Is it permissible to advertise number resources allocated by one RIR to a ISP in a region governed by a different RIR? Practical?
Is it permissible, from a policy perspective, for a multi-homed end user to announce the numbering resource allocation received from one RIR (for discussion purposes, let's say ARIN) to upstream service providers in a different region (for example, in the RIPE region)? Is it feasible from a practical perspective? I've looked through IANA and ARIN policy and can't find anything which covers such a scenario. I have seen some things about transferring number resources from one RIR to another RIR, which is similar, but not exactly the same. Rationale: Suppose you are a large global enterprise, truly globalized in practice, not in mere name, and performance concerns aside, you provide failover for Internet access of enterprise users in one region by failing over to internet access in a different region. Since you probably are using 10/8 addressing within your network and you NAT the private IPv4 addresses to a public IPv4 address before sending the traffic on.., so this works. Given lack of NAT66, and the best practice IPv6 numbering which is purported to use globally routable IPv6 addresses within your enterprise network, the achievable way to accomplish the same use possible today in IPv4 would seem to be to advertise the IPv6 addressing from one RIR to a ISP in a region governed by a different RIR (or LIR).
RE: CRS-3
Spend the GDP of a small nation on a single box! -Original Message- From: Brian Feeny [mailto:bfe...@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:51 PM To: nanog@nanog.org list Subject: CRS-3 So who is going to be the first to deploy these? http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_030910.html - Download the entire Library of Congress in just over 1 second - Stream every motion picture ever created in less than four minutes If nothing else you gotta love the Cisco Marketing machine! Brian
RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
I had good luck getting my dad some form of broadband access in rural Oregon using a 3g router (Cradlepoint), a Wilson Electronics signal amp (model 811211), and an outdoor mount high gain antenna. It's not great, but considering the alternatives (33.6k dialup for $60/mo or satellite broadband for $150-$200/mo) it wasn't a bad deal for my dad when you consider that the dialup ISP + dedicated POTS line cost about as much as the 5GB 3G data plan does. Speed is somewhere between dialup and Uverse or FIOS. I get the sense that it is somewhere in the range of 256 - 512 kbps with high latency (Dad's not one for much in the way of network performance testing). -Original Message- From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msoko...@ivan.harhan.org] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) Daniel Senie d...@senie.com wrote: Better than western Massachusetts, where there's just no connectivity at = all. Even dialup fails to function over crappy lines. Hmm. Although I've never been to Western MA and hence have no idea what the telecom situation is like over there, I'm certainly aware of quite a few places in first world USA where DSL is still a fantasy, let alone fiber. As a local example, I have a friend in a rural area of Southern California who can't get any kind of high-speed Internet. I've run a prequal on her address and it tells me she is 31 kft from the CO. The CO in question has a Covad DSLAM in it, but at 31 kft those rural residents' options are limited to either IDSL at 144 kbps (not much point in that) or a T1 starting at ~$700/month. The latter figure is typically well out of range for the kind of people who live in such places. That got me thinking: ISDN/IDSL and T1 can be extended infinitely far into the boondocks because those signal formats support repeaters. What I'm wondering is how can we do the same thing with SDSL - and I mean politically rather than technically. The technical part is easy: some COs already have CLECs in them that serve G.shdsl (I've been told that NEN does that) and for G.shdsl repeaters are part of the standard (searching around shows a few vendors making them); in the case of SDSL/2B1Q (Covad and DSL.net) there is no official support for repeaters and hence no major vendors making such, but I can build such a repeater unofficially. The difficulty is with the political part, and that's where I'm seeking the wisdom of this list. How would one go about sticking a mid-span repeater into an ILEC-owned 31 kft rural loop? From what I understand (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!), when a CLEC orders a loop from an ILEC, if it's for a T1 or IDSL, the CLEC actually orders a T1 or ISDN BRI transport from the ILEC rather than a dry pair, and any mid-span repeaters or HDSLx converters or the like become the responsibility of the ILEC rather than the CLEC, right? So how could one extend this model to provide, say, repeatered G.shdsl service to far-outlying rural subscribers? Is there some political process (PUC/FCC/etc) by which an ILEC could be forced to allow a third party to stick a repeater in the middle of their loop? Or would it have to work by way of the ILEC providing a G.shdsl transport service to CLECs, with the ILEC being responsible for the selection, procurement and deployment of repeater hardware? And what if the ILEC is not interested in providing such a service - any PUC/FCC/etc political process via which they could be forced to cooperate? Things get even more complicated in those locations where the CO has a Covad DSLAM in it serving out SDSL/2B1Q, but no other CLEC serving G.shdsl. Even if the ILEC were to provide a G.shdsl transport service with repeaters, it wouldn't help with SDSL/2B1Q. My idea involves building a gadget in the form factor of a standard mid-span repeater that would function as a converter from SDSL/2B1Q to G.shdsl: if the loop calls for one mid-span repeater, stick this gadget in as if it were that repeater; if the loop calls for 2 or more repeaters, use my gadget as the first repeater and then standard G.shdsl repeaters after it. But of course this idea is totally dependent on the ability of a third party to stick these devices in the middle of long rural loops, perhaps in the place of loading coils which are likely present on such loops. Any ideas? MS
RE: WS-X6148A-GE-TX performance question
the other difference between WS-X6148-GE-TX and WS-X6148A-GE-TX is the A has better QoS queuing potential (more hardware queues available) and a lower list price... As I recall, there are 6 ethernet controllers with 8 ports on each... (8:1 oversubscription among the adjacent ports in a port group which use the same ethernet controller). The card is a Classic card, so the whole card is limited to 32 Gbps to the backplane, which given the oversubscription ratio, shouldn't be much of an issue... -Original Message- From: Bill Blackford [mailto:bblackf...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:40 PM To: Scott Spencer Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: WS-X6148A-GE-TX performance question There was a good thread on Cisco-nsp regarding this exact subject recently. My recollection is that both X6148 and X6148A have just 6 1GB ASICs. Therefore the over subscription rate is 8:1. The biggest difference between these LC's is that X6148A will support large MTU whereas X6148 will not. -b On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Scott Spencer sc...@dwc-computer.comwrote: Are the X6148A cards dedicated 1 gb/s uplink for each port ( shared 32 Gb/s bus , as long as each port is it's own 1 gb/s still to the 32gb/s bus and not shared with 7 other ports, so effectively just 125Mb/s per port then if all used at full/even capacity) ? I can't really find anything much on X6148A internal architecture online, but it would seem that each port gets its own 1gb/s link to the card/backplane, and that the bottleneck then is the 32gb/s backplane (which is fine, as long as it's not 1 gb/s per each set of 8 ports!). Best regards, Scott Spencer Data Center Asset Recovery/Remarketing Manager Duane Whitlow Co. Inc. Nationwide Toll Free: 800.977.7473. Direct: 972.865.1395 Fax: 972.931.3340 mailto:sc...@dwc-computer.com sc...@dwc-computer.com http://www.dwc-it.com/ www.dwc-it.com Sales of new and used Cisco/Juniper/F5/Foundry/Brocade/Sun/IBM/Dell/Liebert and more ~ -- Bill Blackford Network Engineer
RE: NPE-G2 vs. Sup720-3BXL
You may also take a look at the Cisco ASR1000 line... Supposedly a middle step between 7200 and 7600 router sizing.. -Original Message- From: Arie Vayner [mailto:arievay...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:34 PM To: David Storandt Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: NPE-G2 vs. Sup720-3BXL David, My 1st advice would be to look also at the other features/capabilities you require, and not just at feeds and speeds. Some examples for functionality could be: - QOS - NetFlow - DDoS resistance In general the 6500 and the 12000 are hardware based platforms, with the 12000 being more distributed in nature, using linecard resources for data plane (6500 does it too if you have DFC installed). 7200 is a CPU/software based platform, so the same processor does packet forwarding and control plane processing. The 6500 (depends on specific module selection) is more restricted with QOS and NetFlow functionality as it is designed to do very fast forwarding at a relativly cheaper price. The 12000 has everything implemented in hardware, and depends on the engine types (don't use anything other than Eng 3 or 5) has all the support you may dream of for things like QOS and other features. The 7200 is a software based router, which means that it support any feature you may ever dream of, but the scalability decreases as you turn them on. Another option you should consider seriously should be the ASR1000 router, which is a newer platform and has a new architecture. All its features are based on hardware support, and it could actually prove the best choice for what you need. The ASR1002 comes with 4 integrated 1GE ports, which could be all that you would ever need (but it has quite a few extension slots left). Arie On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:07 PM, David Storandt dstora...@teljet.comwrote: We're stuck in an engineering pickle, so some experience from this crew would be useful in tie-breaking... We operate a business-grade FTTx ISP with ~75 customers and 800Mbps of Internet traffic, currently using 6509/Sup2s for core routing and port aggregation. The MSFC2s are under stress from 3x full route feeds, pared down to 85% to fit the TCAM tables. One system has a FlexWAN with an OC3 card and it's crushing the CPU on the MSFC2. System tuning (stable IOS and esp. disabling SPD) helped a lot but still doesn't have the power to pull through. Hardware upgrades are needed... We need true full routes and more CPU horsepower for crunching BGP (+12 smaller peers + ISIS). OC3 interfaces are going to be mandatory, one each at two locations. Oh yeah, we're still a larger startup without endless pockets. Power, rack space, and SmartNet are not concerns at any location (on-site cold spares). We may need an upstream OC12 in the future but that's a ways out and not a concern here. Our engineering team has settled on three $20k/node options: - Sup720-3BXLs with PS and fan upgrades - Sup2s as switches + ISIS + statics and no BGP, push BGP edge routing off to NPE-G2s across a 2-3Gbps port-channel - Sup2s as switches + ISIS + statics and no BGP, push BGP edge routing off to a 12008 with E3 engines across a 2-3Gbps port-channel. Ideas and constructive opinions welcome, especially software and stability-related. Many thanks, -Dave
RE: delays to google
Also seeing this in Dallas, TX area, from ATT and Verizon -Original Message- From: Mario Fernandez [mailto:ma...@fernandez.ca] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:53 AM To: Athanasios Douitsis Cc: na...@merit.edu Subject: Re: delays to google Seeing the same thing from NY using NTT, we routed via Cogent which does not seem to be having the problem. On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Athanasios Douitsis aduit...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Steve Williams willi...@csr.utexas.edu wrote: am seeing significant delays in getting to google. anyone else seeing this? $ traceroute www.google.com traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using 74.125.53.147 traceroute to www.l.google.com (74.125.53.147), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 cisco-190 (129.116.190.250) 0.430 ms 0.350 ms 0.353 ms 2 ser10-v758.gw.utexas.edu (128.83.10.29) 1.138 ms 1.099 ms 1.057 ms 3 ser2-gi1-9.gw.utexas.edu (128.83.10.2) 10.475 ms 1.174 ms 1.584 ms 4 aust-utnoc-core-ge-6-0-0-0.tx-bb.net (192.12.10.1) 1.215 ms 1.209 ms 1.134 ms 5 te2-1--570.tr01-lsanca01.transitrail.net (137.164.131.221) 40.649 ms 40.699 ms 40.678 ms 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 72.14.232.10 (72.14.232.10) 261.262 ms * * 12 * * pw-in-f147.google.com (74.125.53.147) 251.867 ms -- ''' (O O) ,-- oOO-(_)-OOo -, |Stephen Williams| | Manager of Computer Services | | Center for Space Research| | University of Texas at Austin | | 3925 W. Braker Ln., Suite 200 | | Austin, TX 78759-5321 | |512.471.7235 512.471.3570 (fax)| | willi...@csr.utexas.edu | | Oooo __| oooO ( ) ( )) / \ ((_/ \_) seeing this too. -- Sent from Boston, Massachusetts, United States Yogi Berra http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/y/yogi_berra.html - If you ask me anything I don't know, I'm not going to answer.
RE: Managing your network devices via console
Cisco makes a 16 port Async card for ISR routers, they even bundle it with a 2811 router for fairly inexpensive $$$... Cisco2811-16TS is the partnum I think You can scale up very high or down very low for your console needs with cisco routers, and inexpensive used or obsolete routers are available for not much money. The octal cables are available with rj45's already on them, which is nice Email if you want a sample term server config for a 2800 router. If Cisco is not what you want... Consult the Zonker's Greater Scroll of Console Knowledge: http://www.conserver.com/consoles/ ... You may find what you are looking for there. -Original Message- From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:t...@byrneit.net] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:00 PM To: Mehmet Akcin; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Managing your network devices via console I've found Avocents to be a nightmare, and the company to be horrible to deal with. They work fine as a local console switch, but they are absurdly expensive for that use. The rest of their features are byzantine in implementation and usage, and their support and licensing policies exorbitant. Old school terminal servers and IPMI/DRAC cards work very well. -Original Message- From: Mehmet Akcin [mailto:meh...@akcin.net] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:30 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Managing your network devices via console Hello, It's always cool to have console access to routers/switches and nowadays they are going from RS-232 to RJ-45 as a standart. I have got Avocent DSR 2035 which is a KVM+Serial console (all in one).. but while I was able to have it work against servers via KVM or/and Serial , I was unable to make it work properly against any network device. I am wondering if anyone had experience on DSR or similar boxes to configure them against network devices console ports. Making suggestions for alternative ways of centralizing network device console management is also more than welcome, I guess the old fashioned server attached usb-serial console is one of the most preferred way, but feel free to provide if you have good ideas cheers -- Mehmet
RE: one shot remote root for linux?
-Original Message- From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:33 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: one shot remote root for linux? That said there are a few 'network devices' which are linux based (not just Vyatta! :) ) o Cisco Guards o Arbor Peakflow (at least the X version) o some-route-optmization systems o dns/mail/ntp/blah widgets Cisco ASA's appear to be linux under the hood based on watching versions of ASA804-3/12/19/23/31 boot on the console
RE: Config Backup / Inventory
CheckoutAlterpoint Network Authority Inventory. The Inventory tool is free asn was developed as the Ziptie opensource project. Inventory is the basis for how Alterpoint does the paid offerings for configurtion audit and compliance and the higher level analytics based on the configuration and inventory repository that NA Inventory provides. The Inventory component is free but be prepared for sticker shock for the whole Alterpoint suite of tools. There is also ManageEngine DeviceExpert (not free, but inexpensive) and Solarwinds Orion NCM (fromerly Cirrus configuration management, also inexpensive) Sam Crooks GTS Network Architecture 701 Experian Pkwy B5302 Allen, TX 75013 972-390-3186 sam.cro...@experian.com -Original Message- From: Joe Provo [mailto:nanog-p...@rsuc.gweep.net] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 8:11 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Config Backup / Inventory On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 09:25:05AM +0100, Joshua Eyres wrote: [snip] I am looking for a bit of advice around configuration backup / inventory. We currently have a large multi-vendor network which is currently managed through two separate tools (rancid - http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid and ns4 - http://www.noodles.org.uk/ns4.html). Both tools do the job very well, but management have asked that we look for commercial alternatives that have a proper support organisation looking after them. Since rtrmon waned and rancid waxed (97ish?), I've been a proponent and seen no support issues. Lots of commercial offerings (mostly vendor- specific) have changed or were from companies which folded between then and now. A non-trivial track record speaks volumes. [snip] things about it. We are looking for a tool which is flexible that allows configuration backup to textual form for easy restoration as well as the ability to deploy scripted changes to the network quickly. Sounds like rancid par to me. :-) Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
RE: The real issue
And exactly how are you determining it is 'unused'? Not announced to the internet? (which means virtually nothing as far as 'use' status of an IP block) For pete sake, the time has come to resolve the issues that prevent widespread adoption of IPv6: - resolve RIR IPv6 allocation hassles for requesting end-user orgs - insist on IPv6-capable hardware/services/engineering staff when getting new hardware/services/staff - work toward retirement of IPv6-incapable hardware/software - train staff - start PoCs for IPv6 services (ip transit, DNS, etc) - start requiring IPv6 capability from ISPs which are slow to move (Vendor A, V, S, etc) Many large organizations use public IP space internally and do not announce it to the Internet. Some SPs use public IP space on private MPLS VPN networks to address links to customers to ensure non-conflicting addresses are used. Some companies run large extranets to connect to customers and partners. Many of these use public IP space to ensure services exposed to customers over these extranets never conflict with IP space used by customers. MOVE ON. Playing net cop does not solve the issue, merely forestalls it. -Original Message- From: Shane Ronan [mailto:sro...@fattoc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:27 PM To: Christopher Morrow Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: The real issue Very simple, just do it. On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Shane Ronan sro...@fattoc.com wrote: It's means one of two things: sure, but 'how' exactly? 1) Recoup the unused space for paid reallocation or arin never (nor do any RIR) guarantee routability, nor do they even a method to affect routability of a network. 2) Have the current owner pay the market rate for the IP space ... that's somewhat hard since the current policies don't support that, and there is no real legal stance for legacy-allocations... For allocated post-legacy-times ARIN can start court proceedings, but ... that's a lengthy process and expensive. -Chris On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Shane Ronan sro...@fattoc.com wrote: Is ARIN, who won't even take back large blocks of space from people who have long ago stopped using it and aren't paying anything for it, prepared to start filing civil suits against people who were assigned /24's (and paid for them) due to inaccurate declaration? out of curiousity.. 'take back' means what in this context? divbr/div
Looking for ATT / Verizon / Sprint WWAN service impressions - on or off-list replies welcome
I'm considering use of ATT / Verizon / Sprint WWAN services and the Cisco 3G router interface cards/integrated module in C880 routers for primary or backup WAN network connectivity for routers. I'm looking for information from users of these services on the following: - addressing - Do these WWAN services use dynamic, PPPoE or static IP assignment typically? Any of the 3? All? - is static IP assignment available? - do these service providers use NAT within their network? - How is the service reliability? In most cases, is the service available for use when you need to use it? - How is the service coverage area? Do you have problems getting sufficient coverage in the deplouyment location to support desired speeds (say 512kbps up/down as a minimum)? - is ESP / IKE / IPsec permitted through un-rate-limited and un-molested by the providers? - If you build a IPsec/GRE tunnel over these services, do you have frequent issues with the tunnel dropping, or a dynamic routing protocol running through the tunnel going down frequently? Also interested in similar information on impressions of similar EMEA WWAN service providers, particularly Vodaphone and T-Mobile, if anyone has experiences with these. Replies on-list or off-list are welcome Your choice. Cisco 3G interface and provider information: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps7272/index.html http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/routers/networking_solutions_products_ge nericcontent0900aecd80601f7e.html#~north-america Regards, Sam Crooks
RE: ACLs vs. full firewalls
Beware off using ACL filtering on 6500s with many vlans (100+) and long acls (hundred+ lines)... You'll soon find out more than you ever wanted to know about TCAM, different TCAM types used in various sup's and what the limitations imposed by TCAM on processing ACLs in hardware... Sam Crooks -Original Message- From: Michael Helmeste [mailto:mhelm...@uvic.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:06 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: ACLs vs. full firewalls Hi all, One of the duties of my current place of employ is reorganizing the network. We have a few Catalyst 6500 series L3 switches, but currently do all packet filtering (and some routing) using a software based firewall. Don't ask me, I didn't design it :) Current security requirements are only based on TCP and non-stateful UDP src/dst net/port filtering, and so my suggestion was to use ACLs applied on the routed interface of each VLAN. There was some talk of using another software based firewall or a Cisco FWSM card to filter traffic at the border, mostly for management concerns. We expect full 1 gig traffic levels today, and 10 gig traffic levels in the future. I view ACLs as being a cheap, easy to administrate solution that scales with upgrades to new interface line speeds, where a full stateful firewall isn't necessary. However, I wanted to get other opinions of what packet filtering solutions people use in the border and in the core, and why. What's out there, and why do you guys use it? How do you feel about the scalability, performance, security, and manageability of your solution? What kind of traffic levels do you put through it?
RE: Cisco ASR100x
Michael Morris of Network World wrote an article about ASR1000s and IOS XE a few months ago, if I recall correctly. Sam Crooks GTS Network Architecture 601 Experian Pkwy A2035 Allen, TX 75013 972-390-3186 sam.cro...@experian.com aim: expsamcrooks -Original Message- From: Bill Blackford [mailto:bblackf...@nwresd.k12.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:47 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cisco ASR100x Anyone on the list have any experience with ASR1000 series and IOS XE? From what I've read, Cisco is attempting to move to a more modular software as JUNOS has been doing for some time. I am curious about the reliability and stability of the platform. I am also interested in the differences in the IOS XE vs. IOS. Thanks -b -- Bill Blackford
RE: Redundant Array of Inexpensive ISP's?
In answer to a question below about experience with similar products... Cisco IOS has the dynamic routing injection feature as part of recent IOS versions. The feature is now called Performance Routing (PfR) formerly known as OER (Optimized Edge Routing) and as of 12.4(24)T, it can optimize routing protocols other than BGP or static routes (called PIRO Protocol Independent Route Optimization), including IS-IS, OSPF and EIGRP. RIP folks should learn about routing protocols :-D PfR does not do compressions/tokenization of the data, so it has no Caching/compression/WAN Acceleration features, BUT it does do dynamic path re-routing based on your policy or observed metrics like latency, packet loss, jitter etc and can also do it based on observed Netflow data and automatic instatiation of IP SLA active probes to see what happens for a RTP data stream marked with dscp 46 or video stream marked with dscp 34 and so on. As of recent IOS versions (12,4(9)T + I think), it can control both inbound and outbound directions, and can do things like send your traffic to ISP X up to bandwidth Bx and then shift traffic over to ISP Y up to bandwidth By to do dynamic load sharing of traffic to IP transit commit levels Not a bad feature for free. Larger scale deployments should probably use a dedicated controller box making the re-routing decisions, but any WAN egress point to an Internet or private WAN provider is your border device used by the master to get information, setup probes and learn netflow data to make decisions. I've used it for testing purposes on enterprise WAN deployment and it works pretty well. We are planning on deploying on a production DMVPN solution when the MGRE bug below is resolved. My main beef is a bug related to use of PfR on mGRE tunnel interfaces and the memory-hog nature of the feature... It will detect your brown-out issues like increased packet loss for traffic through provider X that cause customers to call you about broken applications and will re-route the traffic so you may never even know there was an issue!! The solution is particularly good for enterprises with only a few WAN or Internet exits from a location and for dynamically load sharing traffic to paid-for commit levels to reduce recurring cost and get the most out of existing connectivity without paying burst charges. We've done testing on use for our internet border routing in the advice mode, where is just says what changes it would maek, without actually making the changes. Production deployment soon as part of the ever popular cost-reduction efforts currently in vogue in enterprises right now given the current economy. http://www.cisco.com/go/pfr There's some similar solutions out there.. RouteScience was mentioned, but I didn't see anyone mention InterNAP FCP, which is part of the basis for InterNAP's PNAP business model... They also sell it to others enterprises and ISPs. -Original Message- From: Ken A [mailto:k...@pacific.net] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:18 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Array of Inexpensive ISP's? Tim Utschig wrote: [Please reply off-list. I'll summarize back to the list if there is more than a little interest in me doing so.] Please do. There are many rural ISPs and WISPs that might benefit from a decent look at these products, or any open source clones that might be available to test refine these tricks. Pricing for even a fractional DS3 in the rural US is still very high. Being able to shift bandwidth from a colo facility in a large city to a remote site served by 3 or 4 consumer grade broadband links could be a helpful development, if the bottom line works out. Thanks, Ken I'm curious if anyone has experience with products from Talari Networks, or anything similar, and would like to share. Did they live up to your expectations? Caveats? -- Ken Anderson Pacific Internet - http://www.pacific.net
