July 2014 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2
by Ray Van Dolson 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

I'm short some important details on this one, but hopefully can fill in more shortly. We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- < 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits. The issue is reproducible on both our production Gigabit circuit as well as a consumer grade Verizion FIOS line. Speeds are normal (10MB/sec plus) via non-Verizon circuits we've tested. Source IP's are in the 198.102.62.0/24 range and destination on the EC2 side is 54.197.239.228. I'm not sure in which availability zone the latter IP sits, but hope to find out shortly. MTR traceroute details are as follows: Host Loss% Snt Drop Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 198.102.62.253 0.0% 526 0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 2. 152.179.250.141 0.0% 526 0 14.1 7.0 19.4 3.6 3. 140.222.225.135 37.5% 526 197 7.7 6.8 35.8 1.9 4. 129.250.8.85 0.0% 526 0 8.1 7.4 11.7 0.3 5. 129.250.2.229 10.3% 525 54 11.4 7.1 85.7 9.6 6. 129.250.2.169 41.5% 525 218 63.0 45.5 130.7 10.3 7. 129.250.2.154 0.2% 525 1 59.9 44.5 69.0 4.0 8. ??? 9. 54.240.229.96 7.8% 525 41 76.6 71.3 119.9 8.6 54.240.229.104 54.240.229.106 10. 54.240.229.2 6.9% 525 36 74.7 71.6 109.1 4.9 54.240.229.4 54.240.229.20 54.240.229.8 54.240.229.14 54.240.228.254 54.240.229.16 54.240.229.10 11. 54.240.229.174 5.5% 525 29 76.0 71.7 109.0 7.3 54.240.229.162 54.240.229.160 54.240.229.170 54.240.229.172 54.240.229.168 54.240.229.164 12. 54.240.228.167 94.5% 525 495 76.4 71.7 126.0 11.6 54.240.228.169 54.240.228.165 54.240.228.163 13. 72.21.220.108 5.1% 525 27 75.2 71.3 112.6 6.8 205.251.244.12 72.21.220.8 205.251.244.64 72.21.220.96 205.251.244.8 72.21.220.6 205.251.244.4 14. 72.21.220.45 9.0% 525 47 74.0 71.6 199.5 8.5 72.21.220.149 72.21.220.29 72.21.220.125 72.21.220.37 72.21.220.61 72.21.220.2 72.21.220.69 15. 72.21.222.33 10.5% 525 55 73.4 71.5 87.1 1.5 205.251.245.65 72.21.222.149 72.21.222.35 72.21.220.29 72.21.222.131 72.21.222.147 72.21.220.37 16. 205.251.245.65 93.9% 525 492 73.1 72.2 76.2 1.2 72.21.222.35 72.21.222.131 17. ??? 18. ??? 19. 216.182.224.79 13.5% 524 71 77.9 72.4 101.2 5.4 216.182.224.81 216.182.224.95 216.182.224.77 20. 216.182.224.81 94.1% 524 492 77.9 72.8 93.0 6.3 216.182.224.95 216.182.224.77 21. ??? The 140.222.225.135 shows up in the traceroutes via our Verizon Business FIOS line as well. Will be opening a ticket with both Verizon and AWS to assist, but hoping someone out there can take a look or chime in. Feel free to reply off list. Thanks, Ray

8 14

DDoS mitigation Equinix?
by Abuse Contact 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

Hi, I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like large companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't get it, how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from them or whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost? Thanks!

5 10

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
by Scott Helms 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

That's not an excuse, its simply the political reality here in the US. There is a narrow place band on the size scale for a municipality where its politically acceptable in most places AND there is a true gap in coverage. In nearly all of the larger areas, though there are some exceptions, there is very little reason for a muni to go through the pain, and it is most certainly painful, any time a city considers any kinds of moves in this direction a certain percentage of the voters there will have the same position that Bill Herrin has written from. It takes a real need to exist in the minds of enough voters to get past that and get to a place where spending money is politically feasible. I would add that this is much harder in some parts of the country than in others and this is one of the reasons that you see muni's building layer 3 networks rather than going for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable path to getting repaid than an open system. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:31 AM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqroast(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k > apartments > and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't > have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities > are much less dense. > > I'm tired of seeing these excuses in the US. New Zealand is much less > dense than the US and has a good municipal style open access fiber network > being built. > >> >>

6 8

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
by Larry Sheldon 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

On 7/23/2014 10:24 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Funny story. There are a huge number of independent telcos in Iowa. The > reason: early on, farmers discovered that you could turn pairs of barbed > wired strands into party lines. Things developed from there. In California in the 1960s Pacific had tariffs for un-francised territories for "toll stations" and "farmer lines"--the later often terminating at a small cord board. I recall taking a clearance from a repairman as "somebody left the gate open". -- 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)

1 0

v6 adoption
by Mark Allman 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

A shameless flog as it seems like it could be of interest to some folks... We have been assessing v6 adoption from a bunch of angles lately. We have written up a paper on the results of our analysis that will be presented next month at SIGCOMM. This is an update and extension of the analysis that Mike Bailey presented a few NANOG meetings ago. The paper is: Jakub Czyz, Mark Allman, Jing Zhang, Scott Iekel-Johnson, Eric Osterweil, Michael Bailey. <i>Measuring IPv6 Adoption</i>, ACM SIGCOMM, August 2014. To appear. http://www.icir.org/mallman/pubs/CAZ+14/ Comments certainly welcome. allman

1 0

Akamai contact/ Infrastructure,CDN
by Payam Poursaied 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

Hi Everyone, Can someone from Akamai contact me offlist. Specially those who deal with infrastructure. Regards

2 1

Re: Fwd: Hurricane Electric packet loss
by Clayton Zekelman 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

We haven't had time to diagnose with them, but we ended up having to shut down our BGP sessions with HE last night due to horrible slow speed issues out of TOROONNX. There's something going on, just don't know what it is yet. At 02:37 PM 22/07/2014, Shawn L wrote: >On our HE uplink, I'm seeing no packet loss until your hop #9 >at that point I see alot > > >HOST: ******** Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 > 2.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 > 3.|-- ******* 0.0% 10 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.6 0.0 > 4.|-- gigabitethernet3-5.core1. 0.0% 10 15.6 15.1 14.1 17.2 1.0 > 5.|-- 10ge5-7.core1.mci3.he.net 0.0% 10 26.2 26.7 26.2 30.1 1.0 > 6.|-- 10ge5-1.core1.den1.he.net 0.0% 10 39.7 39.7 39.5 40.2 0.0 > 7.|-- 10ge14-5.core1.lax2.he.ne 0.0% 10 66.8 65.9 63.5 68.4 1.6 > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 0.0% 10 73.0 73.0 72.8 73.1 0.0 > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 80.0% 10 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.9 0.0 > 10.|-- ten-0-5-0-0.cor01.syd04.n 0.0% 10 228.0 228.1 227.9 228.3 0.0 > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 0.0% 10 228.4 228.4 228.3 228.6 0.0 > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 10.0% 10 228.2 228.1 228.0 228.3 0.0 > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 10.0% 10 229.2 229.3 229.2 229.5 0.0 > > > >On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) ><wolfgang.nagele(a)ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Weâve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and >always been happy with their service. > > > > In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a >very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network >I am unsure whatâs the cause of it but weâve seen it on the Tokyo - US >routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent >expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which >eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen >some of the rates that HE has been selling for I canât help but wonder if >they made the same mistake ... > > > > Here is an example of whatâs going on again atm. > > HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst >StDev > > 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 >0.0 > > 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 >0.1 > > 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 >2.9 > > 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 >4.1 > > 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 >2.3 > > 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 >4.8 > > 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 >4.5 > > 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 >0.8 > > 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 >0.2 > > 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 >0.2 > > 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 >0.5 > > 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 >0.4 > > 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 >0.5 > > > > Is anybody else observing this as well? > > > > Cheers, > > Wolfgang --- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409

1 0

Hurricane Electric packet loss
by Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0% 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0% 10 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0% 10 0.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0% 10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0% 10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0% 10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0% 10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0% 10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0% 10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0% 10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0% 10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a 20.0% 10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0% 10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang

7 11

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by mcfbbqroast . 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

One thing I've noted from those that support Verizon in this thread is that they often talk about Netflix's policy being unfair on small ISPs. Verizon is not a small ISP. Small ISPs seem happy peering with Netflix when they can (in fact they seem happy peering with anyone given there costs of transit) or getting a cache if they're big enough. My way of thinking it always has been that you are an ISP. An INTERNET service provider. As such you must make a best effort attempt to connect your customers to the internet at the speed you advertise. Let's cut the crap, Verizon is not irritated by Netflix's policies. They're irritated by Netflix and friends cutting into their far more lucrative content market.

11 13

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by Brett Glass 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: >Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as >much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - >an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps >flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.) --Brett Glass

7 9