- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Can someone from aol.com postmaster support contact me offlist?
by Joseph W. Breu 14 Mar '07

14 Mar '07

We have been working with your organization to get a machine off of your blacklist for several weeks - to no avail. Thanks. -- Thanks, --------------------------------------------------------- Joseph W. Breu, CCNA phone : +1.319.268.5228 Senior Network Administrator fax : +1.319.266.8158 Cedar Falls Utilities cell : +1.319.493.1686 support: +1.319.268.5221 url : http://www.cfu.net

2 1

Arbinet
by Nathan Allen Stratton 14 Mar '07

14 Mar '07

If anyone has feedback on Arbinet please drop me a private email. ><> Nathan Stratton CTO, Voila IP Communications nathan at robotics.net nathan at voilaip.com http://www.robotics.net http://www.voilaip.com

1 0

RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 14 Mar '07

14 Mar '07

> I do admit that I haven't been keeping up on BPL technology lately, as > I am not in [and know only one person living in] an area where power > lines are the only cabled connection to the world. My point was more > that there are areas where it's simply impractical to put out many of > the today-common technologies for broadband. In British Columbia, Canada, they replaced the copper intercity network with fibre back in the early 90s. Maybe intercity is the wrong word considering I saw them running fibre 25 miles from Enderby to Mabel Lake. Look here on Google Maps http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=enderby+bc&ll=50.595007,-118.970 947&spn=0.332142,0.86792 There is actually a road to Mabel lake which you can see in the satellite photo snaking through a valley of small farms. Most of those brown patches are cutblocks up in the mountains where they have harvested logs and nobody lives up there. There is a village at the intersection where a road goes south and another where the road meets the lake. At the time, a telco worker told me that they were mining copper, i.e. they chopped up and collected the copper cable after the fibre came online. When I did some work in another BC city, Prince Rupert, we faced the problem of how to get broadband into the city because the main connection was microwave bounced off a station on top of a nearby mountain. Hiway 16 into the city http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=prince+rupert+bc&ie=UTF8&om=1&z= 10&ll=54.24597,-130.001221&spn=0.380349,1.255188&iwloc=addr ran for a long way with rocky cliffs above on one side and rocky cliffs below to the river on the other side. The only place to put fibre would be to plow right into the gravel fill under the pavement. I don't know if they ever did that but, in general, if people live in a location, there should be a feasible way to get fibre there. It might cost a lot, but that is another question. In mountainous areas with low population, then some form of point-to-point wireless such as microwave, wifi multihop or optical wireless can be used. Note that in really wild and hairy areas, you can get away with laying fibre on top of the ground although I doubt that any "official" organization would accept that. I remember a guy who lived out towards Mabel Lake who powered a water pump for his cattle by running a parallel fence wire under the power lines and stealing a few watts by induction. Really, people in remote rural areas need to band together and do the research to find out how others are solving these problems in other states, other countries and even other continents, such as Africa. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
by Scott Weeks 14 Mar '07

14 Mar '07

-------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote: > > > > > > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to > > > > the end user? > > > > For us in Hawaii IPTV will drive that. > >> for the service from the provider, or from remote places (example >> google-tv which may or may-not exist, just an example of 'not $TELCO') > > For service from the provider to the customer, but the bits will still > goto the user. We also have the 'remote places' problem. For example: > www.hawaiiweb.com/maui/html/sites/kaupo.html but for the most part > population-wise we'll get to the folks homes and workplaces. Right, so because $TELCO wants to make more $$ from their customer they enable slightly more BW from PE to CE, they may provision more backbone capacity, peering capacity, or they may not. They may docsis/other-method their service into a protected piece of that PE/CE pipe, they may not... But if not for the '$TELCO wants to make more $$ from their customer' status quo would be maintained on the PE/CE link, yes? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm having trouble following the whole email and hope I respond correctly, so here goes... :-) It'll be LOT more BW everywhere. We will definitely provision more peering capacity as well as backbone capacity to give the customers what they want. Also, we're not keeping the status quo on the PE/CE link. Many changes there, too. However, we're the 'worlds oldest startup' I'd imagine. Started with a grant from King Kamehameha in the 1880s, but now have been bought by private equity and tasked with revamping the company kind of in the manner of a startup, so we're atypical in that light and due to the fact that the state of Hawaii is nine islands and 1.2 million people we have a very controlled environment to serve. scott

1 0

Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
by Scott Weeks 14 Mar '07

14 Mar '07

--- christopher.morrow(a)verizonbusiness.com wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Scott Weeks wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote: > > > > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to > > > the end user? > > For us in Hawaii IPTV will drive that. for the service from the provider, or from remote places (example google-tv which may or may-not exist, just an example of 'not $TELCO') --------------------------------------------- For service from the provider to the customer, but the bits will still goto the user. We also have the 'remote places' problem. For example: www.hawaiiweb.com/maui/html/sites/kaupo.html but for the most part population-wise we'll get to the folks homes and workplaces. scott

2 1

Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
by Scott Weeks 14 Mar '07

14 Mar '07

--- christopher.morrow(a)verizonbusiness.com wrote: > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote: > > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to > > the end user? Getting in late here... For us in Hawaii IPTV will drive that. scott

2 1

Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
by Daniel Senie 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

At 02:15 PM 3/13/2007, Todd Vierling wrote: >On 3/13/07, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)cisco.com> wrote: >> > There are other technologies better >> > suited to rural deployment, such as satellite, powerline, some cable, >> > or even re-use of the previous generation's ADSL gear once metro areas >> > are upgraded. >> >>Or something like WiMAX? > >Depends on how rural the area is. Some parts of the US have >problematic terrain and *very* sparse population; there, the cost >would far outweigh the subscriber uptake. Should someone want >bandwidth in such an area, powerline or satellite are probably better >choices. You've mentioned powerline a few times. Care to expand on the business case for BPL? One vendor has gear which does not blanket the RF spectrum with noise (Motorola) but requires equipment on the local feeder network, thus much equipment density. Other vendors also seem to need fairly high equipment density. The trials to date have been in areas with other carriers already present, and have caused widespread RF interference (the equipment vendors have spent much PR money trying to refute the interference evidence). As for satellite, have you ever actually used a DirecPC or similar service? The latency makes such services useful mostly for casual web browsing and for email service. You can't use VPNs, VOIP, or most other more interesting services. And the companies necessarily have severe, enforced "fair use" throttling to ensure more than a few users can use the service. >(I don't mention cell-based wireless technologies, because the >providers in that market space haven't truly awakened to the >possibility of fixed cell termination sites for broadband-type access. >That is generally seen as a congestion threat, not an opportunity, by >the carriers.) Sprint seems to be doing an OK job in this regard, actually. Their "unlimited" contract seems to not have strings attached like Verizon Wireless (who think "unlimited" means "use it occasionally for email, but we really didn't mean "unlimited."). If Sprint provided more cell coverage in the small towns of the Berkshires, then their EVDO service with a router and data card would be a reasonable, if a bit pricey, way to get broadband-like performance to many more people. Alas, there seems to be no economic incentive for them (or anyone else) to provide even voice wireless services in that area. Last year Verizon put up a cell site in Great Barrington, MA, resulting in an article about it in the Berkshire Eagle. First time many people had been able to use their cell phones in south Berkshire.

2 1

Verizon Abuse contact
by Zak Thompson 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

Can someone from Verizon's abuse department contact me off list? Cheers, Zak Thompson Yellow Fiber Networks

2 1

Philly area Broadwing / Focal / Level3 fiber cut?
by Jeff Weisberg 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

| I cannot even call their toll-free help lines, as the figer cut apparently | is affecting that as well, according to their local NOC people, who cannot | chd any more light on this. I was able to get through to their NOC. there was a cut, but the person I spoke with did not have much in the way of details. broadwing master ticket #59210 --j

2 1

Foundry XMR/MLX Experience - Update
by Robert Boyle 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

Hello all, In December 2006, I asked for input from people on their experience with Foundry since we were leaning toward them for our new core router standard for our current backbone upgrade cycle. About 50 people replied and asked me to update them with my choice and information I gathered since they were also considering Foundry. We also looked at Juniper and Cisco's offerings, but they weren't competitive in the price/performance ratio and Juniper's annual maintenance fees were astronomical and their sales people arrogant. The feedback on Force10 from people who said they were also looking at them was that their software was not mature or stable enough and their financial picture was questionable while the hardware per port cost was higher than Foundry. I never contacted Force10 based on the premilinary feedback I received from their actual users. Everyone who actually used Foundry loved their boxes. Two people said stay away from Foundry, but upon further inquiry, one had not actually personally used any Foundry gear and the other had a problem, but never contacted Foundry support for help. Foundry openly admits that they had some quality problems in the past with certain older hardware models which had a bad ASIC production run and those issues have been addressed and the customers made whole. That certainly seems to be the case based on the feedback I received. I am very pleased with the current generation of hardware. We also liked the fact that the Foundry CLI language is basically IOS with a Santa Clara accent which minimizes staff training requirements. We love our Cisco gear, but it just isn't price competitive for high density and line rate without any oversubscription. I also don't like the imminent, uncertain, and nebulous maybe/maybe-not IOS feature-set code-base split between the 7600 and 6500 series platforms. We evaluated a Foundry MLX, but we decided to purchase an XMR which is the big brother of the MLX. The main difference between the MLX and the XMR is that the XMR will take 1 million routes in the CAM vs. 512k for the MLX. The XMR also has a higher limit on the number of BGP peers and it has more RAM. Both models run the exact same code. The XMR will also so MPLS and IPV6 routing (in hardware) without any special feature licenses. You buy the box and you can do anything it is capable of. I like that way of doing business too. Our evaluation period was flawless. We didn't run into any bugs and the box just worked as advertised. In fact, I copied and pasted a Cisco config to get the box up and running and I think I only had to change 3 or 4 lines. We told Foundry we also wanted 100Mbit SM SFP support and BFD support and they were both included in the new release of the software. It works with ISIS, BGP, and SNMP without any issues at all. We have been very pleased. They work with any SFP optics although the official position is that only factory optics are supported. We just purchased four XMR routers which we will be deploying shortly. The MLX which has been in production for almost 3 months has had zero issues interoperating with our Cisco gear including 7200s and 6500s speaking ISIS and BGP. Foundry's support team goes above and beyond. They have been extremely helpful with any questions and they really want to make sure their customers are happy and willing to recommend their products. I have been converted. We are also planning to roll out MPLS once the routers are in place. POS cards are out now too in OC12/OC48 and OC192. The chassis is 40GE and 100GE capable and will support the cards once they are released. Here are some quotes which I received: "We're looking at replacing our current routers as well. I'm currently looking at Force10 (E600), Foundry (XMR), and Juniper (MX960). Since we're primarily a commodity internet shop, we don't need MPLS today, which is the only reason I'm considering Force10. We use Foundry for L2 today and have had great luck using 3rd party SFPs. We buy all our SFPs from Calix (OEM'd Finisar)." "Like every vendor, Foundry has it's quirks but they're putting real efforts into getting things handled. We've worked closely with them for the past 3 years and helped them understand better how to move from enterprise support into the ISP market. They're still doing a little catch up in code but getting there pretty fast. I'd venture that by the end of 2007, they will have every bit of feature support you could find from juniper or cisco. Many of the most important things for even a large network are there now and are being beaten to hell and back in various people's networks. The end result is that the bugs that make it in there are getting ferreted out pretty fast." "A summarization of the answers you receive would be great. We have a few of the MLX16 and MLX8's in our lab right now, but not in the same capacity that your using them, so I can't comment on the number of BGP peers and how they handle it. We're testing MPLS currently, mainly VPLS functions, and soon will be doing several gigs of IP video with Multicast, and hopefully MSDP and Anycast RP. Currently, they don't have BFD support for either OSPF or IS-IS, but our SE is checking on the software release dates. Also, we just got in some Ineoquest boxes that can generate/monitor 10Gb of IP video, so we can at least put some stress on our links." (BFD is now supported in 3.3) "I don't know much about Foundry other than I see them installed in racks semi frequently (more and more these days). We're taking on a project in Q1 to upgrade or replace all of our Cisco Cataylst switches. We're going to do a full market eval, but from what I've seen so far I highly doubt we'll be sticking with Cisco Cataylst switches (they're too big and bulky and just not very Service Provider focused)." "MLX should work. XMR will go slightly farther (more CAM for routes). Foundry will have different bugs from Cisco." "I cannot speak exactly for the MLX, however we have used Foundry gear for several years now and have seen little to no problems. In our network we have NetIron40Gs and BigIron RX8s in the core. They have supported so far several million routes of BGP across 15 eBGP peers. Scaling the number of peers should not be a problem since on the MLX you have more TCAM for supporting a huge number of routes and peers on each line card. We have also found that 3rd party SFPs and XFPs have not been a problem at all unless they are Cisco. Since I do not run ISIS, I cannot comment on that at all, we run OSPF and have found no problems there either. Hope it all works out for you." "********* uses XMR's in their core network (practically identical to MLX)" "As Bevan indicated, we haven't pushed these too hard yet. We did push them with a SmartBits analyser early on to test some specific QoS things (which came up clean), but haven't stressed them in production yet. One gotcha is that the code doesn't support hit-less software upgrades yet - the newly released code supports hitless upgrades for quite a few features, but not for MPLS. It's coming - just not there yet. We're not using them to take multiple full BGP views in a transit-like configuration, so your mileage may vary." "The hardware is pretty stable, we've only had a handful of hardware swaps in 3 years of use. The software is about as stable as any software... although they tend to move on to new feature versions rather quickly and don't necessarily have deep support on older versions. That being said, they will roll a bug fix into a version you need if you request it. Their TAC is so-so. Sometimes you'll get a great tech and sometimes you'll get a lazy one. If you work their system you'll get what you need. Also, their SE's are very involved and tend to be dedicated professionals who will do whatever it takes. We got the MG8's very early in the product life-cycle. At one point we had a strange problem. Foundry sent the product engineer to ********* to troubleshoot the issue in person. We just had a hardware line card fail. While the TAC didn't RMA it properly, the SE/Sales team saw that things weren't getting handled properly and our Salesman flew the replacement down (we're in *****, they're in San Jose) personally to make sure we had it in time. When we decided to go with Foundry, their service was a key element of our decision. They've overall lived up to the hype." So far we have also been very pleased. I'll send out another update once we get our XMRs deployed and MPLS enabled. -Robert Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

1 0