- Test - lists.nanog.org

IXP economics Was: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
by Martin Hannigan 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

Well. Its complicated. I think this is far more political than about COGS. But hey. Why not? I agree with Dave. Shocking. I know. At least the context. He's right. Thanks for reminding us. We know these things. We'll have to see how IXP communities react now. Perhaps espresso service will be defined as good outreach? If it is, thats certainly up to them. Btw, have you thanked your local US branded euro IXP? They created market pressures that saved many of us a Brinks truck full of cash by increasing competitiveness. A lot of us owe them thanks and support for doing good. If you do, grab Job, John, Henk, Pauline, Arnold or Andreas and give them a big COGS crushing hug. Go easy on Pauline, less crush please. Best, Marty On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Zbyněk Pospíchal <zbynek(a)dialtelecom.cz> wrote: > Dne 16.06.16 v 17:17 Niels Bakker napsal(a): > > * zbynek(a)dialtelecom.cz <javascript:;> (Zbyněk Pospíchal) [Thu 16 Jun > 2016, 14:23 CEST]: > > >> Are you sure they still want them if they have to pay for these > >> features separately? > >> > >> Currently, such luxury functions are increasing costs also for > >> networks who don't need/want it. > > > > sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function. > > Anything more than plain L2 in an IXP is a kind of luxury. An IXP member > with it's own flow collection (or at least mac accounting) can feel they > don't need sFlow statistics in an exchange. It's also proven it's > possible to run an IXP, including a big one, without sFlow stats. > > We can say the same about route servers, SLA, customer portals etc. (ok, > remote peering is a different case). > > If IXP members think they have to pay such functionality in their port > fees, ok, it's their own decision, but member's opinion "we don't need > it and we don't want to pay for it" is rational and plausible. > > Best Regards, > Zbynek >

1 0

Call for Presentations - DNS-OARC Fall Workshop, Dallas, Oct. 2016
by Wessels, Duane 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

[with apologies to those who see this on multiple lists] Call for Presentations As announced at the close of NANOG67, the DNS-OARC 25th Workshop will take place in Dallas, Texas during October 15th and 16th 2016, the Saturday and Sunday before NANOG68. To attract the best DNS minds, DNS-OARC is requesting proposals for presentations, with a preference for Resolver's Operations experiences, including running DNSSEC validating resolvers. This workshop intends to build from previous strong DNS-OARC workshops, where both operational content and research are welcome. All DNS-related subjects are accepted. If you are an OARC member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we will accommodate those talks too. A timeslot will be available for lightning talks (5-10 minutes) on Sunday October 16th, for which submissions will be accepted during October 15th on a first-come first-served basis. Workshop Milestones 15th June 2016, Call for Presentations posted and open for submissions 14th August 2016, Deadline for submission 1st September 2016, Final Program published 10th October 2016, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for presentation submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/25/call-for-abstracts/ The workshop presentations will be organized by common themes, depending on the topics and the timing of each presentation. There are 30-minute and 15-minute slots, let us know your preference in your submission. To ensure the quality of the workshop, submissions should include slides. Draft slides are acceptable on submission. You can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via <submissions(a)dns-oarc.net> if you have questions or concerns. Sebastian Castro, for the OARC Programme Committee OARC is also seeking sponsorship for this workshop, please contact <sponsor(a)dns-oarc.net> if your organization is interested in becoming a sponsor. (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.)

1 0

Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?
by Eric Kuhnke 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest: http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tec… https://barefootnetworks.com/media/white_papers/Barefoot-Worlds-Fastest-Mos… Based on their investors, could have interesting results for much lower cost 100GbE whitebox switches.

8 7

Strange Problem with 16 byte packets
by Glen Kent 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

Hi, I am using a proprietary protocol and sending a bunch of bytes to a Draytek router at an enterprise site. When i send the data in TCP batches of 1 MB i see no problem. However, when i first send 16 bytes followed by 1 MB of data, and then repeat this till the entire data has beeen sent out. During this process I see that my TCP session times out. Unable to understand why this could be happening? How can sending 16 bytes of data followed by 1MB of data affect the transfer. Thanks !

4 5

Link-local v6 and mobile phones
by Willy MANGA 15 Jun '16

15 Jun '16

Hello, a little question :) For mobile operators using v6 on their networks, how do you manage link-local communication between mobile phones ? While I understand it's layer 2 related, am i able for example to make ping sweep and be able to communicate directly with other phone (customer) ? -- Willy Manga (from where I stand mobile operators do not use yet v6 :-\ ) freenode: ongolaBoy Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy

3 2

Comcast (DOCSIS) issues in Boston?
by Spencer Ryan 15 Jun '16

15 Jun '16

Anyone seeing any issues with routing into Boston? We have a DOCSIS link that seems unroutable past 350 E Cermak in Chicago, traceroutes from two carries here in Michigan stop there. We have a fiber (EDI/BGP) with them at the same location and I'm not seeing any issues on that link. The site itself can ping it's default gateway but can't get anywhere else. *Spencer Ryan* | Senior Systems Administrator | sryan(a)arbor.net *Arbor Networks* +1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m) www.arbornetworks.com

2 1

Webmail / IMAPS software for end-user clients in 2016
by Eric Kuhnke 15 Jun '16

15 Jun '16

If you had to put up a public facing webmail interface for people to use, and maintain it for the foreseeable future (5-6 years), what would you use? Roundcube? https://roundcube.net/ Rainloop? http://www.rainloop.net/ Something else? Requirements: Needs to be open souce and GPL, BSD or Apache licensed Email storage will be accessed via IMAP/TLS1.2 Runs on a Debian based platform with apache2 or nginx Desktop browser CSS and mobile device CSS/HTML functionality on 4" to 7" size screens with Chrome and Safari

9 11

Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data
by Kraig Beahn 15 Jun '16

15 Jun '16

Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE, however, seeing reports nationwide as well. --

6 7

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data
by Alex Buie 14 Jun '16

14 Jun '16

Large scale outage in FL, primarily affecting customers who have Advanced Calling (VoLTE) turned on and calling CDMA/PSTN destinations. However it appears there are many areas whose data connectivity is also affected. Will pass along any updates I can. Over 2k calls in the Tech Support queue right now, wish me luck! Time to jump into the sharks. Haha. Alex (VZW tech) All statements and opinions are my own and do not reflect that of Verizon Wireless or its subsidiaries. On Jun 14, 2016 6:35 PM, "Kraig Beahn" <kraig(a)enguity.com> wrote: Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE, however, seeing reports nationwide as well. --

1 0

Re: RPKI and offline routes
by Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 14 Jun '16

14 Jun '16

ASN 0 is used for this purpose. Look for the word "zero" in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6907 Thanks, Jakob. > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:53:45 -0500 (Central Sommerzeit) > From: Matthias Waehlisch <m.waehlisch(a)fu-berlin.de> > To: Theodore Baschak <theodore(a)ciscodude.net> > Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: RPKI and offline routes > > Hi, > > the creation of a ROA does not require the announcement of the prefix. > Creation of a ROA, prefix announcement, and validation of the prefix are > decoupled. If you are the legitimate resource holder you can create a > ROA for this prefix (even if you don't advertise the prefix). As soon as > the prefix is advertised, third parties can validate based on the > created ROA. > > However, in case the hijacker is able to use the legitimate origin > ASN, the validation outcome would be valid. You would need to assign the > prefix to an ASN that cannot be hijacked or is dropped for other > reasons. (Or do BGPsec. ;) > > > Cheers > matthias > > On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Theodore Baschak wrote: > > > Can RPKI be used with routes that are not being advertised at the moment? > > As in to sign a route that *could* be there, but is not there presently. > > > > There's been several BGP hijacks that I've followed closely that > > involved hijacking IP space as well as the ASN that would normally > > originate it. I'm wondering if having valid ROAs/RPKI would have > > helped in this case or not. > > > > > > Theodore Baschak - AS395089 - Hextet Systems > >

1 0