- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Colocation facilities in britian
by Stuart Henderson 16 May '07

16 May '07

> Does anyone have ballpark costs on what colo space costs in > England. We are getting a quote for 7500 gbp per month For 19 > square meters of space. In us we pay 3500 a month for 10x10 > cage at a quest facility Also I'd anyone can recommend some > british colo companies would appreciate it http://tinyurl.com/2b9tmj has good information about many London data centres. Definitely check what power is available, it is quite restricted at some locations.

1 0

ATT <-> Broadwing (Level3) Congestion
by Brandon Galbraith 16 May '07

16 May '07

Is anyone else seeing significant congestion between ATT and Broadwing in Dallas/Fort Worth? -brandon

3 3

VOIP and QOS across local network and the Internet
by Rick Kunkel 16 May '07

16 May '07

Hello all, We're getting an increasing amount of pressure from VOIP providers colocated with us and from VOIP end-users to prioritize traffic on our network. From a network administrator's point of view, I am sensing that this is the proverbial can of worms, and I'm hesitant to open it. I thought perhaps I could just do a quick survey, both of what people do on their individual networks, and of what they know about others. - Do you offer QOS services across your network for VOIP or other types of traffic? - Do you do this on a per-customer basis, or is it done globally? - If per customer, are there charges involved? - Are there any major carriers that give preference to VOIP traffic? I've heard rumors that Global Crossing does. I've also heard rumors that almost all of them do. I've also heard that almost none do. - For those that offer QOS services for VOIP, is traffic classification done by TCP layer protocol and port number? - It's hard for me to imagine major carriers implementing any kind of standardized classification. For instance, if most carriers agree that UDP traffic destined for ports Y through Z is VOIP and should thus be treated in a more time-sensitive manner, what's to prevent the newest version of BitTorrent to take advantage of this by fitting it's traffic to that profile? One of the things that makes VOIP so frustrating to the telcos - data is data is data - seems to bite VOIP in the ass here. Is my thinking correct? Or maybe traffic classification is happening at a higher layer? I can only imagine this issue growing larger. With streaming audio and video well-established, VOIP at the dawn of major acceptance, and Internet TV, movies, and other real-time dependent applications on the near horizon, it's looming large. I know aspects of this have been brought up before, notably the whole "the Internet core can't take it" conversation. I'm hoping my questions are a little more specific. (However, I do find the aforementioned threads quite fascinating, for the record.) Thanks, Rick Kunkel

4 3

IPv4 multihomed sites statistics
by Masafumi Watari 15 May '07

15 May '07

I'm looking for statistics that may provide hints on the number of IPv4 multihomed sites that exist today. Are there any pointers? Also, is there a way to find the average number of peers that these sites multihome with? If not, how large is it in general? thanks, watari

3 2

Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20?
by Neal Rauhauser 15 May '07

15 May '07

I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new job. If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams and have a couple of peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is the M20 (2048M max) a better choice. Layout here is such that I'd expect to use a single quad gigabit port ethernet blade in each of a pair of M10i/M20 to achieve redundancy. Is there a pricing resource for this stuff online some where? I do *not* want to hear from any sales people over this comment ...

6 7

OT: 2007 Infrastructure Security Survey
by Danny McPherson 14 May '07

14 May '07

Folks, It's time for the Infrastructure Security Survey again, figured I'd include all of nanog@ in the query for respondents this time around (per request[s]). If you're willing to complete the survey please go here to receive a token (which will be mailed to you with a URL for response input): https://sec-survey.tcb.net/index.php?sid=1 Many of you have seen some of the data from the survey at previous NANOG sessions and ISP Security BOFs. You can find the previous editions of the survey report here (if you'd prefer a non-marketing polished version just drop me a line): http://www.tcb.net/ISP_Security_Report-2H2005.pdf http://www.tcb.net/2006-WISR.pdf If you have any questions, comments or concerns please let me know. Thanks in advance! -danny

1 0

Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20?
by Scott Weeks 14 May '07

14 May '07

--- neal(a)lists.rauhauser.net wrote: : I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn : with a new job. If your experience is like mine, you'll fall in love with the M-series and absolutely despise the E-series (Unisphere) : If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams : and have a couple of peers will the M10i (768M max) be : enough or is the M20 (2048M max) a better choice. I use the M10i platform for some of my border routers. For example, below, I'm receiving full routes from a couple of upstreams and a partial with 768Meg for a good while now and no problems. RE0> show chassis routing-engine <snip> Routing Engine status: DRAM 768 MB Memory utilization 46 percent Model RE-5.0 RE0> show bgp summary <snip> ASN #Active/Received/Damped ------ ---------------------------- AAA 625/994/0 BBB 152613/214987/0 CCC 62655/215400/0 scott

1 0

Cogent Peering
by Kevin Billings 14 May '07

14 May '07

Can someone tell me if there are any tools on the net we can use to evaluate Cogent as a possible Tier 1 peer. We are looking at adding a 1 or 2 Gig connection to them, but after reading some of the posting I am not sure this would be a wise move. Kevin Billings Sr Network Engineer Spirit Telecom 1500 Hampton St Columbia SC http://www.spirittelecom.com

3 2

Re: Juniper M10i sufficient for BGP, or go with M20?
by Neal Rauhauser 14 May '07

14 May '07

M7i is a very, very attractive lab/spare box, but this company wants carrier class - dual engine M10i are the minimum. John Crain wrote: > You might even consider the m7i they can use the same cards > > JC > > On May 13, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > >> >> >> On 13-May-2007, at 15:33, Neal Rauhauser wrote: >> >>> I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new >>> job. If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams and >>> have a couple of peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is the >>> M20 (2048M max) a better choice. >> >> I think the quick answer based on just that requirement is "an M10i >> will do fine". I am not aware that Juniper sell a router which will >> struggle with a default configuration to handle a few views of the >> full table, but perhaps my rhetorical spectacles are unreasonably >> rosy right now. >> >>> Layout here is such that I'd expect to use a single quad gigabit >>> port ethernet blade in each of a pair of M10i/M20 to achieve >>> redundancy. >>> >>> Is there a pricing resource for this stuff online some where? I do >>> *not* want to hear from any sales people over this comment ... >> >> Try checking the j-nsp archives at >> <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/>. Good luck with not >> hearing from sales people. >> >> >> Joe >> >

2 1

Re: [urgent assistance] 198.32.0.0/16 - Disappeared...
by Fergie 14 May '07

14 May '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)ca.afilias.info> wrote: >I'm not sure that 198.32.0.0/16 was ever advertised. EP.NET runs a registry for exchange points and other people that Bill feels like helping out and assigns from that number range; since the /16 covers many varied applications and organisations all over the planet, it seems unlikely that a /16 would do anything useful. > >I have no problems reaching FLAG.EP.NET (198.32.4.13), DOT.EP.NET (198.32.2.10), both of which live in subnets numbered from 198.32.0.0/16 and administered by EP.NET directly. > Hi Joe, Yes, I'm aware that 198.32.0.0/16 is a bunch of swampy /24s, but reachability to name servers at ep.net seems to be available again: route-views.isc.routeviews.org> sho ip bgp 198.32.4.13 BGP routing table entry for 198.32.4.0/24 Paths: (9 available, best #9, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 6079 3356 1239 4555 198.32.176.126 from 198.32.176.126 (207.172.6.3) Origin IGP, metric 1, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:59 2007 14361 7385 1239 4555 198.32.176.10 from 198.32.176.10 (66.36.224.11) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:58 2007 174 1239 4555 198.32.176.131 from 198.32.176.131 (154.54.0.8) Origin IGP, metric 2000, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 174:21000 174:22013 Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:57 2007 2497 1239 4555 198.32.176.24 from 198.32.176.24 (216.98.96.13) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:52 2007 4513 3356 1239 4555 198.32.176.48 from 198.32.176.48 (209.10.12.156) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:18 2007 1280 174 1239 4555 198.32.176.3 from 198.32.176.3 (149.20.65.193) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 1280:380 Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:11 2007 3557 1280 174 1239 4555 198.32.176.4 from 198.32.176.4 (192.5.4.246) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 3557:380 Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:08 2007 2914 1239 4555 198.32.176.14 from 198.32.176.14 (129.250.0.2) Origin IGP, metric 5, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 2914:420 2914:2000 2914:3000 65504:1239 Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:23 2007 7575 1239 4555 198.32.176.177 from 198.32.176.177 (202.158.192.19) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 7575:1003 7575:2019 7575:6003 Last update: Sun May 13 22:03:11 2007 route-views.isc.routeviews.org> So things are back to nromal (for your definition of 'normal')... Cheers, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.1 (Build 1012) wj8DBQFGR9wdq1pz9mNUZTMRAnZQAKDqoSRqbfb2Syi5CzDg66qvr9U2NQCg4dN8 I3ih5D9WI/htiv8jhJ2BeNw= =9VKx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0