- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Telus / AS852 Contact?
by Mike 03 Oct '12

03 Oct '12

Is anyone from Telus out there and willing to answer a few questions around policy / privacy? I'm hitting a roadblock trying to find out what hoops I need to jump through to get the information I need. If a super awesome Telus person can point me at the hoops, I'll start jumping. Please contact me off-list. thanks -- Looking for (employment|contract) work in the Internet industry, preferrably working remotely. Building / Supporting the net since 2400 baud was the hot thing. Ask for a resume! ispbuilder(a)gmail.com

1 0

US government gets an "F" for IPv6 Internet make-over
by Eugen Leitl 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

----- Forwarded message from "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols" <sjvn(a)vna1.com> ----- From: "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols" <sjvn(a)vna1.com> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:24:36 -0400 To: ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de Subject: US government gets an "F" for IPv6 Internet make-over Organization: Vaughan-Nichols & Associates X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Reply-To: "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols" <sjvn(a)vna1.com> http://www.zdnet.com/us-government-gets-an-f-for-ipv6-internet-make-over-70… And, here's what I found when all was said and done after 9/30. Steven -- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols Contributing Editor, CBS/ZDNet: http://www.zdnet.com/meet-the-team/us/steven.j.vaughan-nichols/ Columnist, ComputerWorld: http://www.computerworld.com/s/columnist/9000320/Steven+J.+Vaughan-Nichols Columnist, NetworkWorld: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/26145 QOTD: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."--H.L. Mencken ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

4 3

Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
by Summers, William 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

We've been using IBM 10G switches (8124 and 8264) sfp varieties back when they were Blade Networks. Very good performance, cost, and support. The use of DACs/Twinax in our datacenters made our 10G overhaul budget work.

1 0

Cost of fiber run between neighbouring office buildings
by Hank Disuko 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Hi folks, I wonder if I can tap into some knowledge on the list and ask for ballpark figures on how much it would normally cost to run 2 fiber cables between 2 adjacent office buildings. I have a quote from a contractor, and I want to make sure i'm not getting totally fleeced. The conduit is in place between the buildings. The work entails: - 2 x 6-Strand 50/125u multimode, Tight Buffered, Armoured, Laser Ultra-Fox Fiber cables - Distance of run is approx 520 meters - Total of 8 terminations (2 strands on each end of links) - Testing, documentation Thanks, Hank

6 5

[NANOG-announce] List ID changed for NANOG mail list
by Randy Epstein 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Greetings, A quick email to let folks know that we've changed the list ID to mailman.nanog.org. It was previously nanog.nanog.org. This notification is to alert you in case you need to modify your procmail filters. Regards, Randy Epstein NANOG CC Chair On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Cost of fiber run between neighbouring office buildings
by Summers, William 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

You can get a reasonable estimate by looking at a pre-terminated fiber for that distance. Add lineitems for termination boxes and labor 1-2 days labor for 2 techs. (If you email me I'll tell you the vendor I use for pre-terminated fiber, but searching should yield results).

1 0

/. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
by Eugen Leitl 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/terabit-ethernet-is-dead-for-now/ Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now by Mark Hachman | September 26, 2012 A straw poll of the IEEE's high-speed Ethernet group finds that 400-Gbits/s is almost unanimously preferred. Sorry, everybody: terabit Ethernet looks like it will have to wait a while longer. The IEEE 802.3 Industry Connections Higher Speed Ethernet Consensus group met this week in Geneva, Switzerland, with attendees concluding—almost to a man—that 400 Gbits/s should be the next step in the evolution of Ethernet. A straw poll at its conclusion found that 61 of the 62 attendees that voted supported 400 Gbits/s as the basis for the near term “call for interest,” or CFI. The bandwidth call to arms was sounded by a July report by the IEEE, which concluded that, if current trends continue, networks will need to support capacity requirements of 1 terabit per second in 2015 and 10 terabits per second by 2020. In 2015 there will be nearly 15 billion fixed and mobile-networked devices and machine-to-machine connections. The report goes on to predict that, from 2010 to 2015, global IP traffic will experience a fourfold increase from 20 exabytes per month in 2010 to 81 exabytes per month in 2015, a 32 percent CAGR. Storage growth is expected to grow to 7910 exabytes in 2015, with over half of it accessed via Ethernet. Of course, one of the first places the new, faster Ethernet links will occur will be in the data center. With that in mind, the IEEE 802.3 group began formulating a response. However, virtually all attendees seemed to be in agreement before the meeting opened, as only one presentation focused on the feasibility of one-terabit Ethernet, eventually concluding that 400 Gbits/s made more sense in the near term. Kai Cui and Peter Stassar from Huawei Technologies suggested that the most cost-effective method for developing a 1-terabit Physical Medium Dependent (PMD) would be to leverage today’s 100-Gbit technology, which isn’t yet in high volume, and therefore not cost-optimized. “[The] cost target for 1Tb/s needs to be at or below 100G cost/bit*sec and required R&D investments should be modest,” they wrote as part of their presentation. “100GbE technology based architecture would imply 40 lanes at 25G, which clearly would imply impractically big packages and large amount of interface signals,” Cui and Stassar added, which would need to reduce the number of electrical and optical interface lanes to enable a reasonable package size. While alternative modulation formats could be used (5λx200G DP-16QAM, 4 bits/symbol, 25G) “neither the multi-level nor the phase modulation format based technologies have been demonstrated to be sufficiently mature to justify usage in client PMDs towards 100Gb/s to 1Tb/s applications.” They concluded: “1Tb/s does seem a ‘bridge too far’ at least for the coming 3 to 4 years.” Chris Cole of optical components maker Finisar presented the case for a 400-Gbit CFI, with backing from Brocade, Cisco, HP, IBM, Intel, Juniper, and Verizon, among others. Like Huawei’s Cui and Stassar, Cole indicated that 400-Gbit Ethernet can reuse 100 GbE building blocks, and fits within the existing dense 100 GbE roadmap. Faster data rates require “exotic” implementations, with higher R&D investments required and a longer time to market. “Data rates beyond 400Gb/s require an increasingly impractical number of lanes if 100GbE technology is reused,” he said. 400 Gbit/s also makes more sense than a 4×100 Gb/s link aggregation, Cole added, as fewer items promotes management efficiency. Individual link congestion is also a concern: “Without faster links, [the] link count grows exponentially, therefore management pain grows exponentially.” Cole suggested that a potential 400 Gb/s MAC/PCS ASIC could be fabricated in either 20- or 28-nm CMOS, using a 400-bit wide bus and a 1 GHz clock rate. “There is a strong desire to reuse 802.3ba, 802.3bj, and 802.3bm technology building blocks,” he said. That’s not to say that terabit Ethernet won’t be needed, Cole concluded, or 1.6 terabit Ethernet, at that. The timeframes for those followon CFIs could be between 3 to 6 years, he said. The CFI hasn’t formally occurred; until it does, nothing has been decided. So far, the most likely dates for formalizing the CFI will take place in either November or next month. But at this point, it looks like terabit Ethernet is a dead duck, at least for the near future.

17 21

Data Center Flooring
by Mark Keymer 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

We recently took possession of a building which part of it was used for a teleco room by a Cellular company. The floor looks like crap. So we were thinking about maybe just putting another new flooring on top. Currently it has some type of tile looking flooring. I have been told the the entry way into the building is Anti-static. However No idea on the actual data center flooring. I know in the past there have been talks about datacenter flooring. (Even Carpet if I recall). What I am wondering is does the actual datacenter flooring need to be like Static Dissipating. (Found something that does that for about $10.00 a Sqr foot). Or can it just be non static generating or like non conducting. Not quite sure the wording to use here. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated on or off the list. Sincerely, -- Mark Keymer

5 5

IP traffic trend analysis
by groupstudytac groupstudytac 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Hi All , What tool do you use in house for Trend anaylsis of Aggregate IP traffic or should i say what is the best way to carry out trend analysis of the aggregate IP traffic throughput in a carrier network. Rgds G

1 0

[liberationtech] The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network
by Eugen Leitl 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Sounds just like CGN. ----- Forwarded message from Collin Anderson <collin(a)averysmallbird.com> ----- From: Collin Anderson <collin(a)averysmallbird.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:06:34 -0400 To: liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Subject: [liberationtech] The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network Reply-To: liberationtech <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> Libtech, I want to share a working paper of mine that was posted to arXiv last night. This is part of an ongoing effort to start producing verifiable dataset on how Iran's Internet works, and was a surprising discovery that I wanted to share with everyone else -- in lead up to a broader output *The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network* While funding agencies have provided substantial support for the developers and vendors of services that facilitate the unfettered flow of information through the Internet, little consolidated knowledge exists on the basic communications network infrastructure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the absence open access and public data, rumors and fear have reigned supreme. During provisional research on the country's censorship regime, we found initial indicators that telecommunications entities in Iran allowed private addresses to route domestically, whether intentionally or unintentionally, creating a hidden network only reachable within the country. Moreover, records such as DNS entries lend evidence of a 'dual stack' approach, wherein servers are assigned a domestic IP addresses, in addition to a global one. Despite the clear political implications of the claim we put forward, particularly in light of rampant speculation regarding the mandate of Article 46 of the 'Fifth Five Year Development Plan' to establish a "national information network," we refrain from hypothesizing the purpose of this structure. In order to solicit critical feedback for future research, we outline our initial findings and attempt to demonstrate that the matter under contention is a nation-wide phenomenom that warrants broader attention. http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6398 Cordially, Collin -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C. -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- End forwarded message -----

2 1