December 2013 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Question related to Cellular Data and restrictions..
by Scott Weeks 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

--- jared(a)puck.nether.net wrote: From: Jared Mauch <jared(a)puck.nether.net> In "outlying" areas, such as Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, you're better off using a local telco. More likely to have better coverage. ---------------------------------------- Not in Hawaii. Hawaiian Telcom used to (still do?) use Sprint's cell network. scott

1 0

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
by Mark Andrews 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

In message <CEC4C38B.3A8EB%Lee(a)asgard.org>, Lee Howard writes: > > > On 12/3/13 7:14 PM, "Mark Andrews" <marka(a)isc.org> wrote: > > > > >In message <529D9492.8020205(a)inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes: > >> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> > I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who > >>wants them and we don't charge for IPv6 add > >> ress space. > >> > >> There is some ISP who afraid their users will be reselling their > >> connectivity to other users around. While I didin't see that in years > >> (probably last time in 2005) but still this exist in poor regions. > > > >And if they didn't resell it they probably wouldn't have a customer > >in the first place. Unless you offer "unlimited" plans the ISP > >isn't losing anything here. The bandwidth being used is being paid > >for. If it isn't the ISP needs to adjust the price points to cover > >their costs rather than hoping that people won't use all of the > >bandwidth they have purchased. > > It seems that, especially in the U.S., consumers don't like paying per-bit. > That was true with per-minute for voice, too. > > You are free to be unhappy about consumer behavior. Customers like to know what there bill will be at the end of each month and not suffer from bill shock. There are lots of ways to provide that. For instance I pay $85 for 120G per month + telephone with a rate limited connection if I go over that. I can pay more or less and change the amount of traffic I get before it becomes rate limited. I get warnings at various tigger points. I can see my total and daily usage of the month. In the US you still pay $XX for YYYG and then get rate limited. You call this unlimited and you don't know what YYY is and it changes from month to month. > >> Other than that, completely agree on /56y default and /48 on request, > >> but most ISPs here are give-out just single /64. > > > >Which is just plain stupid. > > You are also free to run your network as you choose. Getting upset about > how other people run their networks is not going to improve the world. Actually it is. Developers need to design for their products to work in the real world. Getting realistic minimums provided everywhere is useful. People need to be told when they are doing something that is bad for the general community and only supplying a single /64 is bad for the general community as it is outside the design choices that were made when developing IPv6. > Lee > > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(a)isc.org

1 0

Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)
by Brian Dickson 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

Rob Seastrom wrote: > "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam at gmail.com<http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> > writes: > > > * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com > <http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> wrote: *>> > * So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse > 6rd... *> > * ... *> > * Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone *> > * *is* paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone 256 *> > * networks when they're only ever likely to use one or two (or maybe *> > * four), is intentionally wasting space you could've assigned to *> > * someone else. (or **sold** to someone else :-)) IPv6 may be huge to *> > * the power of huge, but it's still finite. People like you are *> > * repeating the same mistakes from the early days of IPv4... * There's > finite, and then there's finite. Please complete the > following math assignment so as to calibrate your perceptions before > leveling further allegations of profligate waste. > Suppose that every mobile phone on the face of the planet was an "end > site" in the classic sense and got a /48 (because miraculously, > the mobile providers aren't being stingy). > Now give such a phone to every human on the face of the earth. > Unfortunately for our conservation efforts, every person with a > cell phone is actually the cousin of either Avi Freedman or Vijay > Gill, and consequently actually has FIVE cell phones on active > plans at any given time. > Assume 2:1 overprovisioning of address space because per Cameron > Byrne's comments on ARIN 2013-2, the cellular equipment providers > can't seem to figure out how to have N+1 or N+2 redundancy rather > than 2N redundancy on Home Agent hardware. > What percentage of the total available IPv6 space have we burned > through in this scenario? Show your work. > -r Here's the problem with the math, presuming everyone gets roughly the same answer: The efficiency (number of prefixes vs total space) is only achieved if there is a "flat" network, which carries every IPv6 prefix (i.e. that there is no aggregation being done). This means 1:1 router slots (for routes) vs prefixes, globally, or even internally on ISP networks. If any ISP has > 1M customers, oops. So, we need to aggregate. Basically, the problem space (waste) boils down to the question, "How many levels of aggregation are needed"? If you have variable POP sizes, region sizes, and assign/aggregate towards customers topologically, the result is: - the need to maintain power-of-2 address block sizes (for aggregation), plus - the need to aggregate at each level (to keep #prefixes sane) plus - asymmetric sizes which don't often end up being just short of the next power-of-2 - equals (necessarily) low utilization rates - i.e. much larger prefixes than would be suggested by "flat" allocation from a single pool. Here's a worked example, for a hypothetical big consumer ISP: - 22 POPs with "core" devices - each POP has anywhere from 2 to 20 "border" devices (feeding access devices) - each "border" has 5 to 100 "access" devices - each access device has up to 5000 customers Rounding up each, using max(count-per-level) as the basis, we get: 5000->8192 (2^13) 100->128 (2^7) 20->32 (2^5) 22->32 (2^5) 5+5+7+13=30 bits of aggregation 2^30 of /48 = /18 This leaves room for 2^10 such ISPs (a mere 1024), from the current /8. A thousand ISPs seems like a lot, but consider this: the ISP we did this for, might only have 3M customers. Scale this up (horizontally or vertically or both), and it is dangerously close to capacity already. The answer above (worked math) will be unique per ISP. It will also drive consumption at the apex, i.e. the size of allocations to ISPs. And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence that every network (LAN) must be a /64. That's my 2 cents/observation. Brian

6 15

bgp traceroute tool?
by John Conner 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

Hi there, is there any tools available under linux which can do bgp traceroute? (print bgp AS numbers for each traceroute hop ) , i googled and found nothing. thanks John

11 12

Anyone competent within AT&T Uverse?
by Phil Karn 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

Does anyone know anyone within AT&T Uverse who actually knows what TCP/IP is? Maybe even how to read a packet trace? I've been trying to get my static IP block working again since Saturday when they broke it while fixing an unrelated problem. I can't believe how incompetent their tech support has been on this. An hour into a chat with them and I finally realize they don't have a clue what I'm talking about...this is very frustrating... Their premise techs try very hard, but I get the strong impression that the network support people randomly perturb provisioning until it works again, and that's why they keep breaking unrelated things. I'm still wondering if this Internet stuff is ready for prime time... Thanks, Phil

6 5

Europe-to-US congestion and packet loss on he.net network, and their NOC@ won't even respond
by Constantine A. Murenin 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

Dear NANOG@, I'm not exactly sure how else I can get he.net's attention, because I've been experiencing congestion issues between my dedi and Indiana for a couple of months now, all due to he.net's poor transit, as it turns out. The issue was complicated by the fact that the routes are asymmetric, and it appears as if the traffic loss is going on somewhere where there is none at all. I will just provide the data, and people can make their own conclusions, any insights are welcome. During all of this, since some late September 2013, all 4 networks involved have been contacted -- hetzner, init7, he.net, indiana; all except for he.net have responded and did troubleshooting. After pressing the lack of any kind of response from he.net, all they did was ask for a customer number, and that was back in September. I have not heard from their NOC@ ever since, with requests left unanswered, sans the "we have received your request" autoreply. Interestingly enough, only some of their Europe-to-US routes are blatantly congested and have very obvious packet loss (often making ssh unusable), whereas others appear to be doing just fine (at least, not losing packets and not experiencing jitter, and the increased latency). E.g. IPv6 routes don't appear affected, for example. IPv4 addresses in North America that are announced directly from AS6939 (e.g. Linode in Fremont) don't appear affected, either. But the multi-homed indiana.edu and wiscnet.net are affected. The single-homed ntp1.yycix.ca is affected, too. Probably other customers are affected as well. Where's the end to this? Or is the ongoing 0.5+% traffic loss, and the 140+ms avg latency on a 114ms route, with random spikes and jitter in certain hours of the day (generally around midnight ET), every day for several weeks or even months, an acceptable practice? From hetzner.de through he.net: Cns# date ; mtr --report{,-wide,-cycles=600} --interval 0.1 --order "SRL BGAWV" -4 ????c????????.indiana.edu ; date Fri Nov 29 21:06:17 PST 2013 HOST: Cns??????? Snt Rcv Loss% Best Gmean Avg Wrst StDev 1.|-- static.??.???.4.46.clients.your-server.de 600 600 0.0% 0.5 1.0 1.3 4.9 1.1 2.|-- hos-tr1.juniper1.rz13.hetzner.de 600 600 0.0% 0.1 0.2 1.9 66.0 7.6 3.|-- core21.hetzner.de 600 600 0.0% 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.8 0.4 4.|-- core22.hetzner.de 600 600 0.0% 0.2 0.2 0.2 19.4 1.2 5.|-- core1.hetzner.de 600 600 0.0% 4.8 4.8 4.8 13.2 0.7 6.|-- juniper1.ffm.hetzner.de 600 600 0.0% 4.8 4.8 4.8 27.4 1.4 7.|-- 30gigabitethernet1-3.core1.ams1.he.net 600 600 0.0% 11.2 14.0 14.6 48.7 4.5 8.|-- 10gigabitethernet1-4.core1.lon1.he.net 600 600 0.0% 18.2 19.6 19.9 53.9 4.1 9.|-- 10gigabitethernet10-4.core1.nyc4.he.net 600 599 0.2% 87.0 116.1 116.7 145.7 12.4 10.|-- 100gigabitethernet7-2.core1.chi1.he.net 600 597 0.5% 106.6 135.4 136.1 192.0 13.3 11.|-- ??? 600 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.|-- et-11-0-0.945.rtr.ictc.indiana.gigapop.net 600 594 1.0% 113.3 139.3 139.7 166.1 11.4 13.|-- xe-0-3-0.11.br2.ictc.net.uits.iu.edu 600 596 0.7% 113.2 139.8 140.3 177.3 12.0 14.|-- ae-0.0.br2.bldc.net.uits.iu.edu 600 595 0.8% 114.2 140.1 140.6 183.2 11.8 15.|-- ae-10.0.cr3.bldc.net.uits.iu.edu 600 597 0.5% 114.3 140.3 140.8 165.0 11.5 16.|-- ????c????????.indiana.edu 600 597 0.5% 114.7 140.7 141.1 161.6 11.4 Fri Nov 29 21:08:52 PST 2013 Cns# unbuffer hping --icmp-ts ????c????????.indiana.edu | \ perl -ne 'if (/icmp_seq=(\d+) rtt=(\d+\.\d)/) {($s, $p) = ($1, $2);} \ if (/ate=(\d+) Receive=(\d+) Transmit=(\d+)/) {($o, $r, $t) = ($1, $2, $3);} \ if (/tsrtt=(\d+)/) { \ print $s, "\t", $p, "\t", $1, " = ", $r - $o, " + ", $o + $1 - $t, "\n"; }' 0 143.5 144 = 87 + 57 1 125.5 126 = 69 + 57 2 143.6 144 = 87 + 57 3 157.9 158 = 102 + 56 4 122.0 122 = 66 + 56 5 141.6 142 = 85 + 57 6 132.2 133 = 76 + 57 7 146.2 146 = 89 + 57 8 145.1 145 = 88 + 57 9 119.9 119 = 63 + 56 10 132.7 132 = 75 + 57 11 140.1 140 = 83 + 57 12 151.0 151 = 94 + 57 13 152.6 152 = 96 + 56 14 129.1 129 = 72 + 57 15 128.5 128 = 71 + 57 ^C Single-homed at he.net: Cns# date ; mtr --report{,-cycles=600} --interval 0.1 --order "SRL BGAWV" -4 ntp1.yycix.ca ; date Fri Nov 29 21:16:14 PST 2013 HOST: Cns??????? Snt Rcv Loss% Best Gmean Avg Wrst StDev 1.|-- static.??.???.4.46.client 600 600 0.0% 0.5 1.0 1.3 10.2 1.2 2.|-- hos-tr4.juniper2.rz13.het 600 600 0.0% 0.1 0.2 2.0 153.9 9.8 3.|-- core22.hetzner.de 600 600 0.0% 0.2 0.2 0.2 10.6 0.6 4.|-- core1.hetzner.de 600 600 0.0% 4.8 4.8 4.8 16.4 0.9 5.|-- juniper1.ffm.hetzner.de 600 600 0.0% 4.8 4.8 4.8 36.4 1.5 6.|-- 30gigabitethernet1-3.core 600 600 0.0% 11.2 13.5 14.0 36.6 4.3 7.|-- 10gigabitethernet1-4.core 600 600 0.0% 18.0 21.5 21.8 43.1 4.0 8.|-- 10gigabitethernet10-4.cor 600 597 0.5% 93.2 128.0 128.3 157.5 8.9 9.|-- 10gigabitethernet1-2.core 600 596 0.7% 103.1 139.4 139.6 157.5 8.2 10.|-- 10gigabitethernet3-1.core 600 597 0.5% 128.2 164.9 165.1 181.9 8.2 11.|-- 10gigabitethernet1-1.core 600 593 1.2% 138.7 175.9 176.1 192.6 7.8 12.|-- sebo-systems-inc.gigabite 600 597 0.5% 139.0 176.4 176.5 187.5 6.9 13.|-- ??? 600 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.|-- ntp1.yycix.ca 600 597 0.5% 141.0 176.9 177.0 186.9 6.9 Fri Nov 29 21:18:32 PST 2013 Cns# traceroute -A ntp1.yycix.ca traceroute to ntp1.yycix.ca (192.75.191.6), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 static.??.???.4.46.clients.your-server.de (46.4.???.??) [AS24940] 0.664 ms 0.648 ms 0.453 ms 2 hos-tr1.juniper1.rz13.hetzner.de (213.239.224.1) [AS24940] 23.985 ms hos-tr2.juniper1.rz13.hetzner.de (213.239.224.33) [AS24940] 0.234 ms hos-tr3.juniper2.rz13.hetzner.de (213.239.224.65) [AS24940] 0.238 ms 3 core22.hetzner.de (213.239.245.121) [AS24940] 0.238 ms core21.hetzner.de (213.239.245.81) [AS24940] 0.234 ms 0.236 ms 4 core1.hetzner.de (213.239.245.177) [AS24940] 4.811 ms 4.809 ms core22.hetzner.de (213.239.245.162) [AS24940] 0.248 ms 5 core1.hetzner.de (213.239.245.177) [AS24940] 4.831 ms juniper1.ffm.hetzner.de (213.239.245.5) [AS24940] 4.842 ms 4.826 ms 6 juniper1.ffm.hetzner.de (213.239.245.5) [AS24940] 4.857 ms 4.864 ms 30gigabitethernet1-3.core1.ams1.he.net (195.69.145.150) [AS1200] 11.233 ms 7 10gigabitethernet1-4.core1.lon1.he.net (72.52.92.81) [AS6939, AS6939] 19.869 ms 30gigabitethernet1-3.core1.ams1.he.net (195.69.145.150) [AS1200] 18.420 ms 11.255 ms 8 10gigabitethernet10-4.core1.nyc4.he.net (72.52.92.241) [AS6939, AS6939] 115.845 ms 101.875 ms 10gigabitethernet1-4.core1.lon1.he.net (72.52.92.81) [AS6939, AS6939] 17.249 ms 9 10gigabitethernet10-4.core1.nyc4.he.net (72.52.92.241) [AS6939, AS6939] 138.302 ms 10gigabitethernet1-2.core1.tor1.he.net (184.105.222.18) [AS6939] 120.449 ms 139.730 ms 10 10gigabitethernet1-2.core1.tor1.he.net (184.105.222.18) [AS6939] 134.755 ms 104.661 ms 10gigabitethernet3-1.core1.ywg1.he.net (184.105.223.221) [AS6939] 167.282 ms 11 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.yyc1.he.net (184.105.223.214) [AS6939] 139.310 ms 10gigabitethernet3-1.core1.ywg1.he.net (184.105.223.221) [AS6939] 155.983 ms 155.910 ms 12 sebo-systems-inc.gigabitethernet2-23.core1.yyc1.he.net (216.218.214.250) [AS6939] 138.703 ms 178.530 ms 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.yyc1.he.net (184.105.223.214) [AS6939] 172.423 ms 13 sebo-systems-inc.gigabitethernet2-23.core1.yyc1.he.net (216.218.214.250) [AS6939] 158 ms * * 14 * * ntp1.yycix.ca (192.75.191.6) [AS53339] 181.433 ms Cns# Cns# Cns# Cns# unbuffer hping --icmp-ts ntp1.yycix.ca | perl -ne \ 'if (/icmp_seq=(\d+) rtt=(\d+\.\d)/) {($s, $p) = ($1, $2);} \ if (/ate=(\d+) Receive=(\d+) Transmit=(\d+)/) {($o, $r, $t) = ($1, $2, $3);} \ if (/tsrtt=(\d+)/) { \ print $s, "\t", $p, "\t", $1, " = ", $r - $o, " + ", $o + $1 - $t, "\n"; }' 0 165.0 165 = 95 + 70 1 156.2 156 = 86 + 70 2 178.9 179 = 109 + 70 3 181.0 181 = 111 + 70 4 178.3 179 = 108 + 71 5 163.8 164 = 94 + 70 6 175.7 176 = 106 + 70 7 173.9 174 = 104 + 70 8 172.6 173 = 103 + 70 9 163.5 164 = 94 + 70 10 181.8 182 = 112 + 70 11 161.9 162 = 92 + 70 12 183.1 184 = 113 + 71 13 174.5 174 = 104 + 70 14 181.8 181 = 111 + 70 15 181.7 181 = 111 + 70 ^C Cns# From indiana.edu to hetzner.de; notice that the mtr by itself gives a false impression of a traffic loss at init7, whereas in reality, it's the reverse path through he.net that's causing the loss, as hping confirms: m: {5134} date ; sudo mtr --report{,-cycles=600} --interval 0.1 --order "SRL BGAWV" -4 ?????? ; date Sat Nov 30 00:36:27 EST 2013 HOST: ????c????????.indiana.edu Snt Rcv Loss% Best Gmean Avg Wrst StDev 1.|-- 129.79.???.? 600 600 0.0% 0.4 0.7 0.9 24.7 1.5 2.|-- ae-13.0.br2.bldc.net.uits 600 600 0.0% 0.5 0.7 0.9 22.6 1.8 3.|-- ae-0.0.br2.ictc.net.uits. 600 600 0.0% 1.4 1.7 1.8 20.2 1.6 4.|-- xe-0-1-0.11.rtr.ictc.indi 600 600 0.0% 1.4 2.1 3.8 66.5 8.1 5.|-- 64.57.21.13 600 600 0.0% 6.0 7.2 8.4 72.9 8.0 6.|-- xe-2-2-0.0.ny0.tr-cps.int 600 600 0.0% 32.3 33.9 34.4 81.0 6.9 7.|-- paix-nyc.init7.net 600 600 0.0% 32.5 35.3 35.5 44.7 3.8 8.|-- r1lon1.core.init7.net 600 599 0.2% 100.1 104.7 104.9 146.5 7.5 9.|-- r1nue1.core.init7.net 600 599 0.2% 114.6 115.7 115.7 125.4 2.2 10.|-- gw-hetzner.init7.net 600 594 1.0% 112.4 141.3 142.4 241.9 18.2 11.|-- core12.hetzner.de 600 468 22.0% 112.2 142.7 144.0 203.4 20.3 12.|-- core21.hetzner.de 600 202 66.3% 114.4 143.7 145.0 204.1 20.1 13.|-- juniper1.rz13.hetzner.de 600 594 1.0% 114.7 141.4 142.1 212.2 14.3 14.|-- hos-tr2.ex3k11.rz13.hetzn 600 599 0.2% 113.8 123.9 125.5 218.2 21.8 15.|-- static.88-198-??-??.clien 599 592 1.2% 114.6 137.2 137.9 167.6 13.2 0.244u 1.766s 1:05.52 3.0% 0+0k 0+1io 0pf+0w Sat Nov 30 00:37:32 EST 2013 m: {5137} sudo script -q /dev/null hping3 --icmp-ts 88.198.??.?? | perl -ne 'if (/icmp_seq=(\d+) rtt=(\d+\.\d)/) {($s, $p) = ($1, $2);} \ if (/ate=(\d+) Receive=(\d+) Transmit=(\d+)/) {($o, $r, $t) = ($1, $2, $3);} \ if (/tsrtt=(\d+)/) { \ print $s, "\t", $p, "\t", $1, " = ", $r - $o, " + ", $o + $1 - $t, "\r\n"; }' 0 131.3 131 = 57 + 74 1 122.4 122 = 56 + 66 2 122.6 123 = 56 + 67 3 127.6 128 = 57 + 71 4 146.5 147 = 57 + 90 5 139.8 140 = 56 + 84 6 131.0 131 = 57 + 74 7 134.6 135 = 57 + 78 8 137.7 138 = 57 + 81 9 148.1 148 = 57 + 91 10 141.2 142 = 57 + 85 11 146.4 146 = 56 + 90 12 153.6 154 = 57 + 97 13 149.4 150 = 57 + 93 14 120.2 121 = 57 + 64 15 120.6 120 = 56 + 64 16 130.7 131 = 57 + 74 17 126.4 126 = 56 + 70 18 117.9 118 = 57 + 61 19 116.9 117 = 57 + 60 20 119.8 119 = 56 + 63 21 132.0 132 = 56 + 76 22 134.2 134 = 56 + 78 23 138.8 139 = 57 + 82 Note the ICMP timestamp data from hping above. From this ICMP timestamping data, it is obvious that the congestion is only happening on one path -- the one over he.net, and init7 is in the clear. Any further insights are welcome. But finding out about the ICMP timestamp feature has so far been the most useful thing in troubleshooting this issue; I'm surprised it's a rather unknown method to get to the bottom of these problems. However, even after finding out about the cause and the party responsible, the problem is yet to be exhausted. Any help appreciated. Best regards, Constantine.

7 8

NANOG 60 - Atlanta - Call For Presentations is open!
by Greg Dendy 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

NANOG Community, I hope everyone enjoyed NANOG 59 in Phoenix, NANOG’s largest attended meeting. Fresh off a great meeting, and our NANOG annual elections, we are already starting to get ready for NANOG 60 in Atlanta. If you have a topic you'd like to speak about, the program committee would love to consider it. Please read http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog60/callforpresentations for more information. We will continue with the Monday-Wednesday format, with Tracks on Monday afternoon and Tutorials to be scheduled on Tuesday morning. The program will begin on Monday morning at 10:00AM followed by our popular Newcomers Lunch. The exact schedule layout can be found at http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog60/preagenda, please take this into account as you plan travel. If you wish to submit a presentation, please keep these important dates in mind: * Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due: December 9, 2013 * Final Slides Due: January 6, 2014 * Topic List Posted: December 20, 2013 * Agenda Published: January 13, 2014 Please submit your materials to http://pc.nanog.org. Looking forward to seeing everyone in Atlanta! Thanks, Greg Dendy Chair, NANOG Program Committee

1 1

Advice on v4 NAT for farm of file transfer clients
by Andy Litzinger 03 Dec '13

03 Dec '13

Hi all, We have a pool of around 100 file transfer clients. They reach out to publicly addressed servers on the net to get and put files. Rather than burn 100 public v4 addresses for the clients, we've traditionally had these guys behind a firewall performing source NAT/PAT overloading about 10 IPs. Recently we've been seeing increases in the amount of throughput to/from the servers through the FW. Within the next 12 mos I expect we'll want to support 10Gbps. Since buying a firewall that supports 10Gbps is fairly expensive I thought i'd seek out alternative ideas before we blindly purchase a bigger firewall. Also, a stateful firewall seems like a bit of overkill for what is actually required. I'm confident we can limit our FTP support to passive connections which should remove the requirement of using a device that supports active FTP (i.e. application inspection). currently we're using a Juniper SRX550 to do this (which replaced an overwhelmed ASA 5520). Avg packet size we see according to the SRX is 1000 bytes. thanks! -andy

2 1

Philadelphia Internet Exchange
by Chris Rogers 03 Dec '13

03 Dec '13

Hello NANOG, We're in the process of starting up an IXP in Philadelphia, and I wanted to see if there were any networks that would be interested in connecting. Currently, we have just over 10 networks that have expressed interest. (Listed on http://phlix.net/) If you would like to be added, please email me off list with your company name, peering ASN, and any preferred colo(s) where you would like to see PHLIX present. Initially, we're expecting to have switches in 401 N Broad and 3701 Market, with a link between the two buildings. If there's enough demand, we'd also look at 2401 Locust and 833 Chestnut. We are looking to run this as "revenue neutral", so to properly price out ports, we need to get a rough idea who's interested in connecting. Thanks! -Chris Rogers The Philadelphia Internet Exchange http://phlix.net/

1 0

Routing Policy Survey Results
by Phillipa Gill 03 Dec '13

03 Dec '13

Hi NANOG! We’d like to thank everyone who answered our survey on routing policies and everyone who gave feedback on our presentation of preliminary survey results at NANOG56 (https://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=1996 ). A more complete exposition of the survey results will be appearing in the January 2014 issue of ACM Computer Communications Review and can be found online at this URL: http://www.cs.stonybrook.edu/~phillipa/papers/CCR2014.pdf Thanks again to everyone who helped out with our efforts. - Phillipa Gill, Sharon Goldberg, Michael Schapira

1 0