March 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Latency in ATT DSL from Houston.
by Charles van Niman 17 Mar '16

17 Mar '16

Hello All, I am trying to get some assistance with latency I am seeing inside ATT. DSL Support has been next to useless, and I am already pursing different connectivity options, but getting this fixed would be awesome. The problem is two fold, I see latency to pretty much any destination, that starts after my modem / gateway. The second part of the problem is mostly clerical, ATT seems to be using IANA documentation space inside their network, which DSL support has no explanation for. If someone from ATT could reach out to me off-list, that would be greatly appreciated. db-353-fw01> traceroute 8.8.8.8 traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 75.39.205.94 (75.39.205.94) 2.451 ms 2.713 ms 2.693 ms 2 192.0.2.100 (192.0.2.100) 882.693 ms 1375.347 ms 682.396 ms 3 12.83.37.201 (12.83.37.201) 993.819 ms 1436.967 ms 616.373 ms 4 12.122.85.197 (12.122.85.197) 944.982 ms 911.500 ms 676.696 ms 5 206.121.120.70 (206.121.120.70) 937.521 ms 1312.248 ms 206.121.120.66 (206.121.120.66) 1353.350 ms 6 216.239.40.139 (216.239.40.139) 1756.335 ms 216.239.54.109 (216.239.54.109) 1117.386 ms * 7 72.14.238.45 (72.14.238.45) 1710.237 ms 64.233.175.9 (64.233.175.9) 1005.727 ms 64.233.174.151 (64.233.174.151) 1707.119 ms 8 google-public-dns-a.google.com (8.8.8.8) 1468.629 ms 1529.764 ms 834.876 ms admin@db-353-fw01> traceroute 4.2.2.2 traceroute to 4.2.2.2 (4.2.2.2), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 75.39.205.94 (75.39.205.94) 2.702 ms 5.745 ms 6.493 ms 2 192.0.2.100 (192.0.2.100) 1986.510 ms 621.122 ms 604.383 ms 3 12.83.37.201 (12.83.37.201) 1202.705 ms 1886.382 ms 1821.073 ms 4 gar26.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.123.16.109) 1458.154 ms 1338.124 ms 1766.894 ms 5 * * * 6 ae-3-80.edge2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.139) 999.252 ms ae-1-60.edge2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.11) 1597.016 ms 1843.397 ms 7 ae-4-90.edge2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.203) 2156.637 ms ae-1-60.edge2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.11) 1125.729 ms ae-4-90.edge2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.203) 1912.391 ms 8 b.resolvers.Level3.net (4.2.2.2) 1282.430 ms 1640.264 ms 1037.577 ms admin@db-353-fw01> traceroute 12.123.16.109 traceroute to 12.123.16.109 (12.123.16.109), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 75.39.205.94 (75.39.205.94) 2.994 ms 3.034 ms 2.660 ms 2 192.0.2.100 (192.0.2.100) 626.326 ms 1637.689 ms 1883.235 ms 3 12.83.37.205 (12.83.37.205) 1972.528 ms !X * * /Charles

1 0

JANOG38 Meeting Call for Presentations
by Hiroya Kaneko 17 Mar '16

17 Mar '16

Hello, JANOG38 Meeting will take place on 6-8 July 2016 in OKINAWA, Japan. JANOG is making a call for presentations until 15 April 2016. Our meetings are in Japanese, but we have had several non-Japanese speakers who made presentations in the past. We are looking forward to your proposals for presentations. Shishio Tsuchiya,Hiroya Kaneko JANOG38 Programme Committee Co-Chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** JANOG38 MEETING ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Host : OKIT Corporation - Date : 6 July., 2016 - 8 July., 2016 - Venue : TBD (Naha, Okinawa) - Fees : Conference(6-8 July): Free Banquet(in the evening on 7th): TBD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** HOW TO SUBMIT PRESENTATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are interested to give a presentation, submissions are welcome via e-mail at:"meeting-38[at]janog.gr.jp" with the following information. 1. Speaker's name(s) 2. Speaker's organization(s) 3. Preferred contact email address 4. Submission category (General Session or Panel Session) * If your choice is panel, please tell us the number of speakers 5. Presentation title 6. Abstract 7. Desired presentation time and discussion time 8. Slides (attachment or URL), in PowerPoint or PDF format. Our Meetings are in Japanese, so non-Japanese speakers usually arrange an informal interpreter. If you are interested in making a presentation at JANOG but cannot arrange an interpreter by yourself, you could consult with us at: "meeting-38[at]janog.gr.jp". Although we cannot guarantee, we may be able to help you on volunteer basis. Let us know if you have any questions : meeting-38[at]janog.gr.jp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** THE KEY DATE FOR JANOG38 SUBMISSIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CFP Deadline : 15 April 23:59 JST The Program Committee will notify you after 25th April about your submission. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** VISA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Foreign visitor entering Japan must have a passport which has valid period during you stay in Japan. Passport holders from some countries are required to have a visa to visit Japan before they depart toward Japan. Many are exempt from this requirement and can get their visa on entry to Japan. Please determine whether you are exempt from the visa requirement. Please refer to the official website from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan or any other appropriate website to get more information about Visa application. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan - Guide to Japanese Visas http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/index.html List of Countries and Regions for Visa Exemptions http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/short/novisa.html Please note that JANOG can not assist you with your visa application. If you have any questions about the meeting, please feel free to contact meeting-38[at]janog.gr.jp. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** ABOUT JANOG ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JANOG webpage in English is available at: http://www.janog.gr.jp/en/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************* Hiroya Kaneko NEC Cloud System Research Laboratories 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-ku, Kawasaki Kanagawa 211-8666, Japan TEL +8150-3381-7597 Mail: h-kaneko(a)dr.jp.nec.com

1 0

10gig pricing with Verizon crazy?
by David Hubbard 16 Mar '16

16 Mar '16

Curious if anyone has had similar experience; looking for a 10gig transit circuit at a colo, contacted VZ as they’re on net in the facility, quoted me an astronomical amount at 10-20x going rates these days. I’m curious if I just happened across a bad rep and should dig further, or that’s par for the course? Rep was comfortable talking about BGP, v4/v6, etc. so I felt like I was talking to the right person until I saw the price lol. Thanks, David

4 3

Craiglist blocked
by Christopher Tyler 16 Mar '16

16 Mar '16

Does anyone have a contact at Craigslist? Some of our IP addresses got blocked and we are getting no response from the email address listed when attempting to visit their site. Our customers are threatening mutiny. -- Christopher Tyler MTCRE/MTCNA/MTCTCE/MTCWE Total Highspeed Internet Services 417.851.1107

3 5

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
by Todd Crane 16 Mar '16

16 Mar '16

> This is only tangentially related but it looks like HE has surpassed Cogent on IPv4 adjacencies. That said the source probably suffers from a selection bias at the very least. > > http://bgp.he.net/report/peers > > Hit reply by mistake instead of reply all. > Todd Crane > >> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman(a)ipifony.com> wrote: >> >> It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this issue. >> >> Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering Cogent. >> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48 >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) >> 0 150 0 15169 i >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) >> 0 90 0 174 6461 15169 i >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48 >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) >> 0 110 0 6939 6461 15169 i >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) >> 0 90 0 174 6461 15169 i >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48 >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) >> 0 150 0 15169 i >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) >> 0 90 0 174 6461 15169 i >> >> >> This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6 routing table). Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google and, alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit. One of these prefixes doesn’t advertise in Google’s direct peering session (at least not in mine, but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo). >> >> All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix, which does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo. >> >> >>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess(a)linktechs.net> wrote: >>> >>> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien@supremebytes.com] >>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM >>> To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka(a)seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess(a)linktechs.net> >>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog(a)nanog.org> >>> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun >>> >>> Just received an updated statement from cogent support: >>> >>> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6. >>> >>> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience." >>> >>> And: >>> >>> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer." >>

7 12

remote serial console (IP to Serial)
by greg whynott 16 Mar '16

16 Mar '16

Recently I have taking over the responsibility of managing about 18 remote routers and firewalls. None of these have a console port for 'out of band' access accessible today. Most sites has available IPs between the ISP and us (typically a /29) or a backup DSL connection available for use. I'd like to purchase a IP to Serial port device I can use for each location in the event I lock myself out. The requirement would be an Ethernet port, a serial port, and SSH. Anyone have any recommendations on something like this? thanks much, greg

22 29

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

Cisco Fabricpath
by Nicolas V 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

Hello, Does anyone already played with cisco fabricpath feature ? I want to use it on my nexus 5548 Is it working as easy as it seems ? No bugs / particular nx-os version... ? Thanks ! Nicolas

3 2

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
by Mark Tinka 14 Mar '16

14 Mar '16

On 10/Mar/16 17:51, Owen DeLong wrote: > I think it’s a little different from what you say… > > I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit. > > Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 transit and that they have an open peering policy for anyone who wishes to reach them. In order to avoid significant disruption, they haven’t terminated their IPv4 transit contracts, but it certainly makes sense that they would not be pursuing IPv6 transit contracts. Understandable, but sort of moot if interconnect ports are dual-stack and there are no discrete charges for IPv4 or IPv6. Of course, if removal of IPv6 traffic saves bandwidth and operational costs for Google interconnect with Cogent, then that makes sense to do. Mark.

12 16