January 2013 - Test - lists.nanog.org

switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
by Piotr 12 Feb '13

12 Feb '13

Hello, I looking some 10G switches, it should work as TOR or core in DC. It should have more than 40 port 10G in one unit, wirespeed L2 L3, with virtual routers and some other ip functions like some BGP, OSPF, policy routing, 1-2U, MLAG, g.8032 (ERPS) trill-like ? Other important features are big port buffers ( something similar to Juniper EX8200 - 512 MB per slot), defined counters accessible via snmp (like in junos), L3 statistics accessible via snmp Extreme 670 looks good but they have small port buffers. It can be also some small chassis with line cards but the cost per 10G ports is too big.. What vendor, model You prefer or suggest as a solution ? thanks for help best, Peter

6 8

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
by Jean-Francois Mezei 09 Feb '13

09 Feb '13

On 13-01-29 19:39, Jay Ashworth wrote: > It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is > a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact > be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as > subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of > my municipality? I do not have numbers, but based on what I have read. municipal deployments have occured in cases where incumbents were not interested in providing modern internet access. What may happen is that once they see the minucipality building FTTH, they may suddently develop an interest in that city and deploy HFC and or DSL and then sue the city for reason X. The normal behaviour should be: "we'll gladly connect to the municipal system". A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.

12 34

Ddos mitigation service
by matt kelly 08 Feb '13

08 Feb '13

Can anyone recommended ddos mitigation companies with US east coast presence that provide the services via bgp? We are not interested in an appliance but rather offloading the traffic. Thanks.

13 13

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
by Art Plato 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Helms" <khelms(a)zcorum.com> To: "Art Plato" <aplato(a)coldwater.org> Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d(a)alter3d.ca>, nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't consider it important/viable. Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato < aplato(a)coldwater.org > wrote: That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kristolaitis" < alter3d(a)alter3d.ca > To: nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance & legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available. - Pete On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: > I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" < bill(a)herrin.us > > To: "Jay Ashworth" < jra(a)baylink.com > > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog(a)nanog.org > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM > Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth < jra(a)baylink.com > wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" < jfmezei_nanog(a)vaxination.ca > >>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or >>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail >>> offering. Wholesale only. >>> >>> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not >>> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many >>> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile >>> network. > As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at > layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue > for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the > taxpayers. > > >> It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is >> a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact >> be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as >> subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of >> my municipality? > Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is > returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in > the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering > customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be > had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------

5 11

Register Now for ARIN Public Policy Consultation @ NANOG 57
by John Curran 05 Feb '13

05 Feb '13

NANOGers - If you are going to be at NANOG 57 in Orlando, then please note that ARIN will be holding a Public Policy Consultation (PPC) there regarding several number resource policy proposals and you are very much encouraged to participate and make your views on these proposals known. Your NANOG 57 registration includes attending the ARIN Public Policy Consultation onsite if you so desire to do so. As ARIN's Public Policy Consultations are open to all, it is also possible to attend _just_ the PPC without charge, either in person or remotely. One needs to register separately to just participate in the public policy consultation, and this registration does not provide you entry to any other NANOG programming or social events. This is not likely to be relevant to many folks on this list (since I'll be seeing most of you onsite at NANOG 57!) but if you are going to be remotely watching NANOG 57, please take note and register for the ARIN PPC if you intend on participating in that session (and details are available in the attached announcement.) I'd like to take a moment to thank NANOG's Executive Director Betty Burke and the NANOG Planning Committee for making possible the ARIN Public Policy Consultation @ NANOG 57! Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Register Now for ARIN Public Policy Consultation @ NANOG 57 Date: January 15, 2013 5:17:30 AM HST To: arin-ppml(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> Registration is now open for ARIN's first Public Policy Consultation (PPC), which will be held during NANOG 57 in Orlando, FL on 5 February 2013 at the Renaissance Orlando at Seaworld. The PPC is part of ARIN's new Policy Development Process, and it is an open public discussion of Internet number resource policy. Registered NANOG 57 attendees do not need to register to participate in this session. ARIN welcomes members of the NANOG community who will not be in Orlando to register as remote participants. If you plan to attend and are not registered for NANOG you must register for the PPC at the URL below. There is no registration fee for this 90-minute session, and it does not provide you entry to any other NANOG programming or social events. Learn more at https://www.arin.net/ppc_nanog57/index.html. Current policy proposals up for discussion at this meeting are: * ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement - https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_2.html * ARIN-prop-182 Update Residential Customer Definition to not exclude wireless as Residential Service - http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-October/026116.html * ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement- http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-October/026203.html The PPC will also include a Policy Experience Report and Open Microphone. ARIN will offer a webcast, live transcript, and Jabber chat options for remote participants. Registered remote participants can submit comments and questions to the discussions during the meeting. Register to attend in person or remotely today! Visit https://www.arin.net/app/meeting/registration/. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 1

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113
by Brzozowski, John 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net is up to date and will have more devices this year. If the device is a standalone modem and has IPv6 checked you need to make sure your customer owned CPE supports IPv6 *AND* is enabled. Otherwise if it is an integrated device provided by Comcast or via retails, once the IPv6 checked box is checked IPv6 support will be enabled by default. However, please note in cases where the router can be disabled I will not override your selection. Integrated devices in router mode will be IPv6 enabled by default. John ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) +1-609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) +1-484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net ========================================= -----Original Message----- From: "nanog-request(a)nanog.org" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> Reply-To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:20 PM To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113 >Looking at http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net you get a choice of wireless >or IPv6 in Arris.

1 0

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113
by Brzozowski, John 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

----Original Message----- From: "nanog-request(a)nanog.org" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> Reply-To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:20 PM To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113 >On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Mark Andrews <marka(a)isc.org> wrote: >The update you sent is lovely, except I can tell you that the one (also >an Arris, running DOCSIS 3.0) which was installed in late October in my >house in Washington simply does not run v6 with the pre-installed load. >Now, is there some firmware upgrade which could fix this? Maybe, but it >sure would be nice if the folks who answer the phone in support could >direct me to someone who has heard of this technology. So no, as I said >before, Comcast has *not* removed the v6 barrier here. I'd like it to >"just work", please. [jjmb] We are working on an image that will enable IPv6, it will not be long.

1 0

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113
by Brzozowski, John 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

This is news, it would be great if more details were available. Anyone? ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) +1-609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) +1-484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net ========================================= -----Original Message----- From: "nanog-request(a)nanog.org" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> Reply-To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:20 PM To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113 >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:16:40 -0500 (EST) >From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner(a)cluebyfour.org> >To: Cutler James R <james.cutler(a)consultant.com> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Subject: Re: "Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not > have IPv6 in their applications".... >Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1301302210440.4289(a)whammy.cluebyfour.org> >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > >On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, David Barak wrote: > >>Comcast removed the "no IPv6" excuse? That removal somehow skipped my >>house in Washington DC where they installed (last October) a router >>which does not even support it (an Arrus voice gateway- the one where >>you can't turn of the crummy 2.4g wireless radio) and none of the >>folks I've spoken to on the phone can tell me when or if it will be >>coming. > >I know Verizon is rolling out v6 in some areas of their FiOS footprint. >The router they provided supports it, but what I got from their customer >service people was that they ran into some sort of issue with their TV >set-top boxes working properly with IPv6 or at least in a dual-stack >environment. At least that's where things stand in Pittsburgh. > >I don't think they've provided training to their customer service people >on IPv6 yet. The rep I spoke with a few weeks ago told me I was the first >customer that has asked her about it. > >Looking forward to native v6 / dual-stack here... > >jms >

1 0

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 111
by Brzozowski, John 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

There is a lot more to come this year, so stay tuned. ;) John -----Original Message----- From: "nanog-request(a)nanog.org" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> Reply-To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:01 PM To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 111 >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:52:39 +1100 >From: Mark Andrews <marka(a)isc.org> >To: David Barak <thegameiam(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Subject: Re: "Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not > have IPv6 in their applications".... >Message-ID: <20130131005239.C2DE52E9423D(a)drugs.dv.isc.org> > > >In message <1359591223.5270.YahooMailMobile(a)web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, >David >Barak writes: >>Comcast removed the "no IPv6" excuse? That removal somehow skipped my >>house >>in Washington DC where they installed (last October) a router which does >>not >>even support it (an Arrus voice gateway- the one where you can't >>turn of >>the crummy 2.4g wireless radio) and none of the folks I've spoken to >>on t >>he phone can tell me when or if it will be coming. >>I look forward to Comcast giving me native v6 at home. >>David Barak > >Firstly fix your mail client. What's this "'" garbage in text/plain? > >Deployment Update > >Published on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 > >IPv6 has been launched on all Arris DOCSIS 3.0 C4 CMTSes, covering >over 50% our network. We are targeting completion of the rest of >the network by mid-2013. Our progress has led to nearly 2.5% of our >Xfinity Internet customers actively using native dual stack. >Additionally, IPv6 traffic has increased 375% since World IPv6 Day >in June 2011. Following World IPv6 Launch in June 2012 Comcast >also observed that approximately 6% of the 2012 Olympics served >over YouTube to Comcast customers was over IPv6. > >http://www.comcast6.net >-- >Mark Andrews, ISC >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org > > >

1 0

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 110
by Brzozowski, John 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

-----Original Message----- From: "nanog-request(a)nanog.org" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> Reply-To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:13 PM To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 110 >Message: 9 >Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:13:43 -0800 (PST) >From: David Barak <thegameiam(a)yahoo.com> >To: Cutler James R <james.cutler(a)consultant.com>, nanog(a)nanog.org >Subject: Re: "Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not > have IPv6 in their applications".... >Message-ID: > <1359591223.5270.YahooMailMobile(a)web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Comcast removed the "no IPv6" excuse? That removal somehow skipped my >house in Washington DC where they installed (last October) a router which >does not even support it (an Arrus voice gateway- the one where you >can't turn of the crummy 2.4g wireless radio) and none of the folks >I've spoken to on the phone can tell me when or if it will be coming. [jjmb] feel free to contact me offline, your device will soon be enabled with IPv6 support. I can add you to early trials for the same if you are interested. > >I look forward to Comcast giving me native v6 at home. [jjmb] IPv6 is launched in your area across our broadband network, we did not enable IPv6 for the device you have for a variety of reasons. See my other email about managing customer experience, the last thing I imagine you would want me to do is carelessly deploy software with issues. > >David Barak

1 0