October 2010 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Ethernet performance tests
by Diogo Montagner 07 Nov '10

07 Nov '10

Hello everyone, I am looking for performance test methodology for ethernet-based circuits. These ethernet circuits can be: dark-fiber, l2circuit (martini), l2vpn (kompella), vpls or ng-vpls. Sometimes, the ethernet circuit can be a mix of these technologies, like below: CPE <-> metro-e <-> l2circuit <-> l2vpn <-> l2circuit <-> metro-e <-> CPE The goal is verify the performance end-to-end. I am looking for tools that can check at least the following parameters: - loss - latency - jitter - bandwidth - out-of-order delivery At this moment I have been used IPerf to achieve these results. But I would like to check if there is some test devices that can be used in situations like that to verify the ethernet-based circuit performance. The objective of these tests is to verify the signed SLAs of each circuit before the customer start to use it. I checked all MEF specifications and I only find something related to performance for Circuit Emulation over Metro-E (which is not my case). Appreciate your comments. Thanks! ./diogo -montagner

8 12

IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses
by Jeroen van Aart 06 Nov '10

06 Nov '10

<IPv6 newbie> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses an fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number: "fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local communication. They are routable only within a set of cooperating sites (analogous to the private address ranges 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16 of IPv4).[12] The addresses include a 40-bit pseudorandom number in the routing prefix intended to minimize the risk of conflicts if sites merge or packets are misrouted into the Internet. Despite the restricted, local usage of these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to be globally unique." I am trying to set up a local IPv6 network and am curious why all the examples I come accross do not seem to use the 40-bit pseudorandom number? What should I do? Use something like fd00::1234, or incorporate something like the interface's MAC address into the address? It'd make the address quite unreadable though. Thanks, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html

45 211

Mystery open source switching company claims top-of-rack price edge (was Re: Pica8 - Open Source Cloud Switch)
by Lin Pica8 04 Nov '10

04 Nov '10

Hello, For your information : http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/102810-pica8-opensource-switching.htm… Mail : pica8.org(a)gmail.com 2010/10/19 Lin Pica8 <pica8.org(a)gmail.com>: > Hello, > > To have a better overview of a Cloud (or OpenFlow) Switch, I would > greatly appreciate to invite you to a further reading of the > presentation entitled "FI technologies on cloud computing and trusty > networking" from our partner, Chunghwa Telecom (Leading ISP in Taiwan) > : > > http://www.asiafi.net/meeting/2010/summerschool/p/chu.pdf > > Mail : pica8.org(a)gmail.com > > 2010/10/18 Lin Pica8 <pica8.org(a)gmail.com>: >> Hello, >> >> We are starting to distribute Pica8 Open Source Cloud Switches : >> >> http://www.pica8.com/ >> >> Especially, a Pica8 Switch with the following specifications >> (including Open Source Firmware) : >> >> -HW : 48x1Gbps + 4x10 Gbps >> >> -Firmware : L2/L3 management for VLAN, LACP, STP/RSTP, LLDP, OSPF, >> RIP, static route, PIM-SM, VRRP, IGMP, IGMP Snooping, IPv6, >> Radius/Tacacs+ as well as OpenFlow 1.0 >> >> would compete with a Cisco Catalyst 2960-S, Model WS-C2960S-48TD-L for >> half the price (~2k USD). >> >> Mail : pica8.org(a)gmail.com >> >

33 46

IPv6 rDNS
by Jeroen van Aart 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

I battled for a few hours getting IPv6 rDNS to work. The following tool proved to be quite helpful: http://www.fpsn.net/?pg=tools&tool=ipv6-inaddr Just in case anyone else would run into similar problems. It's not as straightforward as IPv4 rDNS. Greetings, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html

18 25

Bandwidth into Haiti
by Marshall Eubanks 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

Can anyone update me on the status of fiber bandwidth into Haiti ? Has the landing station been repaired yet after last years earthquake ? Regards Marshall Eubanks

3 2

Optical Wireless
by james edwards 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

I am looking for some vendors that make PtP optical wireless (laser) gear. I have a project where I have to link 2 buildings separated by a 5 lane road. Buildings are at least 10 stories high. Multiple reasons why RF (WiFi) or fiber under the street will not work, plus some layer 8 issues. I need 100 mbs, Ethernet is the protocol transported. PoE would be nice but not a show stopper. Anyone have experience with this kind of gear and can suggest a vendor ? Thanks, -- James H. Edwards Network Systems Administrator Judicial Information Division jedwards(a)nmcourts.gov

6 6

Management , Provisioning , Fault detection and management for ISPs?
by Gustavo Santos 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

Hi, I´m looking for some books, best common pratices and stuff like that for ISPs. We have an ISP that´s having a fast growth and we´re having some problems because lack of procedures. For an example two days ago we have a broadcast storm that coused a lot of problem and was harsh to find who is causing that issue , couse one of our clients made a self install ( not authorized in one of our multipoint access point) and somehow caused a loop. we have some types of circuit delivery to our customers like point to point licensed microwave , t1/e1 , fiber optic, and point to multipoint wireless. How you large ISPs deal with that kind of problem or that´s never happen becouse all your circuits are delivered in a private vlan, qinq, serial interfaces, point to point ? Thanks! -- Gustavo Santos Analista de Redes CCNA , MTCNA , JUNCIA-ER

1 0

Topic: Inter-AS BGP Local Preference Matrix
by Rettke, Brian 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

My company is building a national backbone network, leveraging leased lines and dark fiber from Tier 1/2/3 providers. What we've found is that when we buy IP in the major markets, our traffic does not flow deterministically with AS-Path as the metric. This is because most of the major providers give their customers one local preference value, and their peers another, in an effort to ensure SLAs are met by keeping customer traffic on-net for as long as possible. There are varying values assigned, and some vendors don't offer community values to neutralize this effect. I'm wondering if anyone has dealt with this in the past, or if it would be possible to have some sort of agreement on local preference manipulation. Something similar to the below: 1. All vendors must offer at least 5 community values for local preference. This is to allow for customer-based multivendor traffic engineering. 2. All vendors must offer a local preference community value greater than their best default metric. 3. All vendors must offer a local preference community value lesser than their worst default metric. 4. All vendors should offer a range of community values both above and below local preference 100. 5. All vendors should make an effort to standardize the values/value ranges offered with other vendors. 6. All vendors should offer a local preference matrix to their customers, listing the changes made to a specific AS (e.g. another vendor) to aid the customer in making an intelligent routing decision for load balancing and traffic engineering in a multivendor BGP environment. It's obviously something that each of us would need to do individually, but I'm wondering if there is any way this could become a de facto standard, or could be a method that the community at large could enforce somehow. Sincerely, Brian A . Rettke RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services

4 3

APRICOT 2011 Call For Papers
by Jonny Martin 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) 15 - 25 February 2011, Hong Kong http://www.apricot2011.net CALL FOR PAPERS =============== The APRICOT 2011 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for Presentations and Tutorials for APRICOT 2011. We are looking for people and proposals that would: - Offer a technical tutorial on an appropriate topic; and/or - Participate in the technical conference sessions as a speaker; and/or - Convene and chair a Birds of a Feather (BOF) session. Please submit proposals on-line at http://www.apricot2011.net/call-for-papers/submission CONFERENCE MILESTONES --------------------- Call for Papers Opens: 29 October 2010 First Deadline for Submissions: 29 November 2010 First Draft Programme Published: 6 December 2010 Final Deadline for Submissions: 4 February 2011 Final Programme Published: 11 February 2011 Final Slides Received: 19 February 2011 PROGRAM MATERIAL ---------------- The APRICOT Programme is organised in three parts, including workshops, tutorials and the conference. The APNIC Policy SIG and Annual Members Meeting will be held during the APRICOT conference. Topics for tutorials and conference would include amongst others relevant to Internet Operations and Technologies: - IPv4 / IPv6 Routing and operations - IPv4 address runout / IPv6 deployment and transition technologies - Backbone operations - ISP and Carrier services - Network security issues (NSP-SEC, DDoS Anti-Spam, Anti-Malware) - Peering / IXPs - DNS / DNSSEC - Internet policy (Security, Regulation, Content Management, Addressing, etc) - Access and Transport Technologies, including broadband deployment, Cable/DSL, wireless, WiMax, metro ethernet, fiber network, MPLS - Content & Service Delivery (Multicast, Voice, Video, "telepresence", Gaming) CFP SUBMISSION -------------- Draft slides for both tutorials and conference sessions MUST be provided with CFP submissions otherwise the Programme Committee will be unable to review the submission. For work in progress, the most current information available at time of submission is acceptable. Final slides are to be provided by the specified deadline for publication on the APRICOT website. While the majority of speaking slots will be filled by the first submission deadline, a limited number of slots may be available up to the final submission deadline for presentations that are exceptionally timely, important, or of critical operational importance. Please submit on-line at http://www.apricot2011.net/call-for-papers/submission Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the Programme Committee by e-mail. We look forward to receiving your presentation proposals. Jonny Martin & Mark Tinka Co-Chairs, APRICOT Programme Committee program(a)apricot.net

1 0

Route hijacking
by Geoff Huston 30 Oct '10

30 Oct '10

My bgp monitor tells me: *> 1.2.3.0/24 203.119.76.3 0 4608 1221 4637 3561 1299 12025 ? *> 5.4.3.0/24 202.12.28.1 0 4777 2516 1239 1299 12025 ? These are _not_ authorized announcements, so could AS3561 Savvis AS1299 Telia AS1239 Sprintlink kindly DROP these unauthorized route advertisements (and clean up their route acceptance processes so that they stop announcing unauthorized noise to the rest of the Internet). And could the folk who run AS12025 IO-DATA-CENTERS - IO Data Centers kindly stop route hijacking? thanks, Geoff

1 0