Re: [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate

2015-09-17 Thread James Bensley 
On 15 September 2015 at 00:41, David Reader  wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 19:29, James Bensley wrote:
>> 460k routes though, not far off! Enough to get peering I'd say.

> Good luck getting a significant percentage of that…

I agree that isn't easy although it's really case by case. These guys
seem to do hosting so it might be easier to get more peers than if
they were an access network.


> Unless you’re playing peering games, it’s generally a good idea to have more
> than one transit even if you are also peering.

Maybe I misinterpreted the situation, the OP does have two transit
providers, one in London and one in Amsterdam, I foolishly assumed
they are linked. Perhaps if the OP really only has one transit in
London then peering is not the way to go.


> If the OP wants to reach beyond Meridian Gate, it’s not difficult to get
> comms to the other docklands sites .. try bogons.net for example.

Agreed, and www.goscomb.net are very helpful here too.


Cheers,
James.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

2015-09-17 Thread Brian Candler 

On 17/09/2015 10:19:46, James Bensley  wrote:

A common deployment is that we are using static IPs between CPE and
exchange device, then the customer is running DHCP relay (it's
configured on our CPE LAN interface) back to a central DHCP server
somewhere else in their WAN. We've had some issues with this not
working at a handful of exchanges and they were the only NGA sites we
had at those exchanges so we had nothing to compare against.
DHCP relay is just unicast UDP. It would be extremely evil if an 
upstream device were to intercept that and mangle it.


You could easily get around it though, for example by routing your DHCP 
traffic over IPSEC or GRE, or perhaps just by using non-standard port 
numbers.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

2015-09-17 Thread Robin Williams 


On 17/09/15 10:01, James Bensley wrote:

On 14 September 2015 at 22:55, Tom Hill  wrote:

On 14/09/15 13:32, Robin Williams wrote:

I'm sure there's a sound technical reason, but again, it disadvantages
smaller CPs disproportionately who may only have a few customers on each
switch.

I know if I were building it, I'd be avoiding switch stacking at _any_ cost.

I agree with Tom, stacking in my experience is a nightmare waiting to
happen


I guess 'switch stack' could have been equally been 'bigger single 
chassis switch with more ports', though that may have made it harder 
with the vlan duplications.  Of course, if the GEA cable links were 
priced more reasonably, it wouldn't be a problem - perhaps I'm thinking 
of technical solutions to a problem with the OR cost model...


Cheers,
Robin.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

2015-09-17 Thread James Bensley 
On 14 September 2015 at 22:55, Tom Hill  wrote:
> On 14/09/15 13:32, Robin Williams wrote:
>> I'm sure there's a sound technical reason, but again, it disadvantages
>> smaller CPs disproportionately who may only have a few customers on each
>> switch.
>
> I know if I were building it, I'd be avoiding switch stacking at _any_ cost.

I agree with Tom, stacking in my experience is a nightmare waiting to
happen however OP could certainly expand their VLAN range, they only
go up to like 20 or 30 or something stupid per cable link.

James.

Re: [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate

2015-09-17 Thread James Bensley 
On 17 September 2015 at 10:04, Marty Strong  wrote:
> This is all however going on the assumption that when joining an IXP the ASNs 
> your traffic is destined to/from that the ISP in question or their upstream 
> is willing to peer with you on a settlement free basis. Getting a peering 
> port doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the routes you need on it, and as such may 
> not do any traffic.

Thats *is* what I said :)

>> On 17 Sep 2015, at 16:58, James Bensley  wrote:
>> if you can peer at an exchange with
>> all those guys present and peer with them


Cheers,
James.

Re: [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate

2015-09-17 Thread James Bensley 
On 15 September 2015 at 06:44, Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>
> On 14/Sep/15 19:42, Paul Thornton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You don't have the entire routing table @LINX yet :)
>
> And depending on your operation, transit could be cheaper than peering.

And peering can be cheaper than transit [1] :)

This is especially true at lower traffic volumes as one major gain
with peering is that you pay for a port rather than a specific CDR and
you can use as much bandwidth on that port as you like (although you
can buy less that the physical port speed these days but not at evey
exchange).

Also if you only have a handful of AS's that count's for %-major of
your egress/ingress traffic then if you can peer at an exchange with
all those guys present and peer with them you can offload the bulk of
your traffic without the need for a CDR on a transit link providing
global access when you don't need all that visibility.

Cheers,
James.

[1] These are genuine figures I have tweaked so they don't resemble
any IXP I have connect to so there isn't any obvious bias etc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pli=1#heading=h.qfxzw1efv02w

Usual YMMV caveat, in the UK we are rather spoilt compared to some
parts of the world with LoNAP and LINX.

Re: [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate

2015-09-17 Thread Marty Strong 
Precisely.

On the LINX RSes I see approximately 76k routes, falls far short of the 460k 
figure that you’d need to peer with EVERYBODY to get :D

Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+65 9178 8502 SG
+44 7584 906 055 UK
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 17 Sep 2015, at 20:40, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/Sep/15 11:04, Marty Strong wrote:
> 
>> This is all however going on the assumption that when joining an IXP the 
>> ASNs your traffic is destined to/from that the ISP in question or their 
>> upstream is willing to peer with you on a settlement free basis.
> 
> Or that they are even present at the exchange point you're connecting to.
> 
> Mark.

[uknof] 10gb switch

2015-09-17 Thread Joseph Waite 
Evening all.

Apologies for being on topic, especially on a Thursday night at the end of a 
UKNOF meeting which sadly I was unable to attend.

Looking for recommendations/suggestions for 10gig switch.

Requirements are minimum 4 x 10gig fibre ports.
Plus minimum 8 x 10gig, not fussed fiber or copper, rj45 or cx4

Only requirements on switch is lag group support & jumbo frames 9000 minimum.
Oh 1u and as low power as possible so no Cisco nexus stuff!!

Budget is under £1k per switch preferably from a reputable supplier not eBay.
Doesn't have to be new!

Regards


Joe Waite

Re: [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate

2015-09-17 Thread James Bensley 
On 15 September 2015 at 09:37, Mark Stokes  wrote:
> On 14/09/2015 21:19, Joshua McQuistan wrote:
>> On 14/09/15 15:16, Mark Stokes wrote:
>>> Who needs cheap transit when peering clearly is the way to go.
>> I agree but what happens when transit < transport + exchange?
>
> This is not a problem. The sales teams within a network operator that
> operates a peered network needs to know why peering provides advantages
> other than pure cost.
>
> When competing for business from non-peered networks a peered network
> can highlight the following plus points. There are more...
>
> -Improved routing control/path quality
> -Peering can lower latency and congestion
> -Industry community presence
> -Increased marketable assets including technical prowess.
>
> There will be some business models that won't need these advantages.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMRkUFnucnU
>
> :)))
>
> Regards
> Mark


Bang on the money sir - I refer you to the previously linked document:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs

Cheers,
James.

Re: [uknof] 10gb switch

2015-09-17 Thread Tom Smyth 
brocade vdx 6720  24 port sfp+  switches can be picked up second hand for
around 1500 eur  on ebay

We are very happy with  them although we are just usin simple layer 2 vlan
featuresets...( no ospf bgp or mpls or sdn stuff)
On 17 Sep 2015 18:51, "Joseph Waite"  wrote:

> Evening all.
>
> Apologies for being on topic, especially on a Thursday night at the end of
> a UKNOF meeting which sadly I was unable to attend.
>
> Looking for recommendations/suggestions for 10gig switch.
>
> Requirements are minimum 4 x 10gig fibre ports.
> Plus minimum 8 x 10gig, not fussed fiber or copper, rj45 or cx4
>
> Only requirements on switch is lag group support & jumbo frames 9000
> minimum.
> Oh 1u and as low power as possible so no Cisco nexus stuff!!
>
> Budget is under £1k per switch preferably from a reputable supplier not
> eBay.
> Doesn't have to be new!
>
> Regards
>
>
> Joe Waite
>

Re: [uknof] 10gb switch

2015-09-17 Thread Brian Candler 

On 17/09/2015 18:50, Joseph Waite  wrote:

Looking for recommendations/suggestions for 10gig switch.

Requirements are minimum 4 x 10gig fibre ports.
Plus minimum 8 x 10gig, not fussed fiber or copper, rj45 or cx4

Only requirements on switch is lag group support & jumbo frames 9000 minimum.
Oh 1u and as low power as possible so no Cisco nexus stuff!!

Budget is under ?1k per switch preferably from a reputable supplier not eBay.
Doesn't have to be new!
I have a friend who bought some Dell 8024F's on Amazon - they are an 
end-of-life range but he's very happy with them. Said he paid about 
$2000.  They are 24 port 10G SFP+ with 4 10Gbase-T copper on the side. 
The SFP+ ports are 10G only.


http://www.amazon.com/Dell-575612798-PowerConnect-Manageable-Expansion/dp/B009T35B9O

I have good experience with Netgear XSM7224S (only used for layer 2), 
but that's considerably more expensive.

Re: [uknof] 10gb switch

2015-09-17 Thread Paul Mansfield 
engineer at $JOB has been buying Nuage (sp?) switches which he says
are very cheap for 10G