February 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

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

Duplex negotiation over 100Base fibre
by Jason Lixfeld 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Hello, My understanding is that for 1G and 10G optical networks, there is no concept of half-duplex mode, but I’m unclear about half duplex in the 100M optical world. Specifically, if I connect two 100Base-LX (or BX) transceivers together, is there a requirement for the controller(s on either side) to select between full or half duplex, either by static configuration, or auto-negotiation? Thanks!

3 2

2nd call for presentations RIPE 72
by Benno Overeinder 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Dear colleagues, Please note the approaching deadline of 13 March 2016 for RIPE 72 plenary programme submissions. You can find the CFP for RIPE 72 below or at https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/, for your proposals for plenary session presentations, tutorials, workshops, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions) and lightning talks. Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder RIPE PC Chair https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/pc -------------------->>><<<-------------------- Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 72 will take place from 23-27 May 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary sessions, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 72. See the full descriptions of the different presentation formats, https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. Proposals for plenary sessions, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than 13 March 2016. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered depending on the remaining available space in the programme. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations - Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses - Data centre technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange Submissions RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general, the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows: - Plenary presentations: 20-25 minutes presentation with 5-10 minutes discussion - Tutorials: up to two hours (Monday morning) - Workshops: one hour (during evening sessions) to two hours (Monday morning) - BoFs: approximately one hour - Lightning talks: 10 minutes The following general requirements apply: - Proposals must be submitted using the meeting submission system, https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/. - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) and can be submitted any time up to and including the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talks will be announced on short notice---in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the time slot allocated. - Presenters who propose a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. - All presentation proposals will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators. - Due to potential technical issues, presenters/panellists should be physically present at the RIPE Meeting. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net. -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

1 0

Observium
by sathish kumar Ippani 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Hello Everyone, This is off topic, i am posting request as i need some help in configuring obsrvium for RANCID and traffic polling. for traffic polling I am seeing white space in the graph as shown in the below. [image: Inline image 1] Rancid. Device back up are fine for few devices (daily) for few devices backup were not happening. Rancid cronjob ============================ 58 11 * * * /var/lib/rancid/bin/rancid-run #hourly router dump 59 11 * * * /usr/bin/find /var/lib/rancid/logs -type f -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \; poller cronjob ================== */5 * * * * root /opt/observium/poller-wrapper.py 10 >> /dev/null 2>&1 -- With Regards, Sathish Kumar Ippani 9177166040

2 1