July 2013 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Verizon MPLS / BGP help needed
by Bill Ingrum 24 Jul '13

24 Jul '13

Hello, In my experience, all MPLS providers allow their customers to influence their own BGP route metrics by sending community values to the provider, with the provider adjusting metrics (such as local preference), based on these BGP communities (reference = http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_configuration_example091…) I sent a simple request to our Verizon reps, asking for the community syntax required to perform this task on a Verizon MPLS network. I expected a list of acceptable communities in the form of ASN:xxx (example: 65000:120 to set local preference to 120). My contacts at Verizon are insisting that this “feature” is not available and will not be available until September 2013! From my perspective, they are basically telling me that we are not allowed to enforce our own route policy on our own network. If someone from Verizon is able to help, I would appreciate an offline response. Thank you! Bill

3 2

CLEC willing to offer rev-share
by Markus 24 Jul '13

24 Jul '13

Hello! Since there are not only ISPs on this list but also CLECs: I have a few million minutes to US DIDs every month but my current DID provider is not offering any revenue share. I'd like to change that. Any CLEC here who is willing to share a bit of the revenue with me? Operators in other countries: please get in touch as well! Regards Markus

1 0

RE: NANOG Digest, Vol 66, Issue 60
by Cliff Bowles 24 Jul '13

24 Jul '13

+1 on the Cyclades (Avocent). We have about 8 of them spread across 3 data centers. We've used them for roughly 4-5 years. Won't say they are intuitive to set up, but once they are, they work well. Don't think I've seen one go down, but then again, they aren't subject to much change. Cost was pretty reasonable, but that's relative to your business/budget. -CWB -----Original Message----- From: nanog-request(a)nanog.org [mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:59 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 66, Issue 60 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog(a)nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request(a)nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner(a)nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." Today's Topics: 1. 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (Jeremy Bresley) 2. Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (William Herrin) 3. RE: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (Warren Bailey) 4. Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (Michael Brown) 5. Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (Joe Hamelin) 6. Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (Warren Bailey) 7. Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (Ian Goodall) 8. Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (david peahi) 9. Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (Tim Jackson) 10. Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations (Jay Ashworth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:59:41 -0500 From: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <51EFEBDD.4010704(a)brezworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Looking for recommendations on a good terminal server to put into a telco colocate facility. Requirements: 8-16 ports for Cisco console access (RJ-45s preferred, DB9s if we have to) -48V DC power USB/internal modem for OOB access NEBS Level 1 (or better) compliance. So far I've found Perle has several models that meet 3 out of 4, but none that meet all the requirements. The only OpenGear boxes we're seeing with DC power is a little 4 port unit and they don't mention NEBS compliance. Lantronix mentions DC power for their SLC line, but doesn't mention anything about NEBS compliance either. Anybody have any recommendations for one they've used that meets all 4 of those requirements? Thanks! Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley brez(a)brezworks.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:08:46 -0400 From: William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> To: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <CAP-guGX2xHR-z4W=SbfjCa-jEgm+te7P=MoEv5sVmg68fL=f+Q(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> wrote: > Looking for recommendations on a good terminal server to put into a > telco colocate facility. > > Requirements: > 8-16 ports for Cisco console access (RJ-45s preferred, DB9s if we have > to) -48V DC power USB/internal modem for OOB access NEBS Level 1 (or > better) compliance. Hi Jeremy, Have you considered the obvious: a Cisco 2610/2811 or equivalent with a 16 port async NM card, an analog modem WIC card and a DC power supply? I didn't see it on the list of things you'd considered. Regards, Bill Herrin -- 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: 3 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:14:53 +0000 From: Warren Bailey <wbailey(a)satelliteintelligencegroup.com> To: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com>, "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: RE: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <f5wg5o0me19ke4h9frdxww4w.1374678888335(a)email.android.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Uplogix. Sent from my Mobile Device. -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Date: 07/24/2013 8:02 AM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Looking for recommendations on a good terminal server to put into a telco colocate facility. Requirements: 8-16 ports for Cisco console access (RJ-45s preferred, DB9s if we have to) -48V DC power USB/internal modem for OOB access NEBS Level 1 (or better) compliance. So far I've found Perle has several models that meet 3 out of 4, but none that meet all the requirements. The only OpenGear boxes we're seeing with DC power is a little 4 port unit and they don't mention NEBS compliance. Lantronix mentions DC power for their SLC line, but doesn't mention anything about NEBS compliance either. Anybody have any recommendations for one they've used that meets all 4 of those requirements? Thanks! Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley brez(a)brezworks.com ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:14:58 -0400 From: Michael Brown <michael(a)supermathie.net> To: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <51EFEF72.3010008(a)supermathie.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 13-07-24 10:59 AM, Jeremy Bresley wrote: > Looking for recommendations on a good terminal server to put into a > telco colocate facility. > > Requirements: > 8-16 ports for Cisco console access (RJ-45s preferred, DB9s if we have > to) > -48V DC power > USB/internal modem for OOB access > NEBS Level 1 (or better) compliance. > Avocent's (formerly Cyclades) ACS devices meet all of your constraints: http://www.emersonnetworkpower.com/documents/en-us/brands/avocent/documents… M. -- Michael Brown | The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour Systems Administrator | to fit the machine. He adjusts the machine michael(a)supermathie.net | until it behaves properly. With a hammer, | if necessary. - Brian ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:18:08 -0700 From: Joe Hamelin <joe(a)nethead.com> To: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <CAO0-hXbT5LVxKjLxM8_GH9HA0pzn5fvCRHPuFuHOopSKpX4BnQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I guess Cyclades is now Avocent, used these at Clearwire. Can come with dual 48VDC supplies. Think of a 48 serial port Linux box. Has PCM/CIA slot for modem. Multiple users can be logged in at the same time. http://www.emersonnetworkpower.com/en-US/Products/InfrastructureManagement/… -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> wrote: > Looking for recommendations on a good terminal server to put into a telco > colocate facility. > > Requirements: > 8-16 ports for Cisco console access (RJ-45s preferred, DB9s if we have to) > -48V DC power > USB/internal modem for OOB access > NEBS Level 1 (or better) compliance. > > So far I've found Perle has several models that meet 3 out of 4, but none > that meet all the requirements. The only OpenGear boxes we're seeing with > DC power is a little 4 port unit and they don't mention NEBS compliance. > Lantronix mentions DC power for their SLC line, but doesn't mention > anything about NEBS compliance either. > > Anybody have any recommendations for one they've used that meets all 4 of > those requirements? > > Thanks! > > Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley > brez(a)brezworks.com > > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:31:55 +0000 From: Warren Bailey <wbailey(a)satelliteintelligencegroup.com> To: Joe Hamelin <joe(a)nethead.com>, Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <h6l2dk4n9wnycwx5nbxemmsb.1374679908061(a)email.android.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" We used these quite a bit. Uplogix has some interesting automation, and the phone line/OOB is pretty slick. One cool thing about uplogix is it has a surgical rollback feature. You can set many different conditions and rules, and the router will dutifully execute a fall back procedure automatically. We had a switch plugged in, and I did a port range and added "shut" to all of the ports. Once they all went down, uplogix noticed and after a pre defined time it went back in and restored to the last known good configuration. If these bells and whistles don't blow your skirt up, check out the website. Sent from my Mobile Device. -------- Original message -------- From: Joe Hamelin <joe(a)nethead.com> Date: 07/24/2013 8:23 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations I guess Cyclades is now Avocent, used these at Clearwire. Can come with dual 48VDC supplies. Think of a 48 serial port Linux box. Has PCM/CIA slot for modem. Multiple users can be logged in at the same time. http://www.emersonnetworkpower.com/en-US/Products/InfrastructureManagement/… -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> wrote: > Looking for recommendations on a good terminal server to put into a telco > colocate facility. > > Requirements: > 8-16 ports for Cisco console access (RJ-45s preferred, DB9s if we have to) > -48V DC power > USB/internal modem for OOB access > NEBS Level 1 (or better) compliance. > > So far I've found Perle has several models that meet 3 out of 4, but none > that meet all the requirements. The only OpenGear boxes we're seeing with > DC power is a little 4 port unit and they don't mention NEBS compliance. > Lantronix mentions DC power for their SLC line, but doesn't mention > anything about NEBS compliance either. > > Anybody have any recommendations for one they've used that meets all 4 of > those requirements? > > Thanks! > > Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley > brez(a)brezworks.com > > ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:34:55 +0100 From: Ian Goodall <nanog(a)ijg.me.uk> To: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <29BEACC0-02EB-43BF-BF32-6935A1C5B847(a)ijg.me.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On 24 Jul 2013, at 15:59, Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> wrote: > The only OpenGear boxes we're seeing with DC power is a little 4 port unit and they don't mention NEBS compliance. Lantronix mentions DC power for their SLC line, but doesn't mention anything about NEBS compliance either. Not sure about NEBS but we use the Opengear IM4200 range which meet your other requirements: http://opengear.com/product-im4200.html -48v and Cisco pinout available. I guess the small 4 port units you found were the ACM5000s. These come with an external transformer which is a pain to rack mount unlike the larger IM4200. Avocent were good when I used them a few years ago but very expensive. Ian ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:49:25 -0700 From: david peahi <davidpeahi(a)gmail.com> To: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <CAE_aTPO3qE8nMbgt0+C5OvJ8fTqY8hRqAuR2r7HMj-tcf8MmjA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 We have used the Avocent console/power terminal servers for several years. Although the browser interface is cluttered, and the use of Java sometimes poses connectivity challengesm Avocent is a useful console server for all types of devices, and has the ability to remotely power-cycle AC and DC devices. Avocent devices meet your specs (-48V PS, NEBS compliance). Regards, David On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> wrote: > Looking for recommendations on a good terminal server to put into a telco > colocate facility. > > Requirements: > 8-16 ports for Cisco console access (RJ-45s preferred, DB9s if we have to) > -48V DC power > USB/internal modem for OOB access > NEBS Level 1 (or better) compliance. > > So far I've found Perle has several models that meet 3 out of 4, but none > that meet all the requirements. The only OpenGear boxes we're seeing with > DC power is a little 4 port unit and they don't mention NEBS compliance. > Lantronix mentions DC power for their SLC line, but doesn't mention > anything about NEBS compliance either. > > Anybody have any recommendations for one they've used that meets all 4 of > those requirements? > > Thanks! > > Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley > brez(a)brezworks.com > > ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:52:35 -0700 From: Tim Jackson <jackson.tim(a)gmail.com> To: Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> Cc: nanog list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <CAK19Y1cH71Oionm02BOmYOpOFdADV7iQ6vncQpHBMpWLfEkBKA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Digi TS-16 Works well, but doesn't have USB/modem.. MRV's LX line meets all of that, but I've had mixed issues with reliability with them.. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> wrote: > Looking for recommendations on a good terminal server to put into a telco > colocate facility. > > Requirements: > 8-16 ports for Cisco console access (RJ-45s preferred, DB9s if we have to) > -48V DC power > USB/internal modem for OOB access > NEBS Level 1 (or better) compliance. > > So far I've found Perle has several models that meet 3 out of 4, but none > that meet all the requirements. The only OpenGear boxes we're seeing with > DC power is a little 4 port unit and they don't mention NEBS compliance. > Lantronix mentions DC power for their SLC line, but doesn't mention anything > about NEBS compliance either. > > Anybody have any recommendations for one they've used that meets all 4 of > those requirements? > > Thanks! > > Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley > brez(a)brezworks.com > ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:57:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> To: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations Message-ID: <3437569.1986.1374681458084.JavaMail.root(a)benjamin.baylink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeremy Bresley" <brez(a)brezworks.com> > NEBS Level 1 (or better) compliance. Do you require NEBS "compliance" or the much more expensive still "NEBS certification"? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274 End of NANOG Digest, Vol 66, Issue 60 ************************************* This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.

1 0

Re: 48V DC Terminal server recommendations
by Ian Goodall 24 Jul '13

24 Jul '13

On 24 Jul 2013, at 15:59, Jeremy Bresley <brez(a)brezworks.com> wrote: > The only OpenGear boxes we're seeing with DC power is a little 4 port unit and they don't mention NEBS compliance. Lantronix mentions DC power for their SLC line, but doesn't mention anything about NEBS compliance either. Not sure about NEBS but we use the Opengear IM4200 range which meet your other requirements: http://opengear.com/product-im4200.html -48v and Cisco pinout available. I guess the small 4 port units you found were the ACM5000s. These come with an external transformer which is a pain to rack mount unlike the larger IM4200. Avocent were good when I used them a few years ago but very expensive. Ian

1 0

Charter Business Cable Network contact?
by Mikeal Clark 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

Anyone with visibility of Charter's Business network in Wisconsin available for a quick discussion off list? Thanks,

1 0

Comcast
by Meshier, Brent 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

Need a phone number for Comcast corporate. Trying to resolve issues across all our sites nationwide and their phone system is driving me insane. **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** The material contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not intended as an offer or solicitation with respect to the purchase or sale of securities. The decision of whether to adopt any strategy or to engage in any transaction and the decision of whether any strategy or transaction fits into an appropriate portfolio structure remains the responsibility of the customer and/or its advisors. Past performance on the underlying securities is no guarantee of future results. This material is intended for use by institutional clients only and not for use by the general public. Portions of this material may incorporate information provided by third party market data sources. Although this information has been obtained from and based upon sources believed to be reliable, neither Amherst Holdings, LLC nor any of its affiliates guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein, and cannot be held responsible for inaccuracies in such third party data or the data supplied to the third party by issuers or guarantors. This report constitutes Amherst's views as of the date of the report and is subject to change without notice. This information does not purport to be a complete analysis of any security, company or industry, including but not limited to any claim as to the prepayment consistency and/or the future performance of any securities or structures. To the extent applicable, change in prepayment rates and/or payments may significantly affect yield, price, total return and average life. Our affiliate, Amherst Securities Group, L.P., may have a position in securities discussed in this material.

1 0

common practice for IP address announcement agreement if addresses belong to other ISP
by Martin T 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

Hi, as probably many of you know, it's possible to create a route object to RIPE database for an address space which is allocated outside the RIPE region using the RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT maintainer object. For example an address space is from APNIC or ARIN region and AS is from RIPE region. However, what if customer, who has it's own AS number, wants to buy IP transit from RIPE region ISP using addresses from APNIC region and customer claims that owner of those addresses in APNIC region allows him to do so? Common sense suggest that if one wants to announce someone else address space, then they should inform the owner of the address space and the owner of the address space needs to agree. Is there a common practice how this agreement should look like? A simple e-mail? A signed document, which is scanned and sent from address space owner to ISP who wants to announce those addresses? regards, Martin

1 0

ARIN question
by Warren Bailey 22 Jul '13

22 Jul '13

All, Does anyone have a baseline on the "maximum" allocation a small to mid-sized ISP can receive from ARIN? I realize resources are scarce in IPv4 land, and I am a bit nervous to initiate the process myself without an understanding of what can/cannot be allocated. I'm not looking for anything insane, maybe a /23 or something in that realm. I'd appreciate any feedback/input any of you have – on list or off. Just looking to get a better grasp on the IPv4 climate before I start telling our people to spend money. //warren

5 4

Re: AS3549 Level3/GBLX carrying routing for 10.0.0.0/8
by Larry Sheldon 22 Jul '13

22 Jul '13

On 7/20/2013 11:26 PM, Yang Yu wrote: > It appears AS3549 is announcing 10.0.0.0/8. I noticed it from an > AS3549 customer. I wonder why people don't drop any update that contains stuff like RFC 1918 space. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

4 3

forming an IETF AQM working group
by Martin Stiemerling 22 Jul '13

22 Jul '13

Hi, For those who are interested in Active Queue Management (AQM): The IETF is trying to start a working group in the Transport Area to focus on Active Queue Management (AQM) and packet scheduling or fair queuing algorithms. There is a mailing list setup at: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm Anyone interested is free and welcomed to join the discussion. We especially want to have people with different perspectives participating, including hardware and software developers for different types of systems, network operators, academics, etc. There will also be a Birds of a Feather (BoF) meeting at the IETF meeting in Berlin (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87) later this month, which we wanted to make people aware of. The goal of the meeting is to form a working group following the meeting. A draft charter that is being discussed can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg00165.html Thanks, Martin -- IETF Transport Area Director martin.stiemerling(a)neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB Registered in England 2832014

1 0