October 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Choosing new transit: software help?
by David Hubbard 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

From: John Dupuy > > We are looking at getting an additional transit connection. > > In the past, we have used fixedorbit.com and the like and > "guesstimated" our best transit choices. (Other factors > came into play as well, of course, such as price...) > > Anyway, does anyone have a suggestion for determine our next > best transit? Essentially, I am looking for techniques of: > > 1. Gathering our current traffic patterns and subtotalling > source/destination IP by ASN. > 2. Gathering our BGP views into a useful form for analysis. > 3. Using #1 and #2 to analyze which new AS would make the > most sense to connect to for transit. The goal would be for > the new transit to reduce the number of AS we must transit > given our customer's actual usage. I know most nanog responses seem to go off list immediately but I'd be interested in this as well for traffic engineering. A top AS and top prefix talkers would be really useful. David

2 1

Cisco Cache Engine Log Applications?
by Doiron, Brian (ITD) 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

Hello, Does anyone have any experience or suggestions on Cisco Cache Log Analyzing/Reporting tools? I've downloaded Sawmill which isn't too bad but I would like to evaluate a couple more. Windows and Open Source apps are possible candidates. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brian

1 0

Cisco Cache Engine Log Applications?
by Doiron, Brian (ITD) 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

Hello, Does anyone have any experience or suggestions on Cisco Cache Log Analyzing/Reporting tools? I've downloaded Sawmill which isn't too bad but I would like to evaluate a couple more. Windows and Open Source apps are possible candidates. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brian

1 0

IPv6 and BGP
by Mike Hyde 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

On the subject of ipv6, is there currently any way to multi-home with IPv6 yet?

4 3

OT: carpool/train from OC to NANOG 35?
by matthew zeier 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Anyone interested in ride-sharing from Orange County (Irvine area) to LA? I'm not looking forward to a solo drive :( Taking the train from Irvine looks like a lost cause, unless I'm unaware of some convienent public transportation method.

1 0

RE: SONET MUX
by Wallace Keith 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Nortel OM3400 (up to OC 12) or 3500 (if you need more than an OC12) series work great and are widely deployed in just about every CO I've ever been in. We use them and have had no issues. -Keith -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Erik Sundberg Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:13 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: SONET MUX Hello, We are looking for a OC3 -> 3xDS3 MUX. (If it can grow up to a OC12 -> 12xDS3 thats a plus) Sonet side will be 1+1 protected I have looked at the following equipment is there any other sonet muxes that i should look at? Adtran Opti-3 Adtran OPTI-6100 Cisco ONS 15310, 15327 Fujitsu Flashwave 4010, 4100, 4300 Fujitsu FLM 150 Does anybody have and horror stories about the products that i have listed, recommendations, other products??? Thanks Erik

1 0

SONET MUX
by Erik Sundberg 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Hello, We are looking for a OC3 -> 3xDS3 MUX. (If it can grow up to a OC12 -> 12xDS3 thats a plus) Sonet side will be 1+1 protected I have looked at the following equipment is there any other sonet muxes that i should look at? Adtran Opti-3 Adtran OPTI-6100 Cisco ONS 15310, 15327 Fujitsu Flashwave 4010, 4100, 4300 Fujitsu FLM 150 Does anybody have and horror stories about the products that i have listed, recommendations, other products??? Thanks Erik

1 0

Re: IPv6 news
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

No, I actually meant IP version (IP as a protocol), but even if we pay for the IP address (also in Spain, 12 Euros per month for a single static IPv4 address), we pay it because the services associated to it, not the IP address itself, right ? Regards, Jordi > De: "Edward W. Ray" <eray(a)netsecdesign.com> > Organización: NetSec Design & Consulting, Inc. > Responder a: <eray(a)netsecdesign.com> > Fecha: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:45:43 -0700 > Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Asunto: RE: IPv6 news > > "Consumers don't pay for IP at all" > > If you are referring to IP addresses, I pay $50/month for my Class C space, > which I use from home to run my (small) company servers. > > If you want a static IP from any ISP, they usually charge for it. > > > > Edward W. Ray > CISSP, MCSE 2003+Security, P.E., SANS GCIA Gold, SANS GCIH Gold > President > NetSec Design & Consulting > (714) 997-9226 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:21 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: IPv6 news > > > I don't think people upgrade anymore to 98, but at least to XP (if they do > now, at the end of next year will be doing to Vista). > > I don't think either all the corporations take so long as 2 years to > upgrade. > > Of course, I don't have concrete logs to show on anything of this, but is > not marketing just personal view based on experience with customers ;-) By > the way, if we start requiring logs for any comment that we do in this list, > then it may happen that the list is not so useful. > > I disagree also that IPv6 is painful for the consumer, on the other way > around. Today they need to look into manuals for configuring STBs and other > devices. Most of the time this cost a lot of troubleshooting and support to > vendors and ISPs, which I know is not worth for even if charged to the > customer. > > Consumers don't pay for IP at all, but for having things easier (not reading > manuals, not needing to configure tech stuff), having more services and > apps. Having more services and apps running into our networks will mean more > revenue, depending on your business model (such as more free and PAY TV > channels in a sat dish), and possibly because the increase in BW demand. > > I also see much more customers interest in IPv6 outside of NA, but may be my > wrong perception, and not talking about academia. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> De: Sean Figgins <sean(a)labrats.us> >> Responder a: <owner-nanog(a)merit.edu> >> Fecha: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:56:27 -0600 (MDT) >> Para: "nanog(a)merit.edu" <nanog(a)merit.edu> >> Asunto: Re: IPv6 news >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> >>> And in 6-12 months the new Vista will start replacing XP, >> >> Will start replacing XP on new consumer-grade computers. Corporations >> will take another 2-4 years to switch, and other people might have >> upgraded to windows 98 from 3.11 by then. >> >> I think that we need to buy as much time as possible for IP, as V6 is >> going to be extremely painful for the consumer, and thus the consumer >> is not going to want to adopt it. >> >> Our jobs, as network designers and operators will be make it seemless >> to the consumer without forcing them to shell out a thousand or more >> dollars on new Windows software, and the hardware that will be >> required to run it on. If that is devising some sort of NAT for the >> large percentage of customers that don't care, then that may be the > direction we need to take. >> >> I have thought for a long time that which v6 is a worthy academic >> persuit, customers are hardly interested in it when what they have now > works. >> >> -Sean > > > > > ************************************ > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Information available at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > ************************************ The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

[Opinion] Re: IPv6 news
by James R. Cutler 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

It is short-sighted to insist that currently separate IP networks will never interoperate directly as part of the "BIG I" Internet. Given the flux in corporate structures, functions, and ownership, anyone with at least an ounce of forward vision will design, construct and operate every network using globally unique IP addressing. This makes the boundary condition changes less traumatic, reduces renumbering expenses, and frees the network operators (NANOG-on-topic!) to manage their ever changing network in an efficient and cost-effective manner. IPv6 is an obvious source of sufficient IP addresses to meet needs for the next decade or two. If there are certain problems with IPv6 allocations now, please offer constructive suggestions regarding corrections and improvements. NANOG may be a good forum for eventual input to ARIN, et alia. Regards. Cutler >From: Crist Clark <crist.clark(a)globalstar.com> >Subject: Re: IPv6 news >To: Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com ><snip/> >Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: ><snip/> >>IP addresses were established as part of the development >>of a networking protocol called the Internet Protocol, >>or IP for short. This protocol was designed to allow >>many independent networks to interconnect or internetwork >>and exchange traffic. In order for such internetworks >>to work they need to be allocated unique IP addresses. >>The prerequisite for receiving globally unique IP >>addresses is that you have to be using IP technology >>and have a need to internetwork with other networks. >>There are several such IP internetworks that are >>entirely separate from the public (big I) Internet. >>That's where the other addresses are used and their >>usage is growing at about the same rate as Internet >>usage is growing. > >While I do not necessarily disagree with this point of view (as I work >for a company who uses allocated space in such a manner), others may >argue that addresses that are assigned through the Internet Assigned >Numbers Authority (that's Internet with the "I") are meant for Internet, >with an "I," use. As it says at the top of their web page, "Dedicated >to preserving the central coordinating functions of the global Internet >for the public good." Note, "global Internet." > >ObOnSubject: Of course, getting PI space for non-global Internet use >is one of the big problems with current IPv6 allocation policy that >make it difficult to start building private IPv6 networks now. >-- >Crist J. Clark crist.clark(a)globalstar.com >Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387 - James R. Cutler james.cutler(a)consultant.com

1 0

RE: IPv6 news
by Church, Chuck 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

> If that is devising some sort of NAT for the large percentage of >customers that don't care, then that may be the direction we need to take. Doesn't NAT-PT do just this? If I'm an ISP with a million customers, if I can use NAT-PT along with a IPV4 block of say /13, that seems like a win. V4-mapped and V4-Compatible V6 addresses were created for this purpose, weren't they? Chuck

1 0