- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

NOC display software
by JoeSox 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

Just wondering if anyone can recommend Windows software (it could be Linux too but I might need to create a separate host for that configuration) that enables rotating [on one monitor] several webpages (dashboards) or windows (application dashboards). It would be nice if it was freeware or open source but whatever works best is what I am looking for. For example, if I wanted one monitor to cycle thru my local SolarWinds Orion, Office 365 Health Status, and anyother webdashboards. -- Thank You, Joe

8 7

IPv6 support by wifi systems
by Brandon Ross 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

Like so many things IPv6, many of the wifi vendors seem to lack decent support for IPv6 clients. I'm not sure why I thought the situation was better than it seems to be, I guess I'm just an optimist. Anyway, what wifi vendors provide the best support for IPv6? I don't really care too much about management, but to deploy wifi in a service provider environment with IPv6, it would seem that you'd want at least: RA Guard DHCPv6 Shield (unless you just do SLAAC, I guess) IPv6 Source Address Guard Am I missing anything critical? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross

6 10

home network monitoring and shaping
by Michael Thomas 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

O oracle of nanog: unlike things like rogue processes eating tons of CPU, it seems to me that network monitoring is essentially a black art for the average schmuck home network operator (of which I count myself). That is: if the "network is slow", it's really hard to tell why that might be and who of the eleventy seven devices on my wifi is sucking the life out of my bandwidth. And then even if I get an idea of who the perp is, my remediation choice seems to be "find that device, smash it with sledge hammer". It seems that there really ought to be a better way here to manage my home network. Like, for example, the ability to get stats from router and tell it to shape various devices/flows to play nice. Right now, it seems to me that the state of the art is pretty bad -- static-y kinds of setups for static-y kinds of flows that people-y kind of users don't understand or touch on their home routers. The ob-nanog is that "my intertoobs r slow" is most likely a call to your support desks which is expensive, of course. Is anything happening on this front? Is openwrt, for example, paying much attention to this problem? Mike

9 10

The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network
by fredrik danerklint 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

- Well, as it turns out, we don't have that kind of a problem. - You don't? - No, we do not have that kind of a problem in our network. We have plenty of bandwidth available to our customers, thank-you-every-much. - Do you have, just to make an example, about 10 000 customers in a specific area, like an city/county or part of a city/county? - Yes, of course! - Does these customers have at least 10 Mbit/s connection to the Internet? - Yes! Who do you think we are, like stupid! Haha! - Could all those 10 000 customers, just to make it theoretical, hit the 'play'-button on their Internet-connected-TV, at the same time, to watch the latest Quad-HD movie? - Yes. Oh wait a minute now! This is not fair! Damn. We're toast. -- //fredan

24 55

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
by Jay Ashworth 12 Feb '13

12 Feb '13

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen(a)delong.com> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk <frnkblk(a)iname.com> wrote: > > > Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just > > copper services brought into the home. > Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the > penetration. What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*. If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work it. *This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott is scared of. No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT. > I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally > extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution > shouldn't do this. Hopefully that explains my concern. > As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the > L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an > L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be > economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually > only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2 > per media type (rarely even more than 1). I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility. > However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not > leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and > possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use > ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no > reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with > a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular > 1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service. Sure. > I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying > that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with > any additional technologies anywhere. Yup; I've been saying that right along. That's why I'd prefer to do the install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it. Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome. That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it through on order. > If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with > that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should > avoid any blurring of the lines. I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3 service would. Had I misunderstood you? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

4 4

Reachability problem with AS8388 [194.63.246.0/23]
by Carlos Friacas 12 Feb '13

12 Feb '13

Hello, Does anyone has reachability issues with AS8388? It seems i'm unable to get packets back from 194.63.246.0/23, but only if the source is my 193.136.0.0/15 block, at AS1930. It works well from my other netblocks. I'm basically performing a (non-recursive) DNS query to DNS servers within 194.63.246.0/23. I've been trying to involve upstream providers to take a deeper look at this problem, but i haven't had any luck so far. I can't even get a traceroute back to my network from anyone at AS8388. Any suggestions? Best Regards, Carlos Friaças

2 3

Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network
by Jay Ashworth 12 Feb '13

12 Feb '13

----- Original Message ----- > From: "fredrik danerklint" <fredan-nanog(a)fredan.se> > > "allow my customers as an ISP to cache the content at their home". > > > > Do you *mean* "their home" -- an end-user residence? > > Yes, I do *mean* that. > > As in you, Jay, should be allowed to run your own cache server in your > home (Traffic Server is the one that I'm using in the TLMC concept). > > Wouldn't you like that? It would do little good; my hit rate on such a cache would be unlikely to be high enough to merit the traffic to keep it charged. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

7 11

switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
by Piotr 12 Feb '13

12 Feb '13

Hello, I looking some 10G switches, it should work as TOR or core in DC. It should have more than 40 port 10G in one unit, wirespeed L2 L3, with virtual routers and some other ip functions like some BGP, OSPF, policy routing, 1-2U, MLAG, g.8032 (ERPS) trill-like ? Other important features are big port buffers ( something similar to Juniper EX8200 - 512 MB per slot), defined counters accessible via snmp (like in junos), L3 statistics accessible via snmp Extreme 670 looks good but they have small port buffers. It can be also some small chassis with line cards but the cost per 10G ports is too big.. What vendor, model You prefer or suggest as a solution ? thanks for help best, Peter

6 8

Any experience with Grandstream VoIP equipment ?
by John Levine 12 Feb '13

12 Feb '13

I'm in the midst of what would be a comedy of errors if it weren't so annoying. I bought a new Grandstream HT701 VoIP terminal adapter from a guy on eBay who is apparently an official Grandstream reseller. It doesn't work. The guy I bought it from (whose support ends at "nobody else has that problem") pointed fingers at Grandstream, whose support has been, well, impressive and not in a good way. I've done packet traces on the LAN with the box, I know what the problem is: there's something wrong with the box so it doesn't respond to the Proxy-Authenticate: challenge from my SIP provider. I know the challenge is OK, I have an old VoIP phone of theirs which works fine, on the same LAN with the same provider and the same configuration. Unfortunately, Grandstream's support staff is apparently unfamilar with packet traces and networks, and after a variety of obviously wrong diagoses (no, it's not a NAT problem, you can see the responses coming back from the remote system, etc.) seems unable to understand that a packet trace is, you know, a trace of the actual packets that have passed by the device's NIC. There's more, but you get the idea. Does anyone else here use their equipment? Is there any way to find support for this stuff who can actually provide support? R's, John

10 17

Micro Trenching for Fiber Optic Deployment
by david peahi 12 Feb '13

12 Feb '13

Does anyone have experience in running fiber optic cable with micro-trenching techniques in areas where there is no existing asphalt or concrete roadway, just packed earth and rock? Environmental limitations do not allow for constructing an aerial power pole alignment, or underground ductbank. The distance is about 10 kM. David

6 6