Re: noction vs border6 vs kentik vs fcp vs ?
If my servers are watching Netflix all day I’ve got another problem way beyond traffic visibility. On July 12, 2017 at 12:37:48 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu ( valdis.kletni...@vt.edu) wrote: On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:03:50 -0700, ShaColby Jackson said: > I know solutions like Kentik do a lot more but I’m focusing on just the > above use case. Also ignoring the cloud vs. on-prem difference, assume that > doesn’t matter. Might want to re-think that. In a world where some eyeball networks are reporting that 60%+ of the traffic is Netflix, there's a big difference between the Netflix CDN cloud and having a local Netflix cache box on the local net. Akamai is another company making coin assuming it does matter. (I'm assuming you don't actually know what percent of your traffic is Netflix/Akamai - if you already had that breakout, you'd not be asking for suggestions as you have already have an in-house solution...)
noction vs border6 vs kentik vs fcp vs ?
I know this topic has gone around a couple times but wondering if there are any new strong opinions on inbound+outbound traffic analysis with a bonus for excellence in traffic engineering at the edge. A typical use case would be finding an AS or prefix representing a large volume of inbound and/or outbound traffic via provider A that could just as well or better be moved via provider B. I know solutions like Kentik do a lot more but I’m focusing on just the above use case. Also ignoring the cloud vs. on-prem difference, assume that doesn’t matter. Will reward any helpful advice with a picture of me give you a virtual high-five or 2 thumbs up. Your choice.
Fw: new message
Hey! New message, please read <http://iamakeupartistry.com/stop.php?b> Shacolby Jackson
AMS-IX for local loop
I know this is a bit off topic since Amsterdam isn't exactly in North America but... Has anyone used AMS-IX for a private interconnect from one datacenter to another to avoid a classic local loop to another party or provider? For example, I'm in Equinix but might want to connect directly to someone at Interxion. -shac
Re: This network is too good...
I know people who have been very happy with Apposite. They have a couple different lines that can simulate a lot of different conditions. http://www.apposite-tech.com I know they call them WAN simulators but I know a company that strictly uses them for layer2 to simulate congestion between switches, etc. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Thomas Maufer wrote: > IWL's "Maxwell" is probably what you want: > > > http://www.iwl.com/press-releases/new-capabilities-for-maxwell-the-network-impairment-system.html > > Good luck breaking stuff! > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 08:51:13PM -0500, Robert E. > Seastrom wrote: > >> Any thoughts on products that screw up networks in deterministic (and > >> realistic found-in-the-wild) ways? I'm thinking of stuff like > >> PacketStorm, Dummynet, etc. Dial up jitter, latency, tail drop, RED, > >> whatever... > >> > >> (I know someone's gonna say "Just buy a Brand Z FubarSwitch 3k, they > >> will screw up your whole network and you don't even have to configure > >> it to do so!") > > > > The only good L2 solutions I've ever seen are expensive commercial > > testing. DummyNet, on a L3 aware FreeBSD box is extremely useful and > > easy to configure to simulate varous loss or latency patterns. > > > > What tool is right depends on if you want to test at L2 (simulate a > > circuit/cable with a particular problem) or L3 (just a router in the > > middle dropping packets), or testing an end user application. L2, > > particularly if you want to simulate things like a duplex mismatch is > > hard, and not often needed. > > > > If your goal is to test applications against network conditions, OSX has > > a nifty new tool, "Network Link Conditioner". It's basically just > > dummynet with various throughput, delay, and packet loss settings but it > > makes it dead simple to select from various pull downs. > > > > > > http://www.thegeeksclub.com/simulate-internet-connectivity-speed-mac-os-lion-107-network-link-conditioner > > > > I bring it up mainly because if you want to set your own DummyNet > > settings for other testing it's a nice database of average case > > performance for a number of link types! > > > > -- > > Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > >PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > > > > -- > > ~tom > > +1 408 890-7548 (Google Voice) >
non-congested comcast peers?
Are there any providers that Comcast doesn't regularly run hot? Seems like no matter who I deliver through at some magical point in the evening they start spiking jitter and a little loss. Almost like everyone hits PLAY on netflix at the same time. -shac
netflow analysis for jitter and packet loss?
What tools are people most happy with? Specifically I'm hoping to mirror a port and later see if I can detect any inbound jitter or possibly even out of order udp datagrams. At first glance it doesn't look like ntop or plixer can provide that level of detail. Any suggestions? -shac
OT: used / refurb voip phones?
A little off topic but anyone have any recommendations for vendors selling used voip handsets, especially Polycom? Looking for some IP335 or better. There are only a couple used gear resellers I trust and none seem to carry Polycom, only Cisco and even those only seem to have low end handsets. -shac
experience with equinix exchange
Has anyone had any experience (good or bad) with their exchange at any of their major datacenters, especially Great Oaks? We're wondering if people really love or hate it. -shac
Re: Enterprise DNS providers
I have used UltraDNS before. They are decent. I am however evaluating Dynect (www.dyn.com) who are very popular with social media companies like Twitter. On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote: > On 18 October 2010 06:53, Jonas Björklund wrote: > > > > > I have worked for one of the biggest poker networks and we used UltraDNS. > > The company was first operated from Sweden and later Austria. > > > > /Jonas > > > > I would tend to agree... I have also used UltraDNS in the past for other > companies, however we needed them urgently and someone else responded > faster > and they seem to be doing a good job so far. > > Regards, > > Ken >
