08ba-ac51-afd39b30f...@riseup.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) (2018-09-18):> I also found your analysis very 
interesting and useful. Thanks for that.
> 
>> What do you think about adding graphs that show the amount of actually
>> unreachable prefixes and IP space? (prefix where no alternative 
valid/unknown announcement exists)
> 
> I am also part of the NIST BGP team. 
> Doug has already responded with information that we will soon have a new 
version of the NIST Monitor
> which will provide the kind of graphs that you requested.

Can you share an estimate for when you plan to publish the new version of 
the NIST Monitor?

thanks,
nusenu
 

Re: Last Mile Design

[Alain Hebert]

    Not all gen of CER takes full routes.

    I got a pair of 1gen here with 512k FIB.

-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443

On 2/14/19 4:25 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

On 2/14/19 12:08 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:

As a pure FTTH Active-E AN, I still think the Brocade (Extreme) CER/CES
is a good box.


The CES is...wonky.  My Foundry/Brocade/Extreme SEs have steered me 
away from them on more than one occasion.


The CER is fine but of course more expensive.  It'll take a full 
Internet table, though, which is handy.


For AE resi deployments, I'd aggregate folks onto cheap 48 port 
switches then terminate onto a single pizza box router somewhere "less 
deep" in the network.  Distributed, in-field L3 termination doesn't 
mean you have to terminate L3 right at the customer-facing port.

RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

[Phil Lavin]

> They are normal 1st gen trio boxes, same as MPC1, MPC2, MPC3 originals were. 
> You may be confused about the fact that their control plane is freescale, 
> instead of intel.

Sorry, yes - you're right. Re-convergence times are, however, still awful. 
Though if you're not handling a lot of routes, that may not be a huge problem 
for you

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Feb/19 10:54, Phil Lavin wrote:

> They are, however, not Trio - rather just commodity CPUs. Routing 
> re-convergence times are shockingly high - in the region of 5-10 minutes for 
> MX80 with a full table vs 30 seconds (ish) for 204

They are Trio.

It's the control plane which is not Intel... Freescale.


> You can add switches (EX or QFX) as line cards using Fusion, to add more port 
> density. I've heard some good things about Fusion, though I'm always wary of 
> proprietary clustering technology having been bitten by VC a few times. You 
> can also just trunk some VLANs up to switches if you don't want to buy the 
> Fusion license

Nasty, but doable (with or without Fusion).

I'd prefer not to, but I'm getting old so my resolve could be questioned
:-).

Mark.

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

[Saku Ytti]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:54 AM Phil Lavin  wrote:


> > MX80/MX104 have both sides for revenue ports.
>
> They are, however, not Trio - rather just commodity CPUs. Routing 
> re-convergence times are shockingly high - in the region of 5-10 minutes for 
> MX80 with a full table vs 30 seconds (ish) for 204

They are normal 1st gen trio boxes, same as MPC1, MPC2, MPC3 originals
were. You may be confused about the fact that their control plane is
freescale, instead of intel.
-- 
  ++ytti

RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

[Phil Lavin]

> Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN side 
> used, leaving FAB side entirely unused, throwing away 50% of free capacity.

The usable port configs are also quite tricky. Juniper have had to make a tool 
to validate the configurations (https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/). 
For example, using 4x40G disables all of the 10G ports however using 3x40G and 
1x100G gives you all of the 10G ports

> MX80/MX104 have both sides for revenue ports.

They are, however, not Trio - rather just commodity CPUs. Routing 
re-convergence times are shockingly high - in the region of 5-10 minutes for 
MX80 with a full table vs 30 seconds (ish) for 204

> I would GLADLY take 50% more ports in MX204, without taking any more PPS or 
> QoS bandwidth.

You can add switches (EX or QFX) as line cards using Fusion, to add more port 
density. I've heard some good things about Fusion, though I'm always wary of 
proprietary clustering technology having been bitten by VC a few times. You can 
also just trunk some VLANs up to switches if you don't want to buy the Fusion 
license

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Feb/19 10:40, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Is this because we as a community are so anal towards vendors about
> PPS performance that JNPR marketing forbade them making pizza-box MPC7
> using all the capacity in fears of people being angry about not being
> able to do good PPS on all ports?
>
> As far as I understand, it would have been zero cost to have double
> ports in MX204, if you don't want to use them, there is capex
> efficient vendor-agnostic, single-spare solution[0] to turn any
> platform back into full PPS platform.
> I want my free ports, in metro application you are limited by your
> east+west capacity and you can never see more PPS, but you want to add
> more edges.

I'm with you - but from what I can imagine, Juniper did not envisage
this box being used in high-density Metro-E applications (which I
wouldn't mind doing by planting a bunch of customers on 10Gbps that, in
an ideal world, would oversubscribe the 100Gbps uplinks, but in real
life, won't).

If someone from Juniper is reading this thread, I'd take the feedback
and have an "MX204-ME" style box designed with more port density on the
platform without having to increase pps or the uplink.

Mark.

MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

[Saku Ytti]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

> > MX204 be good for that ?
>
> I'm sure it will be - it's an MPC7 in a cage :-).

Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN
side used, leaving FAB side entirely unused, throwing away 50% of free
capacity.

MX80/MX104 have both sides for revenue ports.

I would GLADLY take 50% more ports in MX204, without taking any more
PPS or QoS bandwidth.

Is this because we as a community are so anal towards vendors about
PPS performance that JNPR marketing forbade them making pizza-box MPC7
using all the capacity in fears of people being angry about not being
able to do good PPS on all ports?

As far as I understand, it would have been zero cost to have double
ports in MX204, if you don't want to use them, there is capex
efficient vendor-agnostic, single-spare solution[0] to turn any
platform back into full PPS platform.
I want my free ports, in metro application you are limited by your
east+west capacity and you can never see more PPS, but you want to add
more edges.

[0] http://z.ip.fi/BVLE

-- 
  ++ytti