- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Internet to Tunisia
by Marshall Eubanks 11 Jan '11

11 Jan '11

I am hearing reports of Internet blockage in / to Tunisia, where a near full-on revolt is being coordinated / reported on by social media such as twitter ( #sidibouzid ), Facebook and Youtube. Can anyone confirm that there is blockage ? Are there any in-country resources to check this ? There does not appear to be a looking glass in Tunisia. Regards Marshall

4 4

Re: Satellite IP
by Jay Ashworth 11 Jan '11

11 Jan '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> > > Why the hostility, Valdis? > > As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can make > all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an inexact > science, > it's really hard to provide a *100% guarantee* that you'll have enough > contended capacity to make all the performance targets even if every > single occasional customer shows up at once. As Jay pointed out in his > follow-up note, his backup strategy is "scramble around and hope another > provider can > come through in time", which is OK if you *know* that's your strategy > and are OK on it. However, blindly going along with "my usual provider > guaranteed 100% availability" is a bad idea. I don't think Kelly is on his first rodeo, and I know I'm not. "scramble around" is a bit pejorative as descriptions for my booking strategy go, but everyone has a cranky day every so often, not least me. :-) And note that I *also* pointed out that carrier statmuxing on the transport is a valid strategy for capacity elasticity, in that particular environment. > Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;) Are we in fact coming out of it yet? I heard it was getting deeper, and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder. Cheers, -- jra

3 2

Re: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
by Tim Burke 11 Jan '11

11 Jan '11

Ha, good luck... Limestone is a haven for cheap child-run web hosting companies. I can almost guarantee abuse@ goes to /dev/null... Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T goemon(a)anime.net wrote: >Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > >I have tried the usual channels (abuse(a)limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, "live chat") with no results. > >-Dan >

1 0

RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
by Tony Hain 11 Jan '11

11 Jan '11

*requested anonymous* wrote: > (I don't post on public mailing lists, so, please consider this > private. > That is, I don't care if the question/reply are public, just, not the > source.) > > On 1/10/11 11:46 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > > ... yes I know you understand operational issues. > > > > While managed networks can 'reverse the damage', there is no way to > fix that > > for consumer unmanaged networks. Whatever gets deployed now, that is > what > > the routers will be built to deal with, and it will be virtually > impossible > > to change it due to the 'installed base' and lack of knowledgeable > > management. > > > > It is hard enough getting the product teams to accept that it is > possible to > > build a self-configuring home network without having that be crippled > by > > braindead conservation. The worst possible value I can see for > delegation to > > the home is /56, yet that is the most popular value because people > have > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Why would you say /56 is the worst possible value? Just curious -- I am actually trying to develop a simple set of 'auto conf' rules for all the CPE vendors to build against, and for a Joe-sixpack plug-n-play network configuration a /56 means there is only one topology option beyond single subnet. > my provider doesn't offer IPv6 yet, but, I think they will soon. > I was going to ask for a /56 for my home net. If I ever get around > to using them to set up a domain for my wife's business, I will ask > for a /48, but, for a house without a private domain, /56 seems > perfect. You are thinking of a managed network. Connect a random graph of boxes, then figure out a subnet scheme that all cpe vendors can implement that will correctly deal with prefix delegation and hierarchical routing. > I don't expect to run out in my lifetime, or even my children's > or grandchildren's lifetimes if somehow the house stays in the family > ;-) > How many subnets will they really need, no matter if every lightbulb > is on the net? Wrong question. In a managed network that would be the right question, but in an unmanaged one the right question is how many sub-delegations and how many branches per sub-delegate are going to be automatically figured out. > > My frame of reference is that while we need to make the addresses big > enough, we also need to preserve the hierarchy. There is no shortage > of addresses, nor will there be, ever, but there could be a shortage > of levels in the hierarchy. I assume you would like a home to have a > /48? But, from my provider's /32, that is only 4 levels at the > assumed nibble boundary. I think my provider could use another > two levels. If your provide has more than 10,000 customers they should never have gotten a /32. The braindead notion that everyone needed to rush out and get a /32 has not helped get IPv6 deployed. The /32 value was the default one for a startup provider. Every provider with a customer base should have done a plan for a /48 per customer, then gotten the right size block to start with. Any provider with a /32 and more than 10k customers needs to do that now and swap for 'a real block', instead of trying to squeeze their customers into a tiny block due to their insufficient initial request. > > I also think ~256 subnets has stood the test of time -- seldom in > the last 25 years has a geographically contiguous enterprise network > (such as a university or company) required more than 256 subnets -- > except for cisco, microsoft, et al., but not, e.g. most colleges, > universities, research centers, etc. More addresses, sure, but, > not usually more than 256 subnets. So, even in a world where > every possible device has its own set of addresses -- how many > subnets will I really need? Again, wrong question. Most of the possible subnets in a Joe-sixpack configuration will be 'wasted'. So what? That space will be wasted sitting on the shelf at IANA in 500 years when someone comes up with a better idea. IPv6 is not the last protocol known to mankind (unless the 2012 predictions are true), so most of its potential space will be wasted. Get over that point and accept that innovation requires thinking differently than the limited myopia of the past. > > Also from my frame of reference -- we need to work on making addressing > and re-addressing easier and more automatic for consumers anyway, so, > if /56 is not enough, we can easily and painlessly switch to a /52 > with no problems. Easy in a managed network where it is possible to update code and expect that things will happen in a timeframe that makes development worth the effort. Impossible in consumer land where it is well documented that things are never updated, and all vendors need to play by the same simple rules because there is no hope that the consumer will know how to tweak them. > And, if I decide to grow an enterprise from home, > I feel that I should be able to re-address as needed over the course > of time anyway, so, I would rather make re-addressing easier than > put all my eggs in the large-enough-/48 basket. What if I grow so > large that I buy someone else's company, or otherwise merge? We have > to solve the re-addressing problem anyway, in which case, /48, /52, /56 > assignments should not be a big deal. > > What am I missing? You are thinking like every other network engineer on Nanog, not like a consumer that doesn’t understand why some configurations are not possible. The only way to avoid support calls is to make it trivial for the devices to deal with just about anything that a consumer might do, and it has to be scalable enough over time to deal with the fact that a device from today will still be in use 10-15 years from now. Evolution of the rules is possible over very long timeframes, but more complex and costly. Starting with a short-sighted, managed network viewpoint is a guarantee that it will be impossible to innovate in the unmanaged home network space. Tony

2 1

Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
by goemon＠anime.net 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? I have tried the usual channels (abuse(a)limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, "live chat") with no results. -Dan

2 1

Problems with removing NAT from a network
by ML 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

I've got a customer that is looking to multihome with upstreams in two POPs. Currently they multihome in one POP and utilize a single edge router for some one to one NAT and some PAT for their users. Before they turn up the BGP peer in the new POP I've advised them to abolish NAT once and for all in order to avoid issues with non-stateful NAT between network edges and possible asymmetric routing of their Internet traffic. The PAT can be removed easily enough. The tricky part is the one-one NAT. They have quite a few systems which have 1918 IPs which they claim "cannot be changed". At least not without some painful rebuilds of criticals systems which have these IPs deeply embedded in their configs. Has anyone here had to fix this kind of problem before? Is there a solution that would allow NAT to offloaded to a smaller device hanging off each edge router that can communicate state between each other in case traffic is asymmetrically routed?

18 47

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61
by Glenn Kelley 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

I would agree w/ the HP vs. Cisco comment from Greg Whynott Cisco has refused to help without a huge pricetag in the past. We have migrated many of our customers off of Cisco gear to mitigate future issues for exactly this reason. HP is a great partner! If you need a router check out vYatta or pfSense - pfSense for the low end of course. - Both are open - Both have paid support and we are very happy with them. Glenn On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:52 PM, nanog-request(a)nanog.org wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Brandon Kim) > 2. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Thomas Donnelly) > 3. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Greg Whynott) > 4. Re: Satellite IP (Jay Ashworth) > 5. Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > (goemon(a)anime.net) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:39:19 -0500 > From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com> > Subject: RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: <greg.whynott(a)oicr.on.ca> > Cc: nanog group <nanog(a)nanog.org>, khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com > Message-ID: <BLU158-w56696A3677B43628EE789ADC0E0(a)phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > > > to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. > > > > ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?" > > > > > >> From: Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca >> To: brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com >> CC: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com; nanog(a)nanog.org >> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 >> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >> >> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, ( http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interopera… ). >> >> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to do this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. >> >> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field. >> >> -g >> >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: >> >>> >>> To your point Andrey, >>> >>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one >>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason you pointed out, get all Cisco! >>> >>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are being sincere(sarcasm). >>> >>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should >>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to another vendor. >>> >>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least tried their hardest to support you..... >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >>>> >>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that >>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and >>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides. >>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and Avaya >>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling between >>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and >>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them anymore. >>>> >>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the network, the >>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good technical/financial >>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in those >>>> cases. >>>> >>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least in my >>>> experience. >>>> >>>> My $0.02 >>>> >>>> Andrey >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3. >>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. >>>>> >>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried to use >>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it was a bad >>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, >>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. Then >>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to say Cisco >>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and handled >>>>> better when stuff hits the fan. >>>>> >>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable >>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC requirements >>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has always >>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposed to >>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they have been >>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of the other >>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be beta >>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our firmware >>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the smart net >>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with unrestricted license >>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on options, >>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more? >>>>> >>>>> -g >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrey Khomyakov >>>> [khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com] >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:14:44 -0600 > From: "Thomas Donnelly" <tad1214(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Message-ID: <op.vo32lwi8wjyiia@osprey> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim > <brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com> wrote: > >> >> >> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. >> >> >> >> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, >> I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?" > > I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an > engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying > another vendor they raise an eyebrow. > >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca >>> To: brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com >>> CC: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com; nanog(a)nanog.org >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 >>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>> >>> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt >>> with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability >>> solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into >>> during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, >>> ( >>> http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interopera… >>> ). >>> >>> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to >>> help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd >>> ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to >>> do this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people >>> don't mix gear".. >>> >>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field. >>> >>> -g >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> To your point Andrey, >>>> >>>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger >>> point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one >>>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason >>> you pointed out, get all Cisco! >>>> >>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are >>> being sincere(sarcasm). >>>> >>>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their >>> stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should >>>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to >>> another vendor. >>>> >>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least >>> tried their hardest to support you..... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com >>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>>> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >>>>> >>>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say >>> that >>>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and >>>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both >>> sides. >>>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and >>> Avaya >>>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling >>> between >>>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and >>>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them >>> anymore. >>>>> >>>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the >>> network, the >>>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good >>> technical/financial >>>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in >>> those >>>>> cases. >>>>> >>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least >>> in my >>>>> experience. >>>>> >>>>> My $0.02 >>>>> >>>>> Andrey >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott >>> <Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal >>> L2/L3. >>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. >>>>>> >>>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried >>> to use >>>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it >>> was a bad >>>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, >>>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. >>> Then >>>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to >>> say Cisco >>>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and >>> handled >>>>>> better when stuff hits the fan. >>>>>> >>>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable >>>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC >>> requirements >>>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has >>> always >>>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposed >>> to >>>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they >>> have been >>>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of the >>> other >>>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be >>> beta >>>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our >>> firmware >>>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the >>> smart net >>>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with >>> unrestricted license >>>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on >>> options, >>>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more? >>>>>> >>>>>> -g >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andrey Khomyakov >>>>> [khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com] >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or >>> privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any >>> review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was >>> originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >>> Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message >>> may not be that of the organization. >> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:44 -0500 > From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca> > Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: Thomas Donnelly <tad1214(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: <DF852A5F-04B3-4F96-B1FC-955367976EF6(a)oicr.on.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > for vendors who we were not getting the goods from, I've found calling your sales rep much more efficient than anything you can say/ask/beg/threaten the tech on the phone. Sales guys have the inside numbers to call, the clout to get things moving as they generate revenue for said vendor. his pay comes from you, you pay him, he works for 2. > > -g > > > On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Donnelly wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim >> <brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. >>> >>> >>> >>> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, >>> I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?" >> >> I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an >> engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying >> another vendor they raise an eyebrow. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca >>>> To: brandon.kim(a)brandontek.com >>>> CC: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com; nanog(a)nanog.org >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 >>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>> >>>> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt >>>> with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability >>>> solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into >>>> during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, >>>> ( >>>> http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interopera… >>>> ). >>>> >>>> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to >>>> help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd >>>> ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to >>>> do this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people >>>> don't mix gear".. >>>> >>>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field. >>>> >>>> -g >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> To your point Andrey, >>>>> >>>>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger >>>> point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one >>>>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason >>>> you pointed out, get all Cisco! >>>>> >>>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are >>>> being sincere(sarcasm). >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their >>>> stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should >>>>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to >>>> another vendor. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least >>>> tried their hardest to support you..... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com >>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>>>> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >>>>>> >>>>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say >>>> that >>>>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and >>>>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both >>>> sides. >>>>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and >>>> Avaya >>>>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling >>>> between >>>>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and >>>>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them >>>> anymore. >>>>>> >>>>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the >>>> network, the >>>>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good >>>> technical/financial >>>>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in >>>> those >>>>>> cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least >>>> in my >>>>>> experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> My $0.02 >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrey >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott >>>> <Greg.Whynott(a)oicr.on.ca>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal >>>> L2/L3. >>>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried >>>> to use >>>>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it >>>> was a bad >>>>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, >>>>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. >>>> Then >>>>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to >>>> say Cisco >>>>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and >>>> handled >>>>>>> better when stuff hits the fan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable >>>>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC >>>> requirements >>>>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has >>>> always >>>>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposed >>>> to >>>>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they >>>> have been >>>>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of the >>>> other >>>>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be >>>> beta >>>>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our >>>> firmware >>>>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the >>>> smart net >>>>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with >>>> unrestricted license >>>>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on >>>> options, >>>>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -g >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Andrey Khomyakov >>>>>> [khomyakov.andrey(a)gmail.com] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or >>>> privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any >>>> review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was >>>> originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >>>> Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message >>>> may not be that of the organization. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> > > > -- > > This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 -0500 (EST) > From: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> > Subject: Re: Satellite IP > To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <18554927.984.1294695210090.JavaMail.root(a)benjamin.baylink.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> > >>> Why the hostility, Valdis? >> >> As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can make >> all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an inexact >> science, >> it's really hard to provide a *100% guarantee* that you'll have enough >> contended capacity to make all the performance targets even if every >> single occasional customer shows up at once. As Jay pointed out in his >> follow-up note, his backup strategy is "scramble around and hope another >> provider can >> come through in time", which is OK if you *know* that's your strategy >> and are OK on it. However, blindly going along with "my usual provider >> guaranteed 100% availability" is a bad idea. > > I don't think Kelly is on his first rodeo, and I know I'm not. > > "scramble around" is a bit pejorative as descriptions for my booking > strategy go, but everyone has a cranky day every so often, not least me. > > :-) > > And note that I *also* pointed out that carrier statmuxing on the > transport is a valid strategy for capacity elasticity, in that particular > environment. > >> Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;) > > Are we in fact coming out of it yet? I heard it was getting deeper, > and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder. > > Cheers, > -- jra > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST) > From: goemon(a)anime.net > Subject: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > To: "'nanog(a)merit.edu'" <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101101349450.19712(a)sasami.anime.net> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > > I have tried the usual channels (abuse(a)limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, "live chat") with no results. > > -Dan > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG(a)nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61 > *************************************

1 0

Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?
by Brielle Bruns 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Back in the days when I still did NOC stuff, we'd bring in individual T1 lines through a Kentrox EZ-T3, which would hand off a channelized T3 to a 7513. With the EZ-T3, it was literally just plug and play. I believe the Atlas 800 series can be used in the same ways, but its been 10 years, so I may be mistaken... ------Original Message------ From: b nickell To: Chris Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days? Sent: Jan 10, 2011 1:16 PM The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux box, then connecting that back to a 6500. I work in that kind of topology all day long/ both in 6500 & ASR's. All is well/ On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Chris <behrnetworks(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking to put some feelers out there and see what people are > doing to aggregate WAN customers (T1,T3, etc...) these days. What > platforms/devices are you using? What seems to be working/not working? > Any insights would be great! > > Thanks, > > Chris > > -- -B -- Brielle Bruns http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org

1 0

How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?
by Chris 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Hello, I'm looking to put some feelers out there and see what people are doing to aggregate WAN customers (T1,T3, etc...) these days. What platforms/devices are you using? What seems to be working/not working? Any insights would be great! Thanks, Chris

9 9

Re: Satellite IP
by Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:06:32 EST, Kelly Olsen said: > That would only happen with an outrageously over-subscribed provider. OK - I'll feed the troll. What's the proper amount of unused and therefor non-revenue-generating capacity the operator is supposed to reserve in order to *guarantee* that bandwidth will be available? (Hint - the provider doesn't have to be "outrageously" oversubscribed - by definition, if you're oversubscribed *at all*, it's possible for somebody to lose out. It's easy for the provider to be 98% sure that they'll be able to satisfy all the requests. But guaranteeing 100% is a whole nother story...)

3 2