Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:30:21 +, David Guo via NANOG said: > They are based in Netherlands and may be not familiar with Germany business > laws I'd expect that due diligence on their part would be to find an actual expert on German business law. And given that RIPE deals with most of Europe,

Re: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

Montgomery, Douglas (Fed): > Our effort to get our new monitor transitioned to a public facing > system ran into a wall for ~35 days. Unfortunately during that time, > the visa of a visiting researcher leading that effort expired. > > We have almost recovered from all of that. Unfortunately,

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

They are based in Netherlands and may be not familiar with Germany business laws Get Outlook for iOS From: NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 00:11 To: Carsten Bormann Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re:

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

When AI robots take over a regional registry, let us know. In the current world, there is no such thing as AI robots running any bureaucracy. They’re all run by fallible humans, and only humans are to blame. In this case, European humans. :) -mel > On Feb 15, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Carsten

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

On Feb 15, 2019, at 16:46, Mel Beckman wrote: > > rant not operational, it’s not even North American While that is true, an event where a regional registry has been taken over by (badly programmed) AI robots should be very much of interest both operationally and for North Americans. Grüße,

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

Dear Markus, I think you are better off taking a deep breath, perhaps removing some strongly worded sentences, and bring up the topic on one of the RIPE mailing lists: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-lists/ripe-list Kind regards, Job On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:47 Mel Beckman

Re: OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

Sorry, but not only is your giant bolus of a rant not operational, it’s not even North American. Please respect the boundaries of our group and keep your venting in Europe where it belongs. This isn’t a flame, it’s just a polite request that you knock it off. -mel beckman > On Feb 15, 2019,

OT/venting: RIPE legal - please stop this madness!

Hi list! The following is off-topic/venting. It's about RIPE and my company in Germany. If you don't care about this even remotely, don't read on and don't flame me. I'm just so pissed and I have no other connection to the ISP (and related) community than the NANOG mailing list and I know

RE: Whitebox with OSPF optics

Hello Sami, Edgecore (Accton) announced A9716-32X last year but it is not available on their web page, seems like they contributed the design to the OCP but not on sale yet. https://www.opencompute.org/products/270/edgecore-networks-as9700-32x-400g-open-networking-switch Regards Erçin TORUN

Re: Last Mile Design

On 15/Feb/19 15:06, Colton Conor wrote: > Well the CES is EOLed. Like I said, been a while. But with a quick scan over the years, nothing is blowing my skirt up. > ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential > customers but fine for upstream aggregation. You need to

Re: Last Mile Design

On 15/Feb/19 15:06, Colton Conor wrote: > Well the CES is EOLed. Like I said, been a while. But with a quick scan over the years, nothing is blowing my skirt up. > > ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential > customers but fine for upstream aggregation. You need

Re: Last Mile Design

Well the CES is EOLed. ACX5048 can be had for around $10k, so not cheap for residential customers but fine for upstream aggregation. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:00 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 14/Feb/19 23:25, Brandon Martin wrote: > > > > > > > The CES is...wonky. My Foundry/Brocade/Extreme

Re: [proj-bgp] adding graphs for actually unreachable RPKI INVALID prefixes to RPKI Monitor?

Our effort to get our new monitor transitioned to a public facing system ran into a wall for ~35 days. Unfortunately during that time, the visa of a visiting researcher leading that effort expired. We have almost recovered from all of that. Unfortunately, we have a bit of a bureaucracy to

Re: Last Mile Design

    Not all gen of CER takes full routes.     I got a pair of 1gen here with 512k FIB. - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax:

RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

> They are normal 1st gen trio boxes, same as MPC1, MPC2, MPC3 originals were. > You may be confused about the fact that their control plane is freescale, > instead of intel. Sorry, yes - you're right. Re-convergence times are, however, still awful. Though if you're not handling a lot of

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

On 15/Feb/19 10:54, Phil Lavin wrote: > They are, however, not Trio - rather just commodity CPUs. Routing > re-convergence times are shockingly high - in the region of 5-10 minutes for > MX80 with a full table vs 30 seconds (ish) for 204 They are Trio. It's the control plane which is not

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:54 AM Phil Lavin wrote: > > MX80/MX104 have both sides for revenue ports. > > They are, however, not Trio - rather just commodity CPUs. Routing > re-convergence times are shockingly high - in the region of 5-10 minutes for > MX80 with a full table vs 30 seconds

RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

> Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN side > used, leaving FAB side entirely unused, throwing away 50% of free capacity. The usable port configs are also quite tricky. Juniper have had to make a tool to validate the configurations

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

On 15/Feb/19 10:40, Saku Ytti wrote: > Is this because we as a community are so anal towards vendors about > PPS performance that JNPR marketing forbade them making pizza-box MPC7 > using all the capacity in fears of people being angry about not being > able to do good PPS on all ports? > > As

MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > MX204 be good for that ? > > I'm sure it will be - it's an MPC7 in a cage :-). Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN side used, leaving FAB side entirely unused, throwing away 50% of free capacity. MX80/MX104