February 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Cable Operator List
by Colton Conor 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

Yes, I looked at CASA, but their small unit is the C1G, which is an 8x8 max DOCSIS 3.0 unit. Plus they want a high price point, almost quadruple what a 16X4 Pico Digital or Harmonic's unit cost. Not seeing the value or specs there to justify it. On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Steven Shalita <sshalita(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Have you looked at Casa Systems? They some smaller density MDU stuff. > > -Steve > > Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any errors. > > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Scott, > > > > Have any idea which exact vendors and model numbers are within this price > > range? So far I have just found mini CMTS systems like the Pico and > > Harmonic's. Both of these are a 16x4 configuration, but no mention of > > remote MAC+PHY nor DOSIS 3.1. Then their is Huawei's solution, but still > I > > think that's more based on C-DOCSIS. Searching the vendors websites you > > recommended show no results for remote MAC+PHY in a small format. > > > >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Scott Helms <khelms(a)zcorum.com> wrote: > >> > >> Colton, > >> > >> D3.1 gear is just coming online right now. If you're going to go with > the > >> smaller PHY+MAC approach I'd just make sure the company has plans to > update > >> their boxes to 3.1 in a decent (your judgement) amount of time. Don't > >> expect any 3.0 box to be software upgradeable to 3.1, the hardware is > quite > >> different. The PHY+MAC boxes are _generally_ < $10k and some are > talking > >> about ~6k. > >> > >> All the vendors we've listed so far have plans for 3.1, but I don't > have a > >> timeline for any of them. Right now the market is still trying to > decide > >> how modular CMTS will be rolled out, remote PHY, remote MAC+PHY, or a > >> combination. For example, Cisco is (for the moment) betting that remote > >> PHY economics will be compelling for the larger operators, while Arris > is > >> doing both approaches. > >> > >> > >> Scott Helms > >> Chief Technology Officer > >> ZCorum > >> (678) 507-5000 > >> -------------------------------- > >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > >> -------------------------------- > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Is a remote MAC+PHY the same thing as a Distributed Converged Cable > >>> Access Platform (D-CCAP) solution like Huawei is pushing? Is DOCSIS 3.1 > >>> even out, or am I looking for something that does not exist yet? > >>> > >>> Are these remote MAC+PHY devices in the under 10K price range that > these > >>> smaller all in one CMTS platforms are? > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Scott Helms <khelms(a)zcorum.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor(a)gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Yes, we are in the USA. So based on everyones recommendations, I am > >>>>> going to stay far away from EURODOCSIS. I was told be a vendor that > >>>>> Arris and other USA FCC certified cable modems could easily be > flashed to > >>>>> EURODOCIS mode, so I did not think the CPE side was that big of a > deal (is > >>>>> that even true). I was not aware that there were so many differences > >>>>> besides just the channel width. > >>>> > >>>> I wish this were the case, it would make my life easier. The problem > is > >>>> that there is a diplex filter that prevents the upstream burst from > being > >>>> heard by the downstream receiver and for cost purposes all the D3 and > >>>> earlier modems have fixed filters. What that means is that a > EuroDOCSIS > >>>> modem can (sometimes) be flashed to use 6MHz channels, but the > reverse is > >>>> NOT true. In any case we don't recommend using Euro modems that are > >>>> flashed to US standards in production (nor do the vendors) because > you'll > >>>> see much more upstream leakage. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So, assuming we are talking about DOCSIS only (and not EURODOCSIS), > >>>>> what do you recommend? I like the idea of being able to upgrade to > 3.1, but > >>>>> not sure if there are any small systems capable of this? By small I > mean > >>>>> something that could feed less than 100 units, and be economical to > do. > >>>>> Cable has the advantage of cheap modems, so it's really the CMTS > side. > >>>> > >>>> In that case I'd definitely go with a remote MAC+PHY. That's the only > >>>> way you're going to get a good price point and decent performance > unless > >>>> you want to use the secondary market, which actually isn't a bad idea > right > >>>> now. A used 7225 with 8x8 blades is pretty cheap, but it's > centralized > >>>> CMTS that would cover ~3k subs. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Please remember I am only interested in data internet services over > >>>>> this plant. Something that works for garden style layouts where I > can bring > >>>>> fiber or coaxial to the side of a garden townhome that has between 4 > to 16 > >>>>> units inside of it. The reason I requested a harden outdoor unit is > that > >>>>> most all of the garden style properties have both the phone > >>>>> and coaxial drops on the outside of the building. There is no central > >>>>> closet or room. Plus we are in the south, so hardened for the > >>>>> heat exposure makes sense. > >>>>> > >>>>> A remote MAC-PHY (or pre remote MAC-PHY, ala mini CMTS) sounds like > >>>>> what I want. I will check into Huawei and Gainspeed. Who else makes > these? > >>>> > >>>> In no particular order, Arris is or will be, Teleste (Euro vendor > trying > >>>> to break into the US), Sumavision, Altera, and ton more I can't > remember. > >>>> Come to one of the SCTE shows (it's in Philadelphia this year) if you > want > >>>> to be deluged with them :) > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Scott Helms <khelms(a)zcorum.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nick, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Absolutely, if your plant is in Europe or one of the other areas > (lots > >>>>>> of Africa and the middle East is like that) that adopted EuroDOCSIS > I'd > >>>>>> agree wholeheartedly. I didn't see Colton say where they're > located, but > >>>>>> all North America is the US flavor so that's what I assume on NANOG. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That being said, the best thing that seldom gets mentioned about > D3.1 > >>>>>> is getting us to unified channelization. > >>>>>> Scott Helms wrote: > >>>>>>> That very small upside for an extreme downside.Trying to hire > someone > >>>>>>> to work on your system with Euro channelization, not to mention > >>>>>> buying > >>>>>>> amplifiers and passives is a huge PITA. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ... if your plant is in the US. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have customers in Europe who > >>>>>>> decided to do US DOCSIS and they universally wish they had used the > >>>>>>> local "flavor". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> as you say, eurodocsis works well in europe. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3.1 will be a major improvement when it materialises. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nick > >> >

1 0

UDP Amplification DDoS - Help!
by Mitch Dyer 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

Hello, Hoping someone can point me in the right direction here, even just confirming my suspicions would be incredibly helpful. A little bit of background: I have a customer I'm working with that is downstream of a 1Gb link that is experiencing multiple DDoS attacks on a daily basis. Through several captures I've seen what appear to be a mixture of SSDP and DNS amplification attacks (though not at the same time). The attack itself seems to target the PAT address associated with a specific site, if we change the PAT address for the site, the attack targets the new address at the next occurance. We've tried setting up captures and logging inside the network to determine if the SSDP/DNS request originate within the network but that does not appear to be the case. We've reached out for some assistance from the upstream carrier but they've only been able to enforce a 24-hour block. I'm hoping someone with some experience on this topic would be able to shed some light on a better way to attack this or would be willing to confirm that we are simply SOL without prolonged assistance from the upstream carrier. Thanks in advance for any insight. Mitch

9 9

[NANOG-announce] Nominations for 2016 NANOG Committees
by Valerie Wittkop 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

Sent on behalf of the Executive Director Greetings NANOG Colleagues, If you missed the nominations deadline for the Program Committee or Communications Committee, this is your chance to still submit. If you, or someone you know, would make a great candidate for a NANOG Committee, please send the name and email address to elections(a)nanog.org no later than 1pm Pacific, Tuesday, February 9. We will make sure the nominee receives the candidate form and is included in the 2016 Committee Appointment Process. Should there be any questions, please send a message to elections(a)nanog.org. Sincerely, Betty Burke NANOG Executive Director 2864 Carpenter Rd. Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Tel: +1 866 902 1336 -- Valerie Wittkop NANOG Program Director +1.866.902.1336, Ext. 103 _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Sonatel?
by George Herbert 08 Feb '16

08 Feb '16

https://bgpstream.com/event/19524 Second Sonatel hijack in last half hour-ish. Anyone on NANOG?... George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Re: [Attendee] Running
by Eric Litvin 08 Feb '16

08 Feb '16

I'm thinking about a 4 or 5 pm tomorrow, then early am tues and weds. If the harbor run is too drab, I hear sunset cliffs is a great place for a trail run (10km). Eric Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Peter Thimmesch <peter.thimmesch(a)addrex.net> wrote: > > <image1.JPG> > > Regards, > > Peter > > On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Castillo, Elliott <Elliott_Castillo3(a)cable.comcast.com> wrote: > >> I'm in. Say when. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 7, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Nico CARTRON <nc(a)efficientip.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello fellow NANOGers, >>> >>> I bet there must be some runners over here - I just ran this morning and the route from the Marina to downtown San Diego is really nice, >>> so was wondering if there were folks who’d like to run one of the 3 next (early) mornings? >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -- >>> Nico CARTRON >>> EfficientIP >>> Mobile: +33.6.45.45.91.98 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Attendee mailing list >>> Attendee(a)mailman.nanog.org >>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/attendee >> _______________________________________________ >> Attendee mailing list >> Attendee(a)mailman.nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/attendee > _______________________________________________ > Attendee mailing list > Attendee(a)mailman.nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/attendee

1 0

Arista optics
by Alex Forster 07 Feb '16

07 Feb '16

Hi everyone! I'm trying to get buy-in to go with Arista for some new infrastructure, but the Arista optics just aren't in the ballpark for us at "proof-of-concept" volume. In Cisco-land, we've had great success using Finisar optics, and they've been an easy "sell" to management since many Cisco optics are just rebranded Finisar's. The relevant Arista optics I'm looking at are QSFP-100G-LR4 and SFP-10G-LR. Does anybody know what supplier(s) manufacture these optics for Arista? Alternatively, does anyone have any experience using third-party comparable optics (especially the 100G) in the battlefield? Since optics sales are pretty cut-throat, I do ask that you disclose if you have a financial interest in any of your suggestions. Thanks! Alex Forster

13 13

shy north american roas
by Randy Bush 07 Feb '16

07 Feb '16

question from a lazy person for a research project. in the arin rpki instance, is it easy to withdraw a roa? randy

2 1

RE: Local last-mile providers in Manhattan
by Sheahan, David 06 Feb '16

06 Feb '16

Try Erik at 1st Point Communications, https://www.1pcom.net/ ... highly recommended... -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Eric Douglas Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:58 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Local last-mile providers in Manhattan Hi NANOG, I'm searching for last-mile providers in Manhattan (near the Holland tunnel) to provide a 100Mbps and 1Gbps EPL to 60 Hudson. I would like to avoid the bigger players as much as possible. Thanks Eric

1 0

IETF I-D: "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers"
by Fernando Gont 05 Feb '16

05 Feb '16

Folks, We have revised our IETF I-D "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers". The I-D is available at: <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-01> Your feedback will be appreciated. If possible, please send your comments to: <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops(a)tools.ietf.org> and CC <v6ops(a)ietf.org>. P.S.: You can find a number of pointers to articles and other related work on this topic here: <http://blog.si6networks.com/2015/12/the-controversial-ipv6-extension-header…> Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando(a)gont.com.ar || fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

1 0

Change re ARIN RPKI Relying Party TAL access
by John Curran 05 Feb '16

05 Feb '16

NANOGers - One of the concerns raised at a previous NANOG was with respect to the need for an RPKI relying parties to explicitly accept ARIN's relying party agreement (RPA) - note that this has now been changed (per the attached announcement) Wile the RPA terms remain the same, it is no longer necessary to click-accept and provide an email in order to access ARIN's trust anchor locator (TAL). FYI, /John Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> Date: February 4, 2016 at 2:54:06 PM EST To: <arin-announce(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-announce@arin.net>> Subject: [arin-announce] RPKI Relying Party Update In response to community feedback, entities wishing to become relying parties and utilize ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) repository information will no longer be required to "click to accept" ARIN's Relying Party Agreement (RPA) before doing so. Please note that access to and usage of ARIN's TAL and RPKI repository data remains equally subject to the terms of the RPA. To access the TAL, visit: www.arin.net/resources/rpki/tal.html<http://www.arin.net/resources/rpki/tal.html> Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers

3 4