Re: Its hard to believe that it has been 21 years...

[Michael Rathbun]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:52:11 -0400, Rodney Joffe 
wrote:

>Twenty-one years ago today, Jon Postel passed away in Santa Monica, CA.
>
>Almost all of us get to do what we do today, because of his vision, guidance, 
>and leadership. He is one of many giants on whose shoulders we stand today 
>(some are still active here in NANOG), but he was the compass that guided most 
>of us.

Dayyum.  Time do fly when you havin' fun.

mdr
-- 
 "There are no laws here, only agreements."  
-- Masahiko

Its hard to believe that it has been 21 years...

[Rodney Joffe]

Twenty-one years ago today, Jon Postel passed away in Santa Monica, CA.

Almost all of us get to do what we do today, because of his vision, guidance, 
and leadership. He is one of many giants on whose shoulders we stand today 
(some are still active here in NANOG), but he was the compass that guided most 
of us.

For those of you who are too young to recognize his name, or don’t realize who 
that " J. Postel" is at the end of all of those RFCs you look at and quote:

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.txt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel

https://www.internetsociety.org/grants-and-awards/postel-service-award/ten-year-tribute-jon-postel/

/rlj

Re: Tower locations

[TJ Trout]

Most wisps put up their own towers or install on grain Mills etc, a small
percent use commercial towers they pay rent on.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:25 AM Aden Dragulescu  wrote:

> WISPs:
>
> From where do you find information on various tower locations, pricing,
> and available connectivity? More specifically, are you consulting directly
> with tower companies when searching for locations or is there someone/a
> service who provides this information more generally?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> *Aden Dragulescu*
> fiberdrop, LLC
> a...@fiberdrop.net
>

Re: Tower locations

[Josh Luthman]

Crown, American, maybe SBA have KMLs and I turn them on when looking for a
new site.

FCC db is fantastic as well, that's all 200+ and some smaller ones.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:26 AM Aden Dragulescu  wrote:

> WISPs:
>
> From where do you find information on various tower locations, pricing,
> and available connectivity? More specifically, are you consulting directly
> with tower companies when searching for locations or is there someone/a
> service who provides this information more generally?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> *Aden Dragulescu*
> fiberdrop, LLC
> a...@fiberdrop.net
>

Re: BGP Enabled transit in Chicago (River North) and equipment

[Ross Tajvar]

If you're okay with a tunnel, you may want to check out http://bgp.services.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:36 AM John Palmer  wrote:

> I've got a Cisco 881 with the "Advanced IP features" This will do for what
> I'm
> trying to accomplish.
>
> I think I'm going to go with a BGP tunnel.
>
> No one at RCN has any clue about this - they may not even provide the
> server. The sales
> droids only know how to sell their pre-packaged plans.
>
> Does anyone know who provides BGP tunnel session?  Doesn't really need to
> be RCN as I can create a tunnel with any peer.
>
> Thanks
> >
> > They are obviously not running full tables on their 3640. I'd imagine a
> > raspberry pi would have more BGP capability and throughput than a 3640,
> > though I don't recommend doing that even as a joke. But an ERR would be
> > fine if they're expecting nothing more than a slightly faster 3640 with
> > maybe some extra features.
> >
> > On 9/3/19 3:54 PM, Florian Brandstetter via NANOG wrote:
> > > Ubiquiti's EdgeRouter Lite is equipped with 512 MiB of DDR2 memory, of
> > > which after startup, roughly 491 MiB can be utilized. 119 MiB of the
> > > remaining memory are allocated by the base of the router already,
> > > which leaves you with a remainder of 372 MiB memory. Memory usage
> > > depends on the architecture for objects, for example there's a large
> > > difference between x86 and x86_64, since on x86_64, the compiler will
> > > generally use 64bit boundaries to be faster; the ERL runs on a MIPS64
> > > architecture, which will have a similar trade-off. To get to the
> > > point, let's have a quick look at the components using memory: bgpd,
> > > zebra, kernel. Roughly 180 MiB of memory are required to keep a single
> > > full table in bgpd alone, leaving you with 192 MiB of free memory.
> > > Accounting further, zebra will eat at least another 100 MiB for
> > > exporting the BGP RIB to the Kernel (FIB), leaving you with 100 MiB.
> > > At this point, you have a mere 92 MiB left for fitting the routes into
> > > the kernel, and to leave room for RX buffers on sockets.
> > >
> > > I don't see full tables happening from a memory perspective on the
> > > EdgeRouter Lite, you would want to look at something with at least 2
> > > GiB of memory to keep the whole system running smoothly, and when
> > > using Quagga and Zebra, that's still aimed rather low. FRRouting at
> > > this point uses 2 GiB for 4 full tables on an x86 system, without any
> > > magic attached.
> > >
> > > Having kept it unmentioned, the EdgeRouter Lite has a dual-core with
> > > 500 MHz, and surely your BGP updates processing isn't offloaded, hence
> > > you will pretty quickly kill the whole router when you flood it with a
> > > full table, unless you set very low queue sizes, which isn't really
> > > reliable though since you generally want BGP to converge fast - not
> > > after a period of 15 minutes with the CPU sitting on 100%.
> > >
> > > You might want to install something like OpenWRT (which I don't know
> > > the possibility of on an ERL), and run BIRD if you're tied to a low
> > > memory footprint, however, in a base vendor-generic setup of the ERL,
> > > it's beyond my understanding why one would even suggest running a full
> > > table on it.
> > > Sent from Mailspring
> >
> > --69793807A24007030ACBABEA
> > Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > 
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > They are obviously not running full tables on their 3640. I'd
> >   imagine a raspberry pi would have more BGP capability and
> >   throughput than a 3640, though I don't recommend doing that even
> >   as a joke. But an ERR would be fine if they're expecting nothing
> >   more than a slightly faster 3640 with maybe some extra
> features.
> > 
> > On 9/3/19 3:54 PM, Florian Brandstetter
> >   via NANOG wrote:
> > 
> >  >   cite="mid:69414933-770b-464c-b9da-a8f7a6156...@getmailspring.com">
> >   
> >   Ubiquiti's EdgeRouter Lite is equipped with 512 MiB of DDR2
> > memory, of which after startup, roughly 491 MiB can be utilized.
> > 119 MiB of the remaining memory are allocated by the base of the
> > router already, which leaves you with a remainder of 372 MiB
> > memory. Memory usage depends on the architecture for objects,
> > for example there's a large difference between x86 and x86_64,
> > since on x86_64, the compiler will generally use 64bit
> > boundaries to be faster; the ERL runs on a MIPS64 architecture,
> > which will have a similar trade-off. To get to the point, let's
> > have a quick look at the components using memory: bgpd, zebra,
> > kernel. Roughly 180 MiB of memory are required to keep a single
> > full table in bgpd alone, leaving you with 192 MiB of free
> > memory. Accounting further, zebra will eat at least another 100
> > MiB for exporting the 

Re: VDSL

[Brandon Martin]

On 10/16/19 2:42 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:

But I'm confused a bit by the below - G.Fast is a twisted pair
standard, last I saw - why would a cable (presumably coax) company be
offering it?  Are they just taking over the PTT's inside wiring?


G.fast has definitions for both twisted pair and coax PHYs.  That gets 
everybody interested.


The biggest issue for the CATV operators is that the coax PHY 
monopolizes the cable meaning you can't use it for conventional 
channelized RF type services, so if the subscriber wants cable TV in 
addition to IP service, you either have to have a side-by-side IPTV 
deployment or revert to running DOCSIS over channelized RF next to your 
linear TV system.  I've seen micro fiber-fed DOCSIS nodes for this 
purpose.  DOCSIS 3.1 with a good RF budget and lots of channel space can 
get a few gigs of bandwidth which is quite usable for a midsize MDU. 
Chuck one of those down in the telco room, and you're good to feed 
potentially a couple hundred units using traditional DOCSIS+linear TV 
which is what people expect from a CATV operator.  Anyone who just wants 
IP service and ends up wanting tons of bandwidth can get moved over to 
packet-fed G.fast as needed.

--
Brandon Martin

Re: Comcast outages continue even in areas with PG power restored

[Brandon Martin]

On 10/16/19 4:04 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
After some poking around, I found this gizmo. It says that it can use 
between 1-8 pairs to power it from the co. If there was already a home 
run to the co (which is almost certainly true in my case), it seems like 
that would be a cheaper option? Then you just have one diesel generator 
at the co that charges the batteries.


Yep, things like this are a great option if you're overbuilding existing 
copper plant with fiber.  The old copper gets relegated to duty as a 
power carrier, and the fiber moves the bits to the DSLAM.  As another 
poster said, you just keep pushing these out to keep loop lengths down 
and get the bandwidth available to the end user up.


G.FAST is the next iteration of this sort of thing.  You run fiber all 
the way to the ped at the curb or even into the building for 
multi-dwelling applications then re-use the existing drop to get into 
the customer prem.  4-8 ports is common on these types of things.  Many 
support either remote span power using the old copper plant or sometimes 
also reverse power from the customer prem which is really handy if your 
a pure-play fiber carrier re-using existing customer-owned copper 
infrastructure or if your copper plant has rotted to the point that 
you're loathe to put 190VDC on it for a few miles from the nearest 
powered RTU or CO.


The actual power that's needed per port is usually pretty small.  Maybe 
a dozen watts or so.  There's obviously a base load on the unit, so the 
more ports you have lit the lower that per-port number will go with 
diminishing returns.  It's low enough that, at 190VDC, you can feasibly 
power things over a mile or more with just a few pairs of existing 24AWG 
outside copper without the voltage drop or power loss and cable heating 
being too bad.

--
Brandon Martin

RE: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Aaron Gould]

Thanks Mike for the info on GNS3…. My info is old, I’ll have to take a look at 
the recent GNS3 sometime soon…

 

 

 

-Aaron

 

From: Mike Bolitho [mailto:mikeboli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:22 PM
To: Aaron Gould
Cc: Tom Beecher; Ryland Kremeier; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing 
features/configurations.

 

EVE-NG is also really good. Just an FYI, GNS3 went through a major refresh 
about 18 months ago or so and it's so much better now. Either way, you can't go 
wrong with GNS3 or EVE-NG.


- Mike Bolitho

 

 

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM Aaron Gould  wrote:

Oh, forgot the links…

 

http://www.eve-ng.net/

 

http://www.eve-ng.net/documentation/howto-s

 

 

 

 

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Gould
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:14 PM
To: 'Mike Bolitho'; 'Tom Beecher'; 'Ryland Kremeier'
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing 
features/configurations.

 

I’ve used GNS3 some years ago for a lot of simulation and testing.  But, I’m 
blown away at how much more I like EVE-NG (emulated virtual environment 
next-gen)

 

I use the community free version… lots of vendor OS support… of which, I’ve 
actually work with the following….

-XRv

-IOS virtual

-vMX

-vSRX

-vQFX

 

…check your in-box for a screen shot of my current environment.

 

-Aaron

 

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Bolitho
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:02 PM
To: Tom Beecher
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing 
features/configurations.

 

Totally agree with Tom here. It's going to work really well for most things. 
But if you're testing code for bugs you NEED to do it on the same hardware you 
have in your environment in an actual lab.


- Mike Bolitho

 

 

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

GNS3 can do a heck of a lot, and the price is definitely right. 

 

I have used it extensively for initial fleshing out of designs or ideas, 
protocol nerding, automation interaction testing, etc. There certainly other 
tools out there, but being able to visually draw a topology out, connect the 
dots, and have an environment to test in about 10 minutes is very nice. There 
is an API you can hook into to do some of that for you if you are so inclined, 
but that would depend on your use case and resources. For how I've used it, 
never been required. 

 

Some of the VMs from vendors can be pretty CPU and/or RAM intensive, so I've 
had the best experience running them all on a dedicated server, not locally. 
Again, use case dependent. For code testing I would always run the test set on 
hardware as well for likely obvious reasons. 

 

If you really get into the weeds with it you can do quite a lot.

 

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier  
wrote:

Hello,

 

I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our own 
in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any success? 
We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I figured I 
would inquire here first before diving in.

 

All info is appreciated,

-- 

Ryland Kremeier

Re: Comcast outages continue even in areas with PG power restored

[Jeff Shultz]

We use 12 and 48 port VDSLAM's similar to that at some of our remote
locations, and we do generally line power those.

But before those came on the market we were putting out remote
cabinets that could support up to 144 subscribers fed off the same
sort of cards you would find in the CO.

I don't know our power budget per customer, but it's not unusual to
have 20 or more amps of capacity (probably overkill, likely because
that was the size available) at 48V in a cabinet. Because the CO cards
aren't hardened, the cabinet must be - and have some HVAC type
capabilities as well - at least fans.

We're now feeding line power out to some of the 12 and 48 port devices
like you linked to from some of those remote cabinets.

It's all about shrinking loop lengths until we can get both the time
and funds to put fiber in the ground everywhere.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:06 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
> After some poking around, I found this gizmo. It says that it can use
> between 1-8 pairs to power it from the co. If there was already a home
> run to the co (which is almost certainly true in my case), it seems like
> that would be a cheaper option? Then you just have one diesel generator
> at the co that charges the batteries.
>
>
> https://portal.adtran.com/pub/Library/Data_Sheets/International_/I61179918F1-8_1148VXP.pdf
>
> Mike
>
> On 10/16/19 12:09 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/14/19 4:16 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:
>  Of course this is a lot of conjecture on my part... be glad to be
>  clued in by folks in know.
> >>> An old news story, but telco's usually have backup batteries in their
> >>> outside plant, cell towers, etc.  During power outages, they shuttle
> >>> small generators between outside cabinets to re-charge the batteries.
> >>> Remote Terminal Units (RTUs) use local power, i.e. look for the
> >>> utility meter nearby.  There is often a generator plug and battery
> >>> cabinet next to the RTU. They aren't powered from the central office.
> >> Interesting! And so primitive! So they go to all of the expense of
> >> laying fiber, but not power too?
> > Note: small local telco experience speaking below:
> >
> > Telco's tend to have experience with fiber, but probably not the
> > construction and transmission of the sort of power plant that would be
> > required to keep a bunch of  48V cabinets up and running reliably. We
> > certainly don't. Besides, an advantage of fiber is that hopefully the
> > copper thieves won't bother it.
> >
> >   By definition a remote terminal/cabinet is going to be... remote. Far
> > more simple to install commercial power, and then haul out a generator
> > if the battery string in the cabinet appears to be in danger of
> > dropping below about 46v.
> >
> > We do run some 360v DC at micro-amp levels out to equipment like ONT's
> > and remote 12 and 48 port remote VDSLAM's. But that's over existing
> > 24-26 ga. plant. Frequently using multiple pairs to avoid excessive
> > voltage drop over distances.
> >
> > Primitive is tested and works.
> >



-- 
Jeff Shultz
Central Office Technician

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

   
      
      
      














_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _

Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG]

I heard good stuff about Cisco Virl. It's like an ESX for network devices.


On 2019-10-16 15:23, Jason Kuehl wrote:
I use the server version of GNS and I love it.  I just need to VPN 
into my DC and use my client to connect to GNS.


On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 2:22 PM Mike Bolitho > wrote:


EVE-NG is also really good. Just an FYI, GNS3 went through a major
refresh about 18 months ago or so and it's so much better now.
Either way, you can't go wrong with GNS3 or EVE-NG.

- Mike Bolitho


On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM Aaron Gould mailto:aar...@gvtc.com>> wrote:

Oh, forgot the links…

http://www.eve-ng.net/

http://www.eve-ng.net/documentation/howto-s

*From:*NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org
] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Gould
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:14 PM
*To:* 'Mike Bolitho'; 'Tom Beecher'; 'Ryland Kremeier'
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org 
*Subject:* RE: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for
testing features/configurations.

I’ve used GNS3 some years ago for a lot of simulation and
testing.  But, I’m blown away at how much more I like EVE-NG
(emulated virtual environment next-gen)

I use the community free version… lots of vendor OS support…
of which, I’ve actually work with the following….

-XRv

-IOS virtual

-vMX

-vSRX

-vQFX

…check your in-box for a screen shot of my current environment.

-Aaron

*From:*NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org
] *On Behalf Of *Mike Bolitho
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:02 PM
*To:* Tom Beecher
*Cc:* mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
*Subject:* Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for
testing features/configurations.

Totally agree with Tom here. It's going to work really well
for most things. But if you're testing code for bugs you NEED
to do it on the same hardware you have in your environment in
an actual lab.


- Mike Bolitho

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM Tom Beecher
 wrote:

GNS3 can do a heck of a lot, and the price is definitely
right.

I have used it extensively for initial fleshing out of
designs or ideas, protocol nerding, automation interaction
testing, etc. There certainly other tools out there, but
being able to visually draw a topology out, connect the
dots, and have an environment to test in about 10 minutes
is very nice. There is an API you can hook into to do some
of that for you if you are so inclined, but that would
depend on your use case and resources. For how I've used
it, never been required.

Some of the VMs from vendors can be pretty CPU and/or RAM
intensive, so I've had the best experience running them
all on a dedicated server, not locally. Again, use case
dependent. For code testing I would always run the test
set on hardware as well for likely obvious reasons.

If you really get into the weeds with it you can do quite
a lot.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier
mailto:rkreme...@barryelectric.com>> wrote:

Hello,

I’m currently in the process of setting up a near
identical network to our own in GNS3 for testing
purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any
success? We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to
continue with the sim so I figured I would inquire
here first before diving in.

All info is appreciated,

-- 


Ryland Kremeier



--
Sincerely,

Jason W Kuehl
Cell 920-419-8983
jason.w.ku...@gmail.com 

Re: Comcast outages continue even in areas with PG power restored

[Michael Thomas]

After some poking around, I found this gizmo. It says that it can use 
between 1-8 pairs to power it from the co. If there was already a home 
run to the co (which is almost certainly true in my case), it seems like 
that would be a cheaper option? Then you just have one diesel generator 
at the co that charges the batteries.



https://portal.adtran.com/pub/Library/Data_Sheets/International_/I61179918F1-8_1148VXP.pdf

Mike

On 10/16/19 12:09 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:


On 10/14/19 4:16 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:

Of course this is a lot of conjecture on my part... be glad to be
clued in by folks in know.

An old news story, but telco's usually have backup batteries in their
outside plant, cell towers, etc.  During power outages, they shuttle
small generators between outside cabinets to re-charge the batteries.
Remote Terminal Units (RTUs) use local power, i.e. look for the
utility meter nearby.  There is often a generator plug and battery
cabinet next to the RTU. They aren't powered from the central office.

Interesting! And so primitive! So they go to all of the expense of
laying fiber, but not power too?

Note: small local telco experience speaking below:

Telco's tend to have experience with fiber, but probably not the
construction and transmission of the sort of power plant that would be
required to keep a bunch of  48V cabinets up and running reliably. We
certainly don't. Besides, an advantage of fiber is that hopefully the
copper thieves won't bother it.

  By definition a remote terminal/cabinet is going to be... remote. Far
more simple to install commercial power, and then haul out a generator
if the battery string in the cabinet appears to be in danger of
dropping below about 46v.

We do run some 360v DC at micro-amp levels out to equipment like ONT's
and remote 12 and 48 port remote VDSLAM's. But that's over existing
24-26 ga. plant. Frequently using multiple pairs to avoid excessive
voltage drop over distances.

Primitive is tested and works.

Re: Comcast outages continue even in areas with PG power restored

[Michael Thomas]

On 10/16/19 12:09 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:



Interesting! And so primitive! So they go to all of the expense of
laying fiber, but not power too?

Note: small local telco experience speaking below:

Telco's tend to have experience with fiber, but probably not the
construction and transmission of the sort of power plant that would be
required to keep a bunch of  48V cabinets up and running reliably. We
certainly don't. Besides, an advantage of fiber is that hopefully the
copper thieves won't bother it.

  By definition a remote terminal/cabinet is going to be... remote. Far
more simple to install commercial power, and then haul out a generator
if the battery string in the cabinet appears to be in danger of
dropping below about 46v.

We do run some 360v DC at micro-amp levels out to equipment like ONT's
and remote 12 and 48 port remote VDSLAM's. But that's over existing
24-26 ga. plant. Frequently using multiple pairs to avoid excessive
voltage drop over distances.

Primitive is tested and works.

This is all very interesting, and thanks to everybody for giving me an 
education. My provider is very small as well, and spread out over a 
pretty large area (i'm in amador county in the mother lode). I don't 
know how many remote terminals they have, but i would think that it 
would be a lot. And if they need to be recharged every 8 hours or so, 
you'd be talking about a lot of people out in the field just to keep the 
lights on, right? And of course it takes time to recharge a battery too, 
so that makes it even worse. It seems that would be a pretty significant 
recurring cost.


How many watts does a typical remote terminal draw per subscriber?

Mike

Provider IPv6 Deployment

[Nicholas Warren]

Can anyone share resources on deploying IPv6 in a provider network?
Most all documentation I find is from the customer perspective; which is great 
and all, but what about setting up dhcpv6-pd, what about the relay agent, or 
what about an equivalent of dhcp option 82?

Nich

Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Jason Kuehl]

I use the server version of GNS and I love it.  I just need to VPN into my
DC and use my client to connect to GNS.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 2:22 PM Mike Bolitho  wrote:

> EVE-NG is also really good. Just an FYI, GNS3 went through a major refresh
> about 18 months ago or so and it's so much better now. Either way, you
> can't go wrong with GNS3 or EVE-NG.
>
> - Mike Bolitho
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM Aaron Gould  wrote:
>
>> Oh, forgot the links…
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.eve-ng.net/
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.eve-ng.net/documentation/howto-s
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Gould
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:14 PM
>> *To:* 'Mike Bolitho'; 'Tom Beecher'; 'Ryland Kremeier'
>> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
>> *Subject:* RE: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing
>> features/configurations.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve used GNS3 some years ago for a lot of simulation and testing.  But,
>> I’m blown away at how much more I like EVE-NG (emulated virtual environment
>> next-gen)
>>
>>
>>
>> I use the community free version… lots of vendor OS support… of which,
>> I’ve actually work with the following….
>>
>> -XRv
>>
>> -IOS virtual
>>
>> -vMX
>>
>> -vSRX
>>
>> -vQFX
>>
>>
>>
>> …check your in-box for a screen shot of my current environment.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike
>> Bolitho
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:02 PM
>> *To:* Tom Beecher
>> *Cc:* 
>> *Subject:* Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing
>> features/configurations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Totally agree with Tom here. It's going to work really well for most
>> things. But if you're testing code for bugs you NEED to do it on the same
>> hardware you have in your environment in an actual lab.
>>
>>
>> - Mike Bolitho
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>
>> GNS3 can do a heck of a lot, and the price is definitely right.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have used it extensively for initial fleshing out of designs or ideas,
>> protocol nerding, automation interaction testing, etc. There certainly
>> other tools out there, but being able to visually draw a topology out,
>> connect the dots, and have an environment to test in about 10 minutes is
>> very nice. There is an API you can hook into to do some of that for you if
>> you are so inclined, but that would depend on your use case and resources.
>> For how I've used it, never been required.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some of the VMs from vendors can be pretty CPU and/or RAM intensive, so
>> I've had the best experience running them all on a dedicated server, not
>> locally. Again, use case dependent. For code testing I would always run the
>> test set on hardware as well for likely obvious reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you really get into the weeds with it you can do quite a lot.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier <
>> rkreme...@barryelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to
>> our own in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to
>> any success? We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim
>> so I figured I would inquire here first before diving in.
>>
>>
>>
>> All info is appreciated,
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ryland Kremeier
>>
>>

-- 
Sincerely,

Jason W Kuehl
Cell 920-419-8983
jason.w.ku...@gmail.com

Re: Comcast outages continue even in areas with PG power restored

[Jeff Shultz]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>
> On 10/14/19 4:16 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >> Of course this is a lot of conjecture on my part... be glad to be
> >> clued in by folks in know.
> >
> > An old news story, but telco's usually have backup batteries in their
> > outside plant, cell towers, etc.  During power outages, they shuttle
> > small generators between outside cabinets to re-charge the batteries.
> > Remote Terminal Units (RTUs) use local power, i.e. look for the
> > utility meter nearby.  There is often a generator plug and battery
> > cabinet next to the RTU. They aren't powered from the central office.
>
> Interesting! And so primitive! So they go to all of the expense of
> laying fiber, but not power too?

Note: small local telco experience speaking below:

Telco's tend to have experience with fiber, but probably not the
construction and transmission of the sort of power plant that would be
required to keep a bunch of  48V cabinets up and running reliably. We
certainly don't. Besides, an advantage of fiber is that hopefully the
copper thieves won't bother it.

 By definition a remote terminal/cabinet is going to be... remote. Far
more simple to install commercial power, and then haul out a generator
if the battery string in the cabinet appears to be in danger of
dropping below about 46v.

We do run some 360v DC at micro-amp levels out to equipment like ONT's
and remote 12 and 48 port remote VDSLAM's. But that's over existing
24-26 ga. plant. Frequently using multiple pairs to avoid excessive
voltage drop over distances.

Primitive is tested and works.

-- 
Jeff Shultz
Central Office Technician

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

   
      
      
      














_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _

Re: VDSL

[Jeff Shultz]

Just like any broadband deployed by a Telco gets called "DSL" these
days - even if it's 1G fiber. And even by those in the industry who
should know better.

Annoying.

But I'm confused a bit by the below - G.Fast is a twisted pair
standard, last I saw - why would a cable (presumably coax) company be
offering it?  Are they just taking over the PTT's inside wiring?

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:26 AM Rod Beck
 wrote:
>
> Well, the cable company here is offering 500 megs to the entire 5 story 
> building. My guess is that this G fast standard is what is being deployed 
> here and they loosely call it 'VDSL'.
>
> 


-- 
Jeff Shultz

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

   
      
      
      














_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _

Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Mike Bolitho]

EVE-NG is also really good. Just an FYI, GNS3 went through a major refresh
about 18 months ago or so and it's so much better now. Either way, you
can't go wrong with GNS3 or EVE-NG.

- Mike Bolitho


On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM Aaron Gould  wrote:

> Oh, forgot the links…
>
>
>
> http://www.eve-ng.net/
>
>
>
> http://www.eve-ng.net/documentation/howto-s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Gould
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:14 PM
> *To:* 'Mike Bolitho'; 'Tom Beecher'; 'Ryland Kremeier'
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* RE: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing
> features/configurations.
>
>
>
> I’ve used GNS3 some years ago for a lot of simulation and testing.  But,
> I’m blown away at how much more I like EVE-NG (emulated virtual environment
> next-gen)
>
>
>
> I use the community free version… lots of vendor OS support… of which,
> I’ve actually work with the following….
>
> -XRv
>
> -IOS virtual
>
> -vMX
>
> -vSRX
>
> -vQFX
>
>
>
> …check your in-box for a screen shot of my current environment.
>
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Bolitho
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:02 PM
> *To:* Tom Beecher
> *Cc:* 
> *Subject:* Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing
> features/configurations.
>
>
>
> Totally agree with Tom here. It's going to work really well for most
> things. But if you're testing code for bugs you NEED to do it on the same
> hardware you have in your environment in an actual lab.
>
>
> - Mike Bolitho
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
> GNS3 can do a heck of a lot, and the price is definitely right.
>
>
>
> I have used it extensively for initial fleshing out of designs or ideas,
> protocol nerding, automation interaction testing, etc. There certainly
> other tools out there, but being able to visually draw a topology out,
> connect the dots, and have an environment to test in about 10 minutes is
> very nice. There is an API you can hook into to do some of that for you if
> you are so inclined, but that would depend on your use case and resources.
> For how I've used it, never been required.
>
>
>
> Some of the VMs from vendors can be pretty CPU and/or RAM intensive, so
> I've had the best experience running them all on a dedicated server, not
> locally. Again, use case dependent. For code testing I would always run the
> test set on hardware as well for likely obvious reasons.
>
>
>
> If you really get into the weeds with it you can do quite a lot.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier <
> rkreme...@barryelectric.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our
> own in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any
> success? We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I
> figured I would inquire here first before diving in.
>
>
>
> All info is appreciated,
>
> --
>
> Ryland Kremeier
>
>

RE: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Aaron Gould]

Oh, forgot the links…

 

http://www.eve-ng.net/

 

http://www.eve-ng.net/documentation/howto-s

 

 

 

 

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Gould
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:14 PM
To: 'Mike Bolitho'; 'Tom Beecher'; 'Ryland Kremeier'
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing 
features/configurations.

 

I’ve used GNS3 some years ago for a lot of simulation and testing.  But, I’m 
blown away at how much more I like EVE-NG (emulated virtual environment 
next-gen)

 

I use the community free version… lots of vendor OS support… of which, I’ve 
actually work with the following….

-XRv

-IOS virtual

-vMX

-vSRX

-vQFX

 

…check your in-box for a screen shot of my current environment.

 

-Aaron

 

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Bolitho
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:02 PM
To: Tom Beecher
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing 
features/configurations.

 

Totally agree with Tom here. It's going to work really well for most things. 
But if you're testing code for bugs you NEED to do it on the same hardware you 
have in your environment in an actual lab.


- Mike Bolitho

 

 

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

GNS3 can do a heck of a lot, and the price is definitely right. 

 

I have used it extensively for initial fleshing out of designs or ideas, 
protocol nerding, automation interaction testing, etc. There certainly other 
tools out there, but being able to visually draw a topology out, connect the 
dots, and have an environment to test in about 10 minutes is very nice. There 
is an API you can hook into to do some of that for you if you are so inclined, 
but that would depend on your use case and resources. For how I've used it, 
never been required. 

 

Some of the VMs from vendors can be pretty CPU and/or RAM intensive, so I've 
had the best experience running them all on a dedicated server, not locally. 
Again, use case dependent. For code testing I would always run the test set on 
hardware as well for likely obvious reasons. 

 

If you really get into the weeds with it you can do quite a lot.

 

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier  
wrote:

Hello,

 

I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our own 
in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any success? 
We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I figured I 
would inquire here first before diving in.

 

All info is appreciated,

-- 

Ryland Kremeier

RE: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Aaron Gould]

I’ve used GNS3 some years ago for a lot of simulation and testing.  But, I’m 
blown away at how much more I like EVE-NG (emulated virtual environment 
next-gen)

 

I use the community free version… lots of vendor OS support… of which, I’ve 
actually work with the following….



-XRv

-IOS virtual

-vMX

-vSRX

-vQFX

 

…check your in-box for a screen shot of my current environment.

 

-Aaron

 

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Bolitho
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:02 PM
To: Tom Beecher
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing 
features/configurations.

 

Totally agree with Tom here. It's going to work really well for most things. 
But if you're testing code for bugs you NEED to do it on the same hardware you 
have in your environment in an actual lab.


- Mike Bolitho

 

 

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

GNS3 can do a heck of a lot, and the price is definitely right. 

 

I have used it extensively for initial fleshing out of designs or ideas, 
protocol nerding, automation interaction testing, etc. There certainly other 
tools out there, but being able to visually draw a topology out, connect the 
dots, and have an environment to test in about 10 minutes is very nice. There 
is an API you can hook into to do some of that for you if you are so inclined, 
but that would depend on your use case and resources. For how I've used it, 
never been required. 

 

Some of the VMs from vendors can be pretty CPU and/or RAM intensive, so I've 
had the best experience running them all on a dedicated server, not locally. 
Again, use case dependent. For code testing I would always run the test set on 
hardware as well for likely obvious reasons. 

 

If you really get into the weeds with it you can do quite a lot.

 

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier  
wrote:

Hello,

 

I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our own 
in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any success? 
We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I figured I 
would inquire here first before diving in.

 

All info is appreciated,

-- 

Ryland Kremeier

Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Mike Bolitho]

Totally agree with Tom here. It's going to work really well for most
things. But if you're testing code for bugs you NEED to do it on the same
hardware you have in your environment in an actual lab.

- Mike Bolitho


On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> GNS3 can do a heck of a lot, and the price is definitely right.
>
> I have used it extensively for initial fleshing out of designs or ideas,
> protocol nerding, automation interaction testing, etc. There certainly
> other tools out there, but being able to visually draw a topology out,
> connect the dots, and have an environment to test in about 10 minutes is
> very nice. There is an API you can hook into to do some of that for you if
> you are so inclined, but that would depend on your use case and resources.
> For how I've used it, never been required.
>
> Some of the VMs from vendors can be pretty CPU and/or RAM intensive, so
> I've had the best experience running them all on a dedicated server, not
> locally. Again, use case dependent. For code testing I would always run the
> test set on hardware as well for likely obvious reasons.
>
> If you really get into the weeds with it you can do quite a lot.
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier <
> rkreme...@barryelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to
>> our own in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to
>> any success? We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim
>> so I figured I would inquire here first before diving in.
>>
>>
>>
>> All info is appreciated,
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ryland Kremeier
>>
>

Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Tom Beecher]

GNS3 can do a heck of a lot, and the price is definitely right.

I have used it extensively for initial fleshing out of designs or ideas,
protocol nerding, automation interaction testing, etc. There certainly
other tools out there, but being able to visually draw a topology out,
connect the dots, and have an environment to test in about 10 minutes is
very nice. There is an API you can hook into to do some of that for you if
you are so inclined, but that would depend on your use case and resources.
For how I've used it, never been required.

Some of the VMs from vendors can be pretty CPU and/or RAM intensive, so
I've had the best experience running them all on a dedicated server, not
locally. Again, use case dependent. For code testing I would always run the
test set on hardware as well for likely obvious reasons.

If you really get into the weeds with it you can do quite a lot.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier <
rkreme...@barryelectric.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our
> own in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any
> success? We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I
> figured I would inquire here first before diving in.
>
>
>
> All info is appreciated,
>
> --
>
> Ryland Kremeier
>

Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Hugo Slabbert]

The alternative or complementary approach is something like batfish[1], for 
validation vs. emulation.


--
Hugo Slabbert   | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal

[1] https://www.batfish.org/

On Wed 2019-Oct-16 12:19:31 -0400, Yan Filyurin  wrote:


This also depends on your scale.  If you have lots of routers, you would end up with 
lots of compute to run the VM instances.  If you get the compute (which is cheap 
comparing to actual network hardware), you would need a "cloud orchestration” 
tool and a a system to connections from host to host like some form of overlay 
networking.

GNS3 would do a good job, but for something with a bit more orchestration APIs. 
 There is this:

https://networkop.co.uk/post/2019-01-k8s-vrnetlab/ 


And the nice people who even show up to NANOG every once in a while:

https://www.tesuto.com/ 

There are a few other tools that people built on their own if you scrub GitHub. 
 I even felt into that trap and exploring VRnetlab.

But numerous things were achieved.  Yes, you would miss out on all the hardware 
bugs, hardware adaption layer issues and maybe a scale issue or two, but with 
enough instances, route generators and maybe even some application (some of 
these things can even forward traffic), you could discover 90% of things that 
can go wrong.

And you get the flexibility of downloading evaluation images of all kinds of 
things, so maybe you can avoid spending any money.

Yan





On Oct 16, 2019, at 12:03 PM, Jason Kuehl  wrote:

I did this at my current company with also using VM Palo Alto.

Greeting of testing out a plan to make sure its insane.

The key it keeping its all up todate down to the firmware version (I know its 
not possible for some because virtual)

The things this wont find are hardware related faults or issues.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier mailto:rkreme...@barryelectric.com>> wrote:
Hello,



I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our own 
in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any success? 
We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I figured I 
would inquire here first before diving in.



All info is appreciated,

--

Ryland Kremeier



--
Sincerely,

Jason W Kuehl
Cell 920-419-8983
jason.w.ku...@gmail.com 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Yan Filyurin]

This also depends on your scale.  If you have lots of routers, you would end up 
with lots of compute to run the VM instances.  If you get the compute (which is 
cheap comparing to actual network hardware), you would need a "cloud 
orchestration” tool and a a system to connections from host to host like some 
form of overlay networking. 

GNS3 would do a good job, but for something with a bit more orchestration APIs. 
 There is this:

https://networkop.co.uk/post/2019-01-k8s-vrnetlab/ 


And the nice people who even show up to NANOG every once in a while:

https://www.tesuto.com/ 

There are a few other tools that people built on their own if you scrub GitHub. 
 I even felt into that trap and exploring VRnetlab. 

But numerous things were achieved.  Yes, you would miss out on all the hardware 
bugs, hardware adaption layer issues and maybe a scale issue or two, but with 
enough instances, route generators and maybe even some application (some of 
these things can even forward traffic), you could discover 90% of things that 
can go wrong. 

And you get the flexibility of downloading evaluation images of all kinds of 
things, so maybe you can avoid spending any money. 

Yan




> On Oct 16, 2019, at 12:03 PM, Jason Kuehl  wrote:
> 
> I did this at my current company with also using VM Palo Alto.
> 
> Greeting of testing out a plan to make sure its insane. 
> 
> The key it keeping its all up todate down to the firmware version (I know its 
> not possible for some because virtual) 
> 
> The things this wont find are hardware related faults or issues.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier  > wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our 
> own in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any 
> success? We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I 
> figured I would inquire here first before diving in.
> 
>  
> 
> All info is appreciated,
> 
> --
> 
> Ryland Kremeier
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely,
>  
> Jason W Kuehl
> Cell 920-419-8983
> jason.w.ku...@gmail.com 

Re: Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Jason Kuehl]

I did this at my current company with also using VM Palo Alto.

Greeting of testing out a plan to make sure its insane.

The key it keeping its all up todate down to the firmware version (I know
its not possible for some because virtual)

The things this wont find are hardware related faults or issues.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ryland Kremeier <
rkreme...@barryelectric.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I’m currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our
> own in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any
> success? We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I
> figured I would inquire here first before diving in.
>
>
>
> All info is appreciated,
>
> --
>
> Ryland Kremeier
>


-- 
Sincerely,

Jason W Kuehl
Cell 920-419-8983
jason.w.ku...@gmail.com

Viability of GNS3 network simulation for testing features/configurations.

[Ryland Kremeier]

Hello,

I'm currently in the process of setting up a near identical network to our own 
in GNS3 for testing purposes. Has anyone here tried this before to any success? 
We need to buy the Cisco IOSv image to continue with the sim so I figured I 
would inquire here first before diving in.

All info is appreciated,
--
Ryland Kremeier

Re: IP Geolocation

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:50:17 -, Ryland Kremeier said:
> >I believe we have found 1 customer that is infected with a botnet or malware.

> I've dealt with plenty of botnets working as a repair technician in the past
> but never had one change the public IP address of the user. Not entirely sure
> what this would accomplish aside from making it much easier to detect.

To detect that somebody isn't doing BCP38 filtering of their customers, you 
mean? :)


pgpUmsKQcLcHE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: IP Geolocation

[Ryland Kremeier]

>I believe we have found 1 customer that is infected with a botnet or malware.

I've dealt with plenty of botnets working as a repair technician in the past 
but never had one change the public IP address of the user. Not entirely sure 
what this would accomplish aside from making it much easier to detect.

RE: Tower locations

[Kevin McCormick]

You might find this Google Earth plugin useful for locating towers. I have used 
it a few times.

https://www.fccinfo.com/fccinfo_google_earth.php

Thank you,

Kevin McCormick

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Aden Dragulescu
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 3:54 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Tower locations

WISPs:

From where do you find information on various tower locations, pricing, and 
available connectivity? More specifically, are you consulting directly with 
tower companies when searching for locations or is there someone/a service who 
provides this information more generally?

Thanks.

--
Aden Dragulescu
fiberdrop, LLC
a...@fiberdrop.net

RE: IP Geolocation

[Travis Garrison]

I believe we have found 1 customer that is infected with a botnet or malware. 
His public ip address during speedtest or similar actually shows a Chinese ip 
address. We are contacting him to try to get that resolved and then put in a 
request to all the geolocation databases to update their information. It's 
still weird to me that a single customer out of around 120 can cause this many 
issues and change the geolocation databases.

Thanks
Travis-Original Message-
>Is this an indication of a prefix that was highjacked?
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 14, 2019, at 9:19 AM, Ben Cannon  wrote:
>> 

Re: BGP Enabled transit in Chicago (River North) and equipment

[NANOG Acct]

I've got a Cisco 881 with the "Advanced IP features" This will do for what I'm 
trying to accomplish. 

I think I'm going to go with a BGP tunnel. 

No one at RCN has any clue about this - they may not even provide the server. 
The sales
droids only know how to sell their pre-packaged plans.

Does anyone know who provides BGP tunnel session?  Doesn't really need to
be RCN as I can create a tunnel with any peer. 

Thanks
> 
> They are obviously not running full tables on their 3640. I'd imagine a 
> raspberry pi would have more BGP capability and throughput than a 3640, 
> though I don't recommend doing that even as a joke. But an ERR would be 
> fine if they're expecting nothing more than a slightly faster 3640 with 
> maybe some extra features.
> 
> On 9/3/19 3:54 PM, Florian Brandstetter via NANOG wrote:
> > Ubiquiti's EdgeRouter Lite is equipped with 512 MiB of DDR2 memory, of 
> > which after startup, roughly 491 MiB can be utilized. 119 MiB of the 
> > remaining memory are allocated by the base of the router already, 
> > which leaves you with a remainder of 372 MiB memory. Memory usage 
> > depends on the architecture for objects, for example there's a large 
> > difference between x86 and x86_64, since on x86_64, the compiler will 
> > generally use 64bit boundaries to be faster; the ERL runs on a MIPS64 
> > architecture, which will have a similar trade-off. To get to the 
> > point, let's have a quick look at the components using memory: bgpd, 
> > zebra, kernel. Roughly 180 MiB of memory are required to keep a single 
> > full table in bgpd alone, leaving you with 192 MiB of free memory. 
> > Accounting further, zebra will eat at least another 100 MiB for 
> > exporting the BGP RIB to the Kernel (FIB), leaving you with 100 MiB. 
> > At this point, you have a mere 92 MiB left for fitting the routes into 
> > the kernel, and to leave room for RX buffers on sockets.
> >
> > I don't see full tables happening from a memory perspective on the 
> > EdgeRouter Lite, you would want to look at something with at least 2 
> > GiB of memory to keep the whole system running smoothly, and when 
> > using Quagga and Zebra, that's still aimed rather low. FRRouting at 
> > this point uses 2 GiB for 4 full tables on an x86 system, without any 
> > magic attached.
> >
> > Having kept it unmentioned, the EdgeRouter Lite has a dual-core with 
> > 500 MHz, and surely your BGP updates processing isn't offloaded, hence 
> > you will pretty quickly kill the whole router when you flood it with a 
> > full table, unless you set very low queue sizes, which isn't really 
> > reliable though since you generally want BGP to converge fast - not 
> > after a period of 15 minutes with the CPU sitting on 100%.
> >
> > You might want to install something like OpenWRT (which I don't know 
> > the possibility of on an ERL), and run BIRD if you're tied to a low 
> > memory footprint, however, in a base vendor-generic setup of the ERL, 
> > it's beyond my understanding why one would even suggest running a full 
> > table on it.
> > Sent from Mailspring 
> 
> --69793807A24007030ACBABEA
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> 
>   
> 
>   
>   
> They are obviously not running full tables on their 3640. I'd
>   imagine a raspberry pi would have more BGP capability and
>   throughput than a 3640, though I don't recommend doing that even
>   as a joke. But an ERR would be fine if they're expecting nothing
>   more than a slightly faster 3640 with maybe some extra features.
> 
> On 9/3/19 3:54 PM, Florian Brandstetter
>   via NANOG wrote:
> 
>cite="mid:69414933-770b-464c-b9da-a8f7a6156...@getmailspring.com">
>   
>   Ubiquiti's EdgeRouter Lite is equipped with 512 MiB of DDR2
> memory, of which after startup, roughly 491 MiB can be utilized.
> 119 MiB of the remaining memory are allocated by the base of the
> router already, which leaves you with a remainder of 372 MiB
> memory. Memory usage depends on the architecture for objects,
> for example there's a large difference between x86 and x86_64,
> since on x86_64, the compiler will generally use 64bit
> boundaries to be faster; the ERL runs on a MIPS64 architecture,
> which will have a similar trade-off. To get to the point, let's
> have a quick look at the components using memory: bgpd, zebra,
> kernel. Roughly 180 MiB of memory are required to keep a single
> full table in bgpd alone, leaving you with 192 MiB of free
> memory. Accounting further, zebra will eat at least another 100
> MiB for exporting the BGP RIB to the Kernel (FIB), leaving you
> with 100 MiB. At this point, you have a mere 92 MiB left for
> fitting the routes into the kernel, and to leave room for RX
> buffers on sockets.
>   
>   I don't see full tables happening from a 

Re: VDSL

[Bjoern Franke]

Am 15.10.19 um 19:51 schrieb Eric Dugas:

Bell Canada still uses a lot of VDSL2 last-miles in Quebec and Ontario.

Max speed is 100/10 over bonded pairs and 50/10 over a single pair over 
short distances. Generally served from a fiber-fed DSLAM and less than 
500 meters.


In Germany 250/40 is possible over a single pair within 300 meters using 
VDSL2 Annex Q 35b, the telcos offers it as "super vectoring".

Best components for a full mvno core network?

[Dario Renaud]

Hello,

At my day job, we are considering going Full MVNO. Which means building a
mobile core network.

I was wondering if some of you would have feedback or advices on the
solutions currently available?

We would like to avoid the big providers (Ericsson & such).
Ideally, something opensource, or, if proprietary, a company maybe willing
to license access to the code (one can dream).

There seems to be a lot of bits and pieces available out there, with a mix
of full, fullish or partial solutions. This makes for quite the puzzle.

Among the ones I found most interesting:

nextEPC, covering, well, the EPC… (https://github.com/nextepc/nextepc). It
looks like the more active open EPC implementation out there.

And it seems that Yate people have a commercial product covering basically
everything needed (
https://yatebts.com/solutions_and_technology/mobile_virtual_network_operator/).


What do you think?

Regards

Dario Renaud

Tower locations

[Aden Dragulescu]

WISPs:

>From where do you find information on various tower locations, pricing, and
available connectivity? More specifically, are you consulting directly with
tower companies when searching for locations or is there someone/a service
who provides this information more generally?

Thanks.

--
*Aden Dragulescu*
fiberdrop, LLC
a...@fiberdrop.net

Re: VDSL

[Rod Beck]

Well, the cable company here is offering 500 megs to the entire 5 story 
building. My guess is that this G fast standard is what is being deployed here 
and they loosely call it 'VDSL'.


From: NANOG  on behalf of Brandon Martin 

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 10:16 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: VDSL

On 10/15/19 8:25 PM, Brielle wrote:
> Its actually got pretty heavy use in a lot of CenturyLink areas, like
> here in Boise.  Fiber is only now starting to become the norm, so
> everyone is on VDSL2 in single or bonded modes, speeds all the way up to
> around 50mbit down.

AT U-Verse in ex-SBC territories basically was their deployment of
VDSL/VDSL2 back when it was new.  Some installs used bonded ADSL2+ where
they didn't have a node close enough to really get any advantage of VDSL.

These days, it's their catch-all name for anything that isn't classic
ADSL served out of the CO, including their (very limited and apparently
halted) FTTH deployment.  VDSL is still very prevalent.  I'm not in a
territory served by it, but I know plenty of people nearby who are and,
unless you happen to be on a FTTH path (which means you're either in
select MDUs or happen to be on the path they took to get to one), you're
getting VDSL2 if you call them up and order U-Verse Internet service.

They deliver up to 100Mbps with pair-bonded VDSL2 assuming you're close
enough to the node.
--
Brandon Martin

Re: VDSL

[Brandon Martin]

On 10/15/19 1:51 PM, Rod Beck wrote:
These are large 19th century buildings with courtyards. I have seen lots 
of activity on this street - fiber being pulled from manhole and gear 
being installed in cable manholes. Corning on the cables.


Sounds like a fiber-to-the-curb deployment with G.FAST as the last 
"mile".  They run fiber to the nearest pedestal then install a small 
G.FAST ONU/DPU at the pedestal fed by that fiber then delivering 
potentially 500-1000Mbps over the last few 100ft into the existing 
building on existing copper.  Saves them from having to pull new drops 
which can get very expensive.


It's a bit of a stop-gap to a full FTTH deployment, but it'll get you 
very usable service for now and is relatively easily upgraded to full 
FTTH in the future by just pulling a real fiber drop and hooking it up 
to the existing fiber that's being used to feed the G.FAST ONU/DPU.


A lot of the G.FAST ONU/DPUs support VDSL2 fallback which they'll use if 
the copper turns out to be especially terrible, too long, or the 
customer doesn't want more than 50-100Mbps since the VDSL CPEs are 
somewhat significantly cheaper than G.FAST.  Might be where "VDSL" came 
from.


--
Brandon Martin

Re: VDSL

[Brandon Martin]

On 10/15/19 8:25 PM, Brielle wrote:
Its actually got pretty heavy use in a lot of CenturyLink areas, like 
here in Boise.  Fiber is only now starting to become the norm, so 
everyone is on VDSL2 in single or bonded modes, speeds all the way up to 
around 50mbit down.


AT U-Verse in ex-SBC territories basically was their deployment of 
VDSL/VDSL2 back when it was new.  Some installs used bonded ADSL2+ where 
they didn't have a node close enough to really get any advantage of VDSL.


These days, it's their catch-all name for anything that isn't classic 
ADSL served out of the CO, including their (very limited and apparently 
halted) FTTH deployment.  VDSL is still very prevalent.  I'm not in a 
territory served by it, but I know plenty of people nearby who are and, 
unless you happen to be on a FTTH path (which means you're either in 
select MDUs or happen to be on the path they took to get to one), you're 
getting VDSL2 if you call them up and order U-Verse Internet service.


They deliver up to 100Mbps with pair-bonded VDSL2 assuming you're close 
enough to the node.

--
Brandon Martin