- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

Multicast stream monitoring tools
by Murat Kaipov 27 Jan '16

27 Jan '16

Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion. I looking for usefull multicast stream monitoring tool now. Any suggestion?Thank you!

7 8

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
by Brandon Butterworth 26 Jan '16

26 Jan '16

> From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> > multihop bgp means that you don't have synchronised ethernet carrier > status between the provider and customer routers. This in turn means > that if there's an intermediate connectivity problem, bgp will need to > time out before it notices and reroutes. During this period, traffic > will be black-holed. This is a crock. It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits. brandon

4 3

Programmable SFP+ Transcievers
by Colton Conor 26 Jan '16

26 Jan '16

What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers? So far I have found both https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-id1768.h… Is there anything else out there? Any opinions on these two companies? I believe they both require you to use their SFPs in order to program them, but I could be wrong.

14 17

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
by Brandon Butterworth 26 Jan '16

26 Jan '16

> From mark.tinka(a)seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 19:56:46 2016 > > On 25/Jan/16 21:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > > It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX > > carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits. > > Yes, but if those go belly-up, you have another exchange point to fall > back to, a bi-lateral peering session, or an upstream provider. Or all > three. Doesn't matter, if traffic is blackholed at an ix then it won't be failing over to another one. Same effect > A "critical" device falling over in my network is far worse prospect to > experience. The general case doesn't care about your network, it assumes you'd engineer that appropriately for the criticality and do something different/better if you need to. brandon

3 2

RIP Marvin Minsky
by Jay Ashworth 26 Jan '16

26 Jan '16

Lauren Weinstein passes along that AI pioneer Minsky died Sunday night in New York. He was 88. Condolences to those who knew him. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/marvin-minsky-pioneer-in-artific… -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

1 0

OT: ID/RFC formatting
by Jay R. Ashworth 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

I know we have to have a few people on here who've written technical RFCs (as opposed to 1 April ones like my RFC 2100)... Any tips on 1) how to do inline boldface and 2) what to do with ASCIIart illustrations that are too wide for the page? I'm using Stefan Santteson's nroffEdit (since I'm presently stuck on Windows), but it doesn't seem to like .B/.R or \fB / \fP for the former, and on the latter point, it's simple unclear how I should approach the thing (a four-column time-sequence diagram of a network transaction, similar to that of the four-point SIP call. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274

3 2

Call for presentations RIPE 72
by Benno Overeinder 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

Dear colleagues, Please find the CFP for RIPE 72 below or at https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/. The deadline for submissions is 13 March 2016. Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder RIPE PC Chair https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/pc -------------------->>><<<-------------------- Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 72 will take place from 23-27 May 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary sessions, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 72. See the full descriptions of the different presentation formats, https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. Proposals for plenary sessions, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than 13 March 2016. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered depending on the remaining available space in the programme. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations - Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses - Data centre technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange Submissions RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general, the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows: - Plenary presentations: 20-25 minutes presentation with 5-10 minutes discussion - Tutorials: up to two hours (Monday morning) - Workshops: one hour (during evening sessions) to two hours (Monday morning) - BoFs: approximately one hour - Lightning talks: 10 minutes The following general requirements apply: - Proposals must be submitted using the meeting submission system, https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/. - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) and can be submitted any time up to and including the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talks will be announced on short notice---in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the time slot allocated. - Presenters who propose a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. - All presentation proposals will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators. - Due to potential technical issues, presenters/panellists should be physically present at the RIPE Meeting. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net. -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

1 0

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
by Scott Weeks 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

--- nick(a)foobar.org wrote: multihop bgp means that you don't have synchronised ethernet carrier status between the provider and customer routers. This in turn means that if there's an intermediate connectivity problem, bgp will need to time out before it notices and reroutes. During this period, traffic will be black-holed. This is a crock. ------------------------------------------- Unless BFD is able to be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_Forwarding_Detection scott

2 1