January 2012 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Microbursts on Ceragon IP-10G
by Abel Alejandro 31 Jan '12

31 Jan '12

Hello, I have a Ceragon IP-10G to provide backhaul access for an LTE network. The client wants to have 50Mbps of throughput with an RTT of 50ms on a single TCP session. The problem are the packet drops due to microbursts due to tcp slow start come from a 1GE port and then they get dropped at the radio. I can burst about 60KB of data before experiencing packet loss. Has anyone has a similar problem with this problem and found a solution? PS: I already have a case open, its just going kind of slow. Thanks, Abel.

1 0

ARP is sourced from loopback address
by Joe Maimon 31 Jan '12

31 Jan '12

Hey All, Anycast related. Is this normal behavior? Whats the workaround? Why havent I run into this before? 192.168.76.1 is a HSRP address on a ring of routers transiting a private non routed vlan to the service addresses hosted on systems that have independent management interfaces. Best, Joe root@debian31:~# ifconfig lo:0 lo:0 Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:209.54.140.64 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 root@debian31:~# ip rule list 0: from all lookup local 32764: from 209.54.140.0/24 lookup pbr1-exit 32765: from 216.222.144.16/28 lookup pbr1-exit 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default root@debian31:~# ip route list table pbr1-exit default via 192.168.76.1 dev eth1 192.168.34.0/24 dev eth1 scope link src 192.168.76.16 192.168.76.0/24 dev eth1 scope link src 192.168.76.16 root@debian31:~# tcpdump -i eth1 tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 11:08:09.053943 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.76.1 tell 209.54.140.64, length 28 11:08:10.035126 IP noc08rt08.noc08.chl.net > 209.54.140.64: ICMP echo request, id 517, seq 0, length 80 11:08:10.051276 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.76.1 tell 209.54.140.64, length 28 11:08:11.052548 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.76.1 tell 209.54.140.64, length 28 11:08:12.035964 IP noc08rt08.noc08.chl.net > 209.54.140.64: ICMP echo request, id 517, seq 1, length 80 ^C root@debian31:~# ip neigh fe80::230:71ff:fe3b:6808 dev eth0 lladdr 00:30:71:3b:68:08 router STALE 192.168.76.1 dev eth1 FAILED 192.168.34.254 dev eth0 lladdr 00:11:93:04:7a:1b DELAY 192.168.34.48 dev eth0 lladdr 00:0c:29:fd:64:8a STALE root@debian31:~# uname -a Linux debian31 3.2.0-1-686-pae #1 SMP Tue Jan 24 06:09:30 UTC 2012 i686 GNU/Linux root@debian31:~# ping 192.168.76.1 PING 192.168.76.1 (192.168.76.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.76.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=255 time=2.95 ms ^C --- 192.168.76.1 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.952/2.952/2.952/0.000 ms root@debian31:~# ip neigh fe80::230:71ff:fe3b:6808 dev eth0 lladdr 00:30:71:3b:68:08 router STALE 192.168.76.1 dev eth1 lladdr 00:00:0c:9f:f0:01 REACHABLE 192.168.34.254 dev eth0 lladdr 00:11:93:04:7a:1b REACHABLE 192.168.34.48 dev eth0 lladdr 00:0c:29:fd:64:8a STALE 192.168.76.2 dev eth1 lladdr 00:b0:4a:9e:54:00 STALE root@debian31:~# !tcp tcpdump -i eth1 tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 11:12:22.476479 IP noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net > 209.54.140.64: ICMP echo request, id 518, seq 0, length 80 11:12:22.476572 IP 209.54.140.64 > noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net: ICMP echo reply, id 518, seq 0, length 80 11:12:22.479495 IP noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net > 209.54.140.64: ICMP echo request, id 518, seq 1, length 80 11:12:22.479533 IP 209.54.140.64 > noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net: ICMP echo reply, id 518, seq 1, length 80 11:12:22.484346 IP noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net > 209.54.140.64: ICMP echo request, id 518, seq 2, length 80 11:12:22.484392 IP 209.54.140.64 > noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net: ICMP echo reply, id 518, seq 2, length 80 11:12:22.487670 IP noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net > 209.54.140.64: ICMP echo request, id 518, seq 3, length 80 11:12:22.487705 IP 209.54.140.64 > noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net: ICMP echo reply, id 518, seq 3, length 80 11:12:22.490639 IP noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net > 209.54.140.64: ICMP echo request, id 518, seq 4, length 80 11:12:22.490675 IP 209.54.140.64 > noc08rt08-l0.noc08.chl.net: ICMP echo reply, id 518, seq 4, length 80 ^C

4 7

Bid Software
by Paul Stewart 31 Jan '12

31 Jan '12

Hi folks. I'm looking for an in-house solution for "circuit bidding". Today, when we get a request for WAN services, transport, transit etc we have folks that email out to a list of contacts and ask them for a price. I've seen some pretty neat systems in the past where vendors can send us their quotes via a web portal or similar - hoping to find something rather simple for our own use. open source would be awesome. Basically, we would notify potential vendors of that A and Z end of the circuit and any particulars such as speed that are required. What are folks using today and your experiences? Thanks, Paul

1 0

http://tools.ietf.org - Down
by Mark Tinka 31 Jan '12

31 Jan '12

Is it just me? http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/tools.ietf.org doesn't seem to think so. Mark.

4 3

IP KVM suggestions
by Blake Pfankuch 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

I have a need for a small, portable, web based IP kvm with decent features that doesn't break the bank. Preferably something that supports ISO mounting from http or ftp and USB connectivity. Would also prefer something browser independent. Small plugin like the Raritan devices would be acceptable too. It will be used internally for Remote access while building devices pre deployment to customers. Any suggestions? Thanks! Blake

5 4

Re: Console Server Recommendation
by Brandon Butterworth 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

> Just buy the units that have the pinout for your devices, or you may > need adapters. Hate that, I got a Cyclades by accident, never more. Lantronix is same pinout as cisco and everything else we use regularly. > Lantronix still makes terminal servers? Huh. I designed their first > ones over 20 years ago! If that was LRS16 we still have some running brandon

5 4

Cing Installers
by Grupo IPv6 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

Hi all, Does anyone know where to find the installers for network measuring tool “cing” ? All the links I found are down. I’m using Ubuntu 11.04 Many thanks, Gabriel

1 0

Re: Console Server Recommendation
by Coy Hile 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

> > Avocent Cyclades ACS uses Cat5 straight through cables to Cisco consoles. > > I use them in our lab and production sites. > I personally use these as well; so does work. There's a dongle for some things like the older Sun Netra devices that used an RJ45 console connector. One of the nicest features of the ACS boxes over my previous solution (old cisco router with octopus cables) is the ability to share sessions. Very useful if I switch from my desktop to my laptop, for example.

1 0

FYI - New ARIN Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA 3.0) Posted
by John Curran 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

Please note the availability of a revised Legacy RSA (version 3.0) from ARIN. This version addresses several issues raised with past versions and hence may be of particular interest to some folks in the region. The accompanying FAQ has a summary of the more significant changes. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> Subject: [arin-announce] New Legacy Registration Services Agreement Posted Date: January 30, 2012 2:05:55 PM EST To: <arin-announce(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-announce@arin.net>> ARIN is pleased to announce the release of Version 3.0 of its Legacy Registration Services Agreement ("LRSA"). On 4 November 2011 ARIN concluded its consultation with the community with regards to the Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA) 3.0, the first fundamental rewrite of the LRSA introduced in 2007. The revisions found in version 3.0 were based on the information and feedback obtained during the execution of over 500 LRSAs as well as community feedback received during the community consultation referenced above. ARIN has simplified the LRSA language in order to more clearly identify and describe the respective rights, duties and obligations of ARIN and Legacy Holders. In addition, edits were made to narrow the differences between our Registration Services Agreement (“RSA”) and our LRSA. These changes also provide clarity with respect to conditions when ARIN will seek resource utilization from the Legacy holder and conditions when ARIN may revoke resources. Information regarding the differences between LRSA 2.2 and LRSA 3.0 can be found along with additional details and answers to many of the typical questions that ARIN receives about the Legacy RSA in the Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) at: https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/index.html#faq The previous version of the LRSA, version 2.2, will remain on our website for comparison and review for the next 90 days. Please feel free to compare the two documents and observe the updates and modifications that have been incorporated into LRSA 3.0. To view Version 3.0 of the Legacy RSA, please visit: https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf Anyone needing further information about the LRSA can call the Financial Services Help Desk at +1-703-227-9886 or send an email to billing(a)arin.net. Nothing in this announcement alters or otherwise modifies any terms of the LRSA. Regards, Financial Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 0

10GE TOR port buffers (was Re: 10G switch recommendaton)
by bas 29 Jan '12

29 Jan '12

Hi, Is there a reason switch vendors 1U TOR 10GE aggregation switches are all cut-through and there are no models with deep buffers? I've ben looking at all vendors I can think of and all have the same models. TOR switches as cut-through with little buffers, and chassis based boxes with deep buffers. TOR: Juniper EX4500 208KB/10GE (4MB shared per PFE) Cisco 4900M 728KB/10GE (17.5MB shared) Cisco Nexus 3064 140KB/10GE (9MB shared) Cisco Nexus 5000 680KB/10GE Force10 S2410 I can't find it anymore, but it wasn't much Arista 7148SX 123KB/10GE (80KB per port plus 5MB dynamic) Arista 7050S 173KB/10GE (9MB shared) Brocade VDX 6730-32 170KB/10GE Brocade TurboIron 24X 85KB/10GE HP 6600-24XG 4500KB/10GE HP 5820-24XG-SFP+ 87KB/10GE Extreme Summit X650 375KB/10GE Chassis: Juniper EX8200-8XS 512MB/10GE Cisco WS-X6708-10GE 32MB/10GE (or 24MB) Cisco N7K-M132XP-12 36MB/10GE Arista DCS-7548S-LC 48MB/10GE Brocade BR-MLX-10Gx8-X 128MB/10GE (not sure) 1GE aggregation. Force10 S60 1250MB shared HP 5830 3000MB shared I am at a loss why there are no 10GE TOR switches with deep buffers. Apparently there is a need for deep buffers as the vendors make them available in the chassis linecards. There also are deep buffer 1GE aggregation switches. Is there some (technical) reason for this? I can imagine some vendors would say that you need to scale up to a chassis if you need deep buffers, but at least one vendor should be able to get quite some customers with a 10G deep buffer TOR switch. I understand that flow-control should prevent loss with microbursts, but in my customers get adverse effects, with strong negative performance if they let flow-control do its thing. Any pointers why this is, or if there is a solution for microburst loss would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Bas

11 36