- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Twitch contact
by Laurent Dumont 29 Jan '16

29 Jan '16

Long shot, but if anyone from Twitch could poke me offlist for a few questions regarding it's policy with multiple streamers per IP address (if it's even something we need to consider) We are running a large-ish LAN event and are slightly worried about that. Thanks!

1 0

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
by Brandon Butterworth 29 Jan '16

29 Jan '16

> From owen(a)delong.com Fri Jan 22 10:25:26 2016 > However, I think your description of the scenario is rather > heavily skewed Most posts are bashing Cogent so it's bad of me to say they are equally free to do whatever they want with their network? Mob rule... I favour neither side. Nobody has to buy from either of them. > especially when you consider that Cogent is basically the only > remaining major (I find it hard to call them a tier 1 given > their behavior) provider that still refuses SFI of any form > with HE. tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal. brandon

7 10

BCM SOC based IPTV STBs
by Jason Lixfeld 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

Howdy, What are folks using for BCM SOC (7424 gen, or newer) based IPTV STBs?[1] I’m looking for something pretty simple - HDMI, S/PDIF (optical and 1/8” digital coax) and an Ethernet port is all I’m really interested in. No RCA audio, component video or Wifi. Nice and simple. If GreenPeak RF4CE were baked in, that’d be cool too. Informir and Airties have some interesting stuff, but I’m curious as to what other are using. Thanks in advance. [1] I’m assuming that *IP*TV based discussion is considered relevant conversation? If not, forgive the intrusion, but I’d welcome any pointers on where one might go to discuss this sort of thing if this is considered off-topic.

1 0

Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps
by Randy Carpenter 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

I wouldn't say that used or grey market really count as viable options. If we count that, I can get 1GbE for free. The reality is that for a unit that is supported (both software releases and warranty) properly for deployment in mission critical situations, 10GbE costs ~10x 1GbE. While the options you mention have their place, I would not say that any of them are "supported properly" The ubiquiti unit would be very interesting to see, but the lack of support structure would steer me away for anything mission critical. Might be great for test-bed or home use, though. Back on the original topic, I could certainly see a potential for 2.5 or 5 GbE (even optical) if the pricing was better than 10GbE. My guess is that by the time 2.5/5 is really available, 10GbE will be enough more affordable to skip over the 2.5/5 stuff. thanks, -Randy ----- On Jan 28, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Josh Reynolds josh(a)kyneticwifi.com wrote: > EX4500 runs me about $3200-3600 on the gray market, with 2 AC power > supplies and licensing for MPLS. > > Working SFP+ optics from fiberstore.com from $6 on up. > > Also Quanta BMS T3048-LY8 w/ Cumulus Linux, between $3,800-$4,500. > > Ubiquiti is also working on releasing a 12 port SFP+ with 4x10GBaseT, > pricing will be very low. > > It's out there, you just have to look for it. > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen(a)network1.net> wrote: >> >> I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and >> where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which >> lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger >> port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, but I can't imagine >> what you could be talking about for $102/port. >> >> I would kill for a 24-port 10GbE Juniper switch for ~$2,500. You can't even get >> a 24-port 1GbE for that. >> >> thanks, >> -Randy >> >> >> >> ----- On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds josh(a)kyneticwifi.com wrote: >> >>> You're buying your switches and optics in the wrong places. >>> >>> An SFP+ 10K w/ DOM is running me a little under $34. An SFP+ port runs >>> me slightly over $102. (Juniper) >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Baldur Norddahl >>> <baldur.norddahl(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the >>>> equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. >>>> >>>> 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that >>>> ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only >>>> useful on fibrechannel ports. >>>> >>>> It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP >>>> instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> > >>> Baldur

2 1

Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps
by Brandon Butterworth 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

> > With 10G it's been the opposite, nobody was using copper so SFP+ is > > cheap. Only recently has copper 10G started to become common, a bit too > > late to be worth bothering with now and as there are no copper SFP+ > > Having new servers switch to copper instead of sfp is a nuisance > > SFP+ Copper Twinax is another option for 10G to save on the transceivers I should have been more precise with terms. The context here is doing less than 10G to support old cat5/6 installations. I didn't mention Twinax as if you could use that you'd not need a 2.5 or 5g standard nor have a problem with recent servers coming with 10GbaseT instead of sfp+ when all your previous ones are connected to a SFP+ only switch with fibre or twinax cables. brandon

1 0

Google Contact
by Adam Loveless 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address space has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them now.

5 6

IX ARP Timeout
by Mike Hammett 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

So I'm looking at the policies, recommended configurations, etc. of other IXes. We try to model a lot of ourselves on what the Europeans do (even if we come up short in some areas). I was reading through the AMS-IX guide. https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/config-guide#3.1 They recommend a four hour ARP timeout. Thoughts? Seems a bit excessive, but I don't have over 700 networks on my IX. That said, I don't have over 700 members on my IX generating a ton of ARP traffic, so I'm probably fine recommending a smaller value. I understand it's a balance between stale records and ARP volume. Just trying to gauge what the community thinks. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

5 4

GitHub outage - idle speculation thread
by Alex Forster 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

Github has been down for about two hours now. No good public information that I can find so far, except that they mention a "network disruption" in early status updates. However, nothing interesting is showing up in BGPlay (like a shift over to Prolexic due to a DDoS). Their colocation provider is Rackspace, but Rackspace hasn't posted about any wider issues. https://status.github.com/graphs/past_day Alex Forster

3 2

Peering Exchange
by Colton Conor 27 Jan '16

27 Jan '16

If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix, then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the exchange? Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit from multiple providers, and a BGP router that can accept and hold full routes. You can see the members of the exchange on peeringdb.com. Many of the members say their policy is Open with little to no traffic requirements. So does just ordering a port to the exchange automatically connect you with all of these open providers, or do you have to contact each on individually?

18 24

The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
by Matthew D. Hardeman 27 Jan '16

27 Jan '16

Hi everyone, I know the long and storied history of Cogent and HE failing to peer for IPv6 and failing to provide (from either side) for IPv6 transit between their two networks has been mentioned and covered on this list before, but I am rather surprised it has not garnered much attention. Until recently, that is. I notice an increasing number of people tweeting at both HE and Cogent about the problem. From HE’s public statements on the matter, it’s pretty clear that they would gladly peer with Cogent for IPv6 but that Cogent declines to do this. I simply cannot understand Cogent’s logic on this. Cogent is the one loosing out here, to my way of thinking. They have far less IPv6 coverage than HE. I myself, on behalf of my employers, am a direct customer of IP transit services from both Cogent and HE. I don’t know about others similarly positioned, but my Cogent rep tries to call me at least twice a month. I’m going to start taking (more of) his calls and letting him know his account with us is in jeopardy come renewal time if Cogent can’t get a full IPv6 route table to happen. Today, with Cogent & HE as peers, I am world reachable via IPv6. If either peer went down however, part of the internet couldn’t reach me via IPv6 because either HE wouldn’t have a route or Cogent wouldn’t have a route. That’s ridiculous. Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that they’d love to peer with Cogent), I’m giving serious consideration to dropping Cogent come renewal time and utilizing NTT or Zayo instead. While that would not immediately solve the problem that if the NTT or Zayo link went down, single-homed Cogent customers would loose access to me via IPv6, I’m actually ok with that. It at least lets ensures that when there is a problem, the problem affects only single-home Cogent clients. Thus, the problem is borne exclusively by the people who pay the bad actor who is causing this problem. That tends to get uncomfortable for the payee (i.e. Cogent). I intend to email my Cogent sales guy regarding this matter and make this a sticking point in every phone conversation I have with him. I call on others similarly situated to consider whether you may like to follow suit in this approach. I’ve come to believe that it’s best for my interests and I also believe that it’s best for the internet community at large, as ubiquitous worldwide routing of IPv6 becomes more essential with each passing day. In closing, I further add that it’s a mystery to me why Cogent wouldn’t desire an IPv6 peering with HE. Let’s face it, if any of us had to choose a single-home IPv6 internet experience, between HE or Cogent, we’d all choose HE. If those were the two options, HE is the “real” IPv6 internet and Cogent is a tiny sliver of the IPv6 internet. I have actually wondered if HE is holding IPv6 peering with Cogent hostage, contingent on peering all protocols (IPv4 and IPv6) with Cogent. There, I could see why Cogent might hesitate. To my knowledge, however, this is not the case and I have heard no public accusation that HE is imposing such a constraint. I would love to hear anyone from HE tell as much of the story as they are able. PS - As an aside, has anyone noticed HE’s been growing their network by leaps and bounds this past year? Direct peerings with AT&T and CenturyLink, more domestic US and Canadian POPs, and I believe the number of pathways across the North American continent has been improved substantially, too. Thanks, Matt Hardeman IPiFony Systems, Inc. AS6082

14 25