July 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Analysis Role Account 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 03 Jul, 2010 Report Website: http://thyme.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 324314 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 149409 Deaggregation factor: 2.17 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 158777 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 34277 Prefixes per ASN: 9.46 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 29765 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 14419 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4512 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 107 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.6 Max AS path length visible: 25 Max AS path prepend of ASN (41664) 21 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 269 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 114 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 657 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 777 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 161 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2252946208 Equivalent to 134 /8s, 73 /16s and 59 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 60.8 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 65.5 Percentage of available address space allocated: 92.8 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 83.6 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 154912 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 78350 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 27003 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 2.90 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 75198 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 33264 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4098 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 18.35 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1122 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 640 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.7 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 15 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 525699616 Equivalent to 31 /8s, 85 /16s and 138 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 78.3 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079 55296-56319, 131072-132095 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 43/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 134542 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 69307 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.94 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 107370 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 41845 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 13759 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 7.80 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5287 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1349 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.4 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 22 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 730656800 Equivalent to 43 /8s, 140 /16s and 240 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 62.2 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 107/8, 108/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 74631 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 43298 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.72 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 67750 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 44478 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 14568 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 4.65 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 7503 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2158 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 3.9 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 24 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 433071392 Equivalent to 25 /8s, 208 /16s and 37 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 75.9 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 196608-197631 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 25/8, 31/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 176/8, 178/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 28481 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 6882 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.14 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 27028 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 14292 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1296 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 20.85 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 394 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 228 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 74937536 Equivalent to 4 /8s, 119 /16s and 116 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 55.8 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 262144-263167 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 7313 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 1862 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.93 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 5614 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1738 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 378 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 14.85 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 113 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 86 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.7 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 14 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 19531520 Equivalent to 1 /8s, 42 /16s and 7 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 58.2 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 1851 8423 487 Korea Telecom (KIX) 4755 1367 295 161 TATA Communications formerly 7545 1345 232 105 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 17488 1322 140 131 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 17974 1152 285 30 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 9583 994 73 487 Sify Limited 24560 927 307 171 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia 4134 876 21292 408 CHINANET-BACKBONE 4808 827 1572 216 CNCGROUP IP network: China169 9829 810 684 41 BSNL National Internet Backbo Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 3910 3734 293 bellsouth.net, inc. 4323 2715 1114 394 Time Warner Telecom 19262 1825 4562 275 Verizon Global Networks 1785 1777 698 129 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 20115 1561 1520 655 Charter Communications 7018 1508 5736 957 AT&T WorldNet Services 6478 1289 260 91 AT&T Worldnet Services 2386 1282 568 906 AT&T Data Communications Serv 3356 1176 10875 404 Level 3 Communications, LLC 22773 1167 2859 65 Cox Communications, Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 35805 648 56 6 United Telecom of Georgia 3292 452 2027 393 TDC Tele Danmark 30890 443 111 205 Evolva Telecom 702 411 1869 327 UUNET - Commercial IP service 9198 408 202 13 Kazakhtelecom Data Network Ad 8866 402 117 18 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 8551 400 353 46 Bezeq International 3320 373 7329 324 Deutsche Telekom AG 3301 372 1414 327 TeliaNet Sweden 34984 360 89 185 BILISIM TELEKOM Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 1518 3017 245 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 10620 1066 238 150 TVCABLE BOGOTA 28573 1023 791 97 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 7303 748 385 106 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 6503 554 137 183 AVANTEL, S.A. 22047 548 310 15 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 3816 495 217 81 Empresa Nacional de Telecomun 7738 477 922 30 Telecomunicacoes da Bahia S.A 14420 471 33 69 ANDINATEL S.A. 11172 449 99 76 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8452 1152 445 10 TEDATA 24863 728 147 39 LINKdotNET AS number 36992 644 279 184 Etisalat MISR 3741 267 834 228 The Internet Solution 33776 219 12 11 Starcomms Nigeria Limited 2018 210 244 61 Tertiary Education Network 6713 195 186 16 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 24835 192 78 10 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 29571 176 19 10 Ci Telecom Autonomous system 29975 133 506 14 Vodacom Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6389 3910 3734 293 bellsouth.net, inc. 4323 2715 1114 394 Time Warner Telecom 4766 1851 8423 487 Korea Telecom (KIX) 19262 1825 4562 275 Verizon Global Networks 1785 1777 698 129 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 20115 1561 1520 655 Charter Communications 8151 1518 3017 245 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 7018 1508 5736 957 AT&T WorldNet Services 4755 1367 295 161 TATA Communications formerly 7545 1345 232 105 TPG Internet Pty Ltd Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4323 2715 2321 Time Warner Telecom 1785 1777 1648 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 19262 1825 1550 Verizon Global Networks 4766 1851 1364 Korea Telecom (KIX) 8151 1518 1273 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 7545 1345 1240 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 4755 1367 1206 TATA Communications formerly 6478 1289 1198 AT&T Worldnet Services 17488 1322 1191 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 8452 1152 1142 TEDATA Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 16927 UNALLOCATED 12.0.252.0/23 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 15132 UNALLOCATED 12.9.150.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 32567 UNALLOCATED 12.14.170.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 13746 UNALLOCATED 12.24.56.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 32567 UNALLOCATED 12.25.107.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 26973 UNALLOCATED 12.39.152.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 26973 UNALLOCATED 12.39.154.0/23 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 26973 UNALLOCATED 12.39.155.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 26973 UNALLOCATED 12.39.159.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 25639 UNALLOCATED 12.41.169.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 31.0.0.0/16 12654 RIPE NCC RIS Project 31.1.0.0/21 12654 RIPE NCC RIS Project 31.1.24.0/24 12654 RIPE NCC RIS Project 41.222.79.0/24 36938 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.223.92.0/22 36936 >>UNKNOWN<< 41.223.188.0/24 22351 Intelsat 41.223.189.0/24 6453 Teleglobe Inc. 41.223.196.0/24 36990 Alkan Telecom Ltd 41.223.197.0/24 36990 Alkan Telecom Ltd 41.223.198.0/24 36990 Alkan Telecom Ltd Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:20 /9:10 /10:25 /11:68 /12:196 /13:406 /14:707 /15:1285 /16:11156 /17:5338 /18:9126 /19:18399 /20:22806 /21:22871 /22:29932 /23:29604 /24:169130 /25:1031 /26:1320 /27:707 /28:117 /29:47 /30:6 /31:0 /32:7 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 6389 2504 3910 bellsouth.net, inc. 4766 1482 1851 Korea Telecom (KIX) 4323 1396 2715 Time Warner Telecom 1785 1239 1777 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 11492 1070 1160 Cable One 17488 1069 1322 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 18566 1069 1088 Covad Communications 8452 1040 1152 TEDATA 10620 982 1066 TVCABLE BOGOTA 7018 911 1508 AT&T WorldNet Services Complete listing at http://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:6 2:10 4:13 8:286 12:2012 13:7 14:1 15:23 16:3 17:8 20:17 24:1452 27:187 31:1 32:48 33:12 38:679 40:98 41:2440 44:3 47:12 52:9 55:4 56:2 57:25 58:749 59:501 60:459 61:1090 62:1055 63:1977 64:3659 65:2361 66:4037 67:1810 68:1105 69:2874 70:723 71:380 72:1953 73:2 74:2263 75:253 76:313 77:952 78:604 79:437 80:981 81:799 82:489 83:435 84:710 85:1053 86:452 87:678 88:342 89:1567 90:93 91:2847 92:489 93:985 94:1400 95:637 96:352 97:207 98:574 99:29 108:97 109:551 110:364 111:535 112:266 113:315 114:427 115:563 116:1073 117:661 118:483 119:944 120:127 121:728 122:1452 123:927 124:1122 125:1321 128:226 129:202 130:196 131:555 132:251 133:17 134:197 135:42 136:241 137:159 138:264 139:104 140:480 141:198 142:346 143:392 144:452 145:50 146:435 147:168 148:606 149:301 150:149 151:230 152:302 153:169 154:2 155:328 156:157 157:319 158:107 159:378 160:316 161:181 162:254 163:176 164:408 165:365 166:462 167:404 168:652 169:157 170:713 171:58 172:2 173:875 174:468 175:105 176:1 178:248 180:516 182:147 183:228 184:103 186:487 187:387 188:993 189:744 190:3742 192:5739 193:4714 194:3365 195:2798 196:1181 198:3573 199:3452 200:5258 201:1523 202:7942 203:8278 204:4070 205:2339 206:2521 207:3105 208:3871 209:3443 210:2523 211:1265 212:1694 213:1666 214:637 215:68 216:4659 217:1522 218:493 219:379 220:1134 221:398 222:314 223:1 End of report

1 0

IPV4/6 Playing together in the same sandbox?
by Wade Blackwell 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

Good morning from the West coast, I have done a fair bit of reading on IPV4/6 co-existence, from what I have read these two can live together and function totally independent of one another. I have a large QA environment where they would like DHCPv6 deployed in an environment where all services are currently IPV4. There is no requirement (at this point) to route V6 out of this environment (flat V4 X.X.X.X/22). If anyone can give some practical advice on deployment strategies and gotchas that would be great. Thanks all. -W -- Wade Blackwell

1 0

Please remove me from all mailing lists !!!
by Scott Amyoony 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

_____________________________________________ From: <nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org> [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:23 AM To: <scott.amyoony(a)conyersdill.com> Subject: The results of your email commands The results of your email command are provided below. Attached is your original message. - Unprocessed: move me. Thanks! _____________________________________________ From: <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> [mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org]=20 Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 12:19 AM To: <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 30, Issue 4 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to =09nanog(a)nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit =09https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to =09nanog-request(a)nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at =09nanog-owner(a)nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." - Ignored: Today's Topics: 1. Re: The Economist, cyber war issue (andrew.wallace) 2. Re: The Economist, cyber war issue (Randy Bush) 3. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Stefan Sp?hler) 4. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (William Herrin) 5. Re: XO feedback (Stefan Molnar) 6. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Matthew Walster) 7. Re: SPANS Vs Taps (Darren Bolding) 8. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Larry Sheldon) 9. Re: SPANS Vs Taps (Ricky Beam) 10. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Matthew Palmer) 11. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Marshall Eubanks) 12. Re: Type of network operators? (Martin Hannigan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:51:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace(a)rocketmail.com> Subject: Re: The Economist, cyber war issue To: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen(a)mompl.net> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <862176.46872.qm(a)web59616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8 There is a part 2 as well http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id= =3D16478792 Andrew ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen(a)mompl.net> To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 19:57:08 Subject: Re: The Economist, cyber war issue andrew.wallace wrote: > Article: http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=3D16481504 I know it's shortsighted, but any article with the word cyber in it, used i= n such a way as being about "cyber this-or-that", already lost its credibil= ity by virtue of using the word. It must be a of rather high quality to win= back its credibility. This economist article sadly does the opposite. Regards, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ =20 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:01:02 +0900 From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Subject: Re: The Economist, cyber war issue To: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace(a)rocketmail.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <m28w5uzwtd.wl%randy(a)psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII > There is a part 2 as well and this is a bug or a feature? ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:05:36 +0200 From: Stefan Sp?hler <lists(a)stefan-spuehler.org> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <4C2D1130.9030704(a)stefan-spuehler.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 On 07/01/2010 02:04 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: > http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?h= pt=3DT2 >=20 >=20 > Interesting... > Finland isn't first. http://www.comcom.admin.ch/aktuell/00429/00457/00560/index.html?lang=3Den&m= sg-id=3D13239 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:17:43 -0400 From: William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: Gadi Evron <ge(a)linuxbox.org> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: =09<AANLkTilh2hagwUvCoxQKCkbFhYpvd3c3HZrCwqfqseXi(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Gadi Evron <ge(a)linuxbox.org> wrote: > http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?h= pt=3DT2 In the US, the Communications Act of 1934 brought about the creation of the "Universal Service Fund." The idea, more or less, was that every phone line customer contributed to the fund (you'll find it itemized on your phone bill) and the phone companies had to charge the same for every phone line regardless of where delivered in their territory but when initially installing an unusually difficult (expensive) phone line the phone company was entitled to reimburse its cost from the fund. In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" program) instead of improving rural communications... --=20 William D. Herrin ................ herrin(a)dirtside.com bill(a)herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:21:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Stefan Molnar <stefan(a)csudsu.com> Subject: Re: XO feedback To: Net <funkyfun(a)gmail.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <20100701150758.T81245@clockwork> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=3DUS-ASCII; format=3Dflowed XO has many downs than ups. I am a current XO customer mainly due to the= =20 costs, having voice, PtP, Transit, and Co-Location. Here is my rundown. Internet Transit: Yes it works, and when their routing goes ape, no one=20 knows what is going on. They have a tendency not to do a "wr mem" on=20 their ciscos. Point to Point: Yes it works, but when they have to take an OC12 or some= =20 large circuit down you might be notified the day of. Also if you have=20 more than one circuit with them, finding what circuit will be hit takes=20 ages on their side. Co-Location: One crap shoot close to death. A "change control" group has= =20 to approve changes, adds, and you as a customer has zero say. Call Center: I feel like Mr. Bean is running the call center. Depending= =20 on who you call, and when they last did trainning you will get a wild=20 range of responces. Even for the simplest of things takes about 20 min to= =20 make a ticket, and some have taken past 40min. Voice: Random failures of not being able to reach cell phone carriers.=20 Random issues where some trunk lines just go offline. But to XO it is=20 always the customer hardware. Another great feature if you have a trouble= =20 ticket and in part of correcting the issue if some other change was=20 introduced an automated system will back out any changes weeks later. It is one of those things in life you deal with because the tradeoff is=20 something execs see as the monthly OPEX costs. Stefan On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Net wrote: > Hi, > > We're currently looking to buy transit from XO for one of our DCs. > Their pricing is very competative compared to some of the other > providers we've considered to date. > > I'm hoping to get some feedback on their services, support, peering > arrangements and the overall stability of their core backbone network > from folks who've had experience or currently using them. > > Any info would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks in advance > > --=20 > Sent from my mobile device > > > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:14:42 +0100 From: Matthew Walster <matthew(a)walster.org> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: nanog list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Message-ID: =09<AANLkTikywKRBHfsT88M4rDLc_52W4Atwj47elKBjsyzI(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8 On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> wrote: > In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal > service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" > program) instead of improving rural communications... As someone who's always been in the "tech" field, the amount spent on ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. Bring back the Acorn Archimedes and ECONET! M ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:24:38 -0700 From: Darren Bolding <darren(a)bolding.org> Subject: Re: SPANS Vs Taps To: "Bein, Matthew" <mbein(a)iso-ne.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: =09<AANLkTilK1925X0LPw319-PmhMpBzqZQ0parHx2jeCT0J(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Tap manufactures will be sure to tell you of many issues. The main concern I would have is that it is possible for a switch to drop frames of a SPAN. Your decision might be influenced based on your application and the impact of such errors (billing, lawful intercept, forensics). A tap vendors take: http://www.networkcritical.com/What-are-Network-Taps On a somewhat related note, I will mention that TNAPI from ntop is quite handy. http://www.ntop.org/TNAPI.html <http://www.networkcritical.com/What-are-Network-Taps>--D On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Bein, Matthew <mbein(a)iso-ne.com> wrote: > As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB > connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was > thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more > density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to > aggregate instead of a true port aggregator?? > > > > Regards, > > > > Matthew > > --=20 -- Darren Bolding -- -- darren(a)bolding.org -- ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:25:52 -0500 From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon(a)cox.net> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <4C2D2400.3050308(a)cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 On 7/1/2010 18:14, Matthew Walster wrote: > On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> wrote: >> In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal >> service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" >> program) instead of improving rural communications... >=20 > As someone who's always been in the "tech" field, the amount spent on > ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. >=20 > Bring back the Acorn Archimedes and ECONET! Does anybody know how much the Big Sky Telegraph cost, and who paid for it? --=20 Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml =09 ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:50:40 -0400 From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: SPANS Vs Taps To: "Darren Bolding" <darren(a)bolding.org>, "Bein, Matthew" =09<mbein(a)iso-ne.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <op.ve6xyqngtfhldh(a)rbeam.xactional.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii; format=3Dflowed; delsp=3Dyes On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:24:38 -0400, Darren Bolding <darren(a)bolding.org> =20 wrote: > Tap manufactures will be sure to tell you of many issues. Well, there are issues on both sides... A true tap is an electronic mirror. It doesn't much care what the signal = =20 is; whatever it senses, it replicates. As the OP is talking about an =20 aggrigating tap, he's already using a switch. I've used NetworkCritical, = =20 NetOptics, and several other "cheap" taps. None of them are even remotely = =20 cheap. That said, use an ethernet switch... > The main concern I would have is that it is possible for a switch to drop > frames of a SPAN. Your decision might be influenced based on your > application and the impact of such errors (billing, lawful intercept, > forensics). Yes, a switch can drop traffic (inbound and out.) But so can a tap. And = =20 so can the thing listening to the tap. At work I'm configuring an integrate Broadcom 10G switch (SoC) as a pure = =20 mirror. The ports wired to the system form a trunk group which is the =20 destination for the mirror of the external ports. This is exactly what =20 you'll find inside $$$$$ commercial multiport aggrigating "taps". (and =20 btw, we've thrown over 1Mpps at it without issue; ~50% 64byte packets, the = =20 bane of any switch. (recorded) real world traffic, not some Spirent =20 simulation.) --Ricky ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:54:52 +1000 From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer(a)hezmatt.org> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <20100702015452.GB7566(a)hezmatt.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:14:42AM +0100, Matthew Walster wrote: > On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> wrote: > > In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal > > service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" > > program) instead of improving rural communications... >=20 > As someone who's always been in the "tech" field, the amount spent on > ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. Don't get me started on ICT in schools. Please. - Matt --=20 <Igloo> I remember going to my first tutorial in room 404. I was most upset when I found it. ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:33:57 -0400 From: Marshall Eubanks <tme(a)americafree.tv> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <00173191-2CCE-43A6-A928-139979306E08(a)americafree.tv> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII; format=3Dflowed On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Gadi Evron <ge(a)linuxbox.org> wrote: >> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?= hpt=3DT2 > > In the US, the Communications Act of 1934 brought about the creation > of the "Universal Service Fund." The idea, more or less, was that > every phone line customer contributed to the fund (you'll find it > itemized on your phone bill) and the phone companies had to charge the > same for every phone line regardless of where delivered in their > territory but when initially installing an unusually difficult > (expensive) phone line the phone company was entitled to reimburse its > cost from the fund. > > In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal > service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" > program) instead of improving rural communications... > > Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) invented the Internet ? Regards Marshall > > --=20 > William D. Herrin ................ herrin(a)dirtside.com bill(a)herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > > ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:18:45 -0400 From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: Type of network operators? To: Butch Evans <nanog(a)butchevans.com>, nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: =09<AANLkTimRAHmAUg2UC3_YuJuKxBfyoBTxng4PX3pydqm9(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Thanks. Your observations are good related to active posters. The overall list is very diverse. Aside from the active posters, the list is about 10K strong. Everything from AOL to people from Zoos, law enforcement, banks, and any industry you can think of. NANOG is not just a list, but an interesting hodge podge of builders and occupants of the Internet that sometimes make sense. :-) As Paul Wall might say, Drive Slow. Best, Marty On 7/1/10, Butch Evans <nanog(a)butchevans.com> wrote: > I have been on this list for about 2 weeks, just observing the > discussions. I have primarily worked with wireless service > providers in > the past who are fairly low budget operators. Some of the > things I've > observed about this group are: > > * This list seems to be populated by better funded operations > (whether > that means larger or just better at getting funding may remain > to be > seen) > > * Most of the operators on this list seem to be pretty good at > their > work and the questions seem to revolve around more complex > issues > > * There seems to be a number of corporate network operators on > this list > as opposed to access network operators (such as ISPs and such) > > I hope you all don't take this as an affront and get offended, > as that's > not my intent. I am just making some simple observations. > > Having said this, I wanted to introduce myself and see if this > is a list > that I need to participate in actively. I am a network engineer > and > consultant. I have worked in the past with Cisco, Juniper and > other > similar "higher end" type devices, but it's been a while since I > had > customers who use that gear. Most of my current customer base > are > smaller operators who can pinch a penny in half. :-) > > I do a lot of work with MikroTik RouterOS, ImageStream and other > Linux > based devices. I do engineering, training, hardware sales and > such for > networks all over the world. I am likely to continue to monitor > the > list for questions that are in my area of expertise, but > wondered if > these devices I mention are "common" to operators on this list. > I know > that I have not caught a discussion that involved any of them so > far > (other than one reference to an OpenBSD solution a day or two > ago). > > Anyway, hello to the list and I look forward to finding a home > among > this group. > > > > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 30, Issue 4 ************************************ - Done.

6 5

recommendations on fiber jumper diameter
by Chuck Anderson 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

Does anyone have any pros/cons with using duplex 2-fiber zipcord jumpers with 2.9mm vs. 2.0mm vs. 1.6mm exterior jacket diameters? Thanks.

2 1

XO feedback
by Net 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

Hi, We're currently looking to buy transit from XO for one of our DCs. Their pricing is very competative compared to some of the other providers we've considered to date. I'm hoping to get some feedback on their services, support, peering arrangements and the overall stability of their core backbone network from folks who've had experience or currently using them. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance -- Sent from my mobile device

3 3

Sample RFP/RFQs for routing/switching equipment
by Don McMorris 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

I'm working with a very rapidly growing SME that is preparing an RFP/RFQ for new routing and switching equipment. Nothing too extravagant - 2 locations, <100mbps throughput. I'm seeking sample RFPs and RFQs for them to assist in the process - specifically to see what to ask for in terms of features and other considerations. There's a deep passion to get this "right the first time". If you know of or have access to RFPs or RFQs you'd be willing to share, it would be of great help. I briefly searched the NANOG archives, and (somewhat surprisingly) did not find a similar request. Thank you very much. --Don

2 1

Type of network operators?
by Butch Evans 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

I have been on this list for about 2 weeks, just observing the discussions. I have primarily worked with wireless service providers in the past who are fairly low budget operators. Some of the things I've observed about this group are: * This list seems to be populated by better funded operations (whether that means larger or just better at getting funding may remain to be seen) * Most of the operators on this list seem to be pretty good at their work and the questions seem to revolve around more complex issues * There seems to be a number of corporate network operators on this list as opposed to access network operators (such as ISPs and such) I hope you all don't take this as an affront and get offended, as that's not my intent. I am just making some simple observations. Having said this, I wanted to introduce myself and see if this is a list that I need to participate in actively. I am a network engineer and consultant. I have worked in the past with Cisco, Juniper and other similar "higher end" type devices, but it's been a while since I had customers who use that gear. Most of my current customer base are smaller operators who can pinch a penny in half. :-) I do a lot of work with MikroTik RouterOS, ImageStream and other Linux based devices. I do engineering, training, hardware sales and such for networks all over the world. I am likely to continue to monitor the list for questions that are in my area of expertise, but wondered if these devices I mention are "common" to operators on this list. I know that I have not caught a discussion that involved any of them so far (other than one reference to an OpenBSD solution a day or two ago). Anyway, hello to the list and I look forward to finding a home among this group.

3 2

SPANS Vs Taps
by Bein, Matthew 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to aggregate instead of a true port aggregator?? Regards, Matthew

4 3

Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP
by James Smith 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

I'm looking for a little insight regarding an infrastructure purchase my company is considering. We are a carrier, and we're in the process of building a DR site. Our existing production site is all Cisco equipment with a little Juniper thrown into the mix. I'd like to either get the same Cisco equipment for the DR, or the equivalent Juniper equipment. We have skill sets for both Cisco and Juniper, so neither would be a problem to manage. A business issue has come up since we have a large number of HP servers for Unix and Wintel. With HP's recent acquisition of 3Com they are pressing hard to quote on the networking hardware as well, going as far as offering prices that are way below the equivalent Cisco and Juniper models. In addition they're saying they'll cut us deals on the HP servers for the DR site to help with the decision to go for HP Networking. Obviously to the people writing the cheques this carries a lot of weight. >From a technical point of view, I have never worked in a shop that used HP or 3Com for the infrastructure. Dot-com's, telco's, bank's, hosting companies...I haven't seen any of them using 3com or HP. Additionally, I'm not fond of having to deal with a third set of equipment. I'm not exactly comfortable going with HP, but I'd like some data to help resolve the debate. So my questions to the NANOG community are: Would you recommend HP over Cisco or Juniper? How is HP's functionality and performance compared to Cisco or Juniper? Does anyone have any HP networking experiences they can share, good or bad?

36 49

LTE for CCTV projects?
by Rogelio 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

A friend of mine works for a physical security company, and he is looking for LTE vendors who might help him create wireless networks that they can run video over. Up to this point, they've used 5.x GHz (802.11a and now 802.11n) for most everything, with 4.9 GHz in certain cases where they could apply for the license. Recently, however, he has been aggressively reaching out to LTE vendors. I asked why LTE instead of WiMAX (which is more "baked" when it comes to large CCTV deployments around the world), and he gave the following reasons: --true mobile (not simply souped up local wireless) solution --access to the lower 700 MHz band (which can go farther, for obvious reasons) --access to a public safety block (licensed similar to 4.9 GHz). I've googled "d block LTE", but can't determine whether or not he is 100% eligible or not... --While WiMAX has "better" ROI (for most people, anyway), this isn't too much of an option because their overall ROI is good based on the premium services they offer Anyone else's thoughts on this? I'd be particularly intersted in knowing which LTE vendors might be worth talking to in this dept.

1 0