Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000
I have used the ASR1002-F in a previous life and I was very pleased with it. Performance was a massive increase from the 3845 we had. The warm standby IOS is a nice feature for in service upgrades and crash avoidance. I don't have much experience with the MX series of things but you would be happy with the ASR assuming it meets your bandwidth/port density requirements. -=Tom On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:10 PM, jon Heise j...@smugmug.com wrote: Does anyone have any experience with these two routers, we're looking to buy one of them but i have little experience dealing with cisco routers and zero experience with juniper.
Re: L3 Issues
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:39:43 -0500, Khurram Khan brokenf...@gmail.com wrote: Hello and Good Morning, Are there reports of L3 having issues this morning ? Starting at about 10:10 A Pacific, I started seeing huge drops in traffic at various sites, including San Diego, Houston, San Antonio, Charlotte, NC, Philadelphia, etc. Anyone seeing a similar behavior ? Yes we are seeing Loss from Houston To LA (not NYC to LA) dropping out in Dallas -=Tom -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Spam?
I received no spam, and had I received 2 pieces, it may have been slightly irritating. What is irritating is the sheer number of people complaining about it. Can we stop please? I think they get it. -=Tom On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:58:42 -0500, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: New location means we now get spam on Nanog? no extra charge :) i have lived through maintaing decades of mailing lists and do not envy the nanog mailing list crew and glen over at amsl. thanks for the hard work, folk. Let's work harder -- seriously, MailMan seemed to be working fine. ~:-/ - ferg -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: ipv6 day DDoS threat?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:42:40 -0500, Mark Pace p...@jolokianetworks.com wrote: I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave un-named for the moment. They said that they heard specific chatter about DDoS of IPv6 day participant sites and even more specifically about our website. Of course they have also offered to assist us in preventing this from affecting our site. I'm very skeptical about even calling said company at this point. I'm really feeling like this is a shakedown and was wondering if anyone else had been approached in a similar fashion? Mark Pace Just got the same phone call from A large company and it was a sales call. They are offering DDoS mitigation services I'll pass :) -=Tom Donnelly -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: ipv6 day DDoS threat?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:01:59 -0500, Jima na...@jima.tk wrote: On 06/07/2011 01:42 PM, Mark Pace wrote: I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave un-named for the moment. It wasn't Radware, was it? http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/060611-ipv6-security.html If not, it would seem that there's no shortage of IPv6 FUD this week. Jima I can confirm it was not Radware. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Comcast Bulk/Metro Ethernet
Is there anyone from the Comcast Bulk or Metro Ethernet departments that can contact me off list? Thanks -=Tom
Re: switch networking help
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:47:32 -0500, Deric Kwok deric.kwok2...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I would like to ask general question about switch speed experience. How can I increase speed in switch port? The speed of the switch port is limited by the hardware. Make sure you are running a nic capable of the maximum switchport speed and that they are configured to be the maximum speed either by negotiation or manually. Most switches now days are 100mbps or 1000mbps. If it is too slow for you, try upgrading both the end point and replacing the switch to 10G. If you give us a make/model number, it is much easier to tell you what your switch can do. ls it to combine more than one port? Any other solution? Yes, there are a few ways and they vary by vendor, but the most common way is LACP etherchannel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation#Link_Aggregation_Control_Protocol In combing ports, what are the advantages and disadvantages? The advantage is increased bandwidth (naturally), also increased redundancy. Unfortunately LACP does not give a true 2gbps capability, it simply load balances between the two links based on various factors. So a single connection will only go up to 1gbps, even if the nic connecting it to the switch is a 10gbps connection. However for switch uplinks this is rarely a problem (so long as the correct load balancing algorithm is selected) as multiple hosts are connected at 1gbps trying to go upstream. Any info and experience. Thank you for your sharing. This is a 60 second overview and there is much more to this topic than I have said, but hopefully this will get you on your feet. -=Tom Donnelly -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:31:32 -0600, Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com wrote: Hello gents: I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment. Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based? Am I limiting myself by thinking that Cisco is the de facto vendor of choice? I'm not looking for so much fanboy responses, but more of a real world experience of what you guys use that actually work and does the job. No technical questions here, just general feedback. I try to follow the Tolly Group who compares products, and they continually show that Cisco equipment is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find that so hard to believe. Cisco is typically not known as the fastest or most power efficient when compared to other vendors, but they usually have some advanced feature sets that are very nice. In the ISP space this may be less helpful, but in the SMB and Enterprise space this can be very helpful. Things such as Call Manager Express, Web Content Filtering, WebEx Nodes, Server Load Balancing, Wireless Lan Controllers, etc. that are either built into IOS or available with a line card or module, are nice tools to have at your disposal, and often can mean reducing the number of devices you need in your rack. As of the Tolly group, I find whomever pays Tolly for the survey tends to be the fastest. Example: Abstract: HP commissioned Tolly to evaluate the performance, power consumption and TCO of its E5400 zl and E8200 switch series and compare those systems with the Cisco Systems Catalyst 3750-X and Catalyst 4500. This is because the Vendor is getting to pick what they want to benchmark rather than the company benchmarking them. No one is going to choose tests that their product will lose in. There isn't much in the way of Tom's Hardware Style testing of enterprise gear to my knowledge. Cisco gear is also known for long life, being very consistent, and high reliability. A walk through colos you will often see many many Cisco 12000's for those exact reasons. I feel each vendor has its strong points, price/performance may not be Cisco's but Cisco's ease of configuration and feature sets, along with reliability are definitely notable. -=Tom Thanks! Brandon -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com wrote: to which they would try and play the well most people don't mix gear.. ha! Funny if you responded with, Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router? I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying another vendor they raise an eyebrow. From: greg.whyn...@oicr.on.ca To: brandon@brandontek.com CC: khomyakov.and...@gmail.com; nanog@nanog.org Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, ( http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoperability.pdf ). At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd ask support you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to do this … to which they would try and play the well most people don't mix gear.. HP's example should be the yard stick in the field. -g On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: To your point Andrey, It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason you pointed out, get all Cisco! How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are being sincere(sarcasm). Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to another vendor. I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least tried their hardest to support you. From: khomyakov.and...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? To: nanog@nanog.org There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides. I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and Avaya phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling between juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them anymore. Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the network, the rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good technical/financial reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in those cases. Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least in my experience. My $0.02 Andrey On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott greg.whyn...@oicr.on.cawrote: I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3. Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried to use another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it was a bad choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. Then for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to say Cisco gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and handled better when stuff hits the fan. the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC requirements which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has always been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposed to trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they have been pleased thus far.I've little or no experience with many of the other vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be beta testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our firmware on our core equipment several times in one year…). Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the smart net contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with unrestricted license and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on options, with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more… -g -- Andrey Khomyakov [khomyakov.and...@gmail.com] -- This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use
Re: POE bump-in-the-wire conversion
We have some Aastra 9480i phones that are 802.3 af running off of a cisco 3550 that are Pre-Standard power. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps646/prod_qas09186a00800913d3.html Q. Does the Cisco Catalyst 3550-24 PWR Switch support the 802.3af inline power standard? A. No, this switch supports Cisco Pre-Standard Power over Ethernet. The Catalyst 3750 Series and Catalyst 3560 Series support the Cisco Pre-Standard Power over Ethernet and IEEE 802.3af Power over Ethernet. I used the command power inline delay shutdown 20 initial 100 on the ports connected to the phones and it seems to be working just fine. It may just be a lucky break for us but something worth trying? -=Tom On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:00:40 -0600, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: Perhaps someone from this august list can offer a clue here. Have: Cisco 3524-PWR (paleo-POE, pre-802.3af Cisco standard). It runs the 7960Gs great. Have: Wireless AP stuff that wants 12v on the unused pairs for passive POE. 48v will let the magic smoke out. Might buy: phone that does 802.3af Want to run these with the 3524-PWR. I can't imagine that nobody makes a bump-in-the-wire converter for this application, but haven't been able to find anything other than 802.3af to the passive POE use case. Anyone got a pointer for me? Thanks, -r -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such content. If the issue is bandwidth, then why not charge for bandwidth? Picking a specific service says we are trying to squash the competition. On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:48:06 -0600, Guerra, Ruben ruben.gue...@arrisi.com wrote: I'd have to agree with Brian. There is no simple answer to this one... If the ultimate cause is the abuse of bandwidth, I can understand this... BUT if the underlying motive is to squash competition then shame on you! -Original Message- From: Rettke, Brian [mailto:brian.ret...@cableone.biz] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:41 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list Subject: RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans spewed out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as a term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining. I'm hoping that there is an eventual meeting of the minds wherein some sort of collaboration takes place. If this gets additional government regulations I fear no one will like the result. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a toll booth on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
