July 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11 Tx power at varying modulations
by Eric Kuhnke 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

I found this as well, which is very helpful. Wish more radio manufacturers were as clear about this in the spec sheet: http://backhaul.help.mimosa.co/backhaul-faq-maximum-tx-power-details In one channel, two chains, it's +24, if using two channels and four chains +21 Tx power. Then it's possible to manually do the link budget and path loss calculations based on that (or plug Tx power dBm + dBi gain for preliminary PTP link calculations into something like Radio Mobile). On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jaime Fink <jaime(a)mimosa.co> wrote: > Eric, I think you’re more looking for SNR required for each modulation > coding rate, which care listed here: > > http://backhaul.help.mimosa.co/backhaul-faq-snr-mcs > > Cheers, > > Jaime Fink • Mimosa <http://www.mimosa.co> • CPO & Co-Founder > > On July 15, 2016 at 10:56:20 AM, Eric Kuhnke (eric.kuhnke(a)gmail.com) > wrote: > > Trying to manually do a link budget/path loss/rain fade calculation for a > possible long B11 link... > > Does Mimosa have a table of Tx power vs. modulation level published > somewhere? The datasheet just says +27 Tx power, which I am guessing is its > Tx power at QPSK modulation or something. > > I am doubtful it's +27 at 256QAM with a low-overhead-percentage code rate. > > https://www.mimosa.co/uploads/docs/Mimosa-B11-Datasheet.pdf > > Is it +17, +18 or +19 Tx at 256QAM? > > >

1 1

University of Alaska AS7774 NOC?
by Jeremy Austin 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

If there's anyone on call at network operations for the University of Alaska, AS7774, please contact me or ACS NOC, who have an open trouble ticket. We appear to be having BPG reachability issues on your ACS peering. Thank you, -- Jeremy Austin (907) 895-2311 (907) 803-5422 jhaustin(a)gmail.com Heritage NetWorks Whitestone Power & Communications Vertical Broadband, LLC Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon

2 2

Latency & Packet Loss Level 3 to Russia
by Marshall, Quincy 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

Began investigating packet loss and latency to Russia earlier this morning. Issue appears to be hit or miss and affecting more than others certain traffic types (lower priority?). Are there any Level 3 engineer who can provide details/assistance? Anyone seeing anything similar? Host Nr Loss % Sent Recv Best Avrg Worst Last 81.23.112.129 1 0 55 55 1 5 44 2 81.23.112.33 2 0 55 55 2 7 47 5 93.174.247.242 3 0 55 55 2 7 47 3 93.174.247.241 4 0 55 55 2 15 194 3 213.242.122.101 5 2 51 50 9 13 60 10 4.69.140.226 6 5 47 45 165 260 659 223 4.69.140.226 7 5 47 45 165 264 665 213 166.90.118.222 8 0 55 55 166 171 213 171 209.59.28.22 9 0 55 55 166 171 216 171 Report is from earlier this AM... seeing ~15% at the trouble point now. Q. Marshall | RegEd | phone: 919.653.5431 | ITS-771 | quincy.marshall(a)reged.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Google NOC Contact?
by Nick Olsen 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

Wondering if anyone from the Google NOC is on-list. Having issues reaching your authoritative name servers that appear to be anycasted on Level3's network. Traffic to your name servers 216.239.32.10, 216.239.34.10, 216.239.36.10 and 216.239.38.10 dies in what appears to be Legacy Global Crossing territory. 216.239.38.10 (ns4.google.com) Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. eth-vl0504-far1.coco-vr.flhsi.com 0.0% 320 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.0 2. eth-ge0007-car1.coco-vr.flhsi.com 0.0% 320 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 3. eth-sf0004-bar1.coco-vr.flhsi.com 0.0% 320 0.2 0.2 0.2 6.5 0.3 4. 66-194-200-17.static.twtelecom.net 0.0% 320 5.2 4.3 4.1 11.1 0.5 5. ae19-20G.scr4.MIA1.gblx.net 0.0% 320 19.9 20.6 19.8 64.4 4.2 6. ??? flhsi@flhsi01:~$ dig google.com @216.239.38.10 ; <<>> DiG 9.8.1-P1 <<>> google.com @216.239.38.10 ;; global options: +cmd ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached Nick Olsen Sr. Network Engineer Florida High Speed Internet (321) 205-1100 x106

2 1

akamai abnormal spike
by eric c 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

Good afternoon, Has anyone notice any abnormal spike in Akamai trafic in the last 24-48 hours compared to other days. I know it was black tuesday yesterday but traffic from last month didn't even come close to what we saw from Akamai. We have some caching servers and even notice a spike to them as well. Limelight even showed up on our network. thanks eric

2 1

Re: NANOG is five days late?
by Stephane Bortzmeyer 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 08:53:02AM -0500, Andy Koch <andy(a)gawul.net> wrote a message of 15 lines which said: > The NANOG mailing list has a policy to hold the first post from all > new subscribers and those who have not posted in a long time (one > year+). So, the batch of messages which has just been "liberated" were all by newcomers?

1 0

NANOG is five days late?
by Stephane Bortzmeyer 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

This message just arrived... Received: from mail.nanog.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nanog.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AA42D47BB; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 13:15:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: nanog(a)nanog.org Delivered-To: nanog(a)nanog.org Received: from mail-it0-x245.google.com (mail-it0-x245.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::245]) by mail.nanog.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 823B72D4651 for <nanog(a)nanog.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 21:37:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-x245.google.com with SMTP id f6so105118753ith.3 for <nanog(a)nanog.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT)

3 2