Re: [uknof] Monitoring if leased lines are down via an NNI

[Stephen Wilcox]

Maybe I'm missing the details .. BFD if up will install a static route, but
if BFD is down it'll withdraw the route. This should solve the issue of is
the VLAN up or down since the state will be based on BFD not the link
state.. no?

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 11:34, Steven Maddox via uknof <
uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk> wrote:

> No because we're not wanting BFD to control whether there is, or is not, a
> static route (which is what that page is talking about).  It would seem BFD
> can only be linked to things under 'set routing-options' such as static
> routes, OSPF, BGP, etc...
>
> We'd want to use BFD to control whether a pseudowire can or can't form to
> to the particular unit it was monitoring... and can't see a way to do that.
>
> Steven Maddox
> Business Systems Engineer
> Internet Central Limited
>
> Registered in England & Wales number 03079542 at Ivy House Foundry, 
> Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 3NR.  VAT registration number GB278923705.  Read our 
> disclaimer at http://ic.uk/legal before acting on this e-mail.
>
> On 05/04/2023 15:41, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>
> This email originated from OUTSIDE the Internet Central Corporate Network.
> Please treat HYPERLINKS and ATTACHMENTS with caution.
> You also just run it over a point-to-point eg
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/high-availability/topics/topic-map/bfd-configuring.html
>
> Doesn't this work for your setup?
>
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 14:17, Steven Maddox via uknof <
> uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/2023 12:41, Richard Halfpenny wrote:
>> > BGP to the customer's own router/firewall?
>>
>> Sure BGP, BFD, OSPF, ICMP, lots of stuff the customers router could do,
>> which we can check for (ICMP being the most ubiquitous and simplest to
>> just check for a non-reply).  However the problem with this approach is
>> finding an elegant way for the Juniper to automatically take that
>> non-reply as a reason to drop the related pseudowire path... whilst at
>> the same time knowing when its back to then allow that path to reform!
>> The hope is to still try and find a way of doing this using the features
>> of a Juniper only.
>>
>> But here is a possible inelegant way!..
>>
>> Imagine for a moment you've got two suppliers NNIs on a QFX5100... one
>> as ge-1/0/1 (e.g. BT Wholesale) and one as ge-1/0/2 (e.g. TalkTalk).
>>
>> A customer has two leased lines coming in on that same QFX5100, one is
>> their primary line as unit ge-1/0/1.100 and one is their backup line as
>> unit ge-1/0/2.200.  Coincidentally unit 100 uses VLAN 100 and unit 200
>> uses VLAN 200 :)
>>
>> However the customers public /30 (for Internet access) lives on an MX480
>> on unit lt-4/0/0.999.  You want lt-4/0/0.999 to form a pseudowire to
>> ge-1/0/1.100 (primary path), unless that destination unit is "down", in
>> which case form it to ge-1/0/1.200 (secondary path).  But still keep
>> checking to see if the primary path becomes possible again and swap back
>> to it when it can automatically.
>>
>> But ge-1/0/1.100 and ge-1/0/1.200 won't ever go "down" (as they're VLANs
>> on an NNI).
>>
>> We *could* put two extra units on the QFX of ge-1/0/1.10100 (also
>> listening to vlan 100) and ge-1/0/1.10200 (vlan 200) that just have
>> private subnets on them (that customers router would also need).  Then
>> some script (running on the QFX) could do ping tests to see which is
>> working, and the one that isn't working gets its pseudowire config
>> purefully hobbled (forcing the MX480 to use the other path) and then
>> when it returns working... unhobble it :P
>>
>>
>> On 29/03/2023 05:48, scott via uknof wrote:
>> > BFD is made for this (Both up and down) if the provider will do that
>> > with you
>> Well that's my thoughts exactly, which is why I mentioned BFD in the
>> original e-mail.
>>
>> But with Junipers it seems that BFD must be tied to something else (e.g.
>> a static route, BGP, OSPF, etc...) and it can't be tied to whether a
>> unit should be considered a valid endpoint for a pseudowire or not :S
>>
>> At least, not anything we've found!
>>
>>
>> On 28/03/2023 13:13, James Greig wrote:
>> > we monitor for a "significant traffic drop"
>>
>> Yeah we use Observium too, although lately we've begun to regret it as
>> some of their users seem, err fanatical?  The other month I accidentally
>> pasted my clipboard into their Discord (about a dozen words, nothing
>> long), unfortunately one of their users fancies themselves as a
>> codebreaker... and thoug

Re: [uknof] Monitoring if leased lines are down via an NNI

[Stephen Wilcox]

You also just run it over a point-to-point eg
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/high-availability/topics/topic-map/bfd-configuring.html

Doesn't this work for your setup?

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 14:17, Steven Maddox via uknof <
uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk> wrote:

> On 29/03/2023 12:41, Richard Halfpenny wrote:
> > BGP to the customer's own router/firewall?
>
> Sure BGP, BFD, OSPF, ICMP, lots of stuff the customers router could do,
> which we can check for (ICMP being the most ubiquitous and simplest to
> just check for a non-reply).  However the problem with this approach is
> finding an elegant way for the Juniper to automatically take that
> non-reply as a reason to drop the related pseudowire path... whilst at
> the same time knowing when its back to then allow that path to reform!
> The hope is to still try and find a way of doing this using the features
> of a Juniper only.
>
> But here is a possible inelegant way!..
>
> Imagine for a moment you've got two suppliers NNIs on a QFX5100... one
> as ge-1/0/1 (e.g. BT Wholesale) and one as ge-1/0/2 (e.g. TalkTalk).
>
> A customer has two leased lines coming in on that same QFX5100, one is
> their primary line as unit ge-1/0/1.100 and one is their backup line as
> unit ge-1/0/2.200.  Coincidentally unit 100 uses VLAN 100 and unit 200
> uses VLAN 200 :)
>
> However the customers public /30 (for Internet access) lives on an MX480
> on unit lt-4/0/0.999.  You want lt-4/0/0.999 to form a pseudowire to
> ge-1/0/1.100 (primary path), unless that destination unit is "down", in
> which case form it to ge-1/0/1.200 (secondary path).  But still keep
> checking to see if the primary path becomes possible again and swap back
> to it when it can automatically.
>
> But ge-1/0/1.100 and ge-1/0/1.200 won't ever go "down" (as they're VLANs
> on an NNI).
>
> We *could* put two extra units on the QFX of ge-1/0/1.10100 (also
> listening to vlan 100) and ge-1/0/1.10200 (vlan 200) that just have
> private subnets on them (that customers router would also need).  Then
> some script (running on the QFX) could do ping tests to see which is
> working, and the one that isn't working gets its pseudowire config
> purefully hobbled (forcing the MX480 to use the other path) and then
> when it returns working... unhobble it :P
>
>
> On 29/03/2023 05:48, scott via uknof wrote:
> > BFD is made for this (Both up and down) if the provider will do that
> > with you
> Well that's my thoughts exactly, which is why I mentioned BFD in the
> original e-mail.
>
> But with Junipers it seems that BFD must be tied to something else (e.g.
> a static route, BGP, OSPF, etc...) and it can't be tied to whether a
> unit should be considered a valid endpoint for a pseudowire or not :S
>
> At least, not anything we've found!
>
>
> On 28/03/2023 13:13, James Greig wrote:
> > we monitor for a "significant traffic drop"
>
> Yeah we use Observium too, although lately we've begun to regret it as
> some of their users seem, err fanatical?  The other month I accidentally
> pasted my clipboard into their Discord (about a dozen words, nothing
> long), unfortunately one of their users fancies themselves as a
> codebreaker... and thought they'd "deciphered" the word 'LibreNMS' in
> the contents (and we don't even use LibreNMS, we pay for Observium).
> Apparently any mention of that project (even if you just plainly didn't
> mention it!?) gets you an instant and permanent ban... it's completely
> nutty there!
>
> As for your approach though... ultimately I'd be worried that it'd mean
> pseudowires would flip between circuits in the middle of night when
> usage goes low.
>
>
> Steven Maddox
> Business Systems Engineer
> Internet Central Limited
>
> Registered in England & Wales number 03079542 at Ivy House Foundry,
> Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 3NR.  VAT registration number GB278923705.  Read our
> disclaimer at http://ic.uk/legal before acting on this e-mail.
>
>

-- 
*CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: *
This email is intended only for 
the person to whom it is addressed and/or otherwise authorized personnel. 
The information contained herein and attached is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please be advised that viewing this message and 
any attachments, as well as copying, forwarding, printing, and 
disseminating any information related to this email is prohibited, and that 
you should not take any action based on the content of this email and/or 
its attachments. If you received this message in error, please contact the 
sender and destroy all copies of this email and any attachment. Please note 
that the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. While antivirus 
protection tools have been employed, you should check this email and 
attachments for the presence of viruses. No warranties or assurances are 
made in relation to the safety and content of this email and attachments. 
The Company accepts no 

Re: [uknof] Three stops roaming - advice for new mobile provider

[Stephen Wilcox]

Further to the below..

- Smarty has a 60 day EU roaming limit fair use policy:
https://cdn.smarty.co.uk/files/SMARTY-Price-Guide.pdf
- Plusnet no longer accepts new customers but refers to EE - £31 for 125GB
with Roam Abroad Pass (EU+US). I can't find restrictions in their T but
uSwitch in 2021 said 60d/120d max roaming.

Which leaves:

- Lebara says this deep inside their T arguably £2/GB and I use around
4GB so I can expect £8 surcharge on top of a £10 for 15GB plan

*This scheme is designed for customers who primarily live in the UK and
ideal for short trips to other places in the EU. To safeguard against
abuse, If your roaming usage is greater than usage in the UK over any
continuous 120 day period, you will be subject to a surcharge of 0.20p/MB
(equivalent to £2/GB) for data, 0.04p/sec (equivalent to 2.4p/min) for
outgoing calls, 0.01p/sec (equivalent to 0.6p/min) for incoming calls and
0.8p for sending an SMS.*
Outside EU eg USA Lebara charge 50p/min and £15/MB, same for most ME/AP

- Gradwell - £15 for 10GB with EU (or £25 for 100GB but my needs are <5GB).
Outside EU eg USA charges are £1/min, £1/MB. Rising up to £5/min, £15/MB in
ME/AP.


So, a bit cheaper on Lebara but some concern on their restrictions,
Gradwell is more clear and only a £couple more, unless you go further
afield when it gets pricey, but of course we can always find Peter.. :-)


Steve

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 20:10, Stephen Wilcox 
wrote:

> Summarising replies so far including quite a few private ones..
> suggestions have been Lebara, Smarty, Gradwell, Twilio (virtual), AAISP
> (virtual), Plusnet, O2 and Voda..
>
> Aside from a good deal on the contract and roaming fees, the issue is in
> the detail, it seems some operators including Three implemented a "Fair Use
> Policy" over the last couple years which is where the catch lies - in
> Three's case you can't use the service in EU for 2 consecutive months else
> you get the breach and suspension notice I did. Out of date comparisons
> like uSwitch & Which suggests other major operators may have similar
> tripwires hidden deep in the policies linked to their terms and that's what
> I'm keen to avoid.
>
> uSwitch made this list in 2021:
> https://www.uswitch.com/mobiles/guides/best-network-for-international-roaming/
>
> .. operators with fair use policy eg max 2mo abroad of every 3-4mo: Three,
> Voda, O2 (note even tho Three is listed, it is only now in 2023 that they
> are giving me a notice)
>
> Not sure if that 2021 list is accurate, but if so for extended roaming on
> a real SIM, it leaves Lebara, Smarty, Gradwell, Plusnet.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 19:58, Keith Mitchell  wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/23 14:35, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>>
>> > I spend most of my time outside the UK and while I do have a local SIM,
>> > I need my UK number to be active as a bare minimum so I can access UK
>> > Gov, banking, basically anything with 2FA which is UK specific. Not to
>> > mention it's been my main contact number for over 20 years.
>> >
>> > Do any of you know what providers are offering good packages with a
>> > focus on not too crazy roaming charges which do not place a time period
>> > in the contract on which you can't stay outside the UK - information on
>> > uSwitch etc suggests most operators have offered a time limit stance
>> but
>> > the pages I found are 1-2 years old so thought I'd ask the collective.
>>
>> I have a UK Voda contract which includes charge-free roaming to EU, US
>> and most other useful countries. It is not exactly cheap, and there's
>> contradictory information about what the data cap is exactly, but I've
>> never had any issues with multi-month absences (longest 16mo during
>> Covid, usually 3-4months) from the UK threatening the contract. OTOH I
>> almost never turn on the data roaming while in the US, just voice and
>> text for banking etc 2FA.
>>
>> Voda do at least seem to have finally got their heads around VoLTE
>> roaming, which was initially a big mess to/from the US when the 3G
>> shutdowns kicked off.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Stephen Wilcox
BSO | IX Reach
E: step...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633 <+44%207966%20048633>
M: +1 305 613 9492 <(305)%20613-9492>

-- 
*CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: *
This email is intended only for 
the person to whom it is addressed and/or otherwise authorized personnel. 
The information contained herein and attached is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please be advised that viewing this message and 
any attachments, as well as copying, forwarding, printing, and 
disseminating any information related to this email is prohibited, and that 
you should 

Re: [uknof] Three stops roaming - advice for new mobile provider

[Stephen Wilcox]

Summarising replies so far including quite a few private ones.. suggestions
have been Lebara, Smarty, Gradwell, Twilio (virtual), AAISP (virtual),
Plusnet, O2 and Voda..

Aside from a good deal on the contract and roaming fees, the issue is in
the detail, it seems some operators including Three implemented a "Fair Use
Policy" over the last couple years which is where the catch lies - in
Three's case you can't use the service in EU for 2 consecutive months else
you get the breach and suspension notice I did. Out of date comparisons
like uSwitch & Which suggests other major operators may have similar
tripwires hidden deep in the policies linked to their terms and that's what
I'm keen to avoid.

uSwitch made this list in 2021:
https://www.uswitch.com/mobiles/guides/best-network-for-international-roaming/

.. operators with fair use policy eg max 2mo abroad of every 3-4mo: Three,
Voda, O2 (note even tho Three is listed, it is only now in 2023 that they
are giving me a notice)

Not sure if that 2021 list is accurate, but if so for extended roaming on a
real SIM, it leaves Lebara, Smarty, Gradwell, Plusnet.

Steve


On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 19:58, Keith Mitchell  wrote:

> On 3/29/23 14:35, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>
> > I spend most of my time outside the UK and while I do have a local SIM,
> > I need my UK number to be active as a bare minimum so I can access UK
> > Gov, banking, basically anything with 2FA which is UK specific. Not to
> > mention it's been my main contact number for over 20 years.
> >
> > Do any of you know what providers are offering good packages with a
> > focus on not too crazy roaming charges which do not place a time period
> > in the contract on which you can't stay outside the UK - information on
> > uSwitch etc suggests most operators have offered a time limit stance but
> > the pages I found are 1-2 years old so thought I'd ask the collective.
>
> I have a UK Voda contract which includes charge-free roaming to EU, US
> and most other useful countries. It is not exactly cheap, and there's
> contradictory information about what the data cap is exactly, but I've
> never had any issues with multi-month absences (longest 16mo during
> Covid, usually 3-4months) from the UK threatening the contract. OTOH I
> almost never turn on the data roaming while in the US, just voice and
> text for banking etc 2FA.
>
> Voda do at least seem to have finally got their heads around VoLTE
> roaming, which was initially a big mess to/from the US when the 3G
> shutdowns kicked off.
>
> Keith
>
>
>

-- 
*CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: *
This email is intended only for 
the person to whom it is addressed and/or otherwise authorized personnel. 
The information contained herein and attached is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please be advised that viewing this message and 
any attachments, as well as copying, forwarding, printing, and 
disseminating any information related to this email is prohibited, and that 
you should not take any action based on the content of this email and/or 
its attachments. If you received this message in error, please contact the 
sender and destroy all copies of this email and any attachment. Please note 
that the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. While antivirus 
protection tools have been employed, you should check this email and 
attachments for the presence of viruses. No warranties or assurances are 
made in relation to the safety and content of this email and attachments. 
The Company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by or contained in this email and attachments. No liability is 
accepted for any consequences arising from this email.


*AVIS DE 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET DE NON RESPONSABILITE* : 
Ce courriel, ainsi que toute 
pièce jointe, est confidentiel et peut être protégé par le secret 
professionnel. Si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire visé, veuillez en 
aviser l’expéditeur immédiatement et le supprimer. Vous ne devez pas le 
copier, ni l’utiliser à quelque fin que ce soit, ni divulguer son contenu à 
qui que ce soit. BSO se réserve le droit de contrôler toute transmission 
qui passe par son réseau. Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans 
cet e-mail sont uniquement celles de l'auteur et ne reflètent pas 
nécessairement celles de la société. Bien que des outils de protection 
antivirus aient été utilisés, vous devez vérifier cet e-mail et les pièces 
jointes pour toute présence de virus. Aucune garantie ou assurance n'est 
donnée concernant la sécurité et le contenu de cet e-mail et de ses pièces 
jointes. La Société décline toute responsabilité pour tout dommage causé 
par tout virus transmis par ou contenu dans cet e-mail et ses pièces 
jointes. Aucune responsabilité n'est acceptée pour les conséquences 
découlant de cet e-mail.

[uknof] Three stops roaming - advice for new mobile provider

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hey all,
 so, Three has finally caught up in the race to cap EU free roaming,
however their take is a bit aggressive - I got a text today that if I don't
return to the UK by 10/4 my number will be suspended while roaming.
Apparently this applies to all types of contracts they have and limits EU
roaming to a max of 2 consecutive months, after this your number gets
suspended. Curiously this doesn't apply if you're roaming outside the EU
and they don't offer some kind of add-on/alternative where this doesn't
apply. (I spoke to 4 different reps today, each had a different
understanding of the rules and each escalation brought a different response
altho it seems they've given me a one time temporary extension for now...
suggesting their implementation of this is a big mess).

I spend most of my time outside the UK and while I do have a local SIM, I
need my UK number to be active as a bare minimum so I can access UK Gov,
banking, basically anything with 2FA which is UK specific. Not to mention
it's been my main contact number for over 20 years.

Do any of you know what providers are offering good packages with a focus
on not too crazy roaming charges which do not place a time period in the
contract on which you can't stay outside the UK - information on uSwitch
etc suggests most operators have offered a time limit stance but the pages
I found are 1-2 years old so thought I'd ask the collective.

thanks for any tips..

Steve

-- 
*CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: *
This email is intended only for 
the person to whom it is addressed and/or otherwise authorized personnel. 
The information contained herein and attached is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please be advised that viewing this message and 
any attachments, as well as copying, forwarding, printing, and 
disseminating any information related to this email is prohibited, and that 
you should not take any action based on the content of this email and/or 
its attachments. If you received this message in error, please contact the 
sender and destroy all copies of this email and any attachment. Please note 
that the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. While antivirus 
protection tools have been employed, you should check this email and 
attachments for the presence of viruses. No warranties or assurances are 
made in relation to the safety and content of this email and attachments. 
The Company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by or contained in this email and attachments. No liability is 
accepted for any consequences arising from this email.


*AVIS DE 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET DE NON RESPONSABILITE* : 
Ce courriel, ainsi que toute 
pièce jointe, est confidentiel et peut être protégé par le secret 
professionnel. Si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire visé, veuillez en 
aviser l’expéditeur immédiatement et le supprimer. Vous ne devez pas le 
copier, ni l’utiliser à quelque fin que ce soit, ni divulguer son contenu à 
qui que ce soit. BSO se réserve le droit de contrôler toute transmission 
qui passe par son réseau. Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans 
cet e-mail sont uniquement celles de l'auteur et ne reflètent pas 
nécessairement celles de la société. Bien que des outils de protection 
antivirus aient été utilisés, vous devez vérifier cet e-mail et les pièces 
jointes pour toute présence de virus. Aucune garantie ou assurance n'est 
donnée concernant la sécurité et le contenu de cet e-mail et de ses pièces 
jointes. La Société décline toute responsabilité pour tout dommage causé 
par tout virus transmis par ou contenu dans cet e-mail et ses pièces 
jointes. Aucune responsabilité n'est acceptée pour les conséquences 
découlant de cet e-mail.

Re: [uknof] Typical last mile battery runtime (protecting against power cuts)

[Stephen Wilcox]

I can give an anecdotal reply, since I've never ran those types of
facilities myself..

My understanding is that in general the main exchanges (the ones in cities,
formerly tandem exchanges and /possibly/ the equivalent by cable) would
have generator backup as they are run as high availability data centres,
meaning they drop to battery for a minute then generators kick in for as
long as they are fed fuel... in theory indefinitely unless there is severe
emergency in the area.

In the more rural locations I've not heard of generators being used and
think they are UPS driven, so from minutes upwards but not stretching into
hours.

I would assume street cabinets either have no backup power or some basic
batteries at best - at least the ones I've seen inside don't appear to have
anything of note aside the telco gear.

Someone with first hand knowledge would be better placed to answer, but in
the absence of that, the above is my experience from, well, quite some time
ago but I don't see why it would have changed..

HTH
Steve



On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 15:44, Brandon Butterworth  wrote:

> On Fri Feb 03, 2023 at 03:16:28PM -0800, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> > > Question is, how much battery runtime can I typically expect from ISPs'
> > > last mile infra. I was hoping some of you here might help estimate from
> > > own experience.
> >
> > Ofcom ran a consultation on this in 2011. They suggested a minimum of
> > one hour battery backup. My reading is that that is what they went
> > with but the Ofcom site doesn't make that sparklingly clear, so I
> > could be wrong. I'm also not sure if whatever obligation they came up
> > with in 2011 has been updated.
>
> Survey says 1 hour? It is academic what people think when there is an
> actual plan for  rolling 3 hour outages several times per day
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-supply-emergency-code
>
> So not only do you need to plan for the down time you need to consider the
> recovery time of your system. Lead based systems will take many times
> the run time to recharge and may not be ready for the next outage. Thus
> LiFePo4 batteries are the way to go, we can recharge at more than our
> discharge rate.
>
> Without rolling blackouts we have already had this problem with normal
> rural
> supply. We had many multi hour outages and concluded we need 6 to 8 hours
> capacity if we wish to operate through them. That also allows time to find
> the nature of the fault, the likely resolution time and for someone to take
> a generator to site (perhaps multiple sites) if needed.
>
> Due to the reach of fibre and FWA it is normal for our power to go down
> while some customers are on a feed that is up, so it is not pointless
> keeping our sites running.
>
> We sent this note to our customers
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/zvleyj0epqzne5y/20221103_winter_power.pdf?dl=0
> so they can choose based on their needs rather than part fixing the
> problem for them, having just internet may not be sufficient for many.
>
> It is a bit late to be worrying about rolling blackouts this winter as the
> threat has reduced and by the time a solution is deployed at scale it will
> be spring or summer.
>
> brandon
>
>
>

-- 
Stephen Wilcox
BSO | IX Reach
E: step...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633 <+44%207966%20048633>
M: +1 305 613 9492 <(305)%20613-9492>

-- 
*CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: *
This email is intended only for 
the person to whom it is addressed and/or otherwise authorized personnel. 
The information contained herein and attached is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please be advised that viewing this message and 
any attachments, as well as copying, forwarding, printing, and 
disseminating any information related to this email is prohibited, and that 
you should not take any action based on the content of this email and/or 
its attachments. If you received this message in error, please contact the 
sender and destroy all copies of this email and any attachment. Please note 
that the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. While antivirus 
protection tools have been employed, you should check this email and 
attachments for the presence of viruses. No warranties or assurances are 
made in relation to the safety and content of this email and attachments. 
The Company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by or contained in this email and attachments. No liability is 
accepted for any consequences arising from this email.


*AVIS DE 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET DE NON RESPONSABILITE* : 
Ce courriel, ainsi que toute 
pièce jointe, est confidentiel et peut être protégé par le secret 
professionnel. Si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire visé, veuillez en 
aviser 

Re: [uknof] LINX SLA

[Stephen Wilcox]

Given there is no contracted scheme to provide credits or damages as a
compensation for failure to meet an SLA, and that uptime depends not only
on an IXs switching infrastructure but also the availability and capacity
of all connected networks, and in LINX's case that it's a membership
company, the question is what is the point to have an SLA if it provides
nothing contractually and has no teeth if it doesn't meet any SLA?

To my knowledge, it's similar to bilateral private peering, where both
parties provide no guarantees since there is no strong vendor-client
contract and fees with which to offer compensation from.

Steve

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022, 10:38 Paul Webb, 
wrote:

> Does anyone know if there is a published availability SLA for LINX LON1 or
> LON2?
>
>
>
> A customer is asking and we can find many works about “Service Level” on
> the LINX site but no numbers?
> Disclaimer: Views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and
> do not necessarily represent those of Clearstream Technology Ltd or
> Clearstream Technology Group Ltd (Clearstream). Confidentiality: This email
> and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of
> the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you have received this email in error and any use,
> dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the
> sender. Security: This e-mail has been created in the knowledge that
> Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that
> you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us.
> Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any
> virus or other defects which might affect any computer or IT system into
> which they are received, no responsibility is accepted by Clearstream or
> any of its associated companies for any loss or damage arising in any way
> from the receipt or use thereof.
>

-- 
*CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: *
This email is intended only for 
the person to whom it is addressed and/or otherwise authorized personnel. 
The information contained herein and attached is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please be advised that viewing this message and 
any attachments, as well as copying, forwarding, printing, and 
disseminating any information related to this email is prohibited, and that 
you should not take any action based on the content of this email and/or 
its attachments. If you received this message in error, please contact the 
sender and destroy all copies of this email and any attachment. Please note 
that the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. While antivirus 
protection tools have been employed, you should check this email and 
attachments for the presence of viruses. No warranties or assurances are 
made in relation to the safety and content of this email and attachments. 
The Company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by or contained in this email and attachments. No liability is 
accepted for any consequences arising from this email.


*AVIS DE 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET DE NON RESPONSABILITE* : 
Ce courriel, ainsi que toute 
pièce jointe, est confidentiel et peut être protégé par le secret 
professionnel. Si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire visé, veuillez en 
aviser l’expéditeur immédiatement et le supprimer. Vous ne devez pas le 
copier, ni l’utiliser à quelque fin que ce soit, ni divulguer son contenu à 
qui que ce soit. BSO se réserve le droit de contrôler toute transmission 
qui passe par son réseau. Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans 
cet e-mail sont uniquement celles de l'auteur et ne reflètent pas 
nécessairement celles de la société. Bien que des outils de protection 
antivirus aient été utilisés, vous devez vérifier cet e-mail et les pièces 
jointes pour toute présence de virus. Aucune garantie ou assurance n'est 
donnée concernant la sécurité et le contenu de cet e-mail et de ses pièces 
jointes. La Société décline toute responsabilité pour tout dommage causé 
par tout virus transmis par ou contenu dans cet e-mail et ses pièces 
jointes. Aucune responsabilité n'est acceptée pour les conséquences 
découlant de cet e-mail.

Re: [uknof] Thoughts on IETF "Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8"?

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 11:17, Benny Lyne Amorsen 
wrote:

> lør, 20 11 2021 kl. 08:31 -0800, skrev Leo Vegoda:
>
> > Yes, but there's a distinct difference between not rushing to remove
> > RFC 1918 address space from most home and office networks and putting
> > lots of effort into trying to make some other, previously reserved,
> > IPv4 space reliable enough that it can be uniquely registered to
> > various network operators.
>
> So far, similar efforts have made it possible to use 1.x and 192.not-
> 168.x and lots of other networks that were considered too "dirty" to
> use reliably.
>

Not really similar - using reserved space and just releasing it is very
different from taking space that has since inception been for a technical
different use. Taking non-unicast space such as 240.x or special use space
such as 127.x or 0.x and expecting every device on the planet to receive an
IP stack upgrade to ensure it will work is even less realistic than asking
the same users to ensure v6 is installed and running.

Steve



>
> Current pricing of IPv4 is above $40USD per address, so freeing another
> /8 has a value of hundreds of millions of USD.
>
> It is great to take the approach of "just use IPv6", when I bet that
> every one of us on this list have at least one IPv4 address per
> connection. A onetime cost of $40 is not scary for us, and address
> scarcity is good for the value of the IP space owned by the ISPs and
> other organizations that are our employers.
>
>
> /Benny
>
>
>

-- 
*CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: *
This email is intended only for 
the person to whom it is addressed and/or otherwise authorized personnel. 
The information contained herein and attached is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please be advised that viewing this message and 
any attachments, as well as copying, forwarding, printing, and 
disseminating any information related to this email is prohibited, and that 
you should not take any action based on the content of this email and/or 
its attachments. If you received this message in error, please contact the 
sender and destroy all copies of this email and any attachment. Please note 
that the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. While antivirus 
protection tools have been employed, you should check this email and 
attachments for the presence of viruses. No warranties or assurances are 
made in relation to the safety and content of this email and attachments. 
The Company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by or contained in this email and attachments. No liability is 
accepted for any consequences arising from this email.


*AVIS DE 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET DE NON RESPONSABILITE* : 
Ce courriel, ainsi que toute 
pièce jointe, est confidentiel et peut être protégé par le secret 
professionnel. Si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire visé, veuillez en 
aviser l’expéditeur immédiatement et le supprimer. Vous ne devez pas le 
copier, ni l’utiliser à quelque fin que ce soit, ni divulguer son contenu à 
qui que ce soit. BSO se réserve le droit de contrôler toute transmission 
qui passe par son réseau. Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans 
cet e-mail sont uniquement celles de l'auteur et ne reflètent pas 
nécessairement celles de la société. Bien que des outils de protection 
antivirus aient été utilisés, vous devez vérifier cet e-mail et les pièces 
jointes pour toute présence de virus. Aucune garantie ou assurance n'est 
donnée concernant la sécurité et le contenu de cet e-mail et de ses pièces 
jointes. La Société décline toute responsabilité pour tout dommage causé 
par tout virus transmis par ou contenu dans cet e-mail et ses pièces 
jointes. Aucune responsabilité n'est acceptée pour les conséquences 
découlant de cet e-mail.

Re: [uknof] current law on Dubai and VPNs, VOIP etc

[Stephen Wilcox]

Considering the prevalence of SDWAN in the region these days, I'd say
you're fine to setup whatever you need..

Probably they'll amend the law at some point to catch up with the reality
and technology..

Steve


On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, 18:49 Giles Coochey,  wrote:

>
> On 14/09/2021 11:29, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> > Hi,
> > has anyone any (recent-ish) experience of setting up an office in
> > Dubai? In particular on state legislation on network usage, VPNs, VOIP
> > etc. Some years ago there was a big flurry of news about it being
> > illegal to use VPNs, but that might have really been about avoidance
> > paying for government owned telecomms services.
> >
> > $JOB is setting up a remote office there and of course it's expensive.
> > But we need to consider the legal issues of things like inter-site
> > VPNs within Dubai and to other countries, and the law about VOIP (for
> > internal calls to other offices, and even whether things like Zoom or
> > Teams fall afoul).
> >
> > any thoughts appreciated
> >
> > thanks
> > Paul
>
>
> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3650a670-b1b4-46c4-8b7c-170810cf53eb
>
> I would consider that if you implement a VPN to Dubai, that you consider
> implementing split-tunnelling. So that only "internal corporate traffic"
> (legal) goes over the VPN, while Internet traffic goes via the normal
> UAE based Internet Service Provider, which if it was to go over the VPN
> would be potentially illegal, allowing their security services to
> monitor for "misuse".
>
> --
> Giles Coochey
>
>
>

-- 
*CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: *
This email is intended only for 
the person to whom it is addressed and/or otherwise authorized personnel. 
The information contained herein and attached is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please be advised that viewing this message and 
any attachments, as well as copying, forwarding, printing, and 
disseminating any information related to this email is prohibited, and that 
you should not take any action based on the content of this email and/or 
its attachments. If you received this message in error, please contact the 
sender and destroy all copies of this email and any attachment. Please note 
that the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. While antivirus 
protection tools have been employed, you should check this email and 
attachments for the presence of viruses. No warranties or assurances are 
made in relation to the safety and content of this email and attachments. 
The Company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by or contained in this email and attachments. No liability is 
accepted for any consequences arising from this email.


*AVIS DE 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET DE NON RESPONSABILITE* : 
Ce courriel, ainsi que toute 
pièce jointe, est confidentiel et peut être protégé par le secret 
professionnel. Si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire visé, veuillez en 
aviser l’expéditeur immédiatement et le supprimer. Vous ne devez pas le 
copier, ni l’utiliser à quelque fin que ce soit, ni divulguer son contenu à 
qui que ce soit. BSO se réserve le droit de contrôler toute transmission 
qui passe par son réseau. Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans 
cet e-mail sont uniquement celles de l'auteur et ne reflètent pas 
nécessairement celles de la société. Bien que des outils de protection 
antivirus aient été utilisés, vous devez vérifier cet e-mail et les pièces 
jointes pour toute présence de virus. Aucune garantie ou assurance n'est 
donnée concernant la sécurité et le contenu de cet e-mail et de ses pièces 
jointes. La Société décline toute responsabilité pour tout dommage causé 
par tout virus transmis par ou contenu dans cet e-mail et ses pièces 
jointes. Aucune responsabilité n'est acceptée pour les conséquences 
découlant de cet e-mail.

Re: [uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 17:38, Kurtis Lindqvist  wrote:

>
>
> > On 11 Dec 2020, at 16:02, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Wilcox wrote on 11/12/2020 14:22:
> >> There's no reason there should be - the UK terminates* cables from the
> US and nominally Africa already which are not part of the EU or dependent
> upon any UK EU law.
> >
> > At the moment this is true - most of the US-EU wet plant built in the
> 1998-2003 time-frame terminated in the UK, but when Grace Hopper is
> completed in 2022, it will only be the second americas-europe build with a
> direct span to the UK in nearly 20 years.
>
> Not sure I would agree with this. TAT-14 lands in Denmark Netherlands and
> France as well as the UK. When I used to work for a carrier we didn’t route
> European traffic via the UK. The same is true for AC-1. Both of these where
> the state of the art systems during the dotcom era.
>
> There IS a lot of traffic exchanged in the UK and some does pass through
> for all kind of reasons but real word traffic paths are more complicated
> than this, but yes with more wet capacity not even touching the UK then
> there will be more direct paths. I am just not sure how much “visible”
> traffic is really leaving the UK.
>

All true, but you need to look at why these were built this way and who
financed them and for which customers
- in the TAT era, before modern DWDM, capacity is running out, the Internet
is growing exponentially, it was about connecting as many population
centres together and sharing cost mostly with formerly incumbent telcos and
capacity itself was the premium..
- skip to the Hibernia era and you have finance driving it, their last
cable was entirely financed from financial traffic
- now you see a lot of big tech, looking to connect their huge DCs with
capex rather than opex, Dunant being one example

Coming back to the original thread, cables can easily be landed in IE, UK,
FR, even PT, follow the money if you want to predict the future - hint: all
the big tech DCs are in Europe not UK, and growth areas (by %) are perhaps
Africa, parts of Asia, but there may be other drivers coming up, but there
needs to be a reason - altho the existing cables are old, there's a lot of
them and upgrades are ongoing, only phasing out old cables when their cost
exceeds what the capacity can be sold for.

Unless there is a driver for tech in the UK, and that the UK is more
compelling than say IE, NL, DE, the doubts expressed before will bear out,
there needs to be investment, global or regional HQs, reasons for workers
to come, ease of them coming, and reasons for infrastructure to be built
and a regulatory and border framework friendly to that... and I don't see
that in the news, I see fisheries, agriculture, manufacturing of goods. I
remain skeptical.

Steve

Re: [uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 16:15, Paul Mansfield 
wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 12:22, Will Hargrave  wrote:
> >
> > A reminder as much for myself as anyone else:
> > https://wiki.uknof.org.uk/Charter
> > “UKNOF's remit is technical, and any discussion or activities
> > involving commercial, legal or political issues should be limited to
> > where they have a direct impact on technical aspects of network
> > operations.”
>
> that's a good reminder. I wasn't seeking comments on the political
> things, or asking for commercial discussions, I was only aiming to see
> what technical issues people had encountered which indirectly might be
> driven by regulatory or political issues.
> .. such as having to reroute traffic or reestablish peering
> arrangements because of the EU/non-EU traversal. A bit vague, sorry.
>

There's no reason there should be - the UK terminates* cables from the US
and nominally Africa already which are not part of the EU or dependent upon
any UK EU law. Most services that you buy are done with a local office (so
their problem how they deal with their foreign parent company), and when
they're not there's no difference - you can contract with a NY company for
services in the UK (technically they as supplier need to be tax compliant).

*physical telecoms on public land has its own regulations but you will find
underneath it a UK company with UK permits.

Steve

Re: [uknof] UK interconnects and Brexit

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 14:20, Will Hargrave  wrote:

>
> In terms of our community, I deal with a lot of industry colleagues here
> in the UK who are of non-British origin and I wonder if we will see
> skills shortages in network engineering as they seek their fortunes
> elsewhere.
>

There is already a skills shortage, has been for a long time..
- manufacturers are US, Chinese, French
- international infrastructure is mostly owned by state/dominant old telcos
notably Asian and the old guard in EU and US
- big tech is mostly US and Chinese
- big tech has long used IE or NL to recruit from the UK as a stepping
stone to visas abroad

Those at the top of the field in the UK (like you Will), learned when the
UK was still innovating, when we were a player in the development of the
Internet, both in terms of domestic infrastructure (LINX, LoNAP), and with
BT or C back when they were leaders.

But nowadays, training is Cisco or Juniper courses, field work is corporate
scale not core global backbone, and even the best struggle when presented
with infrastructure that is of the highest scale or with problems that
can't be found in a text book or Google.

Sadly this is not the beginning of the demise but it likely will be a
catalyst for further decline. Some investment, government programs into
training, R, research, key worker visa program might help I guess.


The Internet is not just built at the edict of a regulator or from an
> ephemeral bundle of contracts; at some point someone is going to have to
> go and plug in some fibres. Us.
>

True, but Equinix will do that for you for £100, so by itself that's not a
skilled job. And unless research and decision making of global projects or
research can be led here, how will you attract people or investment inward?

Steve

Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm

[Stephen Wilcox]

Someone asked earlier about details of bgp issues. I was on a VM connection
during the issue from Staffordshire, traceroute to various big sites
stopped at a node prefixed mil. Guessing maybe Milton Keynes rather than
Milan due to the RTT.

That doesn't sound like a Telford fibre break or an access issue. If they
pick up UPC in London that could be the last hop, so it could be a failure
between VM national and UPC upstream.

Last time I saw a backbone diagram for VM was about 10 years ago, but I
remember commenting to them, "and this actually works?", It was a crazy
hotchpotch of regional networks hanging together on string, NYNEX and
telewest were alive and well internally. It would not surprise me if the
skeleton still looks the same even if labels and ASNs have since changed.
So yeah, maybe the wet string needed more water..


On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, 15:21 Neil J. McRae,  wrote:

> Jeez, that article reminds me of Good Morning Vietnam (but not so funny).
>
>
>
> [DISK JOCKEY] “What's the weather like?”
> [SOLDIER] “You got a window.”
>
>
>
> Honestly don’t bother with it.
>
>
>
> *From: *Matthew Mercer 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 11:44
> *To: *Neil McRae , Alan Ramsay 
> *Cc: *uknof , Paul Mansfield <
> paul+uk...@mansfield.co.uk>
> *Subject: *Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm
>
>
>
> Just to add to this. The wider issue we all experienced is looking to be
> peering / bgp as the problem (As we suspected)
>
>
> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/04/intermittent-internet-connectivity-woes-strike-virgin-media-uk.html
>
> "Data provided to us by ThousandEyes has helped to track and trace the
> outage, or at least most of the related disruption, back to Liberty
> Global’s related UPC Broadband network (AS6830). You can see this a bit
> better with the visualisation below."
>
> (Have a look at the article)
>
> "The AS6830 network operates a lot of key peering arrangements with
> Content Delivery Networks (CDN), as well as other major UK and
> international networks (e.g. Akamai, Level 3, Telia, Cogent and about a
> thousand more like them). The visualisation shows that connectivity was
> disrupted to a number of those significant destinations.
>
>
>
> We now have a better understanding of where the issue occurred and why
> there were so many outages, although I’ll reserve writing about the detail
> of this until I can get some concrete confirmation on the problem itself."
>
> Anyone got any further information?
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Matthew Mercer
> --
>
> *From:* uknof  on behalf of Neil J.
> McRae 
> *Sent:* 29 April 2020 11:35
> *To:* Alan Ramsay 
> *Cc:* uknof ; Paul Mansfield <
> paul+uk...@mansfield.co.uk>
> *Subject:* Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm
>
>
>
> Alan,
>
> Not sure what organisation you are from, but are you share details on that
> BT outage? There should not be a situation where we lose FTTC/G.FAST/ADSL
> all at the same time from a single fibre break. If that happened something
> else went wrong and I’d want to take a look at it.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil.
>
>
>
> *From: *Alan Ramsay 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 11:29
> *To: *Neil McRae 
> *Cc: *Paul Mansfield , uknof <
> uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>
> *Subject: *Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm
>
>
>
> The updates that we had regarding this was:
>
>
>
> *-The ducting has now been repaired*
> *-The 800m of 160 is currently in the process of being pulled in.*
> *-The new cable has now been pulled in and prep work has *began*.*
> *-The ETR has now been revised to be between 01:00 - 02:00.*
>
> I'm assuming that this was 800m of a 160 core fibre.
>
>
>
> It is a little worrying how susceptible Telford is to this, and how poorly
> connected things are around here on both BT and Virgin sides.
>
>
>
> So in the last 3 weeks, we've had an extended outage on all FTTC / ADSL /
> G.Fast based broadband service due to a single fibre break on the BT(O)
> side; and now a single fibre break has taken out all VM services into the
> same area.
>
>
>
> You would have thought that the infrastructure would have been in place to
> be more resilient than that!
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:16, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
>
> Read the part about a fibre break…
>
>
>
> *From: *uknof  on behalf of Paul
> Mansfield 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 10:38
> *To: *Alan Ramsay , uknof <
> uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>
> *Subject: *Re: [uknof] VM Network 27/04 since 5pm
>
>
>
>
>
> just speculating wildly, was this a result of IPv6 deployment going wrong?
>
>

Re: [uknof] [Marketing Prev Staff] Re: Fwd: [IP] COVID-19 Internet Usage Update (US)

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 14:29, Keith Mitchell  wrote:

> On 4/20/20 4:22 AM, Chris Russell wrote:
>
> > requiring a level of explicitness (mandating not asking, killing the
> > 5G myths dead immediately when first raised) when given the
> > opportunity to do so (daily briefings).
>
> > What we can do is consistently try to put those to bed whenever we
> > see them, which I believe we’ve all been doing both as individuals
> > and collectively publicly and I’m very sure not so publicly.
>
> This was fairly widely posted already, but in case you missed it, some
> actual measurement-based evidence from Ofcom on this topic:
>
>
> https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/features-and-news/clearing-up-myths-5g-and-coronavirus
>
> ..along with (pivoting back on-topic :) a general exhortation to all
> operators to gather data and /measure/ and /share/ things during this
> period - even if it does not give direct operational benefits today,
> future researchers will thank you.
>

A good start but, IMHO this Ofcom document doesn't address the "issues"
raised in conspiracy theories, if anyone is guiding Ofcom I would suggest
they review the conspiracy material and work through the points. In
particular prior use of this spectrum without problems, reuse of TV
spectrum, some reference to the power levels, lack of non ionising
radiation and what kind of radiation might be harmful for comparison, radio
waves vs virus particles - how one can't carry or promote the other,
locations of 5G masts globally vs locations of virus hotspots without
5G.

I think they also need to do TV or Youtube ads.. when masts are burned and
people harassed this is no longer a fringe element..

Steve


> Keith
>
>

Re: [uknof] [IP] COVID-19 Internet Usage Update (US)

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 11:05, Will Hargrave  wrote:

> On 18 Apr 2020, at 16:05, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> > What needs study is how this totally unacceptable madness has
> > happened.
> >
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-5g-conspiracy-theory-news-latest-bt-openreach-ee-engineers-attack-abuse-a9468031.html
>
> Unfortunately, it’s no surprise that these sorts of bedroom-dweller
> conspiracy theories have accelerated when we are paying somewhere
> between three and ten million people to stay at home and do nothing!
>

I am being forwarded these conspiracy videos by people who are hard
working, intelligent people, but entirely not in the science or tech
sectors. I think there is an issue with momentum - when enough people are
talking about something, curiousity and an assumption that multiple people
can't be wrong comes into play.

I've been watching a lot of news lately, it's incredibly wishy washy when
it comes to dispelling myths (they think not giving them air time makes
them go away - not effective once the cat is out of the bag), we are also
entirely lacking a government information program for what is clearly a
very serious and dangerous thing that is occuring.

Steve

Re: [uknof] Fwd: [IP] COVID-19 Internet Usage Update (US)

[Stephen Wilcox]

Time to need a license to use the internet the same way you need one to
drive a car it seems...

One problem is lack of regulation on propagating as news what is actually
opinion or speculation or just click bait story telling... I've never been
a fan of things that look like censorship but when things become dangerous
and the average person can't tell fact from fiction it seems we're the
wrong side of the line

Steve

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 17:13, Catalin Dominte  wrote:

> Yeah, explain to them idiots out there that 70Ghz is not the same as X-Ray
> or Gamma Rays… Absolutely ridiculous! How did that even gain momentum to
> the point of burning down masts and abusing engineers like that?
>
>
>
> I really feel for them engineers on this one!
>
>
>
> --
>
> Catalin
>
>
>
> *From: *uknof  on behalf of "Neil J.
> McRae" 
> *Date: *Saturday, 18 April 2020 at 16:06
> *To: *"uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
> *Subject: *Re: [uknof] Fwd: [IP] COVID-19 Internet Usage Update (US)
>
>
>
> What needs study is how this totally unacceptable madness has happened.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-5g-conspiracy-theory-news-latest-bt-openreach-ee-engineers-attack-abuse-a9468031.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On 17 Apr 2020, at 15:25, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Agree with Steve on spam, and I can’t believe  the number of asshat
> companies that think using covid19  to sell their snakeoil is going to be
> any more effective than the last stupid idea they had.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Spam is up, lots of unsolicited direct messages.. in particular a Claire
> Durber of Stratus keeps emailing our staff addresses selling leased lines
> etc, and ignores responses to cease...
>
>
>
> We're seeing up to 50% increase in the last month on backbone circuits,
> this is mostly private capacity but also ixp and cloud direct connect. It
> seems to be continuing to increase rather than a one time shift too.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
> Mark.
>
>

Re: [uknof] Fwd: [IP] COVID-19 Internet Usage Update (US)

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, 14:35 Mark Tinka,  wrote:

>
>
> On 17/Apr/20 14:51, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> Yes I’ve been updating network stats for BT on my twitter page almost
> daily although less so now as there isn’t a lot to say!
>
>
>
> It’s mostly a non-event though. Our record for traffic is still last year.
> We will do a full presentation on this but it’s basically people connected,
> network worked.
>
>
>
> Fixed network daytime usage much wider peak stays the same at around
> 15Tb/sec, NHS claps causes at 15% reduction, mobile traffic down 15%.
>
>
> What I'm still most curious about is whether there has been an appreciable
> decline in VoD streaming traffic for those providers who've had to clamp
> down on resolution.
>

Spam is up, lots of unsolicited direct messages.. in particular a Claire
Durber of Stratus keeps emailing our staff addresses selling leased lines
etc, and ignores responses to cease...

We're seeing up to 50% increase in the last month on backbone circuits,
this is mostly private capacity but also ixp and cloud direct connect. It
seems to be continuing to increase rather than a one time shift too.

Steve

>
> Mark.
>

Re: [uknof] why aren't we giving /31 to customers

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 00:46, Leo Vegoda  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:20 AM William Hilsum 
> wrote:
> >
> > Some do this... but, RFC3021 is just a RFC - please correct me if I'm
> wrong, but, I don't think it is in any official specification.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by that. It is a Standards Track document
> with a status of Proposed Standard.
>
> The IETF rarely gets the tuits to move stuff from Proposed Standard to
> Standard but that doesn't mean protocols documented in them aren't
> de-facto standard. That said, there's requirement to implement RFC
> 3021, as far as I'm aware. It's your network, so feel free to use /30s
> if that makes things better for you and your customers.
>

And, unless I'm mistaken, the entire Internet protocol stack is
standardised only via the RFCs, so if it's not The Standard then nothing
is.

Re: [uknof] why aren't we giving /31 to customers

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 19:39, Tom Bird  wrote:

> On 20/02/2020 12:07, Richard Halfpenny wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On what connectivity (colo/fibre/etc)?
>
> Just on ethernet terminated circuits to customer premises (not PPPoE).
>
> I think for colo people still expect a /29 or so but for access it feels
> wrong to be wasting those precious $20 IP addresses if we don't need to,
> and I think we should be fine with /31 (and ipv6 of course) but just
> wanted to float the idea in case I was missing anything.
>
>
Is it that time of the year again already? I was just about to mention all
the unused Class E space too. :)

The answer is do what your policy thinks is best. If you want to do it,
then do it, and deal with the noted adoption and compatibility issues
(which are reasonably minor). On the other hand, if your existence depends
on a few "$20 IP addresses" and you don't have any and aren't willing to
source some, then converting your /30s to /31s will be a whole bunch of
fun, but you'd have a better use of time getting those couple hosting
customers to hand back a /25 or /26 that you were a bit generous with 10
years ago, but you're likely just stalling for runout of your
allocation ie its not worth the effort for what you gain.

Steve


>

Re: [uknof] Rats eating fibres in ducts

[Stephen Wilcox]

Where is the ducting, where are the rats going to and from.. this will help
determine how to avoid the duct being a hallway for them.. you can keep
changing cable or blocking the duct but ultimately, why do they want to use
this particular tube?

Steve

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 19:49 David Round,  wrote:

> Until recently we had never had an issue with rats damaging our fibres in
> our many underground ducts. Over the last few years we have been installing
> CST armoured fibres because other people have had problems with rodents and
> also we judged that CST would probably be enough to stop new cables sawing
> through existing ones when they were drawn in – a problem we have had. Just
> recently we have had two cases of rat damage with a number of fibres being
> cut. These were older, unarmoured duct grade cables. Our two pronged plan
> was to pull in replacement CST armoured cables and try and control the
> rats. When talking to the rodent control chap though, I got a bit of a
> surprise. He said that the rats would prefer to gnaw on the armoured cable
> and would easily cut through the CST armour. Does anyone have any
> real-world experience of this? Should we be installing SWA armoured? Are
> there any other actions we should be considering? The rodent control chap
> suggested sealing up the ends of the ducts in each chamber, not to stop the
> rats, but to allow us to track them so that we can find where they are
> getting in to the network.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for any advice.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *Mae croeso i chi gysylltu gyda'r Brifysgol yn Gymraeg neu Saesneg*
>
> *You are welcome to contact the University in Welsh or English*
>
> *Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565*
>
> Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys
> deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y
> cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon
> trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges. Os
> na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio, cadw
> neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu
> safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn
> cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod
> y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn
> ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr
> e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae
> rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor.
>
> This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is
> solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this
> email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email.
> If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or
> disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are
> solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor
> University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any
> attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated
> in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a
> binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the
> Bangor University Finance Office.
>

Re: [uknof] Fibre internet - was Re: Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 18:31, Paul Mansfield 
wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 16:41, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
> >
> > Where do you live Paul?
>
> I gave Neil my address, fortunately he didn't "send the boys round" to
> shut me up, unfortunately he didn't send the boys round to install
> fibre!!
>

Can you prove you are the same Paul who sent the earlier email? :-o

Re: [uknof] 1Gbps CPE

[Stephen Wilcox]

I use Ubiquiti Edge Routers for my home routing as well as for dev work I
did before.. $50 gets you a gigabit router thats Juniper-like for CLI and
also has a nice UI. Supports BGP, OSPF, NAT, IPSEC etc ... doesn't do MPLS
or have other interface types tho.



On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 14:30, Dan Kitchen  wrote:

> +1 for SRX, we have been a Juniper house in the core and CPE since I can
> remember and it’s excellent stuff.
>
> 1Gbps + MPLS support for £250 can’t be beaten.
>
> They just need to bring back a model with integrated VDSL.
>
>
> Dan Kitchen
> CEO
> razorblue | IT Solutions for Business
>
> ddi: 0330 122 7143 | t: 0333 344 6 344 <0446344> | w: razorblue.com
> 
> On 1 Jul 2019, at 11:19, Chris Russell  wrote:
>
> WARNING: This e-mail originated from outside the Razorblue Group corporate
> network
>
>
>  Marek is the man to advise on Mikrotik ... am hearing they are getting
> better at the security vulns side however =o)
>
>  ++ for the Juniper SRX, only had exposure to these recently and really
> impressed... I've thrown some unusual things at them and they've managed to
> eat up all my random uses cases with ease  ... and I was a total Cisco bod.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:58 AM Leigh Harrison <
> leigh.harri...@gs-net.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Morning folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> We’re looking for a low(ish) cost 1Gbps CPE.  We’d normally go with a
>> Cisco device, but they’re priced too high for 1Gbps throughput.  A Juniper
>> SRX could cost in, but what other reliable options are there for us?
>> Mikrotik?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best, Leigh
>>
>

Re: [uknof] Notice of Claimed Infringement from A.B.C.D at 2019-06-05T06:41:07Z - Ref

[Stephen Wilcox]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 17:25, Andy Smith  wrote:

>
> However, one day they sent one that implicated one of our
> infrastructure hosts and I could not see any way in which that could
> be torrenting, so I asked for more information. Every form of
> contact I made resulted in an auto response suggesting that if I am
> confused I should ask my network admin about it.
>

So you're saying people who work at infrastructure companies - ISPs, DCs
etc, they don't do torrents and the like, and they would not do so with
on-premise equipment.

What good netizens you are!

Steve

Re: [uknof] THN to THW cost effective ILK alternative for TTB NNI

[Stephen Wilcox]

We (IX Reach) also provide metro services (ethernet or waves) between most
London DCs including the Telehouse campus price is always negotiable to
try to make a business case work!

Telehouse is £3500/year compared to £500/year for a same building XC, tho
you need one for each end so its potentially £2500/yr .. only ~£200/mo on
the table for the network service. Tho you can also potentially aggregate a
few things into a single port to get more value..

HTH
Steve



On 28 June 2018 at 14:58, Edward Dore <
edward.d...@freethought-internet.co.uk> wrote:

> Going back through the email chain with Telehouse and looking at the PDFs
> they sent, it looks like this should have been £1400 install £3500/year,
> but was discounted to £500 install and £1080/year for some reason (they
> only gave the discounted price in the body of the email, hence I missed the
> original price).
>
>
>
> Edward Dore
>
> Freethought Internet
>
>
>
> *From: *Edward Dore 
> *Date: *Thursday, 28 June 2018 at 14:49
> *To: *Matthew Skipsey | M12 Solutions ,
> "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
> *Subject: *Re: [uknof] THN to THW cost effective ILK alternative for TTB
> NNI
>
>
>
> Hi Matt,
>
>
>
> I’ve just double checked and the ILK pricing that I had from Telehouse in
> January was £500 install and £1080/year for a single mode pair. I’m not
> sure if that was some kind of offer.
>
>
>
> Edward Dore
>
> Freethought Internet
>
>
>
> *From: *Matthew Skipsey | M12 Solutions  co.uk>
> *Date: *Thursday, 28 June 2018 at 14:13
> *To: *Edward Dore , "
> uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
> *Subject: *Re: [uknof] THN to THW cost effective ILK alternative for TTB
> NNI
>
>
>
> Hi Edward,
>
>
>
> I was kind of hoping there would be some kind of waiting list, because
> networks consolidate, 1Gbs upgrade to 10Gbs; but it appears not??
>
>
>
> £90/month! I wish! ☺ Over triple that is our quote. ☹
>
> £3800 annually. A joke for an NNI.
>
> Perhaps TH are leasing the fibre from Equinix!?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>

Re: [uknof] GeoCaching of new netblock - customers can't reach UK catchup TV or Netflix :(.

[Stephen Wilcox]

Looks Bulgarian to me, and I'm not even a robotic geocache..


inetnum:185.161.4.0 - 185.161.7.255

netname:BG-UEDELTA-20160726

country:GB

org:ORG-UDPO1-RIPE

organisation:   ORG-UDPO1-RIPE

org-name:   UE Delta Prod OOD

org-type:   LIR

address:10 Stefan Karadzha Street, Office 4

address:7002

address:Ruse

address:BULGARIA

phone:  +35982518880


On 12 June 2018 at 13:32, Dr Josef Karthauser  wrote:

> Whoops - I shouldn’t write anything whilst trying to get out of the door
> at the same time!
>
> The netblock in question is actually: 185.161.4.0/22.
>
> Cheers,
> Joe
> —
> Dr Josef Karthauser
> Chief Technical Officer
> (01225) 300371 / (07703) 596893
> www.truespeed.com
>  / theTRUESPEED 
>  @theTRUESPEED 
>
> This email contains TrueSpeed information, which may be privileged or
> confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named
> above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying,
> distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received
> this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address
> above. Thank you.
> We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
>
> On 12 Jun 2018, at 17:15, Dr Josef Karthauser  wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> This is obvious in retrospect, but a bit of a pain!
>
> I’ve recently bought an IP block from a Bulgarian ISP for use on our
> network. The block is correctly designated as a UK block now, but it
> appears that a bunch of service providers still think that it’s eastern
> block :(, and so I’ve got new customers who are being rejected from TV
> services such as NetFlix/BBC iPlayer/catchup tv, etc.
>
> Does anyone have a contact any Netflix, or the BBC (or C4/ITV?) that I
> speak to to try and get this resolved quickly? It looks like MindMax have
> it correctly designated as UK so it’s likely to be a local geocache at the
> service providers.
>
> The net-block is: 185.147.184.0/22 (UK-TRUESPEED-20160415).
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
> —
> Dr Josef Karthauser
> Chief Technical Officer
> (01225) 300371 / (07703) 596893
> www.truespeed.com
>   / theTRUESPEED 
>   @theTRUESPEED 
>
> This email contains TrueSpeed information, which may be privileged or
> confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named
> above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying,
> distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received
> this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address
> above. Thank you.
> We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
>
>
>

Re: [uknof] Vodafone account manager

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hey Andrew,
 let us know if you find someone who can help, we have a bunch of ancient
contracts that need attention and we don't know where to start...

Steve

On 26 March 2018 at 23:16, Andrew Veitch  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I wondered if anyone had a helpful and responsive account manager
> or escalation point at Vodafone, who has access to their "fibre team"
> and would be able to progress some shifts on historical fibre (i.e.
> Norweb Telecom era).
>
> Our current account manager doesn't seem responsive to this, to the
> point of ignoring emails, and has also been unable to provide an
> escalation path for us to move this forward. :-(
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Andrew Veitch   mailto:ajv-uk...@erkle.org   http://erkle.org/
>
>

Re: [uknof] AWS Direct Connect

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi Nick,

Happy to take this off-list or dig deeper if you think there's been an
issue with the process that needs addressing. On initial inspection, I
understood you got a call back from a senior engineer 20 mins after calling
into our noc.

The team does subscribe to the list so are keen to ensure our customers are
happy and recommending us as we used to be used to back in former times,
I'll start a new thread with the people you spoke to to see if we can get
to the bottom of this complaint.


Upon acquisition a few weeks back (IX Reach acquired Console's global
network) there were some chronic issues not addressed by the former
management affecting customers for an extended period of months. The IX
Reach team have been working solidly and pulling long hours to do an almost
continuous stream of maintenances and upgrades to fix those issues and at
this time there's no major faults outstanding.

FYI we have doubled up both metro and long haul capacity around the areas
of network your services touch, there's also been 3 heavy lifting
maintenances of core devices and we've tripled the IP edge capacity in LON,
AMS, FRA, we have one congested egress and are waiting on a vendor for new
ports.


Note we are a partner of all the big clouds, and as the oldest specialist
provider of remote peering and direct connect services we do a lot of these
services .. 10 years and counting (and yes, excuse the recent turbulence
over the summer, but ready for the next 10 :)


Cheers
Steve


On 15 December 2017 at 16:12, Nick Bustin  wrote:

> IX Reach have been having major issues of late and I would steer clear of
> them for now.
>
> I paged them several times on the weekend with packet loss issues and
> nobody came back to me until Wednesday.
>
> Nick
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Seymour, Steve 
> wrote:
>
>> Paul - As Brandon said - as long as it's 1G or 10G dedicated ports, it's
>> just a cross-connect at one of the DX Locations (In the UK - Equinix
>> LD4/5/6, DRT Sov House, Telehouse North Two, Equinix MA3).
>>
>> DX Partners such as IXReach, Megaport and others can also do it but if
>> you have the ability to get a circuit to those locations and order the
>> appropriate SMF cross-connect using the AWS LOA that the customer will have
>> - you can also do it yourself.
>>
>> If you need more info, feel free to drop me a note offlist with the
>> details.
>>
>> Steve
>> (AWS)
>>
>>
>> From: uknof  on behalf of Paul Bone <
>> paul.b...@bridgefibre.co.uk>
>> Date: Thursday, 14 December 2017 at 13:41
>> To: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
>> Subject: [uknof] AWS Direct Connect
>>
>>
>>  Hi All,
>>
>> I have a customer who is looking for two 10G AWS Direct Connect Links
>> into London from a site near Cambridge but I’m afraid that I do not have
>> any experience of Direct Connect as yet.
>>
>>
>> I can see that there are Direct Connect Partners that can arrange this,
>> but is it possible to purchase our own circuits to link into AWS or does
>> the AWS partner have to also provide the circuit?
>>
>> If anyone can advise me through experience what is required, that would
>> be great. I would like to know as much detail as possible before we take
>> this further.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Amazon Web Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with
>> registration number 08650665 and which has its registered office at 60
>> Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FD, United Kingdom
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [uknof] AWS/GCP/Azure

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 21 November 2017 at 13:37, Robert Williams <rob...@custodiandc.com>
wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this – it sounds like you have a perfectly workable solution
> for this, and indeed for all the vendors. In fact, aside from the ‘reseller
> of a reseller’ element, it’s certainly going to be more cost-effective than
> going direct to all the locations.
>

>
> I guess for us it is just a question of whether or not we wish to do this
> ‘in partnership with’ or ‘direct’ with each vendor.
>

Its not quite as simple as that.. the cloud providers are not selling ports
in the same was as an IXP, you can't order partner ports.

What you're doing now is seeing your customers buying AWS and ordering
their own dedicated ports, AWS gives them an LOA and you run a XC to their
supplied demarc - its the customer with the relationship and the network
provider is an unrelated party. The port can't be used for anything else
and it is not associated with you as a reseller, doesn't appear on your AWS
account etc

Azure and Google are even more restricted, they only provide connectivity
through partners, and they don't have very many and are not accepting new
ones too easily. In fact even as an Azure C3 partner we and the
ExpressRoute team at Microsoft have to jump through hoops when we want to
onboard a new region as they consider their ports to be a valuable
commodity. They also handoff using some fairly complicated MPLS S-tag,
C-tag combinations and there's a qualification process that also feels like
you're taking a CCIE/JCIE :)

Essentially, to access all major clouds (and the popular regions) you
pretty much have to work via a partner. To become a partner they are going
to expect you to have wide reach and a substantial pipeline. Though I
wouldn't think of it as "reseller of a reseller", this isn't how its
positioned and they seem to be reworking this to show more support for
operators and giving them increased visibility without the need for the
ports themselves.

Cheers
Steve



>
>
> I appreciate all the feedback, I’m going to put this back to my people who
> were looking into this internally here and let them pick it up as they see
> fit.
>
>
>
> So thanks again!
>
>
> [image: Custodian Data Centres] <https://www.custodiandc.com>
> Robert Williams
> Technical Director
> Custodian Data Centres
> T: +44 (0) 1622 230382 <+44%201622%20230382>
> E: rob...@custodiandc.com  W: www.CustodianDC.com
> <https://www.custodiandc.com>
> *ISO 27001 Certified - 100% Uptime*
> *Industry Leading Insight at our Tech Event - More Info!
> <https://www.custodiandc.com/events>*
> Please note Custodian no longer accepts attachments without prior
> authorisation.
>
> Registered Office: Vinters Business Park, New Cut Rd, Maidstone, Kent ME14
> 5NZ  Company Number 07878023
> Click here to view our email disclaimer
> <https://www.custodiandc.com/email-disclaimer>
>
> *From:* Stephen Wilcox [mailto:steve.wil...@ixreach.com]
> *Sent:* 21 November 2017 13:24
> *To:* Clive Stone <clive.ston...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Robert Williams <rob...@custodiandc.com>; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [uknof] AWS/GCP/Azure
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 November 2017 at 11:36, Clive Stone <clive.ston...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21 Nov 2017, at 10:09, Robert Williams <rob...@custodiandc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I’m uncertain if this is an appropriate place to ask, but here goes.
> First, some necessary context:
>
>
>
> We are a rackspace/colocation, IP Transit and Ethernet services provider;
> and due to the location of our primary site (in Maidstone, outside of
> London) we find ourselves providing a lot of reasonable-capacity circuits
> (1G/10G) for customers between Maidstone and  London> on a regular basis. This is achieved using our own DWDM ring into
> London and back, and enables us to remain competitively priced for comms
> solutions where customers are looking to relocate outside of London.
>
>
>
> Now, we have an increasing number of customers requesting interconnection
> services into AWS, GCP and Azure. Each of which has various ‘zones’ or
> ‘regions’ or whatever flavour they label it. But they are all in specific
> facilities and have specific interconnect points. As a result of this, we
> are running lots of small links/tails into individual locations for
> individual customers ‘cloud’ interconnects. This is very inefficient (and
> unnecessarily costly) for everyone involved; it would be much easier if we
> just had a few 10G ports into the 3 different providers and broke off vlans
> per-customer.
>
>
>
> As an existing LINX reseller partner, we already do exact

Re: [uknof] AWS/GCP/Azure

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 21 November 2017 at 11:36, Clive Stone  wrote:

>
> On 21 Nov 2017, at 10:09, Robert Williams  wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I’m uncertain if this is an appropriate place to ask, but here goes.
> First, some necessary context:
>
> We are a rackspace/colocation, IP Transit and Ethernet services provider;
> and due to the location of our primary site (in Maidstone, outside of
> London) we find ourselves providing a lot of reasonable-capacity circuits
> (1G/10G) for customers between Maidstone and  London> on a regular basis. This is achieved using our own DWDM ring into
> London and back, and enables us to remain competitively priced for comms
> solutions where customers are looking to relocate outside of London.
>
> Now, we have an increasing number of customers requesting interconnection
> services into AWS, GCP and Azure. Each of which has various ‘zones’ or
> ‘regions’ or whatever flavour they label it. But they are all in specific
> facilities and have specific interconnect points. As a result of this, we
> are running lots of small links/tails into individual locations for
> individual customers ‘cloud’ interconnects. This is very inefficient (and
> unnecessarily costly) for everyone involved; it would be much easier if we
> just had a few 10G ports into the 3 different providers and broke off vlans
> per-customer.
>
> As an existing LINX reseller partner, we already do exactly this and it
> works really well. Delivery is (almost) immediate, 3rd party circuit
> costs are reduced/eliminated and bandwidth can be adjusted on demand.
>
> We have no intention (or desire) to actually provide or manage any of the
> services within these various clouds ourselves – nor do we wish to offer
> any cloud-based solutions ourselves. This is (typically) what our direct
> customers are doing; and they are the ones providing the end-users with the
> complete solutions and we have no interest in competing with our own
> customers of course. All we wish to do is to get the physical
> interconnections pre-provisioned with all of the relevant providers and
> then be able to (reasonably quickly) breakout vlans, per-customer, as a new
> order comes in.
>
> Someone on my team has been looking into this and, thus far, has been
> unable to find how this is actually achieved. However, they have found
> plenty of information on how to become a solutions partner or a
> reseller-integrator (i.e. buying cloud resources, adding your
> software/product or management solution and then re-selling to the client)
> – but nothing about just “getting a port” so you can enable the customer to
> pick up their existing services and backhaul them to their racks.
>
> I am not saying we have done an exhaustive search by any means, but since
> we have a need to move forwards with this quite quickly, I thought I’d take
> a leap and ask on here as I imagine many of you have already been through
> this and may know the quickest route.
>
> Happy for either direct responses or on-list, whatever you feel is
> appropriate. Thanks for reading!
>
> Rob
>
> Robert Williams
> Custodian Data Centres
> https://www.CustodianDC.com 
>
> Apart from the overly “sales pitch like” email (which I will be honest,
> almost got lost as spam) - this is what IX Reach can do easily.  Tried
> speaking to them? They interconnect with the Cloud providers, and you can
> buy the port from them and split it off how you like.  Steve is on this
> list, too.
>
> Maybe ask hem…
>
> I’m sure other providers can do it, but that’s the one I’d go to first.
>

Thanks Clive..

Rob, basically you XC to us and then order the direct connects to
AWS/Google/Azure to any geographical region (we have Europe, North America,
Asia) .. and we hand them off as VLANs.

The customer uses their existing account with the cloud provider for the
services and to request the Direct Connect and then they select us as their
provider at the chosen location..

Cheers
Steve

Re: [uknof] Chicago - 1 gig circuits

[Stephen Wilcox]

And we were just communicating on FB yesterday, and you forgot about me
already :)

Shall I get someone to reach out off list, we're in all locations..

thanks
Steve




On 30 January 2017 at 13:38, Panny Malialis <pa...@hotlinks.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I need 2 x gig connections from 350 E Cermac Rd.
>
> 1 going to London and 1 to Dublin
>
> Can anybody here help or point me in the right direction please?
>
> Thanks
>
> Panny Malialis
>
> http://www.hotlinks.uk
>
>
>


-- 
[image: Console Network Solutions] <http://www.console.to>
Stephen Wilcox
*President of EMEA*
[image: Console Network Solutions]
*P  * +44 (0) 800 086 9014 x2004
*M  *+44 (0) 796 604 8633
*E  *swil...@console.to
*www.console.to <http://www.console.to>*
[image: Console]
<https://www.facebook.com/ConsoleNetworkSolutions/?fref=ts>[image:
Console] <https://twitter.com/ConsoleNS>[image: Console]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/console-inc->
*The information transmitted in this email, including any file attachments,
is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received
this email in error please notify us immediately and delete the message
from your computer system. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that printing, disclosing, copying, or distributing this
information is strictly prohibited. The sender cannot guarantee that this
email or any attachment to it is free of malicious code. The sender accepts
no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.*

Re: [uknof] Transit in LD5/4

[Stephen Wilcox]

Our LD4 presence has direct routes to Manchester, Paris and Ashburn.. I'd
have to ask about the specifics on transit, usually it's p2p people enquire
about diversity for since transit tends to come meshed already.

I'd be surprised if some of the major EU providers weren't making use of
direct cables and only going to London.. BICS, Telia, TIS etc...

Steve

On Sep 23, 2016 3:32 PM, "Personal"  wrote:

> Hi guys and girls,
>
> One of the companies I work for is looking to add some transit in Slough
> Ld5, but it needs to be diverse from Docklands, rather than everything
> being backhauled in THN / Equicity. Other than Cogent, NTT, Level3 do you
> have any recommendations?
>
> I got a few quotes from Level3, Telia, Telecom Italia and Zayo saying they
> can supply that. XO said they only have that as an option for their US
> based customers. Has anyone got transit from any experience with the
> aforementioned providers?
>
> This is to replace GTT as they have proven to be a bit unreliable (read
> congested) so we need to find something else.
>
> Catalin
>
>
> --
> Nocsult Ltd
> Unified Network Management Solutions
>

Re: [uknof] IX-Reach / Console - gone down hill?

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi all,
 after I was aware of the thread, I was waiting a while to see how it would
go.. a mixed bag, mostly cloudy! :)

Ok there's a few things in here, and how far in should I go on a mailing
list

Firstly, taking 3 non-trivially sized networks, running a mixture of
technology, some of it old, some of it tangled up in ways long forgotten
and integrating them is never going to be perfect, there will inevitably be
some broken eggs as they say.

Simon, you were unfortunate in getting a bit of a perfect storm here, and I
was pretty open in how it came about - trying to shift Nx10G of capacity
over a BB that was itself split over 5 parallel routes, and having some
serious delays in turning up optical capacity to get to design capacity on
an old DWDM platform that we broke when we stretched its legs.. some real
hard work from the team with a game of "chess meets twister". Hands up,
there were issues arising and they weren't short fixes, my genuine
apologies for where we fell short :(

Nick, maybe you want to drop me something offline as I'm not clear on the
specific here. I know we missed your original expectation on having RTBH
community support, that was definitely delayed by integration with staff
tied up and trying to consolidate a heterogenous IP edge, but that was just
BGP community support, so perhaps something else sparked your email..

Ben, all my vendor contracts renew for either 1 or 12mo periods depending
on vendor and all have 30-90d notice periods, serving notice a week before
the anniversary (so ~80d after the notice cutoff) is a bit late. You were
pretty expletive from the outset, I don't use one liners saying my vendor
is "a bit c**tish", but our guys still offered you openness to swap service
if your needs had changed. To be fair you did threaten it would be "in our
better interest" to cancel the contract or you'd publicly out us - so you
are at least consistent.

Mark, you had the opposite then, they asked how you were doing prior to
renewal, can I chalk that up as a hint of sun in these clouds?


Overall though, running a high speed network over 4 continents, 160+ PoPs,
supporting carriers from the smallest to the largest, customer feedback is
positive and things are built well with few chronic issues over the years.
That said, there's always going to be shortcomings, and every integration
is going to present unique challenges, but raise them, and reach out to
friendly faces if needed... (note UKNOF isn't watched by our NOC tho, so
direct contact is appreciated too!


Neil, good to hear from you too, being away a lot I have missed our chats :)

Cheers
Stephen (Founder/President/Honorary support rep - IX Reach aka Console
Network Solutions)




On 1 September 2016 at 12:34, Mark Blackman  wrote:

>
> > On 1 Sep 2016, at 18:38, n...@bhost.net  wrote:
> >
> > Are there any other folks out there who were once satisfied IX Reach
> customers but think it's gone down hill since acquisition by Console?
> Wondering if it's just me or not!
> >
> > Nick
>
> I did have a curious email where my account manager said I had one day to
> notify them of discontinuation of the service or I was signed up for
> another year.
>
> - Mar
>
>
>

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

[Stephen Wilcox]

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
>
>

Re: [uknof] Telecity Williams - Full Rack

[Stephen Wilcox]

We also have a bunch of racks in Williams and Kilburn (plus most of the
other Telecity, Telehouse facilities in LON+MAN and lots of space in our
room in HEX) ... some of which are available and some of which are soon to
be available due to consolidation.

Willing to offer them for a good price if it fills them up and reduces our
surplus inventory..


>From past experience these older facilities tend to be full for periods of
time due to limits with the power and cooling, and its a one out, one in
policy.. it often unblocks when a suite customer exits and they're able to
refit and make a whole bunch of racks available.

Steve


On 13 May 2016 at 08:23, Tom Hill  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 13/05/16 13:53, Gareth Bryan wrote:
> > If anyone has a full rack in Telecity Williams going could you give
> > me a shout please?
>
> It might be blindingly obvious, but did you ask Telec^WEquinix yet?
>
> The assumption is often that they don't have any racks and/or power,
> but they recently converted a very large suite (3A I believe) to
> shared colo space. Lots of shiny new Rital racks therein, and "about
> 4kW" was mentioned as the upper power limit.
>
> YMMV :)
>
> - --
> Tom Hill
> Network Engineer
>
> Bytemark Hosting
> http://www.bytemark.co.uk/
> tel. +44 1904 890 890
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXNfFyAAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ6sNAIANURFPYjKP62CZMEjO0p9CEh
> CXVocfVubpBSuSxzDEI/TDP0Zba5JTQ/CWKmJQUQ6kMseS6MN43eosSJ6xUF/qHC
> Av2uDXP2cTjzccRekpEb+mbRqxk3Dltogb3OQR0i+ugp2DNyiXLWFpvLYiA1jhhe
> GDB98DHHEarW0Kd0TvDH9wjBGI9ITD1Vl4LDT5LdSytcwatqvWwh6LtNMMzszerw
> ID70bws6TCWupse25lE70waFBs3pxuOaarr2EXh3iKXvY3aD4rtJ2qY9qHPN4bJF
> 2PJWNcmc7ZG7SrOHU4cxAYBAmfkhJKih7DzWa+sKnKEBojPdyFklhQsSXbSf4AE=
> =uMgL
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>

Re: [uknof] private circuit in london

[Stephen Wilcox]

COLT is a safe bet.

Additionally Zayo has both the Abovenet and Geo assets so are worth asking,
but not sure how great their rates are for a new customer.. you can of
course go to any of the many companies offering business leased lines, they
can get pricing too..

Cheers
Steve


On 20 November 2015 at 10:59, William  wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> I need a private circuit between two buildings in London (E13 and E1) -
> who is worth chatting to?
>
> I'm already waiting to hear back from COLT, would be interested if someone
> has a contact at BT so I can avoid all the mess of finding the right person.
>
> Looking for a minimum of 1gb, layer 2. Thank you for your time.
>
> Cheers,
>
> William
>



-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] 10G London - Manchester (Interxion to Williams House)

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 12 October 2015 at 05:41, James Bensley  wrote:

> On 12 October 2015 at 09:56, Simon Lockhart  wrote:
> > On Mon Oct 12, 2015 at 09:44:50AM +0100, James Bensley wrote:
> >> IIX / IXReach should be able to turn this up in a jiffy now they have
> >> gobbled up Allegro;
> >>
> >> http://www.ixreach.com/wp-content/uploads/PoP-List.pdf
> >
> > They were my firt port of call, but they're quoting 3 weeks...
> >
> > Simon
>
> How strange, I thought the SNAP Portal allowed for 5 minute turn-up
> times. I guess they didn't factor in capacity issues?
>

Just to clarify - since its a 10G requirement coming via the regular sales
channel they are instructed to quote minimum lead times... in reality, ask
them to escalate or speak to me or Rob Parker and we can pull rabbits out
of hats as necessary :)

SNAP 5 minute turn up assumes the ports are already installed and yes, at
10G there are checks in place to make sure the capacity is available.

There's also a question of if its wave vs clear channel ethernet (L2 MPLS)
... so, many factors before being able to tell someone the capacity can be
immediately available, but I thought I'd reply and clarify this since folks
like James were kind enough to offer the recommendation on-list!

thanks
Steve

Re: [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi Nick,
 always nice to hear a compliment and to know you think we're excellent! :)

We have resale of 3rd party available too if you want to contact us off
list.. from your list below, HE would be an option as well as some others
not on the list.

I'll drop you a quick note off list to see if any of those options are
useful for you.

Kind regards
Steve



> *From:* uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] *On Behalf Of *
> n...@bhost.net
> *Sent:* 14 September 2015 14:08
> *To:* uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
> *Subject:* [uknof] Cheap transit, Meridian Gate
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I'd appreciate your advice. Looking for some backup transit at TeleCity
> Meridian Gate, Docklands - probably 1G on 10. Our main carrier is excellent
> (IX-Reach), but looking to diversify without breaking the bank.
>
>
>
> Any recommendations (on or off list) would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> I've tried the following:
>
>
>
> BT - wildly expensive
>
> Virgin - sales guys have no idea what BGP transit is
>
> Colt - ridiculously pricy
>
> Telecom Italia Sparkle - good price, have no ports free
>
> HE - not present at Meridian Gate
>
>
>
> Many thanks for the advice.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> --
>
> BHost - Linux VPS Hosting
>
> www.BHost.net
>

Re: [uknof] TeleCity transit

[Stephen Wilcox]

My understanding is that they offer this as a service predominantly for
enterprise clients who insist on a single managed solution for their
hosting, and that they are not operating it because they aspire to be a
transit provider.

Hence, your experience on price and how they handle support issues is
consistent with that..

All their DCs are manned 24x7, but I am not sure how they handle non
colocation issues exactly, I suspect based on how they segment business
that it would go to the support department in the particular datacentre
that your contract is with. I think you're saying you get an initial reply
followed by a 30 minute delay whilst they contact a 2nd tier IP engineer?
I'd presume the UK is structured the same was as NL then, though you'd be
better off getting a full clear reply from your UK account rep to confirm
or deny specifics.

HTH
Steve

On 23 March 2015 at 11:50, n...@bhost.net n...@bhost.net wrote:

 Does anyone use TeleCity transit?

 We are a customer in Amsterdam, and are not so impressed by the
 responsiveness of their support team, especially when there is a problem.
 For the (relatively high) price per meg, it's disappointing there isn't a
 24/7 manned NOC, therefore out of hours we have to wait for someone to get
 woken up which usually takes 30 minutes or so.

 Does anyone use their UK transit (which I understand is operationally a
 separate service)? Do they have 24 hour NOC there?

 Thanks for thoughts, insights into their workings and feedback.

 Nick

Re: [uknof] US/Europe geographical failover

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi John,
 I'm not sure I understand the question..

If you are operational in multiple markets - EU and US, then you should
have each region setup with its own local transit and peering, and in the
case of transit you should ensure that each region has redundant transit
feeds.

What you don't want is 1 feed in the US and 1 feed in EU and then to have
your whole traffic trombone over the Atlantic should one of the feeds fail.

Similarly, you probably don't want to have only one feed each with transit
A and transit B in EU and the same again in the US.. you don't want a
failure of A in EU to cause all traffic via A to be preferred via the US.

Build each region with external connectivity as though it is autonomous and
then putting a decent level of redundancy on the internal connectivity
(multiple transatlantic routes) will give the best network setup for most
use cases...

HTH
Steve



On 27 February 2015 at 11:39, John Paget Bourke 
john.bou...@mobileinternet.com wrote:

 Folks,



 Hello again.  Back to my old job.



 I was wondering if anyone had some experience or thoughts about geographic
 BGP failover from US to Europe to US.


 it strikes me that if I get my connectivity in US and Europe from the same
 Tier 1 ISP, and I have BGP failover, I could failover between continents.



 I appreciate there may be regional IP address issues.



 What do you think ?



 Thanks





 *John Paget Bourke*

 Managing Director



 [image: LOGO11]

 Mobile Internet Ltd



 Electron Building, Fermi Avenue,

 Harwell, OX11 0QR, United Kingdom



 Phone: +44 7768 862142

 Email:john.bou...@mobileinternet.com

 Web: www.mobileinternet.com

 Skype:  jpbourke



attachment: image003.jpg

Re: [uknof] what is TFM61

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 19 February 2015 at 14:26, Simon Lockhart si...@slimey.org wrote:

 On Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 02:34:39PM +0100, Michal Maslowiec wrote:
  Could you please help me to explain what is TFM61 number in context od
  Telehouse East?
 
  Is it a rack number or a room number or else?

 TFM61 is a shared space room.

 According to my map ( http://www.slimey.org/telehouse_map.txt ), although
 it's
 not specifically on there, I'd say it's probably on the 3rd floor of the
 East
 building (given TFM51 is on the 2nd floor, and TFM71 on the 4th).


I think its what used to be the IBM suite on the 3rd floor .. on the left
as you walk in iirc?

Steve

Re: [uknof] Iver, Bucks - data centres

[Stephen Wilcox]

Equinix at Heathrow (LD2) would be closest probably, but as others have
said there's a lot of DCs in and around Slough

On 4 February 2015 at 10:14, Richard Porter 
richard.por...@rapidtechnologies.co.uk wrote:

 Hi All,

 Does anyone know of any data centres in or around Iver, Bucks?

 I have customers in that neck of the woods who need service.

 Thanks,
 Richard
 Rapid Wireless
 07879 631156


 t: 0151 282 1800
 f: 0151 282 1832
 Video Conferencing ISDN: 0151 494 3234
 Video Conferencing IP: vc.rapid.co.uk

 www.rapid.co.uk

 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
 which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
 confidential and/or exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message
 is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
 delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
 that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
 strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
 please delete the message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or
 e-mail them by return. Although Rapid Computers Ltd believes that this
 message and any attachments are free of any viruses or other defects which
 may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
 that it is free of viruses and other defects. Rapid Computers Ltd does not
 accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from
 its receipt or use.

 Rapid Computers Limited and Rapidnet Limited, trade as Rapid Technologies.
 Rapid Computers Limited is a limited liability company incorporated in
 England (registered number 1524516) whose registered office is at Unit 10,
 Skyhawk Avenue, Off Banks Road, Liverpool, L19 2QR.
 Rapidnet Limited is a limited liability company incorporated in England
 (registered number 3163731) whose registered office is at Unit 10, Skyhawk
 Avenue, Off Banks Road, Liverpool, L19 2QR.

    Please consider the Environment before printing this email




-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] Iver, Bucks - data centres

[Stephen Wilcox]

You would hope people prepare their IP / p2p contracts and cost them out at
the same time as they purchase colo.. if not, well, darwinism applies

All the major well known facilities mentioned in this thread are well
popped by carriers and have typical costs to access them as other carrier
neutral datacentres tho

On 5 February 2015 at 11:24, Rod Beck rod.b...@hibernianetworks.com wrote:

  The real issue is the transport cost if you are tying locations
 together.


   Roderick Beck
 Sales Director/Europe and the Americas
 Hibernia Networks
 http://www.hibernianetworks.com
 Budapest and New York
 36-30-859-5144
 rod.b...@hibernianetworks.com
   --
  This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the
 addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged.
 If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
 notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and
 any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender
 is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
 immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the
 original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All
 documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are
 SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may
 contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While
 Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this
 risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a
 result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks
 before opening any attachment.

Re: [uknof] Link from THE to THN?

[Stephen Wilcox]

A number of 3rd party carriers provide intra-building fibers that go out
and back in via street ducting, it can be the same or lower pricing than
Telehouse depending on your vendor relationship and buying power.

We have a mixture of Zayo and Telehouse, in the past I've also bought from
Telia. There are several other vendors who have the capability to do this
but may not be competitive as they don't provide short fibers routinely.



On 24 November 2014 at 17:25, Rod Beck rod.b...@hibernianetworks.com
wrote:

 Any intrabuilding cross connect uses Telehouse fiber and yes, guys, are
 reselling it. A European PTT bought a huge bundle and resold a pair to
 Hibernia. This was many years ago. It was between Telehouse East and North.
 Because it was part of a reciprocal deal, it is quite possible the margin
 was negligible.

 Roderick Beck
 Sales Director/Europe and the Americas
 Hibernia Networks
 This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the
 addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged.
 If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
 notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and
 any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender
 is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
 immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the
 original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All
 documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are
 SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may
 contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While
 Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this
 risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a
 result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks
 before opening any attachment.

Re: [uknof] Cloud Services

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 12 October 2014 21:57, Oliver Gorwits uk...@gorwits.me.uk wrote:

 On 2014-10-12 21:18, Edward Dore wrote:

 I thought 2014 was the year of big data and the Internet of
 Things? ;-)


 According to this year's hype cycle,

 Cloud Computing: Trough of Disillusionment
 IoT: Peak of Inflated Expectations

 http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918

 Take your pick ;-)


Where does IPv6 sit?




 regards,
 oliver.





-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] CWDM Advice needed

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 11 Sep 2014 14:06, Brandon Butterworth bran...@bogons.net wrote:

  Standard optics should be fine...

 s/should/may/

Well I'd certainly try this first with a stock inventory part before
spending unnecessary money on the expensive vendor optic...


   I have a pair if 11 channel mux/demux's which include wavelength
1310nm.

 If that is a 20nm wide cwdm port then the sfp needs to be
 on 1310 +/- 6.5nm, ie a CWDM part. A typical LR part is
 free to roam between 1270 - 1360nm so chances of working are slim.

Kind of. But not really free to roam...

The receivers are indeed wideband but the transmitters use a laser which is
a single frequency light and will not vary much.

Vendors do give different tolerances for what the actual wavelength
transmitted will be and this will fluctuate slightly due to the
manufacturing process or temperature and indeed an optic sold as cwdm will
have been checked against a tighter limit but I'd be shocked if you're
buying LR that isn't almost exactly 1310.

Steve


 If you have a wide 1310 port, typically called an expansion
 port on cwdm mux and intended for cascading to a further
 8 channels then it will be wideband enough for LR. As you have
 11 channels I suspect you have a CWDM 1310 port and thus will
 need a CWDM SFP (manufacturers often split the CWDM channels
 into two banks of 8 so you can add the second set later, if they
 have more than 8 they are likely using all the channels and skipping
 the high water loss ones)

   I'm talking to now two suppliers, one in china who supplied the mux's
and
   one in Europe.

 Get a spec of the mux otherwise you're guessing.

   One supplier is saying I can use standard sfp optics as they use 1310
nm
   on my 1310 port and these are cheap as chips! However the other
supplier is
   saying that these won't work as they are not as finely tuned and say
I need
   cwdm 1310 optics which are considerably more expensive!

 Both are cheap as chips if you buy from china or Flexoptix

 brandon

Re: [uknof] CWDM Advice needed

[Stephen Wilcox]

Standard optics should be fine...

On 11 September 2014 08:48, Joseph Waite joeli...@hannontelecom.net wrote:

 Looking for some advice here.

 Deploying cwdm onto a dark fibre link  in next few weeks.

 I have a pair if 11 channel mux/demux's which include wavelength 1310nm.

 I'm talking to now two suppliers, one in china who supplied the mux's and
 one in Europe.

 One supplier is saying I can use standard sfp optics as they use 1310 nm
 on my 1310 port and these are cheap as chips! However the other supplier is
 saying that these won't work as they are not as finely tuned and say I need
 cwdm 1310 optics which are considerably more expensive!

 Can anyone here advice which is correct?

 Regards



 Joe Waite

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

[Stephen Wilcox]

Many providers do charge fees for any changes.. its not unusual. Options
are to either negotiate it now, negotiate it upon renewal or to switch
provider I'm sure there's plenty of providers on this list who can
offer a bundled service with lower MRC :)

Steve


On 7 September 2014 14:17, Peter Knapp peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk wrote:

 What the chuff.

 They seriously wanted to charge almost four hundred quid to add an IP
 block??

 Peter Knapp



 -Original Message-
 From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brian
 Candler
 Sent: 07 September 2014 14:06
 To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
 Subject: Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

 Incidentally, I recently asked about getting IPv6 added to an existing
 Easynet 100M office leased line. The account manager said they could, but
 would charge £395+VAT for doing it. So that idea went by the wayside.

 Regards,

 Brian.

Re: [uknof] Dubai CDN Latency

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi Mark,
 they are serving you from Europe, looks like Frankfurt.. I know Akamai and
CDNetworks are in Dubai.

The below ping and traceroute are from our network in Dubai
(Datamena/Equinix), we can host if needed (no CDN tho), we have
connectivity to all regional networks.

FYI ASPATH is 3356 54113 or 6939 1299 54113

Sending 5, 16-byte ICMP Echo to 185.31.17.185, timeout 5000 msec, TTL 64
Type Control-c to abort
Reply from 185.31.17.185   : bytes=16 time=146ms TTL=56
Reply from 185.31.17.185   : bytes=16 time=146ms TTL=56
Reply from 185.31.17.185   : bytes=16 time=146ms TTL=56
Reply from 185.31.17.185   : bytes=16 time=146ms TTL=56
Reply from 185.31.17.185   : bytes=16 time=146ms TTL=56
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max=146/146/146 ms.

Tracing the route to IP node 185.31.17.184 from 1 to 30 hops
  1   122 ms  122 ms  140 ms r1.tc2.ams.ixreach.com [91.196.184.165]
  2   123 ms  123 ms  124 ms 83.231.213.125
  3   129 ms  144 ms  129 ms ae7.edge6.Amsterdam.Level3.net [4.68.63.217]
  4*   *   * ?
  5   133 ms  133 ms  133 ms ae-59-114.ebr1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net
[4.69.153.197]
  6*   *   * ?
  7*   *   * ?
  8   133 ms  133 ms  133 ms ae-45-45.ebr3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net
[4.69.143.166]
  9*   *   * ?
 10*   *   * ?
 11*   *   * ?
 12   133 ms  133 ms  133 ms 185.31.17.184

Cheers
Steve



On 5 September 2014 11:03, Mark Harrigan uk...@cincout.com wrote:

 The company I'm working for are interested in CDN latency figures from
 Dubai. We're currently using fastly.

 I don't suppose anyone here has a box out there that they could run a ping
 and a curl from? I just need the results from the following.

 curl -I http://api.7digital.com
 ping -c 5 api.7digital.com

 Also if you know any decent cloud services providers in the region let me
 know.

 Thanks,

 Mark

Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce

[Stephen Wilcox]

I think thats actually the current status, its just that nothing has
changed much since 2006


On 4 September 2014 13:59, Martin J. Levy mah...@mahtin.com wrote:

 Would the owner of ...

 UK IPv6 Taskforce
 http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/

 ... kindly close down the website. I see the last update as 2006'ish.
 Just saying.

 Martin

 PS:
 https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
 ... UK @ 0.19% ... Peru @ 7.04% ... just saying.




-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] Invitation to participate in research about privacy and surveillance in the age of Edward Snowden

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 1 September 2014 19:05, Brandon Butterworth bran...@bogons.net wrote:

 On Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 10:37:46AM +0100, Christian Fuchs wrote:
   bunch of html only stuff 

 Invitation to participate in unexpected ways?

 Anyone reading this html only mail probably hasn't listened to
 what Snowden said


He spoke in mainly pdf and powerpoint iirc?

I can post you a copy of this original email if it helps readability? :)

Steve

Re: [uknof] Link from Synergy to Kilburn (Manchester)

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi Robin,
 Sure.. we have DWDM around all the Manchester Telecity sites, can you
email specifics of requirement etc offlist?

Cheers
Steve


On 12 August 2014 17:49, Robin Williams robin.willi...@tnp.net.uk wrote:

 Does anyone have options for 1G between Synergy  Kilburn (ideally dark
 fibre/a wavelength, but Ethernet if necessary) in Manchester?

 Thanks,
 Robin





-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] 1G Ethernet circuit to Aberystwyth

[Stephen Wilcox]

Go to a national carrier with access to exchanges such as SSE or COLT, you
will be paying a high fee for the BTOR component but at least finding
someone in the area who can backhaul should help minimise that piece of it.

Doing it that way it will end up the same price whether its Manchester or
London you go back with anyway so at least you can haul it all the way to a
good handoff point for yourself...

Other than that the only Alternative I have is to tell your client to
move to somewhere better connected .. I hear Cardiff is about to be the
Next Big Thing... :)

HTH

Steve



On 5 August 2014 18:52, Simon Lockhart si...@slimey.org wrote:

 All,

 I'm needing to get a 1G Point-to-point circuit from Aberystwyth (SY23 2DH)
 to somewhere sensible - Interxion LON1, or Telecity Williams House. Most
 carriers are no-bidding this as they have no network in the area, and the
 quotes I am getting are stupidly expensive - so I need to think outside the
 box a bit.

 Any suggestions for 'alternative' carriers that are in this area and can
 help
 me?

 Many thanks,

 Simon

Re: [uknof] Transport from London to India routing through the States

[Stephen Wilcox]

Its a cheaper route, so often providers will shift capacity around when the
short route is full and move cheaper traffic off and keep their premium
customers on the short routes

I'm not aware of any cable breaks but there could be one or a terrestrial
outage which are quite common with some providers - India being notorious
for terrestrial problems..

Steve


On 23 June 2014 11:29, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote:

 I suspect this isn't the case for all the transit providers in the
 country, just the one you are using?

 Who are you using, you can supply a traceroute or MTR screen shot it
 you like? Also, have you contacted your upstream ISP about this? :)

 James.

Re: [uknof] Transit in Bournemouth

[Stephen Wilcox]

You could buy some capacity to a pop in docklands or Slough.. there's no
international gateways in Bournemouth as has been pointed out, so the
best you can do is be in charge of your own backhaul and then you have a
wide choice of suppliers on the end of the circuit - a small switch will
even allow you to multihome. If you're at 1G or above this is a good
strategy, if you're less than that you're going to struggle to make the
project pay for itself and may as well buy from the guys who can service
your building..

Steve




On 4 June 2014 17:16, wand...@yahoo.co.uk wand...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

  talktalk seem to be a popular choice of backhaul looking at the quotes
 I'm getting for work.
 thanks Martin, didn't think of trying them, do you have contact details ?

Re: [uknof] 3rd party remote hands in Telehouse

[Stephen Wilcox]

Actually, quality of work is poor - if done in tandem with their cabling,
they produce a rats nest and subsequently knock cables out when working in
a busy rack or bend fibre beyond their bend radius limit. A big chunk of
this is they don't know how to manage structured cabling. Prior to their
policy changed we used 3rd parties for all the works and they maintained
nicely groomed cable trays and ran patching neatly.

If I was regularly needing work carrying out on a non emergency basis I
would outsource. The contractors I used to use have got other jobs now so I
don't know who to suggest but this list ought to have some ideas...

Steve






On 29 May 2014 21:31, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:

 What's up with Telehouse remote hands? Never and an issue with quality of
 work. Cost?

 Gavin.

Re: [uknof] 3rd party remote hands in Telehouse

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 29 May 2014 22:24, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote:

  Actually, quality of work is poor - if done in tandem with their cabling,

 We've had problems with cables runs and fibre having it's cladding
 bursting out once.


We have hundreds of fibre pairs, a few percent of issues is noticable..



  they produce a rats nest and subsequently knock cables out when working
 in a
  busy rack or bend fibre beyond their bend radius limit. A big chunk of
 this
  is they don't know how to manage structured cabling. Prior to their
 policy
  changed we used 3rd parties for all the works and they maintained nicely
  groomed cable trays and ran patching neatly.

 Not had to do too much of this as yet.

  If I was regularly needing work carrying out on a non emergency basis I
  would outsource. The contractors I used to use have got other jobs now
 so I
  don't know who to suggest but this list ought to have some ideas...

 It's pretty disappointing if this is true and not raised with them to
 rectify given the prices paid.


I raised it, but their policy remains - all cabling is now done by
Telehouse, they didn't change any of their processes (no proper handover,
OTDR, structured cabling in the rack) and they set the pricing.

Steve

Re: [uknof] OOB Viatel suite THN

[Stephen Wilcox]

Haha.. nice!

Well, our OOB ports are free but as we've no equipment in the Viatel suite
we can't help you to avoid the TH cabling charges. Altho copper in TH is
only £250 ...

I'd imagine your best bet is to snoop around the suite and see what other
networks have equipment there..

Cheers
Steve




On 8 May 2014 18:28, Nat Morris n...@nuqe.net wrote:

 Looking for someone friendly to swap OOB with over copper in the Viatel
 suite THN. Would like to save paying TH for cabling if possible.

 (will wait for Steve to chime in about free IXReach OOB ports)

 Nat

 https://nat.ms
 +44 7531 750292

Re: [uknof] Fwd: Short term Internet access in Scolocate

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi Dan,
 we could help, easiest way would be to do it over IXScotland, though if
you arrange a cable you can plug into our switch

Maybe email off list to discuss details?

Cheers
Steve


On 30 April 2014 20:56, Dan Peachey d...@illusionnetworks.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 Looking for some short term Internet access (probably around 2 months)
 with fixed IP in Scolocate - 10Mb and a /29 would do.

 Can anyone help? If so, please contact me off list with quotes.

 Cheers,

 Dan




-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] BT Openreach EAD Circuit Fibre Routing - How to establish this?

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi David,
 BTOR should provide you this detail after you confirm the order with
them.. its a bit odd exactly when they do it since its the survey group
that seems to do the design but they will check it and let you know if they
have full diversity or if there's problems with it.

If you're not working with BTOR directly then you'll need to discuss with
your reseller I guess.

Cheers
Steve


On 14 April 2014 15:39, David Farrell li...@davidfarrell.ie wrote:

 Hi list,

 I wonder if anyone has an idea where to start? I'm struggling to get past
 'Order RO2' with BT... Basically, I'm trying to ensure we have low level
 physical diversity (for the most part) in our network so I need at least
 street level fibre routing information, not sure the best way to obtain
 this from BT (or if I even can?).

 All thoughts gratefully received!!

 Thanks,

 David.

Re: [uknof] requesting help contacting Amazon AWS billing/accounts

[Stephen Wilcox]

We deal directly with the product team at AWS since we do a lot of Direct
Connect circuits..

If you want to forward the details off list I can pass it along for you and
see what they can do?

Cheers
Steve


On 18 March 2014 13:58, Paul Mansfield paul+uk...@mansfield.co.uk wrote:

 is there anyone who can help me contact AWS billing/accounts?

 I have a problem with them billing me for something which should have
 been cancelled some time ago, but there's nothing on the credit card
 statement which tells me the AWS account is generating the bills (I
 suspect its something I set up with a former employer that they were
 meant to have taken over, but am not sure).

 unless you're an AWS premium customer there's no way to get any
 contact details :-(

 thanks for any help
 Paul

Re: [uknof] L2 to Frankfurt DCs

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 7 March 2014 22:44, Arnold Nipper arn...@nipper.de wrote:

 Charlie,

 On 07.03.2014 18:32, Charlie Boisseau wrote:

  Does anyone know of network operators who can do Ethernet from the usual
  locations in London/Manchester over to Telehouse Frankfurt and Equinix
  FR2 (also in Frankfurt)?
 
  I'm on the case with Cogent who are on-net at both, however I'd like a
  second option for resiliency (one coming into us in Telehouse North and
  one coming into Manchester Kilburn).  I'm avoiding Level3 like the
  plague at the moment because of their terrible service delivery.
 
  Any ideas appreciated.
 

 ask IXReach (http://www.ixreach.com/), Fair prices, excellent services.
 Give them greetings from me.


Thanks for the recommendation Arnold and greeting back!

We are in all the Telecity Manchester sites and have a metro ring in
Frankfurt which includes FR2 and the Kleyer campus where Telehouse sits.

I hear you on Level3 btw, I think our last wave took 6mo compared to other
vendors now doing 10-15 days. Tho from folks internally it sounds like
they've started to acknowledge theres a problem and actually try to fix it.
We also recently got some pricing from them that was almost competitive, so
its possible they may be on the road to opening their doors for business
again!

Cheers
Steve

Re: [uknof] Rack Space in THN

[Stephen Wilcox]

FYI we have empty racks (full, half, quarters) in both LD4 and THN as well
as diverse DWDM between the sites. Oh, and we resell LINX (#1 reseller!)

Happy to cut deals if you need lots of capacity, or want to mix n match to
build your own, etc.

We mostly see small requirements and the external market price of the
capacity is high (since its actually two cities not a metro!) but we are
doing a good job of offering this as metro anyway.

Steve


On 7 March 2014 14:07, John Bourke john.bou...@sa.catapult.org.uk wrote:

 Folks,

 On the same subject, I am putting 10G's into THN and LD4 in order to
 connect to LINX.

 What I would prefer to do is to build a small meet me point before hitting
 LINX.  So I would need a quarter of a rack at each site.

 Is this even possible ?

 Thanks

 John

 -Original Message-
 From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul
 Webb
 Sent: 06 March 2014 14:44
 To: Jon Morby; uk...@uknof.org.uk
 Subject: Re: [uknof] Rack Space in THN

 Hi John,

 Whereabouts and how much, we're looking for another rack in THN
 (Clearstream Technology).

 Cheers,

 Paul.

 -Original Message-
 From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Jon
 Morby
 Sent: 27 February 2014 16:44
 To: uk...@uknof.org.uk
 Subject: [uknof] Rack Space in THN

 Not sure if this is of any interest, but we have an 8 amp rack coming
 available in the next 4-6 weeks in TFM3, Telehouse North.

 If anyone is on the look out for space please let me know off list

 Jon



 Jon Morby
 fido.net - the internet made simple
 www.fido.net / www.fidonet.com



 This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for
 the use of the recipient(s) to whom they are addressed. If you have
 received it in error, please destroy all copies and inform the sender. This
 email and any attachments are believed to be free from viruses but the
 Satellite Applications Catapult accepts no liability in connection
 therewith. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those
 of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Satellite
 Applications Catapult.

Re: [uknof] DWDM costs ?

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 20 February 2014 22:52, Leslie-Alexandre DENIS cont...@ladenis.frwrote:

 Le 20/02/2014 18:48, Stephen Wilcox a écrit :

  customer site - so you want something with good management, reliable,
 self contained in a single chassis, plus the vendor support and NMS. And
 these things require at least 2 sites or you don't have a working system.

 So yes, I think £50-100k is a good range.

 Steve


  Hi,

 DWDM within the classic optical range for about 8 waves is far away from
 what you said.


No - he specifically said customer site and I assume is looking for a
fully managed integrated solution from a vendor with proper support and
management based on the way the question was set. I also assume he needs to
face the waves to the customer equipment and passive-only isn't an option.

If thats not the case and he does it your way its going to cost less, of
course. But I personally wouldn't provide CPE with passive, multiple
components, etc .. I'd want a single integrated unit with inline and oob
management.


Steve

For a passive mux/demux made by a well known brand, it's about 1.5K-2K EURO
 per mux with 16 Channels. After that it depends on your optical topoly, if
 you will use bi-directionnal or dual uplink fiber.
 Passive mux are used all over the world to interconnect datacenters for
 example, the capability to reach points is made by your optical modules,
 SFP+ XFP... And it costs ~800 EURO for an OEM 40Km/10Gbps.
 Nowadays SFP+ can reach 120Km with good speed and accuracy, depending on
 your optical line budget obviously (dB).

 Another point, transponder and active solution are really more expensive
 than passive one.
 However it provides more control on waves and monitoring, but you need to
 know how to manage that typical product.

 Hope it helps

 (Sorry for my english, I'm french)




-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] LINX84

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 13 February 2014 13:39, Nic Lewis n...@nlewis.net wrote:

 Errr.

 At 12:42 13/02/2014, Rob Lister wrote:

   [...] more drugs were ingested and I pretty much passed out in my hotel
 room.
 Sounds like you'll fit right in!
 (I'm not allowed to talk about *those* LINX meetings...)


 I have fond memories of an early LINX meeting etiquette that required any
 participant who allowed their mobile to ring audibly during the meeting to
 buy all the attendees a beer each.
 As attendance reached 50+ that became a very serious issue! But I'm not
 allowed to talk about *those* LINX meetings...too much...



Hmm since I used to regularly buy everyone a beer after the meeting
finished, perhaps I should just do that again and this time I'll just sit
in the meeting happily taking calls all day long. Forfeit accepted!

 Steve


 Regards
 Nic


  ;-)

Re: [uknof] Telehouse East OOB internet?

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi Howard,
 we are offering this for free in East, North, Interxion and Telecity HEX.
In East we're in TFM40. However we can't provide anything like SMTP though
this should be easy to find with 3rd parties, even gmail smtp etc.

Any use? Drop an email to supp...@oobx.net if its is (its not being
commercially branded)

Steve



On 3 December 2013 17:41, Howard Jones ho...@thingy.com wrote:

 Hi folks,

 Can anyone help me with a (say) 10M internet connection over ethernet in
 TFM51? Ideally I'd like to get it done sharpish, and include access to an
 SMTP server also - it's for external access to a management network, so
 very minimal traffic most of the time, and the odd alert mail.

 Cheers,

 Howie

Re: [uknof] Global Switch 1 2

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi James,
 do you want to have a chat with us about it? GS1 is a spur for us right
now, we also have a docklands DWDM ring that incorporates GS2. We've been
looking this week at how to rationalise GS1. Maybe we can work something
out to our mutual benefit...

Cheers
Steve


On 14 November 2013 11:14, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hear ye, hear ye!

 This is for anyone on list that is in both Global Switch 1  Global
 Switch 2 and has either some dark fibre or wave lengths between the
 two sites (you take a direct layer 1 connection from a supplier / or
 supply your self with direct layer 1 connection);

 I am after a layer 2 interconnect between the two for a customer
 (1Gbps Ethernet with VLAN tagging, if you can do QinQ I may also be
 interested in that but it's not a deal breaker).

 I know a couple of providers with PoPs in both DCs already but they
 don't have their own or direct layer 1 service between the two.
 Existing layer 2 interconnects we have from them are VLANs or pseudo
 wires for example over their MPLS network which runs over another's
 network between those two DCs or over third party fibre etc. When a
 problem arises our customer is badgering us, we are badgering our
 interconnect provider, they then hassle their providers to hassel
 theirs etc.

 That is just pony.

 If you can provide me a layer 2 interconnect directly over your layer
 1 service please drop me an email off list. If you have your own layer
 1 service between the two DCs and can provide me a layer 2
 interconnect over your MPLS network that would be fine too assuming a
 reasonable MTU assumed (and probably preferred because it would be
 cheaper).

 Kind regards,
 James.

Re: [uknof] Peering (dis-)Agreements

[Stephen Wilcox]

If a 3rd party network chooses to discard your traffic that traffic could
be coming in via a direct peer, an indirect peer, transit etc and they
could still be dropping the traffic any of these ways - the peering
agreement or presence of a direct session isn't necessarily going to change
that.

Ultimately its their network in their control, its difficult to safeguard
what happens to your traffic once it leaves your borders unless you can
implement a supply contract with appropriate SLA and credits etc... any
peering agreement which tries to protect the traffic it exchanges is going
to be difficult to enforce in the absence of any clear financial penalty,
and accepting liabilities and indemnities is highly unlikely.

Cheers
Steve




On 7 November 2013 12:24, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Steve,

 Well I'd certainly rather not have a signed agreement, I'm just trying
 to explore all possible outcomes. The way I see it, we peer, if
 someone maliciously throws our traffic away, we drop the session, end
 of.

 I'm just making sure I have pleased the powers that be with regards to
 protecting our customer's traffic :)

 Many thanks for the link by the way, I will read it.

 Kind regards,
 James.




-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

[uknof] Anyone want to offload an ONS?

[Stephen Wilcox]

I need to demux an STM16 into 4x STM4. We currently don't have equipment
that does this and would like to figure out the best way - where best for
me is something inexpensive, simple and preferably small.

Weirdly I dont see any off the shelf pizza boxes that do this.

I was thinking of getting an ONS multirate card and having a play but have
not used the ONS platform before. So, two questions for the list..

Does the 15454_MRC-12 sound like a decent way to do the demux? Any better
ideas?

Does anyone have a spare ONS and/or 15454_MRC-12 card they'd like to sell?
.. else I have to go international and track one down


Lastly, on a related note, other than buying a full blow router such as a
Juniper M320, Brocade MLX, is there a way to terminate an SDH POS line and
switch the VLANs and packets out to ethernet? I've a request from someone
wishing to present an STM16 to us but we need to take ethernet on our MPLS
platform so I need a way to get the traffic over and the routers are
turning out to be expensive protocol convertors!

Cheers
Steve

Re: [uknof] Anyone want to offload an ONS?

[Stephen Wilcox]

Assume I thought of that already and they don't have the capability.. :)

To be clear, this is a customer's STM16 long haul link terminating at the
far end as an STM16 on a Juniper.. I need to terminate the STM16 and
ethernet switch the VLANs




On 4 November 2013 13:01, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

  Easiest way would be to get the telco supplying you the circuit to do
 it. It should be trivial for them.

  Neil.

   On 04/11/2013 12:49, Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote:


  I need to demux an STM16 into 4x STM4. We currently don't have equipment
 that does this and would like to figure out the best way - where best for
 me is something inexpensive, simple and preferably small.

  Weirdly I dont see any off the shelf pizza boxes that do this.

  I was thinking of getting an ONS multirate card and having a play but
 have not used the ONS platform before. So, two questions for the list..

  Does the 15454_MRC-12 sound like a decent way to do the demux? Any
 better ideas?

  Does anyone have a spare ONS and/or 15454_MRC-12 card they'd like to
 sell? .. else I have to go international and track one down


  Lastly, on a related note, other than buying a full blow router such as
 a Juniper M320, Brocade MLX, is there a way to terminate an SDH POS line
 and switch the VLANs and packets out to ethernet? I've a request from
 someone wishing to present an STM16 to us but we need to take ethernet on
 our MPLS platform so I need a way to get the traffic over and the routers
 are turning out to be expensive protocol convertors!

  Cheers
 Steve




-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] Anyone want to offload an ONS?

[Stephen Wilcox]

My email is describing two very different requirements just happening to
both involve STM16s. One is asking the easiest way to ADM STM16 - 4x STM4,
the other for how to terminate and switch an STM16 containing POS and VLANs.

For the switching, I'm not demuxing anything.. I need to carry the IP
traffic off an STM16 across my MPLS and to an IX.


On 4 November 2013 13:12, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

  what are you going to demux on the customer side?

 Sent from my iPad

 On 4 Nov 2013, at 13:03, Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.com
 wrote:

   Assume I thought of that already and they don't have the capability.. :)

 To be clear, this is a customer's STM16 long haul link terminating at the
 far end as an STM16 on a Juniper.. I need to terminate the STM16 and
 ethernet switch the VLANs




 On 4 November 2013 13:01, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:

  Easiest way would be to get the telco supplying you the circuit to do
 it. It should be trivial for them.

  Neil.

   On 04/11/2013 12:49, Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote:


  I need to demux an STM16 into 4x STM4. We currently don't have equipment
 that does this and would like to figure out the best way - where best for
 me is something inexpensive, simple and preferably small.

  Weirdly I dont see any off the shelf pizza boxes that do this.

  I was thinking of getting an ONS multirate card and having a play but
 have not used the ONS platform before. So, two questions for the list..

  Does the 15454_MRC-12 sound like a decent way to do the demux? Any
 better ideas?

  Does anyone have a spare ONS and/or 15454_MRC-12 card they'd like to
 sell? .. else I have to go international and track one down


  Lastly, on a related note, other than buying a full blow router such as
 a Juniper M320, Brocade MLX, is there a way to terminate an SDH POS line
 and switch the VLANs and packets out to ethernet? I've a request from
 someone wishing to present an STM16 to us but we need to take ethernet on
 our MPLS platform so I need a way to get the traffic over and the routers
 are turning out to be expensive protocol convertors!

  Cheers
 Steve




  --
 Director / Founder
 IX Reach Ltd
 E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
 M: +44 7966 048633
 Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.




-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Stephen Wilcox]

Well, take a list of Tier1s:
ATT
Qwest
Savvis
DT
XO
GTT
Verizon
Sprint
Telia
NTT
Level3
Tata
Zayo
Cogent
FT
Seabone


Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves:

GTT
Level3
Zayo
Cogent

Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin,
Talktalk, Sky:

Level3.. maybe?
Cogent.. maybe?
Zayo.. maybe?


Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity and
network (that was my prior point) this gives you a wide choice.

Steve







On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote:

 Continuing this thread;

 Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
 proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2   Smelehouse East / North
 / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
 recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
 than all of London?

 Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
 question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
 else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
 go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
 conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
 then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
 else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
 scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.

 Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
 more specifically what I'm after.

 Cheers,
 James.

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Stephen Wilcox]

I just hope the emergency services aren't buying Verizon IP out of Slough
and hoping to be able to connect their systems to much of the UK users if
docklands++ disappears!

:)

Steve


On 30 October 2013 20:38, Mike Simpson mikie.simp...@gmail.com wrote:

 A few years ago I had to do major incident planning for the emergency
 services so we were running through likely scenarios. The one that sticks
 in my mind as being described as worryingly feasible was the caesium
 based dirty bomb which would remove access to an area the size of
 docklands++ for longer than the diesel supplies would last.

 Seems reasonable to avoid a geophysical SPOF

 On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:00, Ben King b...@warwicknet.com wrote:

 Hi Stephen,

 Coming back to you on your original point, you make a valid point that if
 you lose London you lose most of the UK, from my perspective though UK is
 far from the whole game, we only supply businesses in a pretty region
 specific area, the vast majority customers are directly connected to our
 network (as opposed to via another providers active network) and all
 customers have a route to Manchester that avoids London, so in the event of
 a London fail I am sure they would be delighted to be able to continue to
 send traffic outside of the UK and carry on their international business
 relations (I concede there may be other hurdles that get in the way in that
 scenario).

 I think you actually highlight is that ideally more providers should be
 attempting to be present in both London and Manchester to give greater UK
 diversity.

 Regards... Ben






 On 30 October 2013 17:41, Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote:

 Well, take a list of Tier1s:
 ATT
 Qwest
 Savvis
 DT
 XO
 GTT
 Verizon
 Sprint
 Telia
 NTT
 Level3
 Tata
 Zayo
 Cogent
 FT
 Seabone


 Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves:

 GTT
 Level3
 Zayo
 Cogent

 Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin,
 Talktalk, Sky:

 Level3.. maybe?
 Cogent.. maybe?
  Zayo.. maybe?


 Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity
 and network (that was my prior point) this gives you a wide choice.

 Steve







 On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote:

 Continuing this thread;

 Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
 proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2   Smelehouse East / North
 / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
 recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
 than all of London?

 Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
 question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
 else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
 go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
 conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
 then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
 else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
 scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.

 Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
 more specifically what I'm after.

 Cheers,
 James.





 --

 Ben King b...@warwicknet.com j...@warwicknet.com

 *WarwickNet - The Business  Science Park ISP*

 Tel: 024 7699 7222**

 Mob: 07973 848007**

 http://www.warwicknet.com

 **





-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Stephen Wilcox]

What is the thing you're trying to avoid though? Connectivity via slough is
still likely to go back into London to get to the cables which go east and
South towards Europe.

I've seen these asks many times but the reality is the UK geography plus
market dynamics doesn't make this as easy as it sounds.

Why host in Manchester if you know Manchester is overly dependent on
London?

We have paths from Manchester to the US and Manchester to slough, probably
better routes than most but I'd still question what it's diversifying
against since there's more robust ways to do this such as host in Slough
directly, or offshore to Amsterdam.

Most tier1s either don't peer with most UK networks or do so in London,
perhaps you would be better with a more regional tier2 player who can
deliver the diversity through its concentration of UK network rather than
some global player? There's a few such decent operators.. The IX Manchester
members list is a good place to shortlist them. Go for someone with open
peering too - no point getting a good name if they have no connectivity to
anything when London goes offline!

Steve
 On 25 Oct 2013 17:22, Ben King b...@warwicknet.com wrote:

 Hi All,

 We currently have Level 3 and NTT as our transit providers out of London
 (Interxion and TH respectively), and now we want to bring a 3rd tier 1 into
 Manchester TCW, however I want the utopic 'London Proof' transit and I am
 not sure who can truly provide. Level 3 resolutely assure me that they are
 London proof so I could move them and bring someone else into London
 (though others tell me rumours that Level 3s transit in Manchester is some
 dirty longline out of London).

 Cogent say their transit is out via slough - and thats sort of not london
 but also I am crazy about having Cogent again.

 Any advice would be much appreciated folks.

 Regards... Ben

 --

 Ben King b...@warwicknet.com j...@warwicknet.com

 *WarwickNet - The Business  Science Park ISP*

 Tel: 024 7699 7222**

 Mob: 07973 848007**

 http://www.warwicknet.com

 **

Re: [uknof] Connectivity into Singapore?

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi Charlie,
 we have network between Europe and Asia, we can do this. I'll pass the
request to someone to contact you. Its unlikely you'll get anything decent
by going direct to Singtel, they prefer to keep pricing high for one off
requirements and work via partners. Level3 and Verizon aren't set up for
this, what they do have is for corporates and expensive as you noticed. NTT
should be better but again, unlikely to be amazing for a one off
requirement outside their home turf.

Cheers
Steve


On 16 September 2013 16:31, Charlie Boisseau char...@fluency.net.uk wrote:

  Hi all,

  Does anyone know of a supplier that can get L2 to Singapore,
 interconnecting to us in London (Telehouse)?  We've tried our usual
 contacts for international circuits (Level3, Verizon, NTT), however they're
 either ridiculously expensive or plain unable to do it.

  I believe most are just quoting with a Singtel tail circuit from London
 - which we could do ourselves, if only I could get hold of someone sensible
 at Singtel.  Anyone got a contact there in wholesale?

  Thanks.

  C

   --
 *Charlie Boisseau*

  Fluency Communications Ltd.
 *e.* char...@fluency.net.uk
 *w.* http://fluency.net.uk/
 *t.* 0845 874 7000

  Fluency Communications Ltd. is part of the 
 Commsworldhttp://www.commsworld.com/
  Group.

  This Email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are
 intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation addressed.
 If you have received this Email in error please notify the sender
 immediately and delete it without using, copying, storing, forwarding
 or disclosing its contents to any other person While Fluency has
 endeavoured to ensure that any attachments do not contain viruses it
 will not be liable for any losses incurred by the recipient. Fluency
 Communications Ltd. Registered in Scotland. Company Number:
 SC390685. Registered Office Address: 45 Peffer Place, Edinburgh, EH16 4BB

Re: [uknof] DDoS mitigation appliances

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hi Simon,
 imho if someone DDoS's you and overwhelms your incoming capacity then
there is no appliance that can stop the traffic from coming in via your
supplier's interface. The only solution is to have suppliers who agree to
be proactive in filtering traffic at their borders should you find yourself
under attack. Alternatively outsourcing content to CDNs or anti-DDoS
specialists is an option if you are a high profile target.

I am highly skeptical of vendors who claim to be able to do this, it can
clearly only work on a small scale.

HTH
Steve



On 29 April 2013 12:53, Simon Green si...@wirehive.net wrote:

  Hi List,

 ** **

 We’re looking at DDoS mitigation options at the moment, and one vendor
 we’ve spoken to has recommended NSFOCUS and their ADS line. Has anybody had
 any experience with these or similar, and also any ideas on competitor
 costs? 

 ** **

 Simon

 ** **

Re: [uknof] DDoS mitigation appliances

[Stephen Wilcox]

The CDN/DDoS cleaners simply do it by having vast amounts of capacity
globally generally distributed into autonomous nodes. Akamai for example
has many terabits of capacity on the Internet plus hundreds of nodes
installed directly into access networks. On top of this they deploy
sophisticated DNS load balancing to shift traffic around as demand /
attacks dictate.

It sounds fancy but in reality if you have a few terabits of traffic the
mitigate options become numerous.. its just an economy of scale, but one
that exists for a limited number of content providers..

If you look at the port speeds that Akamai, Limelight etc have at the IXs,
you'll see 80Gbps, 160Gbps.. multiple instances.. its just that vast.

Steve


On 29 April 2013 13:18, Simon Green si...@wirehive.net wrote:

  Hi Stephen,

 ** **

 That was my take on it as well. In that case these appliances will only
 hold up as long as your transit links aren’t saturated, so really they are
 for protecting your routing equipment rather than the links themselves.***
 *

 ** **

 How, technically speaking, do the “DDoS cleaning” providers work who
 handle your traffic for you?

 ** **

 Simon 

 ** **

 *From:* Stephen Wilcox [mailto:steve.wil...@ixreach.com]
 *Sent:* 29 April 2013 13:04
 *To:* Simon Green
 *Cc:* uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
 *Subject:* Re: [uknof] DDoS mitigation appliances

 ** **

 Hi Simon,

  imho if someone DDoS's you and overwhelms your incoming capacity then
 there is no appliance that can stop the traffic from coming in via your
 supplier's interface. The only solution is to have suppliers who agree to
 be proactive in filtering traffic at their borders should you find yourself
 under attack. Alternatively outsourcing content to CDNs or anti-DDoS
 specialists is an option if you are a high profile target.

 ** **

 I am highly skeptical of vendors who claim to be able to do this, it can
 clearly only work on a small scale.

 ** **

 HTH

 Steve

 ** **

 ** **

 On 29 April 2013 12:53, Simon Green si...@wirehive.net wrote:

  Hi List,

  

 We’re looking at DDoS mitigation options at the moment, and one vendor
 we’ve spoken to has recommended NSFOCUS and their ADS line. Has anybody had
 any experience with these or similar, and also any ideas on competitor
 costs? 

  

 Simon

  

  ** **

Re: [uknof] Please Advise: UK - India Routing issues

[Stephen Wilcox]

Don't know what you mean Paul ;)

Looks okay from my network (LON-DXB):

traceroute to s1.dma.dxb (91.196.184.67), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  gw.serversa.lon.ixreach.com (91.196.185.1)  7.045 ms  7.675 ms  10.324
ms
 2  host-91-196-187-150.in-addr.ixreach.com (91.196.187.150)  0.295 ms
 0.282 ms  0.385 ms
 3  host-91-196-187-106.in-addr.ixreach.com (91.196.187.106)  10.874 ms
 10.873 ms  15.447 ms
 4  host-91-196-187-194.in-addr.ixreach.com (91.196.187.194)  6.292 ms
 6.280 ms  6.410 ms
 5  host-91-196-187-198.in-addr.ixreach.com (91.196.187.198)  6.675 ms
 6.722 ms  6.920 ms
 6  s1.dma.dxb.ixreach.com (91.196.184.67)  158.645 ms  159.185 ms  159.498
ms


FYI most routes are now back albeit on alternative paths so there shouldn't
be much ongoing issue to the region..

Steve



On 2 April 2013 12:57, Paul Thornton p...@prt.org wrote:

 Co-incidentally, I've just been discussing this with a customer, and have
 a trace from a router in Dubai going to Lebanon ... taking in a global tour
 as it heads off to the East.  RTT is approaching 400ms and it isn't pretty
 :(

 The past few weeks have certainly been interesting for anyone in that
 region, or with customers there.

 Paul.


 On 02/04/2013 12:19, Ben Vaux wrote:

 I have been based in the UAE for the last nine years and we have had
 cables cut in Egypt four or five times over that period impacting
 performance to varying degrees.

 *From:*uknof-bounces@lists.**uknof.org.ukuknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk
 [mailto:uknof-bounces@lists.**uknof.org.ukuknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk]
 *On Behalf Of *Will Hargrave
 *Sent:* 02 April 2013 00:24
 *To:* Matthew Melbourne; 'Neil J. McRae'; 'waynemerricks'
 *Cc:* uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
 *Subject:* Re: [uknof] Please Advise: UK - India Routing issues


 In Egypt a lot of these cables share the same infrastructure, even the
 same cable sheath.

 So shared fate is inevitable.

 Matthew Melbourne m...@melbourne.org.uk mailto:m...@melbourne.org.uk**
 

 wrote:

 Not to mention the issues with SEA-ME-WE 4 (SMW4) on 27th March.

 http://www.telegeography.com/**products/commsupdate/articles/**
 2013/03/28/seamewhttp://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/03/28/seamew
 e-4-damage-hampers-internet-**access-in-region/

 Reports suggests EIG (Europe-India Gateway) and IMEWE
 (India-Middle-East-Western-**Europe) were in 'maintenance mode'.

 Very fishy.. ;-)

 Cheers,
 Matt

 -Original Message-
 From:uknof-bounces@lists.**uknof.org.ukfrom%3auknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk
  mailto:
 uknof-bounces@lists.**uknof.org.uk uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk
 [mailto:uknof-bounces@lists.**uknof.org.ukuknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk]
 On Behalf Of Neil J. McRae
 Sent: 01 April 2013 17:25
 To: waynemerricks
 Cc:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk  
 mailto:uk...@lists.uknof.org.**ukuknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
 
 Subject: Re: [uknof] Please Advise: UK - India Routing issues

 As will says many cable issues - falcon and flag seems to be on for now
 but
 this was causing chaos last week.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On 1 Apr 2013, at 13:45,waynemerricks  waynemerricks@thevoiceasia.**
 com waynemerri...@thevoiceasia.com  mailto:waynemerricks@**
 thevoiceasia.com waynemerri...@thevoiceasia.com

 wrote:

 Hi all,

 I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask but I was recommended

 reaching out to the UKNOF lists after not getting very far in other
 lists/forums.

 I work for a UK company with a satellite office in Northern India served

 by BSNL.  About 4 weeks ago our inter office latency doubled to
 approximately 750ms.  After some investigation on various UK ISPs I
 realised
 that they're all being routed via London -  New York -  Palo Alto -
  Tokyo
 -  Singapore -  Chennai.

 The return route from India was still Mumbai -  London fairly directly as

 it always has been.

 Some time on Wednesday (27th) the route changed again.  Now the UK is

 bouncing from London -  Egypt -  Mumbai.  This is almost normal but I'm
 still averaging about 100ms higher latency than normal (I could get under
 250ms on a good day but more usually it was about 300ms).

 At about the same time the return route from India changed completely (its

 now going Mumbai -  Chennai -  Singapore -  Tokyo -  Palo Alto -
  New York
 -  London).

 I'm fairly convinced its a BSNL issue but they're doing the usual telco

 thing ofit must be your fault.   Is there anything I can use to prove
 one
 way or the other where the fault lies?

 I have a handful of trace routes (attached) that didn't convince them, so

 where should I go next?

 Any advice even if its to tell me to try elsewhere would be much

 appreciated.

 Regards,

 Wayne
 16.03-India (BSNL) - UK (BT).txt
 16.03-UK (BT) - India (BSNL).txt
 16.03-UK (TalkTalk) - India (BSNL).txt  28.03-UK (BT) - India
 (BSNL).txt  31.03-India (BSNL) - UK (BT).txt






 --
 Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


 --
 Paul Thornton




-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: 

Re: [uknof] Recommendation for 10Gb media converter post passive fibre tap

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 22 February 2013 10:14, Wood, Peter (ISS) p.w...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote:

  I’m sat re-architecting our mirroring capability and we’re looking to
 push it up to 10Gbs.

 ** **

 I’m after a media converter (two I guess, one for each direction) that’d
 be suitable to take the output of a MM fibre tap and convert it to SM (LAN
 Phy LR) to transmit to our primary data centre (where our monitoring and
 IDP equipment is based).

 ** **

 Anyone got an recommendations of such that are known to work? I don’t know
 enough about the signalling layer of 10Gb to know if it’s even a going
 concern with only one direction of light flowing through it.

 **


You'd probably be best with a cheap switch with 2x 10G on it.. see what you
can find on ebay. Just install one SR and one LR optic and pass everything
through transparently.

Technically you ought to do it at Layer1 with transponders but the switch
is likely cheaper and easier...

Steve


  **

 Cheers,

 ** **

 Peter.

 ** **

 ** **

Re: [uknof] Our flagship datacentre is now Open...

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 13 February 2013 23:03, Keith Mitchell ke...@uknof.org.uk wrote:

 On 02/13/2013 04:48 PM, Ed Butler wrote:
 
  I spoke to Ashley last week in fact, they're actually a Mr rather than
  Ms Eighteen. Not that it makes much difference, I think uknof has
  served the death penalty for the spam incident! :)

 Our apologies this slipped through. I suggest an appropriate remission
 forfeit might be beer sponsorship at a future UKNOF meeting...


And steal our curry traditions?! :)


 In order to protect our now nearly 1000 subscribers against this
 happening again, I have turned on the auto-moderate new members option
 for this list, I hope this protection outweighs any inconvenience it may
 cause.


So how will I now know which companies to avoid?!

Steve



 Keith