Re: [uknof] West coast main line

[Paul Cairney]

On 24/09/2020 21:45, Tom Hodgson wrote:
> 
>> Both my Google-foo and memory are failing me.  Can anyone fill me in on who 
>> has (owns and/or leases from the owner) fibre on the WCML?  I could have 
>> sworn that Level3 had something to do with it but it seems the various 
>> industry acquisitions have changed that (or simply that I am 
>> mis-remembering).  I have found plenty of networks that have fibre on the 
>> gas route (what was 186k, then Geo, then I think Zayo?) in the area I am 
>> interested in but that’s about a mile away from where I need to be.
>>
>> Extra credit if anyone can furnish me with a .kml showing said route and 
>> where else it connects with!
>
> Is https://www.lumen.com/en-us/resources/network-maps.html of any use in 
> giving an idea of the routes?


Huh, do you mean Lumison? ;)


Im sure other will have better recollections of the acquisition history, but 
mine suggests the origin of these routes was

Lumen < CenturyLink < Level3 < Global Crossings < Racal Telecom < BR 
Telecommunications


An early annual report from GBLX 
(https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1269527/000119312506082317/d20f.htm) 
has some interesting details, such as:

"The lease to us by Network Rail (which owns the United Kingdom’s railway 
infrastructure) of fiber optic cable and ancillary equipment and our capacity 
purchase agreement with them which enables our use of the copper cable and 
PABXs comprise a key set of contractual documents in our relationship with 
Network Rail. The deed of grant is a related agreement that gives us wayleave 
rights until at least 2046 that permit us to maintain existing leased and owned 
fiber and network equipment and to lay new fiber and install new equipment, 
subject to specified payments to Network Rail"

:)

Re: [uknof] Public IPv4 Addresses Required

[Paul Cairney]

On 06/05/2020 23:25, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
> Possibly 51/8 which was allocated to the Department of Work and Pensions, and 
> parts of which were sold off when they worked out how much they were worth...
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32826353
>
> Cheers,
> Matt


While I have no insight into the accuracy of the BBC news assertion that "The 
first group of 150,000 addresses has been snapped up by a Norwegian firm called 
Altibox for about £600,000"..

I have it on erm, good authority, that subsequent /15's from this range were 
offered at much closer to market rates for pre-RIR legacy space with once 
careful owner.. who apparently only used them to join the Church webcast on a 
Sunday ;)


And without drawing any comparisons to other 'public' assets which have been 
sold off in the past, a public institution holding a large block of IPv4 space 
without using it does not seem in the best interests of the nation or wider 
Internet..

IMHO it would seem fairly logical to divest this asset and reinvest the capital 
somewhere that standard to bring greater rewards, perhaps even with some kind 
of dividend or regular interest payment that im sure could be put to better use 
than assigning public v4 address to printers ;)

Paul

Re: [uknof] WHOIS Syntax Fail

[Paul Cairney]

On 24/08/18 13:15, Andy Davidson wrote:
>  The usual place to explicitly communicate your peering preferences as a 
> peering network is peeringdb and Job has made this point already in this 
> thread.


Speaking of PeeringDB, the following thread may be at least of tangential 
relevance to this discussion.. ;)

https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/151


--

Regards,

Paul

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Re: [uknof] Fibre to remote areas

[Paul Cairney]

On 16/08/17 22:28, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> "I can do millions of homes with GFAST at a cost that is _several_ orders of 
> magnitude lower than FTTP and at a rate of millions per year.."


Sounds a lot like RFC1925 Section 7 to me...

"Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three)."


P

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Re: [uknof] MTP Single Mode cables - Wanted

[Paul Cairney]

On 23/08/16 12:04, Rob Evans wrote:
>> I seem to recall a large academic network having saved over a million pounds 
>> by
>> using MMF optics purely for links between their packet and optical platforms
>> that would typically be in adjacent racks, although that may have been a few
>> years ago and suffering early adopter pricing for wanting the highest 
>> capacity
>> interface on the market at that point :)
> 
> This was largely the difference in price between ~112 100GBASE-LR4 CFP 
> pluggables and the same number of 100GBASE-SR10 ones and couldn’t support 
> 10x10MSA.
> 
> The price difference is still substantial, but we’re not sticking with SR10s 
> on new installs.
> 

Sounds like a reasonable approach to run the numbers and make an informed
decision, although it will be interesting to see how much demand there is for
delivering > 100g over MMF ;)

P

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [uknof] MTP Single Mode cables - Wanted

[Paul Cairney]

On 23/08/16 11:35, a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Only used them SM, never used them MM. MM is old junk, people should
> 
> multimode is used for 10G and 40G short range optics for a start..
> 

I seem to recall a large academic network having saved over a million pounds by
using MMF optics purely for links between their packet and optical platforms
that would typically be in adjacent racks, although that may have been a few
years ago and suffering early adopter pricing for wanting the highest capacity
interface on the market at that point :)

P


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [uknof] Anyone want a 2nd hand 10Gb pipe from London to AWS Dublin?

[Paul Cairney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Ben, Steve,

My (personal) understanding is that while the recurring port fees for a Direct
Connect port, which AWS charge as $/hour, are the consistent regardless of where
within the availability zone you connect... but the charges per GB to transfer
data out of AWS over this interconnection may vary depending on which location
you connect into their network at.

So, even excluding these pesky Datacentre operators cross connect pricing, there
may be a non-trivial cost difference between the options to either connect to
AWS 'directly' in the same metro as that the compute infrastructure which powers
that particular availability zone is located versus a.n.other metro that happens
to be more convenient to you as an operator.


Thus as Steve suggest for some networks there may indeed be some cases where
there is "no added value in buying the link LON-DUB to AWS" if you do not expect
to transfer any data out of AWS; however if this is not the case then its
probably worth running the numbers to confirm if sourcing your own backhaul to
Dublin, or whichever AWS node is relevant to you, is going to result in a lower
or higher total cost than letting Amazon provide the backhaul for you in return
for an increased outbound data transfer cost ;)

And while this may or may not be reflected in the numbers you produce, if I had
to make a guess at who would be in a position to negotiate the most favourable
rates with the limited number of entities who actually own the underlying
infrastructure which can be used to provide Dublin to London capacity at scale
then I no offence but I wouldnt be putting my money on either of you :p

(As even this mail does not represent the opinions of anyone else but myself,
IANAL and YMMV)

Regards,

Paul


On 14/06/16 22:05, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> So, unless I'm mistaken, its the same price to terminate AWS Direct Connect in
> London as it is in Dublin, so this may be a tricky one to sell as is as 
> there's
> no added value in buying the link LON-DUB to AWS. But the AWS port 
> shouldn't
> be contracted, I think they should be able to move it off AWS
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Jun 14, 2016 4:28 AM, "Ben Jefferson"  > wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> A client of mine has, for various complicated reasons, ended up with a
> 10Gb fiber provided by euNetworks from London to Amazon's Dublin data
> centre (terminating in Eircom Clonshaugh) for use with Amazon Direct
> Connect which may soon be surplus to requirements. They've asked me,
> on the off chance, if I can find someone to rent it off them. Does
> anyone know anyone who might be interested in taking it off their
> hands?
> 
> The line currently terminates at their office but they have the
> agreement of the hosting provider to move it to any other convenient
> location so it should be possible to get it moved to one of the London
> peering points. As well as reaching agreement about paying towards the
> line rental you'll also have to pay the Amazon Direct connect port
> cost (about £1000 a month - see
> https://aws.amazon.com/directconnect/pricing/) but you'll get a direct
> 10Gb connection into your Amazon VPC and no in/outbound bandwidth
> charges (for data on this pipe - you still have to pay for data
> leaving AWS going to the rest of the world). Buying it second hand
> will cost a lot less and be a lot more flexible than if you were to
> buy it "new".
> 
> Any takers?
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is
> believed to be clean.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAldgolUACgkQ9izSZr9+q81ysgCeLvDr28D5xggbc2x4AlzGn883
qXUAn1c6YSdF5qJJoxz71IpH381iLxzw
=eyAC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [uknof] DNS poll - what do you use?

[Paul Cairney]

I'm surprised anyone still used DJB software, it made a lot of sense to me back 
when I was enjoying the slackware koolaide but in a slightly more practical 
world where package based distributions have gained favour I don't see software 
that's less than easy to build as particularly relevant..

Thou FWIW I used pdns authoratitve and recursive for my own personal network, 
on the authoritative side its the database backend that got me hooked and on 
the recursive side it was the abilty to limit the query replies to subnets in a 
text file (which I generated from an AS-SET with the help of cron) which were 
not readily available elsewhere when I had to decide which OSS solutions to 
deploy.

Regards,

Paul

From: Daniel Foster [mailto:dan...@34sp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 11:43 AM
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] DNS poll - what do you use?

Bind 9 for authoritative, DJB’s dnscache for recursive, all running on CentOS 6.

Surprised not to have seen anyone else using dnscache - it’s been completely 
stable and quick for us.

Daniel Foster
Technical Director
34SP.comhttp://34SP.com

On 2 Dec 2014, at 08:37, Greg Choules 
greg.chou...@three.co.ukmailto:greg.chou...@three.co.uk wrote:

Morning all. This is just a straw poll to find out what people use for their 
DNS servers.
We currently use BIND on Linux and are generally very happy with it. But I 
wondered what other people use, why you chose it and what your experiences are 
with it.

Probably best to reply off-list.

All thoughts greatly appreciated
thanks, Greg

image001.jpg

Greg Choules
Design Engineer

Mobile: 07957 807004
Skype: gchoules
Jabber: gchou...@trevor.hutchison3g.netmailto:gchou...@trevor.hutchison3g.net
Gchat: gregchou...@googlemail.commailto:gregchou...@googlemail.com
Email: greg.chou...@three.co.ukmailto:greg.chou...@three.co.uk
www.three.co.ukhttp://www.three.co.uk/






This e-mail message (including any attachment) is intended only for the 
personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is confidential and 
may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not 
review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the 
original message.



Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author only. 
Furthermore, this message (including any attachment) does not create any 
legally binding rights or obligations whatsoever, which may only be created by 
the exchange of hard copy documents signed by a duly authorised representative 
of Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Hutchison 3G UK Limited is a company registered in 
England and Wales with company number 3885486. Registered Office Star House, 20 
Grenfell Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 1EH





This email is from Equinix (EMEA) B.V. or one of its associated companies in 
the territory from where this email has been sent. This email, and any files 
transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, is solely for 
the use of the intended recipient and may be legally privileged. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email 
immediately. Equinix (EMEA) B.V.. Registered Office: Luttenbergweg 4, 1101 EC 
Amsterdam-Zuidoost, The Netherlands. Registered in The Netherlands No. 57577889.

Re: [uknof] Equinix LD4/LD5 carriers

[Paul Cairney]

On 24/06/13 08:46, Ed Butler wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I'm after a list of Equinix LD4/LD5 (Slough) carriers for IP transit that have
 diversity from London. Equinix distributes a list of carriers but some of 
 these
 just route the service from Docklands, for example Level3 tell me their 
 LD4/LD5
 service is routed from Goswell Rd/Braham St.
 
 Has anyone investigated this before and knows the guys who are not dependent 
 on
 London?
 
 Thanks,
 

Ed,

Have you tried asking Equinix about their own IP product? ;)

Regards,

Paul


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.