RE: Anyone having issues with Equinix IX out of Ashburn?

[Eric Van Tol]

Received a notification shortly after reporting the problem at 6am this morning 
about "issues" on the Exchange. We saw packet input on our routers in upwards 
of 350K pps, with all peers disabled. Looked to be a broadcast/multicast storm.

Seems to be good now, but no explanation of what was found.

-evt

> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen Wunnink
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:13 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Anyone having issues with Equinix IX out of Ashburn?
> 
> We've seen issues as well. We've just started to turn the exchange up
> again and check if it's fixed.
> 
> 
> On 27/11/15 15:03, Nick Ellermann wrote:
> > At about 4:15 am eastern we lost our bgp peers on the Ashburn IX at
> Equinix. Equinix is not responding to our support requests, either they are
> overloaded with support requests or all on holiday. Curious if others know
> if there are known issues at this site or is it just us.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Nick Ellermann - CTO & VP Cloud Services
> > BroadAspect
> >
> > E: nellerm...@broadaspect.com
> > P: 703-297-4639
> > F: 703-996-4443
> >
> > THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
> MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received
> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its
> attachments from all computers.
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Jeroen Wunnink
> IP Engineering Manager - Hibernia Networks
> Main numbers (Ext: 1011): USA +1.908.516.4200 | UK +44.1704.322.300
> Netherlands +31.208.200.622 | 24/7 IP NOC Phone: +31.20.82.00.623
> jeroen.wunn...@hibernianetworks.com
> www.hibernianetworks.com
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the
> addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and
> any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender
> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the
> original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All
> documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are
> SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may
> contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While
> Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this
> risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result
> of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before
> opening any attachment.

RE: Internap route optimization

[Eric Van Tol]

TL;DR: Not worth it unless you have only a few transit providers and are a 
content-heavy network with little inbound traffic.

We used the Internap FCP for a long time (10 or so years). In general, we were 
satisfied with it, but honestly, after not having it in our network for the 
past year and a half, we really don't notice a difference. We primarily 
purchased it to keep transit costs down, but as we kept boosting our minimums 
with providers, it became less and less about transit costs and more about 
performance.

Boxes like these really work best if your network is a content-heavy network 
(more outbound than inbound). Sure, it will route around poorly performing 
paths, but IMO it's not worth the money and yearly maintenance fees just for 
this. I always said that it must be doing a good job since we never got 
complaints about packet loss in an upstream network, but now that the device is 
gone, we still don't get complaints about packet loss in an upstream's network. 
:-/

The biggest problem that we found was that it just was not actively developed 
(at the time, not sure about now). New software features were non-existent for 
years. Bugs were not fixed in a timely manner. Given what we were paying in 
yearly maintenance fees, it just wasn't worth it to keep around. It also wasn't 
scalable as we kept adding more transit interfaces, given that there were a 
fixed amount of capture ports. Adding non-transit peering into the mix was also 
complicated and messed with the route decision algorithms. Maybe things have 
changed.

As far as technicals, it seemed to work fine. One of the really only annoying 
things about it were remote users who think that a UDP packet hitting their 
firewall from its automatic traceroute mechanism were 'DDoS' and threats of 
lawyers/the wrath of god almighty would come down upon us for sending 
unauthorized packets to their precious and delicate network. You would 
definitely also want to make sure that you filter announcements so you don't 
accidentally start sending longer paths to your upstreams or customer peers, 
but if you run BGP, you already do that, amirite?!

-evt

> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Paras
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 3:04 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Internap route optimization
> 
> Does anyone know or have any experience with Internap's route
> optimization? Is it any good?
> 
> I've heard of competing solutions as well, such as the one provided by
> Noction.
> 
> Thanks for your input,
> Paras

RE: Buying IP Bandwidth Across a Peering Exchange

[Eric Van Tol]

Plus we are planning on getting
a wave to the exchange, and not having any physical routers or switches at
the datacenter where the exchange/wave terminates at. Is this possible?

It's been a while since I've checked the Equinix Customer Agreement and 
Policies documents, but I know at one time they required a physical presence in 
the in the IDC for an Exchange cross-connect.  This may have changed in the 
past several years.

-evt

RE: Cheap Juniper Gear for Lab

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:31 PM
 To: Mark Kamichoff
 Cc: jgood...@studio442.com.au; nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: Cheap Juniper Gear for Lab
 
 It's quite unfortunate. I'd really like for the SRX series to not be
 so crippled for
 my purposes.
 
 Owen

While it may not forward packets exactly like an M-series or MX, for the OP's 
purpose of simply learning JUNOS in a home lab, it will work just fine.  I 
learned quite a bit using Olives (which don't exist), with the understanding 
that there were a lot of limitations. 

To the OP, I would also suggest checking out Juniper's website, specifically 
the 'Education' section.  There are a ton of excellent learning tools on there 
- Learning Bytes, Web-Based Training, Day One books, etc.:

http://www.juniper.net/us/en/training/jnbooks/
https://learningportal.juniper.net/juniper/user_activity_info.aspx?id=5853
https://learningportal.juniper.net/juniper/user_courses.aspx


-evt

RE: thoughts?

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Dorn Hetzel [mailto:dhet...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 7:11 AM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: thoughts?
 
 http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/27/internet.crunch.2012/index.html?hpt=T2

Wow.  A news story about the depletion of IP addresses?  Shocking, since this 
is the first I've personally heard about this.  I can't believe that this has 
never once even been brought up on NANOG, cisco-nsp, juniper-nsp, ARIN PPML, 
ARIN Discuss, or any other telecommunications list to which most of us 
subscribe.

In other news, I understand that the Americans have won their independence from 
England?  Did anyone else know this?

-evt

* Sorry for the snarkiness, it's just that posts like this ignite flame wars 
between those unwilling to spend the trivial cost for IPv6 addresses and those 
who are pushing for IPv6.  Instead, it's obviously more cost-effective to spend 
*hours* reading and writing multiple arguments against IPv6 than it is to just 
implement it.

RE: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
 Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:49 PM
 To: Jack Carrozzo
 Cc: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
 
 I'm curious what providers have not gotten their IPv6
 plans/networks/customer ports enabled.
 
 I know that Comcast is doing their trials now (Thanks John!) and will be
 presenting at the upcoming NANOG about their experiences.
 
 What parts of the big I Internet are not enabled or ready?
 

We don't see Savvis, Level3, or AboveNet with IPv6 capabilities in our region 
(DC).  Two years ago, neither Verizon or ATT had IPv6, either.  Not sure about 
them now, as we no longer use them for transit.  One would think everyone would 
have v6 capabilities in the heart of government territory, but okay.

For whatever reason, Verio actually charges (or used to) for their IPv6 
separately from IPv4 and to top it all off, it wasn't significantly discounted.

-evt

RE: Traffic Statistics for Yesterday

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Craig Labovitz [mailto:labo...@arbor.net]
 Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:10 AM
 To: Shon Elliott
 Cc: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: Traffic Statistics for Yesterday
 
 
 It was big (flash traffic roughly doubled globally at the peak), but
 not in the same ballpark as Obama inauguration.
 
 A graph of July 7 flash traffic across 97 tier1/2 ISPs compared with
 the daily average:
  http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/3704208402_34ca00597d.jpg?v=0
 
 - Craig

Our traffic was doubled for MJ, actually 1/3 *more* than Obama.  However, we're 
regional to DC, so I can only imagine that since the inauguration was a huge 
local event, many of our customers were either working from home that day or 
actually there and not watching it on the internet.  

-evt

RE: Fiber cut - response in seconds?

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wyble [mailto:char...@thewybles.com]
 Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 7:10 PM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: Fiber cut - response in seconds?
 
 
 
 Joel Jaeggli wrote:
  It's pretty trivial if know where all the construction projects on your
  path are...
 
 How so? Setup OTDR traces and watch them?
 
 
  I've seen this happen on a university campus several times. no black
  helicopters were involved.
 
 Care to expand on the methodology used? A campus network is a lot
 different then a major metro area.

Something like Fiber SenSys (http://www.fibersensys.com/) is probably used.  
Measures miniscule changes in light levels to tell whether or not fiber has 
been tampered with.

As for the response in seconds, I would have to say that the suits were 
parked right there watching, assuming the story is true.  Not sure if anyone 
has ever tried to get anywhere in Tysons Corner during roadside construction 
(or during an afternoon drizzle for that matter), but I can guarantee you that 
it would be impossible without someone already being stationed onsite.

RE: So I've got this 2.5gig wave, what do I do with it?

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Van Tol [mailto:e...@atlantech.net]
 Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 2:44 PM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: RE: So I've got this 2.5gig wave, what do I do with it?
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Kevin Hunt [mailto:kh...@huntbrothers.com]
  Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:28 PM
  To: w...@loopfree.net; nanog@nanog.org
  Subject: Re: So I've got this 2.5gig wave, what do I do with it?
 
 
  I haven't used MRV but they look appealing, would love to hear other
 folks
  experience with them as I'm about to have to turn another two of these
  up...
 
  --
 
 We use the MRV LamdaDrivers and they work well.  We use the EM2009-G2 on
 our own dark fiber loops and provide dual GE connectivity on a single 2.5G
 wavelength.  Equipment is pretty barebones, but quite solid.  Management
 module can be rebooted without loss of light on any interfaces (besides
 those terminated on the management module, of course).  There's plenty of
 options for SFPs wrt distances.  However, since the OP is receiving a lit
 signal from the carrier, I'm not entirely sure it will work in his case,
 as I *believe* the trunk port requires a WDM SFP, not a standard
 850/1310/1550.  I could certainly be wrong, though.
 
 -evt

Sorry to respond to my own post, but I was getting the EM2009-GM2 mixed up with 
another module we use.  We do use the EM2009-GM2, but it does not have an SFP 
trunk port - it's just a pair of SC connectors on the trunk side.  Looks like 
it can be configured for a specific wavelength by the setting of some jumpers 
on the module, and it looks like 1310 is possible.

-evt

RE: Inauguration streaming traffic

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Jay Hennigan [mailto:j...@west.net]
 Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 12:21 PM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Inauguration streaming traffic
 
 We're a regional ISP, about 80% SMB 20% residential.  We're seeing
 almost double our normal downstream traffic right now.  Anyone else?
 
 --
 Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
 Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
 Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

Peering sessions to Limelight tripled in downstream today.  No problems, just a 
lot of traffic.  Total aggregate into our network nearly doubled, but we 
service a lot of SMB and government agencies in the DC area, most of which had 
today off or telecommuted.

-evt

Tier 1 vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity facts

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:55 AM

 Let's put it another 'nother way.
 Would an end user get better connectivity by buying from a
 reseller of transit? In other words, buying transit from
 a network which also buys transit. Presumably up near the
 top of the chain (Tier 1 vicinity), that transit reseller
 has a lot of peering in place with other folks in the same
 neighborhood (Tier 1 vicinity). But as long as a network
 is a transit reseller (i.e. they buy transit), then they
 are less likely to suffer from partition events caused
 by fractious peering negotiations.

 --Michael Dillon

Can anyone explain to me why end users find it so important to label carriers 
as Tier 1 or Tier 2?  The prevailing theory in the heads of prospective 
customers is that a Tier 1 is somehow inherently better than a Tier 2 (or 
lower), even though they don't quite understand the concepts behind why the 
Tier designation even exist(s/ed).  These labels, at least to me, are no 
longer very relevant in today's internet world.  In fact, would anyone agree 
that being a Tier 1, as Cogent believes themselves to be, leaves that network 
in a very painful position when things like their frequent peering disputes 
happen?

For an NSP, it's obviously a good thing to be SFI-only, as in theory, it 
_should_ lower your costs.  YMMV, as mentioned in a previous thread.  However, 
what does it really matter to an end-user, especially if they are biased 
towards using Tier 1 networks only?  Why does a network who purchases transit 
give the impression to end users that that network's internet genitalia is 
somehow smaller than, say, Verizon or ATT?  I can see merit in touting the 
size and coverage of the actual network, but it's always been my understanding 
that this is not the true definition of the tiered system.

-evt

RE: duplicate packet

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: chloe K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:46 AM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: duplicate packet

 Hi all

 When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate

 I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?

 Thank you

 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.296 ms
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.328 ms (DUP!)
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.291 ms
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.316 ms (DUP!)
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.309 ms (DUP!)
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.271 ms
 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.299 ms (DUP!)

Check to see whether or not the port connected to that host is mirrored or in a 
SPAN VLAN.  Misconfiguration on an analyzer server can cause duplicate traffic 
to be generated.

-evt

RE: interger to I P address

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: kcc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:12 AM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: interger to I P address

 Hi all

 ls it possible t convert the interger to ip

 Thank you

My two cents:

# ping 1089055123
PING 1089055123 (64.233.169.147) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 64.233.169.147: icmp_seq=1 ttl=248 time=2.55 ms
64 bytes from 64.233.169.147: icmp_seq=2 ttl=248 time=2.00 ms

To do in reverse, you can use 'sipcalc':

# sipcalc 64.233.169.147
-[ipv4 : 64.233.169.147] - 0

[CIDR]
Host address- 64.233.169.147
Host address (decimal)  - 1089055123
Host address (hex)  - 40E9A993
Network address - 64.233.169.147
Network mask- 255.255.255.255
Network mask (bits) - 32
Network mask (hex)  - 
Broadcast address   - 64.233.169.147
Cisco wildcard  - 0.0.0.0
Addresses in network- 1
Network range   - 64.233.169.147 - 64.233.169.147

-evt

RE: Cisco vs Adtran vs Juniper

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Paul Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:48 AM
 To: Smith, Steve B; Chris Heighway
 Cc: nanog
 Subject: RE: Cisco vs Adtran vs Juniper

 Thanks guys so far for the responses

 Adtran has a 5 year warranty and support for free as of today - I'm
 not
 aware of this changing but we've had a number of other companies
 change
 that policy in the past couple of years after purchasing a LOT of
 gear
 from them (Motorola, Redline come to mind among others).


I thought this was 10 years, but if not, I do apologize.  They may have changed 
it to 5 recently?...I've always been led to believe by my highly 
cost-sensitive superiors that it's 10 years, but they often get things wrong 
just to get us to purchase the most cost-effective product out there.  ;-)

-evt

RE: Replacement for Avaya CNA/RouteScience

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Paul Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:25 AM
 To: Drew Weaver
 Cc: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: Replacement for Avaya CNA/RouteScience

 Going off this and previous posts, you'd well-served to follow the
 advice you sarcastically dispense, and hire an engineer.

 Opex and capex (spread over a ~2 year product lifetime) costs for the
 above solutions in a small (several gigabits, several transit
 providers) environment are right up there with the salary of a junior
 to mid-level networking professional in most markets.  By hiring a
 live human, you get not only somebody who can tweak localpref, but
 also a critical thinker who can aid in troubleshooting outages and
 help you plan for growth.

 Paul

I'd like to hire that engineer, please.  Can you send me his resume?  Here's 
the job description:

 - Required to works 24x7x365.
 - Must monitor all network egress points to examine latency, retransmissions, 
packet loss, link utilization, and link cost.
 - Required to tweak localpref on an average of 5000 prefixes per day, based 
upon a combination of the above criteria.
 - Required to write up a daily, weekly, and monthly report to be sent to all 
managers on said schedule.
 - Must not require health or dental care.

These devices are not a replacement for an actual engineer.  They are a 
supplement to the network to assist the engineer in doing what he should be 
doing - engineering and planning as opposed to resolving some other network's 
packet loss/blackhole/peering dispute/latency problem.

-evt

Re: [Nanog] Routing Policy Information

[Eric Van Tol]

 -Original Message-
 From: Fouant, Stefan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:23 PM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: [Nanog] Routing Policy Information

 /end lurk



 Hi folks,



 Wondering if there is a good repository of information somewhere
 which
 outlines the various major ISPs routing policies such as default
 local-pref treatment for customers vs. peers, handling of MED,
 allowed
 prefix-lengths from customers, etc. or would one have to contact each
 ISP one was a customer of to ascertain this information.

 Thanks in advance.
 Stefan Fouant

Try this:

http://www.onesc.net/communities/

-evt

___
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog