February 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

New Switches with Broadcom StrataDNX
by Colton Conor 19 Apr '16

19 Apr '16

Does anyone know when the switching and router vendors will release their new models with the Broadcom BCM88370 and BCM88670 chips? It looks like these chips could be used as a carrier grade router and/or metro E device. More information here: http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s902223 and here: http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/03/19/new-dune-chips-enable-heftier-switch…

9 17

mrtg alternative
by Baldur Norddahl 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

Hi I am currently using MRTG and RRD to make traffic graphs. I am searching for more modern alternatives that allows the user to dynamically zoom and scroll the timeline. Bonus points if the user can customize the graphs directly in the webbrowse. For example he might be able to add or remove individual peers from the graph by simply clicking a checkbox. What is the 2016 tool for this? Regards, Baldur

24 26

Low density Juniper (or alternative) Edge
by David Bass 16 Mar '16

16 Mar '16

Looking to see what others are using out there as an alternative to a Cisco ME3600X? Also, what other vendors out there are playing in this space? Need a full MPLS stack.

12 21

Juniper MX Sizing
by Graham Johnston 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

I am wondering if anyone can provide their real world experience about sizing Juniper MX routers as it relates to BGP. I am needing a device that has a mix of layer 2 and 3 features, including MPLS, that will have a very low port count requirement that will primarily be used at a remote POP site to connect to the local IX as well as one or two full route transit providers. The MX104 has what I need from a physical standpoint and a data plane standpoint, as well as power consumption figures. My only concern is whether the REs have enough horsepower to churn through the convergence calculations at a rate that operators in this situation would find acceptable. I realize that 'acceptable' is a moving target so I would happily accept feedback from people using them as to how long it takes and their happiness with the product. For those of you that deem the MX104 unacceptable in this kind of role and moved up to the MX240, what RE did you elect to use? Thanks, Graham Johnston Network Planner Westman Communications Group 204.717.2829 johnstong(a)westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com> P think green; don't print this email.

10 15

Thank you, Comcast.
by Mike Hammett 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

I know. It seems odd, doesn't it? They're actually suspending people's accounts for DNS amplification. My aunt got a call about it tonight. I had already firewalled that off on her router before they called, but they're doing it. There's more that they could do I'm sure, but they're doing it. Maybe it's flooding their upstream causing other service issues.... but they're doing it. So many others aren't doing much at all. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

32 93

About inetnum "ownership"
by Jérôme Nicolle 03 Mar '16

03 Mar '16

Hi, How come we've had an inetnum market in place whereas an inetnum cannot have a market value ? It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members. I'm wondering how did we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer". May you please enlight me ? Thanks ! -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14

11 18

sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX
by Todd Crane 03 Mar '16

03 Mar '16

This maybe outside the scope of this list but I was wondering if anybody had advice or lessons learned on the whole sFlow vs netFlow debate. We are looking at using it for billing and influencing our sdn flows. It seems like everything I have found is biased (articles by companies who have commercial offerings for the "better" protocol) Todd Crane

16 55

Cogent & Google IPv6
by Ian Clark 02 Mar '16

02 Mar '16

Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago. *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:* Dear Cogent Customer, Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information about the Google IPv6 addresses you are unable to reach. Google uses transit providers to announce their IPv4 routes to Cogent. At this time however, Google has chosen not to announce their IPv6 routes to Cogent through transit providers. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you and will notify you if there is an update to the situation. *From Google (re: Cogent):* Unfortunately it seems that your transit provider does not have IPv6 connectivity with Google. We suggest you ask your transit provider to look for alternatives to interconnect with us. Google maintains an open interconnect policy for IPv6 and welcomes any network to peer with us for access via IPv6 (and IPv4). For those networks that aren't able, or chose not to peer with Google via IPv6, they are able to reach us through any of a large number of transit providers. For more information in how to peer directly with Google please visit https://peering.google.com -- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost

14 22

BGP MVPN RFC6513, Section 10
by Jason Iannone 02 Mar '16

02 Mar '16

Hi all, I'm having trouble interpreting under what circumstance section 10 of BGP MVPN comes into play. The way I read this section, upon the receipt of PIM/IGMP Join to (*,G) the Receiver Site PE does not signal Type 6 or Type 7 Joins until a Type 5 Source Active route is received from a Sender Site PE. If Section 10 assumes the use of ASM groups in the VPN, why develop a Type 6 Shared Tree Join A-D route for unknown sources? What are the practical minimum Juniper configurations to support Section 10 for ASM and (*,G) PIM Join when the PE doesn't know a source? CE1---PE1,C-RP-----P-----PE2---CE2 Sender Site-------------------Receiver Site 1. CE1 has no active source 2. CE2 forwards PIM Join (*,G) to PE2 toward PE1,C-RP 3. PE2 eats PIM Join, maintains (*,G) state 4. CE1 generates Register messages to PE1 5. PE1 originates Type 5 (S,G) 6. PE2 receives Type 5 (S,G) 7. PE2 verifies existing (*,G) state 8. PE2 advertises Type 7 Join (S,G) 9. PE2 does PMSI and P-Tunnel attachment 10. PE1 receives (S,G) from PE2 11. PE1 adds PMSI to downstream interfaces 12. Multicast flow end to end 13. Achievement unlocked! I'm least sure about steps 2 & 3. Comprehension challenged, Jason

3 3

google search threshold
by Philip Lavine 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Does anybody know what the threshold for google searches is before you get the captcha?I am trying to decide if I need to break up the overload NAT to a pool. -thx

6 6