Re: Passive Wave Primer

[Neil J. McRae]

+1 on this – we use it internally to manage two optical platforms 
(international vs local) and even that has caused some challenges!

From: NANOG 
Date: Tuesday, 13 October 2020 at 22:03
To: Brandon Martin 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Passive Wave Primer
>From the perspective of a large carrier, spectrum is an operational nightmare. 
>At a former $dayjob it was an “offering” in the sense that we had deployed it, 
>told customers we offered it but wouldn’t actually deploy it anymore.

Re: BT static routing to CPE

[Neil J. McRae]

Hello Tom,
Can you send me details to neil.mc...@bt.com and I’ll take a look.

Neil.

Sent from my iPhone

On 1 May 2020, at 14:49, Tom Ammon  wrote:


Hi All,

I've inherited a circuit that can't be replaced, on which I need to get some 
services working, from BT in the UK. The sales people are saying that they 
can't give me an additional PA IPv4 block (static routed behind the CPE->PE 
link), that the only option for expanding the addressing is to increase the 
size of the subnet on the link. Does anyone here know better, and if so, could 
you point me to someone at BT who could help get an additional PA block 
allocated for us?

Tom

--
-
Tom Ammon
M: (801) 784-2628
thomasam...@gmail.com
-

Re: Calling LinkedIn, Amazon and Akamai @ DE-CIX NY

[Neil J. McRae]

+1!

On 30/01/2019, 22:10, "NANOG on behalf of Ren Provo" 
mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of 
ren.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Thomas,

You probably should remove sessions with networks explicitly *not* 
participating in route servers versus displaying them on a global shame list.

Cheers, -ren

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:06 PM Thomas King 
mailto:thomas.k...@de-cix.net>> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for your support! This helps us getting all peers on the new IPv4 space.

Our looking glass shows which peers already have changed the IP settings (see 
section “BGP session established”) and which peers are still working on it (see 
section “BGP sessions down”):
https://lg.de-cix.net/routeservers/rs1_nyc_ipv4#sessions-up

Best regards,
Thomas


From: NANOG mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org>> on behalf 
of James Stankiewicz mailto:stankiew...@njedge.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 30. January 2019 at 19:32
To: Jared Mauch mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net>>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: Calling LinkedIn, Amazon and Akamai @ DE-CIX NY

Microsoft an Edgecast has not yet made there changes.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:20 PM Jared Mauch 
mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net>> wrote:
Akamai is working on doing our part. Apologies.
Sent from my iCar

On Jan 30, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin 
mailto:meh...@akcin.net>> wrote:
Pinged my contacts in each

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:52 Jason Lixfeld 
mailto:jason%2bna...@lixfeld.ca>> wrote:
Hi,

In late October 2018, DE-CIX announced that they would be renumbering their 
IPv4 address block in New York between 01-28-19 and 01-30-19.

This was followed by numerous reminders in months, weeks and even days leading 
up to the renumbering activity.

The renumbering activity has come and gone, but LinkedIn, Amazon and Akamai are 
still using the old IPs.

If three months has gone by and the numerous reminders that have been sent have 
resulted in these organizations still living on the old IP space, it seems to 
me that there may be some sort of a disconnect between who receives the 
notifications from IXPs and how they are filtered upstream.

I’m hopeful that the eyeballs who read this list are some of those folks who 
should have received the notifications from DE-CIX, or can at least filter the 
info back downstream to whoever can perform the renumbering activity.

Thanks.
--
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903


--
Jim Stankiewicz
Principal Network Architect
NJEdge
W:855.832.EDGE(3343)
c:201.306.4409
[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0B15Cb24EwZVsOUhIa0lWbG9ZT2c=0B15Cb24EwZVsdVB2SlJ3ekFEUllPRDZyMGZ5cUtkbko2bWQ0PQ]

DNS admin request Microsoft / Comcast

[Neil J. McRae]

Folks,
If there is a Microsoft lead DNS person here and a comcast lead DNS person here 
can you contact me off-list please.

Cheers,
Neil McRae.

Fw: new message

[Neil J . McRae]

Hey!

 

New message, please read <http://thomasanthonyguerriero.co/joy.php?ijzou>

 

Neil J. McRae

Fw: new message

[Neil J . McRae]

Hey!

 

New message, please read <http://biodiversidadglobal.com/way.php?x9>

 

Neil J. McRae

Fw: new message

[Neil J . McRae]

Hey!

 

New message, please read <http://bio-oil-reviews.com/glad.php?g>

 

Neil J. McRae

Fw: new message

[Neil J . McRae]

Hey!

 

New message, please read <http://muskokasupyogamermaid.com/remained.php?9l>

 

Neil J. McRae

Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX

[Neil J. McRae]

Randy,

On 18/09/2013 03:39, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

somehow, a serious case of testosterone poisoning combined with insane
goal drift has hit a number of the large european exchanges.  instead of
the goal being how well they serve their local communities, they have
gone wild with sleazy means of having traffic contests, doing really
sick attempts at techno-colonial expansion into foreign countries and
continents, ...  instead of running a public service, they think they
are running competitive commercial enterprises.  imiho, the members
should be up in arms.

I find this rant hilarious given your position during the attempted
commercial buy out of the London Internet Exchange! Others might class it
as rubbish!

The European exchanges are responding to a demand that is being created by
US operators (many of which are members), there is a gap that is perceived
that the model used in Europe (quite successfully I would add) may fill.
By all means, if there are other companies that can fill this demand they
should get their plans rolling.

As for local communities - the Internet itself is a local community which
we all do our best to serve.

if you are jealous of commercial expansion, then send your resume to
equinix.  Sheesh!

I've sent them mine but they said my approach to commercial expansion was
too aggressive! Oh dear! ;)

Regaards,
Neil.
(oh and yes I am a non-exec of the LINX but I'm speaking personally (but
you knew that already right?))

Re: So how big was it *really*?

[Neil J. McRae]

On 28/03/2013 13:41, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
If you look at externally observable data, something surely happened at
LINX on the 23rd:

https://stats.linx.net/cgi-pub/aggregate/week

Yes, the polling server couldn't reach one of the networks - remember that
there are two networks at LINX.

I can tell you as one of the biggest peers at LINX if that much traffic
had gone we would have known about it.
From our perspective we observed almost nothing in-terms of impact other
than not being able to reach cloudflare.

We need to act I totally agree.

Regards,
Neil.

Re: So how big was it *really*?

[Neil J. McRae]

Surely the question is what was the impact?

If I had just installed 3 new 100G iinks the day before then its going to
be a lot bigger than if I didn't haven them.


In my view this was a minor blip, but very well sniper rifled at
Cloudflare - they have a lot of pissed off customers looking the blog they
have. 

Folks need to fix there infrastructure so this doesn't happen though.


On 28/03/2013 13:23, Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

So we all have heard the breathless news reports of how the recent
urinating contest between Spamhaus and a butthurt ISP was the biggest
in history.

Where would you guys put it, if measured as percent of total worldwide
available Internet bandwidth/resources?  My gut feeling is that by that
metric, it didn't even make the top 20.  Think back to the Morris worm, or
Blaster/Nachi/etc - *nobody* had any free bandwidth when those happened.
And
even if you restrict the discussion to intentional targeted attacks, I'm
sure
we've had worse (Smurf, anybody? :)

Re: Line cut in Mediterranean?

[Neil J. McRae]

quite a few EU to India cables are impacted right now 4/7 down.

Sent from my iPad 

On 27 Mar 2013, at 18:14, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well, it's not just SMW4 outage, we've been witnessing serious issues on
 IMEWE for couple of weeks now and this outages just made it worse.
 So, right now most of the traffic taking east bound routes.
 Who needs DDoS at this stage, these links are already chocked up :)
 
 Maybe it was because of this: Global Internet Slows after 'biggest attack
 in history'
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636
 
 
 -- 
 Regards,
 
 Aftab A. Siddiqui
 

Re: Cloudflare, and the 120Gbps DDOS that almost broke the Internet

[Neil J. McRae]

that article is absolute rubbish. take with large pinch of salt, rockstar in 
hamster outfit type nonsense. 

$dayjob didn't lose any traffic during the period, some guys where affected 
because of the lottery of being on the same switch as couldfare.

regards,
Neil.

On 27 Mar 2013, at 18:45, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 http://blog.cloudflare.com/the-ddos-that-almost-broke-the-internet
 
 Yes: 120 gigabits/second, primarily of DNS amplification traffic.
 
 Still think it's optional to implement BCP38 pervasively?
 
 Cheers,
 -- jra
 -- 
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
 j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
 Ashworth  Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA   #natog  +1 727 647 1274
 
 

Re: Line cut in Mediterranean?

[Neil J. McRae]

Via renesys

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypt-naval-forces-capture-3-scuba-divers-trying-to-sabotage-undersea-internet-cable/2013/03/27/dd2975ec-9725-11e2-a976-7eb906f9ed9b_story.html


Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Mar 2013, at 21:53, Neil J. McRae 
n...@domino.orgmailto:n...@domino.org wrote:

quite a few EU to India cables are impacted right now 4/7 down.

Sent from my iPad

On 27 Mar 2013, at 18:14, Aftab Siddiqui 
aftab.siddi...@gmail.commailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote:

Well, it's not just SMW4 outage, we've been witnessing serious issues on
IMEWE for couple of weeks now and this outages just made it worse.
So, right now most of the traffic taking east bound routes.
Who needs DDoS at this stage, these links are already chocked up :)

Maybe it was because of this: Global Internet Slows after 'biggest attack
in history'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636


--
Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui

Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

[Neil J. McRae]

On 17/01/2013 14:29, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:


AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products.  Do
you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?

Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game developers that they
need to support IPv6 if they want to avoid the NAT mess.


Indeed, the Wii-U launched less than a month ago doesn't have V6 support
either.

Regards,
Neil.

Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

[Neil J. McRae]

On 18/01/2013 17:48, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:

Suppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as
they have customers who want to access the v4 internet.


Yes indeed, and the smart folks who thought (clearly didn't!) about how
the best way to manage IPV6 and IPV4 in the access network have made this
really quite difficult. Much more so than it had to be.

Re: Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics

[Neil J. McRae]

Well said Randy - the previous paper is flawed and if the findings where true 
you would wonder how anyone ever created a viable online business.

Neil

Sent from my iPhone

On 4 Sep 2011, at 11:03, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

 [ http://archive.psg.com/110904.broadside.html ]
 
Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics
  a broadside
 
 A recent NANOG presentation and SIGCOMM paper by Gill, Schapira, and
 Goldberg[1] drew a lot of 'discussion' from the floor.  But that
 discussion missed significant problems with this work.  I raise this
 because of fear that uncritical acceptance of this work will be used as
 the basis for others' work, or worse, misguided public policy.
 o The ISP economic and incentive model is overly naive to the point of
   being misleading, 
 o The security threat model is unrealistic and misguided, and
 o The simulations are questionable.
 
 Basic ISP economics are quite different from those described by the
 authors.  Above the tail links to paying customers, the expenses of
 inter-provider traffic are often higher than the income, thanks to the
 telcos' race to the bottom.  In this counter-intuitive world, transit
 can often be cheaper than peering.  I.e. history shows that in the rare
 cases where providers have been inclined to such games, they usually
 shed traffic not stole it, the opposite of what the paper presumes.  The
 paper also completely ignores the rise of the content providers as
 described so well in SIGCOMM 2010 by Labovitz et alia[2]
 
 It is not clear how to ‘fix’ the economic model, especially as[3] says
 you can not do so with rigor.  Once one starts, e.g. the paper may lack
 Tier-N peering richness which is believed to be at the edges, we have
 bought into the game for which there is no clear end.
 
 But this is irrelevant, what will motivate deployment of BGP security is
 not provider traffic-shifting.  BGP security is, as its name indicates,
 about security, preventing data stealing (think banking
 transactions[4]), keeping miscreants from originating address space of
 others (think YouTube incident) or as attack/spam sources, etc.
 
 The largest obstacle to deployment of BGP security is that the
 technology being deployed, RPKI-based origin validation and later
 BGPsec, are based on an X.509 certificate hierarchy, the RPKI.  This
 radically changes the current inter-ISP web of trust model to one having
 ISPs' routing at the mercy of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).
 Will the benefits of security - no more YouTube incidents, etc. - be
 perceived as worth having one's routing at the whim of an
 non-operational administrative monopoly?  Perhaps this is the real
 economic game here, and will cause a change in the relationship between
 the operators and the RIR cartel.
 
 The paper's simulations really should be shown not to rely on the
 popular but highly problematic3 Gao-Rexford model of inter-provider
 relationships, that providers prefer customers over peers (in fact, a
 number of global Tier-1 providers have preferred peers for decades), and
 that relationships are valley free, which also has significant
 exceptions.  Yet these invalid assumptions may underpin the simulation
 results.
 
 ---
 
 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
 Dubrovnik,  2011.9.4
 
 [1] P. Gill, M. Schapira, and S. Goldberg, Let the Market Drive
 Deployment: A Strategy for Transitioning to BGP Security, SIGCOMM 2011,
 August 2011.
 http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2011/papers/sigcomm/p14.pdf
 
 [2] [1] C. Labovitz, S. Iekel-Johnson, D. McPherson, J. Oberheide, and
 F. Jahanian, “Internet inter-domain traffic,” in SIGCOMM '10:
 Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2010 conference on SIGCOMM, 2010.
 
 [3] M. Roughan, W. Willinger, O. Maennel, D. Perouli, and R. Bush, 10
 Lessons from 10 Years of Measuring and Modeling the Internet's
 Autonomous Systems, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
 Vol. 29, No. 9, pp. 1-12, Oct. 2011.
 https://archive.psg.com/111000.TenLessons.pdf
 
 [4] A. Pilosov, T. Kapela. Stealing The Internet An Internet-Scale Man
 In The Middle Attack, Defcon 16, August, 2008.
 http://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-16/dc16-presentations/defcon-16-pilosov-kapela.pdf
 
 

Re: Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics

[Neil J. McRae]

Jen,
What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?

Neil.

On 04/09/2011 16:07, Jennifer Rexford j...@cs.princeton.edu wrote:


As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to
clarify the purpose of this group.  Our goal is to assemble a group of
vendors and operators (not publish or perish academics) to discuss and
recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security
solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work).  It
is not to design new security protocols or to write policy and
procedures for operators -- that would of course be over-reaching and
presumptuous.  The goal is specifically to identify strategies for
incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the
appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups).  And, while the
SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just
one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group
that is not yet even fully assembled yet.  The working group will debate
and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and
those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.

tongue in cheek As for publish or perish academics, I doubt you'll
find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into
operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their
academic careers... ;) /tongue in cheek

-- Jen

Re: Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics

[Neil J. McRae]

maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you?

On 4 Sep 2011, at 16:45, Jennifer Rexford j...@cs.princeton.edu wrote:

 Neil,
 
 The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet. 
 
 -- Jen
 
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
 
 Jen,
 What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
 
 Neil.
 
 On 04/09/2011 16:07, Jennifer Rexford j...@cs.princeton.edu wrote:
 
 
 As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to
 clarify the purpose of this group.  Our goal is to assemble a group of
 vendors and operators (not publish or perish academics) to discuss and
 recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security
 solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work).  It
 is not to design new security protocols or to write policy and
 procedures for operators -- that would of course be over-reaching and
 presumptuous.  The goal is specifically to identify strategies for
 incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the
 appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups).  And, while the
 SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just
 one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group
 that is not yet even fully assembled yet.  The working group will debate
 and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and
 those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.
 
 tongue in cheek As for publish or perish academics, I doubt you'll
 find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into
 operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their
 academic careers... ;) /tongue in cheek
 
 -- Jen
 
 
 
 

Re: Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics

[Neil J. McRae]

On 4 Sep 2011, at 21:17, Sharon Goldberg gol...@cs.bu.edu  wrote:

thanks for responding you paper is interesting,

 Thus, while we cannot hope to accurately model every aspect of
 interdomain routing, nor predict how S*BGP deployment will proceed in
 practice, we believe that ISP competition over customer traffic is a
 significant economic lever for driving global S*BGP deployment.

 If you cannot accurately model every aspect of interdomain routing - why is 
that? :)

Then how can you be sure that a single stock in this model can be so 
influential? significant I think one could almost argue the opposite also or 
make the same case about nearly any feature in a transit product! If i stop 
offering community based filtering- I'd probably see revenue decline!

Yes some features in a product set drive revenue - thats all you are really 
saying which is fine but we have alot of features people want in the network 
and what would be a more useful paper would be why this one might drive more 
revenue growth than the others that are all fighting development prioritisation 
- - - which isnt clear to me in your paper.

All this paper does is confuse (mislead?) people that SBGP might have a big pot 
of gold attached which is doubtful in my view (interdomain routing is very 
complex) and the point Randy made.

Neil

Re: iCloud - Is it going to hurt access providers?

[Neil J. McRae]

I think the effect will be limited unless Apple give alot more space away for 
free. there arny many iphones/pads/pods with just 5GB

Neil

On 3 Sep 2011, at 12:22, Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellego.net wrote:

 Hey all,
 
 I've been thinking about the impact that iCloud (by Apple) will have on the 
 Internet.
 
 My guess is that 99% of consumer internet access is Asymmetrical (DSL, Cable, 
 wireless, etc) and iCloud when launched will 'upload' obscene amounts of gigs 
 of music, tv, backups, email, photos, documents/data and so on to their data 
 centres.
 
 Now, don't misunderstand me, I love the concept of iCloud, as I do DropBox, 
 but from an Access Providers perspective, I'm thinking this might be a 'bad 
 thing'.
 
 From what I can see there are some key issues:
 
  *   Users with plans that count upload and download together.
  *   The speed of Asymmetric tail technology such as DSL
  *   The design of access provider backhaul (from DSLAM to core) metrics
  *   The design of some transit metrics
 
 So basically the potential issue is that a large residential provider could 
 have thousands of users connect to iCloud, their connections slowed because 
 of uploading data, burning their included bandwidth caps, slowing down the 
 backhaul segment of the network, and as residential providers are mostly 
 download, some purchase transit from their upstreams in an symmetric fashion.
 
 This post is really just to prompt discussion if people think there is 
 anything to actually worry about, or there are other implications that I've 
 not really thought of yet.
 
 …Skeeve
 
 --
 
 Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
 
 ske...@eintellego.netmailto:ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net
 
 Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
 
 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
 
 facebook.com/eintellego or 
 eintell...@facebook.commailto:eintell...@facebook.com
 
 twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
 
 PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia
 
 
 --
 
 eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call
 
 - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade
 

Re: SmartNet Alternatives

[Neil J. McRae]

I've used NHR for a number of deployments over the past couple of years and 
they are a fantastic organisation to work with. I've used them for maintenance 
support in the US for replacement of parts - highly recommended.



- Original Message -
From: tbran...@gmail.com
Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011, 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: SmartNet Alternatives

I know NHR has a alternative that looks to be comparable.
http://www.networkhardware.com/Maintenance/

-tb

Re: Complain to your vendors (was Re: Did your BGP crash today?)

[Neil J. McRae]

Paul,

 Maybe the NANOG conference committee (or whatever its called) could get a
 couple of major router vendor gerbils to come to the next NANOG and talk
 to
 this issue?

 Maybe?

 Okay, I give up.

Recently I've been involved in some issues such as this working with
Alcatel Lucent and Cisco to jointly test how their routing protocols
interact with each other. As I think you try to point out, it was like
herding cats, pushing jelly up the wall, mowing the lawn with scissors
etc.

However one of the aspects that came out of this was that it required some
changes by service providers. Burgess from the RTG at Cisco has commited
to working with me and Alcatel to put together a presentation on this for
the NANOG community (hopefully it would be something that the PC would be
interested in). I doubt this will be ready for the next meeting but should
be for the one after.

If we allow vendors just to throw in the towel on these issues then its
the service provider community to blame. In my view we have bit by bit
step by step ended up in a very dark place. With our entire planet now
completely reliant on Internet and Data networks its time for action.

Regards,
Neil.
--
Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking.
n...@domino.org

Re: Data Centers in England

[Neil J. McRae]

On Wed, October 7, 2009 22:33, Philip Lavine wrote:
 Anyone know a good DC on England that caters to financial industry
 clients?

Cable and Wireless (who I work for) and COLT (who I used to work for).
The only other place worth considering is Equinix but from a proximity
viewpoint they are just too far away from the square mile.

Regards,
Neil.

--
Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking.
n...@domino.org

RE: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router.

[Neil J. McRae]

Personally I'd avoid this platform given 6+ years of trying to make it work
reliably. GSR is far better platform.

Re: Netflow on SUP720-3BXL

[Neil J. McRae]

This is, believe it or not, a feature of the device you are using.

On Sun, March 15, 2009 01:55, Andy Bierlair wrote:
 I’m trying to run netflow on one of our Cisco core routers (SUP720 3BXL),
 but I think I am hitting some limitations because of this:

 %EARL_NETFLOW-SP-4-TCAM_THRLD: Netflow TCAM threshold exceeded, TCAM
 Utilization [99%]

--
Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking.
n...@domino.org

Re: Router Choice

[Neil J. McRae]

 Try out the GUI thing.

 I know people will go GUIs are for idiots! and all that.


Agree, the SAM is excellent, esp the XML interface to it.


Regards,
Neil.
--
Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Router Choice

[Neil J. McRae]

On Wed, November 12, 2008 12:40, Raymond Macharia wrote:
 Hello  fellow nanogers,
 I am a long time user of Cisco gear and currently evaluating an
 alternative
 for my network expansion. currently the one that looks like it will be
 able
 to do the job iare Alcatel-Lucent 7710/7750 service routers.
 I am looking for real life experience of those who have used it and what I
 may need to watch out for (if anything) I have seen in some of their
 documentation features like Non-stop Services (NSS) and Non-stop Routing
 (NSR). are these features real world deployable.
 oh, just to add I want to use the routers as P routers in my IP/MPLS core

I've deployed hundreds of these boxes as PE devices and they work _very
well_ indeed. Not sure specifically about the non-stop part of it other
than we have some of this deployed and it seems to work but is an area I
think ALU could expand upon (and I believe they plan too). The
ALU-Trimetra chaps based in San Jose and in Belgium are superb to work
with also.

--
Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [NANOG] Alcatel

[Neil J. McRae]

The Alcatel 7750 is the best MPLS edge box period. It blows away the 
traditional competition by a country mile. The quality of the product is really 
superb. Imagine life is a software release when on completion of your own type 
approval the software does what it says on the tin? Not even minor bugs - no 
bugs nada ziltch negatory nien etc.

That life starts when you buy the 7750. The former Timetra team (and the new 
ALU people) are an excellent bunch of guys to work with. They listen and act 
but at the same time won't sacrafice the quality of the platform. And if you 
are still unsure I strongly recommend this box.

Neil.

-Original Message-
From: Dan Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 May 2008 18:16
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: [NANOG] Alcatel

Anyone use Alcatel switches in their network...like the 6850
omniswitch? What are your thoughts on them?

What about Alcatel's MPLS edge routers like the 7x50 products that
came from Timetra...anyone have any experience with them?  Are they a
good product?

Thanks,
Dan

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


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