Fw: new message
Hey! New message, please read <http://gamingprogrammers.com/week.php?fidf> Zachary Giles
Fw: new message
Hey! New message, please read <http://floridainterpreters.com/week.php?ma2rk> Zachary Giles
Re: OT: VPS with Routed IP space
never saw that post. right up my alley. Thanks! On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:45 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Alex Buie > wrote: > >> Anybody know of or have recommendations for providers of small > >> VPS-line boxen (or alternative solutions) to serve as GRE endpoints? > >> (for a small amount of IP addresses, /29 or /28 at most) > >> > >> I am finding a lot of places that will give you extra IPs on the box > >> itself (oftentimes out of the provider's own larger unsubnetted > >> prefix) but I am looking more for a setup with a single IP on the box > >> and a prefix routed to it. > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > You can usually deconfigure the extra IP's on the box and send them > > down the tunnel. At worst you do a little proxy arp to tell the router > > that your vps still serves those addresses. > > > > You'll find providers are reluctant to assign /28's and /29's to > > low-dollar VPS services. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Zachary Giles wrote: > >> How about VPS providers who will do BGP... Do they exist? > > > > They do but it's BYOA and $10/mo generally doesn't cut it. > > > Nat Morris has been doing this, here’s a presentation he has on this > topic: > > http://www.slideshare.net/natmorris/anycast-on-a-shoe-string > > - Jared -- Zach Giles zgi...@gmail.com
Re: OT: VPS with Routed IP space
Thanks to those who mailed off-list for the BGP thread-jack. Seems like those providers that do BGP would probably route their own space to VPS as well.. (Like OP want. if I understand correctly). Some of them even state that they even SWIP the addresses, which is positive. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 2/24/15 1:42 PM, Michael Helmeste wrote: > >> ARP Networks: https://www.arpnetworks.com/vps >> >> Routed IP space (v4 and v6) as well as BGP peering. >> > > +1 for Arp, I'm a happy customer (no other affiliation). > > FWIW, > > Doug > > > -- Zach Giles zgi...@gmail.com
Re: OT: VPS with Routed IP space
How about VPS providers who will do BGP... Do they exist? On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Or NOT. That’s a horribly ugly thing to do in a situation where the > desired behavior shouldn’t be that hard to achieve. > > Owen > > > On Feb 24, 2015, at 11:07 , Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > > > You just need to enable proxy ARP on the box to simulate a routed subnet. > > Den 24/02/2015 19.25 skrev "Alex Buie" : > > > >> Anybody know of or have recommendations for providers of small > >> VPS-line boxen (or alternative solutions) to serve as GRE endpoints? > >> (for a small amount of IP addresses, /29 or /28 at most) > >> > >> I am finding a lot of places that will give you extra IPs on the box > >> itself (oftentimes out of the provider's own larger unsubnetted > >> prefix) but I am looking more for a setup with a single IP on the box > >> and a prefix routed to it. > >> > >> TIA for your insight. > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> (if you or your company can do this, direct solicitations are okay > >> too. do keep in mind it's just a personal project and I do not have > >> larger commercial volume at this time) > >> > > -- Zach Giles zgi...@gmail.com
Re: 10G standalone switch to access in data center, cheap
How about the Force10 S48xx series? They're pretty decent today. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: > Quanta is pretty cheap, basically a bare bones reference design. > Mellanox as well. Juniper EX4550. Any other features you are looking > for? From: Piotr > Sent: 8/22/2013 10:59 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: 10G standalone switch to access in data center, cheap > Hello, > > I looking some 10G switches, 24-48 ports, it will be work in DC in > access. Something cheaper ( for port) than extreme 670 ? > > Do You know something ? > > thanks > greets, > Peter > > -- Zach Giles zgi...@gmail.com
Re: High throughput bgp links using gentoo + stipped kernel
I had two Dell R3xx 1U servers with Quad Gige Cards in them and a few small BGP connections for a few year. They were running CentOS 5 + Quagga with a bunch of stuff turned off. Worked extremely well. We also had really small traffic back then. Server hardware has become amazingly fast under-the-covers these days. It certainly still can't match an ASIC designed solution from Cisco etc, but it should be able to push several GB of traffic. In HPC storage applications, for example, we have multiple servers with Quad 40Gig and IB pushing ~40GB of traffic of fairly large blocks. It's not network, but it does demonstrate pushing data into daemon applications and back down to the kernel at high rates. Certainly a kernel routing table with no iptables and a small Quagga daemon in the background can push similar. In other words, get new hardware and design it flow. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: > On 5/18/13, Michael McConnell wrote: > > Hello Nick, > > > > Your email is pretty generic, the likelihood of anyone being able to > provide > > any actual help or advice is pretty low. I suggest you check out > Vyatta.org, > > its an Open Source router solution that uses Quagga for its underlying > BGP > > management, and if you desire you can purpose a support package a few > grand > > a year. > > > > Cheers, > > Mike > > > > -- > > > > Michael McConnell > > WINK Streaming; > > email: mich...@winkstreaming.com > > phone: +1 312 281-5433 x 7400 > > cell: +506 8706-2389 > > skype: wink-michael > > web: http://winkstreaming.com > > > > On May 18, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: > > > >> Hello Everyone, > >> > >> We are running: > >> > >> Gentoo Server on Dual Core Intel Xeon 3060, 2 Gb Ram > >> Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet > >> Controller (rev 06) > >> Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82573E Gigabit Ethernet > >> Controller (rev 03) > >> > >> 2 bgp links from different providers using quagga, iptables etc > >> > >> We are transmitting an average of 700Mbps with packet sizes upwards of > >> 900-1000 bytes when the traffic graph begins to flatten. We also start > >> experiencing some crashes at that point, and not have been able to > >> pinpoint that either. > >> > >> I was hoping to get some feedback on what else we can strip from the > >> kernel. If you have a similar setup for a stable platform the .config > >> would be great! > >> > >> Also, what are your thoughts on migrating to OpenBSD and bgpd, not > >> sure if there would be a performance increase, but the security would > >> be even more stronger? > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> > >> Nick > >> > > > > > > > Hello Michael, > > I totally understand how my question is generic in nature. I will > defiantly take a look at Vyatta, and weigh the effort vs. benefit > topic. The purpose of my email is to see how people with similar > setups managed to get more out of their system using kernel tweaks or > further stripping on their OS. In our case, we are using Gentoo. > > Nick. > > -- Zach Giles zgi...@gmail.com
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
One thing that is bothersome about carriers is that sometimes if they have Tons of fiber to your building, they still will only offer Layer2/3 services. If there's fiber there, I'd like to be able to lease it in some fashion (even if expensive, but preferably not). If a muni is making something that is good for the public, I think they can and should offer Layer2 services, but also make the option to directly get the fibers at a reasonable price .. even for Individuals and small companies. I think services that are offered should also provide the ability to order the subcomponents including Layer1. That should encourage competition, usability, and fun. I'd totally get a 10G from my work to home or whatever. On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Leo Bicknell" > >> I am a big proponent of muni-owned dark fiber networks. I want to >> be 100% clear about what I advocate here: >> >> - Muni-owned MMR space, fiber only, no active equipment allowed. A >> big cross connect room, where the muni-fiber ends and providers are >> all allowed to colocate their fiber term on non-discriminatory terms. > >> - 4-6 strands per home, home run back to the muni-owned MMR space. >> No splitters, WDM, etc, home run glass. Terminating on an optical >> handoff inside the home. > > Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller > players play. Does your position (likely more deeply thought out than > mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as long as clients > are *also* permitted to get a Layer 1 patch to a provider in the fashion you > suggest? > > (I concur with your 3-pair delivery, which makes this more practical on an > M-A-C basis, even if it might require some users to have multiple ONTs...) > > 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 > -- Zach Giles zgi...@gmail.com
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
Not to sidestep the conversation here .. but, Leo, I love your concept of the muni network, MMR, etc. What city currently implements this? I want to move there! :) -Zach 2013/1/29 Masatoshi Enomoto : > ifHCin-が64bitでifin-が32bitカウンタのMIBなんですね > 勘違いしてました。 > -- Zach Giles zgi...@gmail.com
Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP
Though 2001:abcd::192:168:10:10 was written in a format with both : and . , I think would could take the concept mentioned above and extend it either by making it 2001:abcd::C0:A8:0A:0A or 2001:abcd::C0A8:0A0A Doing the latter wastes less space and let's the host use the upper 32bits of the host portion for vhosts. Ex: 2001:abcd::1:C0A8:0A0A Should be easy enough as something like pxelinux already squishes your v4 address down to do file searching on tftp servers. Ex: /mybootdir/pxelinux.cfg/C25B for 192.0.2.91 I personally have for this "use the last 32bits of the v6 address for the v4 dual stack address" trick and was happy with it. Still fits with the concept of "give each host a /64" On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: > >> You can say it's a IPv4 thinking model, but it's easier to remember >> that if the fileserver it's at 192.168.10.10 then it's IPv6 >> counterpart address would be 2001:abcd::192:168:10:10 (each subnet >> being a /64) > > That is a clever idea except that it can not always follow > modified EUI-64 format aof rfc4291. > > We should better introduce partially decimal format for > IPv6 addresses or, better, avoid IPv6 entirely. > > Masataka Ohta >> >> >> >>> >>> Another option would be to do both. Assign a fixed address and also >>> let it chose EUI-64. However, I see that leading to confusion. Not >>> sure what good it would do. >>> >>> Is there anything like a standard, best practice for this (yet)? >>> What are other people doing and their reasons? Anyone have operational >>> experience with what works and what does not (and the "what does >>> not" is probably really of more interest)? >> >> Letting the host choose it's own IP can be very tricky and has >> operational hurdles along the way as it's not that easy to copy >> configurations across devices during upgrades and maintenance swap >> outs. >> >> >> > > -- Zach Giles zgi...@gmail.com
