- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Satellite IP
by Jay Ashworth 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> > So what you're saying is that after a Kyoto/Chile sized quake, or a > Katrina, or a Quebec 1990 ice storm, you can *guarantee* that you can > still fill all requests for transponder space, and *still* satisfy every > single customer who wants to book 4 hours on Thursday on short notice. > > Like I said - 98% is easy. 100% is hard. Sure. But 100% is also your strawman, I believe; no? Particularly in the specific space we're presently talking about: iDirect Satellite IP service over transponders dedicated to the hub operator, the service is a bit more elastic than I believe you imagine. *Most* iDirect customers are sharing a carrier; it's a TDMA service. It's only the fairly rare ones, like I may be, who actually want a "1:1" or uncontended carrier all to ourselves. Depending on your spectrum management practices as a hub operator, if you have an entire 36MHz Ku band transponder -- or better, 2 on the same bird -- with which to play, you may be able to carve out 3MHz worth of free space, without *anyone* getting knocked off line. The 1000 other clients who are contending for that 72MHz of space merely have to contend a very small amount harder. So in actual fact, it may be possible to both meet your SLA's to the contention customers and *still* give an occasional customer 100% uncontended bandwidth for a short period of time; it's one of the reasons I propose to go that way: it *increases* my odds of getting a clean slot from at least one of 3 hub providers at any given hour. Cheers, -- jra

1 0

jetcore bigiron 4000 max ipv6 routes
by jarod smith 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Hi, I know that jetcore bigiron 4000 allow max 400000 ipv4 routes. I want to add a dual stack. Is IPv6 routes are added to the IPv4 routes or are they stored elsewhere. Regards.

1 0

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
by Joel M Snyder 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

>I try to follow the Tolly Group who compares products, and they >continually show that Cisco equipment >is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find >that so hard to believe..... Just a rough comment here. Tolly's business model is a sponsored test one, and Cisco is the dominant vendor in the marketplace. So when anyone has a new product they want to promote, they can hire Tolly's lab to show how a particular feature set is implemented and can often show how one model exceeds Cisco's performance on some or all benchmarks. While Tolly never cheats, remember that the guys who "win" the test are the ones that are helping to design the test methodology, and so they are focusing on features that they know that they can beat Cisco on. Thus, the Tolly reports are true, but may not be telling the whole story or may be focusing on a particular feature more than anything else. No one is lying to you, but you may not be given the whole picture. There's nothing wrong with having Tolly show that your product is in the same league as Cisco's, but I would not necessarily read those reports to say that Cisco is always the "loser" in any new product comparison. The real value in Tolly's reports is to give credibility to the new and up-coming products by having a mostly-independent source show that the new products are comparable with the market leaders' in some ways. Tolly is also very very important at doing spec verification: showing that a product actually DOES what the specification sheet says it does. Remember that those numbers are often made up by product managers based on poorly-done in-house tests, so having a third-party, even a paid one, say "yes, it does do that in our test lab" is WAY more information than you get from most vendors. Tolly provides a valuable service to our community but you need to look at a combination of benchmarks from Tolly as well as other very-unbiased sources (IDG and CMP magazines are pretty thorough) AND YOUR OWN TESTING to know what is best for you. On the other hand, compared to the analyst firms like Gartner who don't even have test labs and generate their reports based on phone calls, Google searches, and unverified specification sheets, Tolly is a source of infinite knowledge about products. Finally, also remember that performance is only one part of system design and deployment. Management and feature completeness are, for the operator community, often more important than whether the box can do 80 Gbps or 85 Gbps. Product selection is best done by YOU setting YOUR requirements and doing YOUR OWN testing, not by looking at point tests to see if one product version/model/device beats another in a particular small set of performance tests. Obligatory disclaimer: we don't compete directly with Tolly, but we do get paid by the magazines to do testing and there is some overlap, so we do compete indirectly. jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms

1 0

Satellite IP
by Jay Ashworth 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

This is admittedly a touch end-usery, my apologies... I'm looking into satellite-based 2-way IP transport, on the scale of SCPC DVB-RCS or iDirect, as an adjunct to the already installed "traditional" one-way satellite gear installed in the Frontline DSNG truck owned by my new employer, both for MPEG streaming for broadcast, and possibly for emergency-response support, if I can sell that idea. Has anyone on NANOG any personal experience with that, from either end? Almost all of what I'll need to do will be what the satellite guys call "occasional use", ie: "I need a six hour block Thursday night, starting at 7pm", as opposed to the "monthly service with an FAP" that most people seem to sell. LBiSat is one company that understands occasional, I'm wondering if there are others (and if their IP jocks hang out here). Cheers, -- jra

3 2

Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network
by Brandon Butterworth 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

> We have offered on numerous occasions to peer with both of the > providers that are currently segmented from our ASN (6939), going > even so far as baking a cake for Cogent (AS174). Are some parties refusing to use transit, trying to bake in a de-facto "tier-1" ness? brandon

1 0

TW Telecom sales rep/national office
by Drew Weaver 09 Jan '11

09 Jan '11

I feel a bit silly asking this but I have had the hardest time finding a sales representative for the TW Telecom national group. Can someone please assist off-list? thanks, -Drew

1 0

Anyone out there providing Public Services over MEF E-Tree ?
by Francois Menard 09 Jan '11

09 Jan '11

In an effort of figuring out a metro ethernet access network to carry Internet access services, I'm comparing the approaches of several equipment manufacturers insofar as how, they allow a metro service provider to provide point-to-multipoint E-TREE public services, (where the leaves of the multipoint tree are different billing entities from that of the root of the tree), such that it remains possible to distinguish at the root traffic originating from a given service provider demarcation device in the tree. In an effort to solve this problem, I am finding myself diving deep down into the behaviour of Ethernet switches at the 802.1Q 2005 bridge behaviour. I would appreciate feedback from people whom are aware since WHEN and under which conditions, Ethernet switches have begun to implement separate MAC addresses for every client ports. and whether such MAC addresses draw from the global pool of MAC addresses. A cursory understanding of this leads me to believe that as soon as a switch is capable of spanning tree on a downstream client port, it must have separate MAC addresses for every client port. Feedback appreciated -=Francois=-

1 0

Re: AltDB?
by Christopher Morrow 08 Jan '11

08 Jan '11

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Abhijit Phanse <abhijit(a)unitedlayer.com> wrote: > Could you please remove all @unitedlayer.com addresses from this > distribution. > > Thanks in advance. I think you mean to ask this of nanog-admin ... though honestly @unitedlayer.com folks CAN request that themselves (with the associated mailman data in the message headers) -chris

1 0

asymmetric routes/security concerns/Fortinet
by Greg Whynott 08 Jan '11

08 Jan '11

Hello, we have multiple internet connections of which one is a research network where many medical institutions and universities are also connected to threw out the country. This research network (ORION) also has internet access but is not meant to be used as a primary path to the internet by its customers. Connected to the ORION network are many sites we exchange email with daily who also have multiple internet connections. One of these sites is not reachable by us. After investigating, it was discovered this site is dropping our connections as the path back to use would use a different interface on the firewall ( a Fortinet device) than that which it arrived upon. The admins at this university claim this is by design and for security reasons.. My response was the entire internet is asymmetrical and while this may of been a legitimate concern in the 90's, I don't think its a real concern anymore if things are set up correctly. They suggested we add static routes to our equipment to address this… This seems like a bad idea and I am not comfortable adjusting my routing table to address one site's issues on the internet due to their (not ours) routing/security policies. am I correct here? any comments on this would be greatly appreciated as I'll be called into a meeting to discuss this further (they are digging in their heals in on this, and higher ups are getting involved now). I'd like to arm myself with a few perspectives. thanks very much for your time again, greg -- 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.

7 10

For posting
by Sandra Munoz 08 Jan '11

08 Jan '11

My email: astrosm(a)gmail.com

1 0