February 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Media converter vendors - GFP/EoSDH
by Ramy Hashish 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Hello there, Any recommendations for Ethernet-SDH/SONET media converter vendors? Thanks, Ramy

4 5

Re: Media converter vendors - GFP/EoSDH
by Clayton Zekelman 28 Feb '16

28 Feb '16

What speeds SONET are you looking to map your Ethernet on to? RAD makes some products. http://www.rad.com/10/Ethernet-over-SDH-SONET-ADM/2833/ We use BIT Systems 2.5G Muxponders to map 2xGE to OC48. Works well. http://www.btisystems.com/Portals/0/Documents/Data-Sheets/Muxponder-Family-… We also have some ADTRAN Opti-6100 units using Ethernet mappers. At 08:10 AM 28/02/2016, Ramy Hashish wrote: >Hello there, > >Any recommendations for Ethernet-SDH/SONET media converter vendors? > >Thanks, > >Ramy -- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409

2 1

RE: Packet loss on XO's network
by Frank Bulk 28 Feb '16

28 Feb '16

Terri, Except the initial traces show that hop 6 is clean. If the problem really started at hop 4 then the issue would likely show up in hop 6 (unless there was a hashing on the return path based on the far end router's source IP that caused just some traffic to be thrown away). Hop 4 and 5 always have packet loss - I believe it's due to ICMPv6 rate limiters protecting their CPU: Frank From: Fullenkamp, Terri L [mailto:terri.l.fullenkamp@xo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 2:59 PM To: Frank Bulk <frnkblk(a)iname.com>; nanog(a)nanog.org Cc: # SUP - NCC Level 1 Data <NCCLevel1Data(a)xo.com> Subject: RE: Packet loss on XO's network >From the traces provided the packet loss starts accruing at hop 4 and 5 and that is before it gets into the XO network, If you are a customer of XO please contact care @ 888-575-6398 with any other questions Trace from hop 6 tfullenk(a)MCR2.Minneapolis-MN <mailto:tfullenk@MCR2.Minneapolis-MN> > traceroute enterprise.com traceroute6 to enterprise.com (2620:103:e049:31a7::b4) from 2610:18::30bc, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets 1 mcr1.minneapolis-mn.us.xo.net (2610:18::30b8) 29.325 ms 28.950 ms 31.327 ms MPLS Label=318081 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=0 MPLS Label=2 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1 2 2610:18::5802 (2610:18::5802) 32.680 ms 29.684 ms 32.643 ms MPLS Label=19268 CoS=0 TTL=255 S=0 MPLS Label=2 CoS=0 TTL=255 S=1 3 2610:18::5804 (2610:18::5804) 30.629 ms 33.384 ms 81.985 ms MPLS Label=757571 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=0 MPLS Label=2 CoS=0 TTL=3 S=1 4 2610:18::5803 (2610:18::5803) 65.305 ms 28.876 ms 39.141 ms MPLS Label=419427 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=0 MPLS Label=2 CoS=0 TTL=4 S=1 5 2610:18::5201 (2610:18::5201) 36.762 ms 28.776 ms 28.718 ms MPLS Label=694064 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=0 MPLS Label=2 CoS=0 TTL=5 S=1 6 2610:18::2070 (2610:18::2070) 29.487 ms 28.920 ms 42.500 ms 7 2610:18:16::32 (2610:18:16::32) 28.619 ms 2600:803:2::9 (2600:803:2::9) 28.706 ms 28.692 ms 8 2600:807:21f::22 (2600:807:21f::22) 47.997 ms 48.042 ms 50.504 ms 9 2600:807:21f::22 (2600:807:21f::22) 48.026 ms 48.084 ms 49.172 ms Terri Fullenkamp NCC Specialist V / IP Data / <http://www.xo.com/> XO Communications / 2020 Westport Center Drive, Maryland Heights, MO 63146 T: 866-966-8975 F: 314-787- 7799 E: terri.l.fullenkamp(a)xo.com <mailto:terri.l.fullenkamp@xo.com> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk@iname.com] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:25 To: nanog(a)nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Packet loss on XO's network Since ~11:08 am Central our monitoring system has been reporting intermittent HTTPv6 timeouts to www.sprint.net <http://www.sprint.net> , www.qwest.com <http://www.qwest.com> , enterprise.com, and enterprise.ca. It goes bad for a while and then clears. Using mtr, these all have XO's network in common, and the packet loss to the endpoint sustains over 40%. Seems to be between 2610:18:18b:c000::11 and mcr1.minneapolis-mn.us.xo.net [2610:18::30b8] Frank To enterprise.com: Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. router-core.mtcnet.net 0.0% 929 0.3 0.6 0.2 37.6 2.5 2. sxct.sxcy.mtcnet.net 0.0% 929 0.3 0.3 0.2 11.2 0.6 3. v6-premier.sxcy-mlx.fbnt.netins.net 0.0% 929 1.6 1.5 1.5 12.6 0.9 4. v6-ins-db4-te-0-6-0-4-219.desm.netins.net 52.4% 929 8.1 8.0 7.8 10.5 0.3 5. v6-ins-dc1-te-7-4.desm.netins.net 52.4% 929 7.9 8.0 7.6 10.9 0.5 6. 2610:18:18b:c000::11 0.0% 929 13.9 13.2 12.8 46.8 3.0 7. mcr1.minneapolis-mn.us.xo.net 50.3% 929 54.7 71.2 54.6 86.7 7.7 8. 2610:18::5802 50.8% 929 55.7 72.8 54.6 84.3 7.8 9. 2610:18::5202 51.4% 929 54.4 72.9 54.4 85.0 8.0 2610:18::5804 10. 2610:18::2070 52.3% 928 54.4 71.5 54.4 90.7 7.9 2610:18::5304 11. 2600:803:2::9 41.6% 928 54.5 56.8 47.8 96.7 3.4 2610:18::5303 12. 2610:18::5200 96.0% 928 54.5 55.8 54.4 75.6 3.7 13. 2610:18::5202 96.0% 928 55.5 56.6 54.6 58.5 1.2 14. 2610:18::2070 96.0% 928 61.8 55.1 54.6 61.8 1.2 15. 2600:803:2::9 95.9% 928 45.0 45.1 45.0 48.0 0.5 16. ??? To www.sprint.net <http://www.sprint.net> : Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. router-core.mtcnet.net 0.0% 846 0.4 0.8 0.2 91.5 3.9 2. sxct.sxcy.mtcnet.net 0.0% 846 0.9 0.3 0.2 10.3 0.4 3. v6-premier.sxcy-mlx.fbnt.netins.net 0.0% 846 1.5 1.6 1.5 12.0 0.8 4. v6-ins-db4-te-0-6-0-4-219.desm.netins.net 55.4% 846 7.9 8.1 7.8 14.8 0.4 5. v6-ins-dc1-te-7-4.desm.netins.net 54.3% 846 7.8 8.2 7.6 19.2 1.0 6. 2610:18:18b:c000::11 0.0% 846 12.9 14.0 12.8 73.0 5.4 7. mcr1.minneapolis-mn.us.xo.net 49.8% 846 54.7 70.0 54.6 100.1 8.1 8. 2610:18::5802 47.4% 846 58.3 71.9 54.6 82.9 8.2 9. 2610:18::5202 45.0% 846 54.4 72.1 54.4 83.3 8.4 2610:18::5804 10. 2610:18::2070 50.6% 845 54.4 70.4 54.3 88.8 8.1 2610:18::5304 11. sl-st31-ash-te0-15-2-0.v6.sprintlink.net 43.4% 845 57.5 59.1 53.1 80.5 2.3 2610:18::5303 12. sl-crs3-dc-be13.v6.sprintlink.net 46.7% 845 54.6 64.7 54.4 69.1 3.7 2610:18::5200 13. sl-crs1-ffx-be2.v6.sprintlink.net 44.1% 844 55.0 71.8 55.0 79.7 5.3 2610:18::5202 14. sl-crs1-orl-bu-1.v6.sprintlink.net 41.7% 844 54.9 75.7 54.7 96.3 7.4 2610:18::2070 15. sl-lkdstr2-p1-0.v6.sprintlink.net 41.0% 844 46.4 73.5 45.8 81.7 7.0 sl-st31-ash-te0-15-2-0.v6.sprintlink.net 16. www.sprint.net <http://www.sprint.net> 43.1% 844 54.5 74.6 53.5 81.6 5.0 sl-crs3-dc-be13.v6.sprintlink.net

1 0

Packet loss on XO's network
by Frank Bulk 28 Feb '16

28 Feb '16

Since ~11:08 am Central our monitoring system has been reporting intermittent HTTPv6 timeouts to www.sprint.net, www.qwest.com <http://www.qwest.com> , enterprise.com, and enterprise.ca. It goes bad for a while and then clears. Using mtr, these all have XO's network in common, and the packet loss to the endpoint sustains over 40%. Seems to be between 2610:18:18b:c000::11 and mcr1.minneapolis-mn.us.xo.net [2610:18::30b8] Frank To enterprise.com: Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. router-core.mtcnet.net 0.0% 929 0.3 0.6 0.2 37.6 2.5 2. sxct.sxcy.mtcnet.net 0.0% 929 0.3 0.3 0.2 11.2 0.6 3. v6-premier.sxcy-mlx.fbnt.netins.net 0.0% 929 1.6 1.5 1.5 12.6 0.9 4. v6-ins-db4-te-0-6-0-4-219.desm.netins.net 52.4% 929 8.1 8.0 7.8 10.5 0.3 5. v6-ins-dc1-te-7-4.desm.netins.net 52.4% 929 7.9 8.0 7.6 10.9 0.5 6. 2610:18:18b:c000::11 0.0% 929 13.9 13.2 12.8 46.8 3.0 7. mcr1.minneapolis-mn.us.xo.net 50.3% 929 54.7 71.2 54.6 86.7 7.7 8. 2610:18::5802 50.8% 929 55.7 72.8 54.6 84.3 7.8 9. 2610:18::5202 51.4% 929 54.4 72.9 54.4 85.0 8.0 2610:18::5804 10. 2610:18::2070 52.3% 928 54.4 71.5 54.4 90.7 7.9 2610:18::5304 11. 2600:803:2::9 41.6% 928 54.5 56.8 47.8 96.7 3.4 2610:18::5303 12. 2610:18::5200 96.0% 928 54.5 55.8 54.4 75.6 3.7 13. 2610:18::5202 96.0% 928 55.5 56.6 54.6 58.5 1.2 14. 2610:18::2070 96.0% 928 61.8 55.1 54.6 61.8 1.2 15. 2600:803:2::9 95.9% 928 45.0 45.1 45.0 48.0 0.5 16. ??? To www.sprint.net: Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. router-core.mtcnet.net 0.0% 846 0.4 0.8 0.2 91.5 3.9 2. sxct.sxcy.mtcnet.net 0.0% 846 0.9 0.3 0.2 10.3 0.4 3. v6-premier.sxcy-mlx.fbnt.netins.net 0.0% 846 1.5 1.6 1.5 12.0 0.8 4. v6-ins-db4-te-0-6-0-4-219.desm.netins.net 55.4% 846 7.9 8.1 7.8 14.8 0.4 5. v6-ins-dc1-te-7-4.desm.netins.net 54.3% 846 7.8 8.2 7.6 19.2 1.0 6. 2610:18:18b:c000::11 0.0% 846 12.9 14.0 12.8 73.0 5.4 7. mcr1.minneapolis-mn.us.xo.net 49.8% 846 54.7 70.0 54.6 100.1 8.1 8. 2610:18::5802 47.4% 846 58.3 71.9 54.6 82.9 8.2 9. 2610:18::5202 45.0% 846 54.4 72.1 54.4 83.3 8.4 2610:18::5804 10. 2610:18::2070 50.6% 845 54.4 70.4 54.3 88.8 8.1 2610:18::5304 11. sl-st31-ash-te0-15-2-0.v6.sprintlink.net 43.4% 845 57.5 59.1 53.1 80.5 2.3 2610:18::5303 12. sl-crs3-dc-be13.v6.sprintlink.net 46.7% 845 54.6 64.7 54.4 69.1 3.7 2610:18::5200 13. sl-crs1-ffx-be2.v6.sprintlink.net 44.1% 844 55.0 71.8 55.0 79.7 5.3 2610:18::5202 14. sl-crs1-orl-bu-1.v6.sprintlink.net 41.7% 844 54.9 75.7 54.7 96.3 7.4 2610:18::2070 15. sl-lkdstr2-p1-0.v6.sprintlink.net 41.0% 844 46.4 73.5 45.8 81.7 7.0 sl-st31-ash-te0-15-2-0.v6.sprintlink.net 16. www.sprint.net 43.1% 844 54.5 74.6 53.5 81.6 5.0 sl-crs3-dc-be13.v6.sprintlink.net

1 1

Cisco ASR9010 vs Juniper MX960
by Colton Conor 28 Feb '16

28 Feb '16

I would like opinions of the differences between these two platforms if possible. I was going to buy a used Juniper MX960 Router MX960-PREMIUM2-AC-ECM with 2 x RE-S-1800X4-16G and 3 x SCBE-MX-S. Then I was going to load this up with a couple of older DPCE-R-4XGE-XFP 4x10GE DPC Enhanced cards. Now Cisco has offered me a new ASR9010 with dual ASR9K Route Switch Processor with 440G/slot Fabric and 6GB, and two 4X10GE / 16X1G Combo Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized for about the same price as the used Juniper. The only catch is the Cisco's support and warranty looks very expensive per year, but that's hard to compare since a used Juniper has zero support and warranty included. If these were both brand new with support and warranty which would you choose? If it were the used Juniper vs new Cisco which would you choose? I know Juniper makes newer MIC cards that probably better compete with these Cisco cards, but that is not option due to price. New, Juniper wants to sell me a MX104 for the same price that I can get this Cisco ASR9010. I think that is a no brainer to go with the ASR at that point. I asked for new pricing on a MX240/480/960, but that was not even close to the ASR9010 numbers. I can also buy two ASR 9001's for the same price and as the single ASR9010.

8 12

DOS Attack
by K MEKKAOUI 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

Hi Do you know about a DOS attack protection provider that you can recommend to me please? Thank you KARIM M.

2 1

Southwest Airlines captive portal
by Frank Bulk 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

Anyone from Southwest Airlines on this list? On a recent flight I discovered I couldn't complete payment through PayPal because my web browsers properly noticed that the Southwest Airlines SSL certificate that the captive portal was giving for PayPal didn't match up. =) I had to create an exception for PayPal just to complete payment. Frank

8 8

SoftLayer DAL05/DAL09 Public Network Issues
by Raymond Beaudoin 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

Has anyone else experienced intermittent packet loss out of SoftLayer's DAL05/DAL09 facilities this evening?

1 0

Sprint Wireless DNS server not resolving ietf.org
by Yang Yu 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

ietf.org and its subdomains such as tools.ietf.org are not accessible on Sprint 3G/LTE (DNS timeout). From what I gathered this is affecting Sprint wireless customers nationwide. I created a DNS measurement on ripe atlas and no signs of other carriers experiencing the same issue. Emailed Sprint NOC and opened a ticket via support channel, got no update. Is there someone from Sprint Wireless on this list? DNS servers 68.28.169.132 68.28.168.132 Thanks. Yang

2 1

Standard terminology for a dark fiber path?
by Fletcher Kittredge 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

What is the standard terminology for strands of dark fiber spliced together to form a continuous path between points A and Z? I have seen: - *fiber circuit* [but also seen used to denote a connection at the network layer over a physical fiber connection. This definition of circuit would include the dark fiber path, the transmitters and receivers and logic making up the data and network layers.] - *fiber loop *[ Does a loop define an electrical circuit with two physically separate positive and negative strands? In that case, is this a Bellhead remnant? ] I am particularly interested in last mile systems, but I don't see any reason that the term wouldn't be the same in the middle mile. thanks, Fletcher -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134

7 6