Re: BGP full feed for testing purposes

[Jared Geiger]

You can also launch a VM in your lab
https://stubarea51.net/2016/01/21/put-50-bgp-routes-in-your-lab-network-download-this-vm-and-become-your-own-upstream-bgp-isp-for-testing/

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:42 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Greg Sowell helps you out here:
>
> http://gregsowell.com/?page_id=5771
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:19 PM Brendan Carlson 
> wrote:
>
>> Set up a Vultr instance and you can get a full feed from them for
>> testing. I've done this for a route collector and it worked well.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 13:16 Blažej Krajňák  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm wondering, if there is any public service I can get full BGP feed
>>> from for testing purposes.
>>>
>>> I admin multi-homed AS50242 with two default routes for now (fail-over).
>>> I'm going to prepare new routing setup with extended validation so reall
>>> full BGP feed would be usefull. Yes, I can ask my upstream provider for
>>> it, but I don't want to change settings in production setup.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Blažej Krajňák
>>>
>>

Re: Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

[Fred Baker]

> On Aug 4, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
> 
> The only other option then becomes the secondary transfer markets, where 
> costs to acquire v4 space are much higher than what direct allocations from 
> the RIRs used to be. 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:35 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.  
> wrote:
>> I know that a shortage of IPv4 addresses has been anticipated for quite some 
>> time (literally decades), however, is there a shortage *right now*?
>> 
>> I ask, because Liquid Web is using it as an excuse to raise their prices:
>> 
>> "We're contacting you today to inform you of a change to your account. As 
>> you may know, the global shortage of IPv4 addresses 
>> (https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-run-out) continues to 
>> impact web hosting companies around the world. ... Effective August 31st, we 
>> will be updating our per IPv4 address price to $2.00 per IP."

For an overview of open market pricing, you might look at 
https://ipv4marketgroup.com/ipv4-pricing/.

You may also find this talk interesting in context:
Mythic Beasts, which is a data center operator in London, gave a talk to the 
IPv6 Operations Working Group in the IETF two years ago, and used these slides: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/101/slides/slides-101-v6ops-ipv6-only-hosting-00.
 If you look through them, you'll find a discussion of the address shortage and 
what impact it has on pricing from them.

In short, Mythic Beasts find that IPv6 service is virtually free, and don't 
charge for it. They find that when a customer pushes them to also give IPv4 
addressing, they have to charge, as it costs them, and they find that making 
the customer engineer explain to his/her bean counters why the need it often 
has the effect of convincing the company to use IPv6 externally. 
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ipv6atmythicbeasts-networkshop44-160323133644/95/ipv6-at-mythic-beasts-networkshop44-19-638.jpg?cb=1458740321

In short, yes, there is a shortage of IPv4 addresses, and the net result is 
both an increase in price and an increase in network complexity. 

Re: Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

[Owen DeLong]

$2/month is one of the more reasonable pricing schemes I’ve seen. Many 
providers are gouging $5 and in some cases as much as $15/month for static IPv4 
addresses.

The good news is that IPv6 is still quite inexpensive and works even better.

Owen


> On Aug 4, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Baldur Norddahl  wrote:
> 
> IP address space is no longer free. But an ISP or hosting company is a trader 
> of addresses now and like everything else we do, there is an opportunity to 
> make a margin. 
> 
> Say the provider bought at $12 per address and assuming IPv4 is needed for at 
> least 10 years, that would only be .1 USD/month.
> 
> But does that mean it is unfair to claim a $2 rent on that? What if the 
> service has other components that are equally cheaper? 
> 
> Regards 
> Baldur 
> 
> 
> tir. 4. aug. 2020 21.34 skrev Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.  >:
> I know that a shortage of IPv4 addresses has been anticipated for quite some 
> time (literally decades), however, is there a shortage *right now*?
> 
> I ask, because Liquid Web is using it as an excuse to raise their prices:
> 
> "We're contacting you today to inform you of a change to your account. As you 
> may know, the global shortage of IPv4 addresses 
> (https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-run-out 
> ) continues to 
> impact web hosting companies around the world. ... Effective August 31st, we 
> will be updating our per IPv4 address price to $2.00 per IP."
> 
> Anne
> 
> --
> Anne P. Mitchell,  Attorney at Law
> Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
> 

Re: Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

[Baldur Norddahl]

IP address space is no longer free. But an ISP or hosting company is a
trader of addresses now and like everything else we do, there is an
opportunity to make a margin.

Say the provider bought at $12 per address and assuming IPv4 is needed for
at least 10 years, that would only be .1 USD/month.

But does that mean it is unfair to claim a $2 rent on that? What if the
service has other components that are equally cheaper?

Regards
Baldur


tir. 4. aug. 2020 21.34 skrev Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. :

> I know that a shortage of IPv4 addresses has been anticipated for quite
> some time (literally decades), however, is there a shortage *right now*?
>
> I ask, because Liquid Web is using it as an excuse to raise their prices:
>
> "We're contacting you today to inform you of a change to your account. As
> you may know, the global shortage of IPv4 addresses (
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-run-out) continues to
> impact web hosting companies around the world. ... Effective August 31st,
> we will be updating our per IPv4 address price to $2.00 per IP."
>
> Anne
>
> --
> Anne P. Mitchell,  Attorney at Law
> Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
>
>

Comcast Business contact?

[John A. Kilpatrick]

My apologies for the spam, but if there's someone from Comcast Business land 
who is available off-list please ping me.  I've got a VIP at my employer that's 
having a ton of issues with his Comcast Business service, and we're not making 
much progress.

Thanks,
John  

Re: AS6327/Shaw contact

[Eric Dugas via NANOG]

I got what I needed. Thanks!

Eric
On Aug 4 2020, at 3:21 pm, Eric Dugas  wrote:
> Hello NANOG,
>
> Could somebody from AS6327/Shaw's network team contact me off-list? I’ve 
> tried the peering and NOC aliases and got automated replies but no follow ups 
> in months.
> Thanks
> Eric

Re: Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

[David Hubbard]

Agreeing with the other replies about scarcity.  Also wanted to comment that 
address exhaustion affects web hosts particularly hard because "SEO experts" 
continue to believe that if a site they work on does not have an exclusive IP, 
they're being  penalized by Google.  They'll convince clients to migrate around 
hosts until they find one that will allocate an address, so the choice is buy 
address space or suffer if your platform is not otherwise unique.



On 8/4/20, 3:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." 
 wrote:

I know that a shortage of IPv4 addresses has been anticipated for quite 
some time (literally decades), however, is there a shortage *right now*?

I ask, because Liquid Web is using it as an excuse to raise their prices:

"We're contacting you today to inform you of a change to your account. As 
you may know, the global shortage of IPv4 addresses 
(https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-run-out) continues to 
impact web hosting companies around the world. ... Effective August 31st, we 
will be updating our per IPv4 address price to $2.00 per IP."

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell,  Attorney at Law
Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

Re: Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

[Randy Bush]

> I know that a shortage of IPv4 addresses has been anticipated for
> quite some time (literally decades), however, is there a shortage
> *right now*?

yes, ipv4 space is tight

> our per IPv4 address price to $2.00 per IP.

open market is O($20) per host address.  that is 'buying' it.  and then
you will pay annual fees to some RIR.

randy

Re: Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

[Tom Beecher]

Yes.

Every RIR has either assigned all the space that it has been allocated, or
is getting very close and restricting the amount of v4 addresses that can
be requested. Once that occurs, you can get on a waiting list to obtain
space from the RIR that has been returned to the pool, but there are no
guarantees on how long that will be, and if you could even get enough v4
space for your needs.

The only other option then becomes the secondary transfer markets, where
costs to acquire v4 space are much higher than what direct allocations from
the RIRs used to be.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:35 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 
wrote:

> I know that a shortage of IPv4 addresses has been anticipated for quite
> some time (literally decades), however, is there a shortage *right now*?
>
> I ask, because Liquid Web is using it as an excuse to raise their prices:
>
> "We're contacting you today to inform you of a change to your account. As
> you may know, the global shortage of IPv4 addresses (
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-run-out) continues to
> impact web hosting companies around the world. ... Effective August 31st,
> we will be updating our per IPv4 address price to $2.00 per IP."
>
> Anne
>
> --
> Anne P. Mitchell,  Attorney at Law
> Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
>
>

Re: Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

[TJ Trout]

Anne,

IPv4 has been depleted in ARIN region since ~2015, it's supply and demand.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:36 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 
wrote:

> I know that a shortage of IPv4 addresses has been anticipated for quite
> some time (literally decades), however, is there a shortage *right now*?
>
> I ask, because Liquid Web is using it as an excuse to raise their prices:
>
> "We're contacting you today to inform you of a change to your account. As
> you may know, the global shortage of IPv4 addresses (
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-run-out) continues to
> impact web hosting companies around the world. ... Effective August 31st,
> we will be updating our per IPv4 address price to $2.00 per IP."
>
> Anne
>
> --
> Anne P. Mitchell,  Attorney at Law
> Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
>
>

RE: Issue with Noction IRP default setting (Was: BGP route hijack by AS10990)

[Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG]

I was made aware of another bug in IOS-XR: CSCuv94859. Thanks Job and Ryan.
It caused some routes with NO_EXPORT to sometimes be advertised to EBGP
after an NSR switchover during a software upgrade.
It was fixed in 2015.

Regards,
Jakob.

-Original Message-
From: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Issue with Noction IRP default setting (Was: BGP route hijack by 
AS10990)

CSCdj01351. Fixed in 1997.

Regards,
Jakob.

-Original Message-
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 13:29:59 -0700
From: Ryan Hamel 

...
Also, wasn't it you that said Cisco routers had a bug in ignoring NO_EXPORT?
...

Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

I know that a shortage of IPv4 addresses has been anticipated for quite some 
time (literally decades), however, is there a shortage *right now*?

I ask, because Liquid Web is using it as an excuse to raise their prices:

"We're contacting you today to inform you of a change to your account. As you 
may know, the global shortage of IPv4 addresses 
(https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-run-out) continues to 
impact web hosting companies around the world. ... Effective August 31st, we 
will be updating our per IPv4 address price to $2.00 per IP."

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell,  Attorney at Law
Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

AS6327/Shaw contact

[Eric Dugas via NANOG]

Hello NANOG,

Could somebody from AS6327/Shaw's network team contact me off-list? I’ve tried 
the peering and NOC aliases and got automated replies but no follow ups in 
months.
Thanks
Eric

Re: Issue with Noction IRP default setting (Was: BGP route hijack by AS10990)

[Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG]

CSCdj01351. Fixed in 1997.

Regards,
Jakob.

-Original Message-
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 13:29:59 -0700
From: Ryan Hamel 

...
Also, wasn't it you that said Cisco routers had a bug in ignoring NO_EXPORT?
...

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Warren Kumari]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM Etienne-Victor Depasquale
 wrote:
>
> Intel definitely is pressing for containerized data plane.
>
> Here, @20:49 (registration required), I placed that very question and it took 
> a bit of humming to obtain a straight answer :)
>

I'm shocked, shocked to discover that a company that sells CPUs thinks
that a dataplane should run on a CPU...

W

> Etienne
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:38 PM  wrote:
>>
>> Wondering whether the industry will consider containerised data-plane in 
>> addition to control-plane (like cRDP).
>>
>> Having just control-plane and then hacking to kernel for doing the 
>> data-plane bit is …well not as straight forward as having a dedicated 
>> data-plane VM or potentially container.
>>
>>
>>
>> adam
>>
>>
>>
>> From: NANOG  On Behalf 
>> Of Etienne-Victor Depasquale
>> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:09 PM
>> To: Robert Raszuk 
>> Cc: NANOG 
>> Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?
>>
>>
>>
>> Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of 
>> virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption 
>> isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter option.
>>
>>
>>
>> That pretty much sums up Intel's view.
>>
>>
>>
>> To quote an Intel executive I was corresponding with:
>>
>>
>>
>> "The purpose of the paper was to showcase how Communication Service 
>> Providers can move to a more nimble and future proof microservices based 
>> network architecture with cloud native functions, via container deployment 
>> methodologies versus virtual machines.  The paper cites many benefits of 
>> moving to a microservices architecture beyond whether it is done in a VM 
>> environment or cloud native. We believe the 5G networks of the future will 
>> benefit greatly by implementing such an approach to deploying new services."
>>
>>
>>
>> The paper referred to is this one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Etienne
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:23 PM Robert Raszuk  wrote:
>>
>> I reason that Intel's implication is that virtualization is becoming 
>> obsolete.
>>
>> Would anyone care to let me know his thoughts on this prediction?
>>
>>
>>
>> Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all 
>> types of deployments I can see around.
>>
>>
>>
>> The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes with 
>> containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in isolation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of 
>> virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption 
>> isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter option.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
>> Assistant Lecturer
>> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
>> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
>> University of Malta
>>
>> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>
>
>
> --
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

RE: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[adamv0025]

> Mark Tinka
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:54 PM
> 
> On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
> > slicing? is this supported/desirable?
> 
> So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?
> 
> Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or worse,
> give each service its own metal server?
> 
> Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?
> 
Yes that's exactly it. 
Instead of a VDOM (or whatever is your FW vendor slicing mechanism) give each 
customer a FW "instance" (VM/Containerized -if there's such a thing already) 
and instantiate it on demand and with resources customer requested and enforce 
utility billing. 
Rinse and repeat for any other NF customer might need on your telco cloud 
(fancy name for a data-canter full of compute)
As simple as that -problem is that all vendors haven't quite gotten up to speed 
with licensing models, we need an overall Gbps throughput pool licenses not per 
VM/Container Gbps pool.   

adam

RE: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[adamv0025]

Router/switch slicing is supported but not really used much

 

adam

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Djamel Sadok
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:47 PM
To: Etienne-Victor Depasquale 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

 

 

 

How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? 
is this supported/desirable?

 

Djamel

 

 

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale mailto:ed...@ieee.org> > wrote:

I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.

 

If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight 

  (warning: requires registration), 

then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about 
the QoS that the operator sells.

 

Cheers,

 

Etienne

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Tinka mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.com> > wrote:

 

On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper 

 , useful? 

 

" For transport network slicing, 

operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks (VPNs), 

regardless of the VPN flavor.

Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of 
respondents), 

but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing 

also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively. 

The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard slicing 
technologies— 

those that physically partition resources among slices. 

Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences."


Well, it's what I've been saying - we have tried & tested systems and solutions 
that are already native to IP/MPLS networks. Why try to reinvent network 
virtualization when there are plenty of existing solutions in the wild for next 
to cheap? VLAN's. l2vpn's. l3vpn's. EVPN. DWDM. And all the rest?

The whole fuss, for example, about the GRX vs. IPX all came down to 2Mbps 
private or public IP-based GTP tunnels vs. 100Mbps l3vpn's.

Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly complicated.

If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have been 
slicing infrastructure for yonks :-).

Mark.




 

-- 

Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta

Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Etienne-Victor Depasquale]

Intel definitely is pressing for containerized data plane.

Here ,
@20:49 (registration required), I placed that very question and it took a
bit of humming to obtain a straight answer :)

Etienne


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:38 PM  wrote:

> Wondering whether the industry will consider containerised data-plane in
> addition to control-plane (like cRDP).
>
> Having just control-plane and then hacking to kernel for doing the
> data-plane bit is …well not as straight forward as having a dedicated
> data-plane VM or potentially container.
>
>
>
> adam
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG  *On
> Behalf Of *Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:09 PM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk 
> *Cc:* NANOG 
> *Subject:* Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?
>
>
>
> Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of
> virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption
> isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter
> option.
>
>
>
> That pretty much sums up Intel's view.
>
>
>
> To quote an Intel executive I was corresponding with:
>
>
>
> "The purpose of the paper was to showcase how Communication Service
> Providers can move to a more nimble and future proof microservices based
> network architecture with cloud native functions, via container deployment
> methodologies versus virtual machines.  The paper cites many benefits of
> moving to a microservices architecture beyond whether it is done in a VM
> environment or cloud native. We believe the 5G networks of the future will
> benefit greatly by implementing such an approach to deploying new services."
>
>
>
> The paper referred to is this one
> 
> .
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Etienne
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:23 PM Robert Raszuk  wrote:
>
> I reason that Intel's implication is that virtualization is becoming
> obsolete.
>
> Would anyone care to let me know his thoughts on this prediction?
>
>
>
> Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all
> types of deployments I can see around.
>
>
>
> The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes
> with containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in
> isolation.
>
>
>
> Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of
> virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption
> isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter
> option.
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
>
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>


-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

RE: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[adamv0025]

Not sure what you mean NFV is NFV, 

>From NFV perspective cRDP is no different than vMX -it’s just a virtualized 
>router function nothing special…

 

Also with regards to NFV markets, it’s just CPE or telco-cloud (routing on 
host, FWs, LBs and other domain specific network devices like SBCs), and then 
RRs, no one sane would be replacing high throughput aggregation points like PEs 
or core nodes with NFV ,unless one wants to get into some serious horizontal 
scaling ;).

 

adam 

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Mark Tinka
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:51 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

 

 

On 1/Aug/20 18:23, Robert Raszuk wrote:

Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all types 
of deployments I can see around. 

 

The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes with 
containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in isolation. 

 

Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization 
mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is 
satisfactory is a much better and lighter option. 


I see cloud-native as NFV++. It requires some adjustment to how classic NFV has 
been deployed, and that comes down to whether operators (especially those who 
err on the side of network operations rather than services) see value in 
upgrading their stack to cloud-native.

If you're a Netflix or an Uber, sure, a cloud-native architecture is probably 
the only way you can scale. But if you are simple network operators who focus 
more on pushing packets than over-the-top services, particularly if you already 
have some NFV, making the move to cloud-native/NFV++ is a whole consideration.

Mark.

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Etienne-Victor Depasquale]

>
> PS. All of the current attempts to turn IP statistical multiplexing into
> network slicing or deterministic networks are far from scale or practical
> deployments (IMO).
>

Wow, that's quite a statement (I'm not disparaging, just surprised).

Etienne

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:37 PM Robert Raszuk  wrote:

>
> >   I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.
>
> I think we all do - except technology is not there yet. Just imagine if
> over a single piece of fiber you will get infinite bandwidth delivered over
> unlimited modulation frequency spectrum  ...
>
> IMHO till real true optical switching is a commodity we are stuck with
> statistical multiplexing.
>
> But optimistically I think time will come when you will be able to
> setup end to end optical paths in true any to any fashion with real end to
> end resource guarantees. Then next generations will be looking at current
> routers like we look today at strowger telephone switches  :)
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
> PS. All of the current attempts to turn IP statistical multiplexing into
> network slicing or deterministic networks are far from scale or practical
> deployments (IMO).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:18 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>>
>> > The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least
>> > preferred option among survey respondents.
>>
>> That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is
>> all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to
>> make commercial sense.
>>
>> I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.
>>
>> We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that
>> virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was
>> predicted to break the Internet.
>>
>> So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
>> on 5G networks, in real terms.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>

-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

RE: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[adamv0025]

Wondering whether the industry will consider containerised data-plane in 
addition to control-plane (like cRDP). 

Having just control-plane and then hacking to kernel for doing the data-plane 
bit is …well not as straight forward as having a dedicated data-plane VM or 
potentially container. 

 

adam

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:09 PM
To: Robert Raszuk 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

 

Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization 
mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is 
satisfactory is a much better and lighter option.  

 

That pretty much sums up Intel's view.

 

To quote an Intel executive I was corresponding with:

 

"The purpose of the paper was to showcase how Communication Service Providers 
can move to a more nimble and future proof microservices based network 
architecture with cloud native functions, via container deployment 
methodologies versus virtual machines.  The paper cites many benefits of moving 
to a microservices architecture beyond whether it is done in a VM environment 
or cloud native. We believe the 5G networks of the future will benefit greatly 
by implementing such an approach to deploying new services."

 

The paper referred to is this one 

 .

 

Cheers,

 

Etienne

 

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:23 PM Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net> > wrote:

I reason that Intel's implication is that virtualization is becoming obsolete.

Would anyone care to let me know his thoughts on this prediction?

 

Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all types 
of deployments I can see around. 

 

The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes with 
containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in isolation. 

 

Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization 
mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is 
satisfactory is a much better and lighter option. 

 

Thx,

R.

 




 

-- 

Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta

Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Etienne-Victor Depasquale]

>
> So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
> on 5G networks, in real terms.
>

Mark,

V2X, no?

Otherwise, I'm perfectly in agreement with what you've just written.

Etienne

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:02 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>
> > The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least
> > preferred option among survey respondents.
>
> That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is
> all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to
> make commercial sense.
>
> I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.
>
> We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that
> virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was
> predicted to break the Internet.
>
> So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
> on 5G networks, in real terms.
>
> Mark.
>


-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Robert Raszuk]

>   I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.

I think we all do - except technology is not there yet. Just imagine if
over a single piece of fiber you will get infinite bandwidth delivered over
unlimited modulation frequency spectrum  ...

IMHO till real true optical switching is a commodity we are stuck with
statistical multiplexing.

But optimistically I think time will come when you will be able to
setup end to end optical paths in true any to any fashion with real end to
end resource guarantees. Then next generations will be looking at current
routers like we look today at strowger telephone switches  :)

Cheers,
R.

PS. All of the current attempts to turn IP statistical multiplexing into
network slicing or deterministic networks are far from scale or practical
deployments (IMO).



On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:18 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>
> > The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least
> > preferred option among survey respondents.
>
> That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is
> all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to
> make commercial sense.
>
> I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.
>
> We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that
> virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was
> predicted to break the Internet.
>
> So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
> on 5G networks, in real terms.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Aug/20 17:00, Djamel Sadok wrote:
>
>
> I mean virtualization of the hardware in terms of running different
> router/switch/server instances/VMs/ on the same platform. Is this
> desirable?

So you mean like multiple VM's, on the same server, each representing an
NFV-based router/switch/firewall/EPC, for example?

Mark.

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

> The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least
> preferred option among survey respondents.

That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is
all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to
make commercial sense.

I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.

We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that
virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was
predicted to break the Internet.

So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
on 5G networks, in real terms.

Mark.

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Djamel Sadok]

I mean virtualization of the hardware in terms of running different
router/switch/server instances/VMs/ on the same platform. Is this
desirable?

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:53 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
> > slicing? is this supported/desirable?
>
> So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?
>
> Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or
> worse, give each service its own metal server?
>
> Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?
>
> Mark.
>

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Etienne-Victor Depasquale]

The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least preferred
option among survey respondents.

Etienne

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:53 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
> > slicing? is this supported/desirable?
>
> So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?
>
> Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or
> worse, give each service its own metal server?
>
> Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?
>
> Mark.
>


-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:36 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale
 wrote:
>
> I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.

note that it's qos at many layers in the stack as well:
  1) your application 'qos' on the machine(s) on which it runs
  2) your application's traffic qos on the machine/vswitch/etc on which it runs
  3) your application's traffic qos on the immediate network elements  (in pop)
  4) your application's traffic qos on the intermediary network
elements (in metro)
  5) your application's traffic qos on the overall transport network
(ran, fiber, wired, cross-metro/etc)

> If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight (warning: requires 
> registration),
> then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about 
> the QoS that the operator sells.

marketing claims are fun.

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:
>
>
> How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
> slicing? is this supported/desirable?

So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?

Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or
worse, give each service its own metal server?

Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?

Mark.

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Djamel Sadok]

How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
slicing? is this supported/desirable?

Djamel


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale 
wrote:

> I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.
>
> If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight
> 
>  (warning:
> requires registration),
> then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims
> about the QoS that the operator sells.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Etienne
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>>
>> Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper
>> ,
>> useful?
>>
>> " For transport network slicing,
>> operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks
>> (VPNs),
>> regardless of the VPN flavor.
>> Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of
>> respondents),
>> but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing
>> also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively.
>> The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard
>> slicing technologies—
>> those that physically partition resources among slices.
>> Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences."
>>
>>
>> Well, it's what I've been saying - we have tried & tested systems and
>> solutions that are already native to IP/MPLS networks. Why try to reinvent
>> network virtualization when there are plenty of existing solutions in the
>> wild for next to cheap? VLAN's. l2vpn's. l3vpn's. EVPN. DWDM. And all the
>> rest?
>>
>> The whole fuss, for example, about the GRX vs. IPX all came down to 2Mbps
>> private or public IP-based GTP tunnels vs. 100Mbps l3vpn's.
>>
>> Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly
>> complicated.
>>
>> If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have
>> been slicing infrastructure for yonks :-).
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>
>
> --
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Aug/20 16:35, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

> I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.
>
> If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight
> 
>  (warning:
> requires registration), 
> then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims
> about the QoS that the operator sells.

Well, selling QoS is great, but does it actually help the customer in
the end.

One of the biggest draws to l3vpn's back in the day was that they
provided "awesome QoS". What untrained customers thought was excellent
QoS, is what we engineers knew as RSVP-TE. To the untrained eye,
bandwidth reservation = excellent QoS. What the customer's weren't
always told was that when it all hits the fan, even your PQ traffic may
not be guaranteed final delivery on a 200% congested port due to a
neighboring outage. And that's the traffic the customer is paying
top-dollar for, not to get dropped, ever, hehe.

It's just like the fuss I always faced when landing at SFO... from point
of embarkation, transit and in the cabin, Business or First class
service done right. Arrive SFO; no Priority lane; after traveling for
nearly 30hrs. Not being an American, I can't use Global Entry. Not sure
if that has since changed, but that's real-world QoS for you :-)...

So in a world where the majority of Internet traffic lives on a public
Internet which you can't QoS end-to-end, what will network slicing
deliver in real, QoS terms?

For me, 5G QoS would be great if it had something to do with priority or
discriminated access from the device to the radio (first mile). But I'm
not exactly sure how to practically do that.

QoS applied AFTER the packets leave the radio network and hit the fibre
backbone may not necessarily create real value if the application is
normal Internet access.

If the 5G operator is using the same backbone to carry voice and data,
then yes, QoS can help to ensure they don't drop any VoIP calls. But
then that is already included in the price I pay for making a phone
call, and can't (or shouldn't) be sold extra to me :-).

So again, not sure what QoS a 5G operator is going to sell to a 5G
end-user (single or large scale).

Mark.

Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

[Etienne-Victor Depasquale]

I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.

If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight

(warning:
requires registration),
then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims
about the QoS that the operator sells.

Cheers,

Etienne

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>
> Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper
> ,
> useful?
>
> " For transport network slicing,
> operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks
> (VPNs),
> regardless of the VPN flavor.
> Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of
> respondents),
> but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing
> also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively.
> The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard
> slicing technologies—
> those that physically partition resources among slices.
> Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences."
>
>
> Well, it's what I've been saying - we have tried & tested systems and
> solutions that are already native to IP/MPLS networks. Why try to reinvent
> network virtualization when there are plenty of existing solutions in the
> wild for next to cheap? VLAN's. l2vpn's. l3vpn's. EVPN. DWDM. And all the
> rest?
>
> The whole fuss, for example, about the GRX vs. IPX all came down to 2Mbps
> private or public IP-based GTP tunnels vs. 100Mbps l3vpn's.
>
> Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly
> complicated.
>
> If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have
> been slicing infrastructure for yonks :-).
>
> Mark.
>


-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale