Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that? Seed the list with one or two spamtrap addresses never seen in the

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: For switches i guess it is same story as for PoE on them - total power budget matters. So if you will pack whole EX4500 with 10G 80km SFP+ it might have problems as well, but for normal use, and if few only are "long distance/high power", at

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

On 6/13/17 1:56 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad. Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course. Industry-related SPAM, probably. Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from Facebook and

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

On 6/13/17 8:31 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to NANOG, being technical people, respond to notifications that they are spamming. Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're

Re: Google Cloud and IX - Traffic behavior

Hi Alain and all the rest I het it now no offense and alain no harm done and all of nanog thank you and i will continue observing as i have since 1995 thank you allagin PS and BTW i am interested in CLOUD :-) thanks once more > On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Alain Hebert

Re: mailops https breakage

On 6/20/17 16:57, Keith Medcalf wrote: How else would one maintain government control over free encryption certificates? So Let's Encrypt is run by the Illuminati now? Or is it Freemasons? It's hard to keep track.

Re: mailops https breakage

> How else would one maintain government control over free encryption > certificates? black helicopters

RE: mailops https breakage

How else would one maintain government control over free encryption certificates? -- ˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush > Sent: Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 17:34 > To: Edwin Pers >

Re: Long AS Path

On 2017-06-20 23:12, James Braunegg wrote: Dear All Just wondering if anyone else saw this yesterday afternoon ? Jun 20 16:57:29:E:BGP: From Peer 38.X.X.X received Long AS_PATH= AS_SEQ(2) 174 12956 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456

Re: mailops https breakage

> Fun fact about letsencrypt certs, they expire after a month or so. 90 days

Re: Long AS Path

Yes, we had this kind of stuff in our logs: Jun 20 08:15:25 cr-co-01-pareq2-re0 rpd[9656]: %DAEMON-3: Prefix Send failed ! x:x:186.177.176.0/23 (label 19) bgp_rt_trace_too_big_message:1213 path attribute too big. Cannot build update. The AS path we have here is currently 12956 262206 262206

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

--- nanog@nanog.org wrote: From: i mawsog via NANOG :: Agree, this thread has generated more "spam" or noise :: for all of us collectively.  It's not spam. Look up the definition of spam. Also, just block the thread in your email client. :: Some amount of relevant "spam"

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Rod Beck wrote: And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and zillions of other ways of gaining addresses. One-off addresses. I've used it numerous times to catch the origin, companies like Roland Corporation either leaking databases or

Long AS Path

Dear All Just wondering if anyone else saw this yesterday afternoon ? Jun 20 16:57:29:E:BGP: From Peer 38.X.X.X received Long AS_PATH= AS_SEQ(2) 174 12956 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456 23456

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

In message <583541363.462.1497966071756.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>, Mike Ha mmett writes: > I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee > list, but that list doesn't have e-mail addresses. It didn't come from > the mailing list. The person looked up who went to

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On 2017-06-20 23:44, Baldur Norddahl wrote: But what foundation do you have for asserting that switch hardware is any different in this regard? I can say that we are using 80 km modules in various hardware without any issues. I admittedly do not use any high power modules in servers, but I

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

But what foundation do you have for asserting that switch hardware is any different in this regard? I can say that we are using 80 km modules in various hardware without any issues. I admittedly do not use any high power modules in servers, but I will need better evidence than this to assume that

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On 6/15/2017 5:10 AM, chiel wrote: > the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It > seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper > 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very > few). Are there any PCIe cards that

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On 2017-06-20 22:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote: I would expect anything mounted in a computer to have all the power you could want. It is not like the ATX power supply cares about an extra watt or two. As I understand the issue it is more about cooling than power and is primarly a concern in high

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

I would expect anything mounted in a computer to have all the power you could want. It is not like the ATX power supply cares about an extra watt or two. As I understand the issue it is more about cooling than power and is primarly a concern in high density switches were you could have 48 or more

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On 2017-06-20 18:59, Hunter Fuller wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:29 AM Chris Adams wrote: For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to disable vendor check. Just add "options ixgbe allow_unsupported_sfp=1" to your module config and it works

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

I guess it depends on NIC, there is many spinoffs of Intel X520 with much weaker power supply circuitry. It might work with good NIC, but you can't rely on it on long term, IMHO. Even 40km Finisar SFP+ has Pdiss 1.5W. Also they mention: "The typical power consumption of the FTLX1672D3BTL may

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:29 AM Chris Adams wrote: > For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to > disable vendor check. Just add "options ixgbe allow_unsupported_sfp=1" > to your module config and it works just fine. For anyone who may be going

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

Nowadays its just an ixgbe-parameter: parm: allow_unsupported_sfp:Allow unsupported and untested SFP+ modules on 82599-based adapters (uint) Jörg On 20 Jun 2017, at 17:26, Jim Shankland wrote: The last I looked -- and it's been a few years, so it might no longer be true -- the

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

Once upon a time, Baldur Norddahl said: > There are two ways around that. One is finding a device driver with vendor > check disabled. The other option is to get optics that pretend to be Intel. For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On 6/20/17 8:15 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the few options carried by the NIC vendor? For example Intel claims the Intel NICs can only accept SFP+ modules by Intel. They probably do not make optics themselves and only have

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the few options carried by the NIC vendor? For example Intel claims the Intel NICs can only accept SFP+ modules by Intel. They probably do not make optics themselves and only have few options available. And indeed if you put

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

Exactly. But some people enjoy complaining. - R. From: NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:41:13 PM Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees I'm still not sure people

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

On Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 14:41, "Mike Hammett" said: > I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee list, > but > that list doesn't have e-mail addresses. It didn't come from the mailing > list. The > person looked up who went to the conference and

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee list, but that list doesn't have e-mail addresses. It didn't come from the mailing list. The person looked up who went to the conference and then found their e-mail address elsewhere. I also don't think the above is wrong

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

On Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 14:26, "Rod Beck" said: > And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and > zillions of other ways of gaining addresses. > > > I doubt you can distinguish the source with any real reliability. Depending

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

We use Intel NICs with SFP+ holes. It works good with long and short range SFP+ modules, including CWDM/DWDM. On 15.06.17 12:10, chiel wrote: > Hello, > > We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We > have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and zillions of other ways of gaining addresses. I doubt you can distinguish the source with any real reliability. - R. From: NANOG on behalf of Dave Temkin

RE: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

As a thought, would seem to make sense to modularize that server nic so we can slide in whatever optic we desire...copper, fiber short mm, fiber long range sm, etc -Aaron

Re: DWDM Mux/Demux using 40G Optics

Another alternative is to ask the http://www.beetlefiberoptics.com guys. They build muxes on spec and they can also provide a 1310nm wide-band port on their units which allows a 40/100G-LR4 aside from the 1550nm DWDM band. We’ve used some simple splitters (line/1310nm LR4/1550nm DWDM ports on a

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, chiel wrote: Hello, We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

Hi, most 10GE cards have either direct 10GBASE-T port(s)s or SFP+ slot(s). The SFP+ transceiver you plug in determines the range. (SMF/MMF, wavelength, link budget) Reading the optical parameters is a bit tricky on most NICs. Karsten 2017-06-15 11:10 GMT+02:00 chiel : > Hello, >

SAFNOG-3: Sponsorship Opportunities

Hello all. It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Sponsorship Matrix for SAFNOG-3 is now available at the link below: http://www.safnog.org/matrix.html If you are interested in collaborating with SAFNOG-3 as a sponsor, please do not hesitate to reach out to: